The New York Times  [Printer-friendly version]
December 27, 2005

SCIENTISTS TRY TO RESOLVE NUCLEAR PROBLEM

With an Old Technology Made New Again

By Matthew L. Wald

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 -- Decades ago, scientists and engineers thought it
would be easy enough to deal with the radioactive waste from nuclear
power plants: sort out and save the small portion that was reusable,
and put the rest in a hole in the ground.

It did not work out that way. Reprocessing the waste proved to be both
expensive and risky: the main material being scavenged, plutonium, is
a nuclear bomb fuel.

And that hole in the ground -- the proposed Yucca Mountain repository
in Nevada -- is years behind schedule, bogged down in politics and
environmental disputes. Even if it opens, it will be far too small for
the amount of waste that is being generated.

So last month, Congress voted $50 million for the Energy Department to
explore a new kind of reprocessing, one that would reuse a much larger
fraction of the waste.

The idea is extremely ambitious. It would require perfecting not only
a new method of reprocessing, but also a new class of reactors to burn
the salvaged material. Still, proponents said it would have two great
advantages: It would mean that Yucca Mountain would be big enough to
accommodate the waste that could not be recycled. And it would make
Yucca easier to open, because the material still to be buried would
generate less heat in the centuries to come.

"Reprocessing, or processing spent fuel before it's put in the
repository, is a very good way to buy time," said Roger W. Gale, a
former Energy Department official who is now an electricity
consultant. "It's a fail-safe in case we continue to have problems
with Yucca Mountain."

Many experts are skeptical that the new strategy, which would involve
separating the components of spent fuel and putting the salvaged
material in reactors using higher-energy neutrons, will work.

Another former Energy Department official, Robert Alvarez, noted that
the idea of reprocessing had been around for at least 40 years, each
time with a different rationale.

"Once, it was part of breeder program," Mr. Alvarez said, referring to
a scheme to use reactors to make more nuclear fuel than the reactor
consumed. "Then it became a proliferation thing," with supporters
reasoning that such a system would safely consume materials that could
be used for a bomb.

"And now it's a waste-management thing," he said. "But the whole
problem is they're pouring money into something that's cutting-edge
for the late 1960's."

Some scientists argue that recycling is essential. At a recent
Washington forum on nuclear waste and its possible uses, Phillip J.
Finck, deputy associate director of the Argonne National Laboratory,
an Energy Department complex, said that by 2010, long before Yucca
Mountain can open (if, indeed, it ever does), the United States would
have more than the 70,000 metric tons of fuel that will fit there.

Moreover, Mr. Finck argued, without recycled fuel, the world will have
to rely on finite reserves of uranium.

At the forum, sponsored by the Foundation for Nuclear Studies of
Washington, Ernest J. Moniz, a physics professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and a former under secretary of energy, said
that if the world built enough reactors to provide energy without
contributing to global warming, a new Yucca Mountain would be needed
every three and a half years.

But Professor Moniz and others expressed caution about reprocessing.
Frank N. von Hippel, a physicist at Princeton, said that a new
generation of reactors would cost tens of billions of dollars and that
it would be a long time before it was clear that reprocessed fuel was
needed.

The fuel to be reprocessed would be too radioactive to move very far;
hence the idea was that the reprocessing plant would be adjacent to
the reactor. Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the Federation of
American Scientists, said that building scores of new reactors, with a
reprocessing plant adjacent, was unlikely, and that while opening
Yucca would be hard, switching to this kind of reprocessing was
"trading one difficult political problem for an impossible problem."

Still, concern over global warming and the increase in natural gas
prices have given hope to nuclear advocates, who want new waste
techniques as well as new reactors.

The reprocessing strategy is subtle -- to extract more use out of used
fuel and to reduce the heat created by waste that cannot be recycled
and still has to be buried.

The heat is not a problem in the first few decades, when a repository
could be left open for ventilation. The harder time is the next 1,500
years, when heat would be given off by longer-lived radioactive
materials, mostly a category called actinides, and also the isotopes
that are created as those actinides go through radioactive decay.

Heat, not volume or weight, determines the physical capacity of Yucca
or any other underground repository, because designers want to keep
the repository below the boiling point of water.

Above the boiling point, the resulting steam could damage the
containers and possibly the rock as well.

Reprocessing means chopping up nuclear fuel and separating the
ingredients, uranium that was not used in the reactor and other
elements that were created in the reactor and could be used as fuel,
including plutonium and neptunium.

Gulf Oil tried to do that in the early 60's in West Valley, in upstate
New York, but dropped it as uneconomical, leaving the taxpayers with a
cleanup bill of more than $1 billion.

At that plant, and at plants still operated in Britain and France, the
plutonium is recovered by chemical separation. The new plan is for
"electrometallurgical" reprocessing, in which giant electrodes are
inserted in a mix of waste components, somewhat like electroplating.

The salvaged materials include uranium 235, the isotope used in bombs,
which splits easily, and uranium 238, which makes up more than 99
percent of uranium in nature but is harder to split.

One use of uranium 238 in a reactor is as a "fertile" material that
can absorb stray neutrons and become plutonium 239, which can be used
in reactors and bombs.

But existing reactors split the uranium using "thermal" neutrons. The
new ones would use "fast" neutrons, which travel thousands of times as
fast.

The current generation of American power reactors uses water to slow
the neutrons to the speed optimal for splitting uranium 235.

The water also carries off the heat, which is used to make
electricity. Fast neutrons, in contrast, have enough energy to split
uranium 238. But to make use of them, reactors would need a heat
transfer fluid that does not slow down the neutrons, probably molten
sodium.

The water-based reactors are kept under high pressure to keep the
water from boiling. A sodium reactor could run with the sodium at
atmospheric pressure. At some point, the sodium has to be run through
a heat exchanger, a cluster of thin-walled metal tubes, to give off
its energy to ordinary water, which turns to steam and spins a turbine
for electricity. And if there is a leak and the sodium and water come
into contact, the sodium burns.

There are other problems. Plutonium and neptunium are potential bomb
fuels; the risk that they might be illicitly diverted, or that other
countries might follow the United States' example and build their own
reprocessing centers, led two presidents, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy
Carter, to block General Electric from opening a reprocessing center
in Morris, Ill.

Further, the companies that run reactors are showing no interest in
new kinds of reactors and little interest in plutonium.

When the Energy Department decided to get rid of some surplus weapons-
type plutonium by turning it into nuclear fuel, no utilities would
take it, even at no charge.

The Tennessee Valley Authority finally agreed to take the fuel. It
described the transaction as selling the government "irradiation
services."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company