No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

[en] A summary is presented of the current status of studies to determine the logistics of onsite plutonium recycle and the timing involved in introducing the associated reprocessing and fabrication fuel cycle facilities at the Hanford Nuclear Energy Center

[en] Three major topic areas are discussed: First, the properties of the uranium isotopes are defined relative to their respective roles in the nuclear fuel cycle. Secondly, the most predominant fuel cycles expected in the U. S. are described. These are the Light Water Reactor (LWR), High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR), and Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) fuel cycles. The isotopic compositions of uranium and plutonium fuels expected for these fuel cycles are given in some detail. Finally the various waste streams from these fuel cycles are discussed in terms of their relative toxicity. Emphasis is given to the high level waste streams from reprocessing of spent fuel. Wastes from the various fuel cycles are compared based on projected growth patterns for nuclear power and its various components. (U.S.)

[en] The impact of retrievably storing spent fuel is measurable in terms of the contribution the stored spent fuel makes to implementing the fuel management option selected. For the case of a decision to recycle LWR fuel in LWRs, a useful indicator of impact is the ratio of energy production with varying degrees of spent fuel retrievability to that achievable with total spent fuel retrievability. For a decision made in the year 2000, this ratio varies from 0.81 (10 yr storage in reactor basins) to 0.97 (retrievable storage for 25 years after fuel discharge). An earlier decision to recycle in LWRs results in both of these ratios being nearer to 1.0. If a decision is reached to implement a breeder reactor economy, the chosen comparison is the installed breeder capacity achievable with varying degrees of spent fuel retrievability. If a decision to build breeder reactors is reached in the year 2000, the maximum possible installed breeder capacity in 2040 varies from 490 GWe (10 yr storage in reactor basins) to 660 GWe (all fuel retrievably stored). If all fuel is retrievably stored 25 years, 635 GWe of breeder capacity is achievable by 2040. For an earlier decision date, such as 1985, the maximum possible installed breeder capacity in 2040 ranges from 740 GWe (no retrievable storage) to 800 GWe (all fuel retrievably stored). As long as a decision to reprocess is reached before 2000, most of the potential benefit of retrievable storage may be realized by implementing retrievable storage after such a decision is made. Neither providing retrievable spent fuel storage prior to a decision to reprocess, nor designing such storage for more than 25 years of retrievability appear to offer significant incremental benefit

[en] Three types of fees for federal spent fuel management service were calculated for a reference case and a number of variations. These fee types are a uniform fee applicable to all customers, a fee for disposal of spent fuel, and a fee for interim storage plus disposal of spent fuel. Results ranged from $124/kg to $256/kg for the uniform fee, $112/kg to $213/kg for the disposal fee, and $144/kg to $319/kg for the storage plus disposal fee. The reference case assumed that spent fuel would first be received by the government in 1983 at a 5,000 MT away-from-reactor (AFR) basin. The first repository (45,000 MT) was assumed ready for fuel in 1988, and the second (100,000 MT) in 1997. The reference case results in fees of $129/kg for the uniform fee, $117/kg for disposal, and $232/kg for storage plus disposal. The sensitivity cases were grouped in five general categories of variations from the reference case assumptions: demand for storage/disposal services, facility schedules and characteristics, methodology for calculating the fee, discount rate and AFR financing, and delays or failure of the first repository

[en] The plutonium interface between the LWR and LMFBR fuel cycles is examined for typical nuclear growth projections both with and without plutonium recycle in LWRs. In order to guarantee a fuel supply for projected LMFBR growth rates, significant multiple Pu recycle in LWRs will not be possible. However, about 78% of the benefit of multiple plutonium recycle between now and the turn of the century is realized by one recycle and then stockpiling spent MOX for the LMFBR. LMFBR reprocessing schecules are estimated based on accumulation of reprocessing load. These schedules are used to estimate the amount of plutonium recovered from LMFBR fuels and determine the residual LWR plutonium required to meet LMFBR demand. The stockpile of LWR produced plutonium in spent MOX is sufficient to fuel the LMFBR until commercial LMFBR reprocessing can be justified. After that time, recycle of plutonium in LWRs will be significantly limited by a continuing LMFBR demand for LWR plutonium due to the projected high LMFBR growth rate. LWR reprocessing requirements are estimated for the assumed condition that LWR plutonium recycle is not approved, but the LMFBR is still pursued as an energy option. The uncertainties presented by this condition are addressed qualitatively. However, in our judgment these uncertainties in the plutonium market would likely delay LMFBR growth to levels significantly below current projections

[en] Recent efforts to improve uranium utilization in light water reactors (LWRs) have involved backfittable changes to fuel or operations. The Advanced Reactor Design Study sponsored by the US Department of Energy identified and evaluated nonbackfittable LWR concepts to provide a basis for selecting and demonstrating specific improvements that have good implementation potential. Because the application of nonbackfittable concepts necessitates modifications to contemporary reactor designs, it was apparent that the most qualified organizations to assess implementation potential would be LWR designers/vendors. Accordingly, Babcock and Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, and General Electric were the principal participants in selecting, assessing, and evaluating the nonbackfittable concepts included in this study. The results of the industrial assessments of nonbackfittable LWR concepts are shown

No abstract available