Talk:Nuclear reprocessing/Archive 1

Revert
I reverted 169.253.4.21's deletion because I believe the sentence to be correct and he/she gave no reason for the delete. I left a message on his/her Talk page. Simesa 18:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Old processes
I have added a few sections on processes which have been replaced.Cadmium 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Weapons grade
This process can be used to recover weapon-grade materials from spent nuclear reactor fuel, and as such, its component chemicals are monitored. - The first statement is not in general true. The process (like any chemical reprocessing) can't alter the isotopic balance of the uranium or plutonium. So there would be few if any cases in which spent reactor fuel could provide weapons grade materials simply by reprocessing.

When Magnox reactors are used to produce weapons grade plutonium, the fuel elements each spend only a few days (or sometimes hours for very high grades) in the reactor. What is reprocessed is hardly spent fuel. The longer the fuel spends in the reactor, the more of the Pu-239 captures more neutrons and becomes Pu-240, Pu-241 and Pu-242, all of them undesirable for weapons and unremovable. That's why online refueling capability is always used for weapons grade plutonium production, and why PWRs and BWRs can't be used to make bombs. Carter's famous non-weapons grade test was British plute from a Magnox, the actual isotope ratio has never been released. Andrewa 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you say about spent vs irradiated fuel is technically true however the issue is somewhat moot since an opperator could remove fuel from a reactor at any time and use this reproccesing technology to recover weapon grade material.
 * Its not a moot point in most reactors, as a refueling outage takes many days and the loss of 1000MWe plus from a countries grid every 14 to 30 days tends to be noticed. Also both India and Pakistan had operational CANDU reactors (which has an online fueling capcity) when they started their weapons programs. But both choose not to employ them in this task, doesn’t that give a very strong hint that there are much easier ways to get bomb grade material than spent reactor fuel.
 * FYI - There are chemical processes that exploit the very slight difference in an isotopes propensity to change valency in oxidation/reduction, relitive to their sisters utilising immiscible aqueous and organic phases.
 * Those are enrichment processes and mainly developed to separate U-235 from U-238. To my knowledge similar processes do not exist to separate Pu-239 from Pu-240, and regardless it would be much easier to use low-burnup thermal reactors that don't produce large amounts of Pu-240 in the first place. Reactor grade plutonium isn't really much of a proliferation concern since any nation technologically advanced enough to produce reactor grade plutonium for weapons would without doubt be able to produce weapons grade Pu-239, which is significantly easier to make a weapons from. As mentioned above, the main proliferation risk with PUREX is if it is used in conjunction with reactors capable of refuelling on-load. Also, please add four ~ characters to the end of your contributions at the talk page, as that will automatically append the date you posted, which makes it easier to determine what discussions are still active. 137.205.192.27 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing a Reprocessing Plant
I'm going to have an article for the reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori soon. It's not fully operational yet, but we need to include it and comparisons to the French plant. You can check back later, after I've finished that article and it should be easier. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency between article and source
"... though it still takes over a thousand years for the level of radioactivity to approach that of natural uranium [19]." Yet the link provided says: "The radioactivity of high level wastes decays to the level of an equivalent amount of original mined uranium ore in between 1000 and 10,000 years." Natural uranium and uranium ore are NOT the same. Uranium ore is the uranium as it comes out of the ground, and contains quite a bit of other elements. Natural uranium refers to ore that has been processed into pure uranium, but has the same isotopic breakdown as found in nature. The two are not interchangeable, as they are not the same. I suggest replacing "natural uranium" in the quoted section of the article with "uranium ore", or finding a source for the time required to decay to the level of radioactivity of natural uranium.192.235.29.95 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reprocessing vs. Recycling
What is the difference between "Nuclear Reprocessing" and "Nuclear Recycling"? Nuclear Recycling redirects to this article. They seem to be used interchangeably in articles like this one: and   If they are indeed the same and recycling is just a reframe of reprocessing (like death tax is a reframe of estate tax or inheritance tax), then this should be clarified in the article.Kgrr (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two answers to this question. One is that "recycling" is a public relations euphemism for reprocessing.  People think "reprocessing" is bad but "recycling" sounds good.  The other is that recycling involves the complete process of separating fissionable material from spent fuel, fabricating it into new fuel, and using it again in a reactor.  Reprocessing by itself is not recycling - it's just the first step. NPguy (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also the vast majority output of reprocessing, a form of depleted uranium, is not recycled at all. It has some radioactive issues (U-232 mainly) compared to enrichment uranium tails, which needs shielding from if further processed, so generally has to be disposed of somehow. Also the U-236 content is a neutron absorber, so to reuese as fuel it needs extra enrichment. The UK has 27,000+ tonnes of it sitting around on storage sites in drums, awaiting a long delayed decision on what to do with it. To be fair some of this reprocessed uranium, depending on burn-up, still has higher U-235 % than natural uranium, so could in principle be cheaper to re-enrich if enrichment and fuel fabrication plants were built with the U-232 etc problem in mind. Rwendland (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a Reprocessed uranium article. --JWB (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * NPguy, You've provided two somewhat conflicting answers. Nuclear recycling redirects to this article.  However, nothing in this article deals with the term recycling.  If recycling indeed means "reprocessing" + "conversion"+ "fuel fabrication" then the article should say so.  On the other hand, if recycling is merely a reframe (eupjhomism, or made to sound more politically correct...) of reprocessing, then this article should also explain that.  Can you please provide a reference that will clarify this?  I need to resolve this same issue in the Peak uranium article.


 * Rwendland and JWB, reprocessing is full of problems where the fuel gets ore and more "poisoned" by the transuranic isotopes. I think this issue seriously limits the number of times fuel can be reprocessed. I also don't understand if you can re-enrich reprocessed uranium.  Won't the other isotopes of Uranium end up "poisoning" your enrichment facility? Kgrr (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by poisoned by transuranic isotopes, or which product of reprocessing is getting poisoned. It is true that plutonium accumulates more even-mass isotopes as it is used in a thermal reactor and that these isotopes are less fissile; however both these and minor actinides are burnable in fast reactors, which can also breed more fuel from U-238 or Thorium-232.
 * Yes, you can reenrich reprocessed uranium, and yes, the enrichment equipment would become more radioactive from U-232, so it would likely be done in a separate facility from enrichment of fresh uranium. But keep in mind the stockpile of depleted uranium is far in excess of the amount of used uranium, so if the goal is simply U-238 for breeder reactors, it is easier to just use depleted uranium than reprocessed uranium.
 * If the goal is extracting U-235 from reprocessed uranium, and you really need to get rid of the U-236 and other less desirable isotopes, one option is enriching to nearly pure U-235, then downblending with U-238. This would take somewhat more energy than regular enrichment of fresh uranium, but probably less than twice as much, and anyway centrifuging uses far less energy than was used in gaseous diffusion enrichment plants. And, keep in mind the amount of U-235 in used uranium is only a third or so of the amount in the original fuel, and an even smaller fraction of the U-235 in the original fresh uranium before enrichment.
 * Regarding Peak uranium, it seems to me that much of the content duplicates existing articles, while the "peak uranium" idea itself is not very credible or notable. --JWB (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any standard definition for nuclear recycling. I have heard it used both ways. The Department or Energy's fact sheet on recycling "Why recycle used nuclear fuel?" uses the term to mean separation, fabrication and reuse. On the other hand, its glossary defines recycling solely in terms of separation.

As far as how many times you can recycle, that depends in part on the type of reactor. Repeated recycling in a thermal neutron reactor builds up the heavier plutonium and other transuranic isotopes. In principle, it may be possible to recycle spent fuel indefinitely, but the buildup of non-fissile isotopes (those that do not undergo fission in a thermal neutron spectrum and may act as neutron poisons) requires an increasing concentration of plutonium to maintain reactivity in fuel. In a fast neutron reactor, most transuranics are fissionable and the higher isotopes therefore do not build up indefinitely.

Another result of recycling reprocessed uranium is the buildup of highly radioactive Pu-238. Neutron absorption by U-236 produces Np-237 and then Pu-238. This complicates further recycling of the plutonium from the spent fuel. NPguy (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

More Citations?
This article has a few citations, however, at least half of it has a alot of highly technical stuff which MUST have citations. Just a note. PandaSaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by PandaSaver (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will this help at all?

. Simesa (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Source of U.S. Ban on Reprocessing
In, one writer did some research and it appears that the U.S. ban on reprocessing isn't based on an Executive Order. It appears instead to be codified in "the Department of Energy Organization Act, PL 95-91, signed 8/4/77". Can anyone confirm this? Simesa (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to Google an answer, except possibly in a for-sale book in . Simesa (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Another editor states that President Ford put the ban on in 1976, and President Carter just affirmed it in 1977. Sources, anyone? Simesa (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/spring%202006/Special_Report.pdf

Ondrejch (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no U.S. ban on reprocessing. President Reagan lifted the Carter policy in 1981.  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes direct geological disposition of spent fuel as the standard model, but it does not rule out other approaches to spent fuel management.  What has kept the United States and most others out of the business is economics - the high cost of reprocessing compared to the status quo.


 * GNEP is already mentioned in the article and includes reprocessing in its plans. --JWB (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good history of U.S. reprocessing policy, from the Congressional Research Service. NPguy (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Images for article
Can images be made for the article, based on the images at http://www.nuketext.org/recycle_eng.html

Thanks in advance. 91.182.82.133 (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Article expansion
I came here to answer some questions raised in a book I'm reading. I found this article to have an excellent detailed exposition of the methods of reprocessing, but it lacks any focused discussion of the political issues surrounding reprocessing. What is here is fairly US-centric. I rewrote the lead and began to reorganized things a little. I intend to expand the article to include a section on, say, political or government issues. The economics section could also be expanded and clarified. If anybody is watching this page, let me know what you think. Robsavoie (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging Nuclear reprocessing with Nuclear fuel cycle
I generally am not in favor of merging the two. If anything, the reprocessing article should be expanded. Here in the US, of course, reprocessing is a non-issue. Simesa 18:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If the article is expanded, I'd say it should remain as it's own article. The reason why I proposed a merge is because the article in its current form is short enough to be a section in the larger Nuclear_fuel_cycle article. In fact, that article already has a section on nuclear reprocessing that pretty much says the same thing as this article (minus a few details). Solarusdude 19:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not support merging the two. Reprocessing is an important piece of the nuclear fuel cycle (the cycle is: mining, fabrication, reactors, reprocessing, re-fabrication). It would be similar to merging nuclear reactors with nuclear fuel cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.236.244 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article and will be adding more detail shortly. I have removed the redirect flag. DV8 2XL 08:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reprocessing in the U.S.
Actually, the U.S. will have a functioning MOX fuel fabrication facility in the next few years. A consortium called Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (DCS) was awarded a contract from the DOE in 1999, so the project has been underway since 1999. Site preparation at the Savannah River Site (South Carolina) began in October. See www.dcsmox.com for more information. Talula 15:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've made the addition. DV8 2XL 18:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In February, 2006, a new U.S. initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was announced - it would be an international effort to reprocess fuel in a manner making proliferation infeasible, while making nuclear power available to developing countries. Would someone like to blend GNEP into this article? Simesa 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done as per request. --DV8 2XL 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

GNEP has been more or less canceled since Bush left office. A new committee has been formed called Fuel Cycle Research and Development (FCRD)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.236.244 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GNEP as a program to build demonstration facilities is dead. The surviving R&D program is focused on providing the scientific basis for a future decision on the back end of the fuel cycle.  There was also an international component to GNEP, which has been renamed the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) and is very much alive.  This program never did focus on R&D or demonstration programs, but continues to address practical issues for states considering nuclear power, including practical issues of nuclear fuel supply and nuclear fuel services. NPguy (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuel fabrication

 * I wonder if the advent of MOX and other types of fuel assemblies (aside from 'traditional' Uranium) would justify a
 * 'nuclear fuel fabrication' article. Every other aspect of the fuel cycle (mining, separation/enrichment, disposal) seems
 * to have multiple points of coverage in Wikipedia. Watchpup (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fuel fabrication is roughly defined as machining of reactor fuel assemblies for use in nuclear reactors. (different than making pits for weapons)


 * There is an article on Nuclear fuel. It's more about the product than the process. NPguy (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Why separate U and Pu?
Somehow in all the detailed discussion I missed a key point. Why do we need to separate Pu from U? After all we plan to make MOX which is mix of both. If we didn't separate them then there would be no proliferation issue. Why not just mix them with some enriched uranium and remake it into fuel?

We have a number of ways to reprocess without causing concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation, so why don't we? Is it only economics or are there other reasons? Why hasn't at least one of the ways to reprocess spent fuel proved more attractive than indefinite storage at the point of use?

In other words, this article needs to address the concerns of the average citizen: We have all these solutions to the nuclear waste issue and we are using none of them. There has to be a good reason. More than 40 years we have been trying to figure out what to do with our waste and today we appear ready to "study" the problem some more.

If there is no good solution to nuclear waste disposal, would that look like a website that talked about options and indicated yet more study? Or are we actually moving toward a solution? What is different today than 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? RStillwater (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Storage at point of use has been cheap since the spent fuel pool already needs to be in place, it avoids other communities' objections to receiving or reprocessing spent fuel or even having it transported through their communities, and radioactivity from the 30 year and less isotopes continues to decrease with longer storage. Geological repository capacity is limited by heat generation, so initial surface storage allows greater eventual repository capacity.


 * Both reprocessed uranium and reactor-grade plutonium are of little use in current thermal reactors. They can be burned in fast reactors, but there is little incentive to develop reprocessing and fast reactors while enriched uranium and the once-through cycle is cheap. The only reason would be to destroy plutonium and minor actinides, and even this would take decades and have the short term effect of further increasing short term radioactivity. --JWB (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Separating U from Pu is very important because U and Pu are different both chemically and regarding nuclear properties. Most of the U that comes from used nuclear fuel is actually not fissile (cannot be split for energy in LWRs) - yet most of the Pu that comes from used fuel is fissile. After reprocessing, U and Pu typically come out as a U-nitrate and Pu-nitrate complex. U and Pu have very different chemical properties so converting them into UO2 or 239PuO2 (which are the chemical compositions of nuclear fuel)requires a different process. Ultimately, MOX fuel is a combination of U and Pu, but to obtain the right blend, U and Pu must be handled individually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malexb (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not entirely true. The French company Areva is exploring the COEX process, which separates uranium and plutonium in roughly equal concentrations through a process of "co-extraction."  The oxide mixture would then be blended with uranium to produce MOX fuel to meet the required specification. NPguy (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Time scale for waste to really become waste?
The claim has been made recently that the spent fuel at nuclear sites is really just future ore. This depends on the spot price of new fuel, of course, but there is the widespread assumption that this will go up over time. At some point the price of new and reprocessed fuel should meet.

However, this claim requires that there is effectively no degradation of the fuel over time. For instance, if this point is 20 years out, and the fuel can only be re-processed within 10 years of coming out of the reactor, then this point will occur much later because the volume of suitable spent fuel is much lower.

As I understand it, spent fuel continues to transmute in-situ, and this results both in the reduction of useful elements, as well as "poisoning" by undesirable ones that make processing more expensive.

The article appears to only mention something related thus:

"If reprocessing is undertaken only to reduce the radioactivity level of spent fuel it should be taken into account that spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time"

But it's not clear what this is saying. It could be saying that the value is decreasing, or it could be saying that it's getting better because it's less radioactive.

I think this is of some import to the article, any pointers?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It all depends how you calculate, at the moment it is a lot more economical to do not reprocess at all, and disposed the used fuel-bars right away, the waste produced with reprocessing does cost a lot of money, and the use of MOX-fuel has declined, because the extra risk using it. Reactor nr. 3 in Fukushima was fueled with it. Now a big task ahead to dismantle the "beast". And... the English have closed the factory for it already. The question is really: what is prudent in these matters ? 1947enkidu (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The only phenomenon like what you are describing is decay of fissile Pu-241 to nonfissile Am-241. The main synthetic fissile isotope is Pu-239 which is long-lived, and even when it does decay becomes uranium-235 which is also fissile.
 * The main reduction of radioactivity is from decay of fission products like Cs-137, Sr-90, and many shorter-lived ones, which do not affect either fissile or nonfissile actinides. --JWB (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So does this have an effect on the economics? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, the reusable parts of fuel are long-lived and the parts that complicate reuse of spent fuel are short-lived. In general, fuel becomes easier to reprocess over time, largely because less shielding is needed to protect against radiation from the decay of short-lived fission products.  One exception is the decay of Pu-241 (with a half-life of 14 years) to Am-241 (half-life 432 years).  Though the decay rate is much lower, the radiation hazard is higher because the decay includes a low-energy gamma ray.  Recycled fuel with higher Am-241 is therefore somewhat harder to handle safely.  Also, the Am-241 is not fissile and is therefore prone to absorb neutrons (in a standard light-water reactor) and produce higher transuranics rather than fission and produce energy and fission products, so the spent fuel is also harder to handle.


 * Fast reactors in principle can help reduce these problems, since most transuranics undergo fission in a fast neutron spectrum. But fast reactors do not have a strong track record of reliability and carry a significant cost premium.  So in considering the economics of recycling, it's important to take into account not only the cost premium of the fuel but also the cost premium of the reactor needed to use the recycled fuel most effectively. NPguy (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For the moment I'd like to focus on the second half of the first para.
 * Recycled fuel with higher Am-241 so would some fuel have more and some less? What would be the cause of this? The original fuel fed in? Or the rector design or operation?
 * Also, the Am-241 is not fissile and is therefore prone to absorb neutrons Any metric for this? Would certain fuel be rendered unusable in typical light water designs, for instance?
 * so the spent fuel is also harder to handle Interesting, it would be "second spent"
 * This is precisely the issue I was hearing about, but I'm still having trouble understanding if it's a real issue. Can we put some ballpark numbers to this? IE, does this effect 10% or 90% of the existing spent fuel? Does it mean the effected fuel cannot be used in 10% of reactors or 90%. Even if everyone can use it, is it 10% more to process, or 90%. I don't need specifics, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pu-241 is generated in LEU fuel by successive neutron absorption in U-238. The amount depends on the fuel burnup - the higher the burnup the more Pu-241.  Am-241 is then generated by the decay - with a 14-year half-life of Pu-241.  So the longer the fuel has been out of the reactor the higher the Am-241 content.  I don't think this makes any existing spent fuel unusable, but it does limit the practicality of multiple recycling in light-water reactors that operate on a thermal neutron spectrum.  This is part of the broader phenomenon of generating higher transuranic isotopes - some of which pose other radiological problems - in recycling spent fuel in thermal neutron reactors.  And this phenomenon is why France has decided to recycle its spent LEU fuel only once, as MOX.  After that, the intention is to recycle the spent fuel in fast neutron reactor, which greatly reduces these problems, transuranics are more likely to undergo fission (compared to absorption) with fast neutrons.
 * None of this is quantitative. I've seen quantitative analysis and you could probably find some on the web, but I can't point to any right now. NPguy (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I definitely understand the issue now. IIRC, wasn't their fast neutron reactor a failure? SuperPhoenix? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

POV tag
This article presents a very narrow perspective on reprocessing and I agree with the above editor who says this article is an "excellent detailed exposition of the methods of reprocessing, but it lacks any focused discussion of the political issues surrounding reprocessing". In particular, the view that "reprocessing is a manifestly dangerous technology", see, is quite widely presented in the literature, but is largely missing from this article. My attempts to bring in wider discussion of reprocessing issues, see  and  have subsequently been rewritten. So there really is no choice but to add a POV tag. Johnfos (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the general sentiment that this article could use a better discussion of policy issues surrounding reprocessing. There are plenty of places to look for information on the dangers of reprocessing - just do a web search on Frank von Hippel and the International Panel on Fissile Materials.  In my view, the economic arguments against reprocessing are more persuasive and unambiguous than the nonproliferation arguments.  I take issue with the complaint about my edits, which were technical/factual corrections. NPguy (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with using such views as "reprocessing is a manifestly dangerous technology". The problem is that there is no point of reference nor is there any quantification in such a statement. In most regulatory situations, "danger" is quantified in terms of "risk", which has a very specific definition. "Risk" of an event is roughtly equivalent to the product of the probability of an occurrence and the consequence of that occurrence. These individual event risks are then summed over all postulated events to achieve a total risk. These values are then presented in various means. At this point, there is no evidence that the risk to the workers and/or the public is any larger than other routinely accepted risks. In fact, there is evidence that the risk from nuclear reprocessing is actually less than many routinely accepted risks, such as transportation (especially via cars), sports, and other energy processes. Thus, a discussion of the political views may be warranted, but if included, should explicitly point out that political views are sometimes not founded in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorcerer0203 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Chloride volatility
User:JWB/Chloride volatility shows detailed information on the process. Does it worth to be incorporated into the article ? -- Mountainninja (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for controversy
"Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle"

That is four enumerated reasons for controversy, right there, but the risk of accidents/leaks/contamination from reprocessing plants ( due to incompetence or "bad luck" )is surely also a political hot potato,  yet it doesn't fall within the scope of any of the four reasons listed.Lathamibird (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuclear reprocessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121001033741/http://blogs.princeton.edu:80/chm333/f2006/nuclear/05_reprocessing/possible_methods_of_reprocessing/ to http://blogs.princeton.edu/chm333/f2006/nuclear/05_reprocessing/possible_methods_of_reprocessing/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Nuclear reprocessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225154203/http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/e_publication/pdf/den363.pdf to http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/e_publication/pdf/den363.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071129121201/http://web.mac.com/mosb1000/iWeb/Bob's%20Site/Examples_files/Sr_Design_Rpt.pdf to http://web.mac.com/mosb1000/iWeb/Bob's%20Site/Examples_files/Sr_Design_Rpt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110810181931/http://www3.nhk.or.jp:80/daily/english/26_12.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/26_12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Nuclear reprocessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110516130917/http://www.ctaps.yu.edu.jo:80/stpne/Symposium-Presentationns/Xounbi-The%20politics%20science%20Environment%20and%20common%20sense%20of%20SNF%20Reprocessing.pdf to http://www.ctaps.yu.edu.jo/stpne/Symposium-Presentationns/Xounbi-The%20politics%20science%20Environment%20and%20common%20sense%20of%20SNF%20Reprocessing.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120717075646/http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/43/3/255/_pdf to http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/43/3/255/_pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130602232418/http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/44/3/44_410/_article to http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/44/3/44_410/_article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nuclear reprocessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/43/3/255/_pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Nuclear reprocessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ne.anl.gov/pdfs/12_Pyroprocessing_bro_5_12_v14
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.merck.de/servlet/PB/show/1332930/10.Molten
 * Added tag to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1319605053P.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404160048/http://world-nuclear.org:80/info/inf69.htm to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117004320/http://www.world-nuclear.org:80/info/inf29.htm to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nuclear reprocessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115151847/http://www-atalante2004.cea.fr/home/liblocal/docs/atalante2000/P3-26.pdf to http://www-atalante2004.cea.fr/home/liblocal/docs/atalante2000/P3-26.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510084252/http://www.ne.doe.gov/AFCI/neAFCI.html to http://www.ne.doe.gov/AFCI/neAFCI.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.mac.com/mosb1000/iWeb/Bob%27s%20Site/Examples_files/Sr_Design_Rpt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716141530/http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/lnorm_hague_e.htm to http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/lnorm_hague_e.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)