Understanding the Nuances of Nuclear Waste

A recent episode of Last Week Tonight, a popular weekly source of political and current issue commentary hosted by comedian John Oliver, highlighted many misconceptions surrounding nuclear waste and nuclear energy. Oliver typically spends about 20 minutes of each show diving into a particular issue, with previous topics including government surveillance, lead in the environment, and North Korea. On August 20, 2017, he chose the topic of nuclear waste in the United States for a deep dive. In this episode, comparing nuclear waste to creepy American Girl dolls, he proclaims, “if you want to keep something around for a disturbingly long time, you have to find an appropriate place to put it.”

This is true no matter whether you support the continued utilization of nuclear power or not — disposal is absolutely necessary. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear waste repositories are not “dumps”. Rather, they are highly engineered systems designed to ensure that radiation does not reach the environment. The “clogged toilet” analogy does not only describe the current situation, but has been the strategy of environmental groups trying to inhibit the expansion of nuclear power [1]. For an example of its success, after significant demonstrations, California legislated in 1976 that no new nuclear power could be installed in the nation’s largest energy consuming state until a final disposal or processing solution for the waste had been implemented [2].

Nuclear waste sites in the United States. The total amount of used commercial fuel is about 70,000 tons. There is also about 90 million gallons of high-level wastes owned by Department of Energy (DOE) in various forms, most of which are at the Hanford and Savannah River weapons sites and the Idaho National Laborator [DOE].

Two wastes, two issues

Oliver’s review of US nuclear waste situation covers more than just used commercial fuel from generating electricity. He spends significant time discussing the legacy wastes from weapons production. Though he initially distinguishes between the defense and commercial wastes, he jumps back and forth between them throughout the episode without much context. Notably, all of the content regarding environmental and health effects of radiation is from defense activities:

• The bit about ocean dumping? Navy. (The real story of this is actually the exposure to workers [3], not the ocean dumping, which was widely practiced and was considered technically sound in moderation due to the low level of the waste and massive dilution factor of the ocean [4]).
• Savannah River and Hanford? Two of the most (in)famous facilities in the US nuclear weapons complex.
• Contamination in Missouri? An early uranium enrichment facility located there produced material for Fermi’s Chicago Pile-1 and the Manhattan project. The operator secretly dumped the tailings from processing natural uranium all around St. Louis [5].

Admittedly, in the early days of the nuclear age, remarkably stupid things were done with radioactive wastes. It seems obvious now that such methods are negligent, but in those times, such knowledge was unavailable (though this does not in any way make the repercussions of those actions excusable). However, compared to that of defense wastes, the risk posed by commercial wastes is significantly smaller. The reason is that the wastes are contained in multiple engineered barriers. By contrast, much of the defense wastes in question are either poorly stored due to historical mismanagement or have already leaked to the environment, where remediation becomes much more difficult.

Oliver correctly states that while spent fuel pools for commercial waste were initially designed to be cooling ponds, they are now being used for storage longer than the initially prescribed cooling period and as a result are filling up. This is indeed a problem — in Taiwan, for example, the pools at nuclear power plants are being retrofitted to store used fuel from the entire operating life of the plant [6], which presents myriad safety issues. However, the existence of a risk does not inform its magnitude. In this case, the risks are small because the events are unlikely and the consequences are dealt with in immensely rigorous safety assessments. These assessments, required for all nuclear facilities, deal specifically with the likelihood of external events and their effect on accidents and radiation releases.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) officials monitor dry casks at a nuclear power plant. The thick casks are made of concrete and steel and used fuel inside is cooled by natural convection [NRC].

In the United States, however, general practice is to transfer waste from the pools to dry cask storage. In places where nuclear power plants have already been decommissioned and “returned to green”, all that remains is the concrete pad on which the spent fuel dry casks sit. These casks are built to strict safety specifications — a “Fukushima-like accident” would not affect their integrity. That they remain at the nuclear power plant where they were produced is not so much a safety issue as it is a management, economic (nuclear utilities pay into a “nuclear waste fund”), and security one.

Progress on the problem

By showing old-timey clips that echo his message, Oliver gives the impression that nothing has been or is being done to deal with nuclear waste and that nuclear energy producers and the government are kicking this can down the road. This is not quite accurate. There is much more interesting political nuance and history to the nuclear waste issue in the United States than Oliver lets on [7–8].

The future of Yucca Mountain is unclear and will depend on coordination between Congress and the President on funding and policy. Under President Obama, the Yucca Mountain program was stalled while the framework for a consent-based repository siting process was introduced. The consent-based process has been successful for countries like Sweden, Finland, and Canada, all in various stages of repository development. Despite the uncertainty around Yucca Mountain, activity is underway to deal with both defense and commercial wastes in the public and private sectors. Intermediate-level defense wastes from weapons-sites around the country is being sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Recently, two private companies applied for licenses to operate interim storage facilities in Texas and New Mexico [9]. These facilities would adopt the dry casks from nuclear power plants around the country and keep them in a single location. The legal basis for this is being debated in the House as a part of H.R.3053- Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017 [10].

Left: Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada [yuccamountain.org]; right: the engineered barrier system of the proposed Yucca Mountain design [WikiCommons]. President Trump has indicated interest in restarting the Yucca Mountain program but it is unclear whether and when Congress will allot funding.

Scientists throughout the nation’s national laboratory system are closely monitoring the waste and environmental contamination at weapons facilities and are designing new solutions and recommendations for dealing with them. It should not be surprising that 10% of the Department of Energy’s budget is sent to Hanford — management of environmental issues leftover from weapons production is one of the DOE’s core missions.

Certainly, more resources, more attention, and more progress would be immensely beneficial on these problems. People living around nuclear waste deserve safety. But to imply that nothing is being done is a disservice to the advancements being made and the efforts of those who commit their careers to navigating and mitigating these complex issues.

Final thoughts

Reviews of the video from members of the nuclear community have been harsh [11]. In their view, Oliver himself is fear mongering over radiation and is implying to his broad audience that nuclear power is dangerous. Lacking nuance, his commentary on risks may well confirm people’s pre-existing beliefs about nuclear power when in fact he does not make any judgements on its viability. Indeed, reports on Oliver’s video by major media outlets (Time, Slate, USA Today, Rolling Stone, The Hill, etc.) have echoed his points, jokes, and conclusions as presented. I am inclined to wonder whether this reflects the public’s preconceived notions of nuclear waste. If one believes that everything nuclear is dangerous, what need is there for nuance?

No technology is without risk, no production is without byproduct, and all things are relative. Comparison of the environmental and public health effects of other energy sources show that despite radiation hazards, nuclear energy is a great carbon-free option due to its reliability, small footprint, and low emissions, among other reasons. In fact, Oliver’s perspective may even exonerate nuclear power for those who “would support it except for the waste” because he acknowledges and defers to the scientific consensus on the performance of deep geological disposal.

From the perspective of society on the environmental safety and public health related to radioactive waste, there may be no distinction between the hazards posed by defense and commercial nuclear wastes. Even nuclear advocates must agree that undue exposure to radiation is bad, especially when it is brought about by institutional negligence. That the federal government is charged with managing both defense and commercial wastes draws even more ties between them.

In the end, a repository to dispose of nuclear wastes is necessary regardless of whether nuclear energy is utilized in the future. The waste we already have must be dealt with, and continued use of nuclear medicine and development and research into nuclear weapons will continue to produce more waste that requires long term disposal. I encourage all those interested in this issue to do more to learn about nuclear waste, the ways in which it was produced, and the ongoing activities to treat and dispose of it, and Refs. 7 and 8 are a great start. I am also willing to answer any questions or point you in the direction of more information.

References

1. R. Nikolewski. “Nuclear’s unlikely apostle” The San Diego Union-Tribune, May 7, 2016. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-nuclear-shellenberger-2016may07-htmlstory.html
2. California Attorney General File №15–0001 http://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2015-001
3. W. R. Levesque. “USS Calhoun County sailors dumped thousands of tons of radioactive waste into ocean” The Tampa Bay Times, December 20, 2013. http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/veterans/the-atomic-sailors/2157927
4. D. P. Calmet. “Ocean disposal of radioactive waste: Status report” International Atomic Agency Bulletin, April 1989. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/31404684750.pdf
5. R. Hartmann. “The Poisoned Children of Coldwater Creek” St. Louis Magazine, May 22, 2013. https://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again/The-Poisoned-Children-of-Coldwater-Creek/
6. H-H. Lee. “The Safety Concerns of Spent-Fuel Pool Reracking in Taiwain’s Maanshan Nuclear Power Station”, Nuclear Technology 117:1 pp. 64–79 (1997).
7. L. J. Carter. “Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust” Resources for the Future, Inc. Washington, D.C. (1987).
8. J. S. Walker. “The Road to Yucca Mountain” University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. (2009).
9. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF)” Accessed 2017–08–26. https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis.html
10. H.R.3053 — Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017 (introduced 2017–06–26). https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3053/actions
11. J. Conca. “Please, John Oliver, Please Talk To A Real Nuclear Scientist” Forbes, August 24, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/08/24/please-john-oliver-please-talk-to-a-real-nuclear-scientist/#527dfbd18f5c