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

Sustainability Of U.S. Nuclear Energy:Waste Management And

The Question Of Reprocessing

Nathan R. LeeAmerican Nuclear Society

2010 WISE InternshipAugust 4, 2010

Outline of Presentation

the

I. Motivation

II. Background

III. Analysis: Reexamining Reprocessing

IV. Policy Recommendation

Why Nuclear?

the

U.S. Nuclear’s Problem:Waste Management

Contained Pools

No Long-termSolution Implemented

Dry Casks

Waste Management Options

Direct DisposalSpent Fuel Geological Repository

Reprocessing/Recycling

vs.

What Is the “Waste”?

Enriched Uranium

Source: Department of Energy Nuclear Energy Roadmap, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reexamining Reprocessing:Waste Burden

Full actinide recyclingdramatically reduces radiotoxicity

Source: Idaho National Lab, 2008

Reexamining Reprocessing:Economics and Fuel Supply

Price of uranium is not a present concern.

Source: International Panel on Fissile Materials, 2007

Reexamining Reprocessing:Economics and “Breakeven” Price Analysis

“Breakeven” uranium price for reprocessing satisfies the following:

Plutonium Recycle Breakeven Price: $360 per kilogram of uranium (kgU)

Full Actinide Recycle Breakeven Price: $340 kgU

Current Uranium Price: $45 kgU

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= –

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.

Dos

e ra

te re

lativ

e to

IAEA

sel

f-pro

tecti

on st

anda

rd

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

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

–

–

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.

AcknowledgementsDr. Alan Levin American Nuclear Society (ANS)Chris Henderson, Tim Kobetz Nuclear Regulatory CommissionSarah Leversee ANS Fellow, Senator CorkerRichie Hayes, Steve Kraft, Rod McCullum Nuclear Energy InstituteJohn Buydos Library of CongressDr. James Bresee Department of EnergyErica Wissolik Inst. of Electrical/onics Engineers My Fellow Interns WISE

[email protected]