An Illustration of the Real Nature of the Nuclear Waste Problem

The recent example discussed below illustrates very clearly the real reason why the waste issues remain unresolved, and just how intractable the political problem is.

DOE's proposed North Dakota borehole studies

The Department of Energy has proposed a scientific study that involves drilling deep boreholes, 16,000 feet down into crystalline rock under North Dakota. The purpose of the project would be to look at the general behavior of deep boreholes in crystalline rock. Such (general) scientific knowledge could be used for oil/gas drilling, geothermal projects, and also potentially for disposal of certain types of high-level radioactive waste.

The DOE is not considering the use of boreholes for spent or recycled nuclear fuel, but may consider them for disposal of concentrated defense wastes such as cesium or strontium capsules. Also, the DOE has made it clear that this project is for general scientific study only. No radioactive materials will be used in the studies, and no plans or proposals are being made to actually dispose of any radioactive wastes in boreholes, in North Dakota or elsewhere.

Political reaction in North Dakota

Even though this does not involve any proposal for disposing of radiological material, the political reaction in North Dakota to the DOE project has been swift and strong. Local officials complained of being blindsided by the news of the proposed DOE project, and of not being kept in the loop. One stated that "half the county would have been there to say no" to the project if it were aired at a local meeting (just due to the remote possibility that it could lead to radiological waste disposal). Another stated that he does not see how such a project could provide any benefit to the region. Not long after word got out about the project, nearly 300 local residents packed a country commission meeting to air their mostly negative views about the project. The DOE found itself on the defensive, repeating the point that the project was only for basic science.

Political vs. technical basis

Given how little the local public and policy makers actually knew about the project, not to mention the fact that it was purely a basic science project that did not involve radiological material or any kind of proposal for nuclear waste disposal, it is clear that there was no technical basis for any outright opposition. It was an immediate, knee-jerk, purely political reaction, one that clearly shows the degree of fear and political prejudice against all things nuclear that is held by much of the public, almost everywhere.

One very telling remark by one of the local politicians, which illustrates this point, was that "what bothers them" is that the study might find that the location IS suitable for nuclear waste disposal, and that "you never know about the government". Finding that the site is suitable, and perhaps then proposing waste burial, is some form of betrayal? Heaven forbid that the government should try to dispose of nuclear waste in a suitable location. The idea being that if the location were suitable, a repository would somehow inflict harm on the local population? What (technical) definition of "suitable" is this?

The DOE (defensively) responded to such sentiments by stressing that no nuclear waste repository site would ever go forward without local consent. It also repeated the message that this study is only about basic scientific research, and is not a formal evaluation for suitability for nuclear waste disposal. On this (one) point, the locals may be right that the DOE is not being entirely forthcoming. The possibility of using such boreholes for nuclear waste disposal IS on the DOE's mind. But the real shame is that the political situation is such that one cannot even admit to studying possible solutions to the nuclear waste problem.

These reactions are particularly frustrating given that the state has actively welcomed oil fracking operations, which probably entail pollution (ground water) risks that are far larger than any associated with deep borehole disposal of certain radiological wastes (cesium and strontium capsules with ~30-year half-lives, certainly). There clearly seems to be a double standard.

There are other examples of purely knee-jerk, political opposition to nuclear waste disposal sites. One other example is the intermediate waste repository proposed for a location in Ontario near Lake Huron (and also near a nuclear power plant). Despite the fact that all the scientific analyses, as well as the (conservative) regulator, concluded that the risks were negligible (certainly far smaller than those posed by a myriad of other waste/industrial sites near the shores of the Great Lakes), the project is now being delayed, and may be rejected, due to a tremendous negative political response. A response aided and abetted by many U.S. politicians (from Michigan, etc.) who apparently believe that there are political points to be scored fighting this (imaginary) threat. Another example is the (absurd) suggestion by nuclear opponents in Wisconsin that removing the state's ban on nuclear power plant construction would somehow cause the state to be considered for the nation's nuclear waste repository.

What to do?

The intent of this article is to give an example that illustrates how the problems associated with resolving the nuclear waste disposal problem are political, vs. technical, in nature, and just how difficult the political problems are. I don't claim to know the answer. The local political support for a repository in southeast New Mexico (and just across the border in Texas) offers some cause for hope, but the problem always occurs at the state level, and it is not clear if New Mexico or Texas will support a repository.

I will share one thought, however, about a potential source of these public attitudes. Many of the messages about nuclear waste that come from the industry itself or from politicians that (ostensibly) support nuclear power and/or repository programs actually have the effect of increasing the public's fear of nuclear waste.

One example of this is all the extreme measures the industry takes to keep the public "safe" from nuclear waste, perhaps in an effort to appease or assuage public fears. But if you treat the material like it is extremely, and uniquely, dangerous, then the public will believe that it actually is. Thus, these efforts may actually have the reverse effect.

But a more important example of counter-productive messages is when politicians that support a repository (e.g., Yucca Mountain) try to gain political support for the project by instilling a sense of significant need or urgency. They argue that a repository (or resolution of the nuclear waste problem in general) is important or urgent because having the waste continue to be stored at nuclear plant sites is a significant problem or risk. In most cases, the politicians in question are from states with nuclear power plants.

How would you react to these arguments if you lived in the state that has the proposed repository location? These politicians are saying that they want the waste out of their state because it is so dangerous. And they want to bring all of the nation's waste to your state!

I realize that there would be problems with the exact opposite tack. If the waste is not dangerous at all, why bother with a repository (or moving it to a single, central location)? All I'm saying is that the arguments need to be presented carefully, in a cool-headed fashion. We need to state the truth, i.e., that the risks are very low, but storing or disposing of the waste in a single location would make the risks even lower. And, after all, the waste needs to be finally disposed of at some point in any event, and having 50 repositories doesn't make economic or environmental sense. Another (non-fear-based) argument could involve the fact that we want to remove the waste from the plant sites because that would allow those (valuable) sites to be put to good use.

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.