Reprocessing Spent Nuclear Fuel - What would it mean if Wyoming stores nuclear waste?

by Wyoming Liberty Group

As the Wyoming legislature recently opened its general session, it may be a good time to revisit a major issue for the state: The possibility of storing nuclear waste in our proverbial backyard.

As you may recall, the controversial issue came up last year, championed by Donald Burkhart Jr. (R-Rawlins), co-chairman of the Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee.

When Burkhart put forward the idea of Wyoming as a site for nuclear waste, it was called a temporary measure—although, to be fair, temporary is a relative term. Nuclear waste can take tens of thousands of years of storage before it is no longer dangerous to humanity.

Leaving that aside, Burkhart was quick to note that the storage of nuclear waste in Wyoming could launch an entire new industry and, what's more, bring in a whopping $4 billion or more a year. That, of course, would be incredibly helpful for any state looking for revenue, especially for our own, given the decline of coal production and sales.

Burkhart also pitched the idea by mentioning an oft-overlooked notion: reprocessing nuclear waste. Much of the talk about storing nuclear waste in Wyoming has been focused on the cost, the safety or the possible benefits. But what of this idea of reprocessing nuclear waste?

It's worth not overlooking it.

"Currently, the United States does not reprocess nuclear fuel," Burkhart told committee members last year. "I feel that within the next five years, that will change, and when it changes, wherever the fuel is stored is where they will do the reprocessing."

First, let's tackle what it means to reprocess nuclear waste: It involves a bunch of steps to remove uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel; that, in turn, can be recycled into more fuel.

For what it's worth, the United States developed the current method of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel back in the early 1950s. Meanwhile, commercial reprocessing began to take off in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, it was the 1970s when the United States banned it. It was done under the leadership of a man who passed away recently, then President Jimmy Carter. He was concerned that reprocessing nuclear fuel was expensive and could lead to the spread of nuclear weapons.

"A viable and economic nuclear power program can be sustained without such reprocessing and recycling," Carter said back then.

So, the other way to deal with spent nuclear fuel, that is, digging a big hole and burying nuclear waste, was used instead. In fact, decades later, we're still doing it this way.

Another notable fact: Uranium, a key radioactive ingredient for nuclear power plants, is not in short supply.

As such, the United States has no commercial reprocessing plants, though the Defense Department reprocesses at some of its plants. Other nations, however, including Russia and China and in parts of Europe, reprocess nuclear fuel.

Advocates of reprocessing nuclear waste point to a number of benefits, including, for instance, limiting the amount of radioactive waste and decreasing how much land is needed to dispose of nuclear waste.

But those who have concerns about reprocessing nuclear waste underscore at least two fundamental issues. One is the cost. A study, for example, concluded that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, which is a complicated process, may cost twice as much as disposing of it.

An even bigger worry is the possibility that reprocessed nuclear waste could fall into the wrong hands.

For all of the complex chemical processes involved in reprocessing nuclear waste, there is some stuff that isn't so complicated to understand. For instance, the material needs to be moved, or transported, from one place to another. And, experts note, it's in the process of moving the hazardous nuclear material that bad actors—terrorists and others—could try to grab it, or steal it.

What then?

The reprocessed nuclear waste could be used to make a dirty bomb or even a nuclear weapon.

We already live in a dangerous world, where war and conflict flare up in different parts of the globe. We already live with the prospect of dangerous states, like North Korea and Iran, working on their own nuclear programs. Do we really want to give bad actors another way to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction?

It's something to think about as Wyoming considers the ramifications of becoming a home to the storage of nuclear waste. Because it's not only a question of whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for thousands of years.