RadWaste & Materials Monitor Vol. 19 No. 23
Visit Archives | Return to Issue
PDF
RadWaste & Materials Monitor
Article 3 of 12
June 12, 2026

Fuel recycling represents only a partial backend solution, panelists say

By Trey Rorie

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Several industry experts sought to lower expectations for nuclear fuel recycling during a Tuesday House hearing, saying backend recycling will not solve the larger domestic nuclear waste challenges.

In recent years, lawmakers of both parties have shown renewed interest in nuclear fuel recycling and reprocessing. The practice would take spent nuclear fuel and recycle it for reuse as new fuel.

At the House Energy and Commerce’s Energy subcommittee hearing, panelists Kathy Huff, former Department of Energy assistant secretary for nuclear energy, and Maria Korsnick, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said recycling could help with the management of spent fuel. But recycling, they said, would only have a limited impact and cannot eliminate the need for a waste disposal site. 

The deep geological repository planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada was cancelled by the Barack Obama administration. 

While the concept of fuel recycling would reduce the amount of used fuel the country would have to store, Korsnick sees it as a long-term vision that is going to take a while to commercialize.

The U.S. needs to evaluate the cost and financials around fuel recycling and figure out if it is cost-effective while managing the current storage of nuclear waste, Korsnick told Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.).

Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-N.D.) asked Korsnick if it would be possible for recycling to come online before a permanent repository. Korsnick responded that recycling would not eliminate the need for a geological repository. 

“Please don’t think it is one or the other, it’s really both,” Korsnick said to Fedorchak.

During the hearing, the panel discussed several nuclear energy-related bills, including the Nuclear Recycling Efficient Fuels Utilizing Expedited Licensing (Nuclear REFUEL) Act introduced by Reps. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) and Scott Peters (D-Calif.). The REFUEL Act seeks to create a clear pathway for domestic nuclear fuel recycling.

Two California Reps. Doris Matsui (D) and Peters keyed in on the possibility of recycling as both congressional members represented districts near decommissioned or decommissioning nuclear power plants. Matsui’s district is near Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station near Sacramento, Calif. and Peters’ district is near the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station near San Diego.

In an exchange with Matsui, Huff told the California lawmaker she hopes that recycling can be part of a comprehensive federal plan for waste management but acknowledged recycling cannot be the sole focus. 

The U.S. has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste and generates around 2,000 metric tons annually. Huff said that France’s La Hague recycling facility runs through a capacity of 1,700 metric tons of waste a year, which if deployed in the U.S. would not meet the nation’s annual amount.

“We are going to have to think really big within a recycling capacity and even those strategies result in spent nuclear fuel, which also must be managed,” Huff said. “So, it is no replacement for a spent nuclear fuel strategy but it could really benefit the country.”

Matsui brought up DOE’s Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus, which sought to gauge states’ interest in operating a waste disposal facility among other things, and questioned the possibility of states having to maintain an interim storage facility as a part of its campus.

Huff said if a state plans to build a recycling plant, then it would immediately need an interim storage facility to store waste before recycling it. 

There is a link between the license of a repository and an interim storage facility being constructed, so the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would likely need to be revisited, Huff added. 

Peters expressed skepticism that the consent-based siting process will “find consent at the same place where geological conditions are right.” If it does not work out, then Congress may have to make hard decisions, which it has been tried to avoid, Peters said.

“This kind of material just can’t sit next to the ocean, next to military bases, next to population centers,” Peters said. “And I know my place is not the only one facing this challenge.”

Comments are closed.