Recycling of plutonium and uranium in water reactor fuel : proceedings of a Technical Committee meeting held in Newby Bridge, Windermere, United Kingdom, 3-7 July 1995

370 Pages·1997·24.99 MB·English

IAEA-TECDOC-941
^cyclfinog
Plut dounnriauanmi um
n wi ater reactor fuel
Proceedings of a Technical Committee meeting
held in Newby Bridge, Windermere, United Kingdom, 3-7 July 1995
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY /A\
The IAEA does not normally maintain stocks of reports in this series.
However, microfiche copies of these reports can be obtained from
IN IS Clearinghouse
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramerstrasse 5
P0.0O1 xoB.
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Orders shoue labd ccompaniey dbp repaymenf oAt ustrian Schillings 100,-
in the form of a cheque or in the form of IAEA microfiche service coupons
which may be ordered separately from the INIS Clearinghouse.
e ohrTiginating Sectiof tohn is publice IahAttEi onAni was:
Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramerstrasse 5
001 xoPB.O .
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
RECYCLINGF OP LUTONIUMD NUA RANIUMN IW ATER REACTOR FUEL
IAEA, VIENNA, 1997
IAEA-TECDOC-941
ISSN 1011-4289
©IAEA, 1997
Printed by the IAEA in Austria
May 1997
FOREWORD
Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel used in power water reactors is made of a mixed uranium and
plutonium oxide and clad with zirconium alloy.
The utilization of MOX fuel has been regarded for many years as limited to fast breeder
reactors (FBR). Since hmet id-19e 8hdR t0 epdBnslrFaao, fyog rammen sim any countries,
it has been thought that the plutonium produced in reprocessing plants should be used in water
reactor fuels instead of being stored.
MOX fuel has been industrially produced and is now a mature technology. However,
beye oohnbtvd ious differen nfcaieb rication technoloe eghxytp ,erience aXccOumMul anteod
fuel is less than that accumulated on uranium fuel; as a consequence MOX fuel has been
lia cleo nrwoseefdr burnup than uranium o frueTealc .h comparable perfoX frumOelaMnce
e sbtu hdoaites d fud rmtnhoaerr e accurate modf etolhs ermal behaviour, fiss sraeioglen ase,
ropellet-clad interaction, ha evbe oest tablishee dhdT. atabX fOauMs eneol irradiation should
e ebxpanded especie aahtlr lneyf ioha igh burnup.
r oFcountries with a large amounf to weapons grade plutoniume hto ptionf o burning
thw iuso npndX lfu eusOrteio l Mcnoiu nnmsii deration.
The Technical Committee Meeting on Recycling of Plutonium and Uranium in Water
Reactor Fuel was recommended by the International Working Group on Fuel Performance and
Technology (IWGFPT). Its aim was to obtain an overall picture of MOX fabrication capacity
and technology, actual performancef o this kindf o fueld n,wa ays exploredo t disposehet fo
weapons grade plutoniume h.Ts ubjecf to this meetingd ahb een reviewee hdtI ybn ternational
Atomic Energy Agency eve6 r yoyt 5ee hfta riofr rdnssa t time ehpt roblemf o weapons grade
plutonium disps oianswcall uded.
e hpTapers presented provid aes umma froey xpX dfeOounraienMel gn oncoien g
researcn hti his fe ipeht landir ticipating countriee hmsT. eetins ahwgo stey dbB ritish Nuclear
Fuels pic,t a Newby Bridge, United Kingdom, from 7 oJt 3 uly 1995. Fifty-six participants
from twelve countries or international organizations took part.
e hITAEA wisheo tst hank BNe hotF rrogLfa nizae thmiteo hfteon el lati dnnag
participants for their contributions to this publication. The officer of the IAEA responsible for
the organization of the meeting and the compilation of this TECDOC was P.M. Chantoin of
the Nuclear Fued lM Cnaytaecrle ials Section.
EDITORIAL NOTE
In preparing this publication for press, staff of the IAEA have made up the pages from the original
manuscripts as submitted by the authors. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the
govee rnhnomtm eifnnoats ting Member e Snhtoar tmoto efis nating organizations.
Throughout the text names of Member States are retained as they were when the text was
compiled.
Thee su of particular designations of countries ro territories does ton implyy na judgementeht yb
publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and
institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of names of specific compani rpeosr oducts (wt hoienntd hrieocr ats earde gistered)
does ton implyy na intentiono t infringe proprietary rights,r on shoulde b ti construed na sa endorsement
or recommendation on the pan of the IAEA.
The authoe rrarse sponsibr loefh aving obtaine ehndt ecessary permise hsItiA orEonof tA
reproduce, translate or use material from sources already protected by copyrights.
CONTENTS
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
MOX RECYCLED URANIUM FUEL UTILIZATION (Session 1)
MOX in France - Status and prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
C. Golinelli, J.L. Guillet
Basic evaluation on nuclear characteristics of BWR
highd cbX nfouuarOere nl Mu.p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.2..
M. Nagano, S. Sakurai, H. Yamaguchi
Plutonium recycling: The point of view of Electricite' de France . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
. 5Benjamin
Mixed oxide fuel development for the Indian nuclear power programme . . . . . . . . .. 47
A. Kumar, H. S. Kamath, D.S.C. Purushotham
BNFL supply of MOX fuel assemblies to the Beznau 1 PWR of NOK . . . . . . . . . . .. 57
. JEdwards, R.D. Grimoldb. yJS,M arshal .lRS, tratton
MOX FABRICATION AND REPROCESSING (Session 2)
Technical design considerations in the provision of a commercial MOX plant . . . . . .. 71
M.F. Elliott
MOX fuel fabrication experient Bcaee lgonucle'aire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.7. ..
. DHaas
Plutonium recycling and the Melox fabrication plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91
W. Fournier
Usef o vibro-compacteX fdOMu en li thermal reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.9
P. Parkes
Changes in UO powder properties during processing via
BNFL's binderless route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
. P .ABromley,. R Logsdon, V.A. Roberts
MX fey abcbOhrarladilcnM a mifstimioo llnns in ig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.0. .1. . .
.D Warin,. M Bauer,. M Seiss,. R Lorenzelli
Cation diffusiond na crystal growthe ht ta UO-PuO interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..311
S. Pillon, S. Mendez, D. Warin, R. Lorenzelli
Advanced analysis techno XfOluoMeg lr oyf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .911..
T. Hiyama, K. Kamimura
MOX FUEL DESIGN (Session 3)
MOX fuel designd na development consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..331
. KYama. ASteb ,ie .oKStDau ,z u.Ski ,
An advanced BWR MOX fuel design concept for
JapaneseR WpL lutonium recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..541
.KTs. MuTdaak ,ay .aKMsuo ,ri
Technology developments for Japanese BWR MOX fuel utilization . . . . . . . . . . .. 155
M. Oguma, T. Mochida, T. Nomata, K. Asahi
2 2
2
A revief wom ultiple recyc flope lutoniun mLi WRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7.1..
K. Hesketh
Evaluation of the maximum content of a MOX-fueled pressurized water reactor
versus isotopic composition with respect to the void coefficient . . . . . . . . . .. 181
5. Aniel, J. Bergeron, A. Puill
VENUS: A tool for the research of the neutronic behaviour of Pu and U fuel . . . . .. 195
K. Van derMeer, D. Marloye, P. D'Hondt, G. Minsart,
T. Maldague. J, Basselier
Measurement and analysis of MOX physical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205
I.R. Topliss, I.D. Palmer, S. Abeta, Y. Irisa, K. Yamate
Neutronic feasR icbWoiPlri eftoy w ith mixed oxide feuhte nlis
Republicf o Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71.2
Y.J. Kirn, H.K. Joo, H.G. Jung, D.S. Sohn
PLUTONIUM DISPOSAL (Sess)io4n
Could weapon-grade pln ur amtosaosaf nene itau ubgimniP nvge ntories? . .9. .2.2. . .
H. Bairio. tE, Vanden Bemden
A once through scheme for weapons grade plutonium disposition in LWRs:
Proliferationd nca ritical aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.2
. JMagill, H.J. Matzk .GeN, icolaou. PP, eer naGaVne i.Je, l
Plutonium dispositioning in CANDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259
P. Boczar, J.R. Hopldns, H. Feinroth, J.C. Luxal
FUEL PERFORMANCE (Session 5)
Practices and trends in MOX fuel licensing in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 271
V. Jacq, R. Beraha
Validation of MOX fuel through recent Belgonucle'aire international programmes . . . 277
J. Basselier, Th. Maldague, M. Uppens
Plutonium recyclin nFig rench power plants:
MOX fuel irradiation experien dbcnaee haviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.82..
P. Blanpain, M. Trotabas, P. Menut, X. Thibauh
MOX fuel irradiation behaviour: Results from X-ray microbeam analysis . . . . . . .. 301
C.T. Walker, W. Goll, T. Matsumura
Behaviour of a defective MOX fuel rod in a PWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 319
. DParr. oLCte, uthro. AtH, arr. eDDr, angouleme
Irradiation of Argentine MOX fuels: Post-irradiation results and analysis . . . . . . . .. 341
. MCa . r.PEiAne. oArP ,edze ,lfang
Thermd ainnal -pile densificaX fOtuiMoe flnos : Some recent results . . . . . . . . .36.3.
L. Caillot, P.P. Malgouyres, F. Souchon,
M.J. Got. tDaW, ar. iAnC ,ho .CtCa or.Jdu ,ty
AECL's Experience in MOX fuel fabrication and irradiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 373
F.C. Dimayuga
Lf Poisa trticipants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.8.3. . .
SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
e cohAntlt lributin othniis s meeting w npeolrue tonium recycling, mixed oxide (MOX)
fuel fabrid cpanetriafoon rmd wanenaacpeo ,ns grade plutonium disposal.
Fifty-six participants from twelve countriesr oi nternational organizations attendedeht
formal presentations and panel discussions.
The papers were prd esRnen enafcitieyvd ce Xl esdeO ssUMiorannsi :um Fuel
Utilization, MOX Fabrication and Reprocessing, MOX Fuel Design, Plutonium Disposal and
MOX Fuel Performance.
The technical discussions were conducted in three panel discussions: MOX Fabrication,
MOX Fuel Performance and Utilization of Weapons Grade Plutonium in MOX Fuel.
The main findin ftoghs is meee tt eirphnhaX rafgto s ut Oiiden luMccret iafoosni ng
worldwd insdhaeo ue lbsdu ffe ihcntiee nanirt , futuo rtaeb, sorb e hpmtl uofotsot nium
produo crte tdisone paihnont ncordte asing demeba e onhdt XTd afsu.tO aaheMbl a fsoe
extenr dboeofdt h irrad dianntoeand -irradiated fo uatell low further burn-up incerehaTse .
MOX solutione ht ot problemf o disposalf o weapons grade plutoniums aw consideredeb ot
very valuable.
The technical discussions are summarized below.
2. MOX FABRICATION - Panel 1
2.1. Present capacity and status
The key to the issue of reducing the present stockpile of plutonium and keeping it at a
mX pinrOe oifmho Mudmtttuu un sacmeriiteth c itoh n capad scnuiatby sequent utilizatiootn
u P ehot utpue htt tra eprocessing plants.n I France thiss i already becoming policy witheht
ultimaf ot hmeiaa vinu Pgi an ventot ornm yfo ore tha2 n ya ear requiremena swta orking
buffer stock.
The panel attempted to define the expected MOX manufacturing capacity known today.
For reference the 16 t/a Pu generation rate in La Hague equates to a 230 t/a MOX fabrication
requirement whis ce rihdhe ltea sotiegtdn , burd ninsuaop topic comp eofhsetiet ifdoon
plutoniume hdT. etailed annual throughpua rgotf iven capacity will dependn ob atch sizdena
u coPnnte unfmtsob. eT rae bI rselh ehvoiswte sd expected capacities we Hihtahnotauu t plants
and ignoring Russian expectations due to lack of firm information. Table II shows in more
detail the Franco-Belgian production plans based on the icronized master blend (MIMAS)
process.
Product flexibility (rangf eof uel types produced) will increase ovee hrnt ext decade.
For example while MELOX will remain a basic 17 x 17 PWR plant for EdF type fuels,
Cadarache r omwf RiaWlilBn dclnyoa R vGWePre rman customersA .M ELOX extensio05n(
t/a) would produce PWR and BWR MOX fuels of all designs as would a new plant if built at
La Hague (2 x 50 t/a lines). In the United Kingdom the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) is being
designed to make PWR, BWR and fast reactor fuels and in France a small (10 t/a) fast reactor
fuel production capacity will a elrsbeot ained.
The Dessel line PI of Belgonucleaire could be considered as an alternative to one or the
e Fhrote tnfhocehr extensions noted abon vJIaee pp .hlaatnn td psne riuzoabsec s eeoids ts
still under review tub will clearly handle b RWfBo udnat eRhWlP s when built. Adequate
capacits yi also providen diJ apao ntc ope with fast breeder reactor (FBRd n)aa dvanced
thermal reactor (ATR) requireme iehnndTtesp .endent planned pX rreoOcgyMrcalme fmoe
in Inds aniwao tes dawe hdte islfalf iculties facine hRgt epubli focK orea with their large
reactor programme.
It appeared that any capacity for dealing with Pu from military stockpiles would have
to be provided by a new facility and should perhaps incorporate special design features due to
e me hnhatat ttefuroriea l.
The chairman notede ht importancef o having adequateX OMt ransport capabilitiesdna
drew attention to possible changes in flask licensing and testing brought about by forthcoming
chane hgrte envis ised IAEA Safety Se, 6rR i.oeNesg ulat eihoSt rnaoffse Transpofrot
Radioactive Materials. This applied particularly to the air transport of MOX powder and fuel
assemblies.
X faObMr2ic.2at. ion process
There has been an unexpected reduction in MOX processes being used. Since the last
meeting in 1989 the COCA and OCOM processes have disappeared, the latter due to the
demise of the Hanau MOX plant. The processes now available are MIMAS and the Short
Binderless Route (SBR). At least two process routes are desirable and should be maintained to
preserve diversity of supply. Regardless of the process there are still many improvements
which coulde b madeo t reduce fabrication costs, improve product qualityd na increase
efficiency.
One of these improvements might, for example, be improved interchange between the
vendor specifications perhaps leadin ogtc ommon standardn sis ome areas (e.g. solubility,
impurity levels, pellet damage, broadening isotopic tolerances). This could benefit beohtth
suppliee hut drna tility customee rhct ro.Fu stomes ri tia lso important ot maintaine ht diversity
of supply and the element of competition.
The panel was unwilling to enter into a fundamental discussion of the costs and price
of MOX fabrication. The best available data is still the MOX fuel cycle cost study of the
OECD/NEA of 1989 and the fuel cycle study of 1994. The actual prices are always dependent
eochont ntract conditions, givinr eogxf, ample price reductior lnoafsr ge batch orders.
2.3. Future developments
For the longer term (specifically in Europe) it was thought unlikely that any
fundamental new fabrication process could or would be introduced commercially before the
installation of major new reprocessing facilities with which it would be associated. The
introd wupecrnto iaoc feon ss could also coincide wie tnhhte eo ddt eal wie trhhet ductiofon
military plutoniumn i specially designed reactors ehtc n.I ommercial area, producr to process
improvements must provide a price incentive to the customer.
When consid eelrhoinntgg tu erfPume l eecvhyacltul eaf e tiocoohovn tme ring
decades, account nee ebdt aoste k hote fpno portunity offe ehCrt eyAbd NDU systemni
synergy with the LWR spent fuel strategy.
e htu roFsere ,hlt ong term requireme ont ltonit sim iy tnaa sO pU feof esuuc ehte tfo l
a ornted tain full operating flexibility inX -frueOeae lbM chmutTor urnf .suotp increatsae
least in line with UO fuels, and if possible exceed them to realize the added economic potential
2
f ohigh burnup MOX.
The panel endorsed the view that MOX fuel plants needed to meet the highest standard
of safed nntayo ted thaa tm inor incident could close downa p lant permanen atr lseyas uflot
heightened public or political sensitivity.
Similar elhyht eightened demX aOfnuMed nlos behaviour cal nlaie rnodfc reased
robustnen sdis esd pingraon duct quality.
XFOUMEL3 P. ERFORMANCE- P ane2l
3.1. Summary of discussions
It is essential that the fuel produced by fuel fabricators satisfies the customer's
requirementt is -m ust allowe htu tilitieo st operate their reactors safely, reliabldnya
economically. yB assessinge ht performanceX OM eht fo fuel under both normald na off-
normal conditions fuel fabrican ptaorcorsv e eihdvtei dence re echqutus iytroebmdd nears
safety authorities to assure them that their fuel is safe and reliable.
At present European experience of MOX irradiations extends to 52 GWd/t (rod average
burn-up) in commercial PWRs and up to 60 GWd/t in experimental assemblies. The operational
modes include load-following conditions.n I addition there have been many demonstration
assemblies irradiated in reactors throughout the world.
The main conclusion from these irradiations is the good general behaviour of the MOX
fut eabl urn-o u5t pp-u5s 5 GWd/t. Specific feature2 s include:
Good dimensional behaviouf ora ssembly componend tnfsau el rods
Good water side corrosion behavioure ht fo cladding
Internal rod pressures which are not significantly different from those for UO under
2
comparable conditions
Good PCI resistance, even superior to UO
2
No apparent relationship between fuel microstructd uenrnaeh ancemef nofti sssiaogn
release
Failed fuel behaviour similar to UO .
2
In addition the acquisition of physical properties data has progressed well since the last
IAEA technical committee meeting on MOX fuels in 1989.
A numberf o items, however, which require further investigation,e b nac identified.
Panel discussion of these items led to the following conclusions and recommendations.
Further acquisf iptoihoyn sical prop lmelrataine rus fodaacftta uring rous rteieq suir-ed
this will revey anpal ossible relationship wie thhpt lutonium conted nnwat iethht
microstructure.