There are about 557 nuclear power reactors in
the world and about 440 are
operating in early 2005. These reactors have common elements
that uranium oxide enriched to 3-4% 235U
is fabricated into pellets then inserted into fuel rods. These
rods are neutron emitters and, in close proximity with each other,
begin a self-sustaining
chain reaction releasing energy and producing new elements by the
fission of the uranium and producing plutonium (239Pu)
by nuclear chain reactions. These fuel rods generally can supply energy
from the fission reaction for 1-3 years. They are then removed
and replaced by new rods.
Spent fuel from nuclear reactors still contains
considerable amounts of 235 U but now has generated
significant 239Pu. After 3 years in a reactor, 1,000
lbs. of 3.3-percent-enriched uranium (967 lbs. 238 U and 33
lbs. 235U) contain 8 lbs. of 235U and 8.9 lbs.
of plutonium isotopes along with 943 lbs. of 238U and
assorted fission products. Separating the 235U and 239Pu
from the other components of spent fuel significantly addresses two
major concerns. It greatly reduces the long-lived radioactivity of the
residue and it allows purified 235U and 239Pu
to be used as reactor fuel. (Courtesy of the Uranium Information
Center)
Three options are available for cooled spent fuel rods; they can
remain
at the sites from which they have been removed from service, be moved
to a more permanent site for storage or they can be reprocessed to
remove the uranium and plutonium. In either case, these fuel rods must
cool in storage ponds near the reactor for several months in order to
reduce their short-lived radioactivity and to allow them to dissipate
their initial high thermal energy. Reprocessing involves chopping up
the fuel rods and dissolving the pieces.
The
plutonium and uranium are then removed and chemically separated.
The byproducts of reprocessing, transuranic elements and fission
products can be encapsulated in glass and disposed as waste. Gaseous
diffusion or other processes can be used to enrich the uranium. The
plutonium can be mixed with enriched uranium to make mixed
oxide (MOX)
reactor fuel. Purified plutonium can also be used for nuclear weapons.
Great Britain and France have built large reprocessing plants to
produce MOX fuel. They reprocess spent fuel not only from reactors in
their respective countries, but also from reactors in other nations.
At one time, the United States planned to use a plutonium-uranium
extraction
(PUREX) process to for this separation. But no spent fuel from
nuclear power plants has been reprocessed in the US. In
1977 President Carter established national policy that prohibited
reprocessing based on the premise that limiting plutonium would limit
the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Although
President Reagan reversed this policy, reprocessing has never been
initiated in the US.
But in science, what can be done, will be done. Local
policy seldom deters the ambitions of the entire environment.
The French have reprocessed power plant spent fuel rods at the COGEMA
LaHague site
since 1966. The French see reprocessing as ecologically sound,
economical and profitable and as demonstrating scientific leadership on
a world stage.
Quite naturally, the rise of organized
terrorism since about 1990, culminating in the destruction of the Twin
Towers in New York has focused attention on all aspects of nuclear
material management. As an example, the LaHague site was
surrounded for a time by antiaircraft missiles for a time after the
2001 terrorist attacks.
In the US spent rods are
currently stored at locations near the approximately 70 plants
throughout the country. US fuel rod disposal planning anticipates
opening a facility at Yucca Mountain, NV by 2012 for permanent burial
of spent rods.
October 2, 2003, 1:25pm EDT NORTH
KOREA SAYS FUEL RODS PROCESSED FOR NUCLEAR BOMBS
North Korea said Thursday it had processed some 8,000 spent
fuel
rods that could be used to make atomic bombs, another in a series of
moves in the ongoing nuclear standoff with Pyongyang.
A statement issued by the North Korean Foreign Ministry said
it
would continue to pursue its nuclear program because of the "hostile
policy" of the United States toward the communist North.
"(North
Korea) successfully finished the reprocessing of some 8,000 spent fuel
rods," said the statement, published by the official KCNA news agency.
U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the United States has no
evidence North Korea has reprocessed the spent nuclear fuel rods."This
is the third time they have told us they have just finished
reprocessing the rods. We have no evidence to confirm that," Powell
said at a news briefing. Pyongyang has pointed to the
so-called "hostile" policy of the United States as a key reason for its
January withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its
decision to expel U.N. inspectors from its nuclear facilities.North
Korea has said before that it completed reprocessing its pool of spent
rods, but Thursday marked the first time it claimed to be using
plutonium gathered from the rods to make nuclear weapons. The country's
recent claims about its nuclear developments have not been
independently confirmed."We will reprocess more spent
fuel rods to be churned out in an unbroken chain from the 5 mw
(megawatt) nuclear reactor in Yongbyon without delay when we deem it
necessary," the statement said, referring to the North's nuclear
plant.The
statement also said North Korea "made a switchover in the use of
plutonium churned out by reprocessing spent fuel rods in the direction
(of) increasing its nuclear deterrent force." Analyses
by diplomats and regional observers indicate that the North's statement
fits a pattern of tactics intended to help its negotiating position in
international talks."This is what North Korea always does
before negotiating," Jin Canrong, an international relations expert at
the People's University in Beijing, told Reuters. "They throw out a few
new balls."The North's statement dismissed as groundless
reports that more international talks could be held soon, similar to
the six-way summit on the North's nuclear program held in late August
by North and South Korea, Japan, the United States, Russia and
China.But
the North notably did not rule out the possibility for more talks
altogether in its statement.South
Korean Vice Unification Minister Cho Kun-shik said at a briefing in
Seoul the North would respond to future calls for new talks."They are
not in a position to oppose talks," he said.South Korea's Foreign
Ministry urged the North in a statement not to take steps that would
further escalate the situation."The
North's announcement was very regrettable," South Korean Foreign
Ministry spokesman Shin Bong-kil said. "We are deeply concerned it not
only undermines inter-Korean relations and efforts for the peaceful
resolution of the nuclear issues but hurts the atmosphere for dialogue
set by the previous talks."In his comments to reporters, Powell called
on the North's neighbors to urge it to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
"North
Korea's neighbors should also be delivering a message to Kim Jong Il
that the solution to the problem is for them to stop moving in this
direction (and to) continue to participate in the diplomacy that is
under way," Powell said. U.S. intelligence analysts have
expressed concern that North Korea might have three, four or even six
nuclear weapons instead of the one or two the Central Intelligence
Agency now estimates, according to an Associated Press report. Powell
said the United States was still willing to consider some security
guarantees to ease the nuclear tensions with the North."We
are examining ways ... to provide the kinds of security assurances that
might help to move the process further along," he said. "We will
continue to pursue diplomacy." The reprocessing of 8,000
rods could yield enough material to create 20 nuclear bombs, Yu
Suk-ryul, a professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National
Security in Seoul, told Reuters. But he said North Korea did not have
the expertise to produce that many bombs -- perhaps five or six in
about six months.
North Korea Special
Collection
http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/repro.htm
Factsheet
on North Korean Nuclear Reprocessing
Statement
Updated April 23, 2003
On 18 April 2003, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the
official North Korean news agency, published a statement by a Foreign
Ministry
spokesperson about the recently announced Beijing talks. According to
KCNA’s English translation, the North Korean spokesman declared that
North
Korea was “successfully reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at
the final phase as we sent interim information to the U.S. and other
countries
concerned early in March after resuming our nuclear activities from
December
last year.” Several Western media sources have reported this statement
as
an official declaration that North Korea has started to reprocess its
8,000
spent fuel rods. However, a close look at the original Korean text
shows that
KCNA provided an inaccurate English translation of the original
statement. The
Korean-language text should be translated as “We are successfully
making
progress in the last stages towards the task of reprocessing the
approximately
8,000 spent fuel rods.” The Korean text implies progress is being made
in
the final stages necessary to begin reprocessing, but does not specify
what
tasks remain to be completed before plutonium can be separated from the
spent
fuel rods. This text is somewhat ambiguous, but is definitely not a
straightforward declaration that reprocessing has started [which would
be
phrased differently in Korean]. After the Foreign Ministry statement
was
released, a U.S. official told Reuters the United States had “no
information to indicate that North Korea has begun reprocessing.”
Given the controversy over the different implications between the
Korean
and English versions of the Foreign Ministry statement, KCNA issued a
corrected
version of the English translation on April 21st. It corrected the
original
translation to read “We are successfully going forward to reprocess
work
of more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at the final phase...” South
Korea’s Yonhap News Agency reported that a KCNA employee claimed to
have
made the correction based on his personal judgment in order to better
reflect
the original Korean text in the English translation. He stated that the
corrected translation was made without any instruction from or
discussion with
the North Korean government. Despite the correction, the statement
still remains
ambiguous.
The North Korean statement was the first official comment by
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) about the upcoming
trilateral meetings between the United States, North Korea and China
that began
in Beijing on April 23rd. According to the North Korean Foreign
Ministry
spokesperson, the Chinese government’s role was solely as host and
“the essential issues related to the settlement of the nuclear issue
will
be discussed between the DPRK and the U.S.” Despite this rhetoric, the
inclusion of a third party is a concession by North Korea, which had
previously
demanded bilateral talks with Washington. The Bush administration had
also made
a significant concession in agreeing to limit the talks to three
parties,
instead of the multilateral talks including Japan and South Korea that
Washington had originally demanded. Despite being excluded from this
initial
round of talks, both the South Korean and Japanese governments have
come out in
favor of the meetings. The Bush administration has given clear
indications that
Washington expects both Seoul and Tokyo to take an active part in
future rounds
of discussions.
Original English text of
the DPRK statement issued by the Korean Central
News Agency (KCNA), 18 April 2003
“The DPRK-U.S. talks for the
settlement of the nuclear issue on the
Korean peninsula is slated to open in Beijing shortly. At the talks the
Chinese
side will play a relevant role as the host state and the essential
issues
related to the settlement of the nuclear issue will be discussed
between the
DPRK and the U.S.
There is a wide range of
international opinion on the Beijing talks as they
are to open at a time when the Iraqi war was fought.
The Iraqi war teaches a
lesson that in order to prevent a war and defend
the security of a country and the sovereignty of a nation it is
necessary to
have a powerful physical deterrent force only.
As we have
already declared, we are successfully
reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at the final phase, as we
sent
interim information to the U.S. and other countries concerned early in
March
after resuming our nuclear activities from December last year.
We have already clarified our
stand that if the U.S. has a willingness to
make a bold switchover in its Korea policy, we will not stick to any
particular
dialogue format, and we would like to confirm the U.S. intention in the
forthcoming talks.”
Corrected version of paragraph 4 of the
original translation, as of 21 April 2003
As we have
already declared, we are successfully going
forward to reprocess work of more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at the
final phase
as we sent interim information to the U.S. and other countries
concerned early
in March after resuming our nuclear activities from December last
year.
Questions and Answers about the North Korean
statement
1) Does this statement give any firm indications about
North Korea’s nuclear intentions?
The timing of the statement
suggests that North Korea is trying to develop additional leverage
prior to the
start of talks with the United States next week. By announcing its
readiness to
begin reprocessing—but not actually starting to reprocess—North
Korea is signaling the United States that if negotiations do not
produce an
acceptable deal, it can proceed quickly to produce additional plutonium
that
could be used in nuclear weapons. This brinksmanship is consistent with
past
North Korea negotiating tactics, such as North Korea’s 1993
announcement
of its intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(which was
ultimately suspended one day before it took effect).
An alternative
interpretation is that North Korea may attempt to use its willingness
to
negotiate with the United States as cover for beginning to reprocess
its 8,000
spent fuel rods. By indicating a willingness to resolve the crisis
through
negotiations, North Korea could try to defuse the international
reaction to
reprocessing and reduce the chance of a U.S. pre-emptive strike against
North
Korean nuclear facilities.
2) Would the United States know if North
Korea actually started reprocessing?
Yes. There are two major signatures
for reprocessing. The first is the emission of krypton-85 (Kr-85), a
radioactive
gas, from a reprocessing facility. The second is thermal signatures
emanating
from the facility. Both signatures can be detected remotely. Kr-85 can
be
detected by air sampling relatively far from the site, and the thermal
signature
can be detected by infrared sensors on satellites. The United States is
capable
of using both methods. U.S. government officials have expressed
confidence that
North Korean reprocessing would be detected quickly. However, no
signatures have
been detected to date that would indicate actual reprocessing has
started.
3) If North Korea decided to begin reprocessing, how much
plutonium could they produce and how quickly could they produce it?
U.S.
intelligence officials claim that North Korea already possesses enough
fissile
material for one to two nuclear weapons. This material came from
plutonium
extracted from spent fuel rods removed from the 5MW(e) Experimental
reactor in
1989. Both China and Russia have expressed doubts that the DPRK has the
technical capacity to construct a working nuclear warhead. North Korea
has not
tested nuclear weapons, although there are indications that they
successfully
completed high explosive tests necessary for triggering a nuclear
weapon. North
Korea’s nuclear program appears to be capable of at least developing a
small nuclear arsenal. The most immediate concern, as evident from the
North
Korean statement, is the 8,000 spent-fuel rods still held in storage at
the
Yongbyon nuclear complex. If these spent-fuel rods were to be
reprocessed,
Pyongyang would have enough plutonium for approximately five nuclear
weapons,
and the process would only take a few months once reprocessing began.
In the
medium-term, the 5MW(e) Experimental Reactor could also produce enough
plutonium
for approximately one nuclear device per year. North Korea’s capacity
could be further expanded with the addition of the currently unfinished
50MW(e)
reactor in Yongbyon-kun and a 200MW(e) reactor in T’aech’on-kun.
These facilities could be operational within five years and together
have the
potential to produce enough plutonium for 35 to 50 bombs annually.
Although less developed than the plutonium program, North Korea’s
HEU program may be capable of producing enough fissile material to
construct six
bombs annually within the next few years. Unlike plutonium facilities,
HEU
facilities are difficult to detect. It is unclear how far the North
Korean HEU
program has progressed. However, a CIA estimate from late 2002 claimed
that
North Korea might have a gas-centrifuge enrichment facility within
three years.
If that estimate is accurate, a North Korean HEU program could produce
enough
fissile material for six weapons per year starting in 2006. (See North
Korea's
Nuclear Program: Key Concerns,
http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/index.htm.)
4) If North Korea
begins reprocessing, how will the United States respond?
The United
States has not publicly stated how it would respond if North Korea
began
reprocessing. However, the United States is widely believed to have
privately
warned North Korea not to take this step. Possible U.S. responses might
include
withdrawing from further talks, efforts to get the United Nations
Security
Council to authorize sanctions against North Korea, or a pre-emptive
strike
against North Korean nuclear facilities. (See Military Options
for
Dealing with North Korea's Nuclear Program,
http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm.)
5) What implications
will the North Korean statement have for the scheduled talks?
The
statement suggests that North Korea will adopt a tough negotiating
position in
the talks and is not intimidated enough to make major concessions
without
getting anything in return. North Korea is also signaling its
willingness to
move forward with reprocessing if the United States proves unwilling to
negotiate an acceptable deal.
The impact will also depend on how the Bush
administration reacts. If the Bush administration was seeking an excuse
to back
away from the talks, the North Korean statement did provide one.
However, the
United States could instead respond by demanding that North Korea not
reprocess
its spent fuel as a condition for U.S. participation in the talks. One
option
could be for China—the third party in the talks—to send personnel to
the North Korean nuclear facilities to verify that reprocessing has not
begun.
In exchange, the United States could agree to forego any military
options while
North Korea is negotiating in good faith.
6) What impact will the
North Korean statement have on U.S. policy toward the nuclear crisis?
The
statement likely confirmed the views of many Bush administration
officials that
North Korea will be a difficult negotiating partner that cannot be
trusted to
live up to its agreements. This will increase U.S. demands for
iron-clad
verification clauses in any agreement.
More broadly, there are two key
unresolved questions about the negotiations. Is North Korea willing to
give up
its current and potential nuclear weapons capability in a visible,
verifiable,
and irreversible way? If so, what is the United States willing to give
North
Korea in return? The answers to these questions will ultimately
determine
whether a diplomatic settlement of the crisis is
possible.
This factsheet was prepared by Phillip C.
Saunders, Daniel A. Pinkston, Stephanie Lieggi, Mari Sudo, and Charles
Ferguson
of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of
International
Studies.
Nuclear power's future: Reprocessing returns?
Is
nuclear back? The growing energy shortage, combined with the fact of
greenhouse warming, have sparked a flurry of interest in non-carbon
energy sources, including nuclear energy. After all, according to the
Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear is "Clean air energy."
The result is a sudden end to a 30-year drought in U.S.
nuclear-plant applications.
By February, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has
received applications for six new reactors.
The long drought had several causes. Cost was one -- the last U.S.
nuclear plants came in way late and way over budget, partly due to
safety and regulatory changes following the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile
Island. "One reason you saw the stall in nuclear building was that the
uncertainty made investors much more cautious about getting involved,"
says Todd Allen, an assistant professor of nuclear engineering at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. "There was a lack of certainty from
the time of taking out a loan to selling electricity." Regulatory
delays and design changes can eat up profits on such an expensive
plant, he adds.
Reactor operators are now trying to control costs by standardizing
their designs, and the NRC has promised faster regulatory decisions.
Nuclear power makes about 20 percent of U.S. electricity, and about 16
percent globally.
But we see little cause for optimism about a second key source of the
nuclear willies -- safe disposal of the intensely radioactive spent
fuel that must be removed from reactors. The giant, federal
nuclear-waste warehouse at Yucca Mountain, Nev. was supposed to solve
the spent-fuel problem. But Yucca was scheduled to open 10 years ago,
and it is unlikely to open for another 10 years -- if ever.
When
a neutron hits a uranium-235 atom and causes it to split ("fission") in
a nuclear reactor, we get fission products and "transuranics" (heavy
elements like plutonium), along with more neutrons and a gob of energy.
With Yucca in limbo (some scientists say it cannot contain radwaste
for 1 million years), the high-level waste problem remains unsolved.
So in the year that Yucca was supposed to celebrate its 10th birthday,
here's our question: Who's got some good ideas for safely storing
high-level nuclear waste?
These "dry casks" are an increasingly popular,
but temporary, solution to radioactive waste storage at reactor sites.Photo: NRC
Radwaste: The original Mr. Yuck
High-level radwaste -- the yuck Yucca is slated to receive -- is spent
fuel from nuclear reactors, and it's roughly one million times more
radioactive than fresh uranium fuel. High-level waste is extremely
carcinogenic, even lethal, and must be handled by remote control or
under heavy shielding.
Spent fuel can also provide the basis for good ol' explosive
nuclear bombs and dirty bombs (which spew radiation without that
familiar mushroom cloud). So to prevent nuclear proliferation, nuclear
terrorism, and a cancer epidemic, spent fuel must be contained
virtually forever.
The goal at Yucca is to safely store 70,000 tons of radwaste for 1
million years. Over those 10,000 centuries, the radioactive isotopes
will gradually cool and be converted into stable, non-radioactive
isotopes. (Isotopes are versions of an element with a different number
of neutrons. Different isotopes
decay at different rates; with many elements, some isotopes are stable,
others will decay and release radiation.)
For the repository at Yucca, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas,
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would love to follow GambleVille's
marketing mantra ("What radiates near Vegas stays near Vegas"). But
the giant repository is unlikely to open for at least another 10 years,
and in the meantime, spent fuel will continue stacking up at reactors
across the country, making a splendid target for terrorists eager to
release a deadly cloud of radiation or even trigger a nuclear meltdown.
Reprocessing redux?
The slipping schedule at Yucca has refocused attention on nuclear fuel
reprocessing. When uranium fuel is first used in a reactor, it releases
only about 1 percent of its nuclear energy (the fuel must then be
replaced because a buildup of uranium breakdown products interferes
with the chain reaction).
Unfortunately, many of these "fission products," such as cesium 137
and strontium 90, are remarkably radioactive. Still, about 99 percent
of the nuclear energy remains in the spent fuel, mainly in the uranium
235 and plutonium 239. During reprocessing, these isotopes are
separated out and blended into new fuel rods that go into another
reactor. The fission products, however, become high-level radwaste.
Recycling uranium makes more sense than one-time use to many experts,
including radiochemist Peter Burns of Notre Dame University. "Why are
we calling this stuff waste? Why do we have a policy of sending this
stuff to a nuclear waste repository?"
Reframing reprocessing: Miracle of recycling,
or nightmare of proliferation?
Long before Americans were setting their bottles and cans on the curb
for recycling, nuclear folks were thinking about recycling nuclear
fuel. Recycling, AKA "reprocessing," can
Reduce the radioactivity and/or mass of spent
fuel;
Produce more energy from each ton of uranium
mined; and
"Close the fuel cycle" by reducing
environmental impacts during fuel production and disposal.
Protestors
from Greenpeace demonstrate in a blizzard at the gates of the new
Japanese reprocessing plant, in 2004.Photo
by J. Sutton-Hibbert, Greenpeace
At least, that's the theory. The reality of reprocessing is more
contested than the seventh game of a Yankee-Red Sox World Series, and
the process is a bit more complicated than melting aluminum cans into
new cans for Cherry Toothrot TM. Yet while reprocessing is
controversial in the United States, it's common in France, the United
Kingdom, Russia and now Japan.
Here's our quickie reprocessing primer: Robots chop up the hot,
highly radioactive fuel rods, dissolve the chunks in acid, and separate
the plutonium and uranium from the fission products (which block chain
reactions). The uranium and plutonium are then blended into new fuel.
Rejuvenating reprocessing
Thirty years after the United States rejected reprocessing of civilian
nuclear waste, the DOE is reinvestigating reprocessing through the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, initiated in 2006. GNEP offered this
deal to other nations: If you want to use nuclear electricity, the
United States will supply the fuel -- if you promise to send your waste
back to trusty Uncle Sam for reprocessing. Twenty-one nations have
signed on to that program, which also intends to design smaller, safer
reactors for developing countries.
Critics charged that GNEP's emphasis on reprocessing marked a dangerous
and expensive policy about-face. GNEP "undermines U.S. nonproliferation
policy, would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more, and ... [would] not
solve the nuclear waste problem," wrote the Union
of Concerned Scientists and 39 other groups last fall.
Also last fall, a National Research Council report
recommended rejecting GNEP's reprocessing research regime, although it
did favor more restricted research on recycling. (The original GNEP proposal had included
generous funding to build GNEP's infrastructure, but Congress scotched
that part.)
Massive tanks of liquid nuclear waste remain at
the Hanford Site in Washington State after decades of reprocessing to
extract plutonium for nuclear weapons from reactor fuel. Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory and others are working to remediate this
waste, but for chemical and radiological reasons, it's tough slogging.
Although the photo shows the inside of a double-walled tank, some early
tanks have only one wall and pose little barrier to the spread of
radiation. Hanford is on the banks of the Columbia River.Photo: PNL
Reenergizing reprocessing
Gregory Choppin, a professor of chemistry at Florida State University
who has a long acquaintance with radiation chemistry says efficiency is
a key argument for reprocessing, which extracts more energy from the
uranium fuel, and therefore reduces the need to mine uranium. "If we go
into reprocessing to recover the 99.5 percent of unburned uranium, and
recycle it, we would not have to do any more uranium mining for 400
years," says Choppin. "That would be a tremendous advantage because
uranium mining is very dangerous," especially in terms of lung disease,
including cancer.
The coming nuclear boom has skyrocketed the price of uranium, but
the Navajo Nation is still reeling from the last uranium boom, says
Doug Brugge, associate professor of public health at Tufts University.
Brugge says the "federal government has given compensation to over
6,000 uranium miners, millers and other workers" who suffered lung
disease. "The government obviously has pretty stringent standards for
compensation, so that's probably a low estimate, but ... that's a lot
of people who died, or were made ill enough to qualify." In 2005, the
Navajo Nation banned uranium mining, Brugge adds. "Their experience
with uranium was so devastating that it overwhelms any financial
incentives."
But could reprocessing also reduce the burden of finding safe storage
for spent fuel? Yes, says Choppin. "You take out the plutonium,
uranium, and probably some neptunium, which decays into plutonium, and
keep them aside for further burning... so you not only destroy the
plutonium and uranium 235, but you also get a lot of energy out."
However, the extent of reduction is open to debate. According to
Michael Corradini, a professor of engineering physics at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, "You don't reduce the radioactivity that goes
into the ground, you do reduce the volume, so ... you still have to
dispose of the radioactive waste that was caused by the fission. That
solid, compact material still has to be buried."
Drilling at the McArthur River uranium mine in
Canada. Uranium can decay into the gas radon, which causes lung cancer
in uranium miners. Photo: Cameco
Dig this crazy process?
Reprocessing would be a mixed benefit, says John Ahearn, a former
chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and director emeritus of
Sigma Xi, the scientific research society. "It's not a permanent
solution, does not reduce the heat load at all, because it does not get
rid of the real heat-generating material [the fast-decaying fission
products]. It does reduce the volume and mass, because you have pulled
out the uranium, which is a large contribution, and the plutonium,
which is one of the problems."
Ahearn adds that the viability of reprocessing depends "on whether
you can separate all the actinides
[the heavy elements, including uranium and plutonium], and can re-burn
them. These are all technology issues that not been resolved."
Ahearn says reprocessing could reduce the needed volume of the
repository by 30 percent, which "would go a long way toward resolving
the issue of whether there is enough space in Yucca Mountain." Still,
he says the technical questions about reprocessing would need 10 to 20
years of further study, so even if reprocessing proves helpful, it will
not help in the short term.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory staff
collect groundwater samples, looking for radiation leaks from Hanford's
giant "tank farm" holding reprocessing waste from the nuclear-bomb biz.Photo:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Reprehensible reprocessing?
Some observers take a much dimmer view of reprocessing, just as they
did when the issue last surfaced 30 years ago. Reprocessing is "an
incredibly complicated process, and it creates a liquid high-level
waste stream," says Brice Smith, an assistant professor of physics at
the State University of New York at Cortland.
Liquids are inherently tougher to contain than solids, and he says
these wastes would need to be cast into glass or ceramic logs before
going to underground storage. That process "has proven to be a
significant challenge" at federal nuclear sites in Washington State,
Idaho and South Carolina, he adds. "This liquid reprocessing waste
would be very similar in a lot of respects to what we had left over
from nuclear weapons, and it's very expensive" to handle.
Hanford
has 177 radioactive waste storage tanks, built from 1943 to 1985, with
a capacity ranging up to 1.1 million gallons. These are double-shell
tanks, a safety innovation introduced in 1968. Photo: PNL
Reprocessing of military waste does have a nasty environmental history:
Huge tanks of radwaste at federal nuclear sites have awaited safe
disposal for as much as half a century. According to Robert Alvarez, a
nuclear policy specialist at the Institute of Policy Studies, less than
1 percent of defense reprocessing wastes have been stabilized, despite
the spending of billions of dollars on the effort in Washington State
and South Carolina. The rest remains in tanks with varying degrees of
integrity.
Rejecting reprocessing
Alvarez, who was a senior policy advisor in the DOE from 1993 to
1999, says GNEP is unlikely to survive scrutiny. "All this was flying
around at the level of magical thinking, because no-one has taken a
hard look" at the implications. For example, GNEP proposed to remove
the fission products strontium and cesium from the spent fuel, Alvarez
says. "No one has done this before, the amount of radioactivity is
breathtaking; it's billions of curies. This is fantastically hot." (One
curie of radioactive material emits the same radiation as one gram of
radium 226: 37 billion radioactive disintegrations per second.)
This waste would need to be stored above ground for 100 years, before
being diluted and placed in underground storage.
Even if, as GNEP plans, only 1 percent of elements heavier than
uranium (including plutonium, americium and curium) end up in the
waste, Alvarez sees danger. "That turns out to be many times more
curies than was generated by the nuclear arms race."
Overall, GNEP seems rather helter-skelter, Alvarez charges. "These
guys did not have any kind of plan, no estimate of the waste volume,
concentration, how to manage it, dispose of it, and how much it is all
going to cost."
But reprocessing is a big lure for federal nuclear labs and some in
Congress, Alvarez says. "Politicians keep drinking the Kool Aid of
recycling ...without understanding that this is the same thing we had
to deal with 30 years ago" when India got the bomb through
reprocessing. Reprocessing "is not recycling. It is a gateway
technology for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, and it generates a
large amount of waste which will make the [waste] problem worse."
As Alvarez indicates, during reprocessing, plutonium is separated from
spent fuel, and it can then become a primary fuel for nuclear weapons.
The military reactors built during and after World War II were designed
to make plutonium for fission (atomic) and fusion (hydrogen) bombs.
When civilian nuclear power arrived in the 1950s, reprocessing was
suggested as a way to stretch the uranium supply. Then in 1974, India
tested a nuclear bomb
made from reprocessed research-reactor fuel, and Presidents Ford and
Carter rejected reprocessing in the civilian nuclear realm.
Preventing proliferation
Although opponents warn that reprocessing does the dangerous plutonium
separation for nuclear terrorists and states that want the bomb,
observers are not unanimous about the dangers of reprocessing. GNEP,
for example, has proposed to find a technical solution that would block
proliferation during reprocessing. One option is to leave
high-intensity isotopes in the newly made fuel, to make it literally
"too hot to handle."
"Reprocessing is more of a proliferation risk than direct disposal,"
concedes Ahearn, but he thinks it possible to safeguard a reprocessing
plant against proliferation. "There are reprocessing plants in Europe
that have operated for decades, Japan is about to open a huge new one.
I don't know any case where the plutonium from any of those plants has
been stolen."
Choppin says enhanced international cooperation could address
proliferation concerns. "The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]
already does a lot of international inspection of nuclear energy
processes. If the IAEA is allowed to supervise, monitor the
reprocessing, they could keep track of proliferation."
A train used for transporting radioactive
materials in the United Kingdom. Transport containers must resist
fires, accidents and terrorists. Photo:
WNTI
Choppin says anti-proliferation efforts may benefit from a
reorganization of the nuclear infrastructure. "I like a proposal by
South Africa to build four or five reactors around a reprocessing
plant" and reduce vulnerable shipments of nuclear material. "This has
been suggested in Europe, to localize the reactors, so ... all the
dangerous stuff is right there, it's easy to put the safeguards on and
secure" the plutonium.
Basket of waste questions
For 30 years, as some nations reprocessed their spent nuclear fuel, the
U.S. nuclear-waste strategy focused on a "geologic repository;" an
underground wastebasket designed to prevent proliferation and
environmental contamination for up to 1 million years.
Aerial view of Yucca Mountain, Nev., site of
national repository.Photo: Nuclear
Energy Institute
In 1987, Congress chose Nevada for a single national storehouse for
spent civilian fuel, even though the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act had
called for a second repository in the eastern United States. Yucca was
supposed to start accepting spent fuel rods in 1998, but hasn't yet,
and the schedule continues to slip. Indeed, by the time Yucca does open
(the optimistic predictions say in 2018), the national spent-fuel
stockpile will already exceed Yucca's design capacity of 70,000 tons.
In other words, a second waste site will be needed even before the
first one opens its doors. But beyond civilian spent fuel, the overall
radwaste problem also includes low-level waste and an ocean of
high-level liquid waste left over from making 30,000+ nuclear bombs.
Nuclear waste -- spent fuel generated per
year
Spent fuel is not just a problem in the United
States. Europe is also struggling with the problem.Graph by Emmanuelle Bournay, UNEnvironment
Program
Mountain of trouble
About $9-billion into the Yucca project, the storage site remains the
focus of a labyrinth of technical, economic and political questions.
Here's a small sample:
Technical: Can Yucca contain the radiation? How
long before the cans
holding the waste start to leak, and how soon will the radiation reach
the environment?
Economic: Nuclear utilities (and their
customers) have already paid the Department of Energy $27 billion
to finance the Nevada dump, which was supposed to start taking waste in
1998. The utilities have begun winning lawsuits, claiming that they are
paying to store waste that is now the fed's responsibility. These suits
could eventually cost the feds double-digit billions (see #1 in the bibliography).
Political: Plenty of Silver Staters resent having a dump dumped on what
was a weak, under-populated state, in a location already despoiled by
nuclear explosions at the Nevada test site, site of Yucca Mountain. One
vocal local, Harry Reid, happens to be Senate Majority Leader.
Can the canisters contain?
A lot of thought and expense has gone into designing the canisters that
will hold waste at Yucca, but "eventually they will breach," says
radiochemist Burns of Notre Dame. "The canisters are certain to fail,
it's only a matter of how long. In 100 years? No. Maybe in 1,000. It's
pretty much certain at 10,000 or 100,000 years." An earthquake,
volcanic activity or a human intrusion could throw the release schedule
out the window, he adds.
Yucca was chosen because it's remote and dry, but studies have
found that it has an oxidizing environment, Burns says. "The big
problem is that as soon as the canisters breach, the fuel starts to
oxidize and release radioactivity in the groundwater. The bottom line
is that no geologic environment is so sufficiently stable, and no
canister design so robust, that you would expect it to last forever."
Yucca
Mountain, where a radwaste repository is under construction, is inside
the National Test Site, where about 1,000 atomic bombs were tested
between 1951 and 1992.Graphic: Nuclear
Energy Institute
These thoughts lead Burns to favor matching waste and repository
for maximum stability. "Imagine we adopt reprocessing, and create two
or three types of waste forms [such as glass or zeolite]
to handle waste that can't be recycled," then build several geological
repositories with chemical conditions suited to each type of waste. "We
would get the best waste form for the environment," Burns says. "Yucca
would be great for borosilicate [glass], but not for spent fuel. I
imagine deep granite, an anoxic, reducing environment, would be great.
The nuclear fuel would be an order of magnitude more stable, less
soluble."
That approach might work in the long run, but waste continues to pile
up in the short run. Each civilian nuclear power reactor in the United
States has a giant swimming pool full of hot fuel rods -- and many
reactor operators have already exceeded their original design capacity.
These pools could be an irresistible draw to terrorists, who might be
able to start a radiation-spewing fire by draining the pool or shutting
off the cooling-water pump.
The interim storage pool at the French
reprocessing plant, which opened in 1990.Photo:
Areva
Waste not, want not?
This year, as the Department of Energy prepares to finally apply
for a license for its Yucca dump, fuel that can't fit the overloaded
swimming pools at nuclear reactors is being moved to "dry casks,"
air-cooled steel containers that require monitoring and protection
against wackos, but need neither the water nor the pumps used in
cooling ponds.
Dry casks are "now clearly the method of choice," says Ahearn, the
former nuclear regulator. "To build another swimming pool for a reactor
is a whole messy licensing process, and companies have realized that
dry casks are safe and economical; that's the trend."
Some skeptics who question whether Yucca Mountain can or should be
opened say that consolidating the casks would make them easier to
guard. A 50- to 100-year cooling-off period would allow the development
of better waste-disposal technology.
While we've highlighted a thorny dispute about the wisdom of
reprocessing, our experts were unanimous on this: With or without
reprocessing, geologic storage will always be needed for high-level
radioactive waste that must be isolated indefinitely from the
environment and sociopaths.
Rather than fading away, the need for radwaste storage grows more
acute. In the United States, an estimated 55,000 tons of civilian spent
fuel await entombment, and 103 operating reactors are producing another
2,000 tons of spent fuel each year.
Reactor construction peaked during the 1970s, but
a resurgence is now under way around the world -- including the United
States.Graph by Philippe Rekacewicz,
UNEP/GRID-Arenda, UNEnvironment
Program
While the United States awaits applications for more new reactors, the
international picture shows rapid growth, according to Germany's Der
Spiegel: "Currently there are 435 atomic reactors generating
electricity in 31 countries across the globe. They fill 6.5 percent of
the world's total energy demand and use close to 70,000 tons of
enriched uranium per year [about one Yucca Mountain worth of waste per
year, in other words] ... At present, 29 nuclear power plants are under
construction and there are concrete plans to build another 64. Another
158 are under consideration" (see #2 in the bibliography).
Reprocessing -- no silver bullet
Although reprocessing remains highly controversial, our experts agreed
that at some point, radioactive material that can supply no further
energy will need burial to deter proliferation and environmental
contamination. "Even if you do reprocessing, you still end up with some
waste," says Ahearn.
In France, and in the other countries that are reprocessing, "They
cycle back the long-lived material, but still have to bury something,"
says nuclear engineer Michael Corradini. "The French are reprocessing,
taking 99 percent of the mass and putting it back into plants to reuse
the uranium, burn down the plutonium, but they are still building up
more waste -- you can change the nature of it, but you can't get rid of
it."
Recycling builds up a waste stream containing short-lived (and
intensely radioactive) isotopes like strontium 90 and cesium 137, while
making electricity from the long-lived isotopes of plutonium and other
transuranics, Corradini adds. "My message is that you always have to
bury something... There is no magic bullet. Eventually you will have a
radioactive substance which has various times in which it decays, and
you will have to put it in geological isolation."
Over
the past few years, attention to the recycling of nuclear power spent
fuel has grown. Fears of global warming due to fossil fuel burning have
given nuclear energy a boost; over the next 15 years dozens of new
power reactors are planned world-wide. To promote nuclear energy, the
Bush administration is seeking to establish international spent nuclear
fuel recycling centers that are supposed to reduce wastes, recycle
uranium, and convert nuclear explosive materials, such as plutonium to
less troublesome elements in advanced power reactors.
Advocates,
such
the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, argue that used
fuel at U.S. power plants contain enough energy “to
power every U.S. household for 12 years.” Heritage points out that
nuclear recycling “can be affordable and is technologically feasible.
The French are proving that on a daily basis. The question is: Why
can't oui?”
The
key to
recycling is being able to reuse materials while reducing pollution,
saving money and making the earth a safer place. On all accounts,
nuclear recycling fails the test.
Nuclear Recycling and the Environment
In
order to
recycle uranium and plutonium in power plants, spent fuel has to be
treated to chemically separate these elements from other highly
radioactive byproducts. As it chops and dissolves used fuel rods, a
reprocessing plant releases about 15
thousand times
more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power reactors and
generates several dangerous waste streams. If placed in a crowded area,
a few grams of waste would deliver lethal radiation doses in a matter
of seconds. They also pose enduring threats to the human environment
for tens of thousands of years.
In Europe
reprocessing has created higher risks and has spread radioactive wastes
across international borders. Radiation
doses
to people living near the Sellefield reprocessing facility in England
were found to be 10 times higher than for the general population.
Denmark, Norway, and Ireland have sought to close the French and
English plants because of their radiological
impacts. Discharges
of Iodine 129,
for example, a very long-lived carcinogen, have contaminated the shores
of Denmark and Norway at levels 1000 times higher than nuclear weapons
fallout. Health
studies indicate that significant excess childhood
cancers have occurred near French and
English reprocessing plants Experts have not ruled out radiation
as a possible cause, despite intense pressure from the nuclear industry
to do so.
Nuclear
recycling in the U.S. has created in one of the largest environmental
legacies in the world. Between the 1940’s and the late 1980’s, the
Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors reprocessed tens of
thousands of tons of spent fuel in order to reuse uranium and make
plutonium for nuclear weapons.
By
the end the
Cold War about 100 million gallons of high-level radioactive wastes
were left in aging tanks that are larger than most state capitol domes.
More than a third of some 200 tanks have leaked and threaten water
supplies such as the Columbia
River. The nation’s experience with this mess should serve as a
cautionary warning. According to DOE, treatment and disposal
will cost more than $100 billion; and after 26 years of trying, the
Energy Department has processed less than one percent of the
radioactivity in these wastes for
disposal. By comparison, the amount of wastes
from spent power reactor fuel recycling in the U.S. would dwarf that of
the nuclear weapons program – generating about 25
times more radioactivity.
The “Once Through” and “Closed” Nuclear Fuel Cycles
For
30 years the
U.S. has refrained from reprocessing commercial spent power reactor
fuel to use plutonium in power plants. Instead intact spent fuel rods
were to be sent directly to a repository – a “once
through” nuclear fuel cycle. Radioactive materials in spent fuel are
bound up in ceramic pellets and are encased in durable metal cladding,
planned for disposal deep underground in thick shielded casks.
Although
the
U.S. continued to reprocess spent fuel from military reactors, the
“once through” fuel cycle was adopted by President Carter in 1977 for
commercial nuclear power. Three years earlier, India had exploded a
nuclear weapon using plutonium separated from power reactor spent fuel
at a reprocessing facility. President Ford responded in 1976 by
suspending reprocessing in the United States. President Carter
converted the suspension into a ban, while issuing a strong
international policy statement against establishing plutonium as fuel
in global commerce. President Carter’s decision reversed some 20 years
of active promotion by DOE’s predecessor, the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC), of the “closed” nuclear fuel cycle. The AEC had spent
billions of dollars in an attempt to commercialize reprocessing
technology to recycle uranium and provide plutonium fuel for use in
“fast” nuclear power reactors.
Recycling
advocates are seeking to overturn this long-standing policy and point
to a new generation of “fast” reactors to breakdown plutonium so it
can’t be used in weapons. Since the 1940’s, it was understood that
“fast” reactors generate more subatomic particles, known as neutrons,
than conventional power plants and it is neutrons which split uranium
atoms to produce energy in conventional reactors. The U.S. actively
promoted plutonium-fueled fast reactors for decades because of the
potential abundance of neutrons, declaring that they held the promise
of producing electricity and making up to 30 percent more plutonium
than they consumed.
With
design
changes, fast reactors are, ironically, being touted in the U.S. as a
means to get rid of plutonium. However, the experience with “fast
reactors” over the past 50 years is laced with failure. At least 15
“fast” reactors have been closed due to costs and accidents in the
U.S., France, Germany, England, and Japan. There have been two fast
reactor fuel meltdowns in the United States including a mishap near
Detroit in the 1960’s. Russia operates the remaining fast reactor, but
it has experienced 15 serious
fires in 23 years.
Plutonium
makes
up about 1 percent of spent nuclear fuel and is a powerful nuclear
explosive, requiring extraordinary safeguards and security to prevent
theft and diversion. It took about 6 kilograms to fuel the atomic bomb
that devastated Nagasaki in 1945. Unlike plutonium bound up in highly
radioactive spent nuclear fuel, separated plutonium does not have a
significant radiation barrier to prevent theft and bomb making,
especially by terrorists.
Plutonium
is
currently used in a limited fashion in nuclear energy plants by being
blended with uranium. Known as mixed oxide fuel (MOX), it can only be
recycled once or twice in a commercial nuclear power plant because of
the buildup of radioactive contaminants. According to a report to the
French government in 2000, the use of plutonium in existing
reactors doubles the cost of disposal.
The
unsuccessful
history of fast reactors has created a plutonium legacy of major
proportions. Of the 370 metric tons of plutonium extracted from power
reactor spent fuel over the past several decades, about one third has
been used. Currently, about 200 tons of plutonium sits at
reprocessing plants around the world – equivalent to the amount in some
30,000 nuclear weapons in global arsenals.
Recycled Uranium
In
2007 the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that “reprocessed
uranium
currently plays a very minor role in satisfying world uranium
requirements for power reactors.” In 2004, about 2 percent of uranium
reactor fuel in France came from recycling,
and it appears that it now has dwindled to zero.
There are several reasons for this.
Uranium,
which
makes up about 95 percent of spent fuel, cannot be reused in the great
majority of reactors without increasing the levels of a key source of
energy, uranium 235, from 1 to 4 percent, through a complex and
expensive enrichment process.
Reprocessed
uranium also contains undesirable elements that make it highly
radioactive and reduces the efficiency of the fuel. For instance, the
build up of uranium 232 and uranium 234 in spent fuel creates a
radiation hazard requiring extraordinary measures to protect workers.
Levels of uranium-236 in used fuel impede atom splitting; and to
compensate for this “poison, recycled uranium has to undergo costly
“over-enrichment.” Contaminants in reprocessed uranium also foul up
enrichment and processing facilities, as well as new fuel. Once it is
recycled in a reactor, larger amounts of undesirable elements build up
– increasing the expense of reuse, storage and disposal. Given these
problems, it’s no surprise that DOE plans include disposal of future
reprocessed uranium in landfills, instead of recycling.
Costs
As
a senior
energy adviser in the Clinton administration, I recall attending a
briefing in 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences on the feasibility
of recycling nuclear fuel. I'd been intrigued by the idea because of
its promise to eliminate weapons-usable plutonium and to reduce the
amount of waste that had to be buried, where it could conceivably seep
into drinking water at some point in its multimillion-year-long
half-lives.
But
then came the Academy's unequivocal conclusion:
the idea was supremely impractical. It would cost up to $500 billion in
1996 dollars and take 150 years to accomplish the transmutation of
plutonium and other dangerous long-lived radioactive toxins. Ten years
later the idea remains as costly and technologically unfeasible as it
was in the 1990s. In 2007 the Academy once again tossed cold water on
the Bush administration’s effort to jump start nuclear recycling by
concluding that “there is no economic
justification for going forward with this program at anything
approaching a commercial scale.”
Meanwhile,
the
client base for Areva, the French nuclear recycling company, has shrunk
to one new contract for a relatively small amount of spent fuel from
the Netherlands. Most revealing is that its main customer, the French
utility, Electricité de France, is balking at doing further
business
unless the price goes down – something that Areva
says it can’t do. It appears that even the French may be starting to
say no instead of oui.
Robert
Alvarez, a former Senior Advisor in the Department of Energy during the
Clinton administration, is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies.
The Beauty of
Completing
the Nuclear Fuel CycleThe
U.S. pioneered the full nuclear fuel cycle, but gave it up in the
1970s, following a Ford Administration policy written under the
direction of Dick Cheney. Marjorie Mazel Hecht
reports.1
The
full nuclear fuel cycle shows that nuclear is a renewable energy
source, because the spent fuel can be reprocessed to recover unburned
uranium and plutonium that can befabricated into new reactor
fuel. At present, the U.S. nuclear is “once through,” going from spent
fuel to interim storage and then longer-term storage.
It would take 2 million grams of oil
or 3 million grams of coal to equal the power contained in 1 gram of
uranium fuel.2
Unlike oil and coal, nuclear fuel is recyclable and, in a breeder
reactor, can actually produce more fuel than is used up! For these
reasons, nuclear energy is by far the best means now available to power
a modern industrial economy.
Nuclear
power is a gift to humanity, and only the propaganda of Malthusian
extremists, dedicated to stopping human progress and reducing the
world’s population, has created public fear and skepticism.
The
best way to overcome irrational fear is through knowledge. To this end,
reviewed here is the process by which natural uranium ore is turned
into fuel for a nuclear reactor, how it is used, and how it can be
recycled, such that the reader will come to understand that there is
really no such thing as nuclear “waste.”
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
DOE An overhead view of rows of centrifuge
units at a U.S. enrichment plant in Piketon, Ohio.
To
understand the “renewability” of nuclear fission fuel, we have to look
at the complete fuel cycle. At the beginning of the nuclear age, it was
assumed that nations would complete the fuel cycle—including the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from reactors, to get as near to
100% use of the uranium fuel as possible. Here we very briefly review
the seven steps of this cycle. Keep in mind that the brevity of
description leaves out details of the complex chemical processes, which
were initiated during the Manhattan Project and are still being
improved on.
1.
First, natural uranium is mined. There are enough sources of uranium
worldwide for today’s immediate needs, but once we begin an ambitious
nuclear development program (to build 6,000 nuclear reactors in order
to provide enough electricity to bring the entire world population up
to a decent living standard), we would have to accelerate the
development of fast breeder nuclear reactors, which produce more fuel
than they consume in operation.
2. Next, the uranium is
processed and milled into uranium oxide (U3O8),
called yellowcake, which is the raw material for fission fuel.
Yellowcake became infamous in the political fabrication that Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq was trying to import yellowcake from Niger, in order to
use it for bomb-making.
It
is basically natural uranium ore, which is crushed and processed by
leaching (with acid or carbonate) to dissolve the uranium, which can
then be extracted and concentrated to 75% uranium, in combination with
ammonium or sodium-magnesium.
3. The concentrated
uranium is then converted into uranium hexafluoride (UF6),
which is heated into a gas form suitable for enrichment.
Uranium Enrichment
4.
Natural uranium has one primary isotope, U-238, which is not
fissionable, and a much smaller amount of U-235, which fissions.
Because most uranium (99.276%) is U-238, the uranium fuel must go
through a process of enrichment, to increase the ratio of fissionable
U-235 to the non-fissionable U-238 from about 0.7% to 3 to 4%. (Weapons
uranium is enriched to about 93% U-235.)
The
technology of enrichment was developed during the World War II
Manhattan Project, when the object was to create highly enriched
uranium (HEU) to be used in the atomic bomb. Civilian power reactors
use mostly low-enriched uranium (LEU). (Canada has developed a type of
reactor, the CANDU, which uses unenriched, natural uranium in
combination with a heavy water moderator to produce fission.)
Frank Hoffman/DOE The
huge Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., the first such
facility in the world. The U-shaped building, constructed during the
Manhattaan Project, began operation in 1945. Later, the facility was
expanded to produce enriched uranium for plants around the world.
The
gaseous diffusion method of enrichment, which is still used by the
United States, was developed under the Manhattan Project. Uranium
hexafluoride gas is pumped through a vast series of porous
membranes—thousands of miles of them. The molecules of the lighter
isotope (U-235) pass through the membrane walls slightly faster than do
the heavier isotope (U-238). When extracted, the gas has an increased
content of U-235, which is fed into the next membrane-sieve, and the
process is repeated until the desired enrichment is reached. Because
the molecular speeds of the two uranium isotopes differ by only about
0.4%, each diffusion operation must be repeated 1,200 times.
The
Manhattan Project devised this method of gaseous diffusion with
incredible speed and secrecy. It was not finished in time to produce
all the uranium for the uranium bomb dropped on Japan, but it produced
most of the enriched uranium for the civilian and military programs in
subsequent years. Although a successful method, it required a
tremendous amount of energy and a huge physical structure to house the
“cascades” of separate membranes. Four power plants were built in Oak
Ridge, Tenn., to power the process, producing as much electric power as
the consumption of the entire Soviet Union in 1939! Almost all the
power consumed in the diffusion process is used to circulate and
compress the uranium gas.
Technological
pessimists take note: At the time the gaseous diffusion plant was being
built, scientists had not yet figured out how to make a membrane to be
used in the process—but they did it in time to make it work!
The
centrifuge system, used in Europe and Japan, is 10 times as energy
efficient. The strong centrifugal field of a rotating cylinder sends
the heavier isotope in uranium hexafluoride to the outside of the
cylinder, where it can be drawn off, while the U-235 diffuses to the
inside of the cylinder. Because of the limitations of size of the
centrifuge, many thousands of identical centrifuges, connected
in a series called a cascade, are necessary to produce the required
amounts of enriched uranium.
A
centrifuge plant requires only about 4% of the power needed for a
gaseous diffusion plant, and less water is needed for cooling.
Other methods of enrichment are
possible—electromagnetic separation, laser isotope separation, and
biological methods.
Fabrication Into Fuel Rods
U.S. AEC A
cylinder of uranium hexaflouride enriched in U-235 is readied for
shipment to a conversion facility, where it will be converted to
uranium dioxide for use in fuel rods. The cylinder weighs 2.5 tons.
Westinghouse Photo A
partially completed nuclear fuel assembly. The long tubes guide the
control rods in the reactor, which regulated its operation. The grids
that hold the guide sheaths also align the fuel rods containing uranium
pettets. When the fuel rods are inserted through the grids, parallel to
the guide sheath, the fuel assembly will be completed.
5. Once the enriched
uranium is separated from the depleted uranium, it is converted from UF6
into uranium dioxide and fabricated into uniform pellets. The pellets
are loaded into long tubes made out of a zirconium alloy, which
captures very few neutrons. This cladding prevents the release of
fission products and also transfers the heat produced by the nuclear
fission process in the fuel. The fuel is then transported to the
reactor site.
Different
types of reactors require different designs of fuel rods and fuel
bundles. In a light water reactor, the fuel rods are inserted into the
reactor to produce fission, which creates steam, which turns a turbine
that creates electricity.
The
fuel for the next-generation high-temperature gas-cooled reactors is
different: The enriched uranium is formed into tiny “pebbles” which are
coated with graphite and special ceramics that serve as individual
“containment buildings” for the fuel pebbles.
6.
Fuel rods are used for about four and a half years before replacement,
and usually a reactor replaces about a third of its fuel at one time.
The fuel is considered spent when the concentration of fissile
uranium-235 becomes less than 1%. When removed from the reactor, the
spent fuel is put into cooling pools, which shield it as its
short-lived nuclides decay. Within a year, the total radioactivity
level is only about 12% of what it was when the fuel rod came out of
the reactor.
At
present, the United States does not reprocess spent fuel, and so the
spent fuel rods sit in cooling pools at the reactor. After the spent
fuel has cooled, it is stored in dry casks, waiting—for “burial” or
reprocessing.
But the
spent fuel is not “waste”! It contains between 90 and 95% of usable
uranium, that can be separated out and recycled into new fuel, and it
also contains a smaller amount—about 1%—of plutonium, a fuel for
breeder reactors.
Reprocessing
Nuclear Materials and
Equipment Corporation In this 1964 photo, laboratory
technicians work in glove-boxes to remotely fabricate plutonium fuel
elements.
7. Now for the remarkable renewability
of nuclear fuel. The spent fuel from a single 1,000-megawatt nuclear
plant, operated over 40 years, is equal to the energy in 130 million
barrels of oil, or 37 million tons of coal. Why bury it? Extract it and
process it into new fuel. Short-sighted policymakers (discussed below)
decided in the 1970s, for no good reasons, that it was preferable to
prevent the full use of this potential by burying the spent fuel in a
once-through cycle.
The
reprocessing method that was successfully used in the United States at
the Savannah River facility in South Carolina for military purposes, is
just as efficient for civilian spent fuel. Spent fuel rods are
processed to remove the highly radioactive fission products, and
separate out (partition) the fissionable U-235 and plutonium.
This
plutonium could be directly used as fuel for breeder reactors, which
was the intention of the completed fuel cycle. It can also be used to
make mixed-oxide fuel, or MOX, which some of today’s reactors are being
converted to burn as fuel. (Thirty-five reactors in Europe now use MOX
fuel.)
The
reprocessing facilities at Savannah River were called “canyons” because
they were tall, narrow buildings. The spent nuclear fuel was handled
remotely by technicians who were behind protective walls. This was
large-scale industrial processing, which was entirely successful, safe,
and safeguarded.
Once
the uranium was separated out, it was sent to another building at
Savannah River to be fabricated for weapons use. The remaining amount
of highly radioactive fission products—a tiny fraction of the spent
fuel—was set aside for vitrification and storage. Today, the
technologies exist, or could be developed, to extract valuable medical
and other isotopes from this 3% of high-level waste. Virtually all of
the spent fuel could be made usable.
U.S.
civilian spent fuel could be reprocessed in a similar fashion using the
Savannah River model—or by new technologies still to be developed.3
Right now, Britain, France, Russia, and India reprocess civilian spent
fuel, using the Purex method (which stands for Plutonium Uranium
Extraction), and Japan has a commercial reprocessing plant now in a
testing start-up phase. Other nuclear nations send their spent fuel to
Britain or France for reprocessing, or they store it. China reprocesses
military spent fuel.
Who Opposes Reprocessing?
E.I. DuPont DeNemours
&Co. A
1972 photo of high-level waste storage tanks in construction at DOE’s
Savannah River Plant in South Carolina. The tanks are built of carbon
steel, surrounded by concrete encasements 2 to 3 feet thick, set about
40 feet in the ground and then covered with dirt. Shown are the steel
tanks before concrete encasement. Each tank has a capacity of from
750,000 to 1,300,000 gallons.
Reprocessing
makes the antipopulation faction very nervous, because it implies that
nuclear power will continue to develop as a source of electricity, and
with a cheap and clean source of power, there are no limits to growth.
Malthusians and other alarmists rant about the “dangers of
proliferation,” but if you poke them, what they are really concerned
about is the potential for nuclear energy to expand, and population and
industrial development to grow.
The
overt arguments against reprocessing are mostly scare tactics:
Permitting U.S. reprocessing will make it easier, they say, for “bad
guys” to build bombs—or dirty bombs. This is the gist of the objection,
although it may be posed at length in more academic (and tedious)
language.
But this
argument is one based on fear—fear that an advanced technology can
never be managed properly, and fear that we will never have a world
where there aren’t “bad guys” who want to bomb us. It is the opposite
of the Atoms for Peace philosophy.
In
fact, if one is truly worried about diversion of plutonium, why not
burn it to produce electricity, instead of letting it accumulate in
storage? And as Savannah River manager William P. Bebbington, a veteran
of the Manhattan Project, wrote in a landmark 1976 article on
reprocessing, “Perhaps our best hope is that someday plutonium will be
more valuable for power-reactor fuel than for weapons, and that the
nations will then beat their bombs into fuel rods.”4
A
second objection is that reprocessing is not “economical”; it is
cheaper to have a “once through cycle” and discard the spent fuel. But
the cost/benefit basis on which such economics are calculated is a
sham. What is the cost of not reprocessing—in terms of lives
lost and society not advancing? And what about the cost of the storage
of spent fuel—not to mention the still unused U.S. storage facility at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which has become a costly political and
emotional football.
The
“proliferation” argument was key in 1976 in stopping U.S. reprocessing.
Fear was fed by the idea that reprocessing would make more plutonium
available, which could be diverted by “rogue” nations or groups to make
clandestine nuclear weapons. President Ford, the incumbent, carried out
a secret study, and issued a nuclear policy statement on Oct. 28, 1976,
just five days before the election, which advocated an end to
reprocessing.
Jimmy
Carter, who won that election, then carried out the policy to stop U.S.
reprocessing; and the next President, Ronald Reagan, sealed the lid on
the fuel-cycle coffin with the idea of “privatizing” both reprocessing
and breeder reactors.
The
full story of how reprocessing was stopped still has to be told. But
the ending of the story is clear: The United States shot itself in the
foot—twice: 1) The United States stopped an important technology, which
this country had pioneered, and 2) the U.S. anti-reprocessing policy
did absolutely nothing in the rest of the world to stop other
countries from developing the full nuclear fuel cycle, or desiring to.5
Interestingly,
the Ford Administration’s policy in 1976, which advocated killing U.S.
reprocessing for the same fallacious reasons that President Carter
later elaborated, was written under the direction of Ford’s chief of
staff—Dick Cheney. And one of the key reports supporting Carter’s ban
on reprocessing was written by the mentor of the leading neo-cons in
the Bush Administration, Albert Wohlstetter, then a consultant to the
Department of Defense.
Once
the political decision is taken to begin an ambitious nuclear
construction program, reprocessing—both Purex and new technologies—will
follow.
For Further Reading
Scott W. Heaberlin, A Case
for Nuclear-Generated Electricity ... or why I think nuclear power is
cool and why it is important that you think so too (Columbus, Oh.:
Battelle Press, 2004).
Alan Waltar, Radiation and
Modern Life (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2004).
2.
The energy density of nuclear can be seen by comparing fission fuel to
other sources. In terms of volume of fuel necessary to do the same
amount of work, a tiny pellet (1.86 grams) of uranium fuel equals 1,260
gallons of oil, or 6.15 tons of coal, or 23.5 tons of dry wood. This
means that nuclear is 2.2 million times more energy dense than oil, and
3 million times more energy dense than coal. Thermonuclear fusion will
be even orders of magnitude more energy dense. These calculations were
based on the work of Dr. Robert J. Moon in 1985.
3.
The U.S. Congress in the 2005 Energy Act included $50 million for
research on new reprocessing methods.
4.
“The Reprocessing of Nuclear Fuels” by William P. Bebbington, Scientific
American, December 1976, pp. 30-41.
5.
Commenting on President Carter’s 1977 policy to shut down reprocessing
and the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, Bernard Goldschmidt, a preeminent
French nuclear scientist, who had studied with Marie Curie, wrote: “By
this extraordinary and unique act of self-mutiliation, an already
declining American industry was to become paralyzed in two key sectors
of future development, fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors,
precisely the sectors in which the United States was already between 5
and 10 years behind the Soviet Union and Western Europe, in particular,
France....”
"The Government has concluded," it says, "that any
nuclear power stations that might be built in the UK
should proceed on the basis that spent fuel will not be reprocessed."
This is the clearest statement so far of ministers' intention to
abandon the decades-old policy of reprocessing uranium burnt in
reactors.
All the fuel from Britain's first and second
generation nuclear stations has been chemically separated into uranium,
plutonium and radioactive waste at Sellafield
in Cumbria.
Only spent fuel from one station - the pressurised water reactor at
Sizewell in Suffolk
(pictured) - has not been reprocessed.
But
the new government energy paper says that reprocessing "raises
particular concerns about the creation of separated plutonium". It also
points out that the private sector "has made no proposals to reprocess
spent fuel from many new nuclear power stations."
Reprocessing at Sellafield has been
dogged with problems, with the main plant shut down since April 2005
following a leak of
83,000 litres of highly radioactive nitric acid. A plan to restart
the plant earlier in 2007 had to be postponed when problems were
discovered with downstream evaporators.
The
government's decision to end reprocessing will not be welcomed at
Sellafield, though neither the plant's operator, the British Nuclear
Group, nor its owner, the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority, wanted to comment.
The
abandonment of reprocessing would represent a small victory for the
anti-nuclear lobby which has long targeted Sellafield's operations as
polluting and unnecessary. But Greenpeace
points out that it will leave the government with new problems to solve
- like where to store and how to dispose of the spent fuel. That looks
like more bad news to be buried in the future.
Estimates vary of both the amount of plutonium in North Korea's
possession and number of nuclear weapons that could be manufactured
from the material. Official estimates of the amount of reproccessed
plutonium reportedly range from 7 to 24 kilograms, and the amount of
plutonium that North Korea would need for a single bomb range from 4 to
8 kilograms. Thus, by one calculation North Korea might have as many as
six nuclear weapons, if it could use 24 kilograms to make 4 kilogram
bombs. Or it might barely fall short of being able to make a single
bomb, if it had only 7 kilograms when it needed 8 kilograms of
plutonium.
South Korean, Japanese, and Russian intelligence estimates of
the amount of plutonium separated, for example, are reported to be
higher -- 7 to 22 kilograms, 16 to 24 kilograms, and 20 kilograms,
respectively -- than the reported US estimate of about 12 kilograms. At
least two of the estimates are said to be based on the assumption that
North Korea removed fuel rods from the 5-MW(e) reactor and subsequently
reprocessed the fuel during slowdowns in the reactor's operations in
1990 and 1991.
In principle the North Korea 5-MW(e) reactor would produce 0.9
gram of Plutonium per thermal megawatt every day of operations. When
the yearly operations rate [capacity factor] is presumed to be 85
percent, the actual amount produced each year would be between 5.5 and
8.5 kilograms [given the range of estimates of between 20 and 30
megawatts thermal output. A lower, and possibly more realistic,
estimate based on a capacity factor of 60 percent would suggest an
annual production rate of between 4 and 6 kilograms.
In 1989, the reactor was shut down for a period variously
estimated at between 70 and 100 days, and this would have provided
enough time for North Korea to unload some or all of the fuel for
reprocessing. By this time, the total production could have been
somewhere between 8 and 15 kilograms of plutonium. North Korea claims
that it only removed a few damaged fuel rods, which were reprocessed in
the Radiochemical Laboratory in 1990. According to the North, these
contained about 0.13 kilograms of plutonium, of which only a 0.09
kilograms were extracted.
When the reactor was shut down for refueling in April 1994, it
was variously estimated that the unloaded spent fuel contained 17 to 33
kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium. The 8,000 spent fuel rods at the
Yongbyon facility are in special canisters, under the watchful eye of
the International Atomic Energy Agency 24 hours a day. Those eight
thousand spent fuel rods contain enough plutonium for the North Koreans
to build up to perhaps as many as six additional nuclear weapons.
Absent international safeguards, North Korea could begin reprocessing
the spent fuelinto plutonium for atomic bombs in six to eight months,
according to some estimates.
The variations in the estimates about the number of weapons
that could be produced from the material depend on a variety of
factors, including assumptions about North Korea's reprocessing
capabilities -- advanced technology yields more material -- and the
amount of plutonium it takes to make a nuclear weapon. Until January
1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that 8 kilograms would
be needed to make a small nuclear weapon. In January 1994, however, DOE
reduced the estimate of the amount of plutonium needed to 4 kilograms.
On 22 April 1997, US Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon
officially stated, "When the US-North Korea nuclear agreement was
signed in Geneva in 1994, the US intelligence authorities already
believed North Korea had produced plutonium enough for at least one
nuclear weapon." This was the first time the United States confirmed
North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons.
According to a late 2002 CIA analysis, "Restarting the 5
megawatt reactor would generate about 6 kilograms [of plutonium] per
year. ... The 50 megawatt-electric reactor at Yongbyon and the 200
megawatt-electric reactor at Taechon would generate about 275 kilograms
per year, although it would take several years to complete construction
of these reactors." If about 5 kilograms of plutonium was required for
one bomb, the North Korean bomb-production rate would thus be about 55
weapons per year after the reactors are completed. ["North Korea Can
Build Nukes Right Now," By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times,
November 22, 2002 Pg. 1].
A story in the New York Times on July 20, 2003 reported
that US intelligence officials believe that North Korea may have a
second facility that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. The second
facility is believed to be buried underground at an unknown location.
The story, "North Korea Hides New Nuclear Site, Evidence Suggests" by
David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker New York Times reported that
sensors on North Korea's borders have begun to detect elevated levels
of krypton-85, a gas emitted as spent fuel is converted into plutonium.
The report says the issue that most concerns American and Asian
officials, though, is analysis showing that the gas is not coming from
North Korea's main nuclear plant, Yongbyon. Instead, the experts
believe the gas may be coming from another hidden facility, buried deep
in the mountains. North Korea is believed to have 11-15,000 underground
military-industrial facilities.
The September 1, 2003 edition of Jane's Intelligence Review
reports that the director of the the ROK's National Intelligence
Service stated to the National Assembly in early July 2003 that North
Korea had conducted 70 high-explosive tests at Yondok, 40km northwest
of Yongbyon. Such high explosives could be used in plutonium device by
compressing the plutonium core to create a nuclear explosion.
On 02 October 2003 North Korea said it had reprocessed eight
thousand nuclear fuel rods and plutonium extracted from them could be
used to strengthen its "nuclear deterrent force." A statement from the
North Korean foreign ministry carried by the official Korean Central
News Agency said that North Korea is manufacturing nuclear bombs with
the material siphoned off from reprocessing eight thousand spent
nuclear fuel rods. North Korea's latest claim came days after it warned
it was taking "practical measures" to increase its nuclear deterrent
against attacks by the United States. At the same time, a senior North
Korean official reportedly said that his government will not export its
nuclear capability. Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon, said that
Pyongyang does not intend to transfer its nuclear know-how to other
countries.
During a visit to Yongbyon on 08 January 2004, North Korea
showed an unofficial American delegation what it asserted was
weapons-grade plutonium. The group spent about a day at Yongbyon, and
was shown the empty cooling pond where the 8,000 fuel rods from the
5-megawatt nuclear reactor had been stored. During the visit, the
reprocessing plant was operating.
In January 2004 DPRK Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kim Gye
Gwan indicated that the DPRK had decided in November 2002 to operate
the 5MWe reactor and resume reprocessing of plutonium for peaceful
nuclear activities. He stated, “It is the only way to keep the spent
fuel rods safe.” He added, “At the same time, the hostile U.S. policy
had been intensified. So, we changed our purpose and informed the U.S.
that the plutonium that was to have been used for peaceful purposes
would now be used for weapons. Originally, we had wanted to keep the
reprocessed plutonium in a way we could store it safely. Then, we
changed the purpose in order to strengthen our deterrent.” During the
08 January 2004 visit of the American delegation, the North Koreans
stated that they had initially intended to run the fuel cycle for
civilian purposes, which means they would have stored the plutonium
product as plutonium dioxide. Because of the "hostile U.S. actions"
they reprocessed the entire campaign to plutonium metal. [Hecker testimony]
During the 08 January 2004 visit of the American delegation, the
North Koreans stated that they reprocessed all 8000 spent fuel rods in
the Radiochemical Laboratory in one continuous campaign, starting in
mid-January 2003 and finishing by the end of June 2003. They stated
that their capacity in the Radiochemical Laboratory is 375 kg uranium
per day (they said they worked four 6-hr shifts around the clock). They
later added that the reprocessing capacity of the facility under normal
operating conditions is 110 tonnes of spent uranium fuel per year.
Therefore, they were able to finish the current campaign of 50 tonnes
of spent fuel rods in less than six months. They reprocessed the entire
campaign to plutonium metal. They stated that this processing was done
in the Radiochemical Laboratory by
installing some glove boxes that were not present during IAEA
inspections. It took them three months to install the equipment and
prepare it for the plutonium metal processing step. These comments
indicated that they had glove boxes for plutonium metal production
ready to go in late 2002. This also indicated that they had experience
making plutonium metal before the IAEA inspections began in 1992. The
American delegation was shown the “product” from what the North Koreans
claimed to be their most recent reprocessing campaign -- a wooden box
with a glass jar they said contained 150 grams of plutonium oxalate
powder and a glass jar they said contained 200 grams of plutonium metal
for the Americans to inspect. [Hecker testimony]
US author and Korea expert Selig Harrison, completed a visit to
Pyongyang in April 2005 that included talks with senior figures,
including Kim Yong Nam, the country's second-ranking official.
Harrison, of Washington's Center for International Policy, was
reportedly told that North Korea would soon again harvest plutonium
from fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, giving it enough
nuclear explosive to build several more bombs.
This
report is an update of the original report published on this website:
Nuclear
power the energy balance
by
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith
The
original report is still available on this website: see below.
In
this update the author gratefully incorporated numerous valuable
comments and critical questions from independent consultants, NGOs and
scientists at large companies and at universities and scientific
institutions. A short selection:
Australia:
University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University.
Belgium:
NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven.
Germany:
Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt.
Netherlands:
University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten.
Switzerland:
CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich.
United
Kingdom: Imperial College London, University of Edinburgh, Oxford
Research Group London.
United
States of America: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University
New York, Princeton University.
Objectives
of this study
This
study is aiming to present in the most accessible way the scientific
and physical aspects of nuclear power, that are relevant for its role
as energy source in our society.
Here
we address two main issues:
•
The potential contribution of nuclear power to the world energy supply
in the future, from a physical point of view.
•
To what extent nuclear power could contribute to the mitigation of the
anthropogenic climate change in the future.
Safety
issues and proliferation risks are not directly addressed.
The
sheer complexity of the nuclear system turns out to be a major hurdle
in understanding the many different aspects of the civil application of
nuclear power. Free access to all information, prerequisite for
conscious choices by the civil policy makers, happens, is very
difficult.
A
number of nuclear institutes which policy makers and governments rely
on for information regarding nuclear affairs, such as WNA (World Nucear
Association), NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute), UIC (Uranium Information
Centre) and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), are
organisations with a vested interest in nuclear power. These institutes
are directed towards promoting nuclear energy, and are not necessarily
neutral scientific institutes.
Summary
Nuclear
power is not just an energy technology. Nuclear power is a unique
complex of technical, economical, political and military interests.
Technically
the nuclear energy system is by far the most complex energy system ever
designed. Apart from its technical complexity, the nuclear system is
also unique by its exceedingly long stay time. The completion of the
sequence of activities related to one commercial nuclear power station,
here called a nuclear project, from the start of construction through
the safe disposal of its last radioactive waste, may take 100-150 years.
This
study is a physical analysis of the nuclear system: the full technical
and industrial complex, needed to generate electricity from uranium.
The main issues are the potential contribution of nuclear power to the
world energy supply in the future and to the mitigation of the
anthropogenic climate change in the future. Safety issues and
proliferation risks are not directly addressed.
We
analyzed all energy inputs needed to operate the nuclear system and
balanced these inputs with the energy output of the nuclear reactor:
the amount of electricity put into the grid. Furthermore we analyzed
the main parameters determining the energy balance, of which the grade
of the uranium ore turned out to be the most important.
Some
novel concepts are introduced, to make the results of this study better
accessible: the, the ‘energy cliff’, the ‘CO2
trap’, the ‘coal ceiling’ and the ‘energy debt’. Beyond the energy
cliff the nuclear system cannot generate net useful energy and will
produce more carbon dioxide than a fossil-fueled power station (CO2
trap). Nuclear power may run off the energy cliff with the lifetime of
new nuclear build.
Beyond
the coal ceiling more uranium ore has to be processed each year to feed
one nuclear power plant than the annual coal tonnage of coal consumed
by a coal-fired power plant to generate the same amount of electricity.
The
exceedingly large and long-term energy debt, combined with the
insecurities of the nuclear energy system will seriously delay the
transition of the world energy supply to a really sustainable one. A
delay we cannot afford. The nuclear option would absorb a
disproportionate part of the ability to cope of the society in
a ever diverging need for energy, high quality materials and human
skills.
The
ease with which the nuclear industry waives the unsolved problems of
nuclear power suggests an attitude of ‘après nous le
déluge’.
Misconceptions
Discussions
on nuclear power often are troubled by implicite but persistent
misconceptions:
•
Ultimately every uranium atom in the ground or sea could be recovered,
with no or a negligible energy input.
•
Almost every uranium atom extracted from the ground or sea could be
fissioned.
Both
assumptions are false and easy to refute by applying basic physical
laws, as is shown in this study.
A
third, also implicite, misconception seems the view of many people
talking about electricity generation thinking they’re talking about the
whole energy supply.
Unique
features of the nuclear system
The
nuclear system has some unique features, no other energy system has,
being:
•
the energy source is a metal to be extracted from ores,
•
the irreversible generation of immense quantities of radioactivity,
•
the extremely long-term commitments of 100-150 years,
•
very large uncertainties regarding the completion of a nuclear project.
Once
started, a nuclear reactor generates unavoidable and very large amounts
of radioactive waste, posing immeasurable risks to man and society. The
safe cleanup of the nuclear legacy requires a number of processes, each
consuming large amounts of materials, human effort and energy.
Energy
is a conserved quantity, whereas the value of money is unpredictable
beyond a very short time horizon. Energy debts cannot just be written
off as uncollectable. Just for that reason we choose for energy
analysis as our tool.
Methodology
of this study
This
study comprises a full life cycle assessment (LCA) and energy analysis
of the technical/industrial system which makes possible the generation
of electricity from uranium. The LCA is based on the light-water
reactor (LWR) in the once-through mode.
All
data used in the analysis originate from the open literature of the
nuclear industry itself.
Due
to the many variables involved, the full energy analysis of the nuclear
system is complicated.
The
methodology used in this study has been validated by numerous peer
reviewed publications in the 1970s and 1980s. One of us (Storm van
Leeuwen) published the results of an earlier study based on the same
methodology in Energy Policy, June 1985 (click here
to download a pdf copy (877 kB).
History
of this study
The
study started in 2000, on request of the Green parties of the European
Parliament, to prepare a background document for the UN Climate
Conference COP6 (The Hague, 13-24 November 2000).
After
that conference the results were placed on the web in 2001. Since its
first publication the study has seen several revisions. We thank our
readers all over the world who sent us, and are still sending, their
comments.
In
2003 we added a Rebuttal
to our site. This document refutes criticism that was placed on the web
by the nuclear industry, the World Nuclear Association, WNA (www.world-nuclear.org
), in an attempt to discredit the conclusions reached in an earlier
version of this website. Every point of criticism is completely refuted
with facts and calculations, all based on publications of the industry
itself.
It
is unpleasant to note that some of the criticism was based on
apparently deliberate misquotation of our text. The criticism of WNA
has been updated several times since its first appearance on the web.
Nuclear
power – the energy balance
Table
of contents
Due
to its length the new report has been divided into a number of
parts
(labeled A, B, C, . . .), which can be downloaded separately. Each part
addresses certain aspects or phases of the study and may be updated
later on, independently of the other parts. Each part has its own list
of references, each reference being coded with a unique code (e.g. Q6)
which is used throughout the publications of the author.
To
place nuclear power in its global context, the current nuclear share of
world energy supply and greenhouse gas mitigation is addressed. A
confusing manipulation of statistical data is widely used in the
official energy statistics, which actually is in conflict with the
First Law of thermodynamics. The nuclear share in 2006 was 2.1% of the
world energy supply. Consequently, assumed nuclear power is free of
greenhouse gases (which it is not), the nuclear contribution to the
mitigation of the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases would be
at most 2.1%.
In
the Introduction we describe the methodology followed in our analysis.
The advantages of a life-cycle analysis (LCA) of nuclear power plants
are compared with an analysis based on consideration of monetary
cost/benefit studies. The fundamental physical criteria for
sustainability are presented as grounded in the first and second law of
thermodynamics. An overview of the energy costs is given. The technical
parameters used in the analysis of a nuclear power plant are also
given, for the operating mode of a nuclear reactor (system) under the
currently applied high efficiency mode.
We
devote Chapter 1 to one of the most controversial issues in the current
environmental debate: the emission of CO2.
We calculate the ratio of the CO2 emission brought about by the use of
nuclear energy and that of a gas-burning plant of the same net
(electrical) capacity.
If
the uranium consumed by the nuclear energy system has been extracted
from rich ores the ratio CO2(nuclear/CO2(gas) is much less than unity,
giving the impression that the application of nuclear energy would
solve the global warming problem.
However
as rich ores become exhausted this ratio increases until it finally
becomes larger than one, making the use of nuclear energy unfavourable
compared to simply burning the (remaining) fossil fuels directly. In
the long term the use of nuclear energy provides us with no solution to
the problem.
In
the second chapter the energy requirements of the nuclear fuel
(enriched uranium) is given on the basis of figures from the nuclear
mining industry. All industry estimates of the energy costs of energy
are based on rich uranium ores. The energy costs of the mining and
milling of rich ores is negligible compared to the other energy costs
of operating a nuclear power plant, as well as with respect to the
energy produced by the power plant. The total energy available from
these ores, as listed by the World Nuclear Association, is so small
that in order to give a fair picture for the future, one must consider
the energy costs of leaner ores.
It
turns out that the energy requirements of mining and milling these lean
ores may surpass the energy produced by "burning" them in a nuclear
reactor.
In
the third chapter the energy inputs of construction, operating, and
decommissioning a nuclear power plant are calculated, assuming 2000 as
the year of commissioning.
The
costs of decommissioning are lumped together with the construction
costs, since even though these costs may actually be incurred fifty or
a hundred years after the reactor has stopped producing energy, they
should properly be subtracted from the energy produced during the
useful lifetime of the plant. For this reason we label them "energy
debts". The time at which these energy debts must be paid is
irrelevant, quite differently than monetary debts. The latter are, in
economic calculations, discounted at an assumed interest rate, and are
further subject to the variations in the value of money. It is here
that one sees the great value of energy analysis as compared to
monetary analysis. Energy is a conserved quantity, whereas the value of
money is unpredictable beyond a very short time horizon. Energy debts
cannot just be written off as uncollectable.
In
the fourth chapter the energy costs of the safe sequestration of the
immense amounts of radioactive substances produced by nuclear power are
calculated. These calculations must, of necessity, be approximate since
the gargantuan task of safe disposal has hardly been begun.
The
US nuclear power industry, forced into dormancy almost thirty years ago
by the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, is positioning itself for
a revival. Despite objections
that the nuclear fuel cycle has been demonstrated to produce
significant greenhouse gas emissions, is far more expensive per
megawatt than renewable technologies and energy efficiency programs,
and that new nukes would take at least a decade to begin coming
on-line, some environmentalists have joined the Bush administration in
proclaiming nuclear power to be part of the solution to global warming.
In January, 2006, President Bush announced
his vision for our nuclear future, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). GNEP proposes to build new nuclear plants using “advanced
burner” technology and to reprocess the spent fuel now piling up at
commercial reactor sites. The United States would also get into the
business of reprocessing spent fuel from other countries willing to
lease fuel rods from us rather than develop their own nuclear power
programs.
John Sticpewich, an
Asheville-area resident and retired oil and gas industry geologist,
became curious about the consequences for Asheville if a South Carolina
location were chosen for the spent fuel reprocessing plant GNEP calls
for. (Of the eleven sites under study, the Savannah River Site and
nearby Barnwell are both in SC.) At a Common Sense at the Nuclear
Crossroads press conference announcing his findings, Sticpewich said,
“I came to the study with a healthy case of skepticism and ended with
an unhealthy case of horror.”
Reprocessing
When uranium fuel rods outlive their usefulness in the core of a
nuclear reactor, they’re removed intact in their assemblies and
immediately stored underwater in cooling pools. This is necessary
because the fission chain-reaction continues. The rods remain hot
enough to melt and or burn. Over the next five or so years, a buildup
of fractured atoms within the rods slows the reaction sufficiently to
permit dry storage in heavily shielded casks. Meanwhile, the atomic
debris in the rods has become viciously radioactive. According to
Sticpewich, a person standing three feet away from an unshielded
assembly of spent fuel rods would receive a lethal dose in three
seconds. Many of the worst gamma ray emitters decay within a few
hundred years. Other constituents remain dangerously radioactive for
hundreds of thousands of years. That’s a long time to stand guard over
storage casks.
Spent
fuel still contains fissile —chain-reacting—isotopes of uranium,
plutonium, and other heavy elements. The chemical separation of these
from the bits and pieces of broken atoms to make fresh fuel is called
reprocessing. Because the classic method also produces bomb-grade
plutonium, the United States frowns on North Korea and other countries
that attempt it. Due to concerns that reprocessing here might hasten
nuclear proliferation abroad, the US ended attempts at commercial
reprocessing in 1976.
Elsewhere, reprocessing continued. As the
UK has discovered at its Sellafield complex, the enterprise can carry
high environmental costs. It is also
monetarily expensive. In May of this year, French reprocessor AREVA
inked a deal
with the Italian government to reprocess 235 tons of spent fuel for 250
million euros. Converted to US dollars, this is more than $1.4
million
per ton. Frank von Hippel, co-director of Princeton's Program on
Science and Global Security estimates a price tag of $100 billion to
reprocess the existing US inventory of this commercial high-level
radioactive waste.
Despite
the drawbacks, reprocessing remains national policy in France, Japan,
India, Russia, and the UK. The Bush administration claims that newer
reprocessing technologies carry less risk of plutonium falling into the
wrong hands. Large scale reprocessing would address power company
demands to be relieved of the nearly 60,000 tons of spent fuel
littering their grounds and put off the thorny question of permanent
storage. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was supposed to serve as a permanent
underground spent fuel repository, but objections from the State of
Nevada, Native Americans, and environmental groups have stalled the
development of the facility.
Spokespeople
from the Department of Energy (DOE) chose not to speculate for me on
the capacity of the proposed GNEP reprocessing plant. A facility large
enough to put a dent in our national backlog of spent fuel would dwarf
any existing reprocessing operation. Richard Garvin,
nuclear physicist and military technology advisor to several
presidential administrations, has written that the GNEP plant would be
designed to handle 2,500 tons/year, only slightly more than the 2,250
tons annually produced by US commercial reactors. Even so, if he’s
correct, a reprocessing facility capable of this volume would
single-handedly double the amount of spent fuel reprocessed worldwide.
On the Road
Regardless of the reprocessing site chosen, spent fuel would have to
travel to get there. The DOE is now soliciting proposals for a new
containment device to move and store it. The Transportation, Aging and
Disposal Canister (TAD canister) is supposed to provide storage space
for a specific number of spent fuel assemblies. Special encasements, or
overpacks, for TAD canisters will allow them to serve triple duty:
transportation, above ground storage, and permanent entombment. Preliminary size specifications for
a TAD canister in its transportation overpack call for a
dumbbell-shaped behemoth 27’ 9” in length and 10’ 6” wide at the
dumbbell ends. Filled with spent fuel, this unit would weigh 250,000
lb., equivalent to a loaded railroad coal car. On the highway, the
gross vehicular weight of a TAD transport would likely tip weigh
station scales at about 300,000 lb. This scoffs at the usual 80,000 lb.
maximum gross weight for tractor trailers but doesn’t win any tonnage
prize according to a weigh station officer with whom I spoke. He
routinely sees comparable weights for rigs carrying industrial steel
dies. The heaviest vehicle he recalls weighed 495,000 lb. It’s enough
to make an overpass squeal for its momma.
More than a TAD
The transportation angle is what interested Sticpewich. To look into
it, he accessed a 2003 DOE database containing reports from nuclear
plant operators about the quantity of spent fuel held at plant sites
and the rate at which each reactor produces spent fuel.
He
was also granted access to TRAGIS, a software package developed by the
National Transport Research Center at Oak Ridge Laboratories. Shipping
dispatchers can use TRAGIS to determine highway, rail, or water routes
for a variety of cargoes, including “special conditions” cargoes such
as spent nuclear fuel. A dispatcher need only choose between highway,
rail, or water and key in the shipment’s origin and destination. TRAGIS
responds with a preferred route and alternates if desired.
After
months of labor, virtual spent-fuel dispatcher Sticpewich had gleaned a
trove of information on the spent fuel stored at the 48 nuclear power
station sites in the northeastern quadrant of the United States. (All
states east of the Mississippi and north of South Carolina) Together,
in 2002, these sites were home to 30,814 tons of waste contained in
111,249 fuel rod assemblies. He calculated the number of TAD canisters
required to move the entire stock of spent fuel from each plant site to
South Carolina and asked TRAGIS for road, rail, and water (barge) maps
of the primary and first alternate routes. His report of the project, More than a TAD: A Study of the
Problems With the Transport and Reprocessing of Nuclear Waste in the
Carolinas, includes an overview of GNEP, TAD canisters,
specific site tonnages, and 38 state-by-state TRAGIS route maps.
“There’s
a funnel effect of stuff coming down,” Sticpewich says. “It’s not very
good for those of us in the South.” Asheville (I-40 and I-26) figures
in several of the highway route maps. Surprisingly, the
Norfolk-Southern rail line through town doesn’t appear at all. Atlanta,
Charlotte, and Fayetteville would see heavy spent fuel traffic, but the
biggest loser is Columbia, SC. Almost all highway and many rail routes
converge there.
Sticpewich notes
that TRAGIS considers only currently authorized highways. I-240 is not
among them. He believes that the completion of the I-26 connecter may
result in some spent fuel shipments approaching the Carolinas on I-81
being rerouted from I-77 (through Charlotte) to I-26 (Asheville) for
the direct dive south.
The Horror, the Horror
Sticpewich’s discomfort with GNEP derives from several sources. While
he doesn’t rule out the possibility that research may one day enable
the reliable and safe destruction of spent fuel in reactors using new
technologies, he questions the wisdom of digging our spent fuel hole
deeper now by building more conventional nuclear plants. Nor is he
impressed by the track record of the proposed advanced burner or “fast
neutron” reactors GNEP touts as a means of “burning” a higher
percentage of fissionable elements. (A higher burn percentage would
reduce the quantities of high-level radioactive waste requiring secure
storage for hundreds or thousands of years.)
Advanced
burners operate at much higher temperatures than the boiling or
pressurized water nuclear reactors used here today. Liquid sodium or
lead, rather than water, is usually circulated around the rods in the
reactor core. Twenty-odd fast burner plants have been attempted
worldwide. High costs and fires have been a problem. Japan lost the use
of its new Monju reactor in 1995 when a sodium coolant pipe broke. The
fire burned at 1500° C and melted the steel structures in the room.
Monju is now being restarted. Apart from it and the power plants of
some Russian submarines, only three fast neutron plants apparently
remain in operation: the BN 600 in Russia and two small research
reactors, Phénix in France and Joyo in Japan.
The
vulnerability of spent fuel casks to terrorist attack also concerns
Sticpewich. TAD canister design specifications call for the dry storage
overpack version to withstand a direct hit by an F-15 fighter jet
crash. But transportation overpack requirements fail to mention
resistance to predictable terrorist methods. In response to a
Congressional request for a study on the security of spent fuel, the
National Research Council produced a classified report. A public
version, Safety and Security of Commercial
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage,
was released in 2006.The authors conclude, “It would be hard for
terrorists to steal enough spent fuel from storage facilities for use
in significant radiological dispersal devices (dirty bombs).”
With
a droll sense of humor, Sticpewich replies, “Right. We’ll fix that by
transporting [spent fuel] around.” Each TAD canister would contain 8.4
- 9.9 tons of spent fuel, including heavy quantities of gamma ray
emitting fission decay products. Terrorists could not cause a nuclear
explosion in a TAD, but Sticpewich’s calculations indicate that, in
addition to the gamma ray emitters, each canister would contain more
U-235 than the Hiroshima bomb and ten times more Pu-239 than “Fat Man,”
the bomb that leveled Nagasaki. If dispersed, “dirty” may be an
inadequate word to characterize the devastation wrought by such
quantities of high-level radioactive waste.
Sticpewich summarizes by asking readers of
More than a TAD
not to accept the rationality of GNEP at face value. Rather than
prescribe solutions, his report poses questions about the premises,
potential benefits, and costs of GNEP proposals. He hopes readers will
draw their own conclusions about what makes sense and what does not.
“These questions,” he writes, “are too important to be left to the
politicians and corporations.”
The
British nuclear industry is in trouble with the Japanese over a
disputed fuel shipment - now 7,000 jobs and the future of reprocessing
is on the line.
By BBC News Online's Ryan Dilley
British Nuclear Fuels claims to be
the
place "where science never sleeps", but its controversial nuclear
reprocessing business could soon be abruptly put to bed forever.
The possible return of British
mixed
oxide (Mox) fuel rods from Japan, following a furore over the safety
documentation accompanying them, may spell its doom.
BNFL's Thorp plant at Sellafield in
Cumbria is one of only two reprocessing facilities in the world. Its
work represents around a quarter of the company's business.
Thorp's closure could see 7,000 job
losses
The activity directly supports some
7,000 jobs in a remote area heavily reliant on BNFL's presence.
The plant takes spent uranium fuel
rods, removes impurities and recombines the uranium with plutonium,
which is also produced during reprocessing, making Mox fuel to be used
again in nuclear reactors.
Mox has long been portrayed as the
saviour of the nuclear energy industry. By recycling uranium, it allays
public qualms about waste storage and offers nations a buffer against
price hikes in, once costly, uranium.
Out of reach
Throwing plutonium back into the
mix
is one way of putting the weapons-grade material to a non-military use,
preventing its needless stockpiling in nations such as Germany and
Japan.
Mox has also been put forward as a
solution to it falling into the hands of pariah states with nuclear
ambitions.
Its detractors have seen
reprocessing as at best an expensive "utopian" dream.
One of its fiercest critics, St
Andrews University international relations professor William Walker,
says the whole system has been kept afloat by political will rather
than economic sense.
The disputed Japanese Mox shipment
may finally sink the boat.
"Reprocessing will come to a
grinding halt pretty soon," says Professor Walker.
The six-gram pellets, each
containing
as much energy as a tonne of coal, inside Mox fuel rods are supposed to
be measured manually.
False hope
The Japanese say that in a shipment
last year, the records of these tests were falsified, and want BNFL to
take the rods back, even if they aren't necessarily faulty.
The Swiss nuclear watchdog spotted
"anomalies" in the records of another BNFL consignment which was loaded
into a reactor without mishap.
Opinion in Japan is turning against
Mox
The breaches of "quality
assurance",
compounded by a lukewarm safety report on Sellafield by the Nuclear
Installations Inspectorate, have seen Japan, Switzerland and Germany
suspend Mox imports from the UK.
More than two-thirds of BNFL's
£12bn reprocessing business comes from foreign customers, mostly
Japan.
The public company even built a new
£300m plant, now mothballed, on the promise of more work from its
star Asian client.
Rethinking Mox
Professor Walker says the troubled
fuel rods sitting at the Takahama nuclear plant, which Japan wants
shipped back, have given all BNFL's customers a chance to rethink their
approach to Mox.
"Japan's game plan is to put a few
spanners in the works, make life difficult for BNFL and the British
government to get a change of policy," says Professor Walker.
Reprocessing will come to a grinding halt
pretty soon
Professor William Walker
Mox
and nuclear reprocessing seem to have had their day as far as the newly
liberalised foreign utility companies which make up the bulk of BNFL's
customers are concerned, says Dr Gordon MacKerron of the Science Policy
Research Unit.
"Japan is looking for an excuse not
to take Mox because it's expensive. This may be part of an
opportunistic desire to get out."
Dr MacKerron says that even if BNFL
gets the spent fuel for "free", the total cost of fabricating Mox
exceeds that of buying new uranium.
Locked away
Reprocessing also raises nuclear
proliferation issues. The plutonium it creates, even once put into Mox,
is more accessible for misuse than if left locked inside spent fuel.
Governments outside the
reprocessing
loop, and those on the route of ships taking Mox back from Sellafield,
remain unconvinced by the scheme.
Ship comes in: BNFL's Mox programme
may run aground
Despite tight international
guidelines
covering vessel safety, these ships will never be completely
invulnerable to accidents, says Trevor Blakley, chief executive of the
Royal Institute of Naval Architects.
"You can minimise the consequences
of
an unexpected event, but double bottoms and enhanced stability cannot
stop your ship hitting something or something hitting you."
There is also the worry, perhaps
remote, that those illegally seeking plutonium for weapons production
may be tempted by Mox.
Even if terrorists or the Far
East's
increasingly brazen pirates give BNFL's armed ships a wide berth,
environmentalists may find such a high-profile target too tempting.
Turning tide
The public mood is also turning
against Mox. In Japan's Wakasa Bay, home to Takahama and 14 other
nuclear plants, 2,000 locals have signed a petition querying the entire
policy.
Professor Walker says Japan may now
push to renegotiate its old contracts with BNFL, hoping Sellafield will
agree to store rather than reprocess the country's nuclear waste.
Politically, this would be a big
step for the UK authorities.
Taking irradiated material from
abroad
to be turned into Mox and then re-exported is one thing, keeping spent
fuel in this country until a solution can be found for disposal is
quite another.
Could
Britain become a nuclear storage site?
As well as trying to convince the
British public of the merits of waste storage and explaining away
BNFL's long commitment to Mox, the closure of Thorp could stir up a
storm with its disruption to Cumbria's economy.
A closed plant would also be left
with a 50-tonne inventory of plutonium, the world's largest civilian
stock.
Although BNFL's new broom, Norman
Askew, says it won't "walk away" from its reprocessing investment, the
Japanese saga may have made that a fait accompli.
If Kansai Electric Power, and its
equivalents in Germany and Switzerland, turn away from Mox, Dr
MacKerron doubts Thorp or the new BNFL plant will find new business.
Market forces
"The chances of finding a
decent-sized market after all these safety scares seems slim."
He also says customers "would be
crazy to volunteer for plutonium" if they hadn't already entered the
reprocessing loop.
Turning BNFL into a storage
business may prove the financial saving of the company, says Professor
Walker.
The chances of [BNFL] finding a decent-sized
market after all these safety scares seems slim
Dr Gordon MacKerron
"Storage is a more viable activity.
It
offers stable and predictable profits. I think the British public will
stomach it if the terms and safety issues are addressed correctly."
In the long term, this solution may
satisfy all parties, even the environmentalists who decry the transport
of spent fuel and Mox across the globe.
The economic arguments for storage
may
even save government plans to partially sell-off BNFL, a move shelved
since the Mox fiasco.
In the short-term, the public-owned
company may well end up having to foot the shipping and storage bills
for the Takahama Mox, despite the fact the original fuel wasn't even
produced in the UK.
French Report Doubts Merits
of Reprocessing and MOX
by Annie Makhijani
Nuclear proponents like to point to France as the success
story of
nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants generate 75 to 80 percent of
France's electricity and this is often held up as a symbol of the
presumed wide acceptance of nuclear energy among the French public.1
However, since the late 1980s, when the French government first tried
to start local investigations for possible repository sites, one of the
public's top concerns has been the management of nuclear waste. This
concern has, in turn, fueled a debate regarding the phase-out of
nuclear power. Within this context the more narrow, but crucial, debate
of putting and end to reprocessing has for the first time received
official consideration.
A July 2000 report, entitled Etude économique
prospective de la filière électrique nucléaire
("The Economic Prospects of the Nuclear Electricity Sector"), was
commissioned by the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, to provide
the government2 with an economic analysis of nuclear power,
including reprocessing and the use of MOX (mixed [plutonium and
uranium] oxide) fuel.3 The report is known as the Charpin
report, after its primary author, Jean-Michel Charpin, who is the head
of the Commissariat du Plan.4 The other two co-authors are
Benjamin Dessus, Director of the ECODEV (Ecodéveloppement)
program at the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique,5
and René Pellat, Haut Commissaire à l'énergie
atomique (Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission).
Given the diverse constituencies represented by the authors,
including the French nuclear establishment, the report must be viewed
as something of an official technical consensus document. In the
introduction of the report, the authors state that:
"We did not try to define the most desirable
outcomes,
even less how to get there. Therefore, this study does not make any
recommendation. [...] Our ambition was not to guide the choices of the
authorities, or even to influence public opinion. It was to allow the
necessary democratic debate to take place on the basis of verified
information and explicit technical, economic and environmental
reasoning."
Although the report did not make any recommendations, its two
main
conclusions regarding reprocessing are clear. They are, moreover, based
on data furnished by the nuclear industry itself. First, reprocessing
and MOX fuel use are uneconomical and will remain so for the
foreseeable future. Second, reprocessing and MOX fuel use will
contribute little to the reduction of the inventory of the transuranic
radionuclides in waste, including plutonium.
The report is structured to show a comparative economic
analysis of
possible various modes of electricity generation. It also evaluates the
long-term impact of those options on the environment, notably carbon
dioxide emissions. What follows is a summary of Chapter I of the
report, "Pour la France: l'héritage du passé" ("Regarding
France: the legacy of the past"), in which the two conclusions
regarding reprocessing are reached. In order to put the report in
context, we first provide a quick overview of the electricity sector
and MOX fuel use in France.
Electricity production in France
The overall electricity production in France in 1997 was 481
TWh (terawatt-hours)6,
with 376 TWh (78 percent) coming from the nuclear sector. The civilian
nuclear sector is comprised of 58 pressurized water reactors. Of these,
20 are currently using MOX, 8 can be modified to use MOX but are not
presently using it, and the remaining 30 reactors use UO2
(uranium dioxide) fuel and cannot be modified to use MOX.
The reactors that are loaded with MOX use a 30 percent MOX
core. The
rest of the fuel is low enriched uranium. The MOX load of these 20
reactors is comprised of almost all the plutonium that is separated
from French spent fuel. Table 1 shows the total amount of spent fuel
unloaded from French reactors and the amount of that which is
reprocessed. Were MOX to be loaded into all twenty-eight reactors that
can use it, all of the approximately 1,100 metric tons of UO2
spent fuel generated annually in France could be reprocessed. There is,
however, a considerable backlog of unused separated plutonium that is
stored in France, since the extensive use of MOX is far more recent
than commercial reprocessing.
Table 1: Types and Amount of Fuel Reprocessed
in France
Type of spent fuel
Annual unloading, in metric tons
Amount reprocessed, in metric tons
UO2
~ 1100
850
MOX
~ 100
0
Total
1200
850
Source: Commission Nationale d'Evaluation
Relative aux recherches sur la gestion des déchets radioactifs,
Instituée par la loi 91-1381 du 30 décembre 1991, Rapport
d'Evaluation No4, October 1998.
The scenarios
The report did its analysis by constructing seven scenarios.
Six
of these postulate various future levels of reprocessing and MOX fuel
use. These are basically divided into two sets of three scenarios each,
which differ only in the assumed life for the reactors (41 versus 45
years). The seventh, called S7, is a fictitious scenario that estimates
the price of electricity in France assuming that reprocessing had never
been initiated.
The difference in the assumed average lifetime is so small
that we
focus discussion here only on the second set, S4 through S6, which
assume a reactor lifetime of 45 years. This is the assumption also made
in the no-reprocessing scenario and therefore allows a comparison of
the costs of various levels of reprocessing with no reprocessing.
Scenarios S4 through S6 involve the following assumptions:
Scenario S4 assumes that reprocessing would stop in 2010.
S5 corresponds to the current situation in France, in which
70% of
the spent fuel is reprocessed and the extracted plutonium is fabricated
into MOX and irradiated in 20 reactors.
S6 corresponds to the situation where all newly generated
spent
fuel (but not the past stocks of the unreprocessed spent fuel) is
reprocessed and the extracted plutonium is fabricated into MOX and
irradiated in 28 reactors.
Note that no scenario assumes an early halt to reprocessing.
The
report notes that before rejecting it, the authors had contemplated a
scenario involving the termination of reprocessing in 2001, date for
the renewing of Electricité de France's reprocessing contracts.
The rational given for not considering an early halt to reprocessing is
that a sudden stop would entail numerous technical (storage of
irradiated fuel), social, and legal problems. Roland Lagarde, who is
Environment Minister Dominique Voynet's point person on this, has
recently broached the possibility of ending reprocessing in 2002.
Economic analysis
Table 2 summarizes the costs of scenarios S4 to S7, where the
same 45-year lifetime per reactor is assumed. The costs shown include
deferred decommissioning costs. (Immediate decommissioning is more
expensive.) All cost figures are in constant 1999 French francs.
Table 2: Electricity Cost and Generation Under
Different Reprocessing Schemes in France
Scenario
S4 (end reprocessing in 2010)
S5 (70 % reprocessing)
S6 (full reprocessing)
S7 (no reprocessing)
Cumulative cost, billions of francs
2,888
2,910
2,927
2,762
Total cumulative electricity generation, billion
kilowatt-hour (billion kWh)
20,238
20,238
20,238
20,238
Average cost of electricity, in centimes/kWh
14.27
14.38
14.46
13.65
Notes: The dollar-franc exchange rates
fluctuate.
An approximate conversion may be made by assuming one US dollar is
approximately equal to one euro. The euro and franc have a fixed
relationship at 1 euro = 6.55 francs. One centime = 0.15 cents.
Several conclusions can be drawn from these results. It is
clear
that France would have been far better off economically without
reprocessing. The cumulative cost difference between the nuclear
establishment's desire for full reprocessing and no reprocessing
amounts to 165 billion francs (about $25 billion, assuming 6.55 francs
= one US dollar). This amounts to a difference of about 3.7 billion
francs per year (about $560 million), averaged out over the entire
assumed life (45 years) of all the reactors. However, MOX is used in
only some reactors and for only a portion of the life of these
reactors. Hence, the cost difference between the full reprocessing and
no reprocessing scenarios per reactor using MOX per year of MOX use is
roughly $50 million (including the related reprocessing costs).
Stopping reprocessing in 2010 would save almost 40 billion
francs
cumulatively ($6 billion) whereas increasing the plutonium reuse from
70 to 100% of the UO2 spent fuel generated annually would
cost an extra 17 billion francs ($2.6 billion). Unfortunately, the
figures for stopping reprocessing in 2001 or 2002 are not given. But an
extrapolation from the figures given indicates that the savings would
be considerably higher.
Material balance analysis
Table 3 shows the projected stocks of plutonium and americium
at
the end of reactor operating lifetimes, assumed to be 45 years, in
metric tons.
Table 3: Quantities of Plutonium and Americium
Contained in Unreprocessed Spent Fuel (UO2 and MOX)
Generated Under Various Reprocessing Schemes in France
Scenario
S4
(End reprocessing in 2010)
S5
(70% reprocessing)
S6
(full reprocessing)
S7
(no reprocessing)
Final stock of plutonium and americium, in metric tons
602
555
514
667
Note: Americium contributes only a few
percent to the
quantities listed.
Hence maximum reprocessing compared to no reprocessing reduces
the
plutonium stock by only 153 metric tons (S6 versus S7), or only about
23%. The difference in plutonium stock between phasing out reprocessing
by 2010 and full reprocessing is even smaller (15%). The reasons that
reprocessing has only small impacts on plutonium stocks are:
Spent MOX fuel still contains a large amount of residual
plutonium.
France has a backlog of separated plutonium from the long
period when it had no reactors or few reactors using MOX. 7
France does not have the reactor capacity to use this backlog.
Moreover, aged plutonium contains americium-241, a strong gamma emitter
resulting from the decay of plutonium-241. Its presence is a hazard to
workers and would necessitate its removal from the plutonium prior to
MOX fabrication.
France's plan to use large amounts of plutonium in breeder
reactors
has fallen apart because of the severe technical problems and the very
high costs of the breeder reactor program. France has permanently shut
down its star of this program, the Superphénix, by far the
largest breeder reactor in the world, well ahead of the original
schedule.
There is plutonium in the spent fuel that France does not
plan to
reprocess, because it could not use the plutonium without engaging in a
transmutation program.8
IEER conclusions
The Charpin report provides the public with first detailed
look
at the official data on reprocessing and MOX fuel use in France. Its
conclusions clearly point the way towards an early end to reprocessing
since no significant problem in the energy or waste management sectors
can be addressed by it. A rapid phase-out of reprocessing and therefore
MOX fuel use would appear to be in the economic interest of
Electricité de France, which, like utilities elsewhere, is
facing an era of deregulation and competition. The company that would
be opposed to such a policy would be Cogéma, the primarily
government owned company which operates all of France's reprocessing
and MOX fuel fabrication plants.
Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA
February 2001
Endnotes:
1 See, for example, Frontline
documentary, "Nuclear Reaction" aired on PBS on April 15, 1997.
2 The
current French government is a coalition of five left-leaning parties,
including the Socialist and Green Parties. The Environment Ministry is
headed by a Green Party member, Dominique Voynet.
3 Jean-Michel Charpin , Benjamin
Dessus and René Pellat, Étude économique
propective de la filière électrique nucléaire,
La Documentation française, July 2000. This report can be found
on the web in French at http://www.plan.gouv.fr/publications/4pageappert.htm.
4 The
Commissariat du Plan reports to the Prime Minister. Its mission is to
help guide public choices on economic and social issues by producing
expert studies.
5 The
CNRS is government-affiliated, and has branches in various regions of
France. It conducts research in many fields, including physical and
biological sciences, health, as well as economics and social sciences.
6 One terawatt is one trillion
watts (1012 or 1,000,000,000,000 watts).
7 At
the end of 1996, this backlog was approximately 35 tons. If foreign
plutonium is included, the figure increases to about 65 tons.
8
IEER's analysis of transmutation as a waste management method --
including environmental, waste management, cost, and proliferation
concerns -- is summarized in Science for Democratic Action,
vol. 8 no. 3 (May 2000), on the web at:
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_8/8-3/transm.html.
TOKYO, Thursday, May 12 - North Korea said Wednesday that it had
harvested a nuclear reactor for weapons fuel, the country's latest
effort to put pressure on the Bush administration and its allies.
But intelligence and Pentagon
officials said that as of late Wednesday they had seen no evidence to
confirm or disprove the assertion. Outside experts expressed skepticism
that North Korea's action, even if confirmed, would significantly
increase its weapons stockpile.
In a statement, North Korea said
it had removed 8,000 spent fuel rods from a reactor at its main nuclear
complex at Yongbyon as one of several "necessary measures" to bolster
its nuclear arsenal.
In the worst case, experts have said, by
removing and reprocessing the fuel rods, North Korea could produce
fuel-grade plutonium for one to three nuclear weapons. But their
suspicions were aroused because by leaving the rods inside the reactor
for another year, North Korea could have obtained a much better yield
of weapons fuel.
"There is a lot of symbolism and taunting here," one senior
administration official said.
North Korea expelled international inspectors in late 2002, and
without
them, it is impossible to independently verify its claims. Both outside
analysts and administration officials note that North Korean leaders
could be bluffing in an attempt to wrest concessions from the United
States in long-stalled six-nation negotiations to persuade North Korea
to abandon its nuclear program.
Or, they said, the North
Koreans could have pulled the fuel from the reactor early because of
technical problems, or because of fears that the United States would
order a strike on the reactor, a step that President Bill Clinton
considered in 1994, during a previous crisis.
The shutdown of
the reactor about a month ago, and Wednesday's statement, appear to be
part of a North Korean effort to convince the world that it is already
a nuclear weapons state, capable of both producing weapons and
supplying itself with weapons-grade plutonium. On Thursday, Vice
Minister of Unification Rhee Bong-Jo of South Korea said the reactor
was closed March 31.
North Korea declared for the first time on
Feb. 10 that it possessed nuclear weapons. The five-megawatt reactor at
Yongbyon, the country's tightly guarded nuclear complex, was probably
shut in early April, intelligence analysts said, based on satellite
photos. By late last month a debate broke out in the American
intelligence agencies over whether the shutdown was prompted by a need
to perform maintenance, or a move to pull the rods out. Last week, two
officials, one American and one foreign, reported that a platform and
large crates were seen near the reactor.
"They gave me the
impression that the unloading had started," Selig S. Harrison, a North
Korea specialist and the director of the Asia program at the Center for
International Policy in Washington, said by telephone Wednesday of
meetings he had with North Korean officials in Pyongyang, the capital,
from April 5 to 9.
Rods can be safely removed from a reactor
shortly after a shutdown, nuclear experts said. But then they need to
be cooled. After that they need to go through a complex process called
"reprocessing" to extract weapons-grade plutonium.
Over the next
18 months, North Korea could produce fuel for one to three bombs from
the rods, according to Daniel A. Pinkston, director of the East Asia
Nonproliferation Program of the Monterey Institute of International
Studies.
Removing rods and storing them in water tanks in a
building adjacent to the reactor takes about six weeks, Dr. Pinkston
said by telephone from California. But it would take at least six
months for the rods to cool sufficiently for safe reprocessing.
Reprocessing 110 tons of rods from the reactor core would take another
year, he estimated.
In an interview in Washington on Wednesday,
Robert Alvarez, a former senior policy adviser to the Department of
Energy who visited the reactor in North Korea 11 years ago, cautioned
against racing to the conclusion that North Korea was capable of making
the fuel into weapons.
North Koreans Claim to Extract
Fuel for Nuclear Weapons
"You have
to think about the variables, not just the worst-case scenarios," he
said. He called the site "very primitive" and said a problem with the
rods might have forced North Korea to withdraw them from the reactor.
"We saw some problems when we were there," he said, "and we don't know
if they have been fixed." The rods would be likely to yield some
bomb-grade material. The question is how much.
Recently, American officials
have debated whether satellite photos indicate that North Korea is
preparing for a first nuclear test. The removal and repacking of earth
in an underground tunnel in Kilju, a remote area with no known mining,
may indicate that North Korea is preparing a test, officials have said.
But they also warn it could be a bluff.
On Wednesday in Tokyo,
J. Thomas Schieffer, the United States ambassador to Japan, entered
into that debate. He told officials of New Komeito, a pacifist party,
that North Korea appeared to be moving toward a test, but he stopped
short of saying they would conduct one.
"I believe they have
taken some preparatory steps," the ambassador said, according to a
United States Embassy official. Referring to the American-led regional
effort to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear bombs, he added, "If
there is a test, it would a be serious blow to the process." But the
State Department was more cautious, with the spokesman in Washington,
Richard A. Boucher, when asked whether Mr. Schieffer was indicating a
test could be forthcoming, saying, "I wouldn't quite read as much into
his statements as you do."
Japan is downwind of North Korea
and could be affected by an open-air test. North Korea's arsenal of
medium range missiles are believed to be intended as a potential threat
to Japanese cities or American bases in Japan. On Wednesday night,
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan played down North Korea's
statement. "It has been making gamesmanship sort of remarks," he said
of North Korea, according to Kyodo News Agency. "The point is we will
have to get through to North Korea that returning quickly to the
six-party talks and scrapping the nuclear program will best serve its
interests."
Calls for a negotiated solution came Wednesday from
officials in Washington, Beijing and Seoul, South Korea. "The
provocative statements and actions by North Korea only further isolate
it from the international community," Scott McClellan, the White House
spokesman, told reporters. "China obviously has considerable influence
that they can use to help get North Korea back to the talks and get
North Korea to end its nuclear ambitions." On Tuesday, a spokesman for
China's Foreign Ministry ruled out applying economic or political
sanctions to pressure North Korea.
South Korea also expressed
concern. "Such a move by North Korea runs counter to moves to make the
Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons," South Korea's Foreign
Ministry spokesman, Lee Kyu Hyun, said in a statement on the ministry
Web site.
"North Korea seems to have extracted the fuel rods as
a means of gaining advantage in future talks," Mr. Rhee, the vice
minister of unification, told reporters in Seoul on Thursday, Bloomberg
reported. "Still, its actions may negatively affect efforts to restart
the six-party talks."
Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger contributed reporting
from Washington for this article.
Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's
Worth
This article was published by Scientific American Magazine
on April 28, 2008.
Plans are afoot to reuse spent reactor fuel in the U.S. But the
advantages of the scheme pale in comparison with its dangers
By Frank N. von Hippel
Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power
reactor has come online in the U.S., there are now stirrings of a
nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs
of natural gas and oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly
objects to the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels; and
the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and
insurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the
process) and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. What more could the
moribund nuclear power industry possibly want?
Just one thing: a place to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed, the
lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging over the entire
enterprise. The projected opening of a federal waste storage repository
in Yucca Mountain in Nevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest)
has already slipped by two decades, and the cooling pools holding spent
fuel at the nation’s nuclear power plants are running out of space.
Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent
fuel on dry ground in huge casks, each typically containing 10 tons of
waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to
fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not
all the industry is doing. U.S. nuclear utilities are suing the federal
government, because they would not have incurred such expenses had the
U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998
as originally planned. As a result, the government is paying for the
casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is
running about $300 million a year.
Under pressure to start moving the fuel off the sites, the DOE has
returned to an idea that it abandoned in the 1970s—to “reprocess” the
spent fuel chemically, separating the different elements so that some
can be reused. Vast reprocessing plants have been running in France and
the U.K. for more than a decade, and Japan began to operate its own
$20-billion facility in 2006. So this strategy is not without
precedent. But, as I discuss below, reprocessing is an expensive and
dangerous road to take.
The Element from Hell
Grasping my reasons for rejecting nuclear fuel reprocessing requires
nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle
and a dollop of common sense. Power reactors generate heat—which makes
steam to turn electricity-generating turbines—by maintaining a nuclear
chain reaction that splits (or “fissions”) atoms. Most of the time the
fuel is uranium, artificially enriched so that 4 to 5 percent is the
chain-reacting isotope uranium 235; virtually all the rest is uranium
238. At an enrichment of only 5 percent, stolen reactor fuel cannot be
used to construct an illicit atom bomb.
In the reactor, some of the uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and
becomes plutonium 239, which is also chain-reacting and can in
principle be partially “burned” if it is extracted and properly
prepared. This approach has various drawbacks, however. One is that
extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth.
Another is that recycling the plutonium reduces the waste problem only
minimally. Most important, the separated plutonium can readily serve to
make nuclear bombs if it gets into the wrong hands; as a result, much
effort has to be expended to keep it secure until it is once more a
part of spent fuel.
These drawbacks become strikingly clear when one examines the
experiences of the nations that have embarked on reprocessing programs.
In France, the world leader in reprocessing technology, the separated
plutonium (chemically combined with oxygen to form plutonium dioxide)
is mixed with uranium 238 (also as an oxide) to make a “mixed oxide,”
or MOX, fuel. After being used to generate more power, the spent MOX
fuel still contains about 70 percent as much plutonium as when it was
manufactured; however, the addition of highly radioactive fission
products created inside a reactor makes this plutonium difficult to
access and make into a bomb. The used MOX fuel is shipped back to the
reprocessing facility for indefinite storage. Thus, France is, in
effect, using reprocessing to move its problem with spent fuel from the
reactor sites to the reprocessing plant.
Japan is following France’s example. The U.K. and Russia simply
store their separated civilian plutonium—about 120 tons between them as
of the end of 2005, enough to make 15,000 atom bombs.
Until recently, France, Russia and the U.K. earned money by
reprocessing the spent fuel of other nations, such as Japan and
Germany, where domestic antinuclear activists demanded that the
government either show it had a solution for dealing with spent fuel or
shut down its reactors. Authorities in these nations found that sending
their spent fuel abroad for reprocessing was a convenient, if costly,
way to deal with their nuclear wastes—at least temporarily.
With such contracts in hand, France and the U.K. were easily able to
finance new plants for carrying out reprocessing. Those agreements
specified, however, that the separated plutonium and any highly
radioactive waste would later go back to the country of origin. Russia
has recently adopted a similar policy. Hence, governments that send
spent fuel abroad need eventually to arrange storage sites for the
returning radioactive waste. That reality took a while to sink in, but
it has now convinced almost all nations that bought foreign
reprocessing services that they might as well store their spent fuel
and save the reprocessing fee of about $1 million per ton (10 times the
cost of dry storage casks).
So France, Russia and the U.K. have lost virtually all their foreign
customers. One result is that the U.K. plans to shut down its
reprocessing plants within the next few years, a move that comes with a
$92-billion price tag for cleaning up the site of these facilities. In
2000 France considered the option of ending reprocessing in 2010 and
concluded that doing so would reduce the cost of nuclear electricity.
Making such a change, though, might also engender acrimonious debates
about nuclear waste—the last thing the French nuclear establishment
wants in a country that has seen relatively little antinuclear activism.
Japan is even more politically locked into reprocessing: its nuclear
utilities, unlike those of the U.S., have been unable to obtain
permission to expand their on-site storage. Russia today has just a
single reprocessing plant, with the ability to handle the spent fuel
from only 15 percent of that country’s nuclear reactors. The Soviets
had intended to expand their reprocessing capabilities but abandoned
those plans when their economy collapsed in the 1980s.
During the cold war, the U.S. operated reprocessing plants in
Washington State and South Carolina to recover plutonium for nuclear
weapons. More than half of the approximately 100 tons of plutonium that
was separated in those efforts has been declared to be in excess of our
national needs, and the DOE currently projects that disposing of it
will cost more than $15 billion. The people who were working at the
sites where this reprocessing took place are now primarily occupied
with cleaning up the resulting mess, which is expected to cost around
$100 billion.
In addition to those military operations, a small commercial
reprocessing facility operated in upstate New York from 1966 to 1972.
It separated 1.5 tons of plutonium before going bankrupt and becoming a
joint federal-state cleanup venture, one projected to require about $5
billion of taxpayers’ money.
With all the problems reprocessing entailed, one might rightly ask
why it was pursued at all. Part of the answer is that for years after
civilian nuclear power plants were first introduced, the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) promoted reprocessing both domestically and
abroad as essential to the future of nuclear power, because the
industry was worried about running out of uranium (a concern that has
since abated).
But that was before the security risks of plutonium production went
from theoretical to real. In 1974 India, one of the countries that the
U.S. assisted in acquiring reprocessing capabilities, used its first
separated plutonium to build a nuclear weapon. At about this time, the
late Theodore B. Taylor, a former U.S. nuclear weapons designer, was
raising an alarm about the possibility that the planned separation and
recycling of thousands of tons of plutonium every year would allow
terrorists to steal enough of this material to make one or more nuclear
bombs.
Separated plutonium, being only weakly radioactive, is easily
carried off—whereas the plutonium in spent fuel is mixed with fission
products that emit lethal gamma rays. Because of its great
radioactivity, spent fuel can be transported only inside casks weighing
tens of tons, and its plutonium can only be recovered with great
difficulty, typically behind thick shielding using sophisticated,
remotely operated equipment. So unseparated plutonium in spent fuel
poses a far smaller risk of ending up in the wrong hands.
Having been awakened by India to the danger of nuclear weapons
proliferation through reprocessing, the Ford administration (and later
the Carter administration) reexamined the AEC’s position and concluded
that reprocessing was both unnecessary and uneconomic. The U.S.
government therefore abandoned its plans to reprocess the spent fuel
from civilian reactors and urged France and Germany to cancel contracts
under which they were exporting reprocessing technology to Pakistan,
South Korea and Brazil.
The Reagan administration later reversed the Ford-Carter position on
domestic reprocessing, but the U.S. nuclear industry was no longer
interested. It, too, had concluded that reprocessing to make use of the
recovered plutonium would not be economically competitive with the
existing “once-through” fueling system. Reprocessing, at least in the
U.S., had reached a dead end, or so it seemed.
Rising from Nuclear Ashes
The current Bush administration has recently breathed life back into
the idea of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel as part of its proposal to
deploy a new generation of nuclear reactors. According to this vision,
transuranics (plutonium and other similarly heavy elements extracted
from conventional reactor fuel) would be recycled not once but
repeatedly in the new reactors to break them down through fission into
lighter elements, most of which have shorter half-lives. Consequently,
the amount of nuclear waste needing to be safely stored for many
millennia would be reduced [see “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste,” by
William H. Hannum, Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford; Scientific
American, December 2005]. Some scientists view this new scheme as
“technically sweet,” to borrow a phrase J. Robert Oppenheimer once
used to describe the design for the hydrogen bomb. But is it really so
wise?
The proposal to recycle U.S. spent fuel in this way is not new.
Indeed, in the mid-1990s the DOE asked the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to carry out a study of this approach to reducing the
amount of long-lived radioactive waste. The resulting massive report,
Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separation and Transmutation, was very
negative. The NAS panel concluded that recycling the transuranics in
the first 62,000 tons of spent fuel (the amount that otherwise would
have been stored in Yucca Mountain) would require “no less than $50
billion and easily could be over $100 billion”—in other words, it could
well cost something like $500 for every person in the U.S. These
numbers would have to be doubled to deal with the entire amount of
spent fuel that existing U.S. reactors are expected to discharge during
their lifetimes.
Why so expensive? Because conventional reactors could not be
employed. Those use water both for cooling and for slowing down the
neutrons given off when the uranium nuclei in the fuel break apart;
this slowing allows the neutrons to induce other uranium 235 atoms to
split, thereby sustaining a nuclear chain reaction. Feeding recycled
fuel into such a reactor causes the heavier transuranics (plutonium
242, americium and curium) to accumulate. The proposed solution is a
completely different type of nuclear reactor, one in which the neutrons
get slowed less and are therefore able to break down these
hard-to-crack atoms.
During the 1960s and 1970s the leading industrial countries,
including the U.S., put the equivalent of more than 50 billion of
today’s dollars into efforts to commercialize such fast-neutron
reactors, which are cooled by molten sodium rather than water. These
devices were also called breeder reactors, because they were designed
to generate more plutonium than they consumed and therefore could be
much more efficient in using the energy in uranium. The expectation was
that breeders would quickly replace conventional water-cooled reactors.
But sodium-cooled reactors proved to be much more costly to build and
troublesome to operate than expected, and most countries abandoned
their efforts to commercialize them.
It is exactly this failed reactor type that the DOE now proposes to
develop and deploy—but with its core reconfigured to be a net plutonium
burner rather than a breeder. The U.S. would have to build between 40
and 75 1,000-megawatt reactors of this type to be able to break down
transuranics at the rate they are being generated in the nation’s 104
conventional reactors. If each of the new sodium-cooled reactors cost
$1 billion to $2 billion more than one of its water-cooled cousins of
the same capacity, the federal subsidy necessary would be anywhere from
$40 billion to $150 billion, in addition to the $100 billion to $200
billion required for building and operating the recycling
infrastructure. Given the U.S. budget deficit, it seems unlikely that
such a program would actually be carried through.
If a full-scale reprocessing plant were constructed (as the DOE
until recently was proposing to do by 2020) but the sodium-cooled
reactors did not get built, virtually all the separated transuranics
would simply go into indefinite storage. This awkward situation is
exactly what befell the U.K., where the reprocessing program, started
in the 1960s, has produced about 80 tons of separated plutonium, a
legacy that will cost tens of billions of dollars to dispose of safely.
Reprocessing spent fuel and then storing the separated plutonium and
radioactive waste indefinitely at the reprocessing plant is not a
disposal strategy. Rather it is a strategy for disaster, because it
makes the separated plutonium much more vulnerable to theft. In a 1998
report the U.K.’s Royal Society (the equivalent of the NAS), commenting
on the growing stockpile of civilian plutonium in that country, warned
that “the chance that the stocks of plutonium might, at some stage, be
accessed for illicit weapons production is of extreme concern.” In 2007
a second Royal Society report reiterated that “the status quo of
continuing to stockpile a very dangerous material is not an acceptable
long-term option.”
Clearly, prudence demands that plutonium should not be stored at a
reprocessing facility in a form that could readily be stolen. Indeed,
common sense dictates that it should not be separated at all. Until a
long-term repository is available, spent reactor fuel can remain at the
sites of the nuclear power plants that generated it.
Would such storage be dangerous? I would argue that keeping older
fuel produced by the once-through system in dry storage casks
represents a negligible addition to the existing nuclear hazard to the
surrounding population. The 10 kilowatts of radioactive heat generated
by the 10 tons of 20-year-old fuel packed in a dry storage cask is
carried off convectively as it warms the air around it. Terrorists
intent on doing harm might attempt to puncture such a cask using, say,
an antitank weapon or the engine of a crashing aircraft, but under most
circumstances only a small mass of radioactive fuel fragments would be
scattered about a limited area. In contrast, if the coolant in the
nearby reactor were cut off, its fuel would overheat and begin
releasing huge quantities of vaporized fission products within minutes.
And if the water were lost in a storage pool containing spent fuel, the
zirconium cladding of the fuel rods would be heated up to ignition
temperature within hours. Seen in this light, dry storage casks look
pretty benign.
Is there enough physical room to keep them? Yes, there is plenty of
space for more casks at U.S. nuclear power plants. Even the oldest
operating U.S. reactors are having their licenses extended for another
20 years, and new reactors will likely be built on the same sites. So
there is no reason to think that these storage areas are about to
disappear. Eventually, of course, it will be necessary to remove the
spent fuel and put it elsewhere, but there is no need to panic and
adopt a policy of reprocessing, which would only make the situation
much more dangerous and costly than it is today.
Fear and Loathing in Nevada
The long-term fate of radioactive waste in the U.S. hinges on how the
current impasse over Yucca Mountain is resolved. Opinion on the site is
divided. The regulatory requirements are tough: the DOE has to show
that the mountain will contain the waste well enough to prevent
significant off-site doses for a million years.
Demonstrating safety that far into the future is not easy, but the
risks from even a badly designed repository are negligible in
comparison with those from a policy that would make nuclear weapons
materials more accessible. From this perspective, it is difficult to
understand why the danger of local radioactive pollution 100,000 or a
million years hence has generated so much more political passion in the
U.S. than the continuing imminent danger from nuclear weapons.
Part of the problem is the view in Nevada that the Reagan
administration and Congress acted unfairly in 1987 when they cut short
an objective evaluation of other candidate sites and designated Yucca
Mountain as the location for the future nuclear waste repository. To
overcome this perception, it may be necessary to reopen deliberations
for choosing an additional site. Such a move should not be difficult.
Indeed, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 requires the secretary of
energy to report to Congress by 2010 on the need for a second storage
facility. Given the disastrous record of the DOE in dealing with
radioactive waste, however, consideration should also be given to
establishing a more specialized and less politicized agency for this
purpose.
In the meantime, spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor
sites in dry casks. And even after it is placed in a geologic
repository, it would remain retrievable for at least a century. So in
the unlikely event that technology or economic circumstances change
drastically enough that the benefits of reprocessing exceed the costs
and risks, that option would still be available. But it makes no sense
now to rush into an expensive and potentially catastrophic undertaking
on the basis of uncertain hopes that it might reduce the long-term
environmental burden from the nuclear power industry.
Editor's Note: This story was originally printed with the title
"Rethinking Nuclear Fuel Recycling"
This report provides a detailed accounting of the separated
plutonium received by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), a
predecessor to the Department of Energy (DOE), from Nuclear Fuel
Services (NFS), which operated a commercial spent fuel reprocessing
facility located near West Valley, New York, 35 miles south of Buffalo.
The NFS facility was the first and only private plant in the U.S. to
reprocess spent nuclear fuel. NFS began receiving spent nuclear fuel at
West Valley in 1965, and operated the facility from 1966 to 1972 to
chemically separate and recover plutonium and uranium from the fuel.
In total, the plant recovered 1926 kilograms (kg) of plutonium and
shipped almost 80% of the material (1530 kg) to the AEC. The remaining
plutonium, 396 kg, either was retained by the utility companies, sold
to
industry by the utilities, or purchased by NFS and later re-sold to
industry for use in plutonium recycle operations.
Of the 1530 kg of separated plutonium received by the AEC from the
NFS West Valley facility, 635 kg originated from fuel or reactors that
were AEC-owned and 895 kg came from commercial power- reactor fuel. The
AEC purchased the 895 kg of commercial power-reactor plutonium from the
utility companies under a program named the Plutonium Credit Activity
which was established by the U.S. Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of
1954.
Of the 635 kg of AEC-origin plutonium, most came from N-Reactor,
a
plutonium production reactor at the Hanford site near Richland,
Washington. Specifically, 534 kg of plutonium came from N-Reactor, 95
kg from the Nuclear Fuels Services facility in Erwin, Tennessee, and 6
kg from the Bonus Reactor, an AEC-owned demonstration reactor in Puerto
Rico.
Of the 895 kg of separated plutonium purchased by the AEC from
the
utility companies, 436 kg was from Yankee Atomic Electric Company
(Yankee Rowe), 285 kg from Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden-1), 63
kg from Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point), 7 kg from Northern
States Power Company (Pathfinder), and 104 kg from Consolidated Edison
Company (Indian Point-1).
All of the AEC-owned and -purchased plutonium was shipped as
plutonium nitrate solution from NFS to the Hanford site. These
shipments were made by commercial truck in accordance with applicable
transportation regulations. Most of the plutonium received by the AEC
from NFS was used in breeder reactor and zero-power reactor programs.
To meet the isotopic and physical requirements for these programs, the
NFS plutonium was blended with other plutonium and converted to either
metal or oxide. The isotopic composition of the power reactor plutonium
generally precluded its use in weapons production, even after blending,
and there is no indication that blending occurred for that purpose.
The purpose of this report is to provide a detailed account of the
separated plutonium received by the AEC from NFS, a commercial spent
fuel reprocessing facility located near West Valley, New York, 35 miles
south of Buffalo. This document is part of a larger effort to respond
to the Secretary of Energy's June 27, 1994, announced goal to
declassify
and release detailed plutonium information (See the DOE report,
Plutonium: the First 50 Years, February 1996). This report is
the first comprehensive look at NFS West Valley reprocessing operations
and is the result of an exhaustive search of open literature,
historical
memoranda, and nuclear material accountability records.
In 1953, the U.S. announced the Atoms for Peace Program. This
program signaled a shift in U.S. policy from closely guarding all
information about nuclear science to encouraging peaceful uses of
nuclear energy at home and abroad. The agreements implementing this
program allowed a sharing of information about industrial applications
of nuclear energy, including nuclear fuel reprocessing techniques,
while
discouraging nuclear weapons proliferation. This change in U.S. policy
set the stage for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and
the
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
The IAEA was established in the late 1950s to encourage the use
of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and to provide safeguards against
proliferation; the safeguards were designed to detect, rather than to
prevent, the diversion of nuclear materials.
The NPT was ratified in 1968 and became effective in 1970, and in
1995 the NPT was extended indefinitely. Currently, more than 170
nations are adherents to this treaty. The NPT provides for the right of
each participant to engage in peaceful nuclear activities, including
spent fuel reprocessing. Nations not already in possession of nuclear
weapons agreed not to develop themand to accept IAEA-directed
safeguards
for all peaceful nuclear activities under their control.
The objective of the Atoms for Peace Program was to promote the
domestic and international exploration, development, and advancement of
the technology necessary to build and operate reliable, economic
nuclear
power plants; to provide cooperative assistance in establishing a
self-sufficient nuclear power industry; and to ensure the development
and use of nuclear energy in electric power production and salt water
desalination.
To insure a self-sufficient, domestic commercial nuclear power
industry, the AEC encouraged the transfer of nuclear fuel reprocessing
from the federal government to private industry. As a result of this
policy, three commercial reprocessing facilities were built in the
U.S.:
General Electric s Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant at Morris, Illinois;
Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS) plant at Barnwell, South
Carolina; Nuclear Fuel Service's facility located near West Valley, New
York.
Optimism about the future growth of the nuclear industry led the
State of New York to set aside 3345 acres near West Valley, New York,
and to encourage nuclear industries to locate there. Although fuel
reprocessing had been practiced in the U.S. since 1944, large-scale
fuel reprocessing in the U.S. had been conducted only at DOE facilities
in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington State, until NFS began
operations at West Valley, NY.
The NFS West Valley facility was the first and only private plant in
the U.S. to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The NFS facility was a PUREX
(Plutonium Uranium Extraction) process plant with a design capacity of
300 tons of fuel per year. The PUREX process included storing spent
fuel assemblies; chopping the assembly rods; dissolving the uranium,
plutonium, and radioactive products in acid; separating and storing the
radioactive wastes, and separating uranium nitrate from plutonium
nitrate. Two other commercial reprocessing facilities were built in the
United States, but never operated.
The General Electric's Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant (also 300 tons
per year) at Morris, Illinois, adjacent to the site of the Commonwealth
Edison Company Dresden reactors, was completed at a cost of $64 million
but was declared inoperable in 1974.
In 1970, Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS) began
construction
of a 1500 tons per year reprocessing plant at Barnwell, South Carolina,
adjacent to the DOE Savannah River site. The Barnwell facility was due
to begin operation in 1974, but following delays in construction and
licensing, it still had not been completed or licensed when in 1977
President Carter decided to defer indefinitely all reprocessing of
commercial irradiated fuel.
In the spring of 1963, the AEC issued the necessary permits to NFS,
a subsidiary of the W.R. Grace Company (NFS was acquired by the Getty
Oil Company in 1969), to begin construction of a fuel reprocessing
facility. NFS was granted a license on May 27, 1965 to receive and
store fuel at its reprocessing facility in West Valley. The first
shipment of fuel, from the Yankee Rowe reactor in Massachusetts, was
placed in the fuel storage pool at West Valley on June 5, 1965.
Government and commercially-generated fuel continued to be received at
NFS until 1973. There were a total of 756 truck and rail shipments.
The AEC encouraged NFS to focus on commercial fuel reprocessing;
however, the AEC guaranteed a minimum quantity of government fuel to
NFS
in the absence of sufficient commercial supplies. Sufficient commercial
supplies were not available because there were not many operating
commercial reactors during the NFS reprocessing period of 1966 to 1972.
As a result, approximately 60% of the facility's supply of fuel and 33%
of the plutonium came from AEC reactors. Specifically, a majority of
this came from N-Reactor.
In 1972, NFS (now owned by the Getty Oil Company) halted all
reprocessing operations in order to increase reprocessing capacity, and
to alter the facility to meet new regulatory requirements. However,
subsequent difficulties were encountered in retrofitting the facility
to
meet these requirements and, after four years of fruitless negotiations
with federal and state regulatory authorities, NFS announced its
intention to cease reprocessing operations and transfer the management
and long-term storage of approximately 600,000 gallons of high-level
radioactive liquids and sludges at the West Valley Site to the site's
landlord, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
This transfer was in accordance with contractual obligations.
By 1980, the West Valley Demonstration Project Act (WVDPA) (Public
Law 96-368) directed the DOE to solidify the high-level radioactive
waste at West Valley to borosilicate glass, suitable for permanent
storage in an approved federal repository. The WVDPA also directed the
Department to decontaminate and decommission the tanks and facilities
used at West Valley, and dispose of the low-level and transuranic
wastes.
The West Valley Nuclear Services Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, was selected in 1981 as the prime
contractor for the WVDPA. West Valley Nuclear Services Company has
operated the West Valley site for the U.S. Department of Energy since
1982.
There were a total of 27 processing campaigns performed at West
Valley, however, only the first 26 campaigns reprocessed intact reactor
fuel. The last campaign involved processing liquid residues received
from Nuclear Fuels Services facility in Erwin, Tennessee, generated
during the fabrication of fuel for the SEFOR reactor. Table
1 provides a summary of the NFS fuel
reprocessing campaigns including the amount of plutonium recovered. The
material reprocessed by NFS, summarized by source in Table
2, was both government and
commercially-generated. In both tables the quantities of "Plutonium
Received" were based on shipper's data, i.e., theoretical calculations
of plutonium produced in the reactors.
The "Recovered Plutonium" is the actual amount of plutonium
recovered by NFS. The difference between the often imprecise
theoretical calculations of plutonium produced in reactors versus the
measurement of the amount actually recovered is called an inventory
difference. When the recovered amount is larger than the received
amount, the shipper may have under estimated the amount of plutonium
produced in the reactor.
Other factors that contribute to the difference between received and
recovered plutonium include the measurement uncertainty, process
holdup,
and normal operating losses/ measured discards. Normal operating
losses/measured discards occur when known quantities of plutonium are
intentionally removed from the inventory because they are technically
or
economically unrecoverable and are disposed of by approved methods. Two
examples of normal operating losses are liquid discards to waste
storage
tanks, and solid waste packaged in drums and crates awaiting shipment
to
waste disposal facilities generically referred to as "burial sites."
Examples of plutonium-bearing items sent to burial sites include
discarded piping, spent ion exchange equipment, and contaminated
laundry
and shoe covers.
The AEC-owned plutonium came from the following:
The Hanford N- Reactor, a production reactor formerly called the
New
Production Reactor, is located near Richland, Washington, about 150
miles southeast of Seattle. This reactor is owned and was operated by
the AEC. N-Reactor was designed as a dual-purpose reactor for the
production of plutonium and the production of by-product steam for
electricity generation. It was a graphite-moderated, pressurized light
water- cooled reactor. N-Reactor operated from 1963 to 1987.
The Bonus Reactor, a demonstration boiling water reactor, was
located at Ricon, about 75 miles west of San Juan, Puerto Rico. This
reactor featured high-temperature, superheated steam and was owned by
the AEC but operated by the Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority. The
Bonus reactor began operation in 1964 and was permanently shut down in
1968.
The remainder of the material came from the Nuclear Fuels
Services
facility in Erwin, Tennessee, and was in the form of liquid residues
generated during the fabrication of reactor fuel for the Southwest
Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor (SEFOR), an experimental reactor,
located near Strickler, Arkansas. SEFOR was built by the Southwest
Atomic Energy Associates [Note
a] for testing liquid
metal fast breeder reactor fuel. SEFOR began operations in 1969 and was
permanently shut down in 1972.
The remaining fuel came from seven commercial nuclear power reactors
that were owned and operated by commercial utility companies.
The Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant. This boiling water
reactor,
owned and operated by Consumers Power Company, is located on Lake
Michigan near Charlevoix, Michigan, about 200 miles northwest of
Detroit. Big Rock Point has operated since 1963.
CVTR, Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor. This pressurized heavy
water
tube reactor, owned and operated by Carolinas-Virginia Nuclear Power
Associates was located in Parr, South Carolina, about 25 miles
northwest
of Columbia. This reactor began operation in 1964 and was permanently
shut down in 1967.
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit #1. This boiling water
reactor,
owned and operated by Commonwealth Edison Company, was located near
Morris, Illinois, about 50 miles southwest of Chicago. Dresden-1
commenced operation in 1960 and was permanently shut down in 1978.
Humboldt Bay Nuclear Plant. This boiling water reactor, owned and
operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, was located on
Humboldt Bay near Eureka, California, about 200 miles north of San
Francisco. This plant commenced operation in 1963 and was permanently
shut down in 1976.
Indian Point Nuclear Power Station, Unit #1. This pressurized
water
reactor, owned and operated by the Consolidated Edison Company, was
located on the Hudson River at Buchanan, New York, about 35 miles north
of New York City. Indian Point began operation in 1962 and was
permanently shut down in 1974.
Pathfinder Nuclear Power Plant. This experimental, boiling water
reactor, owned and operated by the Northern States Power Company, was
located on the Big Sioux River, near Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Pathfinder began operations in 1964 and was permanently shut down in
1967.
Yankee Atomic Electric Power Station. This pressurized water
reactor, owned and operated by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company, was
located near Rowe, Massachusetts, about 45 miles east of Albany, New
York. This reactor began operation in 1960 and was permanently shut
down in 1992.
In the 1950's, commercial utilities began returning fuel to the
Atomic Energy Commission under a program called the Plutonium Credit
Activity. This program, established by the U.S. Congress in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, provided "credit" for plutonium produced in
commercial nuclear reactors operating on fuel purchased or leased from
the AEC. Although the uranium in the civilian power reactor industry in
the 1950's and early 1960's was owned by the AEC and leased to the
utility companies, the plutonium produced during operation of these
reactors was owned by the utility companies.
The Plutonium Credit Activity program began in 1957 and ended in
1970. The U.S. Government paid the utilities approximately $10.4
million for approximately 900 kg of plutonium. All of the plutonium
purchased under this program was reprocessed at the NFS facility and
shipped to the Hanford site with the exception of 2.5 kg plutonium from
the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor that was reprocessed at the
Savannah River site.
Both the AEC-owned plutonium and the plutonium purchased by the AEC
under the Plutonium Credit Activity (1530 kg total) listed in Table
3, were shipped to the Hanford site as
plutonium nitrate solution. The liquid shipments were by commercial
truck in accordance with applicable transportation regulations.
Of the 1530 kg of separated plutonium received by the Hanford site
from the NFS facility, 635 kg came from fuel or reactors that were
AEC-owned, and the remaining 895 kg came from the commercial
power-reactor fuel.
Of the 635 kg of the AEC-origin plutonium, the majority came from
N-Reactor, a plutonium production reactor at the Hanford site near
Richland, Washington. Specifically, 534 kg of plutonium came from
N-Reactor, 95 kg from the Nuclear Fuels Services facility in Erwin,
Tennessee, and 6 kg from the Bonus Nuclear Electrical Station, an
AEC-owned demonstration reactor.
Of the 895 kg of separated plutonium purchased by the AEC from
the
utility companies, 436 kg was from Yankee Atomic Electric Company
(Yankee Rowe), 285 kg from Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden-1), 63
kg from Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point), 7 kg from Northern
States Power Company (Pathfinder), and 104 kg from Consolidated Edison
Company (Indian Point-1).
Most of the plutonium the AEC received from the NFS facility was
used in the breeder reactor and the zero power reactor programs. To
meet the isotopic and physical requirements for these programs, the NFS
plutonium was blended with other plutonium and then converted to either
a metal or an oxide. Even by blending, the isotopic mixture of the
power reactor plutonium generally precluded its use in weapons
production and there is no indication that blending for that purpose
occurred.
As shown in Table
4, not all of the NFS
separated power-reactor plutonium was sold to the AEC. A total of 396
kg of separated power-reactor plutonium was either retained by the
utility companies, sold by the utility company to industry, or
purchased
by NFS and later sold for use in plutonium recycle operations. Of that
total, almost 60% was shipped from the NFS West Valley facility to
foreign countries for use in research or as fuel for foreign
breeder-reactor programs.
A total of 221 kg plutonium was shipped to West Germany for use
at
the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center. Several reactors are located at
the Center, and it is Germany's most important applied research
installation engaged in breeder- reactor research. Work on fast
breeders has been carried out at Karlsruhe since 1960, with Euratom
support of the breeder work starting in 1963.
A total of 10 kg plutonium was shipped to the United Kingdom's
Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell. The two experimental
zero-power reactors at Harwell provided basic physics information on
fast-reactor cores.
Approximately 1 kg of plutonium was sent to the Santa Maria
O'Galeria, Plutonium Research and Development Center in Casaccia,
Italy.
The remaining 164 kg of plutonium was sent from the NFS West
Valley
facility to domestic companies, i.e., Babcock & Wilcox Plutonium
Laboratory in Leechburg, Pennsylvania, the Westinghouse Electric
Plutonium Development Laboratory in Cheswick, Pennsylvania, and the
Nuclear Fuels Services facility in Erwin, Tennessee, for use in
research
or the fabrication of reactor fuel.
a. The Southwest Atomic Energy Associates consisted of seventeen
U.S.
investor-owned utilities, the Federal Republic of Germany, the General
Electric Company, and Euratom. Euratom, the European Atomic Energy
Community, is an organization that promotes the growth of nuclear power
production in Europe. Its members are Belgium, France, West Germany,
Italy, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands.
There is currently a proposal for a national facility for the
disposal of low-level and short-lived intermediate-level radioactive
waste. This dump will be sited in a region of South Australia. Many
believe that the wastes will come from hospitals and universities.
However, 70% of the bulk of this waste will come from the Lucas
Heights site run by the Australia Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation (ANSTO). The majority of radioactivity destined
for the site will, however, be contained in the more highly radioactive
long-lived intermediate level wastes - from reprocessed spent fuel and
from isotope production (and possibly in spent nuclear fuel itself) -
which it is planned to place in the store at the site until such time
as a deep geological repository is established.
Option 1
Almost half the spent nuclear fuel currently held at Lucas Heights will
be returned to the US for storage/disposal. It is proposed that the
remaining fuel rods, and that produced by the proposed new reactor,
will be reprocessed overseas. This process separates the unused uranium
from the fission products and plutonium - which will be returned as
either long-lived intermediate level waste (LLILW) or as high level
waste (HLW) for storage in a facility next to the national nuclear dump
site.
ANSTO had based its spent fuel management programme on sending the
spent fuel to Dounreay in Scotland. As Dounreay is now no longer
accepting foreign spent nuclear fuel, the only remaining option is to
send the fuel to Sellafield in England or La Hague in France. Current
contracts with the UK and France state that the waste returned must
contain the same amount of radioactivity as that contained in the spent
fuel sent for reprocessing - a curie for curie deal. Further,
the preferred option for the UK and France is to send back HLW from
reprocessing. However, as ANSTO claims that the government will not
accept HLW, this issue remains to be resolved. It is important to note
that the only significant difference between LLILW and HLW is that the
latter is heat-generating. LLILW contains many of the same
radioisotopes as HLW, a number of which have long half-lives e.g.
Plutonium-239 (24,000 yrs), Americium-241 (433 yrs).
However, regardless of the final form of thewaste
returned a considerable amount of radioactivity
will eventually sent back to Australia in the waste residues from
reprocessing. The EIS on the proposed new reactor (pp.10.15) notes that
of the current spent nuclear fuel stockpile, fifty per-cent is to be
sent overseas for reprocessing.
Half of the spent fuel stockpile at a June 1998 (1425) 712
Fuel arising for the remainder of 1998, approx. 17
Fuel arising from 1999-2003 185
Total 914
The above figures show the amount which would remain to be
reprocessed and from which waste would be returned. Using figures
supplied by ANSTO a rough estimate of the total amount of radioactivity
in the waste can be given. In 1992, ANSTO wrote that the stockpile of
1500 fuel rods had a total radioactive inventory of 3,000,000 curies,
which equals approximately 2,000 curies per fuel rod. Using an equivalence
figures the waste returned would contain 1,828,000 curies. Dounreay has
already been sent 264 fuel rods sent for reprocessing (150 in 1963 and
114 in 1996) from which waste also has to be returned. This would give
an additional 528,000 curies, adding to the inventory of radioactivity
returned, giving a total of 2,356,000 curies.
In addition to this there will also be the LLILW from the
production
of medical and industrial isotopes at Lucas Heights which is also
destined for storage. This material also contains a considerable amount
of radioactivity, as well as long-lived radioisotopes. If the new
reactor goes ahead the isotope production will increase four-fold, with
a corresponding increase in the amount of radioactivity in the waste.
There are no figures for the amount of radioactivity which would be in
the spent nuclear fuel from the new reactor except that approximately
the same number of fuel rods, 37 per year, would be produced over an
operating period of 40 years. Ultimately the spent fuel and/or waste
from the second reactor would go for storage and, in theory, then be
disposed of.
Option 2:
If reprocessing contracts do not eventuate for the spent nuclear fuel
stockpile (and future irradiated fuel rods) they might be sent directly
for storage at the national nuclear dump site. Indeed, this option has
been available for some time. In 1990 the NHMRC codes for the
‘disposal’ of radioactive waste created the option for storage when
Category S waste was introduced (the ultimate disposal of which is not
actually covered by any codes). As the EIS notes, in the unlikely event
that "the overseas option (for reprocessing) should become
unavailable it would be possible at short notice to take advantage of
the off-the-shelf dry storage casks for extended interim storage at the
national storage facility, pending renewed arrangements being
negotiated for the reprocessing/conditioning or the fuel".(p. 10.18
EIS).
ANSTO, insists, however, that the spent fuel from the current
reactor has to be reprocessed or conditioned and it is not suitable for
direct disposal. ANSTO has also said that the fuel for the new reactor
will be designed so that it can be stored long-term, but that this too
would also have to be reprocessed or conditioned prior to disposal.
ANSTO have said that they are not seeking a fuel type which would be
suitable for direct disposal (the US Department of Energy is currently
investigating non-conditioning direct disposal of the type of spent
nuclear fuel currently used by the Lucas Heights reactor).
Option 3: Send the spent nuclear fuel for
storage at the dump site and
condition the waste there or condition the waste at Lucas Heights and
send the resulting waste to South Australia for storage. ‘Conditioning’
means partial reprocessing, that is the dissolution of the spent
nuclear fuel in acid, without separation of the uranium or plutonium.
Conditioning in Australia is not an entirely unrealistic scenario. In
its 1996 review of radioactive waste management ANSTO outlined
following plan for spent nuclear fuel:
take up the UK offer of a four-year reprocessing program for
the UK-origin spent fuel,
after that four year period, ship the remaining (US-origin)
HIFAR and MOATA spent fuel to the US over a seven year period
if appropriate, prepare a proposal for the domestic
conditioning of spent fuel from HIFAR and any replacement reactor.
Since 1996 the ‘conditioning’ option was explored for the spent
fuel
at the Lucas Heights – and was soundly rejected. The local MP is
adamantly opposed to such a proposal, as are the unions representing
workers on site and the local residents. Whether such
reprocessing/conditioning would necessarily take place overseas, or at
the national nuclear dump site now becomes the key issue. There is
certainly no guarantee that the spent nuclear fuel remaining, or
that which will be created, will be reprocessed overseas. In April of
this year ANSTO stated it was confident that the fuel rods would be
reprocessed at Dounreay – an idea that had to be abandoned only weeks
later.
Political pressures are being brought to bear on both Sellafield
and
La Hague to clean up their operations. There is ever-increasing
pressure for the actual closure of both facilities coming from
political parties, environment groups and affected populations. The
idea that these reprocessing plants will be operating in ten or twenty
years, let alone until 2043 when the proposed new reactor will close,
is something which has to be discussed now. However, if
such plants are open and if they
take the spent fuel there is still the long-term issue of all the
radioactivity coming back – for storage at South Australia.
Disposal
In theory both HLW and LLILW should ultimately be disposed of in a
deep geological repository. Many national nuclear agencies have
encountered major technical and financial problems, and political
opposition, when pursuing such proposals. Only last year, the UK’s
nuclear waste agency, NIREX, was forced to abandon plans to site an
exploratory rock laboratory near the Sellafield reprocessing plant.
That decision, made by the Conservative government, came after official
inquiries concluded the proposal was unsound. The normally pro-nuclear
regional authority, Cumbria County Council, also rejected the scheme.
Having spent 14 years searching for a deep geological repository, and
having spent $430 million, a nuclear waste site could not be found even
in the ‘nuclear heartland’ of West Cumbria. Quite how long the
higher-level wastes will remain stored in South Australia is,
therefore, open to question. A the Department of Primary Industry &
Energy has noted "the small quantity of Category S waste produced by
Australia cannot presently justify the cost of constructing a
geological disposal facility." Would the government establish a
repository for direct disposal of spent fuel? In 1995 Commonwealth
Environment Protection Agency noted:
"Direct disposal in Australia (of
spent fuel
rods).
Direct disposal of spent research reactor fuel would raise significant
policy and technical problems such as operation of deep geological
repositories.
ANSTO – Conflict of
Interest
There is a clear conflict of interest in ANSTO acting as an
adviser
to the government on the matter of radioactive waste disposal. ANSTO
produces the bulk of radioactive waste for the Commonwealth – a
government report from 1992 shows that ANSTO held 70% of the national
total of low-level waste on site at Lucas Heights. ANSTO also produces
the spent nuclear fuel and isotope wastes which contain the majority of
radioactivity in Commonwealth wastes. Local residents and a number of
politicians have expressed their concern at Lucas Heights remaining as
the de facto national nuclear dump. In 1995 the Commonwealth EPA.
" Storage at Lucas Heights. Storage at Lucas
Heights of HIFAR spent fuel has been safely carried out on site for
over thirty years. However, continued accumulation of spent fuel at
Lucas Heights defers the problem of eventual disposal, and invites
opposition from local residents and local government." (emphasis
added)
It is crucial to this debate to understand the political
problems of keeping spent nuclear fuel, and other wastes, at Lucas
Heights - particularly at a time when a new reactor is being proposed.
Government agencies recognise this, and they also know establishing a
deep geologic repository for the more radioactive materials or for
spent fuel will also prove problematic. What then is the likelihood of
building a final disposal facility elsewhere in Australia once a store
is firmly established in South Australia?
About the author:
Since 1980 Jean McSorley has worked as a campaigner on the nuclear
industry in Europe, Australia and Asia. She was formerly coordinator of
the Nuclear & Energy campaign in Asia for Greenpeace International.
She holds a Master of Policy Studies from the University of New South Wales and is author of ‘Living in the Shadow, the Story of the
People of Sellafield’ (Pan books, 1990). Contact mcsorley@compassnet.com.au. Tel (h) 02 9658 3265 or mobile 0417 662 720
The Department of Energy's new draft
environmental study on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership looks
largely to be an exercise in futility.
No
matter who is elected president next week, he'll pursue his own energy
strategy. Not many elements of the Bush administration's ambitious GNEP
proposal are likely to survive the transition.
But GNEP's basic
aim -- to develop better technology to safely reuse the nation's spent
nuclear fuel -- shouldn't be abandoned.
Sure, there's no shortage of uranium needed to fuel
existing reactors around the world, but that won't be true
forever.
Demands
are certain to increase, and supplies will eventually dwindle. If we
wait for a crisis before pursuing reprocessing technology, it'll be too
late.
The U.S. will run out of storage space for spent fuel long
before it runs out of uranium for new fuel rods. The
nation's stockpile
of spent nuclear fuel is expected to exceed capacity of the proposed
Yucca Mountain repository by 2010.
The potential for recycling to
drastically reduce the need for new geological storage could make the
technology cost effective, regardless of uranium supplies.
Arguments that commercial fuel reprocessing in the U.S. will
contribute to proliferation of nuclear weapons are unconvincing.
The
U.S. abandoned its reprocessing program in 1977 to set an example for
the rest of the world. It hasn't worked. Other countries reprocess
nuclear fuel, and the number of nations in the nuclear-weapons club
continues to expand.
If anything, a U.S. program to develop
proliferation-resistant technology for reprocessing spent reactor fuel
promises to slow the growth in countries with nuclear weapons.
A
public hearing on DOE's draft environmental statement is planned at 7
p.m. Nov. 17 at the Pasco Red Lion, 2525 N. 20th Ave. An Oregon hearing
will be held the next evening in Hood River.
We suspect the comments collected will become a footnote
to a DOE proposal that's shelved indefinitely come inauguration day.
But
the need for nuclear energy is becoming increasingly obvious to more
Americans. Just last week, the New York Times ran this headline: "The
Energy Challenge -- Nuclear Power May Be in Early Stages of a Revival."
Sustaining
that revival for the long haul without reprocessing in the mix won't be
possible. The next administration needs to continue funding research
and development.
Transmutation
of transuranics (TRUs) and fission products that are recovered from
spent fuel offers potential for improving the technology for long-term
disposal of radioactive waste. Successful implementation of this
integrated reprocessing/irradiation strategy would require a major
financial commitment to the development, design, construction, and
operation of a series of reprocessing plants and transmutation reactors
based largely on as-yet unproven technology.
This
appendix addresses various economic issues related to the use of
transmutation as a primary waste management strategy, focusing
primarily on future reprocessing costs under various plant ownership
and financing arrangements. It also addresses the substantial
institutional barriers that would inhibit private-sector financing of
such a strategy in the United States.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The
nuclear industry of the early 1970s was characterized by rapidly
increasing worldwide demand for generating commercial nuclear power
capacity, rising uranium prices, and an impending shortage of uranium
enrichment capacity. There was a consensus within the nuclear community
that spent reactor fuel would be reprocessed to recover residual
uranium and plutonium for recycle in light-water reactors (LWRs) and
ultimately to fuel breeder reactors. Projected reprocessing costs were
low, and there appeared to be an urgent need to reduce the rapidly
increasing demand for virgin uranium in order to stem rising prices and
prepare for early introduction of breeders. U.S. enrichment capacity
was sufficiently committed by 1972 that the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) closed the books on new orders for enrichment services.
Reprocessing
and uranium and plutonium recycle in LWRs was expected to reduce total
fuel-cycle cost relative to a once-through fuel-management scheme.
Confidence that a reduction in cost would be realized was supported by
commercial contracts for reprocessing services at unit prices below
$20/kgHM in the late 1960s. The initial estimates of the cost premium
for MOX fuel fabrication were as little as 20% above the comparable
cost of fabricating virgin uranium fuel. Spent fuel was expected to be
reprocessed within approximately 6 months following discharge from the
reactor, so that recovered uranium and plutonium could be returned to
the reactor with minimal delay.
Through the
late 1960s, the U.S. outlook for nuclear power plants and for
fuel-cycle facilities to undertake commercial uranium and plutonium
recycle facilities was favorable. Two commercial facilities for
reprocessing LWR spent fuel were constructed. The General Electric
plant at Morris, Illinois, was completed in 1968,
and the Allied-General Nuclear Services plant at Barnwell, South
Carolina, was completed in 1974. However, neither plant went into
commercial service.
The 20-year period of
nuclear optimism began to wane in about 1970 with growing public
apprehension over the possibility of a major nuclear accident. This in
turn prompted criticism of the AEC, which had the dual responsibilities
for developing and promoting nuclear power and for regulating its
implementation in the private sector. The passage in 1970 of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) fundamentally changed the
ground rules for nuclear plant siting and construction. NEPA added a
requirement for the preparation of an environmental impact statement
for all new major facilities, with provisions for public hearings on
the statement before a construction permit could be issued.
Public
dissatisfaction with AEC management of nuclear issues heightened with
the revelations attending the cancellation of the planned high-level
waste (HLW) repository near Lyons, Kansas. The public became aware that
an approved waste repository site had not yet been secured to receive
the steadily increasing quantity of spent fuel, as well as HLW from
defense operations. In 1974 the Ford administration divided the AEC
into two new organizations that separated the responsibilities for
nuclear development and regulation. The new organizations were the
Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). At the same time, Congress disbanded the
powerful Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and reassigned its
responsibilities among several congressional committees.
A
new public concern arose when India tested a ''peaceful nuclear
explosion" in 1974, rekindling an earlier controversy over the
postulated link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons
proliferation. This concern was heightened by the revelation that the
Indian nuclear explosive contained nuclear weapons material produced in
a reactor that was sold to India by Canada. The Indian nuclear test
made it necessary for many nations, including several developing
countries, to acquire their own facilities to enrich uranium or recover
plutonium from spent reactor fuel. The growing controversy associated
with the widespread commercial use of plutonium recycle came to a head
in the highly contentious hearings on the Generic Environmental
Statement on Mixed Oxide (GESMO) fuel, which the NRC had begun in late
1974 and which the Carter administration finally canceled in 1977.
In
1977, the Carter administration completed a review, begun by the Ford
administration, of the plans to commercialize the breeder reactor and
engage in plutonium recycle in the United States. In addition to
placing greater emphasis on nonproliferation concerns, this review was
based on projections of the growth in electric power demand that were
much lower than the earlier projections of the AEC up to the mid-1970s.
This reappraisal soon led to cancellation of breeder commercialization
and plutonium recycle, leaving the Barnwell reprocessing plant without
an operating license or a mission.
From 1977
to 1979, the United States joined other nations in the International
Fuel Cycle Evaluation to reconsider the commercial use of plutonium.
The U.S. Congress passed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978,
which placed restraints on foreign reprocessing of nuclear fuel of U.S.
origin.
Several nations took issue with the change in
nuclear ground rules implemented unilaterally by the United States.
However, most ultimately agreed that steps to limit reprocessing and
recycle would be prudent, although they retained reprocessing as a
long-term option. The International Fuel Cycle Evaluation also reached
agreement that spent fuel itself was a waste form that could be safely
disposed of in a waste repository. Indeed, by 1977, the United States
was strongly recommending that course, which was adopted and further
promoted by several other nations, notably Sweden, that had small
nuclear programs. However, the European reprocessors and Japan
continued their plans to reprocess spent fuel from commercial reactors
and to store the separated plutonium pending further development of
their breeder programs.
When the U.S. ban on
domestic fuel reprocessing was lifted in the early 1980s, the
previously favorable political and institutional environment for
nuclear energy no longer existed, and the economic incentives for
reprocessing had changed markedly. The principal factors precluding the
resumption of commercial reprocessing in the United States were as
follows:
There
was widespread cancellation of orders for new U.S. nuclear power
plants, resulting in a precipitous decline in uranium concentrate
prices from a peak of $44/lb U3O8 in mid-1979 to
approximately $17/lb only 3 years later.
There
was greatly increased worldwide uranium ore reserves as a result of
major discoveries in Australia in the late 1970s and in Canada in the
early 1980s.
The
introduction of commercial gas centrifuge enrichment technology,
completion of the Eurodiff gaseous diffusion plant, and the absence of
new orders for U.S. nuclear power plants transformed the earlier
forecast of a shortage of enrichment capacity to a condition of
oversupply, resulting in major price reductions for enrichment services
due to intense competition.
The
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provided no economic incentive for HLW
vitrifications as opposed to direct disposal of spent fuel. Indeed, the
disposal of spent fuel in a geologic repository remained the Department
of Energy (DOE) policy, in conformance with the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978.
The
capital cost of breeder reactors relative to LWRs proved to be higher
than had been projected in the early 1970s, and the unit cost of
fabricating MOX LWR and liquid-metal reactor (LMR) fuel also proved
higher than projected, exhibiting a steady increase with time.
Large-scale deployment of commercial breeder reactors, once envisioned
to begin as early as the 1980s, was delayed indefinitely. It now
appears that the need for an LMR to forestall rising uranium costs may
not occur until the second half of the next century, or later.
The
estimated cost to construct and operate commercial reprocessing plants
increased due to several factors, including new regulations requiring
containment of radioactive gases and solidification of the plutonium
product, as well as the industry's recognition that fuel reprocessing
should be treated as a high-risk venture, thereby increasing plant
financing cost.
There
was a lack of a clear economic incentive for reprocessing and closure
of the LWR fuel cycle as a result of the above events. Reprocessing and
recycle of plutonium would have required reopening of the contentious
GESMO
These formidable barriers to reprocessing led
U.S. utilities to continue with a once-through fuel cycle and prompted
reoptimization of LWR fuel management schemes to use longer and higher
burn-up cycles. This reduced the fissile uranium and plutonium content
of the spent fuel, further reducing the incentive to reprocess.
Foreign
interest in reprocessing continued, however, as those nations with
limited economically recoverable domestic uranium resources saw
reprocessing as an opportunity to reduce the increasing demand for
uranium imports. In France, the 800-MTHM/yr UP3 reprocessing facility,
as well as the 400-MTHM/yr expansion of UP2, were successfully
designed, constructed, and operated. Construction of the 900-MTHM/yr
Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) in the United Kingdom was
completed in 1992, and the facility is currently in start-up. In Japan,
the 800-MTHM/yr Rokkashomura plant is currently under construction and
is scheduled for operation in 2000.
RELATIVE ECONOMICS OF REPROCESSING VERSUS
ONCE-THROUGH FUEL CYCLE
A
study of LWR fuel-cycle costs was recently performed by the Nuclear
Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). Their report, The Economics of the Nuclear
Fuel Cycle
(OECD/NEA, 1993), concluded that the levelized fuel cost for the
once-through LWR fuel cycle is approximately 14% less than for the
reprocessing cycle. Their analysis included a credit for both the
uranium and the plutonium recovered through reprocessing.
Those
countries that chose to reprocess their nuclear fuel based their
decision on a number of factors other than cost. With limited natural
uranium resources, they have a strong interest in being self-sufficient
in energy production. They also take a longer-term look than the "what
are the profits in the next quarter" attitude of many of the decisions
made in the United States. This led them to a strategy that included
recovery and recycle of uranium and plutonium from spent fuel and
vitrifying the HLW produced as a solid waste form for interim storage
until a permanent waste repository is in operation.
PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN DETERMINING WHETHER
TO ADOPT REPROCESSING AND TRANSMUTATION AS A WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Recycling
and transmuting TRUs and fission products requires reprocessing. While
transmutation proponents claim that this can be done as economically as
a once-through fuel cycle, the cost of reprocessing is a key factor in
the cost of transmutation. Marshaling the management, technical, and
financial resources to design, construct, and operate the reprocessing
plants and specialty reactors to recycle and transmute TRUs and fission
products is influenced by a number of major issues. While certain
issues are largely political/institutional,
they are nevertheless important, since they
will
influence the attitude of prospective lenders for these
capital-intensive projects.
The principal issues are
the
relative immaturity of certain aspects of nonaqueous (pyrochemical)
reprocessing technology and of the advanced liquid-metal reactor (ALMR)
technologies proposed to recycle and transmute the TRUs and fission
products, and the magnitude of the development and demonstration
program required before wide-scale implementation of a transmutation
strategy can be implemented;
likely
growth in the required capital, operating and maintenance, and
decommissioning costs for pyrochemical reprocessing and ALMR power
plants as concept definition evolves;
difficulty
in obtaining a government financial commitment because of the expected
high cost of transmutation technology development/implementation and
the difficult-to-quantify benefits to public health and safety; and
difficulty
in attracting private capital due to the perceived high
technical/economical/institutional risk of reprocessing/transmutation
projects relative to alternative opportunities for investment capital,
resulting a higher cost of capital due to the higher perceived risk.
These
issues apply not only to centralized, large-scale reprocessing plants
but also to smaller onsite reprocessing plants, transmutation reactors,
and an integrated complex of reprocessing plants and transmutation
reactors. Overcoming these barriers will be a formidable
challenge.
REPROCESSING-PLANT CAPITAL COSTS
While
pyroprocessing technology is being considered for reprocessing spent
fuel that is associated with transmutation of TRUs, this technology is
not sufficiently mature that reliable reprocessing-plant capital and
operating cost estimates can be prepared. Moreover, it is by no means
certain that pyroprocessing will prove more economical than
conventional aqueous reprocessing, for which the technology is
relatively mature. While Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) prefers
pyroprocessing technology, the fuel-cycle costs developed by General
Electric (GE) for the ALMR program are apparently based on the cost of
plutonium and uranium recovery by extraction/transuranic extraction
(PUREX/TRUEX) aqueous technology for reprocessing LWR spent fuel to
start and refuel ALMRs. The GE estimates are based on PUREX aqueous
technology, combined with new TRUEX technology for high-yield recovery
of all TRUs. The capital costs developed in this section, and the
operating costs developed in the section Reprocessing-Plant
Operating Costs are therefore based on aqueous reprocessing
technology.
Capital Costs Associated With Reprocessing
Plant Projects
Capital
cost information was obtained from the open literature and private
communications for three reprocessing plant projects: THORP (United
Kingdom), UP3 (France), and Rokkashomura (Japan). UP3 is in operation,
THORP is in the startup phase, and Rokkashomura is under construction.
These three plants have annual throughputs in the range of 800 to 900
MTHM/yr, and each is based on aqueous PUREX technology.
THERMAL OXIDE REPROCESSING PLANT (THORP)
The
THORP reprocessing plant, which is located at the Sellafield site in
the United Kingdom, is owned by British Nuclear Fuels, plc. THORP
services include fuel receipt and interim storage; reprocessing
(including conversion of uranium and plutonium to oxide); HLW
vitrification and intermediate storage; intermediate-level waste
encapsulation, interim storage, and disposal; and low-level waste (LLW)
disposal. The reprocessing-plant capital and operating costs used in
this appendix are based on this scope of services.
The
reported capital cost of the THORP facility ranges from £2,600
million
($4,700 million in 1992 dollars) reported by Wilkinson (1987) to
£4,000
million ($6,800 million) reported by K. Uematsu (private communication,
1992). The most credible cost is £2,850 million ($4,560 million),
which
was reported in the July 1993 report The Economic and Commercial
Justification for THORP
(British Nuclear Fuel, 1993). This cost excludes interest during
construction since the plant was financed through up-front payments by
THORP customers.
The average annual plant
throughout scheduled for the initial 10 years of operation is 700
MTHM/yr, but British Nuclear Fuel estimates that the plant can process
900 MTHM/yr (1,200-MTHM/yr capacity, with operation at a 75% capacity
factor). The OECD/NEA study, which based its reprocessing plant costs
on the THORP facility, assumed a plant throughput of 900 MTHM/yr as
well.
UP3
UP3
is the most recent addition to the large French reprocessing complex at
La Hague. It reportedly has a design capacity (annual throughout) of
800 MTHM/yr. UP3 has been in operation since 1990, providing complete
services that range from spent-fuel storage through HLW vitrification.
COGEMA, the owner/operator of UP3, reported a total
capital cost of ff
50 billion for UP3 plus the 400-MTHM/yr expansion of UP2 to 800
MTHM/yr. If two-thirds of the cost is allocated to UP3 (based on the
ratio of plant capacities), the resulting UP3 capital cost would be
approximately $5,800 million. COGEMA also reported that the design and
construction of UP3 required 25 million engineering man-hours and 56
million man-hours of field construction (Reprocessing News,
1990). While no information was provided on the cost of equipment,
materials, interest during construction, and
other such costs, factoring in these costs based on historical
experience results in a capital cost of $6,670 million to construct a
comparable facility in the United States.
ROKKASHOMURA PLANT
Japan
Nuclear Fuel, Ltd. is currently constructing an 800-MTHM/yr
reprocessing plant at the Rokkasho Village site. It is scheduled for
operation in 2000. The technology is primarily French, with U.K. and
German design input as well. This facility provides complete services,
including HLW vitrification and storage for 8,200 waste canisters. The
products are uranium and plutonium, with the plutonium diluted with
uranium and converted to a 50/50 mixture of uranium/plutonium oxide.
Despite
the lessons learned on the design and construction of the UP3 and THORP
reprocessing plants, the constant dollar capital cost at Rokkashomura
has not decreased significantly relative to these earlier plants.
Reported capital costs for this facility range from $6,500 million
(Chang, 1992) to $5,200 million (¥740 billion) (JGC, 1991). Because
of
the particularly stringent seismic design requirements in Japan, the
cost of a facility of comparable capacity would probably be less in a
region of lower seismicity.
Capital Costs Associated With Reprocessing
Plant Studies
Capital
costs associated with a number of studies were also evaluated, the most
important being the June 1993 "final revised draft" of the OECD/NEA
study The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (OECD/NEA,
1993). The committee considers this study particularly credible,
because it is based on cost data from the recently completed THORP
plant and includes input from COGEMA, the owner/operator of UP3. The
capital costs reported in the OECD/NEA study are shown in Table
J-1.
The
total estimated cost of £3,297 ($5,370) million is 15% higher
than the
reported actual cost of THORP of £2,850 million ($4,560 million
without
interest during construction). The reason for this cost difference is
not evident, but it could be associated with the higher cost of
construction at the "grass roots" site assumed in the OECD/NEA study as
compared with the existing site on which THORP is located.
In
addition to the above capital-cost estimates for actual plants and the
OECD/NEA study, a number of other studies of reprocessing plant
economics have presented estimates over the past decade. Examples
include the following:
The
1990 study for a generic U.S. site estimated reprocessing-plant capital
costs ranging from $2,725 million (government-owned plant) to $3,001
million (privately owned plant) for a reprocessing plant with an annual
throughput of 1,500 MTHM/yr, 67% larger than the 900-MTHM/yr throughput
of THORP (Gingold et al., 1991). These costs assumed a mature
industry. The reprocessing
plant involved aqueous PUREX technology together with new TRUEX
technology for high-yield recovery of all TRUs.
The
ALMR fuel-cycle assessment (M.L. Thompson, private communication, 1990)
developed a capital cost of $6,100 million for a 2,700-MTHM/yr
reprocessing plant, three times the capacity of THORP. This cost also
includes facilities for MOX fuel fabrication services. As in the
Gingold et al. study, the reprocessing plant involved aqueous PUREX
technology together with new TRUEX technology.
McDonald (1993) presented a capital cost of
$4,380 million for THORP (escalated from as-spent dollars to 1992
dollars).
An
OECD/NEA report (1989), derived unit reprocessing costs based on an
analysis of the THORP plant. Reported reprocessing costs were $570/kgHM
for a 5%/yr return on capital and $750/kgHM for a 10%/yr return.
Depending on the assumptions used for plant economic lifetime, these
figures would indicate a plant capital cost ranging from approximately
$6,000 to $7,000 million (for a 15 to 30-year plant economic life).
The
capital costs estimated in the first two of the above studies are
substantially below those experienced in the construction and operation
of actual plants. This is particularly difficult to rationalize
considering that the study plants include new TRUEX separations and
have annual throughputs two to three times higher than THORP, UP3, and
Rokkashomura. Assuming that reprocessing plant capital costs are
proportional to the 0.6 power of plant capacity, scaling the Gingold
estimates to a 900-MTHM/yr capacity would result in a capital cost of
$2,010 million for a government-owned facility and $2,210 million for a
privately owned facility. Similarly, the GEl capital cost would
decrease to $3,160 million for a 900-MTHM/yr plant, less the cost of
the fuel fabrication facilities included in the GE estimate. These
costs are only one-third to one-half of the costs reported for actual
plants of 800 to 900–MTHM/yr capacity.
Even
lower estimates of capital costs were presented earlier by the ALMR
project (Salerno et al., 1989) for PUREX/TRUEX reprocessing plants
designed for high-recovery yield of all TRUs from LWR spent fuel. Two
cost estimates were presented, one with an annual throughput of 300
MTHM and a second with an annual throughput of 2,500 MTHM. Their
estimates, escalated from 1989 to 1992 dollars, were $227 million and
$4,250 million, respectively. Scaling the 300-MTHM/yr plant estimate to
900 MTHM/yr would result in a cost of $440 million, while scaling the
2,700-MTHM/yr plant estimate to 900 MTHM/yr would result in a cost of
$2,200 million. These estimates are far below the reported capital
costs of actual plants. More important, they indicate an inverse
economy of scale with plant throughput, which has not been observed or
predicted in other studies.
Based on the
above information, the committee concludes that reported capital costs
for actual contemporary plants currently provide the most reliable
basis for estimating the cost of future plants. Estimated capital costs
reported in recent U.S. studies appear inexplicably low.