DECOMMISSIONING AND NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY: COMPREHENSIVE OR SEPARABLE? *

Abstract

Waste handling is one of the tasks most likely to drive up decommissioning costs. This expense is derived from the large volumes of waste involved, from public apprehensions about its safe and prudent disposal, and from the uncertainties associated with long-term on-site storage of waste as is the current practice. Current U.S. nuclear policy addresses low-level waste (LLW) separately from high-level waste (HLW), military waste separately from civilian waste, and even has different packaging requirements for different types of LLW. These differences mean that there are different disposal sites, different transportation routes, and reduced economies of scale. In this chapter, Duane Chapman argues for a more comprehensive consideration of this waste.

Keywords

Nuclear deommissioning Nuclear waste policy Low-level waste High-level waste

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chapman

Duane

(1987). “Economic Implications of Reactor Decommissioning for Spent Fuel Disposal,” Cornell Agricultural Economics Staff Paper. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University (March).

Chapman

Duane

(1990). “The Eternity Problem: Nuclear Power Waste Storage,” Contemporary Policy Issues Special Edition on Social and Private Costs of Alternative Energy Technologies. 8(3): 80-93.

Nuclear News (1986). “Fort St. Vrain” (November).

Nuclear News (1989). “Fort St. Vrain” (January).

Nuclear News (1989). “Fort St. Vrain” (December).

Smith

R.I.

Konzek

G.J.

Kennedy

and W.E.

Jr. (1978). Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, Volumes 1 and 2. NUREG/CR-0130. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Smith

R.I.

Polentz

L.M.

(1979). Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, Addendum, NUREG/CR-0130. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1989). Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste. OTA-O-426 (November). Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (1989). Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. Washington, D.C.

10.

U.S. General Accounting Office (1989). Storage Issues at DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. GAO/RCED-90-1.