Nuclear Waste Will Remain Buried Until 2012 Election is Decided

Ken Silverstein | Sep 25, 2012

It’s likely that the issue of nuclear waste will remain buried until well after the 2012 presidential election. But if you listen to the General Accountability Office, the matter shouldn’t sit for too long.

Nuclear plant operators have funded both the studies and the development of a permanent burial site for spent fuel. But such a resting location has gotten sidelined. Some would say that it is for political reasons. Others would say it is for geological reasons. Either way, the goal should be to find a home for the roughly 70,000 metric tons of radioactive nuclear material that is now sitting on-site at specific nuclear generators, according to the congressional watchdog agency.

That’s because it will take decades to build a permanent storage spot and then to transport such used fuels there, it adds, noting that the spent fuel stored at commercial reactors is growing at 2,000 metric tons per year. The agency says that one of the biggest concerns it has is the generational transference of vital information, which includes where the current waste is stored and how to safely move that used fuel.

Therefore, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency should “develop a mechanism that allows individuals with appropriate clearances and the need to know to easily identify and access classified studies so as to help insure that institutional knowledge is not lost,” says the watchdog agency.

At present, 120 nuclear waste storage facilities exist in 39 states. About three-quarters of the used nuclear fuel is in “spent fuel pools” while a quarter is above-ground steel-encased dry casks. The risk with respect to the “wet” storage is centered on what happened at Japan’s Fukushima plant, which is that the auxiliary power would fail and the pools would dry up. Fires could then ensue and there would be a risk of radiation spreading.

Transferring the spent fuel from wet to dry storage offers several benefits, the agency says. The waste could be stored for decades longer, or at least until a permanent repository is found. That would also reduce the risk of “pool fires” and the spread of radiation. It adds that moving the fuel from spent fuel pools to the dry casks is safe and that it should be “accelerated.”

“The chances of a radiation release are extremely low in either wet or dry storage, but the event with the most serious consequences -- a self-sustaining fire in a spent fuel pool -- could result in widespread radioactive contamination,” the agency says. The NRC, generally agrees, adding that it it considers both types of on-site storage to be safe and that any decision to transfer comes down to each utility’s own “cost-benefit” analysis.

Court Action

That choice of wet or dry storage is getting more complex. That’s because a federal appeals court ruled recently that the NRC failed to do its job when it previously told nuclear operators that they could extend their onsite storage from 30 to 60 years. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia ruled that the nuclear regulators did not properly examine the environmental consequences of its actions.

The nuclear industry says that the decision is a set-back -- but that it is not fatal. It will work with the NRC to satisfy all obligations under the law. Long run, though, it maintains that a permanent storage facility is necessary. In fact, it is trying to resurrect Yucca Mountain, which the Obama administration de-funded in 2009. Utilities have filed suit demanding that the site go forth and the same D.C. Appeals Court will decide the outcome, perhaps soon.

“The federal government used funds from nuclear plants to create the Yucca Mountain permanent storage site in Nevada, but this project is now on hold,” says Exelon Corp., which is the nation’s largest nuclear owner and operator. “Until the federal government determines a new solution, Exelon safely stores its spent fuel in plant spent fuel pools or dry casks consistent with federal regulations.”

The Obama administration has argued the engineering risks associated with Yucca Mountain are too great -- that ground water could seep into where the spent fuel rods would be stored. But others are saying that the motives are purely political, pointing out that the president was trying to appease Nevada’s voters as well as the then-Senate Majority Leader.

A high-powered blue ribbon panel issued its findings earlier this year, saying that such decisions ought to be taken out of the political arena and be given instead to an independent organization that is empowered to succeed. It also says that some interim storage facilities could be consolidated, or that multiple, fresh sites could house the spent fuel.

The issue is unlikely to sway the November elections. But the federal court’s eventual actions will force the various stakeholders to make their next move.


EnergyBiz Insider has been awarded the Gold for Original Web Commentary presented by the American Society of Business Press Editors. The column is also the Winner of the 2011 Online Column category awarded by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists.

Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein

energybizinsider@energycentral.com

Energy Central

Copyright © 1996-2012 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energybiz.com