By Kim Tae-gyu
With the revision of the Atomic Energy Agreement between Korea and the United States being delayed by two years to 2016, the country will be in emergency mode in dealing with its increasing amount of nuclear waste.
Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs contended there has been some advancement on the issue, experts say the nation faces a worsening situation.
Even after undergoing proper procedures, many waste fuel's radioactive materials have a half-life of tens of thousands of years ― and will remain dangerous for such a period of time.
Over the past four decades, Korea has stored its highly-radioactive waste in makeshift facilities next to reactors but the capacity runs out quickly and the facility at Gori will be full by 2016.
Three other nuclear plants will also see their storage filled with waste fuel by the late 2010s or early 2020s. After that, Korea might have to stop its nuclear reactors, which are responsible for meeting about a third of its electricity demand.
From the perspective of Seoul, the only solution is to recycle spent fuel by revising the 40-year-old bilateral atomic agreement, which prohibits Korea from enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel.
However, Washington has been reluctant to give up the nuclear gold standard, which strictly forbids recycling of nuclear waste because it can then be weaponized.
"No matter how much the government puts forth efforts, our current storage capacity will run out by 2024 and it is impossible to build a permanent dump by then because it takes up to 60~70 years due to the opposition of residents," Prof. Hwang Il-soon of the Seoul National University said.
"If we are not allowed to do something with the spent fuel, we are practically done. As the revision of the atomic agreement is postponed by two more years, we may have to declare a state of national emergency."
To bypass the U.S. gold standard, which has strong support from the Barack Obama administration, Korea has worked on various technologies such as one called pyro-processing.
Korean researchers claim pyro-processing will enable the country to develop a complete nuclear fuel-cycle capability without creating concerns on proliferation.
Korea has developed pyro-processing since late 1990s, believing the new technology will allow the nation to reprocess spent fuel without worries about weapons-grade plutonium.
Yet, the U.S. has been reluctant to give a nod to the process as some counter that pyro-processing also makes plutonium extraction possible.
As the dispute continues, requests have surfaced that at least the research on spent fuel recycling should be permitted so the country can work more proactively on ways of reducing its nuclear waste.
A senior researcher at a state-run nuclear institute pointed his finger at Korea itself for its failure to revise the atomic agreement by next year as originally scheduled.
"Our government and researchers have always insisted that new technologies like pyro-processing will solve all the problems overnight and blamed the U.S. for not allowing them," said the researcher who asked not to be named.
"Before that, we are required to clarify our long-term plan of dealing with spent fuel, something we totally lack. That explains our failure."
 |
| Cho Tai-young Foreign Ministry spokesman |
Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs contended there has been some advancement on the issue, experts say the nation faces a worsening situation.
Even after undergoing proper procedures, many waste fuel's radioactive materials have a half-life of tens of thousands of years ― and will remain dangerous for such a period of time.
Over the past four decades, Korea has stored its highly-radioactive waste in makeshift facilities next to reactors but the capacity runs out quickly and the facility at Gori will be full by 2016.
Three other nuclear plants will also see their storage filled with waste fuel by the late 2010s or early 2020s. After that, Korea might have to stop its nuclear reactors, which are responsible for meeting about a third of its electricity demand.
From the perspective of Seoul, the only solution is to recycle spent fuel by revising the 40-year-old bilateral atomic agreement, which prohibits Korea from enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel.
However, Washington has been reluctant to give up the nuclear gold standard, which strictly forbids recycling of nuclear waste because it can then be weaponized.
"No matter how much the government puts forth efforts, our current storage capacity will run out by 2024 and it is impossible to build a permanent dump by then because it takes up to 60~70 years due to the opposition of residents," Prof. Hwang Il-soon of the Seoul National University said.
"If we are not allowed to do something with the spent fuel, we are practically done. As the revision of the atomic agreement is postponed by two more years, we may have to declare a state of national emergency."
To bypass the U.S. gold standard, which has strong support from the Barack Obama administration, Korea has worked on various technologies such as one called pyro-processing.
Korean researchers claim pyro-processing will enable the country to develop a complete nuclear fuel-cycle capability without creating concerns on proliferation.
Korea has developed pyro-processing since late 1990s, believing the new technology will allow the nation to reprocess spent fuel without worries about weapons-grade plutonium.
Yet, the U.S. has been reluctant to give a nod to the process as some counter that pyro-processing also makes plutonium extraction possible.
As the dispute continues, requests have surfaced that at least the research on spent fuel recycling should be permitted so the country can work more proactively on ways of reducing its nuclear waste.
A senior researcher at a state-run nuclear institute pointed his finger at Korea itself for its failure to revise the atomic agreement by next year as originally scheduled.
"Our government and researchers have always insisted that new technologies like pyro-processing will solve all the problems overnight and blamed the U.S. for not allowing them," said the researcher who asked not to be named.
"Before that, we are required to clarify our long-term plan of dealing with spent fuel, something we totally lack. That explains our failure."
