1. Plutonium Reprocessing and Recycling Ivan Oelrich Federation of American Scientists Airlie House 9 January 2006 202-454-4682

2. Legislative Status • FY 2006 Energy & Water Appropriations bill provides: • $80M for reprocessing R&D ($10M more than administration request.) • $50M for design, site selection, and implementation of first reprocessing facility (not requested by Administration). • Estimates for next year’s request range from $250M to $400M.

3. FY 2006 E&W Bill Rushes Reprocessing • $5M to each of four sites just to prepare proposals. • DOE program plan by March 2006 • Begins site competition in June 2006 • Conceptual design in FY2006 • Engineering scale demonstration in FY2007 • Select technology in 2007 • Begin construction in 2010

4. Three Nuclear Fuel Cycles • Once through thermal reactors (current approach) • Recovery of plutonium for one additional pass through thermal reactors • Repeated reprocessing and recycling of uranium, plutonium, and other transuranics in fast-neutron reactors

5. Three Options for Nuclear Fuel Cycle

6. Why Reprocess and Recycle? • Original reason (1940s-1970s): • Believed demand for nuclear power would be far greater than it turned out to be • Believed world uranium reserves were far smaller than they turned out to be • Current reason: • Reduce amount of nuclear waste • “Given the uncertainties surrounding the Yucca Mountain license application process…” • Additional uranium energy secondary

7. Problems? • The physics of the Argonne proposal is correct. It all works well in theory. • The problems are in the economics and engineering.

8. Economics • Reprocessing is expensive, won’t make economic sense unless uranium is over ten times more expensive than it is today (or waste disposal is much more expensive or impossible). • No current forecasts foresee these uranium prices for decades into the future • Recycling requires constructing a whole new fleet of fast neutron reactors. • “Burning only 1% of the log” is not a good analogy for current thermal reactors. Even “free” energy costs money to extract, whether hydro, or solar, or wind, or U-238.

9. Engineering • Argonne proposals are not mature technology • Electro-pyro reprocessing is in the laboratory demonstration phase, not commercialized. • Current French reprocessing does not reduce waste burden • Past experience is not promising • Fast neutron reactors have been built, and abandoned in the past. • Costs of reprocessing are high and always higher than estimated. • Major environmental problems with existing reprocessing facilities. • What is new?

10. Reprocessing and Proliferation • Argonne National Lab claims counter-proliferation as a particular virtue • Partly true if unproven technology pans out, not true with proven technology • Even if pyro-reprocessing works, nothing prevents further extraction of pure plutonium • For three decades US has argued against reprocessing by other countries, we lose moral authority.

11. What’s the Rush? • Urgency appears to be due to fear of failure to open Yucca Mountain • But proposal will not solve that problem, won’t be ready in time. • Huge political resistance to Yucca, but there will be resistance to new fast reactors, too. • Level of technical development does not warrant site selection and demonstration plants

12. What to do? • If Yucca opens: use once through fuel cycle and store spent fuel in Yucca • If Yucca doesn’t open: continue what we do today, decade long spent fuel storage in pools, followed by above ground storage. Dry cask storage, if done right, could hold waste for up to an additional century. • Continue research if promising, but not development and demonstration, on reprocessing and fast reactors. • THERE IS NO RUSH TO REPROCESS!

13. Summary of Reprocessing Concerns • Technology unproven • Won’t save money • Requires new reactors • Won’t be ready in time to avoid Yucca • Does not prevent proliferation • Decision can be deferred

14. Main References: • For: • “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste,” Hannum, Marsh, Stanford, Scientific American • “Toward a Sustainable Nuclear Future: Closing the Fuel Cycle,” Finck, Argonne Briefing • Against: • “The Economics of Reprocessing Versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” Bunn, Holdren, Fetter, van der Zwaan, Nuclear Technology • “Is U.S. Reprocessing Worth the Risk?” Fetter, von Hippel, Arms Control Today