Skip to main content

Where the Used Nuclear Fuel Is

By

When the United States passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act back in 1982, the explicit remand was for the government to site and build a permanent repository for used nuclear (later on, it was amended to include Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as that repository). The act also established the nuclear waste fund to pay for it, “composed of payments made by the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel.” It now holds over $25 billion.

We have to set aside alternatives for now – recycling, fast reactors that can run on used fuel and the like – because while the law does envision alternatives, it only directs the Department of Energy to explore them.

But shuttering the Yucca Mountain project without an alternative approach in mind basically  put the kibosh, for now, on moving the used fuel from pools and dry storage on the plant sites – which is safe as houses, of course, but not intended to be permanent, hence the need for a central repository.

And further hence:

The federal government must pay Energy Northwest $19.3 million for its continued costs because the Department of Energy failed to accept the used fuel from its nuclear power plant near Richland [Wash.], according to a federal court ruling this week.

And that follows this:

This week's ruling follows a decision in 2011 that awarded Energy Northwest $48.7 million in damages for the construction and licensing of a used fuel storage area at the Columbia Generating Station. That award was for 1998 through August 2006.

And this is just one facility. There’s lots more where this one came from. Still, in Richland, the award is not funding caviar breakfasts washed down with champagne. What it does is compensate Energy Northwest for maintaining its used fuel storage strategy.

Energy Northwest would maintain such a policy regardless. But these breach of contract actions brought by facility operators have always been successful – because there has been a breach of contract, with the federal government not holding up its end of the fuel storage deal.

There has been movement – or at least considerable government percolation - around the ideas of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which has many good ideas about consolidated storage and a permanent repository and adheres to the goals of the Nuclear Waste Act. You can read the commission report here and, while you’re at it, take a look at NEI’s white paper on an Integrated Used Nuclear Fuel Management Policy, which overlaps and expands upon ideas in the BRC report.

None of this is news – or shall I say new news, except for Energy Northwest winning its lawsuit. So why bring it up at all? Well, a story of this kind has not been in the media for awhile and it reminds us that there are plenty of reasons to encourage forward movement with a revised used fuel policy. A court award to Energy Northwest is really the least of it.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more