Spent fuel disassembly hardware and other non-fuel bearing components: characterization, disposal cost estimates, and proposed repository acceptance requirements

Treatment alternatives for non-fuel-bearing hardware

“…Cobalt-60, niobium-94, and nickel-59 are the radioactive isotopes most commonly formed in sufficient concentrations to be of concern. Concentrations of these three isotopes in NFBH are not well characterized and will 1.1 likely exceed the limits for Class C LLW as defined in 10 CFR 61 (Luksic, et al 1986). Such NFBH is not normally acceptable for LLW disposal.…”

“…• Waste volumes are those estimated by Luksic et al (1986) with adjustments to the current processing rate (2500 MTU/yr).…”

“…This means that the NFBH must comply with federal regulations for interim storage, transportation, and disposal. Potential requirements were discussed previously (Ross et al 1986 andLuksic et al 1986)…”

International light water nuclear fuel fabrication supply: Are fabrication services assured?

“…This weight can be calculated by considering the amount of spent-fuel disassembly (SFD) hardware (hardware after the spent uranium fuel has been removed) and the non-fuel-bearing (NFB) components (including end fittings, spacer grids, guide tubes, and water rods) in LWR-LEU fuel. Luksic et al (1986) state, "It is estimated that there will be approximately 150 kg of SFD and NFB waste per average metric ton of uranium (MTU) of spent uranium. PWR fuel accounts for approximately two-thirds of the average spent-fuel mass, but only 50 kg of the SFD and NFB waste, with most of that being SFD hardware.…”

Recommendations for management of greater-than-Class-C low-level radioactive waste: Report to Congress in response to Public Law 99-240

“…p o t e n t i a l range o f costs f o r shipping GTCC low-level waste (USDOE 1986b, USDOE 1980. h i g h -a c t i v i ty, remote-handled GTCC low-level waste) must be t r a n s p o r t e d i n shielded containers; t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs shown i n Table 4 are based on pub1 ished data f o r t r a n s p o r t i n g shielded low-level waste distances comparable t o those i n t h e defense t r a n s u r a n i c waste analyses (USDOE 1983) Waste w i t h r e l a t i v e l y h i g h l e v e l s o f r a d i o a c t i v i t y (i.e., 8-5 I f nuclear power p l a n t s a r e dismantled r a t h e r than mothballed o r entombed f o r decommissioning, waste i s expected t o i n c l u d e s t a i n l e s s s t e e l core shrouds (sleeves separating t h e r e a c t o r core from t h e r e a c t o r vessel) i n which component elements a r e a c t i v a t e d (USNRC 1986, Luksic 1986a. r e a c t o r s may have operated f o r s h o r t enough p e r i o d s t h a t very l i t t l e o r no GTCC low-level waste w i l l r e s u l t from decommissioning.…”