1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 48, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 48, 2023

US Legal and Regulatory Framework for Nuclear Waste from Present and Future Reactors and Their Fuel Cycles

Abstract

The nuclear waste management and disposal program in the United States for highly radioactive waste (spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste) has thus far been unsuccessful despite an effort that spans 40 years and the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars. Yet, today, there is considerable interest in and promotion of advanced reactor technologies, such as small modular reactors that will expand spent fuel inventories that may very well remain at the site where they are generated, awaiting permanent, geologic disposal. We examine critical elements of the US legal and regulatory framework that have impeded the success of the US program. We make recommendations on steps that are required for a successful nuclear waste program, particularly considering the development of advanced nuclear reactors and their fuel cycles.

Keyword(s): advanced reactors, legal and regulatory framework, nuclear fuel cycles, retrievability, spent nuclear fuel, Standard Contract
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435
2023-11-13
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/48/1/annurev-environ-112621-064435.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Halper E. 2022. Biden administration launches $6 billion nuclear plant bailout. The Washington Post April 19. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/04/19/biden-administration-launches-6-billion-nuclear-plant-bailout/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Phillips A, Romm T. 2022. Biden's chance to tackle climate change is fading amid global energy upheaval. The Washington Post March 18. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/03/18/russian-energy-ukraine-climate-change/
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Clifford C. 2021. Why Illinois paid $694 million to keep nuclear plants open. CNBC Nov. 20. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/20/illinois-nuclear-power-subsidy-of-694-million-imperfect-compromise.html#:∼:text=Illinois%20legislators%20agreed%20to%20spend,and%20subsidized%20wind%20and%20solar
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    US NRC (Nucl. Regul. Comm.) 2022. Power reactors. Nuclear Regulatory Commission https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/power.html
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Carter JT, Luptak AJ, Gastelum J, Stockman C, Miller A. 2012. Fuel cycle potential waste inventory for disposition: fuel cycle research & development Rep. FCR&D-USED-2010-000031, Rev 5, Off Nucl. Energy, US Dep. Energy Washington, DC:
  6. 6.
    US Nucl. Waste Tech. Rev. Board. 2017. Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the United States Fact Sheet, US Nucl. Waste Tech. Rev. Board Arlington, VA: https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/facts-sheets/overview_snf_hlw.pdf?sfvrsn=19
  7. 7.
    Biello D. 2009. Spent nuclear fuel: a trash heap deadly for 250,000 years or a renewable energy source?. Scientific American Jan. 29. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    GAO (U.S. Gov. Account. Off.) 2021. Commercial spent nuclear fuel: congressional action needed to break impasse and develop a permanent disposal solution Rep. GAO-21-603 Off. Public Aff., GAO Washington, DC:
  9. 9.
    US Dep. Energy Off. Nucl. Energy 2022. 5 Fast facts about spent nuclear fuel. Energy.gov. Oct. 3. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    IAEA (Int. At. Energy Agency) 2022. Status and trends in spent fuel and radioactive waste management status and trends in spent fuel and radioactive waste management Rep. NW-T-1.14 (Rev. 1) IAEA Vienna, Austria:
  11. 11.
    World Nucl. Assoc. 2022. Plans for new nuclear reactors worldwide. World Nuclear Association https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Jacoby M. 2020. As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions. Chemical & Engineering News March 30. https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Le T. 2022. Spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal. Stimson June 17. https://www.stimson.org/2020/spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-and-disposal/
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Gopalkrishnan A. 2017. The ominous underbelly of Finland's pioneering nuclear-waste repository. The Caravan Dec. 30. https://caravanmagazine.in/lede/finland-nuclear-waste-repository
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    World Nucl. Assoc. 2022. Nuclear power in Finland. World Nuclear Association https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/finland.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Black R. 2006. Finland buries its nuclear past. BBC News April 27. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4948378.stm
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Herschend B. 2022. The Swedish Government has approved SKB's application for the final repository for spent nuclear fuel. Implementing Geological Disposal of radioactive waste Technology Platform Jan. 27. https://igdtp.eu/swedish-government-has-approved-skbs-application-for-the-final-repository-for-spent-nuclear-fuel/
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    NWMO (Nuclear Waste Manag. Organ.) 2022. Programs around the world for managing used nuclear fuel Doc., NWMO Toronto:
  19. 19.
    US Nucl. Waste Tech. Rev. Board 2015. Designing a process for selecting a site for a deep-mined, geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel: overview and summary. Report to the United States Congress and the Secretary of Energy, November 2015 Rep. US Nucl. Waste Tech. Rev. Board Arlington, VA: https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/siting_report_summary.pdf
  20. 20.
    US Dep. Energy 2021. DOE restarts consent-based siting program for spent nuclear fuel, requests input on interim storage process News Release, Nov. 30. https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-restarts-consent-based-siting-program-spent-nuclear-fuel-requests-input-interim
  21. 21.
    Ewing RC. 2011. Standards & regulations for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste Rep. Blue Ribbon Comm. Am. Nucl. Future, US Dep. Energy Washington, DC:
  22. 22.
    Ewing RC, Von Hippel FN. 2009. Nuclear waste management in the United States—starting over. Science 325:151–52
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Burney SM. 1998. Analysis of the total system life cycle of the civilian radioactive waste management program Tech. Rep. DOE/RW-0533 US Dep. Energy Las Vegas, Nev:
  24. 24.
    Krall LM, Macfarlane AM, Ewing RC. 2022. Nuclear waste from small modular reactors. PNAS 119:e2111833119
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med. 2023. Merits and Viability of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Technology Options and the Waste Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Reactors Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  26. 26.
    Rechard RP, Cotton T, Jenkins-Smith HC, Nutt M, Carter J et al. 2010. Legal and regulatory framework for high-level waste disposition in the United States Rep. Sandia Natl. Lab. Albuq., N. M.:
  27. 27.
    Stewart RB, Stewart JB. 2011. Fuel Cycle to Nowhere: U.S. Law and Policy on Nuclear Waste Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ. Press
  28. 28.
    Jessie J, Kennedy JE, Wong MC. 2014. An evaluation of the 2007 Strategic Assessment of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's low-level waste regulatory program. Waste Management 2014 Conference pap. 14433. https://archivedproceedings.econference.io/wmsym/2014/papers/14433.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    O'Donnell E, Lambert J. 1990. Low-level radioactive waste research program plan. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting 1 NUREG/CP-0114 Vol. 1 US Nucl. Regul. Comm. Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Carter LJ. 1987. Nuclear imperatives and public trust: dealing with radioactive waste. Sci. Technol. 3:46–61
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Kaiserfeld T, Kaijser A. 2020. Changing the system culture: mobilizing the social sciences in the Swedish nuclear waste system. 2071456–68
  32. 32.
    Elam M, Sundqvist G. 2006. Stakeholder involvement in Swedish nuclear waste management SKI Report 2007:2 Swed. Nucl. Power Insp. Stockholm, Swed.:
  33. 33.
    Vuorinen A. 2008. Regulators’ role in development of Finnish nuclear waste disposal program. Prog. Nucl. Energy 50:674–79
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Takeuchi MRH, Hasegawa T, Hardie SML, McKinley LE, Ishihara KN. 2020. Leadership for management of high-level radioactive waste in Japan. Environ. Geotech. 7:137–46
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Orano 2022. All about nuclear and radioactive waste in France. Orano https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Lehtonen M, Kojo M, Jartti T, Litmanen T, Kari M. 2020. The roles of the state and social licence to operate? Lessons from nuclear waste management in Finland, France, and Sweden. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 61:101353
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Rechard RP, Cotton TA, Voegele MD. 2014. Site selection and regulatory basis for the Yucca Mountain disposal system for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 122:7–31
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Natl. Res. Counc. 1957. Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land; Report Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  39. 39.
    Sec. Energy 2010. Secretarial determination of the adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Memo., US Dep. Energy Washington, DC:
  40. 40.
    US Dep. Energy 2013. Nuclear Waste Fund fee adequacy assessment report Rep. Off. Standard Contract Manag., US Dep. Energy Washington, DC: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/January%2016%202013%20Secretarial%20Determination%20of%20the%20Adequacy%20of%20the%20Nuclear%20Waste%20Fund%20Fee.pdf
  41. 41.
    US Dep. Energy 2022. Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) annual financial report summary FY 2021 and cumulative Rep. US Dep. Energy Washington, DC: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/FY21%20-%20NWF%20Annual%20Financial%20Report%20Summary.pdf
  42. 42.
    Stanford Univ., George Washington Univ. 2018. Reset of America's Nuclear Waste Management: strategy and policy Rep. Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA: https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/reset_report_2018_final.pdf
  43. 43.
    Joy H, Longo T, Burton ES. 1985. Review of site recommendation process in draft environmental assessments. Waste Management ’85: Proceedings of the Symposium on Waste Management, Tucson, Arizona, March 24–28 RG Post La Grange Park, IL: Am. Nucl. Soc
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    GAO (US Gov. Account. Off.) 1986. Quarterly report on DOE's Nuclear Waste Program as of June 30, 1986 Rep. GAO-RCED-86-206FS Off. Public Aff., GAO Washington, DC:
  45. 45.
    US Dep. Energy 1986. Recommendation by the Secretary of Energy of candidate sites for site characterization for the first radioactive-waste repository Rep. Off. Civ. Radioact. Waste Manag., US Dep. Energy Washington, DC:
  46. 46.
    US Dep. Energy 2001. Supplement to the draft environmental impact statement for a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada Rep. DOE/EIS-0250D-S Off. Civ. Radioact. Waste Manag., US Dep. Energy Washington, DC: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/eis-0250-supplement-draft-environmental-impact-statement
  47. 47.
    Natl. Res. Counc. 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  48. 48.
    Solomon BD. 2009. High-level radioactive waste management in the USA. J. Risk Res. 12:1009–24
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Pineda C. 2011. Waste confidence decision: background Slides, Off. Nucl. Mater. Saf. Safeguards, US Nucl. Regul. Comm. Washington, DC: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/christine-pineda-10-04-2011.pdf
  50. 50.
    US NRC (Nucl. Regul. Comm.) 2013. Waste confidence generic environmental impact statement Draft Rep. for Comment, NUREG-2157 Off. Nucl. Mater. Saf. Safeguards, US NRC Washington, DC: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1315/ML13150A347.pdf
  51. 51.
    US NRC (Nucl. Regul. Comm.) 2012. NRDC's Waste Confidence Contention in the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. Docket No. 50-352-LR, 50-353-LR. At. Saf. Licens. Board https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1219/ML12192A241.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    US NRC (Nucl. Regul. Comm.) 2014. Generic environmental impact statement for continued storage of spent nuclear fuel Final Rep., NUREG-2157 Off. Nucl. Mater. Saf. Safeguards, US NRC Washington, DC: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1419/ML14196A105.pdf
  53. 53.
    Natl. Res. Counc. 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  54. 54.
    Nucl. Energy Inst., Inc., v. Environ. Prot. Agency 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir 2004.
  55. 55.
    US NRC (Nucl. Regul. Comm.) 2009. Implementation of a dose standard after 10,000 years. Fed. Regist. 74:4B10811–30
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    US Dep. Energy 2001. Yucca Mountain site suitability evaluation. Rep. DOE/RW-0549 Off. Civ. Radioact. Waste Manag., US Dep. Energy Las Vegas, NV:
  57. 57.
    US Nucl. Waste Tech. Rev. Board 2003. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy Rep. US Nucl. Waste Tech. Rev. Board Arlington, VA: https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/03-report.pdf
  58. 58.
    Blue Ribbon Comm. Am. Nucl. Future 2012. Report to the Secretary of Energy Rep. Blue Ribbon Comm. Am. Nucl. Future Washington, DC: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-americas-nuclear-future-report-secretary-energy
  59. 59.
    Richardson PJ. 1999. Development of retrievability plans Rep. prepared for Dr. Olof Soderberg, Swedish National Co-ordinator for Nuclear Waste Disposal Minist. Environ. Stockholm, Swed: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/026/30026001.pdf
  60. 60.
    Wagner JC, Peterson JL, Mueller DE, Gehin JC et al. 2012. Categorization of used nuclear fuel inventory in support of a comprehensive national nuclear fuel cycle strategy Rep. ORNL/TM-2012/308 Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. Oak Ridge, Tenn:
  61. 61.
    OECD-NEA (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. Nucl. Energy Agency) 2009. Reversibility and retrievability project: phase-2 report Rep. NEA/RWM(2009)3 OECD Paris: https://one.oecd.org/document/NEA/RWM(2009)3/en/pdf
  62. 62.
    OECD-NEA (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. Nucl. Energy Agency) 2001. Reversibility and retrievability in geologic disposal of radioactive waste: reflections at the international level Rep. OECD Paris: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/nea3140.pdf
  63. 63.
    OECD-NEA (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. Nucl. Energy Agency) 2015. Reversibility of decisions and retrievability of radioactive waste: an overview of regulatory positions and issues Radioact. Waste Manag. Rep. NEA/RWM/R(2015)1 OECD Paris: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-01/rwm-r2015-1.pdf
  64. 64.
    Natl. Assoc. Regul. Util. Comm. v. Dep. Energy 680 F.3d 819 (D.C. Cir 2012.
  65. 65.
    Vandenbosch R, Vandenbosch SE. 2007. Nuclear Waste Stalemate: Political and Scientific Controversies Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press
  66. 66.
    Sforza T. 2019. Nuclear waste burial fund grows to $43 billion, but DOE has not buried an ounce of spent fuel. The Orange County Register Febr. 1. https://www.ocregister.com/2019/02/01/billions-pile-up-in-nuclear-waste-burial-fund-but-no-permanent-storage-solution-on-the-horizon/
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Southworth FH, MacDonald PE, Baxter AM, Bayless PD, Bolin JM et al. 2004. The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project – preliminary assessment of two possible designs Paper presented at the 14th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference Honolulu, Hawaii: March 21–25
  68. 68.
    Gardner T. 2022. U.S. funds projects to explore nuclear waste reprocessing. Reuters Oct. 21 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-funds-projects-explore-nuclear-waste-reprocessing-2022-10-21/
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Kempfer J, Allen T. 2020. 2020 Advanced nuclear map: progress amidst a tumultuous year. Third Way Dec. 21. https://www.thirdway.org/graphic/2020-advanced-nuclear-map-progress-amidst-a-tumultuous-year
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Locatelli G, Bingham C, Mancini M. 2014. Small modular reactors: a comprehensive overview of their economics and strategic aspects. Prog. Nucl. Energy 73:75–85
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Cooper M. 2014. Small modular reactors and the future of nuclear power in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3:161–77
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Guzonas D, Novotny R. 2014. Supercritical water-cooled reactor materials—summary of research and open issues. Prog. Nucl. Energy 77:361–72
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Schulenberg T, Leung LKH, Oka Y. 2014. Review of R&D for supercritical water cooled reactors. Prog. Nucl. Energy 77:282–99
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Čížek J, Kalivodová J, Janeček M, Stráský J, Srba O, Macková A. 2021. Advanced structural materials for gas-cooled fast reactors—a review. Metals 11:76
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Van Rooijen WFG. 2009. Gas-cooled fast reactor: a historical overview and future outlook. Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install. 2009:965757
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Meyer MK, Fielding R, Gan J. 2007. Fuel development for gas-cooled fast reactors. J. Nucl. Mater. 371:281–87
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Alemberti A, Smirnov V, Smith CF, Takahashi M. 2014. Overview of lead-cooled fast reactor activities. Prog. Nucl. Energy 77:300–7
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Allen TR, Crawford DC. 2007. Lead-cooled fast reactor systems and the fuels and materials challenges. Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install. 2007:1–11
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Smith CF, Cinotti L. 2016. Lead-cooled fast reactor. Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors IL Pioro 119–55 Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publ
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Rosenthal M, Kasten P, Briggs RB. 2017. Molten-salt reactors—history, status, and potential. Nucl. Appl. Technol. 8:107–17
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Uhlíř J. 2007. Chemistry and technology of molten salt reactors—history and perspectives. J. Nucl. Mater. 360:6–11
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    LeBlanc D. 2010. Molten salt reactors: a new beginning for an old idea. Nucl. Eng. Des. 240:1644–56
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Ohshima H, Kubo S. 2016. Sodium-cooled fast reactor. Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors IL Pioro 97–118 Sawston, UK: Woodhead Publ
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Aoto K, Dufour P, Hongyi Y, Glatz JP, Kim Y-I et al. 2014. A summary of sodium-cooled fast reactor development. Prog. Nucl. Energy 77:247–65
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Dulera IV, Sinha RK. 2008. High temperature reactors. J. Nucl. Mater. 383:183–88
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Sabharwall P, Bragg-Sitton SM, Stoots C. 2013. Challenges in the development of high temperature reactors. Energy Convers. Manag. 74:574–81
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Muroga T, Gasparotto M, Zinkle SJ. 2002. Overview of materials research for fusion reactors. Fusion Eng. Des. 61–62:13–25
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Fetter S, Cheng ET, Mann FM. 1990. Long-term radioactive waste from fusion reactors: Part II. Fusion Eng. Des. 13:239–46
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Wesoff E. 2022. Bill Gates’ nuclear startup wins $750M, loses sole fuel source. Canary Media Aug. 18. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/bill-gates-nuclear-startup-wins-750m-loses-sole-fuel-source
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med. 2019. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  91. 91.
    Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. 2022. National Ignition Facility achieves fusion ignition News Release Dec. 13. https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-achieves-fusion-ignition
  92. 92.
    Lyman E. 2021. Advanced” isn't always better: assessing the safety, security, and environmental impacts of non-light-water nuclear reactors. Union of Concerned Scientists March 18. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    McNeese LE. 1974. Program plan for development of molten-salt breeder reactors Tech. Rep. ORNL-5018 Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. Oak Ridge, Tenn:
  94. 94.
    Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. 1966. Molten-Salt Reactor Program semiannual progress report for period ending February 28, 1966 Rep. ORNL-3936 Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. Oak Ridge, Tenn: http://moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/ORNL-3936.pdf
  95. 95.
    Noll B, Iten T, Lüscher F. 2021. A synthesized analysis of the state of the “advanced” US nuclear industry Rep. Schweizerische Energie-Stiftung Zurich: https://energie-stiftung.ch/files/energiestiftung/pdf/aktuell/20210921_ST_Non-traditional%20nuclear%20reactor%20design%20concepts.pdf
  96. 96.
    Krsul JR, Washburn RA. 2017. Removal of radioactive sodium from experimental breeder reactor-ii components and conversion to a disposable solid waste: alcohol recovery. Nucl. Technol. 70:424–32
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Drace Z. 2014. Collaborative project: waste from innovative types of reactors and fuel cycles (WIRAF) new proposal Presented at the 8th Generation IV International Forum International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles/International Atomic Energy Agency Interface Meet. March 4–5 Vienna: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/50/005/50005213.pdf
  98. 98.
    IAEA (Int. At. Energy Agency) 2019. Waste from innovative types of reactors and fuel cycles: a preliminary study IAEA Nucl. Energy Ser. No. NW-T-1.7 IAEA Vienna, Austria:
  99. 99.
    IAEA (Int. At. Energy Agency) 2004. Management of waste containing tritium and carbon-14 Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 421 IAEA Vienna, Austria: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS421_web.pdf
  100. 100.
    Riley BJ, McFarlane J, DelCul GD, Vienna JD, Contescu CI, Forsberg CW. 2019. Molten salt reactor waste and effluent management strategies: a review. Nucl. Eng. Des. 345:94–109
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Powers JJ, Wirth BD. 2010. A review of TRISO fuel performance models. J. Nucl. Mater. 405:74–82
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Was GS, Petti D, Ukai S, Zinkle S. 2019. Materials for future nuclear energy systems. J. Nucl. Mater. 527:151837
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Marshall E. 1986. Nuclear waste program faces political burial. Science 233:835–36
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    IAEA (Int. At. Energy Agency) 2022. Technical data Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS), IAEA Vienna, Austria: retrieved October 26, 2022. https://aris.iaea.org/sites/overview.html
  105. 105.
    Gen4 Energy 2012. Hyperion Power Generation Inc. announces change of company name to Gen4 Energy, Inc. BusinessWire March 13. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120313005422/en/Hyperion-Power-Generation-Announces-Change-Company-Gen4
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Flibe Energy 2022. The future of sustainable nuclear energy. Flibe Energy https://flibe.com/energy/
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Univ. Calif. Berkeley 2022. Mk1 PB-FHR technology. Fluoride Salt Cooled High Temperature Reactor, Univ. Calif. Berkeley https://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/pb-fhr-technology/
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    NuScale Power 2022. Small modular reactor Fact Sheet, NuScale Power Portland, OR: https://www.nuscalepower.com/-/media/nuscale/pdf/fact-sheets/smr-fact-sheet.pdf
  109. 109.
    Gougar H, Strydom G. 2019. High temperature gas-cooled reactor: core design Rep. INL/MIS-21-62418-Revision-0 Ida. Natl. Lab., US Dep. Energy Idaho Falls, Ida:
  110. 110.
    US Nucl. Waste Tech. Rev. Board 2022. Congressional budget justification, fiscal year 2023 including board performance and management goals for fiscal years 2022 through 2023 and evaluation of board performance in fiscal year 2021 Rep. US Nucl. Waste Tech. Rev. Board Arlington, VA: https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/plans/fy23-congressional-budget-justification.pdf
  111. 111.
    Ewing RC. 2013. Lessons from Yucca Mountain—standards, regulations and performance assessments Presented at Univ. Notre Dame Indiana: April 11
  112. 112.
    TerraPower 2021. The NatriumTM program. TerraPower. https://www.terrapower.com/natrium-program-summary/
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435
Loading
US Legal and Regulatory Framework for Nuclear Waste from Present and Future Reactors and Their Fuel Cycles
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 48, 713 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-064435
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error