BOISE, Idaho -- As the U.S. aims to push past fossil fuel dependency, nuclear power is part of the conversation, but non-proliferation watchdogs hope a method for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to retrieve plutonium doesn't make a comeback.

Dr. Frank von Hippel, senior research physicist and professor of public and international affairs emeritus at Princeton University, said in reprocessing, spent reactor fuel is dissolved and plutonium or enriched uranium is separated out of the material.

"Originally, it was developed to separate plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons," von Hippel explained. "Now, some countries use it to separate out plutonium as well for use in nuclear fuel."

Reprocessing was banned in the 1970s after India's first nuclear detonation was tied to U.S. reprocessing technology.

The nuclear industry wants the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to loosen rules. In a 2020 letter to the NRC, the American Nuclear Society said reprocessing would get the most out of nuclear fuel and reduce waste.

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist for the group Beyond Nuclear, said there is high-level waste from the U.S. nuclear weapons program at the Idaho National Laboratory, although most of it is dried and stored.

He noted reprocessing operations from civilian companies do not have a good environmental track record in the U.S.

"We see high-level radioactive waste, irradiated nuclear fuel, as just that, it's a forever deadly waste that needs to be isolated from the environment," Kamps asserted. "Reprocessing does the opposite of that. It releases a part of it into the environment, inevitably."

The Idaho National Laboratory said it does reprocessing research on small quantities of spent nuclear fuel. It's part of research into the development of advanced reactor concepts.

Von Hippel believes there is renewed interest in the technology. In late May, he and other non-proliferation experts raised concerns in an open letter to Canada's prime minister about the country's financial support for a company that has proposed reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

Von Hippel also hopes to convince the Biden administration that there is no need to revisit the technology.

"There's no good economic or environmental reason for civilian plutonium separation," Von Hippel argued. "So I, and many colleagues, say that no country should separate plutonium for nominally civilian purposes. It is a weapons-usable material."

Public meetings in New Mexico this week will gather input on proposed expansion of a nuclear waste repository.

But watchdog groups are urging a federal rulemaking process be adopted before the expansion is approved.

The Department of Energy wants the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant outside of Carlsbad to stay open until at least 2083 - decades past a previous deadline.

WIPP is the disposal site of radioactive and hazardous wastes generated from fabricating triggers, or pits, for nuclear weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Organizations such as the Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, led by Director Don Hancock, said they believe rulemaking is the fairest route the Environmental Protection Agency could take.

"Agencies, when they do rule-making, tend to be more rigorous," said Hancock, "because they know if they have to defend it in court, the court won't throw out what they've done."

A technical meeting among experts, regulators, and the public will be held tomorrow at the Santa Fe Hilton - at 100 Sandoval Street, from 1 to 3 p.m.

An evening meeting to receive public comment will be held at the same location starting at 6 p.m.

The WIPP site near Carlsbad stores waste like clothing, rags, soils and tools contaminated with radioactive elements due to nuclear weapons research and assembly.

It was originally set to close this year. Now, the federal government wants to continue receiving shipments there and expand the plant to store more waste.

Hancock said he fears New Mexico will be the destination of an unending stream of radioactive waste, unless rulemaking is adopted.

"So the EPA, DOE and the public all know that's what the process is going to be in the future," said Hancock, "so there won't be confusion about that and people won't have to spend time and effort saying, 'Is there going to be a rulemaking or not?' - because it will already have been decided that there will be."

WIPP has received 13,000 shipments of nuclear waste since 1999, arriving from about 10 sites across the country shipped in large drums on semi-trailers along state roads and interstates.




get more stories like this via email

A scientist who said he found extreme plutonium contamination in Los Alamos' Acid Canyon believes concerned residents should invest in monitoring equipment for greater peace of mind.

Over a 20-year period ending in 1963, liquid and often radioactive waste was dumped down the canyon.

Michael Ketterer, professor emeritus of chemistry and biochemistry, Northern Arizona University, presented findings to Nuclear Watch New Mexico about water, soil and plant samples he collected at the site 60 years later. He believes people living nearby should follow his lead.

"New Mexicans, you guys can do this too," Ketterer urged. "Your state needs a community instrument, not one run by the state or the locals or by DOE, one run by the community. You can do this too."

Ketterer pointed out the instrument would provide those downstream updated contamination readings. In 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission worked to clean up the area before releasing the land to Los Alamos County without any restrictions on uses. A County Councilor who attended the presentation said they have not received any notification from the federal government about Acid Canyon being unsafe.

The canyon now features a dirt trail shaded by pines, providing easy recreational opportunities. Ketterer noted the levels of plutonium contamination were the highest he's ever seen in an area without restricted access.

"You know this is happening in an area with full public access," Ketterer emphasized. "Anybody's child or dog can go down there, contact water, the sediments, the plants. What actions has EPA taken or should EPA take to stop this?"

Nuclear Watch New Mexico is pushing for increased cleanup of legacy waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory. The group also opposes new plutonium pit production proposed near the site and worries future wildfires in the area could possibly disperse plutonium through falling ash.


get more stories like this via email

A new agreement on plans for cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford site in Washington state is receiving pushback from environmental groups.

Public comment was originally scheduled to close at the beginning of August but has been extended to Sept. 1 for the Tri-Party Agreement between the U-S Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Washington Department of Ecology.

Simone Anter, staff attorney and Hanford program director for the nonprofit Columbia Riverkeeper, said the new agreement means changes to the cleanup efforts including how and where the Hanford nuclear waste is stored.

"If new proposals are coming out to ship either grouted or liquid nuclear waste across the region, communities deserve to know that and deserve to have a voice and deserve to be engaged," Anter contended.

The agreement for dealing with 177 underground storage tanks at Hanford took four years of closed door negotiations. Columbia Riverkeeper and other environmental groups worry the new agreement opens the door for a storage method other than vitrification, which is used to turn high-level waste into glass.

Anter noted tribal nations in the region were not consulted about the proposal. She stressed even if they could not be part of the agreement, the agencies should have been considered before it was presented to the public.

"Tribal nations are not members of the public. They are government entities and should have been treated as such," Anter pointed out.

Anter added members of the public can play a big role in how the 56 million gallons of nuclear waste at Hanford are handled.

"It's really important that all these cleanup decisions put human health, the Columbia River and the environment first," Anter asserted. "I think public comments play an enormous role in reminding the TPA agencies about this."