Iowa's Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Problem
by Paul Deaton
A topic related to nuclear power has been inadequately covered during Iowa's debate over HF 561/SF 390 and new nuclear reactors. It is the issue of what to do with one of the outputs of a nuclear reactor, “spent nuclear fuel.”
According to a General Accounting Office report in 2003,
According to the Associated Press, Iowa has 465 tons of spent nuclear fuel and presumably it is all stored at Duane Arnold, our sole nuclear power plant. 345 tons of it is stored in cooling pools and 120 tons is in dry cask storage according to the story. Once spent nuclear fuel cools, it is transferred to dry cask storage which also serves as a transportation container should it ever be moved.
Iowa's Duane Arnold Energy Center has been a quiet place during the time since it began commercial operation in 1975. There is no reason to believe that NextEra Energy, the company that owns the facility, has done anything but a reasonable job of managing their spent nuclear fuel according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules and regulations. The plant was re-licensed by the NRC in December 2010 for an additional 20 years and the amount of spent nuclear fuel will continue to grow. There is a problem.
If the lifespan of a nuclear reactor is 60 years, as the Duane Arnold situation suggests (40 under original licensing plus 20 in re-licensing), then what revenue will help pay for storage of the spent nuclear fuel after the reactor reaches its expected lifespan? There isn't any. That is why the costs of decommissioning a nuclear plant are to be built into the current rate structures. Duane Arnold may be no better or worse than other licensed US nuclear reactors in accruing this expense, but the cost of security and management of the spent nuclear fuel for thousands of years is unfathomable.
There are those that say the federal government should subsidize storage of spent nuclear fuel. The U.S. Department of Energy has title to spent nuclear fuel and has yet to locate a repository for it. There was discussion about Yucca Mountain as a potential federal storage area, but the proposed site did not meet the technical requirements for storing spent nuclear fuel for thousands of years. [Editor's note: Some readers take issue with this statement and you are referred to the comment thread for the entire discussion]. That discussion is over and spent fuel sits at Duane Arnold and other nuclear power plants, waiting for Washington. It is an unsolved problem that creates an inter-generational liability and expense. Whether a person believes in federal subsidies or not, this federal subsidy of nuclear power generation will not be going away.
There is no hurry to move HF 561/SF 390 to give MidAmerican Energy an advantage in building a new nuclear reactor in Iowa until all of the costs, liabilities and alternatives are understood.
~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul Deaton
Blog For Iowa 
The issue of managing used nuclear fuel, be it recycling or deep geological storage, is a federal issue as the Government is required, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to assume possession of and responsibility for used nuclear fuel.
Likewise, any new nuclear reactor operator will be required to meet their obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by paying a fee to the federal govt of 0.1 cents/kWh of electricity generated.
To date the 104 operating nuclear power plants in this country have paid a total of $34 BILLION to the federal govt in exchange for used fuel services under the requirements of Federal Law. The Federal Government has failed to meet its obligations because of political issues, namely Nevada Senator Harry Reid and his political allies President Obama and NRC Chairmen Greg Jaczko.
Just because the politicians are playing games with out energy future (what else is new) doesn't mean Iowans should not have access to cheap, clean, and reliable electricity from nuclear power.
Besides, temporary storage in dry casks is perfectly safe for the time being. I know because I walk within a few feet of the stuff every day when I go to work and I have not picked up and radiation dose in doing so.
LikeLike
Jack:
Thanks for reading Blog for Iowa and for leaving your name and e-mail address so we could post your comment.
The $0.1 cents/kWh seems to substantially underfund the costs of thousands of years of storage. That is one of my points in the article.
The legacy of political inaction in Washington goes further back than the current administration. I would suggest that the framing of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act from the Reagan Administration may be the root cause of the deficiency. Thanks for pointing this out as another reference to the piece.
As I mentioned in my article, I believe Duane Arnold and others follow the rules to the best of their abilities to protect their workers and the surrounding community. What becomes problematic is when something goes wrong as has happened on three separate occasions: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Thanks again for your comment, and for reading this post.
Regards, Paul Deaton
LikeLike
Good, thoughtful presentation of the complex issues of nuclear waste.
A couple minor, but important corrections: DOE did find that the Yucca Mountain site met technical requirements, and they never changed that position. Even during NRC hearings regarding DOEs move to withdraw the license application, DOE made UT clear that there were no technical, scientific or engineering reasons to stop the program, only that it was not a “workable option.” As in not politically workable under current Senate leadership.
Also, one of the requirements if the law was a regular analysis of the adequacy of the incoming fees to the Nuclear Waste Fund to cover costs of the repository. This “fee adequacy” report, published annually, has always shown that there is enough money. The irony is that, under current law, the fund can't pay for storage at Duane Arnold and other plants across the country. Instead, plant owners will sue DOE to recover storage expenses, and that money comes not from the Nuclear Waste Fund (i.e., the fees or “taxes” on nuclear power production for the purpose of waste management), but from taxpayers in general, increasing total costs and the burden on both present and future generations.
LikeLike
Paul:
Thanks you for reading Blog for Iowa, and thank you for commenting.
I knew that my comment on the Yucca Mountain site would generate some controversy, so I am happy to post your comment with a different point of view. I will accept your presentation of what DOE said.
My perspective is less about what the government says or doesn't say on the matter, but that when we are considering the tremendously long half life of some of the radioactivity in spent nuclear fuel and how the costs are accounted and accrued for for thousands of years.
The link to the most recent Fee Adequacy study is here: http://www.gc.energy.gov/documents/2008_Fee_Adequacy_Letter_Report.pdf
The trouble with the one mil per kWh and accrued $34 billion Jack suggested in the previous comment goes away once the reactor is decommissioned. While the government finds it adequate, the current law and the assumptions behind it may be inadequate.
Anyway, I will take a look at the Fee Adequacy report and see what I can learn. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thanks again for reading Blog for Iowa.
Regards, Paul
LikeLike
Yes, politics, but politics that stem in part from huge, long-standing public opposition by not only environmentalists, but regular Nevadans who did not think they wanted to be the dumping ground for nuclear waste.
Trish
LikeLike
Mr. Deaton, your comment that “the proposed (Yucca Mountain) site did not meet the technical requirements for storing spent nuclear fuel for thousands of years” hits a nerve with people who have followed this project closely for many years — not only because your statement is incorrect, but because it demonstrates just how much Senator Harry Reid's propaganda machine has permeated the minds of the media and other casual observers.
In fact, the final determination of Yucca Mountain's suitability as a nuclear repository is being held up for purely political reasons. Yucca Mountain's license application has been submitted to the NRC. The only obstruction to this two-year review process has been the stonewalling of Senator Reid, NRC Chairman Jaczko (Reid's former policy adviser), and DOE Secretary Chu (who, ironically, signed a policy statement IN FAVOR of Yucca Mountain five months before he was named Energy Secretary).
A comprehensive review of Yucca Mountain's license application will determine, one way or the other, whether it is a suitable location for this purpose. Let the license application begin… and soon. This is the least the country deserves for its $10+ billion investment in studying this site.
LikeLike
Steve:
Thanks for reading Blog for Iowa and for providing your name and e-mail address so I could post your comment.
Others maintain that the site is not viable, and if I hit a nerve, it was intentional. I did not make the comment casually. The politics of the situation regarding Yucca Mountain matter as much as the need to solve the spent nuclear fuel storage problem.
As far as the “propaganda machine” you mention, I am not familiar with it. What I know is what I mentioned in my post that as the spent nuclear fuel backs up in pools and in dry cask storage at Iowa's nuclear power plant, we are waiting for a solution.
Before Iowa adds any nuclear reactors to our electricity supply, this issue should be resolved. If other politicians come in and push the Yucca Mountain license application through and devise a political solution, Iowa should wait until that is done before adding to the large quantity of spent nuclear fuel in the country.
Thanks again for posting your comment and using a civil tone. You have added to the discussion and we appreciate it.
Regards, Paul Deaton
LikeLike
For those interested in the entire life-cycle costs of nuclear power, access the 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study here: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-full.pdf
LikeLike