[Approximate Read Time: 1.5 minutes]
Radioactive waste comes mainly from nuclear power generation, (plants, operations in the fuel cycle, R&D centers), and is managed in a very rigorous, controlled industry that serves to protects humans and the environment. It maintains high-level oversight from operators, regulatory agencies and governments.
Waste management includes collection, sorting, processing, packaging, transport, storage and disposal. Since the United States does not currently recycle nuclear waste, the issue of waste management, in particular waste storage, is a sensitive issue.
Currently, the idea of using the Yucca Mountain repository as a nuclear waste storage site has been rejected by the Obama administration. Despite the fact that over 20 years of research and BILLIONS of dollars have been put into the project. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has since then been determined to appoint a panel to best determine the future of nuclear waste.
The Department of Energy will soon be announcing their Nuclear Waste Panel, a group of individuals who will study the best possible way to deal with growing civilian nuclear waste. This panel is created based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a law that is designed to ensure the panel is balanced with objective representation of each policy option.
Does it make sense for nuclear waste to be stored on-site at numerous locations throughout the country, or at one central location? Does it make sense for all 104 nuclear power plants to hire extra security on-site at nuclear plants or to have advanced security at one location for all of the stored nuclear waste? And in a place that scientists around the world agree to be a safe and efficient location, based on natural barriers, design elements?
If we can’t store nuclear waste somewhere, what are our other options? Since we live in a world obsessed with the three R’s, reduce, reuse and recycle, perhaps this panel will entertain the idea of recycling nuclear waste.
The French have been recycling nuclear waste for decades, and France’s LA Hague plant is an example of how much waste can be recycled and reused. The plant recycles 96% of used fuel, which leaves 4% categorized as waste. This industrial scale recycling process is proven as an effective approach to waste management, one that the United States could benefit from.
The new “blue ribbon” panel will undoubtedly examine the many options for waste disposal that have been thoroughly examined before. In this sense, the panel is a waste of time and money as we already know the pros and cons of the various options.
As far as Yucca Mt. is concerned, it would be a perfectly good waste REpository, but honestly I think it was the right answer to the wrong question and would be overbuilt for the job it needs to do. Rather than asking “where do we permanently store this waste?”, the government should have asked “why, how, and when do we deal with the nuclear fuel cycle?” In the end, I think Yucca ended up hurting the nuclear industry more because it gave the impression that the waste is too dangerous to just be stored anywhere and erected a contingency barrier opportunity as to whether any new plants would be built in certain states. Furthermore it gave an opportunity for anti-nuclear activists to stall its progress with the idea that once Yucca is dead, the nuclear industry might soon follow.
More importantly than waste storage or recycling is the need to educate the public that nuclear waste is nothing to be feared. We know how to contain, store, and transport it very safely and there has never been anyone harmed by it. People need to understand this is an incredibly small volume when compared to the energy produced, a virtue that CCS schemes will never have. People also need to understand that this “waste” is actually useful material that can be used for irradiation, sterilization, medical and other industrial uses.
Ultimately, an underground storage site will be needed for some waste disposal and a variety of spots should do the job fine. The beauty of used nuclear fuel is there is no urgency yet to determine this spot yet. If it is more economical to centralize the waste somewhere that might be an option to consider. Bottom line on nuclear waste is that it isn’t “waste” and there are already many effective solutions available to use it and store it.
I couldn’t agree more!