SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL

PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?

1






Should the United States Adopt Reprocessing Techniques for
Nuclear Waste Products?
Eric Skare
Jake Solberg
Wilmar Tropezado




















SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
2

-- Abstract --

The production of nuclear power is once again being discussed around the globe.
This is a controversial solution to the worlds energy and pollution problems. Nuclear
power contributes to the majority of power generation in several countries and
compliments energy production in many others. The United States is one of the leading
producers of nuclear power in the world. In this sense, there may be a need for new
processes and management strategies for handling radioactive waste in the United States.
Large repositories (storage facilities) for spent fuel are in operation in the United States
and contain large volumes of spent fuel. The spent fuel products from nuclear power are
not completely spent, meaning they still produce energy. Reprocessing techniques for
spent fuel recycling have been developed and continue to be researched. Some countries
use reprocessing techniques by a closed loop process that recycles the waste materials
generated. The United States could adopt reprocessing techniques to reduce the volume of
radioactive waste and to make nuclear power more competitive.
















SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
3
-- Background --

Radioactive waste is produced through the NFC (Nuclear Fuel Cycle) shown in figure
1 below. The NFC results in the production of radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is split
up into different categories relating to the scope of radiation in the material. Ranging from
high-level waste (HLW), low-level waste (LLW), spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and sealed
radioactive sources (SRS) from medical uses. The ideal fueling process of a nuclear reactor
involves using newly fabricated uranium oxide fuel that contains up to 3-5% 235U and about
95-97% 238U (Lee 2014). Almost 80% of the 235U is absorb in the burning process by fission
reactions and 20% by neutron capture to 236U. By using neutron capture the 236U is
converted to 237Np and 25% of that product is converted to 238U. About 93% of the 238U
consumed is burned by neutron capture into 239Pu and 7% by fast neutron fission (Lee
2014). The fuel is in the shape of ceramic Pu/U oxide pellets in a metal rod. At the end of
the NFC cycle the fuel is considered spent or SNF.
In an Open NFC process the spent nuclear fuel is disposed as HLW. The Open NFC
Process does not account for the extra fissile Uranium and weapons grade Plutonium
located in the spent fuel. The Closed Loop NFC process on the other hand reproduces the
SNF using the technique PUREX(Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by Extraction) shown
below in figure 2. The PUREX process involves using a chemical solvent to extract the
uranium and plutonium that formed during the fuel burn-up process and after this stage is
achieved the remaining HLW is disposed (Lee 2014). The extra Uranium is brought back to
the conversion cycle and the Plutonium is converted to MOX (Mixed Oxide) fuel, which
contains more than one oxide of fissile material.
The United States of America exclusively uses open NFC processes due to the
extraction of weapons grade plutonium in the closed Loop NFC process. This is due in part
to the fear of the proliferation or spread of nuclear weapon grade plutonium generated in
the closed NFC process that separates Pu from the HLW. The start of policies in the United
States began with plutonium-fueled reactors in 1974. India was able to produce a nuclear
bomb made from the plutonium separated with reprocessing technology provided by the
United States. (Hippel 2001). In 1977 President Jimmy Carter enacted a new government
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
4
policy that ruled out reprocessing plants as a new facet of US non-proliferation policy
(Madic 2014). Another case of Plutonium proliferation concern was the nuclear crisis in
Iran. It was entirely focused on whether their nuclear plants were extracting the weapons
grade Plutonium or if it was used for refueling. The waste created from the nuclear power
plants has also becoming a relevant issue in politics today. The Yucca Mountain in Nevada
was designed to store up to 77,000 metric tons of spent fuel and was projected to open in
January 1998. However, due to technical issues at the site that could lead to human
exposure, the site has yet to be opened (Eugene 2014). The Obama administration even
withdrew funding to finish the project that resulted in the US to deal with an excess
amount of nuclear waste with repository.



Figure 1: Nuclear Fuel Cycle (Lee 2014)
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
5

Figure 2: Differences of Open and Closed NFC (Lee 2014)


-- Review of Literature --

For this paper, research was done on scholarly articles to analyze the pros and cons
of reprocessing the spent fuel within nuclear reactor systems and compared them with the
current direct disposal processes in the United States. This paper focuses on the topics of
concern for making the decision to whether or not the United States should adopt
reprocessing techniques. These topics include the efficiency of nuclear source material, the
environmental and societal effects near the repository locations, and an analysis of the
economic results of implementing reprocessing techniques.
The goal of reprocessing spent fuel in nuclear plants is to increase the amount of
usable energy from the fuel source. This is done by recovering unused uranium and
plutonium in the spent fuel and thereby making it a closed fuel cycle. Reusing the spent fuel
in light water reactors (LWR), for example, can yield 25% to 30% more energy from the
original uranium fuel per unit mass (World Nuclear Association 2013). This is due to the
fact that the fission energy released in LWRs comes mostly from the chain reaction of the
isotope 235U. This isotope makes up 0.7% of natural uranium and several percent in the
uranium fuel. The remainder of the fuel is composed of 238U. Neutron capture of the 238U
produces the Plutonium isotope 239Pu. 239Pu contains as much releasable fission energy as
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
6
235U. This 239Pu has the potential to increase the amount of energy extracted from a gram of
uranium by up to 100 fold (Hippel 2001). However it is difficult to reach the entirety of this
increase in energy. Breeder Reactors would be required to extract all the reprocessed fuel
and breeder reactors are not commercially available. For example, France is commonly
known to be the most successful country in reprocessing and they only recycle roughly
28% of their fuel by mass (Silverio 2011). Even so, the potential energy output of
reprocessing alone is enough for the United States to consider adopting reprocessing spent
fuel techniques.
Of course energy output is not the only topic of concern when it comes to
reprocessing techniques, the effects of the reprocessed waste on the environment and the
concerns of local residents in the waste repository areas also should be considered. In
order to truly understand the risks associated with the radioactivity of both direct disposal
and reprocessed disposal, we must first examine the isotope composition and decay types
of the fuel, fission, and waste products. The amount of spent fuel depends on the burn-up
rate (thermal energy) of the fuel per unit mass and is different for every reactor. LWRs, for
example, have a typical burnup of around 50 GWd/tHM. The spent fuel produced is
composed of roughly 93.4% uranium (0.7% 235U), 5.2% fission products, 1.2% plutonium
(12 kg of plutonium), and 0.2% minor transuranic elements (Feivson 2011). The recycling
process produces some high-level radioactive wastes (plutonium and other fission
products). The plutonium is composed of the isotopes 239Pu and 242Pu where 6% of the
plutonium is 242Pu by weight. These plutonium isotopes alpha decays to 235U and 238U. The
238U has a relatively stable and long half-life that is not the high level waste of concern. The
235U, however, again alpha decays to 231Th. The majority of these spent fuel products decay
within a decade to the relatively stable thorium and 238U isotopes. These waste products
must be treated properly when moving them from the cold pool storage at the reactor site,
to the permanent storage repository. The alpha radiation is radioactive and poses a threat
to the health of people in the near vicinity. The health hazard is in the airborne ionizing
radiation that can cause cancer in human tissue. This alpha radiation is easily stopped by
containment structures due to the fact that alpha radiation particles interact with almost
anything, even material like paper can stop the radiation. One should note that unlike in the
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
7
direct disposal method, the plutonium is separated from the uranium and other products in
the recycling process and must be managed carefully to avoid exposure. The first
management step of the spent fuel from the reactors is to unload the products into a water-
filled cool pool that is located at the reactor site. This pool allows the heat and radiation
levels of the spent fuel products to decrease throughout a year or over a decade. Once the
spent fuel has stabilized, it may then be transferred to a larger air-cooled dry cask storage
repository, like the massive repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This paper
will go into further detail on the issues associated with Yucca Mountain later in this report.
Storage of high-level reprocessing and plutonium waste require containment for periods of
time that may take up to a million years to maintain the release of radioactivity into the
environment. Reprocessing spent fuels reduces the volume of high-level waste to roughly
one fifth of the direct disposal waste. The radioactivity of this waste is also less and falls
drastically after around the 100-year mark. (World Nuclear Association 2013).
The concern of residents in local areas of nuclear repositories is the mobility of
radioactive agents over the long storage period. The mobility is relatively low in the
conditions that are planned at Yucca Mountain for example. Yucca Mountain is located
above the water table in the desert keeping it safe from oxidizing conditions. However, in
time the waste may become exposed to water that may leak into the repository facility.
This water may then increase the mobility and allow the radioactive agents to reach the
surface (Ojovan 2014). This is an unacceptable long-term hazard to local residents and
policy makers in the area. The half-life of the isotope 239Pu is roughly 24,000 years. This
had lead to the proposal for chemical separation and neutron transmutation of all non-
uranium, long-lived isotopes in the spent fuel. The downside to this proposal is that it
would greatly increase the cost of nuclear power. Another downside to this is that none of
the dose reductions seem large enough to warrant the expense and the additional
operational risk of transmutation (Hippel 2001). In either case, the residents complain
that storage facilities like Yucca Mountain will decrease property values, loss of tourism in
Las Vegass case, as well as the possible detrimental environmental effects. This loss of
value in Nevada is just one of the economical effects that result from reprocessing spent
fuel techniques.
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
8
The economics of managing the spent fuel from nuclear reactors has become an
intense debate for determining United States policy on reprocessing. Whether it is better to
dispose this nuclear waste into permanent geological repositories, or reprocess it to
recover and recycle the uranium and plutonium and disposing only the wastes that comes
out of the reprocessing cycle. But one cannot simply walk into Mordor and compare the
cost of reprocessing vs. direct disposal alone, because other costs of both cycles may be
ignored (Boromir 3rd age of Middle Earth). Instead, this question should be asked as: what
are the full operating costs of a reactor for making a decision between reprocessing and
recycling the spent fuel or directly disposing it could expect to face on each route (Bunn
2003)? Over the years, analysts have argued that the costs of reprocessing vs. direct
disposal are similar, and that over time the costs of reprocessing would be more cost-
effective decision because of inflating uranium prices. In an article by the John F. Kennedy
School of Government, presented that marginal costs between reprocessing and recycling
vs. direct disposal are wide and will continue to stay for many decades to come.
Countries around the world have started to adopt the reprocessing cycle for their
spent nuclear fuel. In 2001, the German government extended the decision to store their
spent fuel at reactor sites if nuclear utilities stopped shipping spent fuel abroad for
reprocessing. That being said, the decision to stop shipment of spent fuel and to build local
reprocessing plant has become a bigger incentive for nuclear utilities. Japan, an island with
limited space and land for direct disposal are too ending foreign reprocessing and are
completing a 2.4 trillion (about US $20 billion) reprocessing plant which was committed
in 1980. The incentive to build new reprocessing plants would generate large numbers of
high-paying jobs showing that the reprocessing plant is more acceptable for the local
government than permanent fuel storage (Hippel 2001). In Sellafield of the United
Kingdom, the first commercial reprocessing waste facility was started in 1952 that was
operated by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL). This facility processed only Magnox fuel that is a
magnesium alloy that encases the uranium-metal fuel that was processed from United
Kingdoms reactors. BNFL planned to upgrade the plant in 1986, which was expected to
cost at about $6 billion. This enabled the plant to reprocess 1500 metric tons per year of
capacity for uranium oxide fuel. The UK has had several reprocessing contracts with
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
9
utilities from countries around the world such as Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany (Buckham 1990). Headquartered in Velizy-
Villacoublay, France, the Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleares (COGEMA) is a fuel
reprocessor that reprocesses and recycle uranium and plutonium costing approximately
7.9 mils/kWh (mill is a tenth of a cent) generated by the utility, which is close to 8.2
mils/kWh for a one-through cycle without reprocessing. The costs of reprocessing vs. one-
through cycles may vary among different factors. COGEMA has 800 metric tons of
reprocessing capacity per year. They have two plants located in Marcoule and LaHauge. In
addition to reprocessing their own spent fuel, COGEMA has contracts to reprocess spent
fuel from utilities in Belgium, Japan, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany.
COGEMA planned to construct a new reprocessing plant costing $9 billion that was
completed in 1992 and is subjected to employ 6000-8000 people (Buckham 1990).
Although the benefits of reprocessing may change the future of nuclear power, there
are negatives to this side of reproduction. Reprocessing comes at a high price of roughly
$1000 per kilogram of heavy metal (kgHM) and Uranium costing at about $40/kgU (Bunn
2003). Because of such significantly high prices for reprocessing, this would add an
additional cost of 1.2 mill/kWh for electricity. Even with a price not likely to be seen for
decades, if the Uranium price rose to $130/kgHM the consequences for reprocessing
would still be about 1 mill/kWh. If the reprocessing price were $1500/kgHM with a price
of $40/kgU the cost of electricity would nearly double to 2.5 mill/kWh. At $1000/kgHM
and $40/kgU, the full costs attributable to spent fuel management (after taking account of
appropriate credits or charges for the recovered plutonium and uranium from
reprocessing) are 87% greater for reprocessing and recycling than for direct disposal, and
amount to an additional expense of roughly $1 million per year (Bunn 2003). In 2001 the
estimate for the waste disposal program in the United States accumulated to $57.5 billion.
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
10

Figure 3: The additional cost of electricity (COE, mil/kWh) for the reprocessing-recycle
option for reprocessing prices of $500, $1000, $1500, and $2000/kgHM, compared to the
cost of electricity for the direct-disposal option (Bunn 2014)

With a steady decline of foreign customers for reprocessing, both Britain and France
are questioning themselves whether to continue the costly cycle of reprocessing spent fuel.
Studies show that if France stops reprocessing, they will save 28 to 39 billion francs (US $4
to 5 billion) over the lifetime of its current nuclear power reactors (Hippel 2001).
Commercial reprocessing is expensive. The French fuel reprocessor at LaHague is the
worlds largest commercial reprocessing center that cost 90 billion francs to build (over
$16 billion in 2003). Not only did it cost billions of dollars to construct, but also processing
chemically radioactive spent fuel, while maintaining adequate safety protocols requires
highly trained personnel (Bunn 2003). The BNFLs facility called the Thermal Oxide
Reprocessing Plant (THORP) is also one of the biggest commercial reprocessing plants in
the world. The THORP facility cost roughly $5.9 billion (in 2003) to build with an estimated
capacity of 800 metric tons of heavy metal per year. For a reprocessing plant that functions
similarly as the THORP facility, the minimum price would be in the range of $1350 per
kilogram of spent fuel reprocessed. In the future, if reprocessing were to play a significant
part in nuclear power, these new facilities would have to be built to replace existing
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
11
reprocessing plants. If the price of uranium were at $50/kgU, the breakeven price for
reprocessing would be at $425/kgHM. Now if the uranium price were to substantially rise
to $80/kgU within the next few decades, the breakeven price for reprocessing would only
rise to $480/kgmHM that is almost a 75% reduction (Bunn 2003). This shows that the
reprocessing cycle would only be beneficial if uranium prices significantly rose.

Figure 4: Breakeven uranium price as a function of the cost of reprocessing, for
various sets of assumptions about the cost of other fuel-cycle services (Bunn 2014)











SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
12
-- Conclusion --

Whether or not the United States agrees to convert their nuclear power plants is
based on several factors that are difficult to approach. Security of the excess plutonium
generated was the main reason as to why the United States continues to use the open NFC
process. For the United States to invest in the process with a clear conscience a security
plan must be made to enable the protection of the reproduced plutonium. The energy
output per unit mass of fuel in closed NFC processes is in favor of adopting this technique.
The environmental concerns can be minimized if spent fuels are managed responsibly but
continue to disturb the public. The initial economic burden of installing reprocessing plants
will continue to hinder policy makers from adopting reprocessing techniques. There is no
clear solution to this debate, but hopefully the United States can make this a more
economically viable option in the future to help increase energy security in the country so
we may live long and prosper.


















SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
13
-- References --

"Agreements Abound at France-China Summit." Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel. World
Nuclear Association, Sept. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2014. <http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-
Fuel/>

Buckham, James A., Alan S. Goldfarb, Lawrence T. Lakey, A. G. Croff, and T. H. Row.
"Nuclear Waste Reprocessing." Nuclear Waste Management . Encyclopedia of Chemical
Processing and Design (pp. 400-405), 1990. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BiywGdlot9kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA404
&dq=nuclear+waste+reprocessing&ots=2qQZ-pgxWD&sig=wJ-
zjW884c0N3GJCCCan9BIUtuY#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20waste%20reprocessing&
f=false>

Bunn, Matthew, Steve Fetter, John P. Holdren, and Bob Van Der Zwaan. "The Economics of
Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal Of Spent Nuclear Fuel." Harvard University. John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Dec. 2003. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
<http://ocw.ateneo.net/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-812j-managing-nuclear-
technology-spring-2004/readings/repro_report.pdf>

Feivson, Harold, Zia Mian, M. V. Ramana, and Frank Von Hippel. "Spent Fuel From Nuclear
Power Reactors." The International Panel of Fissile Materials. Princeton University,
June 2011. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.

Hylko, James M. "Waste Types and Volumes Generated From a Pressurized Water Reactor
and a Comparably-Sized Coal-Fired Plant." Roy F. Weston, Inc., 2001. Web. 17 Apr.
2014.

Madic, Charles. "Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel." Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel.
Woodhead Publishing, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES ADOPT REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RECYCLING SPENT FUEL
PRODUCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
14
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5993/762.full.pdf?sid=b77ca843-e48b-4055-
ad30-7894b900752a>

Ojovan, Michael I., and W. E. Lee. An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation.
Walthan, MA: Elsevier, 2014. Sciencedirect. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080993928000085>.

Rosa, Eugene A., and Seth P. Tuler. "Nuclear Waste: Knowledge Waste?" Science Mag.
AAAS, 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5993/762.full.pdf?sid=b77ca843-e48b-4055-
ad30-7894b900752a>.

Silverio, Leticia B., and Wendell De Q. Lamas. "An Analysis of Development and Research on
Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing." Elsevier. Sciencedirect, 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

Von Hippel, Frank N. "Plutonium and Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel." Science. (Vol 293,
pp. 2397-2398) Princeton, Sept. 2001. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/articles/Sciencev293n5539.pdf>