Journal of Engineering and Public Policy
(Vol. 9, August 2002)

Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Policy Analysis

By Todd P. Lagus

Executive Summary

Nuclear spent fuel reprocessing has lately reemerged as a subject of debate in the energy policy world. Since a 1977 Presidential Directive which deferred reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (SNF), the United States has utilized a “once through” or “open cycle” system of nuclear fuel processing, which leaves most of the energy content in uranium unused. However, interest in reprocessing has again surfaced, and its potential applications could have major impacts on the utility industry, energy policy, and national security.

SNF reprocessing can have both large benefits and great risks. Currently available reprocessing reactors, which are used in countries such as France, provide added utilization of fresh nuclear fuel but are expensive and create stockpiles of weapons grade plutonium. New technologies have been demonstrated in laboratories that could help curb these proliferation risks. Even more advanced is a technology known as transmutation, which further processes the small amounts of material that contribute to most of the heat load of SNF. With transmutation, repository utilization could improve by a factor of 100.

One main argument against reprocessing has been its lack of economic competitiveness due to relatively cheap natural uranium ore. Several studies indicate that reprocessing increases the cost of nuclear electricity relative to the once through cycle by ten percent. However, since projections indicate that a new repository will be needed every 20-30 years, a main economic and political benefit of reprocessing with transmutation would be the decreased need for geological repositories such as the $60 billion dollar Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Proliferation risks, however, have and will be major detriments to reprocessing. The United States halted reprocessing in 1977 due to these risks, thinking other nations would do the same. Other nations, however, have continued to reprocess spent fuel, and North Korea claims to have produced weapons using reprocessing. Many agree that due to this policy, the U.S. has fallen behind in nuclear power technology.

After comparing the short and long term benefits, costs, and risks of spent fuel reprocessing, the United States should not immediately deploy commercial reprocessing but should begin steps now to make reprocessing viable in the future. Specifically, the following five recommendations should be considered:

1. The United States should not immediately deploy spent nuclear fuel reprocessing technology.

2. America must aggressively fund research and development programs for reprocessing and transmutation technologies now.

3. Reprocessing should not be deployed until a proliferation-resistant, economically competitive reprocessing technology is demonstrated.

4. Collaboration should be undertaken in research, development, and deployment with other nations already possessing reprocessing technology.

5. The U.S. government should provide incentives for nuclear power.

As a result of following these recommendations, the U.S. will regain its global presence in all facets of reprocessing technology to give the nation the best possible energy solution while providing lasting proliferation security.

Download Full Paper

WISE Webmaster: Chris Brantley, c.brantley@ieee.org
(Last Update:  04/19/07 )