• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Managing Nuclear Waste

    Few think of a calm pool of water when they think of nuclear waste. While nuclear waste must be handled with skill and care, the problems with managing America’s existing and future nuclear waste are political hurdles, not ones of technology or safety.

    What is popularly termed nuclear waste is better understood as spent nuclear fuel. Spent nuclear fuel is uranium fuel that can no longer efficiently sustain fission, the process that produces the heat needed to generate electricity, and must be removed every 12 to 18 months. Though the toxicity, heat, and radioactivity of the spent fuel dissipate over time, it must be safely stored once it is removed from the reactor. Currently, nuclear power plants have no choice but to store the material onsite.

    One storage method consists of storing the fuel in concrete and steel pools of circulating water to dissipate heat and radiation. These cooling pools were designed and built under the assumption that either the industry would be allowed to manage its own spent fuel or the Department of Energy (DOE) would collect spent fuel, as it is now required to by law. Because the DOE assumed responsibility for spent fuel management and disposal then reneged on that promise, the nuclear industry has had to develop safe alternative solutions.

    First, it has expanded the capacity of cooling pools by re-racking—that is, bundling the oldest spent fuel rods in order to allow more spent fuel to be stored. Secondly, it developed a “dry” solution in which cooled radioactive spent nuclear fuel is enclosed within steel cylinders that are surrounded in additional concrete or steel, creating secure casks that are easy to store. This method can be used once spent fuel rods have cooled for at least one year under water, though the cooling period is commonly much longer than that.

    Since 1982, the DOE has required nuclear power plants to pay a fee for the federal government to collect spent nuclear fuel in a permanent repository atYucca Mountain,Nevada. Currently, this amounts to roughly $750 million per year and is placed into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which currently holds approximately $30 billion.

    Despite being legally required to collect spent fuel, having collected tens of billions of dollars, and spending $15 billion on the Yucca repository, the federal government has not collected a single atom of spent nuclear fuel. As a result, approximately 70,000 tons of commercial radioactive materials are being stored at nuclear power plants across America.

    Meanwhile, utilities have successfully sued the federal government for not picking up the waste. To date, the Department of Justice has paid roughly $2 billion in liability claims, and these claims increase by $500 million or more annually. Making matters even worse, President Obama has attempted to terminate the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository without any technical or scientific justification. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was all but finished with review of the permit to construct Yucca when the President decided to stop the program. Not only does this waste the $15 billion spent on the project, but because the President has yet to put forth an alternative plan, the nation is now left further away from a rational nuclear waste policy than it was 30 years ago.

    Congress should force the NRC to complete its review of the YuccaMountainrepository permit. Then the nation needs to get the government as far from spent nuclear fuel management as it possibly can. The only role for the government should be regulation. The nuclear waste fee should be repealed, and nuclear plants should be responsible for their own spent fuel and have choices in management services. This would allow for the market to dictate the price of spent nuclear fuel management.

    Learn more about nuclear spent fuel management and the important role it plays in the new video “Managing Nuclear Waste.” Heritage also explores the science behind nuclear energy and its role in the American energy landscape in the 40-minute film Powering America.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Managing Nuclear Waste

    1. Mr Uranium says:

      Good article. Just a couple of technical points. First, re-racking is the process of removing the old spent fuel storage racks from a spent fuel pool and replacing them with new racks that permit the spent fuel assemblies to be stored in closer proximity to each other. There is a process in which individual fuel rods are removed from a spent fuel assembly and placed into containers more compactly, but that process is not widely used in the industry.

      Also, the requisite cooling time before a spent fuel assembly can be transferred from a spent fuel pool into a dry storage cask is typically 5 years or more, not 1 year.

      But, your conclusions and recommendations are spot on.

    2. Pingback: Radiation Bulletin: Fuel Cycle/DOE: Dec. 17th – 23rd 2012 | The Energy Net

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.