Surface storage of used nuclear fuel – safe, cost-effective, and flexible

by Rod Adams

In August 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. That action was the end result of several years worth of detailed analysis of the known and uncertain impacts of storing used nuclear fuel on the earth’s surface in licensed and monitored facilities.

As summarized in section 8 of the document, the staff determined that the environmental impact under expected conditions is small and acceptable even for an indefinite period of time. The analysis included consideration of a complete societal breakdown and loss of institutional control and determined that this situation would have an uncertain effect on the safety and security of used nuclear fuel, but determined that there is little likelihood that society will falter that much.

NUREG-2157 both eliminates the hold that was placed on issuing new or renewed nuclear facility licenses and it provides the technical basis supporting a decision to stop working on a geologic repository. If storing used material on the surface is acceptably safe, environmentally sound, and cost-effective for the foreseeable future, it would be a waste of resources to attempt to develop a facility using today’s technology. It is likely that technology will improve in the future. It is inevitable that the material of interest will become easier to handle as the shorter-lived, more active components decay at a rate established by physical laws.

NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane wrote the following perceptive statement in her comments about her vote on the rule:

In essence, the GEIS concludes that unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are “small” for the short-term, long-term, and indefinite time frames for storage of spent nuclear fuel. The proverbial “elephant in the room” is this: if the environmental impacts of storing waste indefinitely on the surface are essentially small, then is it necessary to have a deep geologic disposal option?

Almost exactly right! We should ask hard questions of those who maintain that “deep geologic disposal is necessary” because “a majority of the public industry, academia, and regulators” say it is. Here are some questions worth asking:

  • Why do you think a mined deep geologic repository is required?
  • What makes it so important?
  • Where is the recorded vote on which you base your claim that it is the majority opinion?
  • If there was a vote, when was that vote taken?
  • Have there been any changes in circumstances that challenge the validity of that determination?
  • Should options besides a mined deep geologic repository be reconsidered?
  • How much will it cost each year to simply defer action into the indeterminate future?
  • From an accounting perspective, aren’t costs that are deferred far into the future worth less, not more, if they are recalculated into today’s dollars?

Those who have read Macfarlane’s full comment should recognize that she is not only the source of the “elephant in the room” statement above, but she is also the source of the assertions that the United States must continue pursuing a mined geologic repository because we have a “long-established responsibility to site a repository for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel,” and she wants to make sure that the NRC’s determination that continued surface storage represents a small environmental impact for the indefinite future does not enable “avoiding this necessary task.”

Last week, I had the opportunity to ask Chairman Macfarlane if she thought that the NRC had a role in deciding U.S. policy on long-term nuclear waste storage. She explained that the only role for the NRC would be to review the license application submitted for any specific facility. The responsibility for planning and developing that facility and obtaining the funds necessary would be under the purview of a different agency.

I asked what the NRC’s role should be if no organization submits an application for a facility. She admitted that its only role in that case would be to continue monitoring existing facilities and approving license renewals or new licenses.

Congress can, and should, make a determination that the plan for nuclear waste for the indefinite future is to continue safely storing used material. It should remove the responsibility for permanent disposal of nuclear waste from the Department of Energy and put it into industry’s hands to solve. Of course, the industry will remain under the watchful eye of the already established federal regulator using procedures and processes that are already in place and continually being refined. It should make use of existing products and services, continue improving those offerings and should consider the need for facility consolidation as that makes economic sense.

Macfarlane and I also agree about when we would begin to believe that the United States can site, license, build, and operate a mined deep geologic repository, as she said:

I will have confidence in the timing when a renewed national consensus emerges on a repository for spent nuclear fuel.

(Emphasis added.)

There is no reason to suspect that a sufficiently bulletproof consensus will ever exist. Recent history has proven that it takes just a handful of people elected or appointed into the right positions to derail even the best laid plans made with strong support throughout the rest of the country.

Though Macfarlane seems concerned about the potential impact if there is a “loss of institutional control,” the controls required to ensure continued safety and environmental protection from used nuclear fuel are simple and easily implemented. As long as we do not believe that future generations will forget how to read, we can be sure enough that they will remember how to keep used nuclear fuel safely isolated.

Many people in Chairman Macfarlane’s generation—which is also my generation—probably believe at least some of the many entertainment products depicting that there is going to be an inevitable dystopia in the future. Those fictional predictions of the future might have made for good reading or viewing, but they are as useful a decision tool as any other wild fiction. Even if their fanciful dystopia becomes reality, used nuclear fuel will be low on the prioritized lists of risks.

Macfarlane has expressed some concerns about the financial responsibility associated with continued storage of used nuclear fuel. Establishing bonds or other forms of continued financial surety is a common business practice. Radioactive materials are not uniquely hazardous or even uniquely long-lived compared to other elements and compounds in common industrial service. We have learned to live with them. We have proven that we know how to protect the public from any harm. There is no reason to expect that society will forget the lessons it has already learned.

A simple financial solution would be to have nuclear plant owners establish a used fuel fund that would be as isolated from their normal finances as their decommissioning funds. The experience that we have with the current Nuclear Waste Fund shows that a tiny fee on each unit of nuclear electricity will grow into a very sizable fund if undisturbed over time. We should stop stealing the capital accumulated by such a fee to pay for other continuing government expenses and we should not fritter it away by conducting geologic studies of the depths under any region that has the proven potential to produce politically powerful majority leaders. (Nearly every state in the union has that potential given the longevity of any proposed repository program.)

In the conclusion of her seven page comment, Macfarlane included the following statement:

Finally, I note that at least one commenter has suggested that development of a repository in the U.S. has developed into a Sisyphean task. I agree that much in the national management of spent fuel and development of a geologic repository over the past decades fits this analogy.

Once again, I agree with Macfarlane’s description of the current situation associated with attempting to site a single geologic repository in the United States.

Americans must remember that we are not subjects of Greek gods condemned to continue the frustratingly impossible task of pushing a rock uphill every day just to have it roll back down at the end of the day. We are free members of a society that has the ability to make choices and to change its mind to adapt to new situations or when new information is revealed. The cancellation of Yucca Mountain through actions of a tiny group of people shows that successfully siting a repository in the United States, with its multiple interest groups and arcane procedural rules, is not possible.

The good news is that we don’t need a repository in order to operate nuclear power plants safely and to store the created residues in a way that produces negligible environmental impacts. We don’t need a government program that can be milked for assets and jobs for decades before being derailed. We don’t need to have the federal government—which means us, as taxpayers—pay the costs of continued storage; the costs are predictable and can be paid with a small fee on each unit of power generation.

Making the choice to quit now and spend our limited resources on something more useful must not be judged as unfair to future generations. Used nuclear fuel has potential value, and we can create savings accounts now that can enable a different long-term solution in the distant future when there is more general agreement that constipating nuclear energy would be a suicidal course of action for society.

As technology improves, assets build up in the coffers of responsible parties, nuclear power plant sites continue to be developed, nuclear power plant sites occasionally become repurposed, and the demand for nuclear fuel changes, future societies can change their mind. Nothing in the above plan precludes any choices for the future; the key action needed today is to stop digging the hole that currently seems to provide no possibility for escape.

Rod Adams is a nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

10 thoughts on “Surface storage of used nuclear fuel – safe, cost-effective, and flexible

  1. Brian Mays

    Rod – Food and drugs? Is that your example?! Are you kidding me?

    The entire amount of money that is currently in the Nuclear Waste Fund (approx. $25 billion) — which was accumulated over a span of over three decades — would cover only one year’s worth of Federal Government spending on health-related R&D (including drug research) or slightly over just one year’s worth of direct subsidies that are given to farmers as “farm income stabilization.”

    And don’t get me started on how much airplane manufacturers pull in from the government. The entire NWF is less than just one defense contract to a company like Boeing.

    Compared to the power that the Federal Government wields over these other industries, its control of the nuclear fuel cycle is relatively pitiful and is mostly limited to what it can prohibit through regulation. The regulations (i.e., standards and supervision) and the laws establishing ownership of the spent nuclear fuel are the only things that are preventing some privately owned company from implementing its own solution and offering it up to the free market.

  2. Rod Adams


    No. We need national level standards and supervision, not a federal monopoly on the implementation.

    We have a Federal Aviation Administration, not a national airline or a federal airplane manufacturer.

    We have a Food and Drug Administration, not a federal monopoly that decides what food to produce and where to site distribution centers.

  3. Rod Adams

    @Brian Mays

    I’m a liberal, not an adherent of the current Democratic Party platform.

    I’m not — by any measure — an advocate of states rights. I spent too many years defending the UNITED States and moving freely among the varied places with imaginary borders to be interested in local control.

  4. Brian Mays

    Rod – As a self-described “liberal,” how can you ask that question? Why do we need a national plan for health care? Why do we need a national plan for gun control? Why do we need a national plan for climate change? Why do we need a national plan for [insert random progressive issue here]?

    Why do we need a national regulator for nuclear power? Why can’t the individual states regulate nuclear power, radioactive materials, etc., within their own borders — especially states, such as Virginia, that could contain the entire fuel cycle (mining, fuel fabrication, electricity generation, and disposal or recycling) within their borders, thereby eliminating the “Commerce Clause” excuse for Federal meddling?

    As long as we have a national regulatory agency that is going to continue to waste time going through these silly “waste confidence” exercises, then we really need a national plan to deal with this issue.

    Just so you know, I happen to do work occasionally for some of the folks who design, license, and sell the interim, on-site storage units that have just been “reblessed” by the NRC. In hard times like these for the nuclear industry, it is the one niche in the industry that has experienced a recent, relative boom in business.

    There are plenty of people who are happy to work for incomplete solutions. I’m sure it’s comforting for these sales-focused private dealers to know that they’ll likely still be selling “temporary” storage casks a hundred years from now — all thanks to government incompetence and those who are willing to accept and tolerate government incompetence and political meddling as the norm.

  5. Rod Adams

    @Brian Mays

    Why do you think we need a national plan? As long as we keep using nuclear energy, used nuclear material will always be with us. There is no need for a “final solution” to materials that can be reused or repurposed.

    There are, of course, many providers that would be happy to work for incompetent government managers instead of results-focused private “scrap” dealers.

  6. Brian Mays

    Well, you might think that this is all fine and dandy for spent fuel from commercial power reactors, but what are you going to do with the rest of the high-level waste — the stuff mentioned in Section ES.8 of the NUREG-2157, which is not covered by the GEIS?

    Yucca Mountain was not “canceled,” by the way; it is merely on hiatus. For it to be canceled, a majority of Congress would have to change US law. Since no such majority has done such a thing, it is reasonable to suppose that the majority is satisfied with Yucca Mountain being the high-level radioactive waste repository for the country. This should be obvious.

    The elephant in the room is that the current situation with Yucca Mountain (and the only reason why this GEIS was necessary) is due entirely to the efforts of one man. Naturally, Chairman Macfarlane is unwilling to notice this elephant, since that man most surely was responsible for getting her appointed to her current job.

    Looking forward to the elections coming in less than two months, it seems likely that this one major impediment to moving on with a repository soon will not have quite as much power to constipate the process. In fact, it’s quite possible that we could see a return to Yucca as early as next year.

    Finally, I find it amusingly ironic that Chairman Macfarlane chose to use the words “a Sisyphean task” in the comments of her yes-and-no vote. I’m no Greek scholar, but I thought that a Sisyphean task was one that never ends — like, say, storing spent nuclear fuel on-site indefinitely, with no plan at all to ever take it away.

    America has more reactors and produces more electricity from nuclear energy than any other country in the world, and that’s something to be proud of. Doesn’t the United States deserve a policy for handling the material used to generate this electricity that is more than just kicking the can down the road?

  7. Rod Adams

    Dennis – what makes you think Yucca Mountain is a completed facility? Construction never began. All that was done was a VERY expensive site characterization.

    If you are worried about opportunities to intervene, imagine protests for every shipment. Think about the number of separate jurisdictions between most plant sites and Nevada.

    Instead of decommissioning sites, build new plants. Do you think electricity is going out of fashion any time in the foreseeable future?

  8. Dennis Mosebey

    You overlook the costs and extra security needed long after the site is decommissioned. We have spent millions if not more on an underground repository where we can store all the spent fuel in one central location, thus allowing the decommissioning costs to not include security in the long term as well as large capital costs for plants whose pools are not yet full. This is a big deal as it provides even more opportunity for anti nuclear intervention on an individual plant basis. It is foolish to have over 100 separate high level storage sites across the country. The time to have gone this way is long past. We need to license Yucca and begin storage there. Too late to back out now and not desirable. Sooner or later the decision to go local above ground will come back to haunt the industry. I disagree that local above ground is the long term answer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>