Collocation and Integration of Back-End Fuel Cycle Facilities with the Repository: Implications for Waste Forms
- PDF / 165,932 Bytes
- 6 Pages / 432 x 648 pts Page_size
- 107 Downloads / 182 Views
Collocation and Integration of Back-End Fuel Cycle Facilities with the Repository: Implications for Waste Forms Charles Forsberg1 1 Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 24-207B, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, U.S.A. ABSTRACT The organization of the fuel cycle is a legacy of World War II and the cold war. Fuel cycle facilities were developed and deployed without consideration of the waste management implications. This led to the fuel cycle model of an isolated single-purpose geological repository for disposal of wastes shipped from distant processing facilities. There is an alternative: collocation and integration of reprocessing and other backend facilities with the repository. Such an option alters waste form functional requirements by reducing storage and transport requirements. This, in turn, broadens the choice of waste forms by relaxing the incentives to minimize waste volumes. Waste forms can be chosen primarily on meeting two goals: repository performance and minimizing costs. Less restrictive waste volume constraints enable termination of safeguards on all wastes, enable use of solubility-limited waste forms, and reduce radiation damage as a waste form limitation. The implications of such changes in waste form requirements are discussed. INTRODUCTION In most industries that generate significant wastes or where disposal of wastes has significant costs, waste disposal is associated with the production facilities. This is true of mining, coal-fired power plants, steel mills, and many other industries. This historical norm also implies (1) coupling of jobs, taxes and waste management and (2) a public understanding and acceptance of this coupling. The unique history of nuclear energy, starting with development and building of nuclear weapons in World War II, created a different industrial model. Fuel cycle facilities would be located based on other considerations and the wastes would be shipped long distances to separate disposal facilities. This model exists even though shipping many radioactive wastes is expensive because the package often weighs more and takes up more volume than the wastes being shipped. This large shipping penalty is because radiation shielding is required to ship many wastes (spend nuclear fuel [SNF] and high-level waste [HLW]) and accident protection is required to ship other wastes (transuranic) with low gamma radiation levels. The consequences of this industrial model are that waste forms have to meet multiple requirements that have little or nothing to do with safe disposal of waste. Volumes must be small to control shipping costs. Waste forms have to meet shipping requirements that have nothing to do with safe disposal. Recent studies [1, 2] have recommended integration of the fuel cycle with the repository because of potential economic, safety, repository performance, nonproliferation, and institutional incentives. One option for integration is collocation and integration of all backend facilities at the reposit
Data Loading...
