by Madeleine Jennewein
figures by Rebecca Senft

Across the United States, nuclear waste is accumulating in poorly maintained piles. 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste requiring disposal are currently in temporary storage. The United States, however, has yet to construct a long-term storage solution for this waste, leaving the nuclear material vulnerable to extreme weather events such as hurricanes, rising sea levels, and wildfire.

Nuclear power will be an essential tool in climate change adaptation because it’s capable of producing massive amounts of energy without any carbon emissions. In fact, although nuclear power is expensive to build, the scale and potential of nuclear power represents the most efficient path to eliminate carbon emissions from energy production. The drawback? Nuclear waste. Dangerous for thousands of years, nuclear waste requires long-term solutions that shield it from living things, but the public pressure to build effective storage solutions just isn’t there.

What is high-level nuclear waste?

Nuclear waste is primarily a byproduct of nuclear energy generation (Figure 1). Nuclear energy harnesses the intense heat released from nuclear fission, where unstable atoms (either uranium or plutonium) are split into smaller elements. This heat turns water into steam, which spins turbines to generate electric power. However, the radioactive byproducts of nuclear energy generation are incredibly damaging to living things because nuclear decay also releases smaller particles—protons, neutrons and electrons—that can tear through tissue and damage genetic material, leading to cancers and birth defects.

Figure 1: Lifecycle of nuclear waste. Radioactive elements (1) encased in fuel rods are split into smaller elements (2) by high-energy reactions. These reactions release energy as heat (3) and also generate free particles. In a nuclear reactor, this heat converts water to steam, which turns turbines to generate electricity (4). At the end of its cycle, the nuclear fuel rods are cooled in pools of water for several years (5), and then may be disposed in dry cask storage (6).

Because of these adverse effects, nuclear waste must be treated carefully. Low-level waste (such as tools that have been contaminated with radiation) typically emits very low levels of radiation that are typically on par with the radiation we absorb daily from the sun. High-level waste, however, including spent nuclear fuel and its byproducts, is searing hot and requires years of cooling plus thick metal shielding to prevent radioactivity release. Even after 10 years of decay, this waste could emit 100 times a fatal dose of radiation in one hour.

How can nuclear waste be stored?

Nuclear waste storage facilities need to be designed to protect the waste from theft, shield it from emitting radioactivity, prevent it from leaking into water or soil, insulate it from release by natural disaster, and hide it from future generations that may not understand its danger. The main risk of nuclear waste is water running through the sealed storage containers (dry casks) and carrying nuclear particles out of storage. With this in mind, the two primary options for storage are protected sites above ground and geological repositories underground (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Nuclear fuel storage options. The disposal of nuclear fuel can take many forms (either at or near the Earth’s surface or in geological repositories), each of which has varying drawbacks and benefits.

Commercial energy generation produces the majority of nuclear waste in the U.S., which remains stored above ground near each of the 99 commercial nuclear reactors scattered around the country. Nuclear waste is stored in pools to cool for many years, and some is moved to above-ground concrete casks. However, these storage solutions are temporary at best. This form of storage requires personnel to maintain the sites of disposal, to monitor leakage, and to check the temperature and radioactivity of waste. Because nuclear waste could be repurposed for weapons, these pools and casks require a security presence to prevent theft. Above-ground casks are also vulnerable to natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and hurricanes that could overwhelm the storage sites. While nuclear waste disposal sites are designed to safely store waste for several years, they haven’t been built to a standard that would allow the waste to sit there for centuries without constant upkeep.

Longer-term storage might be possible underground. Within geological repositories, the choice is between storage that is retrievable by future generations (geological disposition) or a sealed site that can’t be reopened (geological disposal). Decisions about which path to take need to contend with many questions: Can we confidently commit societal resources to manage this waste for the future? Can we scientifically minimize the chances of the waste escaping? Can we ensure social and political support for the project?

Geological disposal greatly diminishes many of the risks of nuclear waste, securely placing the waste underground, away from water sources, hurricanes, and humans. If located in an arid or frozen area isolated from earthquakes, a geological repository would be virtually impenetrable, and would effectively shield radioactive material. Thus, permanent geological disposal is the main goal of most countries. Many countries, with the U.S., Sweden, and Finland leading the effort, have begun the arduous process of selecting a site that meets intense scientific and logistical standards. Scientific research ensures that whichever site is selected will protect humans and isolate waste. Given the 24,000-year half-life of plutonium, scientists aim to design containment mechanisms and choose sites that will remain safe and isolated for 100,000 years.

Yucca Mountain

For the past 40 years, Yucca Mountain, in an arid desert 100 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada, was on track to become the main site for storing the U.S.’s accumulated nuclear waste (Figure 3). The area has little precipitation, so little water would seep into the mountain. The extremely dense volcanic rock of the mountain has small pores, preventing any water leakage through the rock. In addition, waste would be stored far above water sources in the mountain. These features would effectively shield the waste and prevent the release of radioactivity.

Figure 3: Timeline of nuclear waste storage in the United States.

In 1987, Congress directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain. Funded by a tax on nuclear power companies, researchers vetted the site and designed a storage plan for the mountain. In 2002, the DOE concluded that Yucca Mountain was suitable, and in 2008 they submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an independent agency tasked with protecting safety related to nuclear energy, to begin the construction process.

Many Nevadans felt that the DOE did not solicit their input in the process and that having a nuclear waste repository so close by would be dangerous. In 2010, pressured by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Obama administration, the DOE withdrew its application. In turn, Congress withdrew funding, grinding the process to a halt. Still, the resulting legislation allowed the audit review to go forward, and the NRC reported in 2015 that Yucca Mountain satisfies nearly all of the regulatory requirements.

Why is it so hard to store nuclear waste safely?

The science and policy issues of nuclear waste demonstrate the need for science-informed policy but also show the limits of dictating policy through scientific assessment alone. Nuclear waste storage is a societal challenge. There is intense opposition in almost every community near a potential waste site. From decades of secrecy, bureaucracy, and top-down decision making, Americans distrust those who control nuclear waste decisions. In the absence of community engagement, Americans don’t recognize the acute need for nuclear waste storage, and perceive such storage as fallible and dangerous.

However, there is a way forward. While the U.S. fought over Yucca Mountain, Finland has quietly selected, licensed, and begun construction on a nuclear waste disposal facility. Key to Finland’s success was active community involvement in site selection. Indeed, Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission to study waste disposal in the U.S. concluded that nuclear waste disposal could only be successful with active community involvement. The commission advocated starting a new process of site selection, with community engagement at all stages.

While many fear nuclear waste facilities in their communities, it is not necessarily anathema to all. Nuclear waste storage facilities would guarantee a steady stream of jobs and money for the community. For example, the WIPP site, a repository for lower-level radioactive waste from defense sources maintains much community support because the site provides jobs and actively engages the community, promoting itself as vital to national defense.

Where do we go from here?

While nuclear power constitutes around 20% of the power sources in the United States, and could be critical to climate change adaptation, six states currently prohibit nuclear plant construction until a nuclear waste storage facility is built. Waste storage is the essential piece of the puzzle.

As of May 2018, the House of Representatives voted to restart the Yucca Mountain process. The Trump administration has been sympathetic to reopening Yucca Mountain, asking for $150 million, but was ultimately denied. It’s unclear whether a nuclear waste repository will be built in the near future, but it’s increasingly clear how necessary and how difficult the process will be.

Madeleine Jennewein is a fifth-year Ph.D. student in the Virology program at Harvard University.

For more information:

20 thoughts on “Looking for a Trash Can: Nuclear waste management in the United States

  1. I did not see mention here of Thorium-based nuclear power. Even Wikipedia discusses the only draw back is high start up costs. I will not go into detail- yet- basically, it is probably the only realistic way of safely reducing stockpiles of nuclear waste, while, at the same time produce abundant energy. . Not ALL waste, yet the most potent and long lasting waste can generate more power than we currently have the infrastructure to distribute. thorium IS ABUNDANT- AND NOT LIKE THE OLDER NUCLEAR MODEL WHERE WE ESSENTIALLY BURN RARE AS GOLD MATERIAL FOR ONLY ABOUT 20% OF ITS ENERGY POTENTIAL. For the unknowing and fearful people who dismiss anything that has the word Nuclear in it, please re-educate yourselves . The technology surrounding Thorium is comparatively safe, and only dismissed by the government because “It does not produce weapons grade nuclear materials”. What if they gave a war, and nobody came?.

    1. stop the thorium nonsense, it is just a distraction as there are more mature gen IV designs than the MSTR (eg. the GE PRISM)….the only reason people are harping on and on about thorium is because of the (silly) claim that it is better “because it doesnt use uranium” and people seem to be scared of uranium

  2. Go Google Kirk Sorensen , Thorium power,. He has all the facts. Zero point energy is already being used against us. Kirk offers the only real energy solution that is attainable without having a ticket to the breakaway society that rules the petrol dollar. I tried to post a link, but this forum says ” appears to be spam”. How is THAT for sequestering free speech! Let the robots do it!

  3. Dear Madeleine Jennewein,

    “REVERSE URANIUM MINES” – THE FINAL JIGSAW PIECE!
    ( OR… Put The Waste Back into the Hole of Where It Came.)

    Nuclear waste facilities, are “Mines in REVERSE”. These are really, in fact, mining projects! No one has viewed them as such with clarity of statement, it appears, following my own Research! I am an Australian Illustrator with extensive experience in Mining Projects, and with a principle focus on mining and the environment. As such, deconstructing projects to illustrate them, gives added insight, and sometimes enlightenment, not available to others.

    40 years ago I illustrated an Addendum to The Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed Uranium Mine joint Australia/USA project. The illustrations, of three volumes covered The Project, ‘How it affected the indigenous people of the area’; ‘The Rehabilitation on completion of the Project’; and all the questions and answers likely to be asked of the project. As it was both written and pictorial, it gave clarity to many audiences including the indigenous peoples.

    For those that do not know, Uranium Mines are timed to the capacity of The Tailings Dam. The Dam, after 20-30 years, are/is covered over becoming a small mountain and rehabilitated. For example, one by two kilometres in size.

    There are two options – RECYCLE or BURY, for Nuclear Waste.

    My opinion is that it is a “CRADLE TO GRAVE’ operation.

    THE MISSING JIGSAW PIECE IS SIMPLE! – Current and proposed Uranium Mines should shoulder the responsibility of Customer Waste – as a Responsible Customer Funded Service. AND… NONE SHOULD BE APPROVED WITHOUT AN EXTENSION OR RETRO-FIT TO INCORPORATE such WITHIN THEIR DESIGN, IE; THE CAPACITY TO STORE AND RE-BURY SPENT NUCLEAR PRODUCTS PAST THEIR USE-BY DATES.

    Nuclear fuel rods’ due to their short lifespan, should be recycled, these amongst other uranium-based products. Recycling as a responsible Customer Service. Just as manufacturers’ of plastic products, bottles for example, should take back their empty product and recycle, rather than polluting the planet with their ‘one use product’. The life of current and future Uranium Mines, can thereby be extended to become repositories for Nuclear Waste into the future, providing jobs, and other economic benefits. We are just returning the ‘ore’ as waste, and placing it back ‘to where it came’. This will complete the cycle, in a most simplistic and responsible manner. A little like putting the crumbs back into the ‘cookie jar’. Why create other sites, or many new Reverse Uranium Mines ONE REASONABLY ASKS?

    It is no different with Uranium products or Nuclear Waste. Re-bury the waste in the original site of mining, or’ an Uranium mine per se. Simple. Relook at the abandoned ones in the USA. Could they provide employment and be retrofitted to store waste? Just PUT IT BACK IN WITH ADDED SAFEGUARDS – cement or other.

    My Country, Australia, is also faced with the same dilemma, I have recently alerted the various bodies exploring options to my SIMPLE SOLUTION. Yes, there have been 4O plus years to design a ‘rubbish bin’, and the waste has piled up.
    Due to the urgency to extract uranium ore (gold and copper as bonus), the end product, was yet to be considered or created, the problem is currently worldwide and critically urgent… is with us NOW.

    Your own study (above) addresses in part what I suggest, but not fully. Sometimes one is looking from the outside, rather than within. And hopefully this contribution adds another perspective to your valuable Paper? My Australian spouse, is a graduate of your Business School, to add additional background.

    In short, the “Trash Can” is secure placement in the original mine from whence the uranium ore was mined.

    I trust the above input is helpful, and can be distributed for discussion.

    1. The problem is that many uranium mines are not in a safe setting, geologically speaking, to handle nuclear waste. You have to think about where the fault lines are, where potential earthquakes could happen, what types of rock the mine is in, where groundwater is that could be contaminated if it were to leach in, etc. Just because it’s underground does not mean it is safe. The problem with finding a long-term nuclear waste repository is that it is hard to find a place in the US that will be free of geological activity and groundwater for the next million years.

    2. Nothing is simple / there are no magic bullets.
      ‘Uranium towns’ will not thank you, They already have to deal with mountains of tailings which comprise 85% of the radioactive material extracted. Residents exposure to airborne radioactive particles and gases are already a considerable threat. Also, residents who have already experienced 100s of deaths due to radiation exposure during mining operations may be justly resistant. A corollary problem is that mining prosperity attracts economic and residential development, consequently, such sites are less isolated than you might think.
      On the positive side, since only a fraction of 1% of the material extracted may have been extract, the volume of empty space will be adequate. Also, you might argue that since they already have lots of radioactive waste, a bit more won’t hurt.

    3. “Uranium Mines are timed to the capacity of The Tailings Dam” really? I can show you some radioactive lakes in Northern Ontario which demonstrate that dumping uranium tailings into a lake may not be an ideal solution … now, ya-all ready for some great fishing, shore lunch included, in beautiful Ontario wilderness?

  4. So no mention of fast reactors? It is very suspect if you claim there are only 2 options whilest the 3rd option is the only sensible… I guess the scientific method is no longer suported at harvard, then again I am unsure how a biologist can write about physics…

    Also please stick to the accepted meaning of words, if you are talking about safety then people “disliking” something does not make it unsafe. it is hard to STORE (due to misinformation towards the public) but is perfectly safe to do so

    “The science and policy issues of nuclear waste demonstrate the need for science-informed policy but also show the limits of dictating policy through scientific assessment alone. Nuclear waste storage is a societal challenge. There is intense opposition in almost every community near a potential waste site. From decades of secrecy, bureaucracy, and top-down decision making, Americans distrust those who control nuclear waste decisions. In the absence of community engagement, Americans don’t recognize the acute need for nuclear waste storage, and perceive such storage as fallible and dangerous.”

    So this is the garbage you get from a 150K/year education?

    1. I believe shes right and her 150k eduacation too. Esp since im one of those Americans who views nuclear waste disposal dangerous. Most of us do. All we know is what we are told…i didnt go to harvard…so please enlighten me.

    2. Look at the history of WIPP, which is really the only deep geological repository with a history of operation. You might note that, safety, for a DGR was defined as a specific accessible radiation dosage at ground level anytime in the next million years (first it was 1000, and then 10,000 but then they noted that the hazard potentially increases after that and finally the courts ruled that a certain body of scientific exports mandated by US legislation must be respected). Also, the regulated exposure limit was revised several times, downward. With ~$18B spent, the US put the only permanent storage site (provisionally) at Yucca Mountain would be mothballed; inadvertently, this resulted a boondoggle where nuclear reactor operators are paid annual damages for not being able to access permanent storage (the more material they put in temporary storage, the more they make).
      BTW: science is not comprised of hypothesis only, it requires testing and verification of hypothesis; first you need a detailed analysis of geology including sonar, borehole drilling, seismic surveys, etc. This is not dissimilar to what oil and gas exploration begins with, however it is important to note that actual conditions only line up with hypothesis a fraction of the time. If you look at the history of WIPP, the actual site in the geological structure was changed more than once based on detailed observation.

  5. I think there is a future for a nearly closed loop of nuclear fuel and waste using fast breeder reactors. Much of our current waste can be recycled through these reactors and made into oxides that are useful fuel in there own right. When you expose depleted Uranium to very high energy neutrons (like those found in a reactor without a neutron moderator like water or graphite) you can create a fissle form of Plutonium that can be used in more traditional water cooled & moderated reactors. Ultimately, this seems to be the long term solution to nuclear waste, and as we get more developed, we will realize a system of reactors that move material in cycle with little diverted to a high risk waste stream. There have been several Fast Reactors in use, but these have largely been experimental proof of concept installations. We need to continue work on the science that is limiting these and other salt cooled reactors, like the thorium based reactors mentioned above. The coolant is very corrosive in these reactors and we need continue our progress. We have only ripped our toes into the possibility of nuclear power.

  6. Canada has licensed and is constructing a 300 MW Moltex Stable Salt Reactor that is a “waste burner”. It is part of a forward looking and permitting Canadian Government. I’m a US citizen but this time Canada is cutting through all the arguing and actually getting something done. Way to go Canada.

  7. Off-Planet waste disposal: Launch into solar trajectory. Easy lift, one way trip. Feasible fail safe for at most 60 minutes. Design crash safe casks. Launch site in Puerto Rico due to boost from Earth rotation. Charge disposal fees to USDOE and countries. Reliable and coninual funding stream for NASA.

  8. Nuclear power is the single largest source of low-carbon electricity in the United States. Oops, that is a white lie! All nuclear reactors emit Carbon 14, a radioactive isotope, invalidating the industry’s claim that reactors are “carbon free.” The fuel itself is carbon-intensive. The problem is that we can’t stop this and the question will always remain, why in the world did we let this happen. Yes, the problem is much bigger then all of us and it behooves me to bring the subject to light and deaf ears. Research concerned Scientist.

  9. It is an insidious instinct in humanity that we must ‘play’ with things that have an inherent ability to kill us.
    We were paid to look for the stuff for the directors of companies who profited from successful exploration, the scientists who had to investigate the depth of use … I need go no further to illustrate the persons involved.
    We should have just left this dangerous, life-threatening element in the ground UNTIL we were sure we could deal with the radioactive spectra and contain the unsafe extensions of its use. We still should, as of now, cease the mining until the issue surrounding this element is resolved.

Leave a Reply to Nicole Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *