10 Years of Research and Reexamination?... What Exactly Is 'Pyroprocessing'?

10-Year Review Report Under Scrutiny for Not Disclosing Results Despite Recent Approval
Ministry of Science and ICT Launches Joint Korea-US Research Report Review Committee
Committee to Assess Technical Stability, Commercial Viability, and Nuclear Proliferation Risks to Decide on Research Continuation

Shin-Kori Units 3 and 4 at the Saeul Nuclear Power Headquarters. Archive photo. Not related to the article.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Bong-su] Can the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing technology, one of the core issues of nuclear power generation, really be commercialized? The government has entered a review phase without disclosing the results of the Korea-US joint research conducted over the past decade, despite having approved them.

According to the Ministry of Science and ICT on the 29th, the ministry launched the Spent Nuclear Fuel Treatment Technology Research and Development Appropriateness Review Committee on the same day. This committee will review domestic R&D efforts so far, the implementation of recommendations from the 2018 re-examination committee, and other matters based on the 10-year report of the Korea-US Joint Fuel Cycle Studies (JFCS), which was recently approved by both Korean and US authorities, to decide whether to continue research and development.

The spent nuclear fuel treatment technology, also known as pyroprocessing, involves reprocessing nuclear fuel used in reactors so that part of it can be reused as fuel for reactors or Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors (SFR), while only about 4.5% of the waste is stored long-term and then disposed of after lowering its level to intermediate and low-level waste.

This technology was originally developed in the 1960s by the US Argonne National Laboratory but saw little progress due to issues such as technical safety, cost-effectiveness for commercialization, and nuclear proliferation concerns arising from plutonium enrichment during reprocessing. In Korea, the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute strongly demanded research on pyroprocessing, leading to about 700 billion KRW being invested in research. However, during the 2017 National Assembly budget review process, concerns about technical feasibility were raised, prompting the National Assembly to activate a re-examination committee. The result was to decide on the continuation of research after the Korea-US joint research (JFCS) results were released in 2020.

Subsequently, earlier this month, the Korean and US authorities approved the joint research report, and according to a bipartisan agreement at the time, the government plans to form an appropriateness review committee to make a final decision on the research results. The review committee consists of nine members, including the seven members who participated in the 2017 re-examination committee, along with one economic expert and one nuclear engineering expert.

The problem is that the Korean and US authorities have remained silent about the report’s contents, fueling ongoing controversy over pyroprocessing technology. The nuclear science community asserts that the joint research results confirm the technical and commercial feasibility of pyroprocessing and that full-scale R&D and commercialization should proceed. On the other hand, the anti-nuclear power camp criticizes the technology as still unverified and incomplete, arguing that the additional budget of about 600 billion KRW is merely a means for the 'nuclear mafia' to sustain their livelihoods.

Regarding this, the Ministry of Science and ICT stated that the US side reportedly maintains concerns about nuclear non-proliferation due to the possibility of plutonium enrichment during the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing process. Also, the report does not include a review of Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors, whose risks have been highlighted following the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

The Ministry of Science and ICT said, "It is not true at all that a positive conclusion was reached regarding technical and commercial aspects," adding, "Both Korea and the US have agreed not to disclose specific report contents, and the decision on whether to continue research will be made through the appropriateness review committee."