Civilian Nuclear Spent Fuel Temporary Storage Options

Publication Date: March 1998

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Environment

Type:

Abstract:

Highly radioactive spent fuel has been accumulating in pools of water at commercial reactors since the early years of the U.S. nuclear power industry. Originally it was expected that spent fuel would be removed from reactor sites to be dissolved in reprocessing plants to extract uranium and plutonium for use in new fuel. When the United States abandoned commercial reprocessing in the mid-1970s, a new policy had to be developed for spent fuel disposal. The result was the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), which required the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a permanent underground repository for spent nuclear fuel by January 1998. The multibillion-dollar cost of the program was to be covered by a fee on nuclear power.

Development of such a repository has fallen years behind schedule. DOE, which is investigating a proposed repository site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, does not expect to be able to begin taking waste from reactor sites before 2010. NWPA currently forbids DOE from building an interim storage facility for spent fuel until construction of a permanent repository is licensed. As a result, nuclear power plants may have to store spent fuel much longer than originally planned. By the end of the decade, according to DOE, about a third of the nation’s commercial reactors will need additional storage capacity to supplement their spent fuel pools. Such additional capacity would probably be in the form of dry storage facilities, which are more efficient and less costly than spent fuel pools.

Nuclear utilities and state regulators are urging Congress to authorize construction of an interim spent fuel storage facility near the Nevada repository site that could begin receiving waste as soon as possible after 1998. Supporters of that plan contend that storage at reactor sites should be minimized because of concerns about safety, costs, public controversy, and the future of nuclear power. They maintain also that DOE faces legal sanctions under NWPA if waste is not taken from reactor sites by 1998. Opponents counter that continued storage at reactor sites would be less expensive than building a central storage facility and would reduce unnecessary transportation risks.

Alternatives to federal interim storage that might be considered include measures to mitigate the problems with long-term storage at reactor sites, such as reducing the nuclear waste fees paid by nuclear utilities and eliminating regulatory obstacles to the expansion of on-site storage capacity. Private central storage facilities have also been proposed; a utility consortium has applied for a license for such a facility on the Utah reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes. Another option that has been suggested is overseas storage and reprocessing of some U.S. commercial spent fuel.