Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Nuclear reprocessing

Nuclear reprocessing is the chemical separation of into its constituent elements, primarily to recover fissile materials like and for reuse in fuel, while isolating radioactive products as waste. The process typically involves dissolving the fuel in and using solvent extraction methods, such as the process, to partition , , and other actinides from the bulk of products. This approach extracts value from the 96% of spent fuel that remains (mostly U-238) and allows the production of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, thereby extending fuel resources and reducing reliance on mining. Commercial reprocessing has been practiced since the 1960s, with operating the world's largest facility at , processing about 1,100 tonnes of spent fuel annually and recycling over 95% of its nuclear-generated material into new fuel. Other nations including , the , , , and maintain reprocessing capabilities, though Japan's Rokkasho plant has faced delays due to technical issues. The suspended commercial reprocessing in 1977 under President Carter to mitigate risks associated with separated , a policy reaffirmed despite subsequent technical demonstrations of alternative methods like pyroprocessing. Proponents highlight reprocessing's potential to decrease volume by up to 90% and long-term radiotoxicity through recycling, facilitating geological disposal and enabling advanced reactor fuels. Critics, however, emphasize the inherent proliferation hazard, as reprocessing yields weapons-grade separable from civilian safeguards, with historical diversions underscoring the challenge despite international monitoring by the IAEA. Economically, reprocessing costs exceed once-through cycles in current markets, though it gains viability with price volatility and fast deployment. Ongoing into proliferation-resistant techniques, such as concepts, aims to balance with imperatives.

Fundamentals

Process overview

Nuclear reprocessing is the chemical processing of to recover fissile and fertile materials, principally , , and , for potential reuse in reactor fuel cycles, while segregating radioactive fission products and minor actinides into concentrated waste streams. This back-end step in the contrasts with direct disposal by enabling material , though it requires specialized facilities to manage intense and proliferation safeguards. Commercially dominant since the 1960s, reprocessing has been implemented at industrial scales in facilities processing thousands of tonnes of fuel annually, yielding over 99% recovery rates for key isotopes under optimized conditions. The standard aqueous process, known as (plutonium-uranium reduction extraction), begins with the receipt and disassembly of spent fuel assemblies, typically pins containing pellets clad in zircaloy. Fuel is sheared into segments and dissolved in boiling (7-10 M concentration) at 100-110°C, liberating and as nitrates while hulls and noble-metal products form insoluble residues filtered out. This head-end stage achieves near-complete dissolution (>99.9%) of actinides, generating a highly active liquor with about 300 g/L and 1-3 g/L , alongside products contributing intense gamma . Subsequent separation employs counter-current liquid-liquid extraction in mixer-settler or pulsed-column contactors, using 20-30% (TBP) in odorless as the organic solvent. Uranium(VI) and plutonium(IV) are co-extracted into the organic phase due to their nitrate complexation, partitioning >99% away from aqueous containing cesium, , and other products as high-level liquid waste. Plutonium is then selectively stripped by to Pu(III) with or ferrous sulfamate, enabling its isolation from uranium, which is stripped with dilute or water. Each stream undergoes further purification cycles to remove impurities like or , followed by solvent washing to recycle TBP and degradation products. Recovered materials are converted: uranium to UF6 for reenrichment or UO2 for fresh , and plutonium to PuO2 for mixed-oxide ( blending up to 7-10% Pu content. Waste streams are vitrified into for long-term storage, reducing volume by factors of 10-20 compared to untreated . Advanced variants like modified incorporate partitioning for minor actinides (e.g., , ) via additional extractants such as TRUEX, aiming to further mitigate long-term radiotoxicity, though these remain developmental. Non-aqueous alternatives, including electrochemical pyroprocessing in molten salts at 500-700°C, dissolve metal fuels directly and electrorefine actinides onto cathodes, offering compact footprints and proliferation resistance but lacking commercial deployment as of 2025.

Separated components and applications

The principal components separated during nuclear reprocessing of spent fuel via the process are and , with comprising approximately 94-96% of the original fuel mass and about 0.9-1.2%. Recovery efficiencies exceed 99% for and 95% for , yielding purified streams suitable for reuse after conversion to oxides. The remaining material, roughly 3-5%, consists of products and minor actinides, which are partitioned into streams. Recovered uranium, termed reprocessed uranium (RepU), retains the fissile U-235 isotope alongside higher concentrations of U-236 (a absorber) and trace U-232 (which complicates handling due to daughters). RepU is typically converted to for re-enrichment to 3-5% U-235, enabling its reuse in light-water reactors; unenriched RepU can also blend with or serve directly in certain designs. In practice, has loaded full reactor cores with RepU-derived fuel at the Cruas-Meysse since 2024, demonstrating its viability for and reducing reliance on primary . Plutonium, primarily Pu-239 and Pu-240 isotopes, is separated as plutonium nitrate and converted to plutonium oxide for fabrication into mixed-oxide (, which mixes 5-7% PuO₂ with depleted UO₂. MOX fuel assemblies are compatible with modified pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors, substituting for low-enriched uranium fuel to sustain and power output; over 30 reactors worldwide, mainly in and , have utilized MOX, recycling thousands of kilograms of annually. Plutonium recycling via MOX extracts additional energy value—equivalent to about 25% more from the original —while stabilizing isotopic composition for multiple cycles in thermal reactors. Advanced reprocessing variants, such as those incorporating minor partitioning, enable separation of , , and for targeted in fast-spectrum reactors, minimizing long-lived waste components; electrochemical methods at facilities like have demonstrated recovery yields above 99% for recycling into metallic fuels. Separated fission products, including cesium-137 and , find niche industrial applications as gamma sources for medical sterilization or density gauges, though volumes remain small relative to energy-sector reuse.

Motivations and empirical benefits

Waste volume and radiotoxicity reduction

Reprocessing of separates (about 95% of the original mass) and (about 1%), allowing these materials to be recycled into fresh fuel, while concentrating the remaining products and minor actinides (about 4% of the mass) into (HLW) that is vitrified into dense logs. This process reduces the physical volume of HLW requiring geological disposal to approximately one-fifth that of the original spent fuel assemblies, which retain bulky cladding and structural components unsuitable for compact storage without separation. The volume reduction factor typically ranges from 5 to 10, depending on waste loading in the vitrification matrix and operational efficiencies, enabling smaller sizes and lower emplacement costs compared to direct disposal. Empirical data from commercial reprocessing facilities, such as France's plant, demonstrate this benefit: since 1976, it has processed over 36,000 tonnes of spent , producing vitrified HLW canisters that occupy far less space per unit of generated than equivalent unreprocessed would require in a . In contrast, direct disposal of spent demands larger surface footprints and emplacement galleries due to the dispersed nature of the waste and associated heat loads from undegraded assemblies. While reprocessing generates additional intermediate- and low-level wastes from plant operations, the net reduction in HLW volume— the primary long-term disposal challenge—supports more efficient waste management, as confirmed by analyses from operators like . On radiotoxicity, reprocessing followed by actinide recycling in a closed fuel cycle mitigates the long-term hazard by removing and fissioning transuranic elements (e.g., plutonium, americium, curium), which dominate the radiotoxicity profile of unreprocessed spent fuel for periods exceeding 100,000 years. Vitrified HLW from reprocessing consists mainly of shorter-lived fission products, whose radiotoxicity peaks early (within decades) and decays more rapidly thereafter, falling below that of untreated spent fuel after about 100 years. With repeated recycling, including minor actinides, the overall long-term radiotoxicity of the final waste can be reduced by a factor of 10, shortening the time to reach equivalence with natural uranium ore from hundreds of thousands of years to approximately 500 years. This transmutation effect, achievable in fast-spectrum reactors, addresses the causal driver of prolonged hazard—accumulation of long-lived alpha-emitters—without relying solely on natural decay. Studies indicate that even partial recycling yields measurable reductions, though full benefits require multi-recycle strategies to minimize residual actinide burdens.

Resource efficiency and energy security

Reprocessing recovers and , which together comprise approximately 96% of the mass in used fuel, thereby avoiding the discard of valuable fissile and fertile materials. In commercial aqueous processes like , recovery efficiencies exceed 99% for both (as reprocessed uranium, or RepU) and , enabling their reuse in fresh fuel fabrication. This recycling displaces the need for equivalent fresh ; for example, recycled once as mixed oxide ( in reduces annual requirements by 25-30%. In an open once-through fuel cycle, uranium utilization efficiency is limited to about 0.5-1% of the mined resource's latent potential, primarily from U-235 in reactors. Closed cycles with reprocessing improve this by multiple recycles: initial MOX use extracts an additional 25% from the original mass, while integration with fast breeder reactors—where reprocessed breeds more than consumed—can multiply overall resource efficiency by 50-100 times through sustained breeding ratios above 1.0. Empirical data from France's program, reprocessing over 1100 tonnes of spent fuel annually since the , demonstrate sustained fuel recycling that has offset thousands of tonnes of imports over decades. Reprocessing bolsters by transforming domestic spent fuel stockpiles into a strategic resource, curtailing dependence on dominated by suppliers in , , and , which accounted for over 70% of global production in 2023. In the United States, accumulated spent fuel exceeding 80,000 tonnes could, if reprocessed, support equivalent to centuries of current reactor output in advanced closed cycles, enhancing long-term self-sufficiency amid volatile mineral markets. Nations operating commercial reprocessing, such as and , maintain greater fuel supply autonomy; 's facility has recycled material powering 10-20% of its reactors via MOX, insulating against supply disruptions observed in events like the 2022 uranium price spike. This approach aligns with closed-cycle , prioritizing resource extraction from existing inventories over new , though risks from separated necessitate robust safeguards.

Historical development

Early research and military origins (1940s-1960s)

Nuclear reprocessing emerged during World War II as a critical component of plutonium production for atomic weapons under the U.S. Manhattan Project. Laboratory-scale chemical separation techniques for isolating plutonium from irradiated uranium were developed at the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago beginning in 1942, focusing on solvent extraction and precipitation methods to handle the element's chemical similarities to uranium and rare earths. The bismuth phosphate precipitation process, pioneered by Glenn Seaborg's team, proved effective for large-scale application due to its ability to selectively precipitate plutonium phosphate while mimicking its crystal structure with bismuth phosphate carriers. This method was adopted by DuPont engineers in May 1943 for the Hanford site in Washington state, where construction of separation plants (T Plant and later B Plant) began amid wartime urgency, relying on data from microscopic-scale tests. Hanford's achieved criticality on September 26, 1944, marking the start of industrial production, with spent fuel reprocessing commencing shortly thereafter using the process in canyon-style facilities designed for remote handling of highly radioactive materials. The first shipment of separated —approximately 100 grams—from Hanford reached on February 2, 1945, enabling the production of sufficient material for the test on July 16, 1945, and subsequent weapons. This process generated significant liquid waste volumes, averaging 30 cubic meters per metric ton of processed in the and , due to its multi-stage and low recovery efficiency of about 90% for . Post-war, limitations of the method—such as poor recovery and high waste—prompted development of alternatives, including the process in the late and the more efficient (Plutonium-Uranium Reduction Extraction) solvent extraction process in the early at . , using in , achieved over 99% recovery of both and and was first implemented at Hanford's plant in 1956, though military production continued to dominate through the . In the , reprocessing originated from collaboration with the U.S. and the independent program, leading to the construction of air-cooled graphite-moderated reactors () at the Windscale site (now ) starting in 1947 to produce weapons-grade . became operational in October 1950, followed by in 1951, with the first dedicated reprocessing plant (B204) commencing operations in 1952 to chemically separate from spent metallic fuel rods via a modified aqueous process adapted from U.S. methods. This facility supported the UK's first nuclear test in 1952, processing fuel to yield for the deterrent program, though it was shut down in 1964 after handling about 25 tons of fuel. France's military nuclear program, initiated post-war by the à l'énergie atomique (CEA), achieved initial plutonium extraction on a laboratory scale in 1949 at Le Bouchet, but industrial reprocessing began with the UP1 plant at Marcoule in 1958, co-located with the G1 gas-cooled reactor operational since 1956. UP1 employed early variants for separating weapons-grade from natural uranium fuel, producing France's first significant quantities by the late 1950s to support its force de frappe deterrent amid geopolitical tensions with . Through the , these efforts remained classified and military-focused, with reprocessing technologies refined primarily for defense rather than civilian energy applications.

Commercial expansion and international adoption (1970s-1990s)

significantly expanded commercial reprocessing at the during this period, with the UP2-400 entering service in 1976 at a capacity of 400 tonnes of per year, followed by the UP3-800 in 1990 adding 800 tonnes, enabling the facility to process up to 1,700 tonnes annually by the late 1990s and handling spent fuel from both domestic reactors and international customers including and . This growth supported 's closed fuel cycle strategy, recycling into mixed-oxide ( for light-water reactors and breeder development. In the , British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) advanced reprocessing capabilities at , where the existing fuel plant, operational since 1964 with a nominal 1,500 tonnes per year capacity, continued processing but underperformed at around 750 tonnes annually due to technical issues; construction of the () began in 1979 for fuel, reaching completion in 1994 with a design capacity of 1,200 tonnes per year, though full commissioning occurred in 1997 after regulatory approvals. secured contracts to reprocess foreign spent fuel, particularly from , generating revenue through and recovery while aligning with the UK's commitment to plutonium for fast reactors. Japan pursued reprocessing independence amid limited domestic resources, operating a 90-tonne per year at Tokai from 1977 using technology to process 1,140 tonnes of spent fuel by the early , while planning the larger Rokkasho facility—construction initiated in the early with an 800-tonne annual capacity—to reduce reliance on overseas services from and the , where Japan had accumulated over 6,400 tonnes of reprocessed by 2021. This adoption reflected Japan's policy emphasizing utilization in breeders and MOX, despite delays and proliferation scrutiny. India expanded its indigenous reprocessing infrastructure to support its three-stage nuclear program, commissioning the 100-tonne per year Power Reactor Fuel Reprocessing (PREFRE) plant at Tarapur in the mid-1970s and upgrading it by 50 tonnes in the early 1990s, alongside facilities at for plutonium extraction to fuel fast breeders and maintain self-reliance outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty framework. These developments enabled India to reprocess spent fuel from pressurized heavy-water reactors, recovering fissile materials for domestic . Russia maintained commercial-scale operations at the Production Association, reprocessing VVER reactor fuel since the 1970s with capacities exceeding 400 tonnes per year by the 1990s, primarily to recycle and while managing military legacies, though exports were limited compared to Western facilities. Overall, these nations adopted reprocessing to extend fuel resources and reduce waste volumes empirically demonstrated by recycling rates of 96-99% of and , contrasting with the U.S. commercial moratorium since 1977 driven by risks rather than technical infeasibility.

Policy reversals and stagnation (2000s-2010s)

In the United States, government policy prohibited commercial reprocessing of from 1977 until 2005, reflecting persistent concerns over proliferation risks despite earlier lifts under the Reagan administration. The administration's 2006 Global Nuclear Energy Partnership sought to advance reprocessing technologies minimizing weapons-usable materials, but implementation stalled amid technical challenges and budgetary constraints, leading to program cancellation under President Obama in 2011. This reversal perpetuated reliance on once-through fuel cycles, with no domestic commercial facilities operational by the end of the 2010s. The experienced operational stagnation at its site, where the (THORP), operational since 1994, faced technical issues, regulatory scrutiny, and contract shortfalls, processing far below capacity in the . By 2000, international concerns over mixed-oxide fuel production and intensified, contributing to policy shifts away from expansion. Commercial reprocessing contracts ended in 2018, marking a halt amid declining nuclear generation and decommissioning priorities, with the site transitioning to waste storage operations projected to continue until the 2070s. Japan's commitment to closed-fuel cycles encountered repeated delays and reversals, exemplified by the , originally slated for startup in the early 2000s but postponed multiple times due to technical failures and safety reviews. The Monju fast breeder reactor, intended to utilize reprocessed , suffered operational halts, including a 2016 suspension following scandals, underscoring policy inertia amid public opposition and proliferation sensitivities. The 2011 disaster further entrenched stagnation, prompting regulatory overhauls and reduced nuclear reliance, though statutory obligations for reprocessing persisted without full implementation. In contrast, France maintained policy continuity, with the facility reprocessing approximately 1,000 tonnes of spent fuel annually throughout the period, supported by the 2006 radioactive waste law affirming as integral to its . However, even in , broader anti-nuclear sentiments and economic pressures limited expansion, contributing to global stagnation where no major new reprocessing capacities were commissioned despite empirical advantages in waste reduction. Low prices from the mid-2000s undermined economic incentives, reinforcing once-through preferences in nations without established infrastructure.

Recent revivals and advancements (2020s)

In the United States, interest in commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing revived in the mid-2020s amid policy shifts emphasizing energy security and advanced reactor deployment. Executive orders issued in May 2025 directed the Department of Energy to establish government-owned, contractor-operated recycling facilities to secure high-assay low-enriched uranium supplies and reduce spent fuel burdens, marking the first explicit endorsement since the Carter era. Private firms accelerated development: Curio, founded in 2020, advanced its NuCycle electrochemical process to extract 96% of usable materials from spent fuel, targeting a commercial plant by the mid-2030s; Oklo pursued integrated pyroprocessing for fast reactors, projecting up to 80% cost reductions; and SHINE planned a 100-metric-ton-per-year pilot by the mid-2030s, adapting isotope tech for recycling. Orano explored U.S. expansion using proven PUREX methods, leveraging its La Hague experience. France sustained and upgraded its reprocessing leadership through 's facility, which processed approximately 1,000-1,150 metric tons of spent fuel annually in the early 2020s, recovering and for fabrication. In 2021, initiated modernization to enhance efficiency and minimize environmental impacts, with long-term plans announced in 2025 for facility replacement to align with post-peak scenarios and sustained nuclear output. The United Kingdom's site restarted select reprocessing operations in June 2020 for hazard reduction on legacy fuel, though commercial thermal oxide reprocessing via ceased in 2018, shifting focus to decommissioning amid a forecasted £100 billion cleanup extending to 2125. Asian nations expanded closed fuel cycles to support indigenous programs. commenced operations at a 200-metric-ton-per-year pilot reprocessing plant in in the early and broke ground on a third demonstration facility in December 2024, each handling spent fuel to fuel fast breeders and reduce imports. advanced its three-stage program, reprocessing power reactor fuel to recover for the 500 MWe , which began fuel loading in October 2025 at , enabling utilization and self-sufficiency. initiated test operations at the 800-metric-ton-per-year Rokkasho plant in 2021 after delays, aiming to convert separated materials into MOX for domestic reactors under the FaCT project. Technological progress emphasized waste minimization and compatibility with Generation IV reactors, including U.S. DOE-funded research into UREX+ for transuranic separation and pyroprocessing to avoid pure streams, reducing risks while enabling multi-recycle fuel. Russia's facility expansion targeted 700 metric tons per year by mid-decade for closed-cycle support. These efforts, driven by empirical needs for amid ~90,000 metric tons of U.S. spent fuel storage and global expansion, project market growth to $24 billion by 2033, though economic viability and safeguards remain debated.

Established reprocessing methods

Aqueous solvent extraction

Aqueous solvent extraction constitutes the primary hydrometallurgical approach in nuclear fuel reprocessing, facilitating the recovery of uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel by exploiting differences in solubility between aqueous nitric acid solutions and immiscible organic solvents. Spent fuel is first sheared into segments and dissolved in boiling nitric acid (typically 7-10 M HNO₃), producing a clarified aqueous feed containing uranyl nitrate, plutonium nitrate, fission products, and corrosion products from fuel cladding. This solution undergoes countercurrent liquid-liquid extraction in multistage equipment such as mixer-settlers or pulsed columns, where an organic phase—commonly 20-30% tributyl phosphate (TBP) in a diluent like kerosene or n-dodecane—selectively partitions uranium(VI) and plutonium(IV) from the bulk aqueous raffinate laden with fission products. The extraction efficiency stems from the favorable distribution ratios of nitrates in the acidic medium, enabling decontamination factors exceeding 10⁴ for most products while co-extracting and with recoveries typically above 99%. Post-extraction, the loaded organic phase is scrubbed with aqueous solutions to remove entrained impurities (e.g., , ) and then stripped using reducing agents like ferrous sulfamate or U(IV) to partition into an aqueous stream separate from , which is stripped with water or dilute . Purified streams are concentrated, converted to oxides or oxalates, and prepared for refabrication into fresh , while the proceeds to as . This continuous process minimizes volume by over 96% of the original mass as recoverable material, contrasting with once-through cycles, though it necessitates management of solvent degradation products like dibutyl and poses proliferation concerns from separated . Industrial implementations, operational since the , demonstrate scalability to throughputs of 800-1700 tonnes of per year per facility, as evidenced by plants in , the , and . Advanced variants incorporate modified extractants (e.g., amides or oxides) to enhance minor recovery or mitigate third-phase formation under high acidity.

PUREX process

The process, acronymous for Reduction Extraction, is a hydrometallurgical technique employing aqueous solvent extraction to separate and from , leaving behind fission products and minor actinides as . Developed in the , it utilizes (TBP) diluted in an organic solvent such as or to selectively extract the actinides from a solution of dissolved . This method achieves high recovery rates, typically over 99% for and , enabling their into fresh while concentrating for disposal. The process commences with mechanical decladding to remove the zirconium alloy or cladding from fuel assemblies, followed by shear or chopping into segments. The fuel pieces are then dissolved in boiling , converting to and to plutonium(IV) nitrate, with undissolved residues filtered out. The resulting solution undergoes feed adjustment for acidity and control before entering the solvent extraction stages, conducted in pulsed or mixer-settler columns for countercurrent contact between the aqueous and organic phases. In the co-decontamination cycle, TBP extracts both U(VI) and Pu(IV) from fission products like cesium and strontium, which remain in the aqueous raffinate due to their poor solubility in the organic phase. Plutonium is subsequently reduced to Pu(III) using hydroxylamine or ferrous sulfamate, partitioning it into the aqueous phase while uranium stays in the organic solvent for further purification via additional extraction-stripping cycles. Recovered uranium and plutonium streams are converted to oxides or metals: uranium via solvent extraction purification and thermal denitration to UO2, and plutonium by oxalic acid precipitation followed by calcination to PuO2. PUREX offers advantages including continuous operation with high throughput—capable of processing hundreds of tons of fuel annually in large-scale facilities—and effective factors exceeding 10^6 for key products. However, it generates significant volumes of acidic, from raffinates and solvent streams, necessitating , and the isolated raises proliferation concerns as weapons-grade material can be produced if low-burnup fuel is processed. degradation under produces degradation products like , complicating and requiring treatment, while corrosion demands specialized materials like or . Despite these drawbacks, PUREX remains the benchmark for commercial reprocessing, implemented in facilities worldwide with ongoing modifications for improved efficiency and waste minimization.

PUREX modifications and variants

Modifications to the PUREX process primarily seek to enhance resistance by preventing the isolation of pure , while also facilitating the co-recovery of additional s for advanced in fast reactors and reducing long-term waste radiotoxicity. These variants retain the core aqueous solvent extraction using (TBP) in a but incorporate additives like acetohydroxamic (AHA) or alternative extractants to alter separation selectivity, often integrating additional steps such as cesium/strontium removal via processes or transuranic extraction with CMPO-based TRUEX. Development has focused on laboratory-scale demonstrations, with goals including recovery efficiencies exceeding 99.999% and overall partitioning factors above 99.99%. The UREX family of processes, developed in the United States under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) announced in February 2006, exemplifies early modifications by extracting uranium and technetium while holding back plutonium with neptunium and other transuranics using AHA to complex plutonium in the aqueous phase, thus avoiding a pure plutonium stream. Variants like UREX+1a incorporate subsequent TRUEX for transuranic group recovery and TALSPEAK for americium/curium separation from lanthanides, achieving over 99.99% actinide recovery in a 2006 laboratory test with 1 kg of spent fuel; UREX+3 adds neptunium/plutonium extraction (NPEX) for selective transuranic handling. These processes reduce high-level waste volume to less than 10% of the original spent fuel while enabling recycling in fast reactors, though the initiative faced chemical complexity issues leading to its abandonment by 2008. COEX, developed by France's CEA and , modifies by co-extracting , , and into a single stream using TBP, followed by co-precipitation and conversion to a mixed fuel (typically 50% baseline) suitable for MOX fabrication in light-water or fast reactors. This approach maintains high recovery rates comparable to standard (e.g., separation factors of 99.88% as in La Hague's UP2/UP3 ) but eliminates pure handling, directing minor actinides and fission products to vitrified waste with minimal contamination (about 1 g/kg). Positioned for near-term industrial deployment in Generation III around 2012, COEX leverages existing infrastructure for integrated reprocessing but has not yet achieved commercial operation. GANEX (Grouped Extraction), pursued in French-Japanese-U.S. collaborations since , extends principles with a first-cycle removal via TBP, followed by grouped extraction of and minor s using modified DIAMEX-SANEX processes with extractants like TODGA for / partitioning. Designed for homogeneous recycling in Generation IV fast reactors, it minimizes proliferation risks by treating all actinides together for , demonstrated at laboratory scale on genuine solutions by with plans for hot testing; short-lived products are separated early, while form . Other adaptations include advanced flowsheets for rejection via optimized scrubbing and centrifugal contactors for single-cycle efficiency, as explored in U.K. and Japanese facilities where is co-precipitated with to preclude weapons-grade material.

Other aqueous techniques

In addition to solvent extraction methods like , other aqueous techniques for nuclear reprocessing encompass , electrochemical separations, and early precipitation processes, often serving auxiliary roles in purification, , or historical bulk separation. These approaches leverage or potentials in or other aqueous media to isolate actinides from products, though they have generally been less scalable for commercial spent fuel processing compared to solvent extraction. and electrochemical methods remain relevant in and niche applications, while precipitation-based techniques were phased out due to inefficiencies in yield and waste generation.

Electrochemical and ion exchange methods

resins, typically organic or inorganic materials like zirconium phosphate, are utilized in reprocessing for tail-end purification of streams, concentrating from solvent extraction effluents, and decontaminating liquid wastes by selectively binding radionuclides. For instance, in spent fuel cycles, columns capture products or minor s post-solvent separation, enabling their isolation into stable wasteforms such as encapsulation, with operations conducted under acidic conditions to maintain selectivity. Inorganic exchangers offer advantages in stability and high-temperature tolerance over organic resins, supporting roles in recovery from high-level wastes. However, is not suited for primary bulk separations due to resin degradation from and fouling by complexants, limiting it to supplementary steps yielding streams like purified . Electrochemical methods in aqueous media address specific challenges, such as valence adjustment of (e.g., of Pu(III) to Pu(IV) for improved extractability) or direct recovery of actinides from wastes via . These techniques employ controlled potentials to drive reductions or oxidations, minimizing chemical reagent use and enabling compact apparatus for steps like hydrazine decomposition to prevent interference in separations. A proposed , SREEP (spent reprocessing by electrochemical ), integrates electroreduction and deposition to partition actinides from spent dissolutions, demonstrated in lab-scale studies for and recovery. Applications include dioxide precipitation from solutions via cathodic processes, achieving high purity but facing scalability issues from fouling and management in highly radioactive environments. Overall, electrochemical approaches complement rather than replace solvent , with ongoing research focusing on for advanced cycles to reduce secondary wastes.

Obsolete or phased-out methods

The bismuth phosphate process, the first industrial-scale aqueous reprocessing method, relied on selective precipitation of plutonium using bismuth phosphate carriers in media to separate it from and fission products in irradiated fuel dissolutions. Developed under the , it operated at Hanford from 1944, achieving initial plutonium recoveries for weapons production but yielding only about 90% efficiency and generating significant phosphate-rich wastes due to poor selectivity for uranium. Phased out by the early in favor of solvent extraction, it was limited by multi-cycle requirements and issues, though contaminants like and phosphates serve as forensic markers of its historical use. Early solvent extraction variants, such as the process using as the extractant, represented transitional aqueous methods for plutonium-uranium separation but were discontinued due to lower efficiency and higher waste volumes compared to . Implemented at Hanford from 1952 to 1967, involved redox adjustments with ferrous sulfamate and ferric nitrate to partition plutonium, processing defense fuels but suffering from solvent degradation and incomplete decontamination factors. Its obsolescence stemmed from 's superior tri-n-butyl phosphate-based selectivity and scalability, rendering uneconomical for commercial adaptation.

Electrochemical and ion exchange methods

Ion exchange processes in nuclear fuel reprocessing leverage selective adsorption of actinides onto resins or inorganic materials from acidic dissolutions of spent fuel, serving as an alternative or complementary separation technique to solvent extraction. Historically, these methods have been applied primarily for tail-end purification, concentrating product streams by binding Pu(IV) ions while eluting impurities, as demonstrated in early facilities where columns processed solutions post-initial separations. Cation exchange resins, such as sulfonic acid-based polymers, exhibit high affinity for tetravalent actinides under conditions typical of reprocessing (e.g., 1-3 M HNO₃), enabling separation factors exceeding 10² for Pu over products like Zr or . However, radiation-induced degradation of organic resins limits their capacity to approximately 10-20% loading before breakthrough, necessitating frequent regeneration and contributing to secondary volumes of up to 5-10 liters per kg of heavy metal processed. Inorganic ion exchangers, including zirconium phosphate or titanosilicates, offer enhanced stability and selectivity for actinides in high-acid media, with distribution coefficients (K_d) for U(VI) and (IV) often >10⁴ mL/g under simulated reprocessing conditions. Proposed advanced flowsheets integrate directly into head-end or co-extraction steps, potentially reducing solvent use and risks by avoiding organic phases; for instance, a 1997 concept utilized novel exchangers to achieve >99% recovery from dissolver solutions in a single pass, though scalability remains unproven at industrial levels. Despite these advantages—simpler equipment, lower capital costs (estimated 20-30% below setups), and minimal volatile waste— has been largely phased out in commercial plants due to lower throughput (typically <1 kg /day per column) and challenges in handling bulk fission product loads, as evidenced by transitions to TBP-based cycles in facilities like those at Savannah River by the 1970s. Electrochemical methods in aqueous reprocessing apply controlled potentials for redox adjustments, selective deposition, or actinide partitioning, often addressing limitations in chemical reductants like ferrous sulfamate. Laboratory evaluations since the 2000s have validated electrochemical reduction of Pu(IV) to Pu(III) at graphite electrodes in nitrate media, achieving >95% conversion efficiency at potentials of -0.4 to -0.6 V vs. /AgCl, which facilitates cleaner stripping in downstream separations without generating excess salts. These techniques integrate into variants for valence control, minimizing or U(IV) usage; for example, anodic oxidation or cathodic deposition recovers as UO₂ from leachates, with current efficiencies up to 90% in pilot-scale cells operating at 50-100 mA/cm². Aqueous electrochemical approaches also enable head-end treatments, such as electrolytic dissolution of cladding or selective migration of products via , though effects on electrolytes (e.g., H₂ evolution rates increasing 2-5 fold under gamma fields) pose operational challenges. Unlike dominant pyroelectrochemical variants, aqueous systems prioritize compatibility with existing dissolver effluents but suffer from issues in melts and lower selectivity for minor actinides (Am, ), with decontamination factors typically <10² for lanthanides. Development remains largely experimental, with no full-scale commercial deployment, as solvent extraction provides superior mass throughput; however, hybrid electrochemical-ion exchange setups show promise for niche applications like partitioning trivalent actinides, achieving >90% recovery in bench tests using membrane-assisted .

Obsolete or phased-out methods

The bismuth phosphate process represented the earliest industrial-scale aqueous method for plutonium separation from irradiated , employed primarily for military purposes during and after . Developed under the , it involved dissolving fuel slugs in to form an , followed by selective of plutonium using bismuth at controlled pH levels, which co-precipitated plutonium(IV) while leaving uranium in solution. First operational at the Hanford Site's B Plant in , the process achieved initial plutonium recoveries of about 75-90% through batch operations but required repetitive precipitation-dissolution cycles for purification, generating large volumes of phosphate-laden liquid wastes that complicated management. Its inefficiencies, including poor decontamination factors for fission products like and (often exceeding 10^2 rather than the desired 10^4-10^5), and inability to economically recover uranium, prompted its replacement by solvent extraction techniques by 1949 at Hanford, with full phase-out for production-scale operations in the early 1950s. Subsequent refinements, such as the continuous countercurrent bismuth phosphate flowsheets tested at Oak Ridge and Hanford's T Plant starting in 1946, improved throughput to process up to 1 metric ton of uranium per day but retained inherent drawbacks like high reagent consumption (approximately 1-2 kg bismuth per kg plutonium) and sensitivity to aluminum cladding dissolution products. These methods were inherently suited only to metallic uranium fuels from production reactors, rendering them obsolete for commercial oxide fuels introduced in the 1960s, which demanded more versatile and waste-minimizing approaches. No modern reprocessing facilities employ precipitation-based techniques like bismuth phosphate due to their inferior mass efficiency—yielding waste volumes 5-10 times higher than PUREX—and proliferation risks from non-selective actinide handling.

Advanced and alternative methods

Pyrometallurgical processing

Pyrometallurgical processing, or pyroprocessing, constitutes a class of high-temperature, non-aqueous electrochemical methods designed to separate reusable actinides from products in . Operating in electrolytes such as the -potassium chloride eutectic at temperatures around 500°C, the dissolves actinides anodically while retaining less electropositive products in solid form. The process begins with head-end treatment, including decladding and, for fuels, electroreduction to metallic form using metal in molten LiCl at approximately 650°C. Electrorefining follows, wherein the metallic serves as the : deposits selectively on a solid , transuranics accumulate on a liquid , and products form a granular at the basket base. Recovered actinides are then cast into ingots for refabrication into fresh , typically for fast reactors. Originating from research at in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s, pyroprocessing was engineered for the metallic uranium-plutonium-zirconium alloy fuels of sodium-cooled fast reactors under the initiative. Demonstrations at engineering scale reprocessed over 4 metric tons of fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, which operated from 1964 to 1994. Russia has advanced the Dimitrovgrad Dry Process for pilot-scale actinide recovery, while South Korea's Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute operates the PyRoprocess Integrated inactive DEmonstration () facility since 2014 for testing, with plans for a commercial demonstration targeted around 2025. Additional development persists in for fast breeder reactor fuels and thorium cycles, and in for U-Pu-Zr alloys, achieving actinide recoveries exceeding 10 weight percent in laboratory tests.

Pyroprocessing advantages

Pyroprocessing, a high-temperature electrochemical using molten salts, provides inherent resistance by co-processing and with other s, avoiding the production of separated weapons-grade as occurs in aqueous processes like . This integrated recovery supports closed fuel cycles in fast reactors, enabling efficient recycling of transuranic elements without isolated streams vulnerable to diversion. The process excels in handling metallic fuels and high-burnup , producing a significantly smaller volume of compared to aqueous methods, as it separates products while retaining actinides for reuse. Operating in a compact, environment minimizes liquid effluent generation and criticality risks, facilitating integration with sodium-cooled fast reactors for continuous fuel fabrication and reprocessing. Additional operational benefits include higher tolerance to radiation damage in electrolytes and the ability to process diverse fuel types, including those from advanced reactors, potentially extending resource utilization by over 90% of content in spent fuel. These attributes position pyroprocessing as a viable alternative for sustainable , though remains under demonstration.

Pyroprocessing limitations

Pyroprocessing, operating at temperatures typically between 400–700°C in molten salts such as LiCl-KCl, faces significant material degradation challenges due to aggressive of containment vessels, electrodes, and structural components by the reactive and products. This is exacerbated by the presence of oxygen ions or impurities, accelerating degradation in alloys like nickel-based , which limits equipment lifespan and increases maintenance demands. Developing corrosion-resistant materials remains a persistent hurdle, with ongoing focused on and coatings, but no fully scalable solutions have been demonstrated at commercial levels. Waste management poses additional constraints, as the process generates chloride salt wastes laden with fission products that require encapsulation into stable forms like or for disposal, a step that is energy-intensive and technically complex. Unlike aqueous methods, pyroprocessing does not produce liquid effluents but accumulates salts that must be purified or vitrified, with challenges in handling volatile fission products like iodine and cesium that can complicate recycling and increase secondary waste volumes. Decontamination factors for certain radionuclides remain low, potentially leaving residual actinides in waste streams and undermining volume reduction goals. Scalability from laboratory to industrial levels is limited by process integration issues, including inter-stage material transfers that require physical handling of hot, reactive intermediates rather than continuous flows, raising safety and efficiency concerns. As of 2024, operations remain confined to engineering-scale facilities like those at Idaho National Laboratory, with conceptual designs for 100 metric tonnes per year yet unproven due to heat management, throughput bottlenecks, and the need for advanced automation in high-radiation environments. Safeguards implementation is complicated by the high-temperature, dynamic nature of pyroprocessing, where real-time nuclear material accountancy is hindered by molten forms, short residence times, and integrated recycling loops that obscure diversion detection compared to batch aqueous processes. Although proponents argue for lower proliferation risk due to co-production of with and , U.S. assessments equate it to reprocessing risks, citing potential adaptability for weapons-grade separation and the need for enhanced monitoring technologies. Economically, pyroprocessing exhibits higher capital and operational costs than established methods, driven by specialized high-temperature infrastructure and unresolved waste conditioning, deterring commercial adoption absent subsidies or policy mandates. Deployment remains experimental, with no full-scale plants operational as of 2025, reflecting regulatory hurdles, proliferation policy constraints, and the absence of a closed fast-reactor fuel cycle to justify investment.

Electrolysis-based approaches

Electrolysis-based approaches in nuclear reprocessing employ electrochemical techniques, primarily electrorefining, to separate actinides from products in . Developed at during the (IFR) program from the 1980s onward, these methods operate at high temperatures around 500°C using salt electrolytes like LiCl-KCl eutectic. The process begins with mechanical chopping of fuel assemblies, followed by electrolytic oxidation of the metal fuel anode, where actinides dissolve selectively into the melt based on their reduction potentials, while noble products such as and remain undissolved in the anode basket. Actinides are then recovered by onto solid or liquid ; typically deposits first on a , followed by transuranic elements like on a liquid to form a metal . This co-recovery of transuranics avoids isolated production, reducing proliferation risks compared to aqueous methods. products accumulate as a , which can be vitrified or further treated. The approach accommodates metallic fuels from sodium-cooled fast reactors and has demonstrated efficiencies exceeding 99% for from Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) spent fuel. Engineering-scale demonstrations at Argonne processed over 100 kilograms of EBR-II driver fuel between 1996 and 2002, confirming process viability for treating Department of Energy sodium-bonded spent fuel without generating significant liquid wastes. Limitations include corrosion challenges from molten salts and the need for inert atmospheres, though these have been mitigated through material advancements like or components. Recent efforts, including a 2022 agreement between and Argonne, aim to commercialize the technology for recycling into advanced reactors.

PYRO-A and PYRO-B for integral fast reactors

PYRO-A and PYRO-B are pyrochemical reprocessing methods developed at Argonne National Laboratory as part of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program, which operated from 1984 to 1994 and demonstrated a closed fuel cycle using sodium-cooled fast reactors with metallic uranium-plutonium-zirconium alloy fuel. These processes employ high-temperature electrolysis in molten salts to recover actinides for recycle, enabling on-site fuel treatment that minimizes proliferation risks by avoiding separation of pure plutonium. PYRO-A targets spent oxide fuels, typically from light-water reactors, following an initial aqueous UREX step that removes , leaving a stream of transuranics and products as oxides. These oxides undergo electrochemical reduction to metals, followed by electrorefining in molten chloride salts to separate transuranic elements (, , , ) from products, yielding metal for fabrication into fast reactor fuel. This hybrid approach integrates pyroprocessing's compactness and radiation tolerance with aqueous uranium recovery, supporting IFR's goal of transmuting long-lived s in fast spectrum reactors. PYRO-B, in contrast, processes metallic fuels directly from fast reactors like the IFR, starting with mechanical chopping and volatilization or chlorination of cladding components such as . The fuel is then electrorefined in molten LiCl-KCl eutectic at 500°C, where actinides deposit as dendrites on cathodes while products collect in a pool, and reactive products form a . Recovered actinides are electrotransported to a fresh bath for purification before alloying with for refabrication. This was validated in the IFR hot demonstrations at Argonne's Fuel Cycle Facility, processing Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent fuel and achieving over 99% actinide recovery with volumes reduced by factors of 100 compared to aqueous methods. Both processes enhance IFR's nature by enabling colocation of reprocessing with the , reducing transportation risks and supporting high metallic fuels up to 20% atoms fissioned. Electrorefining operates under inert atmospheres to handle the high fields, with salt wastes immobilized in or for geologic disposal, demonstrating lower environmental impact through empirical testing. Although the IFR program ended due to policy shifts, these techniques inform ongoing pyroprocessing research for advanced fast reactors.

Voloxidation and volatilization techniques

Voloxidation serves as a dry head-end treatment in nuclear fuel reprocessing, involving the oxidation of spent fuel pellets at elevated temperatures, typically 500–700°C in air or oxygen, to convert (UO₂) into higher oxides such as (U₃O₈). This transformation causes the fuel matrix to fragment into powder, thereby liberating volatile fission products—including , iodine, krypton, , and cesium—and facilitating the mechanical separation of cladding hulls. The process removes up to 99% of and significant fractions of other volatiles, reducing gas emissions and inventory prior to subsequent steps in aqueous or pyrochemical flowsheets. Advanced voloxidation variants employ (NO₂) gas instead of air, enabling operation at lower temperatures around 400–500°C while enhancing the release of specific volatiles like iodine from cesium surrogates through solid-gas reactions. Demonstrations, such as those by Curio at in 2025, have highlighted its scalability for decladding, achieving efficient pulverization without excessive oxidation of structural materials. For fuels, voloxidation similarly aids in volatile product removal post-cladding separation, though it requires control to minimize compound formation. Volatilization techniques extend this principle to full separations by converting constituents into volatile halides via with , exploiting differences in vapor pressures for . volatility methods fluorinate powdered spent with gas (F₂) in a at 300–600°C, selectively volatilizing over 90% of as (UF₆, 56°C), which is then condensed and separated from non-volatile residues containing and products. Developed since the for power fuels, these processes reduce volumes by early recovery but demand corrosion-resistant equipment due to F₂ reactivity. Chloride volatility approaches, conversely, use chlorine gas (Cl₂) or (HCl) to form metal chlorides with tailored volatilities—such as uranium tetrachloride (UCl₄, sublimes at 317°C) versus plutonium trichloride (PuCl₃, higher stability)—enabling co-extraction of and transuranics in two-step schemes for advanced reactor fuels. Recent efforts, including TerraPower's 2025 demonstrations, focus on tunable parameters for metallic, oxide, and fuels, achieving separation via gas-solid reactions without solvents, though activation products in cladding chlorides pose purification challenges. These methods remain largely developmental, with empirical data indicating effective volatile capture but requiring safeguards against incomplete separations of .

Fluoride and chloride volatility methods

The fluoride volatility method is a dry reprocessing technique that employs direct fluorination of , typically powdered oxide fuel, with fluorine gas to generate volatile (UF6) and plutonium hexafluoride (PuF6), enabling separation from less volatile product residues. The process operates in a fluid-bed or flame fluorination reactor at temperatures exceeding 400°C, where up to 99% of can be volatilized in initial stages, significantly reducing the volume of material requiring subsequent handling. Initial research dates to the , with U.S. efforts under the Commission evaluating its feasibility for power reactor fuels, though it has seen renewed interest in and for fast (FBR) and fuels due to its compatibility with pyrochemical cycles. Hybrid variants, such as Japan's FLUOREX process developed in the 2000s, integrate fluoride volatility with aqueous solvent to refine separation, achieving decontamination factors exceeding 104 for key products like cesium and . Chloride volatility methods, in contrast, utilize chlorination with or gas to form volatile metal , often targeting co-recovery of and transuranic elements (TRU) in a solventless, gas-solid separation scheme suitable for metallic, oxide, or salt-based fuels from advanced reactors. These processes typically occur at lower temperatures (350–500°C) than fluorination, as exemplified by the two-step chloride volatility (TSCV) approach, which first hydrides the fuel for fragmentation, then selectively chlorinates to volatilize (UCl4, ~570°C) while retaining non-volatile residues. Historical development traces to 1960s U.S. laboratory work on recovering from nuclear thermal propulsion fuel via combustion ash chlorination, with modern iterations like TerraPower's chloride-based volatility (CBV) project, funded by since 2020, demonstrating up to 99.9% separation efficiency and a 10-fold waste volume reduction compared to aqueous methods. processes have been applied to cladding purification, reacting at 350–380°C to yield ZrCl4 ( 331°C) for selective removal. Both methods leverage differential volatilities—fission products like and iodine form volatile halides (e.g., RuF6 at ~50°C, I2 sublimes at 114°C), necessitating off-gas trapping via sorbents or cold traps to prevent releases—offering advantages in compactness and avoidance of aqueous or liquid waste streams inherent to . However, challenges include severe equipment from reactive (fluorine attacks most metals, requiring or linings), high energy demands for gas handling, and incomplete separation of (PuF6 decomposes above 50°C, complicating recovery). Operational pilots, such as those at in the 1960s, achieved 95% recovery but highlighted fluoride residue management issues, where non-volatile fluorides (e.g., from rare earths) form stable solids requiring immobilization. Recent advancements, including fluidized-bed designs tested in 2012–2019, aim to mitigate these via continuous processing, though commercial deployment remains limited to research scales due to concerns over pure UF6 production and economic viability thresholds above $100/kg prices.

Volatilization advantages and challenges

Volatilization techniques in nuclear reprocessing, encompassing and volatility processes, enable dry separation of actinides by exploiting the volatility of compounds like UF₆, NpF₆, and PuF₆ at temperatures of 300–600°C, allowing recovery from , metal, , and fuels without generating aqueous streams. This approach reduces volume compared to wet methods and supports fewer processing steps with reagents less susceptible to radiation degradation. In variants, such as two-step processes, co-extraction of and transuranics can diminish by a factor of 10 while eliminating high-level liquid . These methods also permit early release of inert gases like Kr-85 and volatile fission products such as I-129 during head-end treatment, which can be captured using sorbents like NaF pellets or zeolites for subsequent in stable forms, potentially streamlining product management. Challenges include the corrosive effects of and gases, demanding specialized, fluorination-resistant materials and complicating equipment design and maintenance at elevated temperatures. Co-volatilization of products like iodine fluorides (IF₇), (RuF₅), and (MoF₆) impairs purity, necessitating additional trapping and purification stages. pre-treatment, such as pulverization, adds complexity, while off-gas handling for volatile species risks emissions if abatement systems fail, and chloride processes often require higher temperatures (up to 800°C or more) due to lower compound volatilities, intensifying thermal stresses. Long-lived isotopes like I-129 demand robust waste forms to minimize leach rates, with reported values around 2 × 10⁻⁴ g/m²·d in tested matrices.

Emerging radioanalytical and hybrid separations

Emerging radioanalytical techniques enhance process control and safeguards in nuclear reprocessing by enabling real-time, precise measurement of radionuclides in process streams, reducing reliance on time-intensive manual methods. Instrumental approaches, such as (ICP-MS), provide isotope ratio determinations for in samples with detection limits below 10^{-12} g/g, surpassing traditional alpha spectrometry in speed and applicability to long-lived isotopes. Automated dissolution and analysis systems further streamline radioanalytical workflows, integrating microwave-assisted digestion with ICP-MS or to characterize fissile materials in under 30 minutes per sample, minimizing labor and contamination risks compared to conventional . Online monitoring represents a key advancement, incorporating non-destructive techniques like gamma-ray and electrochemical sensors to track chemical parameters (e.g., concentration) and inventories during solvent extraction stages, thereby optimizing separation yields and detecting anomalies indicative of process deviations or diversion. Validation studies confirm these methods' accuracy for nuclear waste characterization, with relative uncertainties below 5% for key actinides like in simulants, supporting compliance with international safeguards under IAEA protocols. Such techniques address limitations in legacy radioanalytics, which often require off-line sampling prone to errors from interferences, by providing continuous data for dynamic adjustment of separation parameters. Hybrid separation methods combine complementary processes to improve selectivity for minor actinides and fission products, mitigating challenges in single-method approaches like pure aqueous extraction. The FLUOREX process, developed in , integrates fluoride volatility for initial and recovery with subsequent aqueous solvent extraction, achieving over 99% recovery from spent fuel while volatilizing as fluoride, as demonstrated in laboratory-scale tests processing 1 of fuel equivalents. Similarly, Toshiba's reprocessing employs dissolution followed by solvent extraction and a proprietary purification step, yielding high-purity streams suitable for recycle and reducing secondary waste volumes by 20-30% relative to baselines in pilot operations. Pyrochemical-aqueous hybrids, such as those using a head-end treatment prior to hydrometallurgical refinement, facilitate the handling of chloride-based fuels from advanced reactors, with electrochemical partitioning separating and via valence adjustment in molten LiCl-KCl eutectic at 500°C, followed by back-extraction into aqueous phases for >95% purity. Silica-based hybrid sorbents, incorporating organic ligands within mesoporous silica frameworks, offer selective adsorption of and cesium-137 from spent fuel solutions under dynamic flow conditions, with distribution coefficients exceeding 10^4 mL/g and up to 10^6 Gy, enabling integration with ion-exchange cascades for minor isolation. These hybrids demonstrate causal advantages in reducing risks through grouped streams and minimizing aqueous , though scalability challenges persist due to in volatility stages and sorbent regeneration needs.

Proliferation risks and security assessments

Potential pathways for misuse

Nuclear reprocessing separates and from , creating streams of weapons-usable that can be diverted for nuclear weapons production. The primary pathway involves the chemical extraction of via processes like , yielding plutonium oxide suitable for conversion to metal and subsequent fabrication into weapon pits, with as little as 4-8 kilograms of separated sufficient for a basic implosion device depending on isotopic composition. Diversion from declared facilities constitutes a key risk, where operators could underreport throughput or siphon off during separation stages, exploiting the high throughput of commercial-scale (e.g., processing hundreds of tons of fuel annually) to mask small withdrawals relative to total inventory. reprocessing in undeclared sites offers another pathway, utilizing scaled-down or disguised facilities to produce weapons-grade from dedicated reactors or even civilian spent fuel, bypassing international inspections entirely. Reactor-grade plutonium from reprocessing, containing higher isotopes like Pu-240, remains viable for weapons despite technical challenges such as predetonation risks, enabling latent proliferation capacity through stockpiling under civilian programs before isotopic adjustment or direct use. Insider threats or theft from interim storage exacerbate these risks, as separated plutonium's compact form facilitates transport and concealment compared to intact spent fuel assemblies. These pathways underscore reprocessing's dual-use nature, where safeguards rely on material accountancy and containment/surveillance to detect anomalies within detection goals of 1-2 months for significant quantities.

Empirical evidence from operational facilities

France's facility, operated by , has reprocessed over 40,000 metric tons of since 1976, separating that is subsequently fabricated into mixed oxide ( for reuse in light-water reactors, with all separated material verified under and IAEA safeguards showing no evidence of diversion. The plant's annual capacity exceeds 1,600 metric tons, processing fuel primarily from French reactors but also from international customers including and , and IAEA material accountancy has confirmed balance closures within measurement uncertainties annually since safeguards implementation, indicating effective detection capabilities for potential misuse. The United Kingdom's (THORP) at operated from 1994 to 2018, reprocessing approximately 5,000 metric tons of spent fuel and producing around 160 metric tons of , which remains stored under IAEA safeguards with no verified losses or unauthorized transfers. from THORP was intended for production at the adjacent Sellafield MOX Plant, though economic factors limited utilization; comprehensive nuclear material accountancy, including isotopic assays and non-destructive measurements, has upheld material balances without significant discrepancies over the plant's lifecycle. Operational experience from these facilities demonstrates that large-scale commercial reprocessing under safeguards has not resulted in incidents, as systematic historical reviews find no cases of diversion from safeguarded civilian streams to weapons programs despite cumulative separation of over 1,000 metric tons globally. In non-NPT states like , facilities such as the Power Reactor Fuel Reprocessing (PREFRE) plant at Tarapur have processed commercial spent fuel since the 1970s, but weapons-grade has primarily derived from dedicated research reactors rather than routine commercial reprocessing outputs, with bilateral safeguards agreements limiting co-mingling risks. This record underscores that while reprocessing enables material separation, empirical safeguards implementation has prevented misuse in monitored operations, though critics from non-proliferation advocacy groups argue latent risks persist due to stockpile accumulation.

Safeguards, non-proliferation frameworks, and mitigations

The (IAEA) implements safeguards at nuclear reprocessing facilities to verify that separated and are not diverted for weapons purposes, primarily through comprehensive safeguards agreements (CSAs) under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These agreements, required by NPT Article III, mandate states to declare all and facilities, enabling IAEA access for inspections and monitoring to confirm peaceful use. In reprocessing plants, where is extracted in weapons-usable form, safeguards emphasize material accountancy to track fissile material balances, with discrepancies triggering investigations. Key non-proliferation frameworks include the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 and binds 191 states to forgo nuclear weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology access, underpinned by IAEA verification. The IAEA Statute authorizes the agency to apply safeguards, while the Additional Protocol—ratified by over 130 states as of 2023—expands access to undeclared sites and complementary information for broader verification. For reprocessing, these frameworks address risks from separated plutonium, which can be used directly in weapons; thus, IAEA applies "item-specific" safeguards to track plutonium batches from input spent fuel to output products. Mitigations at operational facilities involve a combination of , , and process monitoring technologies. uses seals and tamper-indicating devices on vessels and piping to detect unauthorized access, while employs cameras and sensors for continuous oversight, as implemented at facilities like France's plant since the 1990s. Near-real-time accountancy (NRTA) measures flows hourly or daily in high-throughput reprocessing, reducing detection times for diversions to weeks rather than months, as demonstrated in IAEA-verified operations in and the . Design features for proliferation resistance, such as integrating safeguards-by-design from the outset, include automated nondestructive assay instruments for real-time verification and hardened piping to minimize clandestine taps. Export controls under regimes like the (NSG), established in 1974, restrict transfers of reprocessing technology to states with IAEA safeguards in place, mitigating risks from proliferation-sensitive equipment. Empirical assessments from IAEA inspections at over 1,300 facilities globally in 2022 show no verified diversions from safeguarded reprocessing, though challenges persist in states with incomplete Additional Protocol implementation. Advanced approaches, including process-specific monitors for aqueous or pyrochemical reprocessing, aim to enhance detection amid higher throughput in future facilities.

Environmental and safety evaluations

Radiation exposure data from reprocessing sites

Occupational radiation exposures at nuclear reprocessing facilities have historically been higher during early operations but have declined significantly due to engineering controls, shielding, remote handling, and personal protective measures. At the site in the , average annual doses to radiation workers ranged from 8.7 to 20.2 millisieverts (mSv) for males between 1952 and 1969, reflecting less optimized practices at the time. By the and onward, doses decreased markedly, with UK nuclear industry averages falling below 5 mSv per worker annually and collective doses trending downward; current averages for reprocessing operations at similar facilities are approximately 3-4 mSv per year, incorporating both external and internal exposures. These levels remain well below the regulatory limit of 20 mSv per year averaged over five years. At the facility in , operated by , the average individual effective dose to personnel (including employees and subcontractors) was 1.1 mSv in 2022, primarily from external sources with internal exposures minimized to near zero through contamination controls. French regulatory oversight by the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) confirms satisfactory performance, with doses compliant with the 20 mSv annual limit. Public exposures near reprocessing sites arise mainly from authorized liquid and gaseous discharges, monitored through environmental sampling and dose modeling for critical groups (e.g., high seafood consumers or beach users). Since 1986, effective doses to critical groups near both Sellafield and La Hague have consistently been below the 0.1 mSv per year threshold recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and European Union guidelines for optimized discharges. For Sellafield, assessments indicate additional doses from discharges contribute less than 0.02-0.05 mSv annually to local critical groups, a minor fraction of the global natural background average of 2.4 mSv per year. La Hague monitoring similarly shows compliance, with modeled public doses from marine pathways remaining under 0.1 mSv yearly. Long-term environmental reports from regulatory bodies like the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation and France's ASN verify that actual measured radioactivity in air, seawater, sediments, and foodstuffs does not exceed authorized limits, supporting low exposure estimates.

Chemical hazards and waste stream management

Nuclear reprocessing facilities, particularly those employing the , involve handling highly corrosive and hazardous chemicals such as concentrated for fuel dissolution and organic solvents like (TBP) in for extraction, which pose risks of chemical burns, inhalation , and fires due to their flammability and reactivity. nitrate, used as a stabilizer for uranous nitrate, introduces additional explosion hazards owing to its instability and reducing properties in acidic environments. These chemical operations demand stringent controls, including real-time monitoring of parameters, to prevent reactions leading to buildups or solvent degradation products that could exacerbate . Safety assessments from operational sites indicate that chemical incidents, while mitigated by engineered barriers and administrative protocols, have occurred sporadically; for instance, solvent fires and acid spills have been reported at facilities like , though without off-site chemical releases exceeding regulatory limits in verified cases. The IAEA highlights that often couple with radiological risks, such as during waste evaporation where volatile fission products like can interact with acids, necessitating integrated hazard analyses. Exposure limits for workers are enforced via and ventilation systems, with occupational chemical incident rates remaining low—comparable to other heavy chemical industries—based on aggregated data from international fuel cycle operations. Waste streams from reprocessing are categorized by activity levels: (HLW) primarily consists of products and minor actinides in solutions, managed through concentration, denitration, and into matrices for long-term , reducing leachability and volume by factors of 10-20 relative to untreated liquids. Intermediate-level wastes (ILW), including resins and sludges from cleanup, undergo solidification with or polymers, while low-level wastes (LLW) from are treated via , , or to minimize discharge volumes. At facilities like France's , operational since 1966, HLW has processed over 3,000 canisters by 2020, with effluents pretreated to remove cesium-137 and prior to controlled oceanic release under IAEA-monitored limits. Gaseous wastes, such as and iodine, are captured via cryogenic or adsorption methods before stack release, ensuring compliance with dose constraints below 0.1 mSv/year for the public. Overall, reprocessing shifts waste composition toward shorter-lived radionuclides in HLW while generating secondary chemical wastes, but empirical management data from decades of operation demonstrate effective containment with no verified chemical from major sites.

Comparative impacts versus direct disposal

Nuclear reprocessing separates and from for , concentrating products and minor s into a smaller of (HLW) that is typically vitrified for disposal, whereas direct disposal involves encapsulating intact spent fuel assemblies in canisters for geological without separation. This difference fundamentally alters waste characteristics: reprocessed HLW constitutes about 3-5% of the original spent fuel mass, primarily short-lived products, enabling a reduction by a factor of 10 to 20 compared to the full spent fuel of approximately 0.5-1 cubic meter per metric ton of heavy metal (tHM). Direct disposal retains the full assembly, including recoverable (over 95% of mass) and (about 1%), resulting in larger repository footprints; for instance, lifecycle assessments indicate that closed cycles require up to 90% less disposal area for equivalent fuel throughput due to . Radiologically, reprocessing in a closed cycle reduces long-term radiotoxicity by removing and recycling transuranic elements like , which dominate the hazard beyond 300 years in once-through fuel; ingestion radiotoxicity indices show closed cycles achieving decay to levels in under 10,000 years versus over 200,000 years for direct disposal, with overall hazard reduction by a factor of 5-10 after multiple recycles. Short-term is also lowered in vitrified HLW (peaking at levels allowing denser packing), contrasting with spent fuel's higher initial heat load from unseparated s, which necessitates greater canister spacing in geological disposal to prevent rock boiling. However, reprocessing introduces operational radiological exposures during aqueous or pyrochemical separation, though empirical data from facilities like France's (processing over 35,000 tHM since 1976) demonstrate public doses below 0.01 mSv/year, comparable to or below natural background, with no attributable health impacts. Direct disposal minimizes such handling but relies on integrity over millennia, where mobility in could pose risks if barriers fail, though models predict negligible release under conservative scenarios. Environmentally, reprocessing offsets demands by recovering 96% of for reuse, reducing associated disruption and volumes—equivalent to avoiding 160,000 tU mining for 10,000 tHM recycled—while vitrified waste's chemical stability limits leaching compared to spent fuel's metallic corrosion potential. Lifecycle analyses favor reprocessing for most impact categories except certain short-term radiological metrics, where direct disposal may edge out due to fewer steps, though this advantage diminishes with advanced incorporating fast reactors for minor . Historical incidents, such as minor releases at , highlight reprocessing's chemical risks (e.g., solvent fires or handling), but post-1990s upgrades have confined impacts to site boundaries, with no off-site ecological damage exceeding regulatory limits; direct disposal avoids these but amplifies land use for larger repositories, as seen in projected Finnish Onkalo needs versus equivalents. Overall, from operational closed cycles in and indicates reprocessing yields net lower long-term environmental burdens when proliferation controls are in place, though once-through cycles simplify near-term management at the cost of sustained resource inefficiency.

Economic analyses

Cost structures and historical viability

The primary cost structures of nuclear reprocessing encompass substantial upfront capital expenditures for facility construction and infrastructure, ongoing operational expenses for chemical separation processes like , fuel fabrication from recovered materials, and specialized including of (HLW). Capital costs for large-scale plants have historically ranged from $18 billion to over $20 billion, as seen in France's facility, which required extensive investment for dissolution, solvent extraction, and systems capable of handling 1,700 tonnes of (tHM) per year. Operational costs per kilogram of heavy metal (kgHM) typically include $720–$4,000 for reprocessing itself, $980–$2,700 for mixed oxide ( fabrication using recovered , and $90–$940 for HLW disposal, with total back-end costs averaging around $2,200 per kg uranium equivalent when including storage and recycling logistics. These figures contrast with direct disposal, estimated at $600 per kg uranium equivalent, primarily due to reprocessing's need for remote handling of highly radioactive materials, corrosive reagents, and proliferation-resistant safeguards. Decommissioning and legacy waste management further elevate long-term liabilities, often comprising 20–50% of lifecycle costs; for instance, the UK's site, including the (THORP), faces projected cleanup expenses exceeding £136 billion as of 2025, driven by contaminated facilities and stored wastes from decades of operations. While reprocessing reduces spent fuel volume by about 96% through recycling and —potentially offsetting front-end fuel costs by 10–12% under high uranium prices—net economic analyses consistently show it increases overall fuel cycle costs by 25% or more compared to the once-through cycle, adding 1–6 mills per (mils/kWh) to expenses. Historically, commercial reprocessing demonstrated limited viability, primarily sustained in where has processed over 40,000 tHM since 1976, enabling plutonium recycling for that constitutes about 17% of the country's nuclear generation and reducing import dependence amid stable state subsidies. However, this came at an added program cost exceeding $10 billion, with reprocessing's economic case relying on non-market factors like rather than pure cost savings, as prices remained below $150/kg—far short of the $450/kg threshold needed for parity with direct disposal. In the UK, operated from 1994 to 2018, reprocessing 9,000 tonnes and generating £9 billion in revenue from international contracts, but it failed to achieve projected throughput, contributed to British Nuclear Fuels Limited's financial collapse, and left unresolved decommissioning burdens that undermine retrospective viability. The abandoned commercial reprocessing after the 1976 closure of the West Valley facility, deemed uneconomical due to high per-unit costs exceeding direct storage by over 6%, with subsequent policy moratoriums in 1977 reinforcing the once-through cycle's preference amid falling uranium prices post-1970s oil crises. Japan's Rokkasho plant, intended for 800 tHM/year, has incurred billions in overruns and decades of delays since the 1990s, rendering it non-viable without government backing. Across these cases, reprocessing's historical pursuit stemmed from anticipated uranium scarcity that never materialized, coupled with military legacies for production; empirical data from 2007–2021 studies affirm that, under baseline assumptions of 3–7% discount rates and current commodity prices, direct disposal remains cheaper by $5 billion or more over a reactor's 40–60-year life for typical U.S. or fleets.

Current market trends and projections (2020s onward)

Global commercial nuclear reprocessing capacity remains limited at approximately 2000 tonnes of heavy metal (tHM) per year, concentrated in facilities operated by France's (, ~1200 t/year), Russia's ( and RT-1, ~400 t/year), and the UK's (declining operations, ~300 t/year historically). Japan's Rokkasho plant, with a planned capacity of 800 t/year, has faced repeated delays but entered active commissioning phases in 2023, potentially adding to capacity if fully operational by the late . This represents reprocessing of roughly one-third of annual global spent fuel discharges, estimated at 10,000-12,000 tHM, with the remainder stored pending disposal decisions. In the early , capacity utilization has trended downward due to plant maintenance, policy shifts, and economic pressures; for instance, global reprocessing volumes declined amid Sellafield's legacy waste prioritization and temporary halts at for upgrades completed in 2022. Asian expansions counter this: India's Tarapur and facilities processed ~50 t/year in 2023, supporting breeder reactor programs, while China's pilot-scale plant at (operational since 2010) reprocessed ~10 t/year of experimental fuel, with commercial-scale plans targeting 200-800 t/year by 2030 to achieve fuel cycle self-sufficiency amid rapid reactor buildout. These developments reflect state-driven strategies in closed-fuel-cycle nations, prioritizing resource efficiency over once-through cycles dominant in the and much of . Projections for the 2020s indicate modest capacity growth to 2500-3000 tHM/year by 2030, contingent on commissioning new plants in and potential restarts elsewhere, but constrained by exceeding $5-10 billion per large facility and operational expenses 1.5-2 times higher than direct disposal in many scenarios. Market analyses forecast the nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling sector expanding at a (CAGR) of 5-6.5% through 2030-2032, from a 2024 base of $2.5-4.3 billion to $4-7.9 billion, driven by rising spent fuel inventories from projected nuclear capacity increases (e.g., IAEA's reference scenario of 25-40% growth to 2050) and demand for plutonium for mixed-oxide () fuel in light-water reactors or breeders. However, scalability hinges on policy support; safeguards and costs deter widespread adoption, with advanced pyroprocessing or aqueous processes under R&D unlikely to reach commercial viability before 2035 absent breakthroughs in cost reduction. In the , exploratory DOE initiatives for domestic reprocessing remain non-commercial, projecting no significant market entry until advanced fleets mature post-2030.

Factors influencing commercial scalability

The commercial scalability of nuclear reprocessing hinges on overcoming formidable economic barriers, including elevated and operational costs that generally surpass the revenues from recovered fissile materials. Large-scale facilities demand initial investments exceeding $20 billion, with annual operating expenses often surpassing $1 billion at full capacity, rendering them prohibitive for private entities without government support. These costs stem from the intricate chemical separation processes, such as aqueous , which require specialized infrastructure for handling radioactive materials, effluent treatment, and waste . In contrast, direct disposal via incurs far lower ongoing expenses, typically $300-500 million per year for equivalent spent fuel volumes. Economic models estimate reprocessing at approximately $1,000 per kilogram of processed, elevating levelized electricity costs by 1.3 mills/kWh relative to once-through cycles under baseline conditions. Viability is acutely sensitive to dynamics, as reprocessing recovers uranium comprising about 96% of spent mass, whose resale value must offset processing outlays. analyses indicate competitiveness emerges only at sustained uranium prices above $360 per kgU, a threshold rarely met outside transient spikes like the 2007 peak exceeding $130 per pound U3O8. Prolonged low prices, as seen in the 2010s below $50 per pound U3O8, erode incentives, since enriched uranium tails and depleted stocks already supply ample low-cost feedstock. recovery for mixed oxide (MOX) fabrication adds value but demands compatible fleets, limiting uptake; for instance, global MOX utilization remains under 5% of thermal capacity. Recent uranium price recoveries to $80-100 per pound U3O8 in the early 2020s have narrowed the gap marginally but insufficiently for unsubsidized scalability absent scarcity. Economies of scale are essential yet challenging, necessitating throughput of 1,000-1,500 tonnes of annually to amortize fixed costs, typically aligning with programs rather than modular operations. Capacity factors below 80-90%—due to , regulatory downtime, or variable spent fuel arisings—exacerbate unit costs, as evidenced by historical underutilization in facilities like Japan's Rokkasho, where delays inflated expenses beyond initial projections. Integration with advanced reactors, such as fast breeders consuming more efficiently, could enhance returns by closing the fuel cycle, but deployment lags limit this pathway; projections indicate such systems might reduce effective fuel costs by 20-30% long-term if scaled post-2030. Technological and infrastructural hurdles further impede broad commercialization, including the need for co-located fabrication plants and secure transport networks for separated , which amplify logistical expenses. While pyroprocessing alternatives promise simpler scaling for certain fuels, their maturity remains at pilot levels, with engineering-scale demonstrations showing recovery efficiencies of 90-99% but unproven at commercial volumes. Absent policy-mandated closed cycles or supply disruptions, reprocessing's niche persists in state-backed operations, as private markets prioritize cost certainty over resource extension.

Policy debates and global implementation

United States policy history and debates

The pursued nuclear fuel reprocessing primarily for military purposes beginning in the 1940s, with facilities at Hanford and separating plutonium for weapons production. Commercial reprocessing emerged in the 1960s, including the Atomic Energy Commission's () sponsorship of a reactor-based reprocessing operation in Falls starting in 1963 and the issuance of the first commercial permit in 1966. The West Valley Demonstration Project in operated as the nation's sole commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant from 1966 to 1972, processing approximately 640 metric tons of fuel before ceasing operations due to economic unviability and technical challenges. In April 1977, President announced an indefinite deferral of commercial reprocessing and plutonium recycling, citing proliferation risks from the separation of weapons-usable , which could facilitate nuclear weapons development by other nations. This policy shift aimed to strengthen global nonproliferation efforts amid concerns over international transfers of reprocessing technology, effectively halting domestic commercial activities already strained by rising costs. President reversed the deferral on October 8, 1981, through a policy statement endorsing reprocessing of spent fuel from power reactors to promote and reduce waste burdens, while maintaining safeguards against . Despite the policy reversal, commercial reprocessing did not resume, as high capital costs, regulatory hurdles, and unresolved questions about waste management deterred investment; federal policy from 1977 to 2005 explicitly prohibited reprocessing commercial reactor fuel. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act prioritized direct disposal of spent fuel in geological repositories like Yucca Mountain, reinforcing the once-through fuel cycle over recycling. Limited government-led efforts, such as the Integral Fast Reactor program at Argonne National Laboratory in the 1980s and 1990s, explored pyroprocessing to minimize proliferation risks by avoiding pure plutonium separation, but these were canceled in 1994 amid budget constraints and shifting priorities. Debates over reprocessing center on trade-offs between nonproliferation security and . Proponents argue it could extract over 95% of usable from spent , reducing volume by up to 90% when paired with fast reactors and mitigating long-term disposal needs, as demonstrated in France's decades-long commercial operations without proliferation incidents. Critics, including a 2003 MIT study, contend that risks from plutonium handling outweigh benefits, given abundant domestic supplies and the high costs of reprocessing—estimated at $1-2 billion for a commercial-scale facility—potentially exceeding once-through disposal economics. challenges persist, as reprocessing generates additional liquid radioactive effluents requiring , complicating disposal compared to intact spent , which has lower radiotoxicity over millennia due to actinide retention. Recent policy shifts reflect renewed interest amid energy demands and advanced reactor development. The Department of Energy has allocated funding since the for reprocessing , including aqueous and pyrochemical methods, to support fuel cycle closure, though commercial viability remains unproven without resolved proliferation safeguards under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. Congressional reports highlight ongoing tensions: reprocessing could enhance by recycling 99% of spent fuel actinides, but risks amplifying global stocks—currently over 500 tons worldwide—and diverting resources from development, with empirical data from international sites showing no inherent link to weapons when under IAEA oversight. These debates underscore causal realities: while reprocessing technically reduces waste mass, its net environmental and security impacts depend on scalable, proliferation-resistant technologies not yet deployed at scale in the U.S.

International practices and facilities

France operates the world's largest commercial nuclear reprocessing facility at , managed by , with a nominal capacity of 1700 tonnes of heavy metal (tHM) per year for (LWR) fuel, though actual throughput has averaged around 1100 tHM per year in recent operations using the process to separate , , and fission products. The facility supports France's closed fuel cycle policy, recycling into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for LWRs and reprocessed (RepU) back into standard fuel assemblies, having processed over 36,000 tonnes of spent fuel since 1976. Russia maintains commercial reprocessing at the Mayak Production Association's RT-1 plant in Ozersk, with a capacity of 400 tHM per year for LWR and fuels, operating via to recover materials for reuse, though utilization has varied due to foreign contracts and domestic needs, processing around 100-400 tonnes annually in recent years. The plant, operational since 1977, focuses on recycling for fast reactors and has expanded capabilities for higher-burnup fuels. In the , commercial reprocessing at ceased with the closure of the (THORP) in 2018 and the Magnox Reprocessing Plant in 2022, shifting the site to decommissioning and legacy waste management; historically, it reprocessed up to 1500 tonnes of Magnox per year and 1200 tonnes of , producing RepU and stocks now earmarked for MOX or disposal. Japan's , designed for 800 tHM per year of LWR fuel using , remains under construction with operations delayed to 2026 (starting April 2026), marking the 27th postponement since 1993 due to technical and regulatory issues; it aims to support Japan's recycling strategy amid a stockpile of 44.4 tonnes as of 2024. India operates multiple reprocessing facilities integrated with its thorium-based cycle, including plants at Tarapur (100 tHM/year capacity), , and for (PHWR) fuel, totaling around 260 tHM per year across four sites, emphasizing extraction for fast breeder reactors to extend fuel resources. China is developing reprocessing capabilities with pilot-scale operations and a demonstration plant under construction in Gansu province for 200 tHM per year, alongside plans for commercial-scale facilities to support fast reactor deployment and closed-cycle policies, though current civilian reprocessing remains limited to small volumes.
CountryMajor FacilityCapacity (tHM/yr)ProcessStatus (as of 2024-2025)
La Hague1700Active commercial
RT-1400Active commercial
Rokkasho800Construction, delayed to 2026
Tarapur/~260 total variantsActive, multiple sites
demo200Under construction
Global commercial reprocessing capacity stands at approximately 2000 tHM per year, with France accounting for the majority of activity, driven by resource efficiency and waste volume reduction goals, though proliferation risks and economic viability limit broader adoption.

Regulatory barriers and incentives

In the United States, regulatory barriers to commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing stem primarily from historical policy decisions emphasizing non-proliferation risks associated with plutonium separation, rather than an outright legal ban. President Jimmy Carter's 1977 executive order halted federal funding for reprocessing demonstration projects, citing the potential for separated plutonium to fuel nuclear weapons programs, a stance reinforced by subsequent administrations amid concerns over international proliferation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Although reprocessing is permitted under Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversight, stringent licensing requirements, including environmental impact assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act and safeguards against diversion, have deterred private investment, resulting in no operational commercial facilities as of 2025. The NRC's 2017 decision to discontinue rulemaking on a dedicated reprocessing framework further exemplified regulatory inertia, attributed to high compliance costs and limited industry demand. Recent policy shifts under President Donald Trump's 2025 have introduced incentives to revisit reprocessing, directing the (DOE) to formulate a national strategy for fuel recycling, including restarting or repurposing closed facilities and streamlining approvals for advanced technologies like pyroprocessing to enhance and reduce waste dependence on foreign . These measures aim to counter barriers by prioritizing domestic fuel cycle closure, with potential tax credits and federal guarantees under the 2023 Security Act to offset safeguards costs. However, faces ongoing hurdles from IAEA-mandated comprehensive safeguards agreements, which require real-time monitoring and material accountancy in reprocessing plants to verify non-diversion, imposing additional expenses estimated at millions annually for large-scale operations. Internationally, regulatory frameworks in reprocessing-active nations like , the , and balance proliferation controls with incentives for closed fuel cycles. 's state-owned operates the facility under oversight, supported by government policies promoting reprocessing for recovery (recovering 96% of spent fuel energy value) and waste volume reduction by a factor of 10, framed as essential for since the . The regulates reprocessing via the Office for , with incentives tied to historical contracts for foreign fuel processing revenues exceeding £10 billion since 1970, though recent decommissioning costs have strained viability without subsidies. 's Rokkasho , delayed until at least 2024 despite regulatory approvals from the , receives incentives through national mandating in mixed-oxide ( to utilize 45 tons of stockpiled , justified by resource scarcity but critiqued for vulnerabilities under IAEA additional protocols. Global incentives often derive from multilateral frameworks like the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC), which endorses proliferation-resistant reprocessing variants to mitigate NPT Article III safeguards burdens, enabling technology sharing among members including the , , and . In contrast, barriers persist in non-reprocessing states due to domestic laws aligning with IAEA standards, such as export controls under the that restrict transfers, effectively limiting scalability without verified non-proliferation credentials. Empirical assessments indicate that while safeguards add 5-10% to reprocessing costs, incentives like 's integrated have sustained operations processing 1,100 tons annually, underscoring how regulatory design influences causal pathways to commercial adoption over direct disposal.

References

  1. [1]
    Reprocessing | Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Reprocessing refers generally to the processes used to separate spent nuclear reactor fuel into nuclear materials that may be recycled for use in new fuel ...Background · Related Commission Papers... · Public Meetings other...
  2. [2]
    Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel
    Aug 23, 2024 · Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes.Processing perspective, and... · History of reprocessing · Partitioning goals
  3. [3]
    [PDF] RECYCLING USED NUCLEAR FUEL FOR A SUSTAINABLE ...
    This process removes the waste fission products from the uranium and other actinides (heavy radioactive elements) in the used fuel. The unfissioned uranium and ...
  4. [4]
    Reframing Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Policy - The National Interest
    Oct 8, 2025 · France, Russia, and India continue to operate reprocessing plants, while Japan has a facility that is not operating because of technical and ...<|separator|>
  5. [5]
    Considerations for Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel
    Jan 23, 2025 · Reprocessing refers generally to the technical process of extracting uranium, plutonium, and certain other elements from the SNF to be used as ...The U.S. Nuclear Fuel Cycle · Reprocessing of Spent... · Nonproliferation
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing - - INL Research Library Digital Repository
    Introduction. Nuclear reprocessing is the chemical treatment of spent fuel involving separation of its various constituents. Principally, it is used to recover ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  7. [7]
    Proliferation... | Nuclear Science and Technology Open Research
    May 14, 2025 · While reprocessing could reduce the demand for fresh nuclear fuel and improve SNF management, it poses a long-term proliferation risk due to ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options
    The purpose of this publication is to review current and future options for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels and the future direction of the nuclear fuel ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] THE PUREX PROCESS - - OSTI.gov
    The tri-butyl phosphate, solvent extraction, fuel-processing system involves a maximum of six major steps: 1. Extraction of uranium and plutonium from aqueous ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Development of Advanced Reprocessing Technologies
    Key steps in the PUREX process. In a PUREX reprocessing facility the spent fuel is thus separated into its four components: uranium, plutonium, high level ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Overview of Pyroprocessing - ARPA-E
    Jul 28, 2021 · Facility design. • Input accountancy. • Process monitoring. • Physical security. B. B. Cipiti ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] The Purex Process, DPSPU 77-11-1.
    [2] Typical Purex feed consists of target or fuel slugs with a core of deplet- ed or natural uranium metal and aluminum cladding. The slugs are shipped in ...
  13. [13]
    French reactor using full core of recycled uranium fuel
    Mar 1, 2024 · Once enriched, this uranium can be used again to fuel nuclear power reactors. In France, only the four reactors at the Cruas-Meysse plant in ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  14. [14]
    Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel - World Nuclear Association
    Oct 10, 2017 · MOX fuel is manufactured from plutonium recovered from used reactor fuel, mixed with depleted uranium. MOX fuel also provides a means of burning ...
  15. [15]
    None
    ### Summary of Pyroprocessing Technology at Argonne National Laboratory
  16. [16]
    Understanding nuclear fuel recycling - Orano
    Recycling offers two advantages: it reduces the volume of waste and the consumption of raw materials. 96% of used fuel is recyclable; Thanks to recycling, the ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Radioactive Waste Management
    ... [volume reduction factor. (VR) 5-10, depending on the type of the waste] with ... The volume of the HLW is largely defined by the waste loading factor at ...
  18. [18]
    The effectiveness of full actinide recycle as a nuclear waste ...
    Full actinide recycle can reduce waste radiotoxicity to reference level in ∼500 years. Over limited timeframe, final cores limit the achievable reduction in ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Issues and Perspectives
    The LWR once-through fuel cycle has the advantage that it avoids the difficulties of reprocessing; however, it can only extract about half a percent of the ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Management of Reprocessed Uranium
    The use of reprocessed uranium (RepU) and plutonium reduces the overall environmental impact of the entire fuel cycle. Environmental considerations will be ...
  21. [21]
    Benefits and concerns of a closed nuclear fuel cycle - AIP Publishing
    Nov 17, 2010 · Reprocessing SNF into MOX fuel for LWRs can decrease the amount of fresh uranium ore needed annually by 25%. In addition, a single recycling of ...<|separator|>
  22. [22]
    Nuclear Fuel Cycle Overview
    Sep 23, 2025 · Fuel removed from a reactor, after it has reached the end of its useful life, can be reprocessed so that most is recycled for new fuel. The ...Power Generation And Burn-Up · Further Information · Notes
  23. [23]
    To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to ...
    During reprocessing, uranium and plutonium in the spent fuel are isolated and recovered. Recycled uranium could either be added to the front-end of the fuel ...Missing: utilization | Show results with:utilization<|separator|>
  24. [24]
    Uranium Supply is Not a Significant Constraint to Using Nuclear ...
    Jan 18, 2022 · Fuel recycling or reprocessing could enable production of up to 30% more energy from the original uranium in future nuclear energy production ...Missing: efficiency | Show results with:efficiency
  25. [25]
    Policy Principles for Recycling Used Nuclear Fuel
    Sep 10, 2022 · Recycling should help improve U.S. energy security​​ Recycling, in conjunction with increased domestic uranium production, could enable a long‐ ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Chemical Separations for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle - OSTI
    The Hanford T Plant used a bismuth phosphate process, developed by Glenn Seaborg and the Metallurgical. Laboratory at the University of Chicago, to separate.Missing: 1940s | Show results with:1940s
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Contaminants of the Bismuth Phosphate Process as Signifiers of ...
    Bismuth Phosphate The Bismuth Phosphate reprocessing method was the world's first industrial-scale reprocessing method. This method was based upon a series of ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Hanford in the 1940s: The first plutonium separation plant
    Construction at Hanford began when the chemical separation processes had only been tried at the microscopic scale, so conservative decisions had to be made in ...
  29. [29]
    Manhattan Project: Hanford Becomes Operational, 1943-1944
    The plutonium production facilities at the Hanford Engineer Works took shape with the same wartime urgency as did the uranium facilities at Oak Ridge.Missing: reprocessing experiments 1940s
  30. [30]
    Hanford Nuclear Reservation
    The first plutonium was delivered to the Army on February 2, 1945. The first test blast was on July 16, in New Mexico, and nuclear bombs were dropped on ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] A Short History of Hanford Waste Generation, Storage, and Release
    During the 1940s and 1950s, the bismuth phosphate process used in T and B Plants generated an average of 30 cubic meters (8000 gallons) of waste for each metric ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Aqueous Reprocessing of Used Nuclear Fuel - OSTI.gov
    1950's.1 The PUREX process was developed by Knolls Atomic Power. Laboratory and tested at ORNL. A modified PUREX production-scale plant was used in Idaho at ...
  33. [33]
    Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) - Hanford Site
    Sep 17, 2025 · The Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant operated from 1956 to 1972 and 1983 to 1988, to chemically reprocess fuel rods irradiated in Hanford's ...<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    Nuclear Development in the United Kingdom
    Jun 12, 2025 · During 1947, the site of the former Sellafield ordnance factory – renamed Windscale – was announced as a new atomic energy site, and ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] The Legacy of Reprocessing in the United Kingdom
    The first reprocessing plant (B204) opened in 1952 to extract plutonium from Windscale Pile fuel as part of the UK's weapons programme. Shut down in 1964 ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France
    This report covers spent nuclear fuel reprocessing in France, including economics, waste management, and reprocessing at Marcoule and La Hague.
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Military Fissile Material Production and Stocks in France
    Aug 9, 2015 · In particular, France started production of weapon-grade plutonium in mid-1955, osten- sibly for peaceful purposes,2 and yet it was only after ...
  38. [38]
    Nuclear Power in France
    President Macron plans to begin construction of the first reactor before the end of his current term in May 2027. Nuclear power plants. France has 18 commercial ...
  39. [39]
    Japan's Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    Jan 14, 2021 · The total reprocessed in the active test phase to March 2015 was 219 tU in BWR fuel and 206 tU in PWR fuel, yielding 364 tU as uranium oxide and ...Fuel Cycle -- Back End · Research & Development · Regulation And SafetyMissing: efficiency | Show results with:efficiency
  40. [40]
    India Nuclear Milestones: 1945-2018
    Oct 31, 2018 · The 100 (MT) per year Prefre reprocessing plant at Tarapur has undergone a fifty MTincrease in reprocessing capability. December 1990: U.S. ...
  41. [41]
    Nuclear Power in India
    The pressurized heavy-water reactor (PHWR) design was adopted in 1964, since it required less natural uranium than the BWRs, needed no enrichment, and could be ...Nuclear power industry · New phase of nuclear industry... · Uranium · Fuel cycle
  42. [42]
    [PDF] IAEA Nuclear Energy Series
    Only a few countries, such as France, Japan, India, the Russian. Federation and the United Kingdom have continued to reprocess spent fuel. However, there is ...
  43. [43]
    Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel | Physics Today - AIP Publishing
    Dec 1, 2006 · The US decided in the mid-1970s against reprocessing in the commercial nuclear program, largely due to concerns about weapons proliferation.
  44. [44]
    US Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    Between 1977 and 2005, government policy did not allow reprocessing of used fuel for commercial reactors. Uranium resources and mining. The USA ranks 14th in ...
  45. [45]
    U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing May Be Making a Comeback ...
    Oct 27, 2022 · While the Reagan administration in 1981 lifted the indefinite bans on commercial reprocessing, President George H. W. Bush's administration ...
  46. [46]
    Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development
    Nov 29, 2006 · President Carter terminated federal support for reprocessing in an attempt to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons material. Reprocessing ...
  47. [47]
    The many problems of Sellafield | Nuclear power - The Guardian
    May 28, 2008 · Slow progress in reprocessing has caused a huge backlog of spent fuel and a major storage issue. An average of 300 tonnes a year of spent fuel ...
  48. [48]
    Crisis deepens over British nuclear reprocessing plant - WSWS
    Apr 3, 2000 · The Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Britain continues to be the focus of international alarm over the production and storage of ...
  49. [49]
    Commercial nuclear reprocessing ends at Sellafield site - BBC News
    Nov 14, 2018 · The plant will operate until the 2070s as a storehouse for spent fuel as the site is cleaned up.<|separator|>
  50. [50]
    [PDF] Monju and Japan's Reprocessing Policy An historical perspective
    Nov 21, 2016 · Reprocessing and plutonium use in MOX fuel save a small amount of uranium at great cost but create new waste streams and risks of nuclear ...
  51. [51]
    Nuclear Power in Japan
    Aug 5, 2025 · Japan needs to import some 90% of its energy requirements. Nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority since 1973.
  52. [52]
    FACTBOX-Timeline of U.S. nuclear reprocessing - Reuters
    Aug 17, 2010 · 1993: President Bill Clinton discourages the nuclear industry from reprocessing plutonium, and thus spent nuclear fuel as well, in a policy ...
  53. [53]
    Policy Shift, Private Sector Drive Put Nuclear Recycling Back on the ...
    Sep 2, 2025 · All are advancing commercial-scale recycling concepts that they say could recover valuable fissile material, cut the volume and heat load of ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  54. [54]
    Orano's long-term planning for post-'peak uranium' years
    Sep 5, 2025 · "For the longer term, we are renewing and planning the replacement of our reprocessing and recycling facility for spent fuel. I don't think ...
  55. [55]
    Sellafield Ltd to restart reprocessing and further boost operations in ...
    Jun 23, 2020 · A 6-month operational plan has been mapped out to restart vital hazard and risk reduction work at Sellafield.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  56. [56]
    UK parliament committee calls for speedier Sellafield clean-up
    Jun 5, 2025 · The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) expects full site remediation at Sellafield will take until 2125, while the forecast cost of ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  57. [57]
    China starts construction of a third demonstration reprocessing plant
    Dec 24, 2024 · China started the construction of its first 200 tons/year demonstration reprocessing plant (Project I) for spent light-water reactor fuel in ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  58. [58]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhQ5OqTtkGY
  59. [59]
    Nuclear Reprocessing CAGR Growth Drivers and Trends
    Rating 4.8 (1,980) May 28, 2025 · The global reprocessing and recycling of nuclear fuel market is booming, projected to reach $24 billion by 2033 with a 6% CAGR. Learn about key ...<|separator|>
  60. [60]
    Purex Process - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    The essential steps in a generic Purex process are: (i) decladding or dejacketing, (ii) dissolution, (iii) feed preparation, (iv) co-decontamination, (v) a ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] Used Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing - ICLN
    PUREX Process – Advantages and. Disadvantages (History Cont.) • Advantages of liquid-liquid extraction. –Continuous operation/ High throughput. –Countercurrent ...
  62. [62]
    Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in carbonate media
    The review discusses various alternative approaches for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) reprocessing in aqueous carbonate media.
  63. [63]
    [PDF] ION EXCHANGE TECHNOLOGY IN THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
    Ion exchange technology in spent fuel reprocessing ... conditions and methods of ion-exchange can be chosen including the ion-.
  64. [64]
    Ion exchange technology in spent fuel reprocessing - INIS-IAEA
    Solvent extraction is the major unit operation employed in spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. The operation yields three streams: fission product waste, ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Actinide ion exchange technology in the back end of the nuclear fuel ...
    In nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, ion exchange is used for the purification of actinide elements for further use, for the solidification of low- and medium- ...
  66. [66]
    Application of electrochemical methods to aqueous reprocessing of ...
    Aug 23, 2008 · Published data demonstrating the possibilities of electrochemical methods as applied to solving particular problems arising in various steps ...
  67. [67]
    Electrochemical recovery of plutonium from aqueous carbonate ...
    We report a simple method for the recovery of Pu as solid PuO 2 powder from carbonate waste solution in a two-step process.
  68. [68]
    Spent fuel reprocessing based on electrochemical extraction ...
    A new concept of the electrochemical process for the reprocessing of nuclear spent fuel, SREEP, has been developed on the basis of fundamental studies of ...
  69. [69]
    Reduction-Oxidation Plant (REDOX) - Hanford Site
    Apr 21, 2025 · The REDOX was used from 1952 through 1967 for the chemical separation of plutonium from irradiated uranium fuel rods.
  70. [70]
    [PDF] Enclosure 2 - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    The UREX processes combine the modified PUREX process flowsheet with other solvent extraction processes that have many features in common. The PUREX process ...
  71. [71]
    Ion Exchange Technology in Spent Fuel Reprocessing
    Ion exchange is primarily used in reprocessing as a tail-end method to concentrate and isolate the plutonium product stream.
  72. [72]
    [PDF] Application of Ion Exchange Processes for the Treatment of ...
    Nuclear power plant process water systems have typically used organic ion exchange resins to control system chemistry to minimize corrosion or the degradation.
  73. [73]
    Ion Exchange in Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing : Zirconium Phosphate ...
    Ion exchange with inorganic materials offers a robust supportive role in the separation challenges for radionuclides. The materials are stable in high ...
  74. [74]
    A new concept of nuclear fuel reprocessing by applying ion ...
    We have proposed an ion exchange process for reprocessing using a new type ion exchanger developed to chemical method of U enrichment technology. This process ...
  75. [75]
    [PDF] SPENT FUEL REPROCESSING: AN OVERVIEW P.K. Dey Fuel ...
    advantages which renders reprocessing and nuclear waste management a more viable and safer ... Substantial reduction in waste volume was achieved over the years ...
  76. [76]
    Electrochemical processes for nuclear fuel reprocessing
    Aug 7, 2025 · Electrooxidation of trivalent plutonium and of hydrazine lead to compact apparatus and simple and reliable process steps avoiding radioactive ...
  77. [77]
    Electrochemical Reprocessing of Fuel Takes Center Stage
    These separations can be achieved using electrochemical reprocessing, which employs electrochemical conversion and electrodeposition in a high-temperature ...
  78. [78]
    The development of future options for aqueous recycling of spent ...
    This article provides an overview of the progress made under AFCP on the aqueous recycling of spent fuels, including the management of secondary wastes.
  79. [79]
    Contaminants of the bismuth phosphate process as signifiers of ...
    Oct 1, 2012 · Reagents used in spent nuclear fuel recycling impart unique contaminant patterns into the product stream of the process. Efforts are underway at ...
  80. [80]
    A literature review of pyroprocessing safeguards.
    Apr 24, 2024 · The paper implies that pyroprocessing is better for safeguards because the plutonium and uranium are not separated, as opposed to aqueous ...
  81. [81]
    Benchtop Zone Refinement of Simulated Future Spent Nuclear Fuel ...
    Molten-salt-based electrochemical reprocessing (also known as pyroprocessing) solves these issues, as it is inherently proliferation-resistant and the ...
  82. [82]
    [PDF] pyrochemical processing of doe spent nuclear fuel - OSTI.GOV
    The use of pyroprocessing for DOE spent fuel management has a number of benefits: (1) the recovery of actinide elements, such as highly-enriched uranium, for.
  83. [83]
    [PDF] IAEA TECDOC SERIES
    One of the advantages of pyroprocessing is MA recycling. However, the high volatility of americium present along with U and Pu would be a problem during ...
  84. [84]
    [PDF] Engineering Scale Pyroprocessing Activities in the United States
    This is achieved through a combination of facility design and process monitoring techniques that are unlike those involved in aqueous reprocessing.Missing: obsolete | Show results with:obsolete
  85. [85]
    [PDF] Recycling Reconsidered: - Unlocking the Value of Spent Nuclear Fuel
    New reprocessing methods like pyroprocessing offer several advantages over traditional aqueous techniques such as Plutonium Uranium Recovery by Extraction ...
  86. [86]
    Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) - ARPA-E
    Pyroprocessing involves the use of high-temperature molten salts to enable the recycling and reuse of valuable nuclear materials from used fuel. Recycling ...<|separator|>
  87. [87]
    Nuclear fuel recycling could offer plentiful energy
    Jun 22, 2012 · Recycling used nuclear fuel could produce hundreds of years of energy from just the uranium we've already mined, all of it carbon-free.
  88. [88]
    [PDF] The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative
    nificant advantages over a reactor with a CR near unity. Lowering the CR to ... through pyroprocessing. Some experts believe that avoiding aqueous ...
  89. [89]
    [PDF] INTRODUCTION TO THE PYROPROCESSING SPECIAL ISSUE
    Pyroprocessing is a leading technology for achieving the separations goals of the nuclear fuel cycle; it is being developed by several nations and currently ...
  90. [90]
    Electrochemical Monitoring for Molten Salt Pyroprocessing of Spent ...
    Aug 28, 2024 · This review examines the role of electrochemical monitoring in molten salt pyroprocessing of SNFs, emphasizing its importance in enhancing process efficiency ...
  91. [91]
    O2- affected corrosion of nickel-based alloy in LiCl-KCl molten salt ...
    O2- accelerates high-temperature corrosion behavior of Inconel 600 in LiCl-KCl molten salt. ... corrosion study in the applications of pyroprocessing of spent ...
  92. [92]
    Corrosion Performance of Commercial Alloys and Refractory Metals ...
    The corrosion tests were carried out in a high-temperature autoclave installed on the bottom of the glove box. The schematic diagram of corrosion test setup is ...
  93. [93]
    [PDF] Developments of Spent Nuclear Fuel Pyroprocessing Technology at ...
    Benefits to its use include removal of volatile fission products, separation of fuel from cladding, and particle size reduction to promote fast reaction.Missing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
  94. [94]
    Research progress in pyrochemical reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel
    Jun 11, 2025 · This review presents the research advancements in electroreduction and electrorefining within the context of pyrochemical reprocessing of SNF.
  95. [95]
    [PDF] Concerns Reprocessing of Nuclear Power Plant Used Fuels.
    Jul 23, 2007 · 7. Inter-process transfer of nuclear materials for pyroprocessing requires physical movement of containers of nuclear material as opposed to ...
  96. [96]
    [PDF] “Advanced” Isn't Always Better - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Mar 4, 2021 · scale to address this waste problem. The difficulty of scaling up the pyroprocessing process and other considerations, including the ...<|separator|>
  97. [97]
    A literature review of pyroprocessing safeguards.
    Apr 24, 2024 · The risk of proliferation can be significantly reduced with pyroprocessing once proper safeguards have been implemented, compared to aqueous ...
  98. [98]
    Technical Overview of Pyro-processing and Policy Considerations
    Sep 9, 2024 · First, Pyro-processing is a non-aqueous process that involves high-temperature treatment of spent nuclear fuels to recover and recycle uranium ...<|separator|>
  99. [99]
    Dealing With South Korea's Spent Fuel Challenges Without ...
    U.S. officials disagree and consider pyroprocessing to be equivalent to reprocessing, with corresponding nonproliferation challenges. Both sides of the ...
  100. [100]
    [PDF] CLOSING THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE: REPROCESSING
    Our analysis then revealed that the net effect of implementing either PUREX or pyroprocessing was a net loss, which can be attributed in part to depressed costs ...
  101. [101]
    Analysis of Commercial Reprocessing Technologies - Stanford
    Feb 29, 2024 · These technologies can be split into aqueous reprocessing (where nuclear fuel is dissolved into an acidic solution, as in PUREX), and ...
  102. [102]
    2 Background | An Evaluation of the Electrometallurgical Approach ...
    The electrometallurgical processing technique, formerly called pyroprocessing, was investigated by ANL in conjunction with its Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) ...
  103. [103]
    Electrochemical processing of spent nuclear fuels - ScienceDirect.com
    Pyroprocessing is a high-temperature electrochemical fuel processing technology for recycling the spent fuel into metal fuel for a nuclear fast reactor.
  104. [104]
    [PDF] ANODIC PROCESS OF ELECTROREFINING SPENT NUCLEAR ...
    Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has developed and demonstrated a pyrometallurgical process for the Department of Energy (DOE) to treat sodium bonded spent ...
  105. [105]
    Oklo, Argonne to commercialise advanced fuel recycling technology
    Feb 10, 2022 · The project involves work with electrorefining technology to recycle fuel for use in advanced fission power plants, Oklo said.Missing: spent | Show results with:spent
  106. [106]
    Processing of fast neutron reactor fuel by electrorefining: Thematic ...
    Dec 11, 2020 · This review examines three main areas of work devoted to electrorefining. These are electrodeposition and electrodissolution using solid and liquid electrodes.5 Electrodeposition · 6 Mass Transfer · 7 Anodic Dissolution<|separator|>
  107. [107]
    The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) - Nuclear Engineering Division
    The IFR is a reactor fueled by metal alloy, cooled by liquid sodium, a fast reactor that produces its own fuel and is a closed system.Missing: PYRO- reprocessing
  108. [108]
    [PDF] Pyrochemical Separations - Nuclear Energy Agency
    A preliminary schematic process flowsheet for the PYRO-A process is shown in Figure 3. ... Electrorefining is likely to be a key process step in any pyrochemical ...
  109. [109]
    [PDF] LIGHT WATER REACTOR FUEL REPROCESSING DISSOLUTION ...
    Voloxidation is. a candidate process .to remove tritium from irradiated power reactor fuel. As a head-end step during shear- leach reprocessing, voloxidation ...
  110. [110]
    Demonstration of Advanced Voloxidation and Direct Extraction ...
    Mar 21, 2025 · Advanced voloxidation involves oxidation of spent nuclear fuel using NO 2 gas at lower temperatures compared to older voloxidation processes that use air, ...
  111. [111]
    NO₂-mediated voloxidation for iodine separation from cesium ...
    Nov 1, 2024 · This work mimics the effect of NO2-based voloxidation on iodine and sheds light on the factors that influence the solid–gas phase reaction.
  112. [112]
    U.S. nuclear fuel recycling takes two steps forward
    Sep 8, 2025 · Oklo details: According to Oklo, the recycling facility will recover usable fuel material from spent nuclear fuel and fabricate it into fuel for ...
  113. [113]
    Voloxidation of Mixed Nitride Uranium–Plutonium Spent Nuclear Fuel
    May 29, 2023 · The operation is designed to separate the fuel composition from the cladding and remove part of the volatile fission products from the fuel.
  114. [114]
    Application of fluoride volatility method to the spent fuel reprocessing
    Aug 25, 2019 · For the fluorination process, the flame reactor can rapidly volatilize more than 90% U as UF6 and separate U from most other elements in the ...
  115. [115]
    Progress in development of Fluoride volatility reprocessing technology
    Jan 7, 2025 · Fluoride Volatility Method is based on direct fluorination of powdered spent fuel with fluorine gas in a flame fluorination reactor, ...
  116. [116]
    [PDF] UNCLASSIFIED ISO-627 FLUORIDE VOLATILITY.PROCESSING ...
    Fluoride volatility processing of spent power reactor fuels has heen under development at other sites for a nuntoer of years. It has been proposed that the ...
  117. [117]
    Two-Step Chloride Volatility Process for Reprocessing ... - ARPA-E
    BYU will apply two-step chloride volatility (TSCV) to co-extract uranium (U) and transuranics (TRU) in a solventless, gas-solid separation scheme.
  118. [118]
    TerraPower - ARPA-E
    TerraPower proposes to use a chloride-based volatility (CBV) process to separate uranium from used nuclear fuel (UNF), and investigate tunable CBV parameters.
  119. [119]
    Chloride-Based Volatility for Waste Reduction and/or Reuse of ...
    Jun 30, 2025 · The objective of the chloride based volatility project (CBV) was to demonstrate the ability to separate uranium from used fuel to enable ...
  120. [120]
    [PDF] Purification of Zirconium cladding using a chloride volatility process
    The goal of this project is to investigate the thermochemistry of used fuel Zr cladding component chlorides, their activation products and residual ...
  121. [121]
    [PDF] REPROCESSING OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUELS BY FLUORIDE ...
    Fluoride volatility reprocessing involves volatilizing uranium and plutonium as hexafluorides, and is a dry route approach, with three branches based on ...
  122. [122]
    Fluoride volatility method for reprocessing of LWR and FR fuels
    The fluoride volatility method uses direct fluorination of powdered fuel with fluorine gas to separate volatile fluorides, mainly uranium, from non-volatile ...
  123. [123]
    New reprocessing system for spent nuclear reactor fuel using ...
    Our proposed spent nuclear fuel reprocessing technology named FLUOREX, which is a hybrid system using fluoride volatility and solvent extraction, ...
  124. [124]
    Laboratory development of chloride volatility processes for the ...
    Aug 22, 2025 · Laboratory development of chloride volatility processes for the recovery of uranium directly from spent Rover fuel or from its combustion ash.
  125. [125]
    [PDF] Treatment of Volatile Fission Products - Nuclear Energy Agency
    Nov 23, 2022 · Treatment of volatile fission products involves systems that selectively trap them during reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
  126. [126]
    Fluoride volatility – Knowledge and References - Taylor & Francis
    The use of fluoride volatility to process and separate plutonium and uranium from spent reactor fuels was examined in the 1960s by Jonke.7 Fluoride volatility ...<|separator|>
  127. [127]
    [PDF] Separation of Fluoride Residue Arising from Fluoride Volatility ...
    Spent fuel-reprocessing helps in the isolation of plutonium and unused uranium from highly radioactive fission products. SNF reprocessing also helps in recycle ...
  128. [128]
    Current Progress in R&D of Fluoride Volatility Method
    Fluoride Volatility Method is regarded to be a promising advanced pyrochemical reprocessing technology, which can be used for reprocessing mainly of oxide ...
  129. [129]
    [PDF] The Economics of Reprocessing - Harvard University
    Aug 12, 1999 · This report assesses the economics of reprocessing versus direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The breakeven uranium price at which ...
  130. [130]
    Measurement of plutonium isotope ratios in nuclear fuel samples by ...
    In comparison with radioanalytical techniques commonly used for nuclear applications, ICP-MS offers very low detection limits, is also applicable for long ...
  131. [131]
    [PDF] Rapid Automated Dissolution and Analysis Techniques for ... - OSTI
    Most of the radioanalytical techniques currently employed for sample analysis are based on manual laboratory procedures. Such procedures are time and labor ...
  132. [132]
    A Review of Online Monitoring within Used Nuclear Fuel Recycling ...
    Sep 30, 2024 · This review examines online monitoring relevant to used nuclear fuel processing for the determination of both chemical and physical parameters.Missing: emerging | Show results with:emerging
  133. [133]
    (PDF) Validation of Radioanalytical Techniques for Nuclear Waste ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · Validation of Radioanalytical Techniques for Nuclear Waste Characterisation. December 2019; Journal of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste ...
  134. [134]
    New reprocessing system for spent nuclear reactor fuel using ...
    The FLUOREX reprocessing system adopts a fluoride volatility method to remove most of the uranium from spent fuel for easy treatment of residual plutonium and ...
  135. [135]
    Development of hybrid reprocessing technology based on solvent ...
    The Toshiba Hybrid Reprocessing Process combines the solvent extraction process of the LWR spent fuel in nitric acid with the recovery of high-purity uranium (U) ...
  136. [136]
    Hybrid processing of spent fuel - INIS-IAEA
    Jan 15, 2025 · An advanced hybrid head-end for the processing of spent fuel is being studied. This scheme includes a pyrochemical head-end followed by ...
  137. [137]
    Review on Synthesis of Silica-Based Hybrid Sorbents and Their ...
    This article aims to provide some ideas for the design of an advanced separation process in the nuclear fuel cycle. ... Nuclear Spent Fuel Solution Using a Silica ...
  138. [138]
    [PDF] A review of separation processes proposed for advanced fuel cycles ...
    Dec 4, 2024 · Industrial scale nuclear fuel reprocessing plants produce high purity separate uranium and plutonium products. The uranium and plutonium ...Missing: emerging | Show results with:emerging
  139. [139]
    Fissile Materials Basics | Union of Concerned Scientists
    Aug 28, 2024 · To use plutonium in nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, it must first be separated from the rest of the spent fuel components in a reprocessing ...Missing: pathways | Show results with:pathways
  140. [140]
    [PDF] Analysis of Nuclear Proliferation Resistance Reprocessing and ...
    May 16, 2019 · A critical issue for safeguarding reprocessing plants is the risk of d iversion of separated fissile materials and their possible misuse for ...
  141. [141]
    [PDF] Design Measures to Facilitate Implementation of Safeguards at ...
    The technical objective of safeguards is the timely detection of the diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities to ...
  142. [142]
    [PDF] Can the IAEA Safeguard Fuel-Cycle Facilities?
    Mar 18, 2014 · Two Risks: Diversion & Theft. Civilian nuclear fuel-cycle facilities present two risks of clandestine removal of fissile material: diversion ...
  143. [143]
    Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Proliferation - NMHB 2020 [Revised]
    The spent fuel is reprocessed to extract the fissile plutonium from the other materials in the spent fuel, and the plutonium is fabricated into a fissile ...
  144. [144]
    [PDF] Proliferation Resistance: Acquisition/Diversion Pathway Analysis ...
    The acquisition/diversion pathway analysis of a nuclear energy system should ensure that all possible targets and pathways have been identified and analysed.
  145. [145]
    [PDF] Safeguards verification - its credibility and the diversion hypothesis
    Nuclear material on a diversion path remains legally subject to safeguards, even if it is not reported by the diverter. Under the agreements IAEA inspectors ...
  146. [146]
    Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation
    May 6, 2021 · The aim of traditional IAEA safeguards is to deter the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful use by maximising the risk of early detection ...
  147. [147]
    Recovery and recycling of nuclear fuels - Orano
    By recovering the 96% of re-useable materials (95% uranium and 1% plutonium) in used fuel, Orano can recycle the material and manufacture new fuel, such as ...
  148. [148]
    EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFEGUARDS AT THE LA ...
    The COGEMA large sized reprocessing plants at Cap de La Hague are under IAEA and Euratom Safeguards. In the two plants, operations are highly automated for ...Missing: Sellafield | Show results with:Sellafield
  149. [149]
    [PDF] uk plutonium disposition options
    These stores of separated civilian plutonium at Sellafield are subject to international safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ...
  150. [150]
    [PDF] International Safeguards in the Design of Reprocessing Plants
    The topics of these publications will include international safeguards in the design of nuclear reactors, uranium conversion plants, facilities for long term ...
  151. [151]
    Why Nuclear Energy Programs Rarely Lead to Proliferation
    Nov 1, 2017 · A systematic analysis of the historical evidence suggests that the link between nuclear energy programs and proliferation is overstated.
  152. [152]
    Risks of Civilian Plutonium Programs - The Nuclear Threat Initiative
    Jun 30, 2004 · In addition to possible plutonium seizure or diversion from reprocessing sites, increasing commerce in plutonium and plutonium-bearing fuels, ...
  153. [153]
    [PDF] International Safeguards in the Design of Nuclear Reactors
    In implementing safeguards, the Iaea plays an independent verification role, which is essential for ensuring that. States' safeguards obligations are fulfilled.
  154. [154]
    [PDF] The IAEA's Safeguards System as the Non-Proliferation Treaty's ...
    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system fulfills a vital role underpinning the NPT, reinforcing commitments to the non-proliferation of ...
  155. [155]
    https://www.iaea.org/topics/safeguards-legal-framework
  156. [156]
    [PDF] Safeguarding Reprocessing Facilities - Princeton University
    Parts of the several reprocessing plants in France and the United Kingdom are safeguarded under the voluntary offer these states have made to place certain ...
  157. [157]
    [PDF] Advanced Safeguards Approaches for New Reprocessing Facilities
    Products from the solvent extraction process will be in aqueous solution. Conversion of these solutions to a dry oxide powder is required prior to packaging, ...<|separator|>
  158. [158]
    [PDF] Advanced Reactor Safeguards: - Sandia National Laboratories
    The IAEA has applied safeguards at sodium-cooled fast reactors and pebble-bed reactors in. Japan, Germany, China, and elsewhere. The IAEA does not have ...
  159. [159]
    [PDF] GAO-24-106296, NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
    May 21, 2024 · 2 The IAEA Department of Safeguards is responsible for implementing safeguards worldwide, and in 2022 implemented safeguards at more than 1,300 ...
  160. [160]
    paper 13. Cancer mortality among workers at the Sellafield plant of ...
    Between 1952 and 1969 the average annual dose to radiation workers ranged from 8.7 to 20.2 mSv for males and 2.6 to 8.4 mSv for females.
  161. [161]
    Occupational Exposure at the Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant at ...
    Information is presented on collective and average dose exposure which both show significant downward trends. The current annual collective dose for ...
  162. [162]
    [PDF] Ionising Radiation Exposure of the UK Population: 2005 Review
    All workers receive less than 5 mSv annually, and though the collective dose, and therefore the average dose, is seen to vary slightly from year to year, the ...
  163. [163]
    Subpart D—Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the ...
    § 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public. (a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that—. (1) The total effective dose equivalent to ...
  164. [164]
    [PDF] FRANCE - International Atomic Energy Agency
    This report covers France's compliance with the Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management, including safety, nuclear ...
  165. [165]
    ASN Report 2023
    ASN considers that the performance of the Orano Recyclage La Hague site in 2023 is satisfactory in the areas of nuclear safety, radiation protection and.Missing: exposure | Show results with:exposure
  166. [166]
    Part I--general Information and Effects of Discharges by the Nuclear ...
    Since 1986 the effective dose to members of the critical group in the vicinity of Sellafield and Cap de La Hague was consistently below the ICRP and EU ...
  167. [167]
    [PDF] Liquid Discharges from Nuclear Installations in 2000 OSPAR ...
    During normal operation the annual effective dose to individuals of the critical group shall not exceed 0,1 mSv. The 2000 discharges to the marine environment ...
  168. [168]
    An assessment of the radiation exposure of members of the public in ...
    An assessment of the radiation exposure of members of the public in West Cumbria as a result of the discharges from BNFL, Sellafield ; Imprint Pagination: 58 p.
  169. [169]
    [PDF] Dose Assessments due to discharges of radionuclides from nuclear ...
    The Nord-. Cotentin study aimed : 1) to reconstruct radiation doses received by members of the public aged 0 to 24 years and living in the area, with a view ...
  170. [170]
    [PDF] Monitoring our Environment - GOV.UK
    This 2020 report has been produced by Sellafield Ltd and covers the Sellafield site in Cumbria. It provides detailed information on radioactive discharges.
  171. [171]
    ASN Annual report 2024 - French Nuclear Safety Authority
    The French Authority for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection presents the Report of the Nuclear Safety Authority on the state of nuclear safety and ...
  172. [172]
    [PDF] IAEA Safety Standards Safety of Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facilities
    IAEA safety standards, like SSG-42, are for protecting health and minimizing danger to life and property, and are used by states for nuclear safety.
  173. [173]
    Evaluation of fire and explosion hazards in typical nuclear recycling ...
    Hydrazine, a highly hazardous and highly flammable chemical, is used as hydrazine nitrate during reprocessing operations as a stabilizing compound for uranous ...<|separator|>
  174. [174]
    [PDF] Safety of Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facilities
    Under the terms of Article III of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to establish or adopt standards of safety for protection of health and minimization of ...
  175. [175]
    [PDF] The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    The present report has been prepared by the Working Group on the Safety of the Nuclear Fuel. Cycle, which is one of the groups set up by the Committee on the ...
  176. [176]
    Reprocessing and Nuclear Waste Management - BARC
    Liquid waste streams are treated by various techniques, such as filtration, adsorption, chemical treatment, evaporation, ion exchange; reverse osmosis etc.
  177. [177]
    https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management
  178. [178]
    Comparison of the once-through and closed nuclear fuel cycles with ...
    According to the results of the radiotoxicity analysis, the closed cycle with MOX recycling is more advantageous than the once-through cycle and the other ...
  179. [179]
    Reprocessing vs direct disposal of used nuclear fuels
    The study considers the direct disposal approach and four reprocessing scenarios envisaging different strategies for disposal and/or reuse of reprocessed ...
  180. [180]
    [PDF] Reprocessing Vs Direct Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuels
    Reprocessing with recycling of plutonium and uranium represent the best option. • Direct disposal may be advantageous only in terms of radiological impacts.
  181. [181]
    The environmental impacts of reprocessing used nuclear fuels
    The direct disposal approach may be advantageous only in terms of radiological impacts depending on the marginal technology chosen.
  182. [182]
    [PDF] Costs of Reprocessing Versus Directly Disposing of Spent Nuclear ...
    Nov 14, 2007 · Direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel is less costly than reprocessing, with reprocessing costing at least $5 billion more over the life of a ...
  183. [183]
    [PDF] The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    The back end of the nuclear fuel cycle involves spent fuel and high-level waste, with no final disposal facilities yet implemented, leading to cost ...
  184. [184]
    [PDF] The Economics of Reprocessing and Recycling vs. Direct Disposal ...
    Jun 7, 2021 · Reprocessing is much more expensive than direct disposal, costing $2,200/kgU vs $600/kgU for storage and disposal, and increases fuel cycle ...
  185. [185]
    What is Thorp? - Case study - GOV.UK
    Sep 25, 2024 · Over its lifetime, Thorp reprocessed 9,000 tonnes of fuel from around the world, generating an estimated £9 billion in revenue for the UK during ...Missing: economics | Show results with:economics
  186. [186]
    [PDF] Endless Trouble: Britain's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant ...
    THORP is Britain's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant at Sellafield, which separated plutonium from spent fuel for 25 years before winding down.
  187. [187]
    Fuel Reprocessing History - NYSERDA - NY.Gov
    NFS concluded that it would not be economically viable to continue the reprocessing operation at West Valley. In 1976, NFS informed New York State that it was ...
  188. [188]
    Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities - World Nuclear Association
    Feb 13, 2025 · In fact, after 40 years, the radioactivity of used fuel has decreased to about one-thousandth of the level at the point when it was unloaded.
  189. [189]
    [PDF] Nuclear Technology Review 2024
    As of December 2023, the global operational nuclear power capacity was 371 . ... Despite an overall reduction in global spent fuel reprocessing capacity, there.
  190. [190]
    China's Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    Apr 25, 2024 · China has stated it intends to become self-sufficient not just in nuclear power plant capacity, but also in the production of fuel for those plants.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  191. [191]
    Nuclear Reprocessing Market: A Comprehensive Analysis 2032
    Aug 6, 2024 · The Nuclear Reprocessing Market Industry is expected to grow from 4.26(USD Billion) in 2024 to 7.9 (USD Billion) by 2032. The Nuclear ...
  192. [192]
    Nuclear Fuel Recycling Market | Size, Share, Growth | 2024 - 2030
    The Global Nuclear Fuel Recycling Market was valued at USD 2.5 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 6.5% from 2024 to 2030.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
  193. [193]
    [PDF] Managing Spent Fuel in the United States: The Illogic of Reprocessing.
    La Hague reprocessing plant: One square mile complex. $20+ billion capital cost and $1 billion/year operational cost vs. $0.3-0.5 B/year for dry-cask spent ...Missing: per | Show results with:per
  194. [194]
    The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent ...
    Reprocessing and recycling plutonium in existing light-water reactors (LWRs) will be more expensive than direct disposal of spent fuel until the uranium price ...<|separator|>
  195. [195]
    [PDF] No. NW-T-1.18
    This report presents international experience with the scaling factor methodology that, in many cases, can be applied to evaluate the radioactive inventory of ...
  196. [196]
    [PDF] Merits and Viability of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Technology ...
    Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused ...
  197. [197]
    [PDF] GAO-12-70 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options: DOE Needs to Enhance ...
    Oct 17, 2011 · According to the Department of Energy. (DOE), an advantage of reprocessing and recycling includes the greater use of the energy content of the ...
  198. [198]
    [PDF] the economics of reprocessing versus direct disposal of spent ...
    We conclude that the once-through LWR fuel cycle is likely to remain sig- nificantly cheaper than recycling in either LWRs or FRs for at least the next 50 yr, ...
  199. [199]
    [PDF] Statement of President Jimmy Carter on Nuclear Policy.
    First, we will defer indefinitely the commercial reproc- essing and recycling of the plutonium produced in the U.S. nuclear power programs. From our own ...
  200. [200]
    Statement Announcing a Series of Policy Initiatives on Nuclear Energy
    Oct 8, 1981 · In addition, we will pursue consistent, long-term policies concerning reprocessing of spent fuel from nuclear power reactors and eliminate ...
  201. [201]
    Reagan lifts ban on nuclear fuel recycling - UPI Archives
    Oct 8, 1981 · President Reagan issued a strong pro-nuclear policy statement Thursday, lifting the ban on commercial recycling of spent reactor fuel and ...
  202. [202]
    Timeline of Events: 1981 to 1990 | Department of Energy
    October 8, 1981. The Reagan Administration announces a nuclear energy policy that anticipates the establishment of a facility for the storage of high-level ...
  203. [203]
    US takes another look at recycling nuclear fuel | Physics Today
    Feb 1, 2024 · Since the initial 1977 ban, US reprocessing policy has seesawed through successive administrations. Republican administrations have been mostly ...Missing: 2000s | Show results with:2000s
  204. [204]
    Why the US doesn't recycle spent nuclear fuel - Project Optimist
    Feb 21, 2024 · The Carter ban held for four years, until former President Ronald Reagan lifted it in 1981 as part of a series of policy initiatives intended to ...Missing: history 2000s<|separator|>
  205. [205]
    To win on nuclear energy, the United States should lose reprocessing
    May 28, 2025 · Trump's executive orders on nuclear energy unfortunately played the prospect of nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling prominently.
  206. [206]
    Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.
    Jul 7, 2025 · U.S. federal funding and directives are driving innovation in nuclear waste reprocessing in an attempt to close the nuclear fuel cycle.
  207. [207]
    Nuclear Recycling Is Not a Panacea
    Oct 6, 2025 · The Trump administration's executive order on recycling nuclear fuel promises that a “policy to support the management of spent nuclear fuel” ...
  208. [208]
    Current status of reprocessing in France - INIS-IAEA
    Jan 5, 2025 · ... France: the first large reprocessing plant, UP1, started activity back in 1958 on the Marcoule site in the South of France. UP1 was ...
  209. [209]
    Appendix H: Reprocessing and Recycling Practices in Other Countries
    Most of the approximately 30 countries with nuclear power programs neither reprocess spent nuclear fuel nor use mixed oxide (MOX) fuels.Missing: practicing | Show results with:practicing
  210. [210]
    Russia is expanding its reprocessing program at Mayak - IPFM Blog
    Jun 9, 2016 · The nominal capacity of the plant is 400 tons. According to a ... The RT-1 reprocessing plant at the Mayak Production Association in ...
  211. [211]
    Decommissioning Sellafield - Parliament UK
    Jun 4, 2025 · In March 2024, over 11,500 people were directly employed by Sellafield Ltd. ... The Sellafield site is no longer reprocessing fuel – meaning some ...
  212. [212]
    Japan's Rokkasho reprocessing plant delayed until at least 2027
    Aug 29, 2024 · The plant is expected to begin operations in FY2026 (which ends in March 2027). This is the 27th delay since the construction began in 1993.
  213. [213]
    Is U.S. Reprocessing Worth The Risk? - Arms Control Association
    The United States swore off the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel because it cost too much and put separated plutonium into circulation.Missing: barriers | Show results with:barriers
  214. [214]
    Why Won't the U.S. Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel? - IER
    Jun 22, 2021 · The prohibition on the reprocessing of spent fuel serves as an inefficient government barrier to energy production. ______. This piece was ...
  215. [215]
    Articles Tagged with: reprocessing -- ANS / Nuclear Newswire
    Citing costs and a lack of industry interest, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is discontinuing its rulemaking for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
  216. [216]
    Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base - The White House
    May 23, 2025 · Swift and decisive action is required to jumpstart America's nuclear energy industrial base and ensure our national and economic security.Missing: revival | Show results with:revival
  217. [217]
    President Trump Signs Orders Incentivizing New Nuclear Energy
    Jun 2, 2025 · It directs the Department of Energy to develop a national policy for nuclear fuel recycling and reprocessing and to restart or repurpose closed ...Missing: current | Show results with:current
  218. [218]
    https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-proliferation-treaty
  219. [219]
    Japan's never ending reprocessing saga - IPFM Blog
    Nov 23, 2023 · In the new policy, JAEC proposed that: 1) Japan would reduce its stockpile of separated plutonium starting with a commitment not to increase it, ...Missing: 2000s- | Show results with:2000s-
  220. [220]
    Rokkasho redux: Japan's never-ending reprocessing saga
    Dec 26, 2023 · Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL) still hopes to finish construction of Japan's long-delayed Rokkasho reprocessing plant in the first half of the 2024 fiscal year.
  221. [221]
    International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation
    Nov 7, 2016 · Under GNEP/IFNEC, reprocessing is to be a means of avoiding proliferation, as well as addressing problems concerning high-level wastes.