scholarly journals The Need for Integrating the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in the United States of America

MRS Advances ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (19) ◽  
pp. 991-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evaristo J. Bonano ◽  
Elena A. Kalinina ◽  
Peter N. Swift
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Dry Storage ◽  
The Us

ABSTRACTCurrent practice for commercial spent nuclear fuel management in the United States of America (US) includes storage of spent fuel in both pools and dry storage cask systems at nuclear power plants. Most storage pools are filled to their operational capacity, and management of the approximately 2,200 metric tons of spent fuel newly discharged each year requires transferring older and cooler fuel from pools into dry storage. In the absence of a repository that can accept spent fuel for permanent disposal, projections indicate that the US will have approximately 134,000 metric tons of spent fuel in dry storage by mid-century when the last plants in the current reactor fleet are decommissioned. Current designs for storage systems rely on large dual-purpose (storage and transportation) canisters that are not optimized for disposal. Various options exist in the US for improving integration of management practices across the entire back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Developing a Concept for a National Used Fuel Interim Storage Facility in the United States

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Wayne Lewis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Yucca Mountain ◽  
Storage Facility ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Geological Repository ◽  
Interim Storage

In the United States (U.S.) the nuclear waste issue has plagued the nuclear industry for decades. Originally, spent fuel was to be reprocessed but with the threat of nuclear proliferation, spent fuel reprocessing has been eliminated, at least for now. In 1983, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 [1] was established, authorizing development of one or more spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste geological repositories and a consolidated national storage facility, called a “Monitored Retrievable Storage” facility, that could store the spent nuclear fuel until it could be placed into the geological repository. Plans were under way to build a geological repository, Yucca Mountain, but with the decision by President Obama to terminate the development of Yucca Mountain, a consolidated national storage facility that can store spent fuel for an interim period until a new repository is established has become very important. Since reactor sites have not been able to wait for the government to come up with a storage or disposal location, spent fuel remains in wet or dry storage at each nuclear plant. The purpose of this paper is to present a concept developed to address the DOE’s goals stated above. This concept was developed over the past few months by collaboration between the DOE and industry experts that have experience in designing spent nuclear fuel facilities. The paper examines the current spent fuel storage conditions at shutdown reactor sites, operating reactor sites, and the type of storage systems (transportable versus non-transportable, welded or bolted). The concept lays out the basis for a pilot storage facility to house spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites and then how the pilot facility can be enlarged to a larger full scale consolidated interim storage facility.

scholarly journals A new approach to the recycling of spent nuclear fuel in thermal reactors within the REMIX concept

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-98
Author(s):  
Nikita V. Kovalev ◽  
Boris Ya. Zilberman ◽  
Nikolay D. Goletsky ◽  
Andrey B. Sinyukhin
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Natural Uranium ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
High Concentration ◽  
Energy Potential ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Reprocessed Uranium

A review of simulated nuclear fuel cycles with mixed uranium-plutonium fuel (REMIX) was carried out. The concept of REMIX fuel is one of the options for closing the nuclear fuel cycle (NFC), which makes it possible to recycle uranium and plutonium in VVER-1000/1200 thermal reactors at a 100% core loading. The authors propose a new approach to the recycling of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in thermal reactors. The approach implies a simplified fabrication of mixed fuel when plutonium is used in high concentration together with enriched natural uranium, while reprocessed uranium is supposed to be enriched and used separately. The share of standard enriched natural uranium fuel in this nuclear fuel cycle is more than 50%, the share of mixed natU+Pu fuel is 25%, the rest is fuel obtained from enriched reprocessed uranium. It is emphasized that the new approach has the maximum economic prospect and makes it possible to organize the fabrication of this fuel and nuclear material cross-cycling at the facilities available in the Russian Federation in the short term. This NFC option eliminates the accumulation of SNF in the form of spent fuel assemblies (SFA). SNF is always reprocessed with the aim of further using the primary reprocessed uranium and plutonium. Non-recyclable in thermal reactors, burnt, reprocessed uranium, the energy potential of which is comparable to natural uranium, as well as secondary plutonium intended for further use in fast reactors, are sent as reprocessing by-products to the storage area.

Long Term Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel as Key Role of Japan’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Until 2100: Cost and Benefit

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadahiro Katsuta
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Storage Site ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Final Disposal ◽  
Enriched Uranium ◽  
Interim Storage ◽  
Reprocessing Plant

Political and technical advantages to introduce spent nuclear fuel interim storage into Japan’s nuclear fuel cycle are examined. Once Rokkasho reprocessing plant starts operation, 80,000 tHM of spent Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel must be stored in an Away From Reactor (AFR) interim storage site until 2100. If a succeeding reprocessing plant starts operating, the spent LEU will reach its peak of 30,000 tHM before 2050, and then will decrease until the end of the second reprocessing plant operation. Throughput of the second reprocessing plant is assumed as twice of that of Rokassho reprocessing plant, indeed 1,600tHM/year. On the other hand, tripled number of final disposal sites for High Level Nuclear Waste (HLW) will be necessary with this condition. Besides, large amount of plutonium surplus will occur, even if First Breeder Reactors (FBR)s consume the plutonium. At maximum, plutonium surplus will reach almost 500 tons. These results indicate that current nuclear policy does not solve the spent fuel problems but rather complicates them. Thus, reprocessing policy could put off the problems in spent fuel interim storage capacity and other issues could appear such as difficulties in large amount of HLW final disposal management or separated plutonium management. If there is no reprocessing or MOX use, the amount of spent fuel will reach over 115,000 tones at the year of 2100. However, the spent fuel management could be simplified and also the cost and the security would be improved by using an interim storage primarily.

United States high-level radioactive waste management programme: Current status and plans

1997 ◽  
Vol 211 (5) ◽  
pp. 381-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Richardson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Management Programme ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Dry Storage ◽  
High Level

Commercial reactor nuclear power generation in the United States is produced by 107 units and, during 1996, represented over 21 per cent of the nation's electricity generation in 34 of the 50 states and, through electric power wheeling, between states in most of the 48 contiguous states. Spent fuel is stored in fuel pools at 70 sites around the country and the projected rate of spent fuel production indicates that the current pool storage will be exceeded in the out years of 2000, 2010 and 2020 at 40, 67 and 69 of these sites respectively. The total accumulation projected by the end of 1996 at reactor sites is 33 700 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM), with projections for increasing accumulations at annual rates of between 1800 and 2000 to produce an end of life for all commercial nuclear reactors of about 86 000 MTHM. There are presently eight facilities in six states with out-of-pool dry storage amounting to 1010 MTHM and this dry storage demand will increase. Based on all current commercial reactors achieving their 40 year licensed operation lifetimes, the dry storage needs will increase to 3128 MTHM at 28 sites and 20 states by 2000 and 11 307 MTHM at 58 sites in 32 states by 2010; the year 2010 is the present scheduled operation date for the federal mined geological disposal repository being characterized by the USDOE at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The enabling statute for the federal high-level radioactive waste management programme is the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) which charges the USDOE with the responsibility for the disposal of HLW and spent nuclear fuel. The Act also charges the utilities with the responsibility for managing their spent nuclear fuel until the USDOE can accept it into the federal waste management system. The funding for the federal programme is also stipulated by the Act with the creation of the Nuclear Waste Fund, through which the electric utilities entered into contract with the USDOE by payment of a fee of 1 mill per kilowatt hour sold and for which the USDOE would start collection of spent fuel from the reactor sites starting 31 January 1998.

No One Will Scratch My Back: Iranian Security Perceptions in Historical Context

2005 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariborz Mokhtari
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Convergence ◽  
National Pride ◽  
Made In

Iranians support a policy of deterrence because their perception of Iran's security is colored by historical experiences. For Iranians, geopolitical realities together with national psychology define national security. This article attempts to explain the national psychology, and in doing so point to a path of US-Iranian policy convergence. The United States should avoid making the mistake Britain made in 1951, making an oil royalty issue a matter of national pride for Iranians. The current nuclear dispute could turn into an object of Iranian national pride, liberty, and independence. The question whether a nation without access to a nuclear fuel cycle could be anything other than a dependent consumer, has already been posed.

A Comparative Evaluation of Licensing Requirements for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States, Germany, Canada and the Russian Federation

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Wonder ◽  
David S. Duncan ◽  
Eric A. Howden
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Approval Process ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Fuel Storage ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic

Technical activities to support licensing of dry spent nuclear fuel storage facilities are complex, with policy and regulatory requirements often being influenced by politics. Moreover, the process is often convoluted, with numerous and diverse stakeholders making the licensing activity a difficult exercise in consensus-reaching. The objective of this evaluation is to present alternatives to assist the Republic of Kazakhstan (RK) in developing a licensing approach for a planned Dry Spent Fuel Storage Facility. Because the RK lacks experience in licensing a facility of this type, there is considerable interest in knowing more about the approval process in other countries so that an effective, non-redundant method of licensing can be established. This evaluation is limited to a comparison of approaches from the United States, Germany, Russia, and Canada. For each country considered, the following areas were addressed: siting; fuel handling and cask loading; dry fuel storage; and transportation of spent fuel. The regulatory requirements for each phase of the process are presented, and a licensing approach that would best serve the RK is recommended.

Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Policy Analysis

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd P. Lagus
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Energy Content ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Cycle System ◽  
Spent Fuel Reprocessing ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Fuel Reprocessing

Nuclear spent fuel reprocessing has lately reemerged as a subject of debate in the energy policy world. Since a 1977 Presidential Directive which deferred reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (SNF), the United States has utilized a “once through” or “open cycle” system of nuclear fuel processing, which leaves most of the energy content in uranium unused. Current reprocessing technology increases the cost of nuclear electricity while only offering limited storage benefits. Advanced technologies have the potential to increase proliferation resistance, the need for more geologic repositories, and allow the United States to regain an international presence in reprocessing technology. The United States should not immediately engage in spent fuel reprocessing, but should begin aggressive research and development for new reprocessing technologies.

Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Integrity During Long-Term Dry Storage

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leroy Stewart ◽  
Mikal A. McKinnon
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Fuel Rods ◽  
Dry Storage ◽  
Environmental Laboratory ◽  
Cooperative Project

Abstract The United States Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management conducted spent nuclear fuel integrity and cask performance tests from 1984–1996 at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Between 1994 and 1998, DOE also initiated a Spent Fuel Behavior Project that involved enhanced surveillance, monitoring, and gas-sampling activities for intact fuel in a GNS CASTOR V/21 cask and for consolidated fuel in a Sierra Nuclear VSC-17 cask. The results of these series of tests are reported in this paper. Presently, DOE is involved in a cooperative project to perform destructive evaluations of fuel rods that have been stored in the CASTOR V/21 cask. The results of those evaluations are presented elsewhere in these proceedings in a paper entitled “Examination of Spent PWR Fuel Rods after 15 years in Dry Storage”.

Global Developments in Multinational Initiatives at the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles McCombie ◽  
Neil Chapman ◽  
Thomas H. Isaacs
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Fuel Cycle ◽  
Nuclear Fuel Cycle ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Nuclear Materials ◽  
Spent Fuel ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Risk Areas

Interest in expanding nuclear power globally continues to grow and various studies are underway to examine all issues associated with much expanded nuclear programmes. The most open questions today are related to the security and non-proliferation implications and to the disposal of radioactive wastes. The security and proliferation concerns have been almost entirely focussed on enrichment technology at the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle and on reprocessing. Although these are the highest risk areas, it is also important that the potential security problems associated with waste management (in particular with the storage and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive wastes) are not neglected. Furthermore, the costs of national geological repositories imply that, for new or small nuclear programmes, such facilities can be implemented only in the far future, if at all. The international community should continue to strengthen its efforts to highlight the risks and to facilitate solutions that reduce the threats of nuclear materials being distributed widely across the globe. In practice, this challenge has been taken up by a number of organisations that are developing initiatives that can alleviate the potential global security and proliferation problems by promoting multinational approaches to the fuel cycle. This paper addresses those initiatives that are concerned with the storage and final disposal of radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel.

scholarly journals Drug prices in Latin American countries: the case of rheumatoid arthritis Biosimilars

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Bittencourt Gonzalez Mosegui ◽  
Fernando Antõnanzas ◽  
Cid Manso de Mello Vianna ◽  
Paula Rojas
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Purchasing Power Parity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Power Parity ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us ◽  
Latin American Countries

Abstract Background The objective of this paper is to analyze the prices of biological drugs in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in three Latin American countries (Brazil, Colombia and Mexico), as well as in Spain and the United States of America (US), from the point of market entry of biosimilars. Methods We analyzed products authorized for commercialization in the last 20 years, in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, comparing them to the United States of America (USA) and Spain. For this analysis, we sought the prices and registries of drugs marketed between 1999 and October 1, 2019, in the regulatory agencies’ databases. The pricing between countries was based on purchasing power parity (PPP). Results The US authorized the commercialization of 13 distinct biologicals and four biosimilars in the period. Spain and Brazil marketed 14 biopharmaceuticals for RA, ten original, four biosimilars. Colombia and Mexico have authorized three biosimilars in addition to the ten biological ones. For biological drug prices, the US is the most expensive country. Spain’s price behavior seems intermediate when compared to the three LA countries. Brazil has the highest LA prices, followed by Mexico and Colombia, which has the lowest prices. Spain has the lowest values in PPP, compared to LA countries, while the US has the highest prices. Conclusion The economic effort that LA countries make to access these medicines is much higher than the US and Spain. The use of the PPP ensured a better understanding of the actual access to these inputs in the countries analyzed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document