Skip to main content

About that Showdown at Yucca Mountain

Yucca MountainIssues in Science and Technology is a quarterly publication put out by the National Academy of Sciences, and in its newest issue, out this week, Luther Carter, Lake Barrett, and Kenneth Rogers author a critique of the Obama administration for its re-examination of U.S. policy on the back end of the fuel cycle. In fact, the authors of ‘Nuclear Waste Disposal: Showdown at Yucca Mountain’ [subscription required] don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. The essay is a political polemic, and it fails to recognize the strategic advantages associated with centralized long-term management of used nuclear fuel.

Is U.S. policy on the back end of the fuel cycle ideal? Absolutely not. The United States needs a path forward for the long-term management of high-level radioactive waste from civilian and defense programs, but new nuclear plants will or will not be built on electricity demand fundamentals, not the political football that has been, and to some extent remains, Yucca Mountain. States have moratoria on building new nuclear plants by virtue of the government not having a repository for used nuclear fuel disposal, but there is widespread reconsideration of that ban in a number of those states. Alaska earlier this year overturned its moratorium. Industry’s safe and secure management of commercial reactor fuel is playing a role in this reconsideration by state legislatures.

There’s no denying that the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle is in a state of flux from a federal policy perspective. The future of Yucca Mountain is questionable; meanwhile, the administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future is examining a range of policy options.

What is certain in policy consideration is that we will be securely storing used fuel in above-ground facilities for an extended period of time.

The nuclear energy industry supports a three-pronged, integrated used fuel management strategy:
  • managed long-term storage of used fuel at centralized, volunteer locations;
  • research, development and demonstration of advanced technology to recycle nuclear fuel;
  • and development of a permanent disposal facility
Long-term storage is a proven strategic element that allows time to redesign the nuclear fuel cycle in a way that makes sense for decades to come. Meanwhile, NRC’s recent final rulemaking on waste confidence represents an explicit acknowledgment by industry’s regulator of the ongoing safe, secure and environmentally sound management of used fuel at plant sites and or central facilities. Although spent fuel is completely safe and secure at plant sites, indefinite onsite storage is unacceptable.

The Blue Ribbon Commission must take the next step, and recommend forward-looking policy priorities for used fuel management. To date, the commission has demonstrated an awareness of the importance and magnitude of its task. The challenge is to recommend a used fuel management policy that can stand the test of time and enable the nation to take full advantage of the largest source of low carbon electricity.

- Everett Redmond, Director, Nonproliferation and Fuel Cycle Policy, NEI

Comments

Anonymous said…
Whatever the final resolution of YM, there is still an important Constitutional issue in play. And that is, can the Executive Branch disregard the law (NWPA) passed by Congress? I'd really like to see that addressed and answered by the courts. It is no less a question than whether or not the rule of law still holds. Upon it rests the foundation of our tripartite republican form of government.
Anonymous said…
Let's build a fuel recycling plant at Yucca Mt. Most of so-called "high level nuclear waste" – about 96% – is uranium, of which less than 1% is the fissile U-235 (often 0.4-0.8%); and up to 1% is plutonium. Both can be recycled as fresh fuel, saving up to 30% of the natural uranium otherwise required. The materials potentially available for recycling (but locked up in stored used fuel) could conceivably run the US reactor fleet of about 100 GWe for almost 30 years with no new uranium input.

The MOX plant in South Carolina takes in high level nuclear waste from the Russiam nuclear bomb program and reprocesses it into fuel useable in commercial nuclear reactors!

Unfortunately, U. S. Plants are barred from using this fuel. MOX fuel has been used safely and effectively for years in more than 30 reactors in Europe and Japan.
KENNETH C ROGERS said…
Carter, Barrett and Rogers

We have not objected to a reexamination of U.S. policy on spent fuel. We have objected to the Administration’s attempt to dictate the result of such an examination by a Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) even before the Commission has had an opportunity to examine all of the alternatives.

We acknowledge the legitimacy of the BRC, but not if it is hamstrung before it even begins. In fact, we note that "The Commission has an opportunity to broadly redefine the Yucca Mountain project to suggest how advantage might be taken of the repository's early potentialities and how uncertainties about its long-
term performance might be reduced." Also we state "a Yucca Mountain repository would be ideally suited to serve for monitored geologic storage of spent fuel, which ultimately could be retrieved if, say, fuel recycling should be economically attractive." One of the objectives of our article is to support the BRC as an independent objective body, unencumbered by political commitments.

We would be happy if " new nuclear plants will or will not be built on electricity demands fundamentals, not on the political football that has been, and to some extent remains, Yucca Mountain", but as long as there is no specific program for the long term disposal of nuclear waste we do not foresee widespread acceptance of new nuclear plants in the U.S. This is a matter of differing judgments, and we simply do not agree with Redmond's optimism, despite our strong support for existing and new nuclear power plants.

We don't deny, "What is certain in policy consideration is that we will be securely storing used fuel in above

ground facilities for an extended period of time.” but point out that extended is not sufficiently specific.

Finally, we can see no reason, other than political, to fail to take full advantage of the $10 Billion expended already and the enormous body of knowledge already acquired through the Yucca Mountain project in meeting "The challenge … to recommend a used fuel management policy that can stand the test of time and enable the nation to take full advantage of the largest source of low carbon electricity."
Anonymous said…
I read the Carter, Barrett, and Rogers article twice, and fairly closely, and wholeheartedly concur with the authors' response to this NEI Blog entry.

In my view, the article clearly sees the BRC as a means to salvage some value from Yucca Mountain, perhaps as an MRS facility with longer-term aspirations.

At present (and I think this is implicit in the article), the BRC is probably the most effective instrument for clarifying our nation's spent fuel disposal policy. It is entirely conceivable that their final recommendation will result in some kind of legislative action.

In my reading, the authors acknowledge this (as well as the value and legitimacy of the BRC), and hope to turn it to good account by protesting the fact that Secretary Chu and others have used "weasel words" ("This is not a siting commission") and political tactics to keep Yucca Mountain "off the table," including the table presided over by the BRC.

The authors are right. in my view, to point out, that this compromises in advance whatever recommendations the BRC may ultimately make, especially in light of the authors' central suggestion: that Yucca Mountain be kept on the table as a potential MRS facility, and perhaps even be used someday for its original purpose once the inherent uncertainties regarding the post-closure phase are reduced.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…