As modular small nuclear reactors become a reality in the United States, the management and disposal of highly radioactive waste should become a national priority. Forty years after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed, according to the recent National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, there is “no clear path to siting, licensing, and building geological repositories for nuclear waste. is not”. report.
The good news is that a clear strategy already exists for the management and disposal of this highly radioactive material. The bad news is that the US government has not yet taken that plan seriously.
A report from the National Academies pointed to the need to build geological repositories and deep mining facilities for permanent nuclear waste disposal, with new or advanced reactor designs expected to be the saviors of the nuclear industry. says it can’t save In some cases, these new reactors could exacerbate the situation with waste that is costly to manage, new types of complex waste, or simply more waste. Before we can face such a catastrophe, we must first deal with the large amount of waste we have already created.
The United States, which led nuclear waste management in the 1980s and 1990s, is now lagging behind. About 88,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors remain stranded at reactor sites, and this number is increasing by about 2,000 tons each year. These 77 sites, located in 35 states, threaten to become de facto permanent disposal facilities. Without a geological disposal facility, the final disposal of this highly radioactive material cannot proceed. Storing in reactor site pools or dry casks is a temporary solution. It’s safe for decades, but it doesn’t take thousands of years to isolate this radioactive material from the environment. Current US policy of indefinite storage at centralized sites is not a viable solution as it would transfer the cost and risk to future generations.
The country must now follow the path already set for its national nuclear waste repository. Both the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission in 2012 and the International Panel of Experts organized by Stanford and George Washington Universities in 2018 advocated for a new independent disposal, funded outside of the annual congressional budget and restrictive budgetary rules. Recommend material management and disposal organization. The Blue Ribbon Commission called for the creation of a new federal entity, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, for the organization, but the Stanford/GWU panel sought a nonprofit, utility-owned entity modeled after the successful program. I have considered replicating an independent organization. in other countries such as Sweden and Finland. These organizations are funded by tariffs on nuclear-generated electricity and continue to be regulated by independent nuclear regulators. Both panels agreed on the need for independent organization and finance.
Countries that have followed this blueprint are now grappling with the nuclear waste problem. Swedish non-profit SKB announced last year that it would build a deep geological repository at Östhammar to permanently dispose of spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors. In Finland, construction of a geological repository will begin in May 2021, with plans to receive spent nuclear fuel by the mid-2020s. The Nordic countries are not the only ones making progress. France, Canada and Switzerland are all in the process of applying for licenses to start construction.
The US waste management organization must be a credible and competent agency with adequate funding and personnel. Her SKB in Sweden has now benefited from decades of efforts in both public engagement and siting technical analysis. The U.S. Department of Energy, the designated repository implementer established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is instead plagued by changing leadership and priorities from administration to administration, and a history of broken promises. work.
The vast majority of successful repository programs abroad are run by independent companies established by the nuclear industry outside government. The industry is perfectly positioned to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, from spent fuel discharge from reactors, to storage, transportation and ultimate geological disposal.
Consent from people living nearby is another universal requirement for establishing an accepted geological repository. A variety of motivations underlie a community, tribe, or state in deciding to host. Local governments sometimes volunteer for long-term projects (perhaps 100 years or more) and for improving roads, schools, and other infrastructure. Some may feel the need to contribute to the greater good of society, especially if, like Sweden, they benefit from nuclear power.
The 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission suggested that communities should decide for themselves what consent looks like to ensure a successful repository decision. In fact, Canada is following this approach. Her two shortlisted communities handle decisions differently in the siting process, one by a referendum and the other by an elected council.
Affected communities will need the resources to hire their own experts to verify claims by designated nuclear waste management agencies. In fact, Sweden not only provided such funding, but also public interest groups opposed to the repository in an effort to make a compelling case for Osthammar’s safety.
Secure finances are also important. In the United States, Congress has not allocated funds for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Program since 2010. In fact, Congress has horribly screwed up the process of collecting and allocating the currently over $40 billion Toll Payer Fund, essentially providing these funds. can not access. Outrageously, this money, which is actually collected from electricity bill payers rather than taxpayers, is used to offset the national debt.
Even if the United States started today, it would take decades to install, design and build a disposal facility for its nuclear waste stockpile. That process must be accelerated now before we run out of space in our highly radioactive waste inventory, which increases the nuclear reactors we need for electricity.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily Scientific American.
