How is nuclear waste transformed into glass logs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mariko
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Glass Nuclear
AI Thread Summary
Vitrification is a process that transforms nuclear waste into glass logs by oxidizing the fuel and mixing it with glass materials, encapsulating the resulting glass in corrosion-resistant containers for safe storage. The waste primarily consists of fission products and actinides, which can be recycled for use as fuel in reactors. Synroc is an alternative method that uses synthetic rock to contain waste, potentially reducing the risk of leaching into the environment. The Integrated Fast Reactor (IFR) technology aims to convert high-radiation actinides into lower-radiation forms, making them safer and more stable over time. Overall, these processes seek to manage nuclear waste effectively while minimizing environmental impact.
Mariko
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I was watching this news program about nuclear waste treatment plants in which the nuclear waste is somehow turned into glass logs. Would someone mind explaining this process-how would you turn nuclear waste to glass logs?:confused:
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The process is known as vitrication.

In commercial nuclear fuel, the uranium bearing fuel is in the form of ceraminc UO2, a metal oxide. Most of the fission products are entrained as metal oxides, although metal inclusions are found, and there are other elements like I, Br (halides) and Xe, Kr (noble gases) present. The fuel and fission products are encased/enclosed (or otherwise hermetically sealed) in a tube (cladding) of Zirconium alloy (usually, but it could also be a stainless steel) which is seal-welded at both ends (hopefully) with barstock of the same alloy comprising the cladding.

In vitrification, the fuel is oxidized, and then mixed with glass materials so as to form a type of glass which entrains any fuel (if it is not recovered, as in recycle or reprocess) and fission products. The vitrified was is then encapsulated in a corrosion resistant material (e.g. stainless steel or nickel-based alloy), which can then be placed in a repository.

A related process is Synroc, in which a composition representing thermodynamically stable synthetic igneous rock is used instead of glass. The theory is that Synroc is less likely to allow fission products and transactinides to leach into the envirnoment if there is a subsequent breach of the repository and waste containers.
 
Astro, I have read that using IFR technology the "high-rad' actinides in waste could be converted to "low-rad" and then vitrified to form a block that would be safe and stable and whose remaining radiation would decay to background in some reasonable span of time.

Is this so? Can you give any evaluations or details?
 
selfAdjoint said:
Astro, I have read that using IFR technology the "high-rad' actinides in waste could be converted to "low-rad" and then vitrified to form a block that would be safe and stable and whose remaining radiation would decay to background in some reasonable span of time.

Is this so? Can you give any evaluations or details?
selfAdjoint,

If you want the radiation to decay in a relatively short period of time - then you want
to leave that part of the waste as "high-rad". The half-life is inversely proportional
to the activity.

Ideally, all the actinides should be recycled back to a reactor to be used as fuel.

The only thing that should find its way to the waste stream should be the fission
products. The longest lived fission product of any consequence is Cesium-137
which has a half-life of 30 years. So in 20 half-lives; about 600 years; the activity
of the waste will be less than the material that was originally dug out of the ground.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
selfAdjoint said:
Astro, I have read that using IFR technology the "high-rad' actinides in waste could be converted to "low-rad" and then vitrified to form a block that would be safe and stable and whose remaining radiation would decay to background in some reasonable span of time.

Is this so? Can you give any evaluations or details?
What comes to mind immediately is 'actinide burning'.

The objective of the IFR was to 'burn up' or utilize the longer lived transuranics, e.g. isotopes of Pu, Cm, Am so that they would not be around for 1000's, 10 000's or 100 thousands of years. Instead they would be fissioned to shorter lived radionuclides as is the case with U-235 and Pu-239, and the fission products decay rapidly to inert (stable, non-radioactive) nuclides in a vitrified form in a protected repository.

At the same time, the energy produced is converted to electricity.

Let me dig up the details.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info- Appreciated and wonderful as always!
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top