Leonard Koch’s vision of the need for efficient use of nuclear energy resources is excellent. (“Nuclear Power - The next 50 years and beyond,” Nuclear News, October 2002). But his approach to achieve that capability would almost certainly lead to failures like those of the past.

A demonstration of reprocessing, for example, must include safe, sustained, environmentally acceptable, cost effective operations, including full assurances that potentially weapons usable materials are well safeguarded and equipment maintained without significant disruption of operations or high radiation exposures to workers. Such a demonstration is the domain of experienced, competent corporations who understand the discipline, integration and technology needed for such operations. It is beyond the capability of laboratory scientists and engineers whose primary focus is - and should be - innovative research. Moreover, the evaluation and selection of research results for use in operations is also the domain of competent corporations - not laboratory researchers and not government officials with little understanding of the complex technology involved.

Mr. Koch says that (the Idaho) “site includes a variety of fuel reprocessing facilities that can be used . . . to demonstrate the fuel cycle and processes. . . .” But fuel reprocessing at Idaho was never successful for safe, sustained operation. Failure of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant in the 1950s led to the need to modify H-Canyon at the Savannah River Plant to reprocess highly enriched uranium fuels. False statements of ICPP’s success by the US Atomic Energy Commission in its summary report: “AEC Reference Fuel-Reprocessing Plant” (WASH-743, October 1957) led to cancellation of the initial success-based program for disposition of used fuels from nuclear power plants, premature commercial reprocessing in the US with flawed technology, proliferation in India, and problems worldwide. Similar statements by ICPP officials in the late 1960s led to major investments by General Atomics Corporation and Allied General Nuclear Services that were not successful.

President Jimmy Carter deferred reprocessing because he did not understand the difference between the technology that had resulted in proliferation and failure, and the successful technology that was needed to support nuclear power. President Ronald Reagan was elected on a platform to support commercial reprocessing, but neither he nor nuclear power plant executives were willing to support reprocessing with technology that had not been successful.

The EBR-II Fuel Cycle Facility demonstrated processes and maintenance suitable for research-type operations, but not technology needed for safe, sustained reprocessing operations.

Fast reactors are not needed for uranium-233/thorium breeding. Remember the Light Water Breeder Reactor of Admiral Hyman Rickover? A heavy water reactor provides a much higher breeding ratio, which was demonstrated in U.S. Atomic Energy Commission programs for production of uranium-233 in Savannah River Plant reactors. (The U-233/Th fuel cycle has other problems.)

The Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford was being converted to an approximate equivalent of EBR-III during the late 1980s to demonstrate, on an engineering scale, the indicated superior neutronic and passive safety features of the metal fuel concept of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). The conversion was cancelled and the FFTF was put in standby as a result of a series of poor decisions by Department of Energy officials. Hopefully Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will respond to a recent letter pointing out the importance of this demonstration in FFTF and requesting that he cancel its planned termination and define a program for the needed demonstration and other experiments and tests - including generation of electricity. ANL should provide technical leadership for the experimental programs and tests, but an experienced nuclear power plant operator should operate the facility and ensure its safety, with full oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and coordination by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

No nation should be denied cost effective, emission free generation of electricity by nuclear power. Competent reactor vendors, nuclear power plant operators, regulatory organizations, the World Association of Nuclear Operators, the World Council of Nuclear Workers and the International Atomic Energy Agency exist to ensure that nuclear power plants can be operated safely and reliably anywhere, without credible threat of proliferation from their operation.

I commend Mr. Koch for his great vision for the future of nuclear power, and hope that he and other leaders of nuclear programs in the U.S. will support a new approach for use of this technology, based on lessons learned from successes and failures.

Sincerely