The Bush administration wants to
reverse a 30-year policy against reprocessing nuclear waste. The costly
process was banned because it produces plutonium, which could be used to
make weapons. But the government says new technology could make this
"recycling" safe. Living on Earth's Jeff Young reports. (5:00)
Transcript:
GELLERMAN: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley studios in Somerville,
Massachusetts, this is Living on Earth. I'm Bruce Gellerman, sitting in for
Steve Curwood.
For 30 years, U.S. government policy has banned the
reprocessing of nuclear waste. Presidents since Gerald Ford have concluded
that reprocessing was too costly and too risky – it creates weapons-grade
plutonium that could fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.
Now the Bush administration wants to reverse that
policy with something called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It's a
multi-billion dollar research effort aimed at recycling spent fuel not just
from reactors in the U.S., but in the future from developing countries as
well.
Living on Earth's Jeff Young reports from
Washington.
YOUNG: Recycling your trash is a good idea, right?
So Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell asks, why not recycle our nuclear
waste?
SELL: All leading thinkers that have looked at
nuclear power, that have looked at how we can accomplish our goals for clean
development, recognize that that will eventually lead us to recycling of
spent fuel.
YOUNG: Sell says technology called UREX Plus
developed in DOE labs, could allow for that to safely happen. Waste from
traditional light water reactors would go through a chemical process
separating some elements. It would not yield pure plutonium, as technology
now used in Europe and Asia does. Instead, plutonium would be bound up with
other chemicals in a material that could later be fuel for an advanced
reactor.
SELL: It allows you to extract much greater energy
out of the spent fuel, and it also results in a waste form at the end of the
process that is much more stable and much easier to dispose of.
YOUNG: The proposal also aims for greater
international control of the movement of nuclear materials. If a developing
country wanted nuclear power, it could lease fuel from the US, France or
Britain, then return the waste for reprocessing.
SELL: If a country has the ability to enrich
uranium, or to reprocess plutonium, it effectively has the bomb.
YOUNG: So that's Sell's sales pitch: slow the
spread of nuclear weapons materials, get more energy from fuel, and reduce
waste. His first audience on Capitol Hill was receptive. New Mexico
Republican Senator, Pete Domenici , is a fan of nuclear power and
reprocessing.
DOMENICI: In the 70s the US decided to abandon its
leadership on nuclear recycling and let the rest of the world pass us by.
With the creation of this new global nuclear energy program we're going to
get back into the ballgame.
YOUNG: South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey
Graham called the program "visionary." But the reprocessing idea is getting
a frosty reception elsewhere.
LYMAN: Well of course it sounds good, the slogan
that we should be recycling our nuclear waste instead of throwing it away is
appealing on the surface. But the problem is once you start looking at the
details, the program completely falls apart.
YOUNG: That's Ed Lyman of the advocacy group Union
of Concerned Scientists. Lyman says materials produced by the technology DOE
is pushing could still be used to make weapons. And he's skeptical of claims
that reprocessing would solve the waste problem.
LYMAN: Unfortunately reprocessing doesn't actually
reduce radioactive waste. All it does is shuffle it around. The fact is all
these materials have to be disposed of somewhere.
YOUNG: Some scientists who support the
administration's general ideas are still uneasy with the proposal. Ernie
Moniz teaches physics at MIT and served the Clinton administration as a
science advisor and undersecretary of energy. Moniz says reprocessing
technology is not ready.
MONIZ: It may lead us down the wrong technology
pathway. So again, rushing into large-scale reprocessing would seem to be a
bit premature until one has technologies for the whole integrated system in
hand.
YOUNG: And then there's the price tag. The
administration wants $250 million for the Nuclear Energy Partnership next
year. But that's just a down payment on a program that Energy Secretary Sam
Bodman says could cost tens of billions of dollars.
BODMAN: This is going to be a very expensive
undertaking if we decide to go forward with it. My own estimate, personal
estimate, is that it's gonna be between $20 and $40 billion to accomplish
all this.
YOUNG: England, France, Japan, and Russia all
reprocess spent nuclear fuel with mixed results. There's less waste, but the
countries still have some 240 tons of plutonium to store and guard. But that
does not deter the DOE's Sell, who says new technology would make a US-led
program different.
SELL: A program based on the old reprocessing
technology cannot and should not survive. But we believe that there is a
better way.
YOUNG: As it considers the President's budget
Congress must decide if it agrees that this "better way" is worth billions
and the reversal of long-standing policy. For Living on Earth, I'm Jeff
Young in Washington.
