Skip to main content

Why DOE Shouldn’t Split Issue of Radioactive Waste Management

By
Dr. Everett Redmond
The following is a guest post by Dr. Everett Redmond, NEI's Senior Director, Policy Development.

Yesterday the Department of Energy released its “Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel.” This report is in response to a recommendation made by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC). The BRC had recommended that the Administration conduct a review of the current policy to dispose of defense and commercial high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in a single repository or repositories.

The DOE report states: “Specifically, this report recommends that the DOE begin implementation of a phased, adaptive, and consent-based strategy with development of a separate mined repository for some DOE-managed HLW and cooler DOE-managed SNF, potentially including some portion of the inventory of naval SNF. This report notes that, in addition to early development of a separate repository for cooler DOE-managed HLW and SNF, effective implementation of a strategy for management and disposal of all HLW and SNF would also include a focused research, development, and demonstration program addressing technologies relevant to deep borehole disposal of smaller DOE-managed waste forms and the disposal of large DOE-managed waste packages with high thermal loads in mined repositories.”

Yucca Mountain
NEI and the industry are committed to the development of a viable program for the long-term management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste from our nation’s defense program and commercial used nuclear fuel. The DOE must begin to meet its obligations to the commercial industry and the communities and states where DOE facilities are located. It is the industry position that the disposal pathways and the obligations for managing both DOE high-level waste and commercial used nuclear fuel should be addressed simultaneously, not sequentially as the recommendations in the report seem to suggest. On behalf of nuclear energy producers and suppliers we urge Congress to fund, and the Administration to continue, the review of the Yucca Mountain repository license application. It is in the best interest of this nation that the Federal Government begins to meet its legal obligations as soon as possible and to establish a viable program for the long-term management and disposal of commercial used nuclear fuel and DOE high-level radioactive waste.

Please follow Dr Redmond on his Twitter feed, @EverettRedmond.
Labels:

Comments

Steve Nesbit said…
I agree. The DOE report indicates they want to put commercial spent fuel in the back of the disposal line. That step is both unnecessary and unfair. Electricity consumers around the country have paid the government billions of dollars for disposal and gotten nothing in return. There is a perfectly good repository at Yucca Mountain that can take both DOE waste and commercial waste. DOE's problem is not reprioritizing the order of disposal. They just need to get on with the job.
October 24, 2014 at 7:08 AM
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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 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