The Long Term Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel

author, Steven Carlino

The safe long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste is the most challenging environmental problem confronting the United States. Public confidence in the ultimate removal of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants is vital to maintain support for nuclear energy which currently supplies the country with twenty percent of its’ energy. Many different techniques for permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste have been researched over the last two decades. Today it is obvious that a permanent geologic repository is the best option for high-level waste from commercial and defense sites. The government’s effort to find an appropriate long-term geologic repository has received increased attention because of the cost and environmental factors involved.

For the last three decades, the American public has had a love-hate relationship with nuclear energy as a source of electricity and energy. With the energy crises of the 1970’s and the realization that our fossil fuel supplies could run out during the next century, nuclear power was crowned as the next great energy supply. The United States is dependent upon the importation of oil from foreign countries and there are limited oil reserves in this country. It is extremely likely that worldwide oil stores will run out within the next twenty-five to thirty years. Coal has proven to be environmentally damaging, releasing dangerous chemical emissions that have been proven to be a major health risk. This is in addition to supplying the gases contributing the hypothetical greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer.

According to Jeremy Rifkin, author of, Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World, the United States, with only six percent of the world’s population, currently consumes over one-third of the world’s energy. Public utility companies operate as "natural monopolies" and are ensured a "fair profit" through government regulations. In the early 1970’s, public utility companies were building nuclear power plants at a frantic pace. These first commercial plants were economically sound and the utilities believed they would be able to supply electricity at a lower price per kilowatt hour. As safety issues became a concern and the public became frightened with the risks associated with nuclear energy and radioactive waste, the cost of construction and operation of a nuclear power plant rose exponentially. For example, the Philadelphia Electric Company completed its two Peach Bottom plants in 1974 at an average cost of $382 million, but the two Limmerick plants completed in 1988 cost $2.9 billion--or 7.6 times as much.

The United States government has been involved in the production of nuclear energy since the early 1940’s, during the Manhattan project (which developed the first atomic weapons). The government built various plants around the country to produce weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, used to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons to defend the country during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

There are many common misconceptions of safety issues related to nuclear waste and radioactivity, many arising because of irresponsible media reporting. The media tends to sensationalize events to gain ratings or readership. Events relating the nuclear energy are no different in regards to media attention. The media would rather relay stories relating to dangerous actions or accidents, than the actual safety of the plants and the small risk associated with exposure to radioactive materials.

There is still a degree of fear lingering in the public mind due to the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents. These two examples can be blamed for a turn in public sentiment. Public attitudes to civilian uses of nuclear power were generally positive until the last decade.

A safe and effective long-term nuclear waste repository is needed before nuclear energy can become an effective and efficient energy source in the United States. The Department of Energy’s proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste geologic repository is still years away from being in operation. I will focus on the Yucca Mountain geologic repository later with the discussion of spent-nuclear fuel. For various reasons the production of energy from civilian nuclear power plants has fallen off from production levels in past years. This production fall off can be attributed to environmental legal battles and safety issues of the plants themselves.

Nuclear radioactive waste is produced whenever we put nuclear fission to work. High-level radioactive waste is the by-product of making electricity at commercial nuclear power plants and from materials production at defense facilities. This high-level waste is otherwise known as spent nuclear fuel. Spent nuclear fuel is actually the uranium fuel pellets that were used in the reactor vessel to create the nuclear chain- reaction needed for the electricity process to begin. Once a year, a certain amount of spent fuel is replaced with fresh fuel (new uranium pellets) in the reactor vessel.

There are a couple of different temporary measures to isolate spent fuel on-site (at the nuclear plant). Spent-fuel can be stored in above-ground dry casks. It can also be stored in on site pools, because water acts as a radiation shield and coolant. Many civilian nuclear power plants have reached the point, that there is no more storage room available for the radioactive material on-site. Also, storing spent-fuel and radioactive material on-site is a much larger risk to the public, than underground burial in a geologic repository.

Spent-fuel is currently stored in 33 states at 72 operating and shutdown commercial reactor sites. By the end of 1996, 12 of the 72 commercial reactor sited in 11 states required additional on-site storage. By the year 2035, when the last commercial reactor completes its initial 40-year license period, there will be over 84,000 metric tons of uranium.

In France, seventy percent of electricity is generated through the use of nuclear energy. Many countries including France reprocess their spent nuclear fuel. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is a chemical process by which the uranium and plutonium are recovered from the spent fuel. The unburned original fuel cannot be easily separated. In the process of a nuclear chain reaction Uranium-235 is enriched and becomes Uranium-238. Plutonium is created during the initial burning process, through the bombardment of the Uranium-238 atoms. The process to separate the Uranium from the newly created Plutionium-239 is difficult and expensive. The plutonium can be re-used as reactor fuel, but it is more commonly used as material in nuclear weapons and missiles. Public utility companies in the United States do not reprocess the fuel because it costs more than mining, transporting, and processing new uranium to be used as fuel.

The Department of Energy is responsible for the long-term disposal of nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. In 1982, Congress established the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which stated that the Department of Energy would be responsible for the disposal of civilian radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, in addition to its own waste from defense production facilities. The first order of business for the Department of Energy was to research and select a suitable site for a long-term geologic repository. On December 19, 1984, DOE ranked nine candidate sites in six states for the first of the two repositories authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and it named the top three for site characterization: Deaf Smith County, Texas; Yucca Mountain, Nevada; and Hanford, Washington. After initial site characterization, Congress ordered the DOE to focus on only the Yucca Mountain site.

A key element of permanent disposal is that it must be able to isolate radioactive waste for thousands of years because its radioactivity can harm people and the environment. The Yucca Mountain site is situated 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (see attachment 1). According to DOE maps, this site lies within the infamous Nellis Air Force Base, most popularly known for its UFO folklore. Long-term burial would take place within underground salt deposits, within steel containers (see attachment 2). The DOE has had a pilot project in operation for over five years. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, (otherwise known as WIPP) is the first experiment in long-term burial. WIPP has been effective, efficient, and environmentally and economically sound during its early years of operation. The success of WIPP should point to the future, that Yucca Mountain can be safe and effective.

Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for many reasons. Primarily important is its location in the desert, away from human populations, with little rainfall providing an extremely dry ground. Over the ages, layers upon layers of ash from erupting volcanoes compressed and consolidated into a hard rock called tuff. Tuff is crucial to Yucca Mountain’s potential suitability as a repository site. If radionuclides were stored in casks in a repository deep within the mountain they would not be likely to escape over a long periods of time. A DOE webpage cites the example of a radioactive explosion caused by uranium ore thousands of years ago under the continent of Africa. Current studies have shown that the material has moved only 3 inches! Natural barriers include tuff, little rainfall and moisture, and zeolites, which are materials in tuff that attract radionuclides.

It would seem to any logical and intelligent person that there is little risk to radioactive exposure from a geologic repository. After searching for years for methods to permanently dispose of spent-fuel and radioactive waste it is evident that long term geologic repository is the safest and most effective method. So why hasn’t this process been progressing faster if everyone is in favor of long-term disposal, and it is scientifically agreed upon that geologic repository is safe?

Currently there are problems involved with the Yucca Mountain waste repository site. There exists a long and extensive legacy of disputes over the siting of facilities, both public and private. In 1984, within days of the announcement of site characterization for Yucca Mountain, the State of Nevada and several environmental groups filed suit against DOE challenging the legality of the designation process. Much of the controversy in Nevada focused on conflicting estimates of the risk of locating the repository at Yucca Mountain and the adequacy of DOE’s massive characterization plan. The disputes were primarily political rather than scientific or environmental in nature. The state of Nevada had little to gain by having a long term repository sited in the state. After years of legal battles, a federal court found against Nevada’s complaints. In 1991 the state of Nevada issued a permit allowing the DOE to study the Yucca Mountain site. On a more philosophical plateau, a country or nation-state has never lasted over 1000 years. A nuclear waste repository would need to be guarded and kept safe for almost 10,000 years.

Currently, excavation of the exploratory tunnel into Yucca Mountain is proceeding faster than planned. The DOE believes that upon completion Yucca mountain will have a capacity for over 70,000 metric tons of uranium. Since the initial work done on the exploratory tunnel, no adverse effects have been found. The DOE has set forth timelines and goals for the Yucca Mountain site characterization. According to the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program Plan, published in 1996, the DOE plans by 1997 to have finished the Exploratory Studies Facility main, U-shaped, five-mile exploratory tunnel, by 1998 to complete the viability assessment including repository/ waste package designs, license application plan, and cost and schedule estimates; by 1999, publish the Draft Repository Environmental Impact Statement; finish the Final Repository EIS by 2000; and by the year 2002 the DOE plans to submit its license to the Nuclear Regulatory Council for repository construction authorization.

So, as is evident, the DOE does not even plan on construction to begin until 2002. This is wishful thinking on the part of the DOE. Between legal and environmental battles the construction date could easily be pushed back another five to ten years, from the 2010 operation date set by the Secretary of Energy in 1988.

Cost is another factor that must be taken into account. The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program is the official office within the DOE with responsibility for the Yucca Mountain program. In fiscal year 1996 for the Yucca Mountain project, the office of CRWMP was allocated $315 million and in FY 1997 was allocated another $400 million. Projected appropriations from fiscal year 1998 to 2002 total almost $3 billion. It must be remembered that this money is only for scientific studies and site characterization, not for construction costs or operation. Many critics will dispute and argue the necessity for the large appropriations of money. The DOE is only accountable to Congress, who appropriates the money.

Many people including myself would assume that the money used to fund this project would come from Federal Income taxes. As it turns out this money is available from the 0.1 cent per kilowatt hour tax on nuclear energy. Six billion dollars had been collected through 1989 by way of this tax.

Public opinion and perception are keys to the success of nuclear energy in this country. Nuclear power can never be an affordable and efficient energy source, until the American public embraces its use and can come to terms with the problems involved with nuclear waste. A study on public perceptions by William Desvousges, Howard Kunreuther, Paul Slovic, and Eugene Rosa, shows effectively the problems the citizens have with nuclear waste. Forty-eight percent of people nationally, while fifty-three percent of Nevada citizens believe that a repository is the best way to sore high-level nuclear wastes. But, only thirty percent of Nevada residents thought that Nevada was the best site for a long-term repository, mainly because of the weapons testing site that is already in Nevada. Many residents of Nevada believe that a nuclear waste repository sited so close to the city of Las Vegas will have a negative effect on tourism, more importantly the convention industry.

Comprising a variety of risks, complex technologies such as nuclear waste repositories become multi-dimensional in nature. An important step in understanding risk perceptions is assessing the various characteristics associated with the repository. After analyzing data from the Desvousges (etal), study, it is apparent that residents of Nevada have concern for future generations. It must be remembered that nuclear wastes are radioactive for up to 10,000 years.

There is too much data from the Desvousges(etal), study to site the information, but the data presents a negative picture of a possible long-term geologic repository cited in Nevada. For further information on public perception data, please see Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste, author Riley Dunlap, etal. The data in study point; under current institutional arrangements it would be difficult to site a long-term geologic repository in Nevada, or anyplace else in the United States. The public sees a repository imposing extremely high risks to themselves and future generations. The public views these risks as being unacceptable and unnecessary.

For the United States Government and the Department of Energy involving the public in these policy issues is a new event. For years the DOE operated under the guise of national security with a closed door, "decide, announce, defend," policy. Unknowingly Nevada residents have already been subjected to large amounts of radioactive activity.

This information serves as an interesting paradox. While citizens suffer from the "not in my backyard syndrome," they have been exposed to radiation at levels and risks much higher than the siting of a repository. Much can be said about the government’s conduct and behavior toward its own citizens. Americans have been put at risk without knowledge, consent, or choice for years. After all the years of risk and exposure, that citizens are now informed and given methods to fight government decisions. The information presented by Cohen also points to the prevailing attitude towards nuclear materials during that time period. The long term effects of exposure to nuclear radiation were unknown for years. Many conspiracy theorists believe that the US government purposefully exposed not only citizens, but over half a million members of the US Army, in order to study the long term effects of radioactive materials.

Cohen finds that the public has an unjustifiable concern over the risks associated with nuclear waste. Cohen, a nuclear physicist, and strong proponent of nuclear energy, sees the United States going the same way as the Europeans. He believes eventually the US will decide to begin to reprocess spent fuel.

Reprocessing of spent-fuel would cost more money for public industries, but it would create much less waste material that would need to be disposed of at a later time. The only way public utility companies would re-process fuel is if it were regulated and enforced by the government.

Elected officials in Nevada have opposed the repository, since discussions of site characterization began. The state of Nevada has passed a law stating that, "it is a crime for anyone to store high-level radioactive waste in the state punishable by fines and imprisonment." The state of Nevada has brought various legal suits against the DOE.

The latest status on the Yucca Mountain site is that the state of Nevada has won its lawsuit and the DOE will not be permitted to build a repository at the site. This is seen as a huge victory for state rights and for environmentalists, but actually we all are losers. Something needs to be done to remedy our current situation with spent fuel and radioactive waste. The DOE is currently appealing the decision and will most likely win. Currently plans are continuing along set timelines for completion of research on the Yucca Mountain site.

Hard decisions must be made and compromises must be struck. The geologic repository must be built to safely store our stocks of nuclear waste materials. The future should hold different plans: The United States must begin a full program to reprocess nuclear spent fuel. The American public would become accepting of nuclear energy, if the waste that is currently built up can be contained and controlled, and the amount of waste created in the future, could be substantially decreased.