E.J. Montini gets (partially) sucked in by Melvin's nuke waste dump argument

by David Safier

E. J. Montini, a reliably smart and readable Republic columnist, got took just a little bit by Al Melvin's nuclear waste dump propagandizing. Here's the passage from today's column, presenting Melvin's figures with no rebuttal.

"The French recycle 96 percent of their nuclear material into new reusable fuel rods," Melvin told me. "That leaves only 4 percent that has to be disposed of. It's that kind of facility we're proposing.

This is one of those times when you have to call an expert on the other side of the argument. No, not Dem Rep. Chad Campbell, who gives a bit of a rebuttal but probably knows less about this issue than I do, and I'm no expert. Someone who knows as much or more about the French nuke dump process as Melvin pretends to.

Then Montini might learn, the reprocessing of nuclear waste creates four to seven times the amount of nuclear material, or more. Here's a passage from an article on the Union of Concerned Scientists website:

[T]he French company AREVA, which reprocesses French spent nuclear fuel, claims that reprocessing "reduces the volume of waste by a factor of at least four."[i] This statement is contradicted by recent data from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which show that reprocessing greatly increases the total volume of radioactive waste, compared to direct disposal of spent fuel.

[snip]

In addition to high-level waste, reprocessing generates other types of radioactive waste that require secure disposal. These wastes are more dilute than high-level waste (and hence have greater volume). Although most of the waste falls into the low-level waste category, reprocessing increases the volume by a factor of six to seven relative to the once-through cycle. The United States has three NRC-licensed, commercially operated low-level waste disposal sites that currently accept waste. Reprocessing increases the volume of "greater-than-class-C" low-level waste by a factor of 160. DOE is responsible for disposing of this waste, which contains long-lived radioactive isotopes and cannot be placed in a regular low-level waste site, but as yet has no policy on how to do so.

Montini remains skeptical about Melvin's scheme in the column, but he shouldn't have let Melvin get away with his "4% solution" lie.