Page 19 - Nuclear Plant Journal Digital Edition: January - February 2013
Basic HTML Version
Nuclear Plant Journal, January-February 2013
19
3.
How can the United States
accomplish a realistic, practical policy
on disposal of:
Low-level waste?
•
High-level and spent nuclear fuel
•
waste?
There’s been a lot of progress in the
area of low level waste disposal in the
last several years. First, US industry has
found ways to reduce the volume of low
level waste they generate. There are many
reasons why this has happened – including
regulatory and economic factors – but the
reduction has been very beneficial. In
addition, there are now two very active
waste sites available in Utah and Texas.
These facilities are now accepting low-
level waste, and these sites have removed
a lot of the uncertainty generators once
had about whether they would have a
place to send their wastes.
There is, however, obviously desire
to see some more flexibility in low level
waste management options and we are
considering potential changes to the
regulatory approach to low-level waste
disposal. The staff is working very hard
and holding many public meetings to
discuss the proposed regulatory changes.
I think that over the next year or so you’ll
see some important developments in that
area. I’m actually quite optimistic that
that’s on a very good path.
In addition, according to IAEA’s
IRRS mission to the US NRC in October
2010, the NRC’s information exchange
programs and its active participation in
the multilateral and bilateral cooperation
programs are providing a strong
contribution to worldwide development
of nuclear safety practices with regard to
low level waste.
High level waste is a more complicat-
ed issue. Obviously it has become even
more complicated in the face of DOE’s
request to withdraw its license applica-
tion for the proposed repository at Yucca
Mountain. Before the withdrawal, the
plan to move forward with Yucca Moun-
tain provided a very simple way of look-
ing at the high-level waste issue. With
that project now no longer being pursued
by DOE, it makes this discussion more
complex and uncertain.
The
Administration
launched
a Blue Ribbon Commission which
released a report last year that made
recommendations for the next steps the
US might take. DOE recently issued the
Administration’s report responding to the
Blue Ribbon Commission. The NRC is
still considering what action—if any—it
will take based on these reports.
Personally, I think what the Blue
RibbonCommission report says is actually
really straightforward. In essence, we
have to store high level waste in the
safest possible way until a repository is
established. Fortunately, as we have seen
over the course of time, we know how to
store high level waste very safely. I’m
quite confident that the waste stored in
dry storage casks and spent fuel pools is
safe and that these wastes can be stored
on site for a very long time. The NRC
is currently analyzing how long waste
can be stored on site. Can you store it on
site for a hundred years or two hundred
years or three hundred years? The staff is
trying to establish a better understanding
of how long these materials can be safely
stored. This work is ongoing, but we’re
sure it’s many decades.
The way I would look at it right now
is that we have time to make the right
decisions. We don’t have to make an
immediate decision or take a quick action
about which we may have questions in
the future. Let’s spend the time, spend
the resources, and analyze the situation
carefully so that we can make the right
decisions for the ultimate disposition of
these materials.
918-673-2201
Highest Purity
Stable Isotopes for Nuclear
Power Plant Chemistries
Control the nuclear reaction rate
Enriched Boric Acid (E
10
BA)
Neutralize acidity
Enriched Lithium Hydroxide-Monohydrate (
7
Li)
Flood the reactor core for emergency shutdown
Enriched Sodium Pentaborate (NaP
10
B)
Advanced materials for very high temperature
applications, enhanced criticality control, and for
safe and efficient fuel cycle management.
