U.S. plan for nuclear cartel faces reality check

The problem with plutonium
The problem with that logic, opponents counter, is that reprocessing would make it more likely that plutonium — the material of choice for nuclear bomb makers — could fall into the wrong hands. When it remains mixed with other components of highly radioactive spent fuel, the waste is "self-protecting" because it is quickly fatal to anyone who tries to handle it without specialized equipment and technical know-how. But once plutonium is separated from the other waste via reprocessing, it can be handled without any immediate danger to a would-be bomber's health.

“Plutonium itself is not a major radiation hazard,” explained Dr. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “You can carry weapons-grade plutonium around in your hands for hours and you’re not going to sustain a severe radiation injury. And it only takes maybe 10 pounds to make a nuclear weapon.”

As a result, foes say the amounts of plutonium that would be produced in commercial settings under the GNEP scenario would greatly increase the chances that it could fall into terrorists’ hands.

“Do you really want more bomb-grade plutonium floating around the world?” asked Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for the anti-nuclear environmental group Greenpeace.

“Reprocessing is a very dangerous technology,” said Lyman. “The Department of Energy is in love with the idea of reprocessing. They at first claimed that the purpose behind GNEP was to develop new types of reprocessing that would not pose the same proliferation risks as conventional reprocessing and would not produce separated plutonium. But in fact none of the ideas that the Department of Energy proposed is new.”

Current commercial reprocessing technology, like that practiced by the French firm Areva, extracts plutonium and uranium from spent fuel and produces "mixed oxide" or MOX fuel that can be used in conventional reactors. The remaining high-level wastes are "vitrified," or sealed up in glass, and  stored. But GNEP's goal is to also recycle that waste and turn it into fuel to be burned in a new generation of reactors.

New techniques touted
GNEP backers insist that new reprocessing techniques can extract all of the materials for fresh fuel from nuclear waste in ways that greatly limit proliferation threats. At a September hearing before a Senate panel, Dr. Alan S. Hanson of Areva, which hopes to be a key participant in GNEP, testified that a “phased approach” would avoid separation of pure plutonium, limit its concentration in other mixtures and develop “advanced safeguards” to protect it.

But a "GNEP Strategic Plan" released earlier this month by the Energy Department acknowledged  that "there are  limits to the nonproliferation benefits offered by any of the advanced chemical separations technologies, which generally can be modified to produce plutonium.” Nonetheless, the plan says that GNEP’s broader goals and security procedures will be a net plus to global nonproliferation efforts.

Because of that confidence, and high interest from Areva and other companies, the Energy Department's Spurgeon said in remarks prepared for the September hearing that the agency is ready to proceed with “commercial demonstrations of these (reprocessing) technologies.” That triggered the selection of the 11 communities that had applied for GNEP study grants.

The Energy Department is looking for locations that could host a reprocessing facility capable of reprocessing 2,000 to 3,000 tons of nuclear waste a year or a new type of “advanced recycling reactor” that would consume nuclear fuel created in the reprocessing facility – or both.

In addition to Piketon, Oak Ridge and the two communities in New Mexico, DOE awarded grants to two communities in Idaho; Barnwell, S.C.; Hanford, Wash.; Morris, Ill.; Paducah, Ken.; and Savannah River, S.C. Like Piketon, most of the sites are at existing nuclear facilities.

According to Spurgeon, the site studies and other analysis are aimed at a decision sometime in 2008 by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman on whether or not to proceed with full-fledged GNEP development and seek the billions of dollars in funding it would require.

At the September hearing, Harvard’s Bunn, a leading authority on nuclear arms and a supporter of the expansion of conventional nuclear power, presented a 19-page paper that concluded that GNEP initiatives are headed in “precisely the wrong direction” and will “do more to undermine the future of nuclear energy than to promote it.”

‘A talking point, not serious analysis’
To begin with, Bunn said, reprocessing is far more expensive than “once through” use of nuclear fuel. A study by the National Academy of Sciences estimated that reprocessing the approximately 62,000 tons of spent commercial fuel now in existence would cost as much as $100 billion more than placing it in a repository like Yucca Mountain. Like Lyman, Bunn flatly disagreed that new reprocessing technology removes the risk of proliferation, calling that notion “a talking point, not a serious analysis.”

Stevens, the Energy Department spokesman, disputed that contention. “The policy will not move forward unless the technology is proliferation-resistant," he said. "If it doesn’t work, we’re going to find another way to do it. We believe, in a lab setting, it does work. It’s a matter of ramping that up.”

Bunn’s paper raised a host of other questions about funding, the Energy Department’s lack of experience in overseeing “a commercial-scale facility of this complexity” and the lack of political sustainability for a program that would require years of financial commitment from Congress. He told MSNBC.com he believes it’s “very likely” GNEP will collapse before it gets serious funding from Congress.

Lyman, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed. “This is the height of fiscal irresponsibility,” he said.

He also argued that there are “zero” non-nuclear nations who would participate in GNEP out of fear of being seen as lackeys of the West and charged that the Bush administration is rushing GNEP along so that it can't easily be undone by future administrations and Congresses.

Not so, said Stevens. "It's a serious project. We have staffed up the office" and recruited Spurgeon, a former executive with USEC, the operator of the Piketon plant, out of retirement to lead the effort, he  said.

MORE FROM POWER PLAY

Power Play Section Front

Part 1: ‘Renaissance’ or second false start? Part 2: The Senate's ‘renaissance’ man Part 3: Reality check for nuke cartel plan Part 4: Nuclear power's French connection Part 5: Do N-plants make financial sense? Video: Debate over nuclear neighbor Interactive: How a nuclear plant works Test your knowledge of all things nuclear Power Play Section Front   Add Power Play headlines to your news reader: