Sustainability Of U.S. Nuclear Energy: Waste Management And The Question Of Reprocessing

1. Sustainability Of U.S. Nuclear Energy: Waste Management And The Question Of Reprocessing Nathan R. Lee American Nuclear Society 2010 WISE Internship August 4, 2010

2. Outline of Presentation Motivation Background Analysis: Reexamining Reprocessing Policy Recommendation the

3. Why Nuclear? the

4. U.S. Nuclear’s Problem: Waste Management Contained Pools Dry Casks No Long-term Solution Implemented

5. Waste Management Options Reprocessing/Recycling vs. Spent Fuel Geological Repository DirectDisposal

6. What Is the “Waste”? Enriched Uranium Source: Department of Energy Nuclear Energy Roadmap, 2010

7. Reprocessing Benefits and Drawbacks Advantages: • Reduction in high level waste • More efficient use of fuel supply Disadvantages: • Proliferation risk from separation of plutonium • Not economical with current uranium prices

8. U.S. Waste Management Policy • President Carter banned federal funding for reprocessing on proliferation grounds (1977) • Nuclear Waste Policy Act endorsed policy of direct disposal, mandating geological repository (1982) • Failure to site Yucca Mountain repository raises doubts about viability of direct disposal policy • Obama Administration has called forth the Blue Ribbon Commission to reexamine waste management policy Yucca Mountain Repository Yucca Mountain Application Under Review

9. Worldwide Reprocessing Advantages: • Reduction in high level waste • More efficient use of fuel supply Disadvantages: • Proliferation risk from separation of plutonium • Not economical with current uranium prices Source: Idaho National Lab, 2008

10. Reprocessing Technologies Aqueous • originally developed in Manhattan Project to extract plutonium • current method separates waste streams using organic solvent • Plutonium Uranium Recovery Extraction (PUREX) is dominant • reprocessing technique employed worldwide Pyro • utilizes electrorefining in high-temperature salt bath • developed for fast reactor metal fuel, but potentially adaptable • for conventional oxide fuel • demonstrated on engineering scale; not commercial level yet

11. Reexamining Reprocessing: Analysis Overview Selected Fuel Cycles for Analysis: • Direct Disposal • One-pass Plutonium Recycle • Full Actinide Recycle Issues for Analysis: • Waste Burden • Economics • Proliferation Concerns

12. Reexamining Reprocessing: Use in One-Pass Plutonium Recycling Source: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, 2003 • Utilizes aqueous reprocessing • U and Pu separated => recovered Pu inserted into new fuel • One-pass recycle => not fully “closed” fuel cycle

13. Reexamining Reprocessing: Use in Full Actinide Recycling • Utilizes pyroprocessing • All actinides separated, • fabricated into new fuel • Iterative recycling • => fully “closed” cycle • Innovation still required Source: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, 2003

14. Reexamining Reprocessing: Waste Burden Source: Idaho National Lab, 2008 Full actinide recycling dramatically reduces radiotoxicity

15. Reexamining Reprocessing: Economics and Fuel Supply Source: International Panel on Fissile Materials, 2007 Price of uranium is not a present concern.

16. Reexamining Reprocessing: Economics and “Breakeven” Price Analysis “Breakeven” uranium price for reprocessing satisfies the following: Cost of interim storage & disposal of spent fuel Cost of reprocessing and disposal of HLW Value of recovered fissile material = – Conclusion: Reprocessing is not currently economical.

17. Reexamining Reprocessing: Proliferation Concerns • Unprocessed • spent fuel is • “self-protecting” • No separated • waste stream • qualifies Dose rate relative to IAEA self-protection standard Source: International Panel on Fissile Materials, 2007 Conclusion: Proliferation risks do not support reprocessing.

18. Reexamining Reprocessing: Weighing the Issues • Waste Burden: • Immense time period of concern elevates issue to highest importance • Achieving “intergenerational equity” is essential Economics: • Fuel cycle/waste management accounts for only 10-20% of total generation costs • Proliferation: • U.S. has proven history of protecting its nuclear liabilities • Established international reprocessing market eliminates “deterrent” value of foregoing reprocessing

19. Reexamining Reprocessing: Summary of Analysis Waste Burden: Reduction of waste burden strongly supports reprocessing. Full actinide recycle is best option. Economics: Reprocessing is not currently economical. Costs not insurmountable. Proliferation: Reprocessing adds proliferations risks. These risks can be mitigated.

20. Policy Recommendation • Maintain the current once-through cycle for the time being. Proceed • with siting a geological repository for direct disposal. • The DOE should establish an integrated research, development, & • demonstration program for reprocessing and advanced reactor • technologies to prepare transition toward a full actinide recycle. • The program should emphasize improving the pyroprocessing • technique from a batch process to a high-throughput, commercial- • scale process. • In parallel to this program, the DOE should continue its research • initiatives in real-time monitoring to improve proliferation protection.

21. Acknowledgements Dr. Alan Levin American Nuclear Society (ANS) Chris Henderson, Tim Kobetz Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sarah Leversee ANS Fellow, Senator Corker Richie Hayes, Steve Kraft, Rod McCullum Nuclear Energy Institute John Buydos Library of Congress Dr. James Bresee Department of Energy Erica Wissolik Inst. of Electrical/onics Engineers My Fellow Interns WISE Questions? nathanlee710@gmail.com