skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A preliminary analysis of the reactor-based plutonium disposition alternative deployment schedules

Abstract

This paper discusses the preliminary analysis of the implementation schedules of the reactor-based plutonium disposition alternatives. These schedule analyses are a part of a larger process to examine the nine decision criteria used to determine the most appropriate method of disposing of U.S. surplus weapons plutonium. The preliminary analysis indicates that the mission durations for the reactor-based alternatives range from eleven years to eighteen years and the initial mission fuel assemblies containing surplus weapons-usable plutonium could be loaded into the reactors between nine and fourteen years after the Record of Decision.

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
565321
Report Number(s):
SAND-97-8288
ON: DE98050980; TRN: 98:002582
DOE Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: PBD: Sep 1997
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
05 NUCLEAR FUELS; FISSILE MATERIALS; PLUTONIUM; NUCLEAR FUELS; IRRADIATION; SCHEDULES; PLANNING

Citation Formats

Zurn, R.M. A preliminary analysis of the reactor-based plutonium disposition alternative deployment schedules. United States: N. p., 1997. Web. doi:10.2172/565321.
Copy to clipboard
Zurn, R.M. A preliminary analysis of the reactor-based plutonium disposition alternative deployment schedules. United States. doi:10.2172/565321.
Copy to clipboard
Zurn, R.M. Mon . "A preliminary analysis of the reactor-based plutonium disposition alternative deployment schedules". United States. doi:10.2172/565321. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/565321.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_565321,
title = {A preliminary analysis of the reactor-based plutonium disposition alternative deployment schedules},
author = {Zurn, R.M.},
abstractNote = {This paper discusses the preliminary analysis of the implementation schedules of the reactor-based plutonium disposition alternatives. These schedule analyses are a part of a larger process to examine the nine decision criteria used to determine the most appropriate method of disposing of U.S. surplus weapons plutonium. The preliminary analysis indicates that the mission durations for the reactor-based alternatives range from eleven years to eighteen years and the initial mission fuel assemblies containing surplus weapons-usable plutonium could be loaded into the reactors between nine and fourteen years after the Record of Decision.},
doi = {10.2172/565321},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 1997},
month = {Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 1997}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report (7.31 MB)
DOI:  10.2172/565321
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • The Department of Energy (DOE) - Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (OFMD) has announced a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting alternatives for disposition of surplus plutonium. A major objective of this decision was to further U.S. efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Other concerns that were addressed include economic, technical, institutional, schedule, environmental, and health and safety issues. The technical, environmental, and nonproliferation analyses supporting the ROD are documented in three DOE reports [DOE-TSR 96, DOE-PEIS 96, and DOE-NN 97, respectively]. At the request of OFMD, a team of analysts from the Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutoniummore » (ANRCP) provided an independent evaluation of the alternatives for plutonium that were considered during the evaluation effort. This report outlines the methodology used by the ANRCP team. This methodology, referred to as multiattribute utility theory (MAU), provides a structure for assembling results of detailed technical, economic, schedule, environment, and nonproliferation analyses for OFMD, DOE policy makers, other stakeholders, and the general public in a systematic way. The MAU methodology has been supported for use in similar situations by the National Research Council, an agency of the National Academy of Sciences.1 It is important to emphasize that the MAU process does not lead to a computerized model that actually determines the decision for a complex problem. MAU is a management tool that is one component, albeit a key component, of a decision process. We subscribe to the philosophy that the result of using models should be insights, not numbers. The MAU approach consists of four steps: (1) identification of alternatives, objectives, and performance measures, (2) estimation of the performance of the alternatives with respect to the objectives, (3) development of value functions and weights for the objectives, and (4) evaluation of the alternatives and sensitivity analysis. These steps are described below.« less

  • ;
    The United States and Russia are assessing options for disposition of surplus weapon-grade plutonium. This paper reviews the options under consideration by the US Department of Energy and suggests an additional option that fits within the framework of the environmental analysis provided in the draft PEIS (Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement). In addition to the burning of Pu in mixed U-Pu oxide fuel, we recommend consideration of a non-fertile fuel based on zirconia with inclusion of rare earth elements for phase stabilization and control of reactivity. The zirconia based fuel could also be used to burn plutonium generated in commercial reactormore » fuels, which represent a larger inventory of plutonium than the weapon-grade material. The increasing inventories of civilian plutonium potentially represent a larger threat with respect to diversion weapons usable material than the stocks of weapon-grade material considered for disposition by the US and Russia. We discuss the use of zirconia-based fuel and pyrochemical processing of spent commercial reactor fuels as a means of decreasing world-wide plutonium inventories. The experience gained in burning weapon-grade plutonium in the new non-fertile fuel would shorten the time required to gain acceptance of the fuel for commercial reactor use.« less

  • This report summarizes and compares the Immobilized and Direct Beep Borehole Disposition Alternatives. The important design concepts, facility features and operational procedures are briefly described, and a discussion of the issues that affect the evaluation of each alternative against the programmatic assessment criteria that have been established for selecting the preferred alternatives for plutonium disposition.

  • ; ;
    The Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed irradiation of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in existing commercial reactors as a disposition method for surplus plutonium from the weapons program. The burning of MOX fuel in reactors is supported by an extensive technology base; however, the infrastructure required to implement reactor-based plutonium disposition does not exist domestically. This report identifies and examines the actions required to qualify and license weapons-grade (WG) plutonium-based MOX fuels for use in domestic commercial light-water reactors (LWRs).

  • Projected constant dollar life cycle cost (LCC) estimates are presented for the domestic reactor-based plutonium disposition program being managed by the US Department of Energy Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (DOE/MD). The scope of the LCC estimate includes: design, construction, licensing, operation, and deactivation of a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility (FFF) that will be used to purify and convert weapons-derived plutonium oxides to MOX fuel pellets and fabricate MOX fuel bundles for use in commercial pressurized-water reactors (PWRs); fuel qualification activities and modification of facilities required for manufacture of lead assemblies that will be used to qualify and licensemore » this MOX fuel; and modification, licensing, and operation of commercial PWRs to allow irradiation of a partial core of MOX fuel in combination with low-enriched uranium fuel. The baseline cost elements used for this document are the same as those used for examination of the preferred sites described in the site-specific final environmental impact statement and in the DOE Record of Decision that will follow in late 1999. Cost data are separated by facilities, government accounting categories, contract phases, and expenditures anticipated by the various organizations who will participate in the program over a 20-year period. Total LCCs to DOE/MD are projected at approximately $1.4 billion for a 33-MT plutonium disposition mission.« less