Selected papers for global `95 concerning plutonium

Abstract

This is an informal report intended primarily for internal or limited external distribution. The opinions and conclusions stated are those of the author and may or may not be those of the Laboratory. Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-ENG-48. DISCLAIMERThe following is a compendium of several publications and uncleared presentations that are either in the public domain or published with the permission of the authors. The contents cannot be and have not been verified by the University for security issues or concerning any proprietary information they may contain. The University, thus, makes no representations whatsoever that the material in this publication contains no restricted or classified information or that it has been cleared by the University or that it contains no third-party proprietary data. PrefaceThis report contains selected papers from the Global '95 Conference, "Evaluation of Emerging Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems," held in Versailles September 11 through 14, 1995. The conference was sponsored by the French Section of the American Nuclear Society and the Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Division. The meeting was organized in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) and co-sponsored by the French Nuclear Society (SFEN), the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), the Atomic Energy Society of Japan (AESJ), the Kurchatov Institute, the Russian Nuclear Society, and others.The papers in Part I of this report are from the "Benefits and Risks of Reprocessing" Sessions. At Global '93, in Seattle, there seemed to be an unquestioned assumption that nuclear power in general, and reprocessing (recycling of plutonium) in particular, are essential for the world's energy needs. This assumption is disputed by those who believe that reprocessing poses grave risks for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and is not economical. It was my intent to have both sides of the proliferation and economic questions presented in these sessions in order to examine the reasons for this difference in positions. Co-chairing these sessions with me were: L. F. Durret, COGEMA, France (Session 7); and R. Baschwitz, IAEA, Austria (Session 8). The authors in these sessions were challenged to address the economic and proliferation benefits and risks resulting from reprocessing and recycling of plutonium. Technical, safety, and ecological issues were not called into question, although benefits in conservation of resources and the management of nuclear waste have been asserted by proponents of reprocessing/recycling.After our sessions the basic disagreements remained but I think that each side has a better understanding and appreciation of the other side's view. Although economics of plutonium use (recycling) were debated, I think that most people at the session, and at the conference, concluded that the economic viability will be determined by the marketplace in the long run. In the meantime some countries are pursu...