Should the federal government support a program to import nuclear waste into the US for reprocessing?

Yes

1 of 2

by John Hunter

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The short answer to the question is yes. However, as a preliminary to this question another should be considered.

During his presidential term (1976-1980) Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of nuclear fuel as a policy matter, based on concerns regarding nuclear proliferation. Consequently there is no capability for processing commercial spent fuel in the U.S. today. Prior to considering whether the U.S. should accept foreign spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing the federal government needs to reverse this decision and promote the re-establishment of a processing capability through incentives to the nuclear industry. Understandably, any company with the ability to design, build and operate a fuel reprocessing plant will be extremely reluctant to stick its toe into these waters again without government guarantees that the government will not once again reverse itself.

However, for the sake of argument let us suppose that this obstacle does not exist, and that there is a capability and willingness to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in this country. Why would it be a good idea to accept foreign spent fuel for reprocessing?

First, the U.S. has no ability to stop other countries from developing commercial nuclear power. It will happen whether we like it or not and it will happen under the auspices of the U.N. through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In addition to the thirty plants now being proposed for our own country, thirty more in China, more in India, and to the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran and other mid east countries, even Brazil is considering its nuclear options. In the face of this nuclear renaissance and its attendant possibilities of an undesirable nuclear arms race, the U.S., by offering reprocessing services, can exercise considerable influence on nuclear material flows.

In fact, the U.S. would be a late comer to this game. France is currently providing these very services to Japan, and Russia is poised to provide them also to Iran. Even so, the most obvious advantage of limiting the capability to a few reliable suppliers is deterring rising nuclear countries from developing their own indigenous capability.

Second, the reason for reprocessing is to extend the fuel supply. "Spent fuel" is not really spent, because the amount of fissile material actually consumed is only a few percent of the total fuel element load. By storing spent fuel as waste a power producer denies himself access from up to 95% of its total available energy. The U.S. can provide a valuable and economical service to a foreign utility by recovering and remanufacturing the energy rich actinides into more fuel elements, packaging the non-fissile but radioactive wastes left over into canisters for disposal and returning it all to the client. The client's wastes would not remain on U.S. soil, and the client would have a closed nuclear fuel cycle but not have access to unconstrained fissile materials.

Not only does reprocessing extend the fuel supply, it also minimizes the amount of radioactive waste which must actually be disposed of. Consider that a typical nuclear reactor consumes about three hundred metric tons of fuel in a year in the form of spent fuel elements. With reprocessing what remains after the actinides are turned into more fuel is about thirty metric tons of low level radioactive waste which has to packaged and stored in a burial ground for the length of time it takes for it to decay away, about three hundred years. Without reprocessing a producer has manage spent fuel elements for tens of thousands of years, and this manifestly an impossible situation.

Finally, a guaranteed and reliable processing service in the U.S. will promote the world wide growth of commercial nuclear power. This is actually a good thing for limiting further atmospheric emissions of carbon. For the world will have energy and if it is not nuclear it will be coal. The contrast is stark. A coal fired power plant burns about nine thousand metric tons of coal PER DAY, of which about half goes up the stack as carbon dioxide, while a comparably sized nuke with reprocessing produces about 30 metric tons of SOLID waste PER YEAR. This alone is reason enough to shift the balance of central station power production to nuclear power and to institute reprocessing if we are serious about addressing climate change.

Learn more about this author, John Hunter.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.