Slides - Lessons Learned from US Nuclear Waste Repository Programs
Slides - Lessons Learned from US Nuclear Waste Repository Programs
Presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Subcommittee on Disposal
Presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Subcommittee on Disposal
Nuclear waste disposal in the USA is a difficult policy issue infused with science, technology, and politics. This issue provides an example of the co-production of scientific knowledge and politics through public policy. The proponents of a repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, argue that their decision to go ahead with the site is based on ‘sound science’, but the science they use to uphold their decision is influenced by politics. In turn, the politics of site selection has been altered by the scientific knowledge produced.
This report puts forth a number of options and recommendations for how to engage stakeholders and other members of the public in the storage and management of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste in the United States. The options are generated from a scientific review of existing publications proposing criteria for assessing past efforts to engage publics and stakeholders in decision-making about risky technologies.
For more than half a century, since nuclear science helped us win World War II and ring in the Atomic Age, scientists have known that the Nation would need a secure, permanent facility in which to dispose of radioactive wastes. Twenty years ago, when Congress adopted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA or "the Act"), it recognized the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that the best option for such a facility would be a deep underground repository.
On the historic evidence, but also for the distinctive qualities of the challenge, nuclear waste siting conflicts are assuredly among the most refractory in the large variety of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) facility siting disputes. Since the president brought the Yucca Mountain process to a halt in 2010 (or, more accurately, issued its death certificate), the search for a permanent waste fuel repository is at the starting line again.
The first world wide review of the geological problems in radioactive waste isolation was published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1991. This review was a compilation of reports that had been submitted to a workshop held in conjunction with the 28th International Geological Congress that took place July 9-19,1989 in Washington, D.C.
By the end of this century, the United States plans to begin operating the first geologic repository for the permanent disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive Waste. Public Law 97-425, the Nuclear waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), specifies the process for selecting a repository site, and constructing, operating, closing, and decommissioning the repository.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, established a statutory basis<br/>for managing the nation’s civilian (or commercially produced) spent nuclear<br/>fuel. The law established a process for siting, developing, licensing, and constructing<br/>an underground repository for the permanent disposal of that waste.<br/>Utilities were given the primary responsibility for storing spent fuel until it is<br/>accepted by the federal government for disposal at a repository, which originally<br/>was expected to begin operating in 1998.
The first world wide review of the geological problems in radioactive waste isolation was published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1991. This review was a compilation of reports that had been submitted to a workshop held in conjunction with the 28th International Geological Congress that took place July 9-19,1989 in Washington, D.C.
In 2001, as directed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued public health and environmental radiation protection standards for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Several parties sued the Agency on a myriad of aspects of the rule. The Court ruled in EPA’s favor in all aspects of the case but one, and returned the standards to the Agency in 2004. In 2005, EPA proposed amendments to the standards. Following public hearings and a public review period, the final amendments were issued in September 2008.
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America_s Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by the Secretary<br>of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for<br>managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new strate
Final 40 CFR 40 Ruling on Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel , High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes
Posiva webpage discussing selecting the site for final disposal of spent fuel.
A summary of nuclear waste management in Finland, including energy use statistics, principles of nuclear waste management, financing, how waste is disposed of, the underground research laboratory, and the authorities involved in nuclear waste management.
This report discusses the status of the commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) inventory in the United States, at both decommissioned and operating commercial nuclear power reactor sites; summarizes the contractual arrangement the government and utilities have under the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (10 CFR Part 961) (Standard Contract), related litigation, and the financial liabilities resulting from the Department’s delay in performance under these contracts; provides a history of interim storage policy as it relates to commercial SN
The United States makes decisions regarding the domestic uses of nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle primarily based economic considerations, domestic political constraints, and environmental impact concerns. Such factors influence U.S. foreign policy decisions as well, but foreign policy decisions are often more strongly determined by national security considerations, including concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models.
Over the past few years a number of important studies have been executed to identify and define the necessary nuclear energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) infrastructure that must be sustained or developed.
The purpose of this engineering calculation is to estimate the frequency of misloading spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies that would result in exceeding the criticality design basis of a waste package (WP). This type of misload - a reactivity misload - results from the incorrect placement of one or more fuel assemblies into a waste package such that the criticality controls do not match the required controls for the fuel assemblies. An actual criticality event can not occur in a WP unless a moderator (e.g. water) is present.
The amount of spent fuel stored on-site at commercial nuclear reactors will continue to accumulate—increasing by about 2,000 metric tons per year and likely more than doubling to about 140,000 metric tons—before it can be moved off-site, because storage or disposal facilities may take decades to develop. In examining centralized storage or permanent disposal options, GAO found that new facilities may take from 15 to 40 years before they are ready to begin accepting spent fuel. Once an off-site facility is available, it will take several more decades to ship spent fuel to that facility.