Nuclear fuel storage became a hot topic this week in Congress. Among several committees holding hearings on the Japanese nuclear disaster, the Senate Appropriations Energy & Water Subcommittee March 30 highlighted the safety difference between radioactive spent fuel pools and dry-cask storage for waste. “The most important” issue, said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), subcommittee chair, “is to rethink how we manage spent fuel. These pools often become de facto long-term storage.” Feinstein noted that in the prior week, she visited both the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants in California. “In California, fuel removed in 1984 is still cooling in spent fuel pools,” she said. “Spent fuel pools are very robust structures,” countered Nuclear Regulatory Commission chair Greg Jaczko. He added that regulators feel it’s safe to have highly radioactive fuel rods kept in spent fuel pools for “at least 100 years.” Dry casks may or may not be a safe alternative, noted Shawn Moniz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative director. He said there is a “good case” to be made for the fuel storage technology, but that it is based on “skimpy” data. Lawmakers in other committees this week also delved into the spent fuel pool versus dry cask storage policy (see other stories in Beltway section). In the committee hearing, Feinstein also called for an independent evaluator for the national nuclear power plant stock. There was no official disagreement.
