SPRU Report Calls for Halt to Nuclear Reprocessing

---

Hundreds of millions of pounds could be saved if BNFL stopped reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, according to a study by Gordon MacKerron, head of the SPRU Energy Programme.

The study, commissioned by Friends of the Earth, and co-authored with independent consultants Fred Barker and Mike Sadnicki demonstrates that, even ignoring all sunk costs, it remains cheaper to immediately start storing rather than reprocessing nuclear waste. According to Gordon - "The quicker BNFL can stop reprocessing spent fuel, the sooner they will be able to start making more money." The company and its German customers would stand to save £526m by making the switch, the report argues.

Reprocessing is a costly and unnecessary process which is avoided by other nuclear nations. The UK and France are the only countries which still use the technique: 85% of the world's spent nuclear fuel is stored instead.

Initially, reprocessing was seen as beneficial, providing the opportunity to re-use resources. "When you reprocess spent fuel, you divide it into its main constituent elements. About 96% is unused uranium, about 1% is plutonium, and 3% is high level radioactive waste. The process was originally encouraged because people thought the plutonium and the uranium were worth having, and that the small volume of waste would be easier to dispose of," says Gordon, "but the plutonium has since become a liability and the uranium has never been recycled because it's cheaper to buy fresh uranium on the open market than to adapt equipment for the task of reusing reprocessed uranium."

The alternative to reprocessing is to keep the waste stored for longer, and then to bury it in the same way as is planned for reprocessed high-level waste. Although the volume of high level waste is smaller after reprocessing, its heat content is similar to spent fuel, so it still needs the same amount of burial space. As Gordon points out - "Nobody's been very good at developing long term strategies for disposing of nuclear waste. But you don't solve any of the disposal problems by reprocessing."

In fact, it has been accepted for some time that reprocessing is unnecessary and costly. BNFL's argument has been firstly that they have already spent £3 billion on the reprocessing plant, THORP - a sunk cost which makes it more economical to carry on - and secondly, that they still have contractual obligations. Gordon's study is revolutionary because it shows that it is more economical to stop reprocessing immediately, despite the sunk costs, and it points the way forward for a renegotiation of BNFL's contracts - particularly those with Germany. Gordon points out that BNFL can concentrate on clean-up operations: they already have a subsidiary company in the States which has netted them £2 billion worth of contracts. He says "There is no more reprocessing business for BNFL. It's a dead industry. It's time to move on."