The growing problem of stranded used nuclear fuel.

By 2050, almost all U.S. nuclear reactors will have reached their 60 year maximum expected life. Many will shut down sooner. With no assurance that the current approach for finding a geologic repository or interim storage sites will succeed, used nuclear fuel could be stranded indefinitely at more than 70 sites in 35 states. Societal discussions about the future of nuclear waste should be framed in terms of the relative risks of all alternatives. We review and compare onsite storage, interim storage, and a geologic repository, as well as how these alternatives are presented to the public. ■ INTRODUCTION There are 10 decommissioned nuclear power plants in the U.S. where the used (spent) fuel remains stranded onsite. In 2013, operators of three additional nuclear plants announced permanent shutdowns. By 2050, virtually all U.S. commercial nuclear reactors will have reached their 60 year maximum expected life. In 2009, after decades of work and over $10 billion spent, the Obama administration announced that it would terminate the nation’s only proposed repository for used nuclear fuel and other high-level waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In August 2013, a federal court ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete its review of the Yucca Mountain license application, but the project remains mired in controversy. Even if a geologic repository opened tomorrow, it would take decades to move all of the used fuel to the repository. The track record for transporting radioactive wastes is good, yet any large-scale plan for moving used nuclear fuel will be a flash point for opposition. Even under the best of circumstances, it will take a long time to develop coordination among states of travel routes, security, emergency preparedness, safety inspections, monitoring of shipments, and public information. It is likely that within a few decades used nuclear fuel will be stranded indefinitely at more than 70 sites in 35 states (Figure 1). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is evaluating the possibility of onsite storage for as long as 300 years. The recent NRC draft generic environmental impact statement on waste confidence includes the possibility of indefinite surface storage in the event that a geologic repository never becomes available. While we focus on used fuel from commercial reactors, highlevel radioactive waste from the nuclear weapons program also is destined for deep geologic disposal, as is vitrified high-level waste from the former reprocessing plant at West Valley, New York. Finally, geologic disposal is required to address the nonproliferation risks from separated weapons plutonium, after being irradiated as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. Advanced fuel cycle technologies and reprocessing potentially can reduce the volume, heat, and toxicity of these wastes, yet a geologic repository will be required for all fuel cycles. Advanced fuel cycles also continue to be stymied by economic and technical challenges, and are decades away from commercial implementation. Given these factors, virtually every expert panel having studied the problem has concluded that geologic disposal efforts should not be delayed by the promise of future unproven technology. The current stalemate affects prospects for nuclear energy to help meet the world’s growing energy needs while combating climate change. It is increasingly difficult to make the case for a new nuclear plant when the waste from the last plant has nowhere to go.