Nuclear Waste Costs Can No Longer Be Ignored, Expert Warns NRC
COOPER: NRC CAN NO LONGER IGNORE “STAGGERING” COST OF WASTE DISPOSAL AND STORAGE IN REACTOR LICENSING AND RE-LICENSING
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) faces increasing pressure to fully account for the massive costs of nuclear waste disposal and long-term storage during the licensing and re-licensing of U.S. nuclear reactors.
According to Dr. Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, these costs can no longer be brushed aside.
Billions at Stake in Long-Term Liability
In his detailed analysis, Cooper argues that the NRC has historically overlooked the full financial burden associated with nuclear waste management. This includes not only on-site storage but also the unresolved costs of permanent disposal solutions.
The financial implications are staggering:
- Billions of taxpayer dollars already spent
- Ongoing lawsuits and settlements with utility companies
- No national long-term repository in sight
These costs keep growing—and the longer the delay, the more expensive and dangerous the situation becomes.
Licensing Without Waste Solutions? A Risky Bet
Cooper criticizes the NRC for continuing to license and re-license reactors without securing permanent waste solutions. This approach, he says, shifts financial risk to the public while delaying responsible decommissioning.
He warns that failing to address waste costs undermines the very basis for claiming nuclear energy is cost-effective. When full waste expenses are included, nuclear power becomes significantly less competitive compared to renewables.
Legal Challenges and Accountability Mount
The NRC has already faced legal pressure on this front. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the commission could not simply assume waste storage was safe and affordable without proper environmental review.
That decision forced the NRC to develop a new “Waste Confidence Rule,” which still faces criticism for underestimating both risks and costs.
Cooper’s analysis adds fuel to the fire, stating that the NRC’s financial assumptions are flawed and overly optimistic.
A Call for Transparency and Reform
Cooper urges regulators to adopt a more transparent, accurate, and fiscally responsible approach to nuclear energy planning. That means:
- Including full waste disposal costs in all economic models
- Halting re-licensing until viable storage solutions are identified
- Protecting taxpayers from future financial fallout
He emphasizes that without these changes, the nuclear industry will continue to offload its true costs on the public while claiming it delivers cheap, clean energy.
The Bottom Line
Ignoring nuclear waste costs doesn’t make them disappear. It only delays the inevitable reckoning. With growing financial liabilities and no permanent storage facility in sight, the NRC must confront the truth: you can’t license reactors without accounting for their full waste burden.
Cooper’s message is clear—it’s time for the NRC to stop kicking the radioactive can down the road.
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) – Commercial Nuclear Waste: Resuming Licensing of the Yucca Mountain Repository Would Require Rebuilding Capacity at DOE and NRC, Among Other Key Steps
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-340
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/curriculum/unit1/lesson3reading.shtml, Author, USDOE, Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 11:47AM
