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 the I.Motivation II. Background III. Analysis: Reexamining Reprocessing IV. Policy Recommendation

3. Why Nuclear? the

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

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

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 Application Under Review Yucca Mountain Repository

9. Worldwide Reprocessing Advantag es: – Reduct ion in high level waste – More efficie nt use of fuel supply Disadvan tages : – Prolife ration risk from separa tion of plutoni um – Not econo mical with curren t uraniu m prices Source: Idaho National Lab, 2008

10. Aqueous Reprocessing Technologies Pyro – 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 – 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 – Utilizes aqueous reprocessing – U and Pu separated => recovered Pu inserted into new fuel – One-pass recycle => not fully “closed” fuel cycle Source: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, 2003

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 Full actinide recycling dramatically reduces radiotoxicity Source: Idaho National Lab, 2008

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

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

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

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. 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. Reexamining Reprocessing: Summary of Analysis – –

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