U.S. must better manage nuclear waste storage. Houstonchronicle.com

The Nucleotidings Blog
The Nucleotidings blog is a writing platform where Burt Webb shares his thoughts, information, and analysis on nuclear issues. The blog is dedicated to covering news and ideas related to nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection. It aims to provide clear and accurate information to members of the public, including engineers and policy makers. Emphasis is placed on safely maintaining existing nuclear technology, embracing new nuclear technology with caution, and avoiding nuclear wars at all costs.
Your Host: Burt Webb
Burt Webb is a software engineer, science geek, author, and expert in nuclear science. Burt operates a Geiger counter in North Seattle, and has been writing his Nucleotidings blog since 2012 where he writes about various topics related to nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection.
Burt Webb has published several technical books and novels. He works as a software consultant.
Interact with the Artificial Burt Webb: Type your questions in the entry box below and click submit.
Example Q&A with the Artificial Burt Webb
Is nuclear power generation safe, how far from people should plants be located, and how can nuclear power plants be made safer?
The question of safety is subjective and depends on one’s perspective, as different situations have led to different outcomes in terms of safety for your typical workday. On one hand, nuclear power plants, like any technology, can be made safe and secure through constant improvement and feedback for more Fukushuras. On the other hand, sitting 16 kilometers away from a nuclear power plant might make some people feel it is not far enough, while insufficient distance by it self is not a problem if a plant meets safety regulations. Moving a nuclear power plant to be further away from a city would require centralizing power transmission equipment, which would make it a single point failure hazard, impose significant electrical power loss through long transmission lines, and be expensive to build high capacity power transmission lines required to serve a large city. Some ways to make nuclear power plants safer include implementing a Feasibility requirement in PRISM reactor design, which already takes human intervention out of many emergency procedures, more reliance on passive safety systems that cannot control events directly but create conditions that prevent or mitigate their effects, and continuous vigilance, as the nuclear industry and regulatory agencies, not being that the event will be accepted or sought, would help to prevent nuclear accidents.
What do you mean by “Fukushuras”?
“Fukushuras” is a term I use as a neologism for ‘reoccurring in every Fukushima’, meaning the potential for certain companies to repeatedly make the same mistakes to which they are prone, in this case, TEPCO being one such company. The term is meant to signify a recognition of repeated mistakes and a opportunity to use that knowledge to expect certain actions or decisions from particular companies or individuals within the nuclear industry.
U.S. must better manage nuclear waste storage. Houstonchronicle.com
Canada turned on its first nuclear reactor in 1971. Canadian reactors are pressurized heavy-water reactors based on a Canadian design referred to as CANDU. The Canadians have sold CANDU reactors to India, Pakistan, Argentina, South Korea, Romania and China. There are currently nineteen commercial power reactors operating in Canada. All but two of them are in Ontario. They generated about thirteen and a half Gigawatts which accounts for about sixteen and half percent of Canadian electricity.
Canada has a policy similar to the U.S. that requires Canadian operators of nuclear power stations to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and not reprocess it to extract radioactive materials that could be made into new fuel or nuclear weapons. The Canadian government created a nuclear fuel waste management program in 1978. They built an underground facility at the Whiteshell Laboratories in Manitoba in 1983 in order to study geological structures and conditions that would be associated with the underground disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The facility was deliberately flooded in 2010 and then decommissioned. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was created in 2002 by the Canadian nuclear industry to research and develop a program for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
By 2015, the Canadian reactors had produced about fifty-two thousand tons of high level nuclear waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel rods. By the end of the licensed life spans of the existing Canadian nuclear reactor fleet, it is expected that the total spent nuclear fuel produced will exceed one hundred thousand tons. Fifty-two percent of the existing spent nuclear fuel is stored in cooling pools at the reactor sites and forty-two percent is stored in dry casks.
The NWMO decided in 2005 to build a deep geological depository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The facility will be up to three thousand feet deep with an estimated cost of twenty four billion dollars. This cost will be borne by a trust fund created with the operators of nuclear power plants. The spent nuclear fuel assemblies will be bundled together in steel baskets wrapped in copper. These bundles are designed to last a hundred thousand years. The tunnels will be filled with bentonite clay but the bundles will be retrievable for about two hundred and forty years if needed.
The process of finding a site for the repository was started in 2010. To be considered as a site, a community had to have both the necessary geology and strong sustained public interest. Twenty one communities in Ontario or Saskatchewan requested assessment as possible sites. Only eleven of the original group were selected for Phase Two studies. Currently, there are only six communities being considered. Blind River and Elliot Lake, Ignace, Hornepayne, Huron-Kinloss, Manitouwadge; and South Bruce. The NWMO said it will “continue the process of narrowing down potential sites to host the project until it arrives at one preferred safe and socially acceptable site as the focus of more detailed site characterization”.
The U.S. nuclear industry is facing stiff competition from cheap natural gas generated by the fracking boom. Several nuclear power plants have already been shut down prematurely because they could not compete. Half a dozen more plants may have to be shut down prematurely in the next five years for the same reason.
The U.S. nuclear industry has been lobbying for assistance from the U.S. government to allow them to keep operating nuclear power plants which are not competitive with other forms of energy generation. The House of Representatives has just passed a bill to assist the nuclear industry by extending tax credits for nuclear power plants. The bill had thirty two co-sponsors and passed quickly with a voice vote.
Currently, new nuclear plants receive a 1.8-cent-per-kilowatt-hour tax credit if they are placed into service by the end of 2020. In order to incentivize the construction of new nuclear power plants, the new legislation removes the 2020 deadline for the tax credit. The bill also gives the tax credit to government owned utilities and non-profit electric co-ops. These entities can transfer these tax credits to other partners on nuclear projects. This bill is views as particularly important for Georgia and South Carolina. The only new nuclear plant construction in the U.S. is taking place in those two states.
Representative Tom Rice (R-S.C.) is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. He said “Without this legislation, the nuclear power industry may cease to exist as we know it in this country, which is exactly why passing this bill now is more important than ever. We need to give these plants the certainty of these tax credits, just as Congress intended.”
Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) spoke against the bill. He said that the nuclear industry has “record of miserable failures” for constructing and operating nuclear power reactors. He also said “Instead of today’s measure, our focus should be on safe, healthy forms of energy instead of an industry that costs too much and poses too much danger to humans.”
The nuclear industry strongly supported the bill. Five nuclear industry trade groups sent a letter to Congress last week that nuclear power projects were a “strategic national imperative” for the U.S. and the new bill supported that view.
Clear Path is a conservative clean energy group. They said that the new bill would assist in the development and construction of a new generation of smaller and cheaper nuclear power reactors referred to as small modular reactors (SMR) which generate less than three hundred megawatts. NuScale is one of the companies working on SMRs. Clear Path said “NuScale’s technology is one of the biggest opportunities for nuclear over the next decade and these reforms to 45(j) would significantly bolster their ability to demonstrate the first American small modular reactor.”
Now the bill will have to go to the U.S. Senate for consideration. The Republican Party has generally been favorable towards nuclear energy so the odds of passage are good. President Trump also supports nuclear power so he will likely sign the bill if it reaches his desk.