Used nuclear fuel is an energy-rich resource that is safely stored and can be put to use in the future. Myth: Used nuclear fuel is “waste.” Fact: Used fuel assemblies from U.S. commercial nuclear reactors are energy-rich resources that contain 90 percent of their original potential energy. By recycling the used fuel to make new fuel (as done in a number of countries), the remaining energy can be put to use. According to the World Nuclear Association, if the used nuclear fuel currently in storage were recycled using existing technologies, it could power the entire U.S. fleet of 104 nuclear power plants for more than 30 years with no new uranium required.
Myth: Industry hasn’t determined what to do with the used nuclear fuel. Fact: By law, the federal government is responsible for the long-term disposition of used nuclear fuel from the nation’s commercial nuclear power plants. In early 2010, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future that released its final report on Jan. 26, 2012, that provided its recommendations regarding used nuclear fuel. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission also addresses the storage of used nuclear fuel on its website. Although used fuel is safely and securely stored at plant sites in concrete and steel containers and can remain there for many decades, the nuclear industry agrees that a comprehensive long-term plan is needed an looks forward to the recommendations of the commission. There are several technically and scientifically proven options for sagely and securely managing used nuclear fuel. In its 2010 study “The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offers an independent academic assessment of used fuel management options in the United States.
Myth: The Yucca Mountain repository is a “dump.” Fact: The proposed Yucca Mountain repository is highly engineered and strictly controlled to protect public health and safety for many thousands of years. By federal law, the repository is the United States’ designated geological disposal facility for used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste products. Unlike poorly designed and unsecured waste dumps, all radioactive materials stored at Yucca Mountain repository would be secured in extremely strong shielded containers and placed into designated storage locations in tunnels beneath 1,000 feet of dry rock and well above the water table. Continuously monitored and guarded, the used nuclear fuel would be accessible and retrievable for possible future recycling.
Myth: Used fuel in storage pools at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility was severely damaged during the accident. Fact: There is no evidence that the used fuel in any of the used fuel pools at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan suffered more than minor damage. Visual inspections and chemical testing of the used fuel pools confirm that all of the fuel pools, including the pool at reactor 4, contained sufficient water throughout the event to effectively cool and protect the used fuel. Three months after the March 2011 accident, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed in an ABC News report that none of the fuel in the Fukushima Daiichi fuel pools suffered severe damage. Inspections found some minor physical damage to the top of some fuel assemblies most likely caused by falling debris, but there were no fires, no fuel rod incineration, no hydrogen generation and no hydrogen explosions in, or caused by, any of the fuel pools at Fukushima.
Myth: It is safer to keep used nuclear fuel in dry storage containers than used fuel pools. Fact: Used fuel is a solid material that is stored safely and securely at nuclear power plant sites either in enclosed, steel-lined concrete pools filled with water, or in dry, steel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that used fuel storage in used fuel pools and dry storage containers is equally safe for at least 100 years. In March 2011, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko confirmed the robustness of the two technologies saying, “The information we have right now shows that both of these methodologies are equally safe for a very long period of time.”