Merits and Viability of Different
Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Technology
Options and the Waste Aspects of
Advanced Nuclear Reactors

______

Committee on Merits and Viability of Different
Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Technology Options and
the Waste Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Reactors

Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by contract DE-EP0000026/89243220FNE400048 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-29508-6
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-29508-4
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26500

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Merits and Viability of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Technology Options and the Waste Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Reactors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26500.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON MERITS AND VIABILITY OF DIFFERENT NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLES AND TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS AND THE WASTE ASPECTS OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS

JANICE DUNN LEE (Chair), International Atomic Energy Agency (retired), Bethesda, Maryland

PATRICIA A. BAISDEN (Vice Chair), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired), Houston, Texas

RODNEY C. EWING (NAE) (Vice Chair), Stanford University, Stanford, California (until July 21, 2022)

MARGARET S. Y. CHU (NAE), M.S. Chu and Associates, LLC, New York, New York

PAUL T. DICKMAN, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia

CRAIG S. HANSEN, Independent Consultant, Clinton, Tennessee

JOHN C. LEE, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (until September 16, 2022)

EDWIN S. LYMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, District of Columbia

ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

ALBERT J. MACHIELS, Electric Power Research Institute (retired)

CHRISTOPHE POINSSOT, Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM), Paris, France

JEFFREY D. SEMANCIK, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Hartford

KEN B. SORENSON, Sandia National Laboratories (retired)

JASMINA L. VUJIC, University of California, Berkeley (until September 16, 2022)

NATHALIE A. WALL, University of Florida, Gainesville

HOUSTON G. WOOD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville (until September 16, 2021)

Staff

CHARLES D. FERGUSON, Study Director and Senior Board Director, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board (NRSB) and Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Division on Earth and Life Studies (DELS)

OURANIA KOSTI, Senior Program Officer, NRSB, DELS

CATHERINE F. WISE, Program Officer and Co–Study Director (from July 2022), Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

LAURA D. LLANOS, Finance Business Partner

DARLENE GROS, Senior Program Assistant

NUCLEAR AND RADIATION STUDIES BOARD

WILLIAM H. TOBEY (Chair), Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico

AMY BERRINGTON DE GONZÁLEZ (Vice Chair), National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland

SALLY A. AMUNDSON, Columbia University, New York, New York

STEVEN M. BECKER, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

MADELYN R. CREEDON, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia

LAWRENCE T. DAUER, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

SHAHEEN A. DEWJI, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia

PAUL T. DICKMAN, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia

DONALD P. FRUSH, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina

ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

ELEANOR MELAMED, U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (retired), Arlington, Virginia

PER F. PETERSON (NAE), University of California, Berkeley

R. JULIAN PRESTON, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

MONICA C. REGALBUTO, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls

Staff

CHARLES D. FERGUSON, Senior Board Director

JENNIFER HEIMBERG, Senior Program Officer

MICHAEL T. JANICKE, Senior Program Officer

OURANIA KOSTI, Senior Program Officer

LESLIE BEAUCHAMP, Senior Program Assistant

DARLENE GROS, Senior Program Assistant

LAURA D. LLANOS, Finance Business Partner

BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS

JARED L. COHON (NAE) (Chair), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

VICKY BAILEY, Anderson Stratton Enterprises, LLC, BHMM Energy Services, LLC, Washington, District of Columbia

CARLA BAILO, Center for Automotive Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan

DEEPAKRAJ M. DIVAN (NAE), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia

MARCIUS EXTAVOUR, XPRIZE Foundation, Culver City, California

T. J. GLAUTHIER, TJG Energy Associates, LLC, Moss Beach, California

PAULA GLOVER, Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, District of Columbia

AMOS N. GOLDHABER, Claremont Creek Ventures, Berkeley, California

DENISE GRAY (NAE), LG Energy Solution Michigan, Inc., Farmington Hills, Michigan

JENNIFER R. HOLMGREN (NAE), LanzaTech, Skokie, Illinois

JOHN G. KASSAKIAN (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

MICHAEL LAMACH, Trane Technologies (retired), Cornelius, North Carolina

JOSÉ G. SANTIESTEBAN (NAE), ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), Spring, Texas

ALEXANDER H. SLOCUM, SR. (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

SUSAN F. TIERNEY, Analysis Group, Aurora, Colorado

GORDON VAN WELIE (NAE), ISO New England, Inc., Holyoke, Massachusetts

DAVID G. VICTOR, University of California, San Diego

Staff

K. JOHN HOLMES, Director/Scholar

ELIZABETH ZEITLER, Associate Director

BRENT HEARD, Program Officer

KASIA KORNECKI, Program Officer

CATHERINE WISE, Program Officer

REBECCA DEBOER, Research Associate

KYRA HOWE, Research Assistant

JASMINE BRYANT, Research Assistant

KAIA RUSSELL, Program Assistant

HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Manager

This page intentionally left blank.

Acknowledgments

A number of people and organizations contributed to the successful completion of this report. The committee thanks the U.S. Department of Energy, which sponsored the study, and Dr. Erica Bickford, who served ably as the sponsor liaison to the committee.

The committee also thanks the presenters and speakers who gave high-quality presentations during the public meetings, as listed in Appendix B, and the organizations, companies, and agencies represented by the presenters for the information they provided to the committee.

The committee is grateful to the staff of the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board (NRSB) and the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for organizing and facilitating this study. Study director Dr. Charles D. Ferguson and staff organized the committee meetings and assisted the committee with collecting the information it needed to write its report. The committee thanks especially Dr. Rania Kosti (NRSB) and Dr. Catherine Wise (BEES), who helped draft and organize the report, as well as Darlene Gros (NRSB), who managed the logistics of the meetings, report review, and publication. These additional National Academies staff assisted with report production: Kasia Kornecki (BEES), Lauren Everett, and Radiah Rose.

This page intentionally left blank.

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible, and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by DAVID E. DANIEL (NAE), The University of Texas at Dallas (president emeritus), and DAVID W. JOHNSON, JR. (NAE), Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies (retired). They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1 BACKGROUND AND STUDY TASK

1.1 Motivation and Request for the Study

1.2 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Definitions and the Basis Set of Fuel Cycles for This Report

1.3 Status of the U.S. Nuclear Power Program

1.4 Related National Academies Studies

1.5 Report Roadmap

2 MERITS AND VIABILITY OF EXISTING NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLES FOR U.S. LIGHT WATER REACTORS

2.1 Chapter 2 Summary and Findings

2.2 Development of the Current Generation of Nuclear Power Plants and Supporting Fuel Cycles

2.3 Commercial Nuclear Fuel Cycle Operations Supporting Light Water Reactors

2.4 Completing the LWR Fuel Cycle

2.5 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Policies: A Comparison Between the United States and France

2.6 Insights About Merits and Viability of Fuel Cycle Options for Existing LWR Technologies

3 POTENTIAL MERITS AND VIABILITY OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED FUEL CYCLES

3.1 Chapter 3 Summary, Findings, and Recommendations

3.2 Types of Advanced Reactors and Associated Fuel Cycles

3.3 U.S. Government Support for Development of Advanced Reactors and Associated Fuel Cycles

3.4 Prototyping, Testing, and Test Reactors

4 FUEL CYCLE DEVELOPMENT FOR ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS

4.1 Chapter 4 Summary, Findings, and Recommendations

4.2 Front End of the Fuel Cycle to Support Fuel Production for Advanced Nuclear Reactors

4.3 Back End of the Fuel Cycle

4.4 Cost Estimation of Different Fuel Cycle Options

4.5 Fuel Cycle Safety Considerations

5 MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE FROM ADVANCED REACTORS

5.1 Chapter 5 Summary, Findings, and Recommendations

5.2 The U.S. Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal Program

5.3 The Concept of Geologic Disposal of Highly Radioactive Nuclear Waste

5.4 What Matters?: What the Committee Learned from the Experts

5.5 Specific Waste Issues That Arise from Advanced Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles

5.6 Potential Impacts of Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle Wastes on Storage and Transportation Operations

5.7 An Overview of Decontamination and Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants

6 NONPROLIFERATION IMPLICATIONS AND SECURITY RISKS

6.1 Chapter 6 Summary, Findings, and Recommendations

6.2 Background on Nonproliferation, Nuclear Material Safeguards, and Nuclear Security

6.3 Evaluation of Nonproliferation Implications and Security Risks of Advanced Reactors’ Fuels and Fuel Cycles

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES

A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE COMMITTEE AND PROJECT STAFF

B PRESENTATIONS AT THE COMMITTEE’S INFORMATION-GATHERING MEETINGS

C ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

D RADIOACTIVE WASTE CLASSIFICATIONS AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FROM DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE FUEL CYCLE IN THE UNITED STATES

E FUEL CYCLE CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY METRICS OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS

F SAMPLE LIST OF NATIONAL ACADEMIES REPORTS ON NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

G REPROCESSING AND GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL OF TRISO FUEL

H REPROCESSING AND RECYCLING PRACTICES IN OTHER COUNTRIES

I STATEMENT OF TASK FOR PARALLEL NATIONAL ACADEMIES’ STUDY LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR NEW AND ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE UNITED STATES