Reprocessing nuclear fuel is a sustainable and viable option.
Tim Echols is a commissioner to the Georgia Public Service Commission, first elected in 2010.
As an outspoken energy regulator in a very pro-nuclear power state, I have been somewhat baffled by the lack of support for the reprocessing of spent-nuclear fuel. Why would a country that recycles even the smallest Coke can or cardboard container not be united in reprocessing some of the most toxic material that we produce?
![](https://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_embed_image/public/1502-FEA2.jpg?itok=pA1FliHs)
My journey began with my very first meeting of regulatory commissions in 2011 where I attempted to push through a resolution about spent fuel reprocessing. Little did I know the opposition that awaited me - that I had stumbled into some quick sand, and was not even sure why. We had a conference call about the resolution, and it did not even receive a second. The resolution seemed as toxic as the nuclear waste I was talking about.
Maybe that was because I was simply looking at this from only a chemistry perspective. After all, nuclear fuel recycling is simply separating usable materials from non-recyclable end waste, like fission products and minor actinides, through a series of mechanical and chemical processes. The US Department of Energy had done this successfully at the Savannah River Site with government-related waste, so why not allow this to happen on the commercial side?