Weapons-grade plutonium dispositioning. Volume 4. Plutonium dispositioning in light water reactors

Abstract

This study is in response to a request by the Reactor Panel Subcommittee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) to evaluate the feasibility of using plutonium fuels (without uranium) for disposal in existing conventional or advanced light water reactor (LWR) designs and in low temperature/pressure LWR designs that might be developed for plutonium disposal. Three plutonium-based fuel forms (oxides, aluminum metallics, and carbides) are evaluated for neutronic performance, fabrication technology, and material and compatibility issues. For the carbides, only the fabrication technologies are addressed. Viable plutonium oxide fuels for conventional or advanced LWRs include plutonium-zirconium-calcium oxide (PuO2-ZrO2-CaO) with the addition of thorium oxide (ThO2) or a burnable poison such as erbium oxide (Er203) or europium oxide (Eu203) to achieve acceptable neutronic performance. Thorium will breed fissile uranium that may be unacceptable from a proliferation standpoint. Fabrication of uranium and mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuels is well established; however, fabrication of plutonium-based oxide fuels will require further development and performance qualification. Viable aluminum-plutonium metallic fuels for a low temperature/pressure LWR include plutonium aluminide in an aluminum matrix (PuAI4-AI) with the addition of a burnable poison such as erbium (Er) or europium (Eu). Fabrication of low-enriched plutonium in aluminum-plutonium metallic fuel rods was initially established 30 years ago and will require development to recapture and adapt the technology to meet current environmental and safety regulations. Fabrication of high-enriched uranium plate fuel by the picture-frame process is a well established process, but the use of plutonium would require the process to be upgraded in the United States to conform with current regulations and minimize the waste streams. DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process,or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Using Proliferation-Resistant Fuels to Manage Global Plutonium Inventories: Going Beyond the Spent-Fuel Standard

“…US weapons-grade plutonium disposition studies found PRFs to be a promising option. 10,11 An exceptionally deep burn, consuming 80% total plutonium with the isotopics of the residual 20 wt % containing >70 wt % 242 Pu, was reported for a cycle wherein the periphery of the core was loaded with PRF assemblies. 12,13 Concerns about local transient behavior within PRF fuel zones are expected to be manageable but must be resolved.…”

Destruction of plutonium using non-uranium fuels in pressurized water reactor peripheral assemblies

“…4.7.1 Oxide Fuel Fabrication. Sterbenz et al (1993) provide an excellent overview of the issues regarding fabrication of PuO 2 fuels for WGPu disposition in reactors [S-1]. Figure 4.5 depicts a typical UO 2 or MOX fabrication process.…”