Comparison of the Environment, Health, And Safety Characteristics of Advanced Thorium- Uranium and Uranium-Plutonium Fuel Cycles

The environment, health, and safety properties of thorium-uranium-based (''thorium'') fuel cycles are estimated and compared to those of analogous uranium-plutonium-based (''uranium'') fuel cycle options. A structured assessment methodology for assessing and comparing fuel cycle is refined and applied to several reference fuel cycle options.;Resource recovery as a measure of environmental sustainability for thorium is explored in depth in terms of resource availability, chemical processing requirements, and radiological impacts. A review of available experience and recent practices indicates that near-term thorium recovery will occur as a by-product of mining for other commodities, particularly titanium. The characterization of actively-mined global titanium, uranium, rare earth element, and iron deposits reveals that by-product thorium recovery would be sufficient to satisfy even the most intensive nuclear demand for thorium at least six times over. Chemical flowsheet analysis indicates that the consumption of strong acids and bases associated with thorium resource recovery is 3-4 times larger than for uranium recovery, with the comparison of other chemical types being less distinct. Radiologically, thorium recovery imparts about one order of magnitude larger of a collective occupational dose than uranium recovery.;Moving to the entire fuel cycle, four fuel cycle options are compared: a limited-recycle (''modified-open'') uranium fuel cycle, a modified-open thorium fuel cycle, a full-recycle (''closed'') uranium fuel cycle, and a closed thorium fuel cycle. A combination of existing data and calculations using SCALE are used to develop material balances for the four fuel cycle options. The fuel cycle options are compared on the bases of resource sustainability, waste management (both low- and high-level waste, including used nuclear fuel), and occupational radiological impacts. At steady-state, occupational doses somewhat favor the closed thorium option while low-level waste volumes slightly favor the closed uranium option, although uncertainties are significant in both cases. The high-level waste properties (radioactivity, decay heat, and ingestion radiotoxicity) all significantly favor the closed fuel cycle options (especially the closed thorium option), but an alternative measure of key fission product inventories that drive risk in a repository slightly favors the uranium fuel cycles due to lower production of iodine-129. Resource requirements are much lower for the closed fuel cycle options and are relatively similar between thorium and uranium.;In additional to the steady-state results, a variety of potential transition pathways are considered for both uranium and thorium fuel cycle end-states. For dose, low-level waste, and fission products contributing to repository risk, the differences among transition impacts largely reflected the steady-state differences. However, the HLW properties arrived at a distinctly opposite result in transition (strongly favoring uranium, whereas thorium was strongly favored at steady-state), because used present-day fuel is disposed without being recycled given that uranium-233, rather than plutonium, is the primarily fissile nuclide at the closed thorium fuel cycle's steady-state. Resource consumption was the only metric was strongly influenced by the specific transition pathway selected, favoring those pathways that more quickly arrived at steady-state through higher breeding ratio assumptions regardless of whether thorium or uranium was used.