Assessing Strategies to Manage Nuclear Waste

Mr. Sproat began the session emphasizing that disposal of high-level nuclear waste is much more than a technical problem; regulatory, financial, and most importantly, political considerations lie at the heart of the challenge. Further, given current taxpayer liability, adequacy of the waste fund and fees to meet repository costs, and progression into the licensing process, Mr. Sproat asserted that Yucca Mountain is the shortest path and least cost option to disposal of high-level waste.  Commenting on centralized interim storage as an option for the near-term, he referred to the lengthy and arduous political process to gain approval for the site at Yucca and failure to receive site approval at other storage sites locally favorable to high-level waste facilities as a clear indication that such an option would not be available before Yucca is completed. In the future there may be an important role for interim storage and reprocessing, Mr. Sproat stated, but they are not substitutes for a long-term geologic repository.

Dr. Alan Hanson discussed the need to develop a nuclear waste repository, but throughout his presentation, stressed that the timeline to fulfill that need is longer than many might expect. Dr. Hanson noted that the sense of urgency surrounding the repository discussion may have hurt the process, and restraints built into the Nuclear Waste Policy Act may have pressured the NRC to deny permits. Dr. Hanson noted that the Department of Energy may not be the best institution to handle the nuclear fuel cycle, and proposed the creation of a new, federal body to regulate and manage the cycle. 

Dr. Macfarlane opened her presentation with a helpful reminder that no country has completely solved the nuclear waste issue. In the United States, the focus has been on Yucca Mountain, but Dr. Macfarlane pointed out some unique geological issues which may prevent Yucca from being a truly long-term (10,000 years) storage facility. As she pointed out, the region is both tectonically active and, if used as a repository, could be subject to dangerous oxidation. Geologic obstacles may also prevent Yucca’s expansion as fault lines, nearby volcanoes and water table concerns surround the site. Dr. Macfarlane also discussed the relative pros, cons and cost effectiveness of reprocessing. She closed with the observation that Yucca is only one of many possible sites and alternative locations are necessary.  

Dr. Crowley echoed some of both Dr. Macfarlane and Dr. Hanson’s remarks in noting that Yucca was a “technically advised but politically decided” location, but that Yucca is by no means the only appropriate site in the United States. In discussing the timeline we have for nuclear waste management, Dr. Crowley noted that interim storage will be sufficient for decades, and given the growth of nuclear power on the horizon, it may be unwise to implement an inflexible plan. Consolidated storage only makes sense in the absence of a repository, according to Dr. Crowley, but he pointed out that consolidated storage suffers from transportation risks and high costs.

Audio1 (mp3, 00:38:38)

9:00 am – 9:05 am  Welcome and Introduction

David Pumphrey, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Energy Program, Center for Strategic & International Studies

9:05 am – 9:40 am  Keynote Address

Edward F. Sproat III, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy

Audio2 (mp3, 01:13:01)
9:40 am – 10:25 am Panel Presentations and Discussion
Presentations

Alan Hanson, Executive Vice President, Technologies and Used-Fuel Management, Areva NC Inc.
Allison Macfarlane, Associate Professor for Environment Science and Policy, George Mason University
Kevin Crowley, Director, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences

10:25 am – 10:50 am   Q&A and Discussion

Moderator: David Pumphrey, CSIS

10:50 am – 11:00 am Closing Remarks