Director's Corner

1. How has management of the United States' nuclear power plant waste changed over the past 50 years?

Let me correct you with regard to waste management changes over the past 50 years. It is true that the concept of geologic disposal was favored very early for waste disposal; however, a lot of other concepts were pursued until roughly the early '80s. In fact, the fuel cycle has itself gone through many phases.

I would summarize the differences between 2006 and, say, 1976, as follows:

1. An extensive reduction in volume of low level radioactive wastes at the plants. Today all that waste (and also the waste from other commercial uses of radioactive materials) gets shipped to one repository (Barnwell) in South Carolina. There has also been a reduction in the return of high-level waste, since the fuel is now able to generate a level of 50 MWdays/kg instead of 30 MWdays/kg.
2. The US nuclear fuel cycle went from initial steps to implement a closed cycle -- with separation of Pu and U from used fuel envisioned for reactor reuse -- to an open cycle where all spent fuel will be placed intact in canisters destined for the geologic repository. This occurred roughly starting in 1976 and continued until February 2006, when the Bush administration announced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, re-adopting the closed fuel cycle in the US at some future date. France, Britain, Russia and Japan, meanwhile, have consistently pursued realization of a closed fuel cycle.
3. Dry storage in air-cooled concrete and steel casks was invented and today is being utilized at more than 25 reactor sites.
4. The government licensed a deep salt mine (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) in New Mexico to store actinides bearing low level waste (called TRU wastes). This enabled several former plants like U enrichment Fernald in Ohio and the Pu finishing plant in Colorado to be cleaned completely and returned to activeuse.
5. In 2005, a group of utilities prepared and obtained a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for central dry storage on land belonging to the Goshute tribe near Salt Lake City (Private Fuel Storage project). The license allows for storing 40,000 tons of heavy metal. This has not yet been put in operation, and is facing difficulties from the State of Utah.
6. The Yucca Mountain disposal site for high level radioactive waste from both commercial and government sources has been making progress including the EIS, the environmental impact review a few years ago, and is expected to formally apply to the NRC for a license in 2007. The state of Nevada, and in particular Senator Reid, have put a lot of obstacles in front of it.
   

2. With the nuclear power industry expecting to have significant growth in the next few decades, what steps will be necessary to ensure proper management of this industry's waste?

First of all, you should realize that the amount of highly radioactive fuel discharged from a 1000 MW reactor is 20 tons per year in the form of fuel rod assemblies occupying about 7 cubic meters of space. In contrast, the amount of CO2 discharged from a coal power plant per year is 7,000,000 tons per year, and about half as much from an equivalent gas-fired plant. Thus, housing of the spent fuel is not a volume issue, but a question of isolating the radioactive content from the environment. The idea of a once-through nuclear cycle, which has been the US approach for the last 30 years, was for the radioactivity to be isolated within engineered and natural barriers. Even if nuclear energy use in the US triples over the next 30 years, dry storage of the resulting discharged fuel can be managed with a central storage capacity on one of the government reservations, or Indian reservations. There is also room at the individual reactor sites, but utilities are suing the DOE to take the fuel away, as per committee. The closed fuel cycle, as followed in France, Japan or Russia, separates the actinides for use in reactors and sends only the fission products in glass ingots to the deep repository. This seems to reduce the volume of waste and, more importantly, the length of time the waste stays harmful (from 10,000+ years to about 500 years).

3. Nuclear waste has long been a public relations weakness of the nuclear power industry. Why hasn't more been done to address this issue and convince the public that there is no cause for concern?

I do not know the real answer to the question. The problem is in part due to the fact that it is the government not the industry that is entrusted with preparing the final solution for the waste, and politicians play a large role in either helping or fighting the waste solutions. The small volume and ease of temporary storage also reduce the incentive for prompt action.

I think the real issue is that the public does not get a full picture of the impact of using alternative fuel sources.. If we do not allow nuclear energy to grow, we have to suffer the emission of more carbon to the atmosphere, or find the huge reservoirs needed for captured CO2. Alternatively, in some places we can dedicate more land to solar and wind farms (nearly 1000 times more land than what is needed for an equivalent nuclear or coal plant).

I suggest you read the book by Senator Domenici on nuclear power, A Brighter Tomorrow, and visit the web pages of the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, particularly its information regarding high-level waste disposal.

Regards,
Mujid Kazimi