Skip to main content

Report: Energy Considering Recycling Fuel from Closed Reactors

From Energy Daily (Subscription Only):
In next year's budget request, the Energy Department is planning to ask Congress for authority to take title to spent nuclear fuel stockpiled at closed U.S. nuclear plants and to reprocess it, most likely in France, sources tell The Energy Daily.

DOE officials in recent years have resisted congressional pressure to move spent fuel stockpiled at U.S. reactors to regional storage facilities, saying the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) bars them from taking title to the fuel until the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada is granted a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license.

Now, sources say, the department is planning to ask Congress to amend the NWPA to remove that limitation as part of its fiscal 2009 budget request to Congress, which DOE is in the early stages of preparing.

However, DOE's goal is apparently to transport it for reprocessing, most likely at La Hague in France, not to move the spent fuel to regional storage facilities in the United States as some lawmakers have requested. It is unclear whether DOE intends to ask for authority to take title only to fuel from closed plants, or to spent fuel stockpiled at operating U.S. reactors as well.

A DOE spokeswoman Tuesday would neither confirm nor deny that DOE was considering the recycling plan, but noted DOE was pursuing recycling options through its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative.

Comments

Joffan said…
The nuclear industry needs to put together and propose a plan to take spent fuel handling out of the operational hands of the government. There is $20 billion sitting in the fund to deal with commerical spent fuel. The use that money could be put to in building an actinide burner and reprocessing facilities along with medium-term localized storage is just incredible.

Yucca is not interesting. Yucca is making the whole damned process too hard. Shelve it, come back to the idea later when needed. Take away the "waste" stumbling block that gets thrown again and again in front of nuclear power projects.
Matthew66 said…
Theoretically, the used fuel levy is set aside in a trust fund invested in US Treasuries and earning interest, and is to be used solely for dealing with used fuel. In reality however, the levy is a tax, the money goes into treasury coffers, must be appropriated by Congress, and the trust fund is nothing more than a ledger entry in the government accounts. Don't expect Congress to pony up any of the cash anytime soon.
Anonymous said…
Joffan is correct.

Sadly, neither Hillary nor any Democrat candidate for President will support Joffan's proposal which ultimately is the correct thing to do.
Pamela said…
The problem is, that money is not just sitting in a fund. It can't just be pulled out and handed over like a bank account. Congress has spent it already, as soon as it was received. And of course, DOE will probably be denied their funding request or have it reduced, even though there was money collected for the purpose of dealing with used nuclear fuel.

I do applaud the DOE for taking this step, if that is indeed what they are attempting to do. Time for another letter writing campaign to make sure congress knows their constituents approve of this.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin