1 / 10

Reprocessing in the U.S.: A Waste of Time

Reprocessing in the U.S.: A Waste of Time. Edwin S. Lyman Senior Staff Scientist Union of Concerned Scientists July 20, 2009. MISLEADING CLAIMS.

bill
Download Presentation

Reprocessing in the U.S.: A Waste of Time

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reprocessing in the U.S.:A Waste of Time Edwin S. Lyman Senior Staff Scientist Union of Concerned Scientists July 20, 2009

  2. MISLEADING CLAIMS • AREVA and other supporters of reprocessing have claimed that it simplifies nuclear waste disposal, and in particular reduces the volume of waste by factors of four to five • However, this is not consistent with information provided by Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Solutions and even AREVA’s own data

  3. WASTE STREAMS FROM REPROCESSING • High-level waste (HLW) • liquid, highly radioactive waste that must be solidified for safe storage and disposal • Other highly active process waste streams • Low-level waste (LLW) classes A, B and C • Greater-than-class-C LLW • Contains more than 100 curies per cubic meter of certain “transuranic” isotopes (plutonium-239, etc) • Reprocessed uranium (RepU) • Far less desirable than natural uranium for fuel fabrication • Plutonium with or without other “actinides (neptunium, americium, curium) • Will require long-term storage even if an effective system for “transmuting” these isotopes is developed • 300-year storage of cesium and strontium (if separated from HLW)

  4. WASTE VOLUME INCREASES FROM REPROCESSING • According to Argonne National Laboratory data cited in the DOE GNEP PEIS, for the fast reactor “recycle” option, after 50 years • Cumulative volume of all waste 7 times that of direct disposal • Cumulative volume of greater-than-class C low-level waste is about 160 times greater than that of direct disposal option • Volume of reprocessed uranium comparable to volume of spent fuel • High-level waste volume only 25% less than initial spent fuel volume

  5. 50-YR CUMULATIVE WASTE GENERATION

  6. 50-YEAR WASTE GENERATION

  7. OTHER INDUSTRY ESTIMATES • Both Electricité de France and Energy Solutions recently presented similar data • EdF: reprocessing of 850 metric tons of spent fuel (380 cubic meters) annually produces 110 to 130 cubic meters of vitrified HLW and 122 cubic meters of intermediate level waste (ILW) from direct fuel processing only • Associated volume reduction: about 36% • Simple consolidation of spent fuel rods can do better • Energy Solutions: total volume increases 7-fold

  8. Electricité de France data (from Michel Debes, NRC Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, June 2009)

  9. Energy Solutions data (from Martin Wheeler, NRC Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, June 2009)

  10. CONCLUSIONS • The 7-fold increase in total waste volume from reprocessing would make waste management and disposal far worse overall because • Low-level waste disposal options are limited • No policy yet on requirements for GTCC LLW disposal • Impact on capacity of high-level waste repository is marginal

More Related