Search

Begin New Search Topic Nuclear Waste Publication Year within 3 Years

1. Lessons from the Nuclear Waste Negotiator Era of the 1990s for Today’s Consent-Based Siting Efforts

Author:
Matt Bowen
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Nuclear power is being weighed in energy transition plans around the world, as countries seek to replace fossil fuels with low-carbon alternatives while also meeting growing energy demand and maintaining reliability and affordability. When considering extension of existing nuclear reactor licenses as well as approving new ones, there is an ethical obligation for today’s users to develop plans for long-term management of the resulting nuclear waste and not defer its disposition to future generations. In the United States, the federal government is contractually obligated to take ownership of the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) produced at power plants, but this has not happened. The one deep geologic repository project named in law by Congress for potential disposal of SNF—Yucca Mountain in Nevada—has reached a stalemate, with Congress appropriating no money to move the project forward since 2010 due to Nevada’s opposition. Negotiations with US states and tribes to host storage and disposal facilities have been sensitive in the past due to both a stigma around nuclear waste and a perception of risk associated with such facilities. A federal “nuclear waste negotiator” role existed in the early 1990s to overcome these difficulties and find a state or tribe willing to host a repository or interim storage facility, though this short-lived, volunteer-based program did not lead to deployment of either. This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear waste policy at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, reveals lessons learned from the experiences of the two prior negotiators that could benefit a recent, congressionally directed effort at the Department of Energy (DOE) to begin a “consent-based” siting program for nuclear waste. Those individuals were authorized to negotiate terms and conditions—including financial and institutional arrangements—with a state or tribe in a written agreement that would then have to be approved by Congress. Importantly, a state or tribe was assured it could explore the potential of hosting a site while retaining the right to withdraw at any time, and if it did proceed, would have a measure of power in setting terms for the project.
Topic:
Negotiation, Nuclear Waste, Inflation Reduction Act, and Consent
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Revisiting GTCC and GTCC-Like Nuclear Waste Disposal in the United States

Author:
Matt Bowen, Maya Lameche, and Marine Gapihan
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
While the United States (US) has facilities that can and do dispose of most low-level nuclear waste (LLW), it does not yet have a viable disposal pathway for two categories of waste: so-called greater-than-class-c (GTCC) nuclear waste, and nuclear waste with characteristics similar to it, or “GTCC-like.” These two categories essentially straddle the United States’ LLW inventory, for which disposal facilities are in operation, and high-level nuclear waste (HLW) inventory, for which no disposal capability exists. GTCC nuclear waste is produced by multiple sources: commercial nuclear power plants, medical procedures, industrial and research activities, and Department of Energy (DOE) missions, including those related to national security and the cleanup of legacy facilities. These activities carry with them an ethical responsibility to dispose of the nuclear waste they generate rather than pass it on to the next generation. Security task forces have also identified the lack of a disposal pathway for sealed sources of GTCC nuclear waste as a concern, given the potential for its theft and use in a dispersal device. This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear waste policy at the Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University SIPA, explores the history of DOE, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and state efforts to develop disposal capabilities for GTCC and GTCC-like inventories. It explains why this gap merits greater attention from policymakers now and identifies measures Congress, the DOE, and the NRC could take, should they decide to address it. US government efforts to develop disposal capabilities for GTCC waste date back to 1985 when Congress made it a federal responsibility. For a time, disposal in the planned repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was contemplated. But in the absence of appropriations to move that project forward since 2010, the federal government recently issued planning documents that identify generic commercial LLW disposal facilities and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) deep geologic repository in New Mexico as preferred alternatives. Of the commercial LLW disposal facilities in operation, only the WCS facility in Texas has expressed interest in the GTCC disposal mission. The political climate for GTCC disposal in both New Mexico and Texas has darkened in recent years, though, casting doubt on the federal government’s plans. If the US government decides to prioritize the goal of establishing disposal capability for GTCC and GTCC-like nuclear waste, Congress, the DOE, and the NRC could take the following steps to help realize it in the near term.
Topic:
Regulation, Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Energy, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. Nuclear Waste Policy Actions for the 117th Congress and Biden Administration

Author:
Matt Bowen
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
In the 117th Congress, the United States Senate is evenly divided, 50-50, between the two major political parties, and the margin for control of the US House is small. One nonpartisan—and overdue—policy issue that Congress and the executive branch could focus on is the US nuclear waste management program. The US is currently paying billions to utilities to house spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at operating and shutdown facilities, and high-level waste (HLW) remains at former nuclear weapons complex sites around the country. Add to this the potential for greater future reliance on nuclear power in a decarbonizing economy, and the need to finally get a handle on managing radioactive waste is clear. An earlier report from the Center on Global Energy Policy on the US nuclear waste management program examined larger structural changes that the federal government could pursue to help the program make progress, such as fixing the funding mechanism and updating regulatory standards.[1] This commentary discusses the US program as it stands in the 117th Congress and proposes a series of comparatively smaller actions that could be considered and perhaps pursued on a bipartisan basis in the next few years.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Nuclear Waste
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. Deep Borehole Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Next Steps and Applicability to National Programs

Author:
Peter Swift and Andrew Newman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Deep borehole disposal of high-level radioactive waste has been proposed repeatedly and in multiple countries over the last several decades, but the concept remains unproven in the field. A straightforward research, development, and demonstration test program could provide answers to basic questions about the viability of the concept. This program would involve the construction of two or perhaps more boreholes to test disposal concepts using surrogate, nonradioactive waste. Field tests would focus on the engineering and operational feasibility of deep borehole disposal, the availability of favorable rock types at depth, appropriate designs for waste forms and waste packaging, and the long-term performance of borehole repositories. Because of the scale of the project, it might best be undertaken as an international collaboration, perhaps led by the US Department of Energy but with participation from multiple national programs to ensure it meets a wide range of needs. Mined geologic repositories, which have been the preferred approach for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive wastes for most national programs for many decades, will likely remain the preferred disposal option for countries with large inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel. If deep borehole disposal can be demonstrated as a viable concept, however, it may be an attractive alternative disposal option for countries with small inventories of materials requiring permanent geologic isolation. For example, national programs with limited amounts of waste from research or medical isotope production reactors may not need to incur the cost of a full-scale mined repository. Other countries may find borehole disposal a useful option for permanently disposing of small quantities of waste that could otherwise pose security risks, including both fissile materials and high-activity sealed radioactive sources used in industrial and medical applications. For programs committed to disposing of large inventories of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in mined repositories, deep boreholes may provide options for prompt disposal of small volumes of specialty wastes that may otherwise have to wait for repository construction. This report reviews the borehole disposal concepts proposed to date, identifies potentially suitable waste forms worldwide, and proposes a field-testing program that could resolve many remaining technical questions and inform future programmatic decisions. The report also summarizes the potential benefits of borehole disposal in terms of public acceptance, cost, and security.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Energy, and Borehole
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America