The status of US spent nuclear fuel removal infrastructure
S. Himmelstein | September 09, 2021
Storage transport cask. Source: NAC International
In a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) researchers evaluate nuclear power plant (NPP) site infrastructure and near-site transportation infrastructure for removing spent nuclear from 16 U.S. NPP sites. The material to be removed from these sites includes both the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and the greater-than-Class C low level radioactive waste that is stored, or will be stored, at the facilities.
The analysis characterized the SNF inventory, on-site infrastructure and near-site transportation infrastructure and transportation experience in order to specify future information needs. As DOE continues to make progress toward finding a spent nuclear fuel disposition solution, commercial spent nuclear fuel remains stored at 74 reactor or storage sites in 34 states.
All 16 sites inspected were found to have at least one off-site transportation mode option for removing their SNF and low-level waste, and some sites have multiple options. NPP site experience with shipping large equipment and components to and from the NPP sites provided an important source of information in identifying the off-site transportation mode options.
Summary of transportation mode options for SNF from 16 nuclear power plant sites. Source: Steve Maheras and Christopher DeGraaf/PNNL
DOE intends to continue conducting site evaluations of additional NPP sites and plans to eventually conduct evaluations for all NPP sites. For sites previously evaluated, DOE plans to continue to update inventory and site condition information and imagery as it becomes available.
All projects must be evaluated from the time the material comes from the earth to the time it is returned to the earth. This was not done with nuclear power. The spent rods of the nuclear power plants is the biggest engineering failure of all times!!
Let us remember that, if "SNF" is recycled thru a fast reactor, many of the trans-uranic nuclides will be fissioned to produce energy, and that the resulting waste will be around 100 times less in both volume and radioactivity.
In reply to #2
1/100 of 50000 years is still 500 years which is unacceptable. I doubt if you or anyone else would accept them being stored near your place for only 500 years.
In reply to #3
Too many people are scared of radiation, but they don't need to be. Actually, some small amounts of radiation are good for you. Wade Allison has several books out that explain this better than I can. Among other things, LNT (Linear, no Threshold) is wrong. Due to our refusal to handle it, most nuclear reactors have to be storage sites for spent fuel rods! Have you ever seen Carankov radiation? It's a very pretty light blue. (But guess I need to confess to having better experiences than most. I worked with plutonium and uranium-235, and near nuclear reactors for years; was even inside the containment vessel of a research reactor. You should respect radiation, not fear it.)
In reply to #4
One shouldn't fear the radiation of an exposed spent nuclear rod?
In reply to #5
I didn't say that.