Reprocessing: A Rapid Response Factsheet
September 2, 2008
By Nick Roth, Contributing Analyst
On August 25, 2008, the Nuclear Energy Institute released a fact sheet for press at the Democratic National Convention claiming that “Nuclear power plants and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are not linked.” This statement assumes that sensitive nuclear technologies will not spread. However, the Bush administration’s current proposal to resume reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has increased the risk that nuclear energy will result in more nuclear weapons-usable material in the United States and abroad. The Bush Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposes that the United States would separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel through reprocessing. GNEP envisions that “receiver” countries would voluntarily give up nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies and, in exchange, and would send their nuclear waste to “supplier” countries for reprocessing. In practice, GNEP is a proliferation risk, exorbitantly expensive, and not a solution to the growing nuclear waste problem in the United States
PROLIFERATION RISK
Separating plutonium under GNEP would increase the production and stockpiles of nuclear weapons usable materials. Spent fuel that has not been reprocessed is considered “self protecting” because it is highly radioactive. Separated plutonium is a concentrated powder, and approximately 18 lbs. are required to make a bomb, increasing the risk that this material could be lost or diverted by terrorists. The International Atomic Energy Agency already allows for a 1% margin of error in accounting for plutonium. In addition, since the announcement of GNEP, several countries that do not currently reprocess spent fuel or enrich uranium have expressed interest in developing the dangerous technologies, and could thereby acquire the ability to produce nuclear weapons-usable material for nuclear weapons.
EXPENSIVE
Although the Department of Energy (DOE) has not provided a life-cycle cost estimate for GNEP, the National Academy of Sciences estimated in 1996 that a project like GNEP could cost more than $500 billion. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that "Reprocessing of U.S. spent fuel would cost 25 percent more than plans for direct disposal" in a permanent repository. Under the current plan for GNEP, the taxpayer and rate-payers, not the nuclear power industry, would bear this cost.
IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM
France has demonstrated that reprocessing does not solve the nuclear waste problem. According the recent report Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France, issued by the International Panel on Fissile Material, “there is no clear advantage for the reprocessing option either in terms of waste volumes or repository area.” French reprocessing has left large quantities of solid waste contaminated with plutonium that will need to be stored in a repository.
IT HAS ALREADY FAILED
Reprocessing has already failed in the United States: West Valley, New York is the site of the only commercial reprocessing plant that operated in the United States. From 1966 to 1972, West Valley ran at 18% capacity and accumulated 600,000 gallons of high-level waste onsite. The cleanup of West Valley will cost more than $5 billion.