The gauntlet has been thrown: until the US figures out what to do with its nuclear waste, new nuclear plants can't be licensed and existing licences can't be renewed.
The dramatic decision, taken by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 8 August, is a sign of mounting pressure over the issue of nuclear waste storage, and is likely to rekindle doubts over the future of the nuclear industry. But whether it will result in a solution anytime soon is still unclear.
In taking the decision, the NRC was responding to a complaint from 24 organisations, demanding that it set more specific guidelines for its plans regarding nuclear waste.
The current modus operandi is for US nuclear plants to store spent fuel in pools onsite in the hope that a permanent geological repository, such as Nevada's Yucca Mountain ? or even better, somewhere else ? becomes available within the coming decades.
"Enormous" impact
In June, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the NRC had to start preparing a plan B, because of the potential that Yucca Mountain ? which the Obama administration opposes ? never opens for waste storage. Furthermore, NRC was ordered to assess its current practices of storing radioactive waste onsite. Many of the cooling pools that house spent rods are full of waste and thus a greater fire risk than those at Fukushima. NRC spokesman Scott Burnell says that the assessment is a high priority and is likely to be made by next year.
In the meantime, the NRC's order could affect 21 nuclear reactors with pending applications for switching on new plants, and 12 that need their licenses renewed. "The potential impact is enormous," NRC writes on its blog.
The suspension is likely to lower confidence in the nuclear industry, both on the part of the public and lawmakers. At least one congressman called for the end of new nuclear power in response to the order.
None of these is expected to have to shut down imminently: the existing plants have a five-year grace period during which they can continue to operate without renewing or obtaining licences. "The plants won't be penalised if NRC can't get the job done," Burnell says, as NRC should be able to come up with a solution by then.
Uncharted territory
Will it be a good one, though? Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists fears not.
For one, the NRC is not required by the Appeal Court's order to choose the fuel storage option with the lowest environmental impact. What's more, the options available are to store waste at the reactors forever, continue hoping the country designates a permanent repository or the NRC could develop interim above-ground storage sites, which, unlike an underground repository, would need to be monitored indefinitely. None of these options is attractive, says Lyman.
Storing spent fuel for decades is uncharted territory both environmentally and legally, he says. A century after a reactor shuts down, "the entity that operates reactors might not exist; the NRC might not exist. How do you say with a straight face that's going to be safe?"
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Subscribe now to comment.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
joe the plumber lra lra eric johnson eric johnson big east tournament ashley olsen
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.