INL/CON-12-28006

PREPRINT

Overview of Reductants
Utilized in Nuclear Fuel
Reprocessing/Recycling

Global 2013

Patricia Paviet-Hartmann
Catherine Riddle
Keri Campbell
Edward Mausolf

October 2013

This is a preprint of a paper intended for publication in a journal or

proceedings. Since changes may be made before publication, this
preprint should not be cited or reproduced without permission of the
author. This document 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, or any of
their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use,
or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or
process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such
third party would not infringe privately owned rights. The views
expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the United
States Government or the sponsoring agency.
 OVERVIEW OF REDUCTANTS UTILIZED IN NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING/RECYCLING

Patricia Paviet-Hartmann1, Catherine Riddle2, Keri Campbell3, Edward Mausolf4

1
Idaho National Laboratory, 995 University Blvd, Idaho Falls, ID 83402, patricia.paviet-hartmann@inl.gov
2
Idaho National Laboratory, Material and Fuel Complex, Idaho Falls, ID 83415-6150, catherine.riddle@inl.gov
3
University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89144, campb262@unlv.nevada.edu
4
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 902 Batelle Blvd, Richland, WA 99352, edward.mausolf@pnnl.gov

Most of the aqueous processes developed, or under
consideration worldwide for the recycling of used nuclear
fuel (UNF) utilize the oxido-reduction properties of
actinides to separate them from other radionuclides.
Generally, after acid dissolution of the UNF, (essentially
in nitric acid solution), actinides are separated from the
raffinate by liquid-liquid extraction using specific
solvents, associated along the process, with a particular
reductant that will allow the separation to occur. For
example, the industrial PUREX process utilizes
hydroxylamine as a plutonium reductant. Hydroxylamine
has numerous advantages: not only does it have the
proper attributes to reduce Pu(IV) to Pu(III), but it is also
a non-metallic chemical that is readily decomposed to
innocuous products by heating. However, it has been
observed that the presence of high nitric acid
concentrations or impurities (such as metal ions) in
hydroxylamine solutions increase the likelihood of the
initiation of an autocatalytic reaction. Recently there has
been some interest in the application of simple
hydrophilic hydroxamic ligands such as acetohydroxamic
acid (AHA) for the stripping of tetravalent actinides in the
UREX process flowsheet. This approach is based on the
powder was not stable in the experiments we ran in our
laboratory. In addition, AHA and FHA also decompose
to hydroxylamine which may undergo an autocatalytic
reaction. Other reductants are available and could be
extremely useful for actinides separation. The review
presents the current plutonium reductants used in used
nuclear fuel reprocessing and will introduce innovative
and novel reductants that could become reducers for
future research on UNF separation.
I. INTRODUCTION
The wealth of chemistry in the first half of the
actinide series especially from thorium to americium is
essentially due to the multiplicity of their oxidation states
as depicted in Fig. 1. The multiple oxidation states are
guaranteed by a close proximity of the energy levels of
the 7s, 6d and 5f electrons. The most stable oxidation
state increases systematically from tetravalent thorium, to
pentavalent protactinium to hexavalent uranium.
Afterwards, the oxidation state decreases systematically
to the pentavalent neptunium, tetravalent plutonium and
trivalent americium.
Actinides 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

high coordinating ability of hydroxamic acids with Ac

Oxidation State
Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm
1?
Md No Lr

tetravalent actinides (Np and Pu) compared with 2* 2? 2* 2* 2 2

3 3* 3* 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
hexavalent uranium. Thus, the use of AHA offers a route 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4?

for controlling neptunium and plutonium in the UREX 5 5

6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5?
6?
5?

process by complexant based stripping of Np(IV) and 7 7 7?

Pu(IV) from the TBP solvent phase, while U(VI) ions are most stable
8?

not affected by AHA and remain solvated in the TBP
phase. In the European GANEX process, AHA is also
used to form hydrophilic complexes with actinides and
strip them from the organic phase into nitric acid.
However, AHA does not decompose completely when
treated with nitric acid and hampers nitric acid recycling.
In lieu of using AHA in the UREX + process,
formohydroxamic acid (FHA), although not commercially
available, hold promises as a replacement for AHA. FHA
undergoes hydrolysis to formic acid which is volatile, thus
allowing the recycling of nitric acid. Unfortunately, FHA
unstable but exists under some conditions
claimed but not substantiated
Fig. 1 Survey of actinide oxidation states, adapted from
(Ref. 1)
Even though if the most stable oxidation state of the
heavier actinides with the exception of Nobelium is +3,
recent studies at the Dirac-Hartree-Fock level2 suggest
that high oxidation state of higher actinides should exist
although these findings have not been substantiated by
experimental results. The variety of the oxidation states
of lighter actinides coupled with hydrolytic behavior of
the ions makes their chemical behavior among the most
complex and interesting one. These oxido-reduction
properties are widely exploited and used in reprocessing
and recycling flowsheets of the used nuclear fuel (UNF).
Over the years a number of plutonium reductants have
been proposed. The most widely used reductant to
partition plutonium from uranium in the Purex process
was ferrous sulfamate, other alternates were proposed
such as hydrazine-stabilized ferrous nitrate or uranous
nitrate, platinum catalized hydrogen, and hydrazine,
hydroxylamine salts. 3 This paper will highlight some of
the current reductants used in the industry and potential
new ones that could be employed in new and innovative
UNF recycling technologies.
II. REDUCTANTS USED IN THE PUREX PROCESS
II.A. Ferrous Sulfamate as Pu(IV) Reductant
Though several solvent extraction methods were
actively studied in the 50s and 60s, such as the bismuth
phosphate process or the REDOX or BUTEX processes4,
the PUREX process forged ahead and has been the most
employed of all large scale radiochemical separation
techniques; it currently dominates the nuclear
reprocessing industry. The PUREX process utilizes 30%
tri-n-butyl-phosphate (TBP) diluted in a paraffinic
hydrocarbon diluent such as kerosene, dodecane or
hydrogenated polypropylene tetramer (HPT), to
decontaminate, separate and purify uranium and
plutonium from dissolved UNF. TBP has the advantages
of being more stable, less flammable and results in better
separation than hexone, as an example, used in the
REDOX process.4,5 The separation is accomplished with
excellent separation factors because of the strong
extractability of hexavalent uranium and tetravalent
plutonium by TBP and the relative inextractability of
trivalent actinides such as americium and curium, fission
products and trivalent plutonium nitrate. During key
steps, the PUREX process relies on the remarkably
different electrochemistry of U, Pu, and Np, which allows
exploitation of chemical complexing agents that bind to
actinides only when they are in particular electrochemical
states. 6
In the US, one of the first chemical to be used as a
plutonium reductant for the partitioning of plutonium and
uranium in Purex solvent extraction systems was ferrous
sulfamate (Fe(SO3NH2)2) which was effective because
Fe(II) rapidly reduced Pu(IV) to Pu(III) and because the
sulfamate ion stabilized Pu(III). 7 Unfortunately, several
disadvantages8,9 appeared with its use and the generation
of sulfates by the sulfamate which 1) contributed to
plutonium losses (via aqueous plutonium sulfate
complexes), 2) increased the volume of radioactive wastes
to be stored, 3) accelerated the stainless steel process
equipment corrosion, 4) enhanced the complexity of the
development of waste-forms for immobilizing these
effluents because the large amount of sulfate in the waste
can cause problems in the formulation of glass waste-
forms.10,11
II.B. Ferrous Nitrate as Pu(IV) Reductant
Alternative reductants were considered: ferrous
nitrate, stabilized by hydrazine or uranous nitrate also
stabilized by hydrazine. Mixture of ferrous nitrate and
hydrazine (0.03M Fe(NO3)2 – 0.075M N2H4) were tested
in the late 60s at the Hanford plant. 7 Even though ferrous
nitrate added iron to the waste, it avoided the issue caused
by the presence of sulfate ions. On the other hand, using
ferrous sulfamate did not require the use of a stabilizer
such as hydrazine because sulfamate served this purpose.
Using ferrous nitrate required the use of an auxiliary
reductant such as hydrazine. The principal function of the
holding reductant hydrazine was to serve to supplement
the sulfamate ions as a scavenger for nitrous acid. In the
PUREX process, nitric acid is the aqueous medium where
all the reprocessing operations are taking place. It is
known that nitric acid is easily reduced to nitrous acid
according to the following reaction (Eq .1):
HNO3 + 2H+ + 2e- o HNO2+H2O (1)
In the PUREX process, the oxidizing property of nitric
acid, and the formation of nitrous acid are not favorable to
maintain plutonium as a trivalent species. Sufficient
amount of hydrazine is added to the system to ensure the
stability of Pu(III) with the destruction of nitrous acid
according to Eq. (2). Despite the fact that hydrazine is
particularly advantageous since the reaction products, N2,
N2O, and H2O, do not contribute to the volume of stored
wastes11, the interaction of hydrazine and nitrous acid can
initiate, in a TBP-nitric acid system, and under specific
operating conditions, the formation of hydrazoic acid
(HN3) which is a hazardous and potentially explosive
compound (Eq. 2) (Ref. 12). Further oxidation leads to
the formation of nitrous oxide and nitrogen gases as
depicted in Eq. (3).
N2H5+ + 2HNO2 o HN3 + 2H2O + H+ (2)
Followed by:
HNO2 + HN3 o N2 + N2O + H2O (3)
Hydrazoic acid is an unstable compound: the pure
chemical form can explode when heated or shocked. Its
relatively low boiling point (T = 35.7°C under
atmospheric pressure) makes it volatile at room
temperature, which has considerable impact on safety.
Scientists at the Savannah River Site investigated the this observation and Barney’s investigations13,14, routine
hazards of hydrazoic acid in connection with the use of use of hydroxylamine nitrate-hydrazine in the second
hydrazine as a holding reductant and uranous nitrate as uranium cycle during uranium-plutonium processing was
the partitioning reagent. 8 In their study, they showed that recommended. In addition, this change reduced the
hydrazoic acid never reached the critical explosive process additions of both iron and sulfate by about 30
concentration (4.7 M in aqueous solution) in their process percent.
since dilute solutions (< 0.2 M) of hydrazine were used. 8
By analogy, there was no hazard associated with the use TABLE I. Comparison of Mixtures of Reductants for the
of ferrous nitrate - hydrazine solutions since the Conversion of Hydrazine to Hydrazoic Acid
maximum hydrazine concentration was 0.2 M. However, Mixture of HN3 production Reference
the extraction of hydrazoic acid into the organic phase Reductants
may result in the formation of sodium azide in the U(IV) - Hydrazine 60% of N2H4 Ref. 7
alkaline solvent wash solutions which use sodium converted to HN3
bicarbonate to recycle TBP. Thus, it was recommended to Ferrous Sulfamate 25% of N2H4 Ref. 12
destroy hydrazoic acid by treatment with sodium nitrite - Hydrazine converted to HN3
before being discharged into waste tanks. 8 Hydroxylamine - 5% of N2H4 Ref. 7
Hydrazine converted to NH3
II.C. Uranous Nitrate as Pu(IV) Reductant
Hydrazine is also used in conjunction with hydroxylamine
Uranous nitrate was proposed as an alternative nitrate to impede hydroxylamine oxidation by nitrous
reductant and had the advantage of adding no extraneous acid, always present in nitric acid media, which increases
ions to the system but was more difficult to apply than the hydroxylamine nitrate availability for the plutonium
ferrous nitrate. 11 Uranium nitrate can act as an effective reduction. Both hydrazine and hydroxylamine nitrate
reducing agent only if it is stabilized by a chemical, such interact with HNO2 but the hydrazine oxidation is much
as hydrazine, which as mentioned previously, will rapidly faster. On the other hand, the use of HAN in conjunction
and completely destroy the nitrous acid. In acidic with nitric acid introduces the possibility of an
solutions U(IV) is a strong enough reducing agent to autocatalytic reaction resulting in an over-pressurization
reduce Pu(IV) to Pu(III) (Eq. 4), and the reaction is very of the system or explosion in a reprocessing facility as
rapid.11 pointed out in Barney’s report. 15 The main function of
hydroxylamine nitrate is to reduce plutonium from the
U4+ + 2Pu4+ + 2H2O o UO22+ _+ 2Pu3+ + 2H+ (4) tetravalent state to the trivalent state and thus separate the
plutonium from the uranium, which is retained in the
hexavalent oxidation state and hence in the organic phase.
Furthermore uranous nitrate is being successfully used at
The reduction reaction by hydroxylamine nitrate is the
the Rokkasho Mura reprocessing plant in Japan to
result of two irreversible reactions (Eqs. 5 and 6):
separate uranium from plutonium. One of the advantage
of U(IV) is that it introduces no non-volatile or corrosive
constituents as compared with ferrous sulfamate or 2 NH 3OH   4 Pu 4  o 4 Pu 3  N 2O  H 2O  6 H  (5)
ferrous nitrate.
2 NH 3OH   2 Pu 4  o 2 Pu 3  N 2  2 H 2O  4 H  (6)
II.D. Hydroxylamine Nitrate as Pu(IV) Reductant
Reaction (6) occurs predominantly in presence of an
excess of hydroxylamine nitrate, while reaction (5)
The use of hydroxylamine nitrate-hydrazine mixture dominate for an excess of plutonium. 16 Eq. (7) is used to
as reductants to obtain plutonium and neptunium calculate the reduction rate of Pu(IV) by hydroxylamine
decontamination in the second uranium cycle of a nitrate.
PUREX-based process was successfully demonstrated
by Walser7 in 1970. Walser showed that in contrast to the w[ Pu( IV )] [ NH 3OH  ] 2 [ Pu( IV )] 2
 k Barney
test of hydrazine stabilized U(IV) where about sixty wt  4 
[ H ] ( K d  [ NO 3 ]) [ Pu( III )] 2
2
(7)
percent of the added hydrazine was converted to
hydrazoic acid, only about five percent of the hydrazine
where: k Barney k 4 K12 K h2 K d2 K a2 is the rate constant as
was converted to hydrazoic acid in this particular test
(TABLE I). Moreover, hydroxylamine nitrate (HAN) has established by Barney.14
a number of advantages since it is nonmetallic, readily
decomposed to innocuous products by heating. Following
Fig. 2 shows that under the following experimental
conditions e.g. T=50°C and 0.1M<[HNO3]<0.05M,
Pu(IV) reduction by HAN is a very fast reaction. 16
0.20
0.15
[Pu(IV)], M
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time, s
Fig. 2. Plutonium (IV) reduction by HAN, [HNO3] =
0.1N, T = 50°C, [NH3OH] = 0.55M
Hydroxylamine nitrate was incorporated into many
nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in the early 70’s replacing
the ferrous sulfamate and hydroxylamine sulfate for
plutonium reduction because it possessed the proper
Pu(IV) to Pu(III) reduction attributes and the gaseous
reaction products: N2, N2O and water contributed to the
minimization of the volume of solid wastes produced.
The French PUREX process at La Hague site uses safely
a mixture of hydroxylamine nitrate and nitric acid for the
reductive stripping phase of plutonium. The British used
hydroxylamine nitrate in the THORP plant facility for
over 2 years. 15
III. NEW REDUCTANTS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE SEPARATION
PROCESSES
As previously stated the interaction of hydrazine and
nitrous acid can initiate, under specific operating
conditions, the formation of hydrazoic acid HN3, which
can be extracted by TBP and is potentially explosive in
case of accumulation in liquid or vapor phase. In addition,
hydrazine which serves as a scavenger for nitrous acid
poses other issues. It is a corrosive and irritating
compound and extremely toxic for the nervous system,
the respiratory system, liver and kidneys. 17 New
candidates to replace hydrazine or hydroxylamine nitrate
are pursued worldwide. They may improve the
performance of the industrial PUREX process towards
different operations such as de-extraction of plutonium
and reduction of the amount of hydrazine which will limit
the formation of hydrazoic acid (Eq. 2).
III.A. Hydroxylamine Derivatives as Pu(IV)
Reductant in a Modified PUREX-based Process
Choosing a molecule that could possibly replace
hydrazine in a PUREX based process should answer to
the two following criteria 1) be soluble in a 30% TBP-
alkane mixture and 2) be reactive towards nitrous acid.
These two criteria would improve the stability of trivalent
plutonium and will impede its reoxidation. In addition,
the absence of salts in the reaction products to keep the
management of nuclear waste as simple as possible has to
be considered. The oxido-reduction properties of the anti-
nitrous candidate have to be compatible with the
oxidation states of the cations present in the reprocessed
effluents; for example, the candidate can reduce
plutonium to its trivalent state but needs to stay very
selective towards plutonium and should not reduce
hexavalent uranium to a lower oxidation state. Another
important fact to consider is the formation of degradation
by-products due to hydrolysis or radiolysis; they should
not interfere with any process operations. Five
compounds were studied by Delafosse17 and are displayed
in Table II.
TABLE II. Hydroxylamine Derivatives to Replace
Hydrazine in a PUREX-based Process
Name Abbreviation Formulae
N,N-dyethylhydroxylamine DEHAN (C2H5)2N-OH
N-methylhydroxylamine MHAN CH3NH-OH
N,N-dimethylhydroxylamine DMHAN (CH 3)2N-OH
N-isopropylhydroxylamine iPrHAN (CH ) CHNH-OH
3 2
N-tertiobutylhydroxylamine tBHAN (CH3)3CHNH-OH
N-cyclohexylhydroxylamine CHHAN (C6H11)CHN-OH
In 0.1M nitric acid, N,N-dimethylhydroxylamine
(DMHAN) showed the most rapid kinetics for nitrous
acid destruction with a first-order rate law and an
evaluation of 1 to 2 molecules of nitrous acid destroyed
by DMHAN molecule.17 In China, DMHAN and mono-
methylhydrazine (MMH) have been applied in a uranium-
plutonium separation cycle and plutonium concentration
cycle.18 These two compounds have been used as
plutonium stripping reductants with these two following
advantages: high efficiency, with a rapid reduction of
plutonium, and no production of hydrazoic acid was
observed. These are salt free reductants and respond to the
CHON concept (completely incinerable and no
production of radioactive solid waste by combustion). The
separation factor of U/Pu was calculated to be > 2.104 and
Pu/U > 6.104. The absence of hydrazoic acid production
in Hu and Gaoliang ’s investigation18 presents a real
advantage thus eliminating the potential risk of explosion
from hydrazine.
III.B. Hydroxamic Ligands in UREX, GANEX or
Advanced PUREX based processes
Recently there has been some interest in the
application of simple hydrophilic hydroxamic ligands of
general formula R-CONHOH such as acetohydroxamic
acid ((R=CH3)) or formohydroxamic acid (R=H) which
have chelating and redox properties that could be used for
the stripping of tetravalent actinides in either advanced
PUREX process, UREX process or the European GANEX
process flowsheet19, 20. The GANEX process (Grouped
ActiNide Extraction) aims at the recovery of all
transuranium elements from the UNF dissolution
solution.20 It consists of two steps: selective extraction of
uranium, and then partitioning of actinides, americium,
curium, and neptunium, plutonium from fission products
and lanthanides (Fig. 3) (Ref. 20).
Fig. 3. GANEX flowsheet trial22
Using AHA in the GANEX process is based on its
high coordinating ability as O,O donor ligands with
“hard” metals such as tetravalent actinides, Np 4+ and Pu
4+
(Ref. 21).
Furthermore these hydrophilic ligands are not extracted
into TBP to any appreciable degree which offers a route
for controlling neptunium and plutonium in a UREX- or
advanced PUREX- based process by complexant based
stripping of Np(IV) and Pu(IV) from TBP solvent phase.
These salt free ligands forms strong complexes with
Pu(IV) and Np(IV), soluble in aqueous phase even in the
presence of high concentrations of U(VI)23 and back
extracts these species into diluted nitric acid. It is
important to note that the extractability of hydroxamic
ligands does however increase in TBP as the carbon chain
length is increased21. Since hydroxamic acids are
composed of only C, H, N and O atoms they can be
decomposed to gases so that their incorporation in to
industrial processes will not lead to increases in waste
volumes 21. However, despites these excellent properties,
in nitric acid (<3 M) hydroxamic acids hydrolyse to give
hydroxylamine and the parent carboxylic acid. As seen
previously, it would be worth looking at new Pu
reductants that would not decompose to hydroxylamine
since hydroxylamine could undergo an autocatalytic
reaction with nitric acid present that may produce
unacceptable temperature and pressure changes to the
system and consequently either result in over-
pressurization and/or explosions within a
recycling/reprocessing facility15. Besides, AHA when
treated with nitric acid leads to the formation of liquid
acetic acid which will hamper nitric acid recycling.
Finally, we performed investigations on technetium
complexation with FHA and observed the pressurization
of FHA container (20 grams of FHA) which resulted in a
broken cap (Fig.4)
Fig. 4: Pressurization of FHA container. A: Acid residue
was observed on the inside door of the cabinet. B:
Pressurization of FHA container resulted in a broken cap.
C: The secondary containment lid was found two shelved
down
III.C. Hydroxyethylenehydrazine (HEH) as a
promising reluctant in advanced recycling
technologies
Hydroxyethylhydrazine, HOC2H4N2H3, is a promising
non-salt-forming reductant of Np and Pu ions. This
hydrazine derivative, shown in Fig. 5, is currently being
evaluated as an alternative to AHA for advanced
processes for the extraction of cesium and strontium.
Besides reductant properties of compound such as
hydroxylamine nitrate, hydrazine or HEH, it is crucial to
investigate their behavior when mixed with new solvents
used for advanced separation technologies
H2N OH
NH
Fig. 5 Hydroxyethylhydrazine (HEH)
Cesium and strontium account for most of the decay heat
generated in used nuclear fuel during the first few 100
years out-of reactor and their extractions were
investigated with two solvent extraction technologies.
The chlorinated cobalt dicarbollide/polyethylene glycol
(CCD/PEG) process uses a solvent consisting of
chlorinated cobalt dicarbollide for the extraction of
cesium and polyethylene glycol for the synergistic
extraction of strontium in a phenyltrifluoromethyl sulfone
diluent24. The Fission Product Extraction (FPEX) process
is based on two highly-specific extractants: 4,4’,(5’))-Di-
(t-butyldicyclo-hexano)-18-crown-6 (DtBuCH18C6) for
the extraction of Sr and Calix[4]arene-bis-(tert-
octylbenzo-crown-6) (BOBCalixC6) for the extraction of
Cs25. Laboratory test results of the FPEX process, using
simulated feed solution spiked with radiotracers, indicated
good Cs and Sr extraction and stripping performance24.
HEH was used as Pu reductant in a Purex based process
and the PUREX raffinate containing HEH was contacted
with either FPEX or CCD PEG organic solutions. The
results of the flowsheet test for Sr and Cs extraction
(Fig. 6) show the margin between forward distributions
for the simulant containing HEH and neat simulant
were less than the detector error. The results for Sr and
Cs stripping behavior (Fig. 7) also show no difference
in distributions.
12
10
8 they hydrolyse to give hydroxylamine and the parent
D is t.
6
4 advanced recycling technologies. Presence of nitrous acid
2
0 hydrolysis or radiolysis reaction should be determined to
0 1 2 3 4 5
Extraction number
Fig. 6. Sr ( ) and Cs ( ) distributions versus
extraction with FPEX using neat raffinate simulant and
Sr ( ) and Cs ( ) distributions using simulant
containing HEH. Extractions 1-3 show solvent loading
distribution ratios, while extractions 4 and 5 show
distribution ratios for the stripped/recycled solvent.
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Dist.
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4
Strip number
Fig. 7. Sr ( ) and Cs ( ) stripping distribution ratios
versus strip number for solvent that has been loaded
using neat raffinate simulant. Sr ( ) and Cs ( ) striping
distributions for solvent that has been loaded with
simulant containing HEH.
As seen in Figs 6 and 7, the presence of HEH in the
stimulant does not interfere with advanced processes
such as FPEX or CCD/PEG.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Hydroxylamine nitrate or uranous nitrate mixed with
hydrazine are both used in the industrial Purex process at
la Hague site in France, or Rokkhasho Mura site in Japan.
Both plutonium stripping reductants have shown
advantages such as high efficiency, and a rapid reduction
of tetravalent plutonium but possess disadvantages linked
to either hydroxylamine nitrate with a possible
autocatalytic reaction or the formation of hydrazoic acid
from the interaction of hydrazine with nitrous acid, which
could lead to a potential risk of explosion. When looking
at future recycling technologies using hydroxamic
ligands, neither AHA nor FHA seem promising because
carboxylic acid. Complementary studies should be
implemented to new actinide reductants to be used in
and its interaction with new actinide reductants should be
explored. Furthermore, reactions by-products due to
6 avoid any impediment of a process. Finally, studies of
stability of any hydroxylamine derivatives in concentrated
nitric acid should be explored to understand if any
autocatalytic reaction may occur.
REFERENCES
1. S. J. HEYES, “Survey of Actinide Oxidation States”
(1997), available online at
http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/icl/heyes/LanthAct/A7.ht
ml
2. K. DYALL, “High Oxidation States in Actinide Chemistry:
a DHF Investigation of Some Trends Exemplified by the
AnO2F4 Species, Chemical Physics, 311, 19-24 (2005).
3. G.L. RICHARDSON and J.J. SWANSON,
“Plutonium Partitioning in the Purex Process with
Hydrazine-Stabilized Hydroxylamine Nitrate”,
Report HEDL-TME-75, Hanford Engineering
Development Laboratory (1975)
4. P. PAVIET-HARTMANN, M. LINEBERRY, R.
BENEDICT, Chap 11: Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing,
pp 316-365, in Nuclear Engineering Handbook, K.
KOK, Ed., Publisher CRS Press/ Taylor and Francis,
Boca Raton, FL (2009).
5. G. CHOPPIN, M.K. KHANKHASAYE, H.S.
PLENDL, “Chemical Separations in Nuclear Waste
Management, the State of the Art and a Look to the
Future”, Report DOE/EM-0591, Institute for the
International Cooperative Environmental Research,
Florida State University (2002).
6. K. L. NASH and G. J. LUMETTA, Advanced
Separation Techniques for Nuclear Fuel
Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Treatment
Woodhead Publishing (2011).
7. R.L. WALSER, “The Hanford Purex Plant
Experience with Reductants”, Report ARH-SA-69,
Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company (1970).
8. D. E. HORNER, “The Use of Ferrous Nitrate as a
Plutonium Reductant for Partitioning Plutonium and
Uranium in PUREX Processes”, Report ORNL-4383,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1969).
9. J.M. McKIBBEN and J.E. BERCAW,
“Hydroxylamine Nitrate as a Plutonium Reductant in
the PUREX Solvent Extraction Process”, Report DP-
1248, Savannah river Laboratory (1971).
10. G.F. KESSINGER, E.A. KYSER, P.M. ALMOND,
“Literature Review: Reduction of Np(V) to Np(IV)-
Alternatives to Ferrous Sulfamate”, Report SRNL-
STI-2009-00610, Savannah River National
Laboratory (2009).
11 C.S. SCHLEA, M. R. CAVERLY, H.E. HENRY,
W.J. JENKINS, “Uranium (IV) as a Reducing Agent
for Plutonium (IV) in the PUREX Process”, Report
DP-808, Savannah River Laboratory (1963).
12. E.K. DUKES and R.M. WALLACE, “Formation of
Hydrazoic Acid from Hydrazine in Nitric Acid
Solutions”, Report DP-728, Savannah River
Laboratory (1962).
13. G.S. BARNEY, “A Kinetic Study of the Reaction of
Plutonium (IV) with Hydroxylamine”, Report ARH-
SA-207, Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company
(1975).
14. G.S. BARNEY “A Kinetic Study of the Reaction of
Plutonium(IV) with Hydroxylamine”, J. Inorg. Nucl.
Chem., 38, 1677-1688 (1976).
15. G.S. BARNEY, “Technical Report on
Hydroxylamine Nitrate”, Report DOE/EH-0555
(1998)
16. P. PAVIET-HARTMANN, G. SENENTZ,
“Prevention of Pu(IV) Polymerization in a PUREX-
Based Process”, Conf. Proc. Global 2007, Boise, ID,
9-13 SEP (2007).
17. J. DELAFOSSE, “Recherche d’un Substituent à
l’Hydrazine dans les Opérations de Retraitement des
Combustibles Usés, Etude des Composés Dérivés de
l’Hydroxylamine”, Microthèse, Ecole Nationale
Supérieure de Chimie de Paris, Paris, France (2002).
18. H. Hui and L. Gaoliang, “The development of Spent
Fuel Aqueous Reprocessing in China”, Paper 30004,
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on
Nuclear Engineering, ICONE 18, Xi’an, China, May
17-21 (2010).
19. P. PAVIET-HARTMANN, A. WRIGHT, E.
MAUSOLF, K. CAMPBELL, F. POINEAU,
“Application of Formohydroxamic Acid in Nuclear
Processing: Synthesis and Complexation with
Technetium-99”, Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Nuclear Engineering,
Paper 29028, ICONE 18, Xi’an, China, 17-21 May
(2010).
20. C. POINSSOT, C. ROSTAING, P. BARON, D.
WARIN, B. BOULLIS, “Main Results of the French
Program on Partitioning of Minor Actinides, a
Significant Improvement Towards Nuclear Waste
Reduction”, Procedia Chemistry, 7, 358-366 (2012).
21. R.J. TAYLOR, I. MAY, A.L. WALLWORK, I.S.
DENNISS, N.J. HILL, B. Ya GALKIN, B. Ya
ZILBERMAN, Y.S. FEDOROV, “The Applications
of Formo- and Aceto- Hydroxamic acids in Nuclear
Fuel Reprocessing”, J. Alloys and Compounds, 271-
273, 534-537 (1998).
22. D. RAYMENT, “Nuclear Fuel Cycle R&D in the
UK”, Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society
Winter Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 11-15
November (2012).
23. G. BERNIER, M. MIGUIRDITCHIAN, E. AMEIL,
C. SOREL, C. BALAGUER, D. EXPINOUX, S.
COSTENOBLE, C. ESSEYRIC, “Hot Test in Mixer
Settlers of Alpha Barrier with AHA in PUREX
Process”, Procedia Chemistry, 7, 160-165 (2012).
24. J. D. LAW, T. G. GARN, R. S. HERBST, D. H.
MEIKRANTZ, D. R. PETERMAN, C. L. RIDDLE,
T. A. TODD, J. L. TRIPP, “Development of Cesium
and Strontium Separation and Immobilization
Technologies in Support of an Advanced Nuclear
Fuel Cycle”, Proceedings of the Waste Management
Conference, WM’06, Tucson, AZ, USA, February 26
– March 2 (2006).
25. C. L. RIDDLE, J. D. BAKER, J. D. LAW, C. A.
McGRATH, D. H. MEIKRANTZ, B. J. MINCHER,
D. R. PETERMAN, and T. A. TODD, “Fission
Product Extraction (FPEX): Development of a Novel
Solvent for the Simultaneous Separation of Strontium
and Cesium from Acidic Solutions”, Sol Extr and Ion
Exch, 23: 449–461, 2005