“Waste issue” continues to be part of antinuclear movement strategy of constipation
(Reprint. Originally published September 17, 2013. During the 4.5 years since the original appeared, the licensing moratorium mentioned has been lifted, and the confidence rule has been replaced by Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel [NRC–2012–0246] but stubborn opposition arises in response to any proposed solutions.)
During the 1970s, the antinuclear movement made a collective decision to use “the waste issue” as a weapon to help force the eventual shutdown of the industry. Though the strategy has not succeeded in forcing any plants in the US to shut down, it has prevented a number of plants from being built. Ralph Nader, one of the most visible organizers of the movement, often referred to the waste issue as the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. He described his movement’s strategy for taking advantage of the perceived weakness in some detail during a 1997 interview as part of a PBS Frontline show titled Nuclear Reactions. The issue continues to be used to slow nuclear energy development.
One of the repercussions of the illegal actions of the Secretary of Energy and the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to halt the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain waste repository was to cause a court to declare that it no longer had any confidence in the NRC’s Waste Confidence Rule. That court logically declared that the generic determination on the environmental impacts of used nuclear fuel storage depended on the notion that eventually a permanent repository would be available.
Aside: For more background on the Waste Confidence debacle, please see two excellent guest posts by Paul Dickman Waste Confidence: A Classic Case of Failed Leadership (Part 1 of 2) and Waste Confidence – A Classic Case of Failed Leadership (Part 2 of 2) End Aside.
When the Yucca Mountain license application review was forcibly halted, the only remaining action being taken by the federal government to take responsibility for used nuclear fuel was a “Blue Ribbon Commission” that was starting the whole process from scratch. When the court made its determination of no confidence in Waste Confidence, the country’s nuclear waste situation had been reset to the same position as the one established in 1977.
That was the year when Jimmy Carter put the used fuel recycling industry out of business and declared that the US would try to convince the world to forgo recycling by setting an example in the United States. The only real difference was that the inventory had increased in size by 1,000 to 2,000 tons per year for 35 years.
After the court made its determination, the NRC placed a moratorium on the issuance of both new reactor operating licenses and license extension decisions. It has diverted substantial resources into an effort to draft a new generic environmental impact statement. That draft is now complete — after about a year’s worth of effort by an unknown number of regulators — and the Commission has announced a resource-intensive series of hearings around the country along with a public comment period that is scheduled to run until November 27, 2013. Under the currently promised schedule, the draft will be ready for final approval in about a year.
In a discussion about this frustrating situation and its impact on the development of nuclear energy — due to the uncertainty it adds to the investment decision process — Jerry Cuttler provided the following perceptive comment.
This has always been the antinuclear strategy to phase out nuclear energy, which is:
1. Define (slightly) used nuclear fuel to be “nuclear waste.” (If you do not intend, or are prevented, to recycle once-through nuclear fuel, then it is waste.)
2. Create a the idea that managing used nuclear fuel is an enormous “problem” or burden for future generations of humanity, instead of this fuel being an enormous resource of energy for them.
3. The reasons given by the antinuclear movement for the “problem” are:
a) Used fuel is radioactive forever, and any dose of (human-made) radiation leads to a risk of cancer in exposed people and harmful genetic mutations in unborn children (LNT model of radiation-induced mutations).
b) Used NPP fuel contains plutonium, which could be extracted and made into nuclear weapons (discounting the easier route of separating U-235 from natural uranium or the use chemical or biological weapons).
4. Advocate that no new nuclear power plants be built (or no plant life extension) until we “solve the problem of nuclear waste.” Technical acceptability is not sufficient; we must “demonstrate social acceptance” of any proposed solution to the “problem.”
5. Intervene and oppose all plans or projects that would isolate (human-made) radioactivity or used fuel. Use the LNT model to calculate health risks to nearby residents from minute amounts (becquerels) of radioactivity that could reach underground drinking water or the surface by any hypothetical means. Create social concerns and social opposition to any transport or disposal of radioactivity or used fuel anywhere.
___________________
The world nuclear societies must recognize that this antinuclear strategy is a political problem, and there are no technical solutions to this political problem.
Nuclear societies have to change the rules of this game to regain social acceptance, or witness the phase-out of nuclear energy due to fear of attributed adverse health effects.
The key step to solve this political problem is for the nuclear societies to denounce the invalid LNT concept/model that predicts adverse health effects from low radiation. We have the biological and historical evidence to do this. The ICRP must be persuaded to revert to its 1934 standard that was based on the tolerance dose concept.
My take on the issue includes a emphasizing a slightly different aspect of the situation. I believe that the industry bears much of the blame because it keeps insisting that power plant owners signed a contract with the government to take charge of the used fuel material. The industry regularly criticizes the government for failing to abide by its contracted obligations.
In my opinion, a far more successful strategy for nuclear plant operators would be to reverse course and declare the used material to be valuable private property. Nuclear plant owners should tell the government that they no longer desire any assistance to remove the material. They should inform the government that they want to recycle the material to recover its valuable components. They should stop telling the pubic that they want government assistance in handling a potentially dangerous material; instead they should tell the public that the material is a valuable energy source that also contains additional materials with other useful properties.
The beauty of that reversal is that every statement is true. Making them will alter the conversation and remove the blockage caused by the current misunderstanding about the enormous stored value contained in slightly used nuclear fuel. It is not a burden for future generations; it is a rich resource legacy.
Additional Reading
Energy Collective (April 5, 2011) by David Lewis – Dysfunctional Anti Nuke Waste Strategy Increases Nuclear Risk
(HT to Atomikrabbit)
PBS Frontline – Nuclear Reaction (1997) Interview of Ralph Nader : “A consumer advocate and founder of Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group in Washington”
SNF from LWR is certainly not valuable private property, but it is not an environmental liability either. At the moment reprocessing is not cheaper than fabricating new fuel, so the LWR fuel will continue to accumulate. I help load the SNF casks at a large site; they are overbuilt and source less than a millirem/hr on contact. The SNF will be safely stored in these canisters for hundreds of years and nobody will ever be affected. Busybodies make the SNF an issue. I recognize that the uranium/plutonium in LWR SNF can provide more energy if reprocessed; I simply don’t believe it is worth the effort and expense in the current climate. Only market conditions will ever enable reprocessing; the market isn’t ready yet. With the Japanese fleet offline, there is too much enrichment capacity (at the moment). Enrichment facilities cannot be shut down, so they re-enrich the old “tails”, which we left to them, in order to keep their centrifuges busy. In this way, enrichment facilities have become uranium mines. Every time we close a reactor, the fuel gets cheaper, and cheaper…
TBH, LWR SNF isn’t valuable yet. If there was a program to start a bunch of S-PRISMs as a response to climate change (and I’ve been seeing crazy weather associated with climate change for going on 4 months) the reactor-grade Pu in SNF would suddenly be a hot commodity.
FWIW, a handful of S-PRISMs could light most of NYC and also supply all of the steam used in its district heating systems. They would do this with OTOO 4 tons of heavy metal consumed per year.
It would be nice to see some PRISM reactors built, although they are a little scary. It would take some [more] years of operations/refueling experience before these units could transition from labcoat and pocket-protector led operations to blue collar IBEW led operations. Also, physical security needs to be built into these plants from go; the current levels of security staffing at commercial LWRs, which were built as undefended industrial sites, is a very visible burden that hurts competitiveness. We must get the jarheads OUT of the next generation nuclear plant.
Recently, I’ve been thinking that a logical step, if fuel ever become expensive, would be to push future PWRs more towards the Shippingport fuel/moderator ratio – to improve conversion and stretch the fuel. The reduced water inventory in the core would require reduced a reduced heat rate (thermohydraulic penalty) and the longer fuel lifetime would require adoption of a new platform that could incrementally increase discharge exposure or at least max allowable fluence (maybe lightbridge). Naturally, I am at a loss as to what forces could drive adoption of this, and I’m not convinced it is necessary. In nuclear we are confronted with what could be or could work all the time… This is just another example of one of the many different tacks that could be taken in the future, although I believe the excess jarhead issue needs to be addressed regardless of the direction nuclear takes.
“a hot commodity.”?
I see what you did there, E-P
Clever (as usual)
I’m currently involved in the latest ISFSI campaign at my plant. It blows my mind the amount of energy (thermal heat) that these bundles still contain. Its also incredible that we can take 68 bundles, place them in a canister, then into a shield cask that is indestructible, self cooling and basically maintenance free…….with dose rates <1 mrem/hr contact gamma on the sides and 1-2 mrem/hr gamma and <1-2 mrem/hr neutron at the bottom vent ports. As of today, we have 43 casks on our ISFSI pad. Used fuel is not an issue and if anything, our 43 casks SHOULD show just how small this amount of "waste" really is compared to the energy produced (1200 megawatt plant running since 1985)
Nice article, Rod!
I recall being at the Canadian environmental hearing of the Seaborn Commission when he agreed that AECL had demonstrated that geologic disposal was technically acceptable, but had not demonstrated that it was “socially acceptable.” That was a surprise.
So we have been spending lots of money (labour) trying to find a “willing host community” a site for deep disposal.
Ted Rockwell said it best. Just put the containers anywhere with a sign saying, “Please do not eat.”
“Spent Fuel” from a Light Water Reactor is worth 4 times its weight in gold on a BTU basis. It is a very valuable resource.
Avoid this issue through the use of Molten Salt Reactors!
BTUs aren’t worth much; they’re plentiful, although gold is capable of yielding exactly zero BTUs, so the analogy is not one. Why are MSR fans so prevalent in web forums? I honestly believe their promoters are disingenuous about the “advantages” of MSRs… certainly they’re at least unappreciative of the formidable radiological challenges and flippant when challenged regarding them. Quite silly. Concept was shelved a long time ago.
The folks at Terrestrial Energy would disagree with you…
@scaryjello
There are certainly times and places where BTUs are cheap or even worth less than zero. (Think negatively priced electricity or flared natural gas.)
On the other hand, certain kinds of BTUs in certain times and places can be extremely valuable. (Think natural gas in New England during a polar vortex type cold weather event.)
Part of the value of gold comes from marketing to convince people to value either gold or the products that can be made from gold. The same is true of BTUs, with the added price pressures that can be produced by delivering exactly the right amount of heat at the time and place that it is needed the most.
The challenge for nuclear businessmen is to work with engineers and designers to produce products that can deliver high value BTUs or kWhs and to design those products in such a way as to put costs on an ever lowering trajectory.
The stored BTUs in used nuclear fuel represent high profit potential if clever people can find low cost ways to unlock that value. Part of the approach to that situation may include continued efforts to ensure that current owners of the material will willingly pay to get rid of it. Great fortunes have been made by people who noticed value where everyone else saw wasteland or trash.
“The folks at Terrestrial Energy would disagree with you…”
All six of them?
For those who didn’t read the Canadian regulator’s summary of Terrestrial Energy’s IMSR “Completing Phase 1” of the review process:
Conclusions of phase 1 review:
1.TEI has demonstrated an understanding of CNSC requirements
2.TEI has demonstrated its intent to comply with the CNSC regulatory requirements
3.TEI has demonstrated that it intends to adequately justify the use of alternative approaches in meeting design requirements
4.TEI is integrating Fukushima lessons learned into IMSR design provisions
5.Additional work is required by TEI
Basically, the CNSC gave them an audience, as they are required to do by mandate since it is an agency of the people for the people of Canada.
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Pre-Project_Design_Review/Terrestrial-Energy-Pre-Project-Design-Review-Exec-Summary-eng.pdf
“Avoid this issue through the use of Molten Salt Reactors!” was the preceding quote from John Frick. What we are avoiding, I have no idea, but it sure sounds like something we all ought to get behind. I think he is implying that MSRs will not have spent fuel. He must have read that preposterous tidbit somewhere out there in the forums or in a thorium book… prolly right after a chapter entitled “cheaper than gas”.
This is very true.
When I see a project for a new nuclear power plant I automatically hear voices telling about the nuclear waste produced.
It is true that the nuclear power will generate clean electricity (no or very low carbon emissions, but nuclear waste that is hard and expensive to dispense).
However, when the forest https://www.alternative-energies.net/coniferous-forest-biome/ is cut off just to make room for a new power plant I can;t say that I agree.
“When I see a project for a new nuclear power plant I automatically hear voices telling about the nuclear waste produced.”
Yeh – Those voices in your head, man, they are something.
My voices keep talking and tell me that ALL the nuclear waste made by these plants with 40+ years of operation is still sitting at the site. Then they tell me to take a deep breath and that I’m breathing the waste from other power plants. (Hydro, wind and solar excepted.)
I finally ignore the voices when they spout nonsense about melting glaciers and dead penguins.
“When I see a project for a new nuclear power plant I automatically hear voices telling about the nuclear waste produced.”
I always think of solar panels and how many of them would have been required to equal the MWHr output from the nuke plant and where all these panels will be stored/deposited when they lose efficiency and are replaced. What size of a waste storage area will they require?
Just to be clear, what you said is nonsense.
“Disposal” of used Commercial Nuclear Fuel is actually quite easy.
1. Lower canister in a transfer cask into the “spent” fuel pool
2. Load canister with 68 bundles (BWR, some designs hold more)
3. Install canister lid and remove cask from SFP
4. Weld canister lid on.
5. Blow down water and vacuum dry
6. Back fill with helium.
7. Weld closed vent and drain ports
8. Download canister from transfer cask into shied cask
9. Install shield cask lid
10. Remove shield cask from the reactor building
11. Place shield cask on designated storage pad
12. Shield casks are indestructible, their used fuel is self cooling and dose rates are barely above background. There it sits, with it’s high energy gamma fission products and heat load decaying away more and more each day.
This whole process take 6 days with total exposures ~300 mrem per cask.
Bonds25,
Is the 300 mrem the dose as measured by the team dosimeters
or the dose at the cask surface?
Jack
It sounds higher than I figured… it’s for the team of 12 or so people involved.
Its 0.300 person-REM for each cask give or take, which includes all individual exposures associated with the process. This involves around 50 people. We work this 24 hours a day so we have a day shift and night shift with each shift responsible for doing the same exact evolution for every cask. The previous cask was completed for 0.283 person-REM. The largest dose contributor is the sealing of the canister (canister lid welding, blow down of water, vacuum drying and helium back fill). The sealing activities for the cask we are currently on (the last of this campaign) was 0.143 person-REM. The remaining dose comes from loading of the canister with fuel, removal of the transfer cask from the SFP, transfer cask decon (so all welding is performed non contaminated) and the download of the canister from the transfer cask to the shield cask.
As for dose rates on the casks…
On the side of the cask dose rates are usually <1-1 mrem/hr gamma and <1 mrem/hr neutron on contact. Dose rates at the bottom vent covers are usually <1-2 mrem/hr gamma and <1-1.5 mrem/hr neutron on contact. Dose rates at the top vent covers are about the same. General are dose rates around the storage pad are measured in microRem. Our casks are the vertical design.
You forgot…
13. Chew up the newly paved heavy-haul path transporting the hundred ton cask to the ISFSI.
Good comment.
Our crawler is nicknamed “Greased Lighting”…..
At a blinding speed of 1 mph, it takes almost 2 hours to get it from just outside the reactor building doors, through the protected area and on to the ISFSI pad..
Thanks.
When I tried to post this thank you,
Got “your comment is too short, please try and say something
useful”. This is called “artificial intelligence”.
Crawlers and pavement must be cheap compared to air-cushion vehicles. Using a hovercraft with lightly-loaded flotation tires for traction you ought to be able to move many times faster and more smoothly to boot.
Just confirmed 300 mrem/cask at my site. Absolute minimum would be 100 mrem/cask for the PWRs for the nth cask (after the crew has had some practice).
So low… 6% of a yearly 5R spread over a crew.
Yeah getting into a rhythm, lessons learned and on the spot new ideas for efficiency definitely help with overall exposures during the process…..for example.
Cask #1 – 472 mrem
Cask #2 – 427 mrem
Cask #3 – 332 mrem
Cask #4 – 378 mrem Actually had a roller break while we were moving the HI-STORM out of the RX building truck bay. 5 days later, and with a lot of sweating engineers due to upper management concerns, we bought, per the vendor, 50 gallons of Dawn (yes dish soap) and dumped it into the tracks and pulled the HI-STORM out no problem. This caused some extra dose.
Cask #5 – 375 mrem (hottest fuel load)
Cask #6 – 290 mrem
Cask # 7 – 283 mrem
Cask #8 – 268 mrem
Cask #9 – 249 mrem
At SONGS we haven’t achieved a 6 day turn around yet. I think the best we’ve done is 8 days. We’ve completed 14 of the 74 canisters we have to do (two more should be done soon). Then, after a 34-year career, SCE will kick me to the curb, I’ll be so happy to be free.
I cannot comment on the dose received per canister completed as I am in the control room not on the actual team performing the off-load. I will say that the pathway does get some rough treatment going up the incline to where the fuel is downloaded.
Anyone here a fan of the TV show, “Madam Secretary?” The last episode had a subplot where there characters bemoaned the sorry state of public opinion on nuclear power, driven by the environmentalist lobby. Even had the natgas mogul as a bad guy.
It sure was nice to hear “nuclear” in a fictional TV show without it being the boogeyman.
Has there ever been a TV show or movie (excluding Pandora’s Promise) that projected Nuclear Power in a positive light? This could possibly be a 1st!
I believe oncologist Julian Rosenman makes a pretty compelling case for using alpha particles from the decay of bismuth-213 as another tool for oncologists to use to treat leukemia patients in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eQLJielY58. 2.1% of the time this isotope decays by release of a (on average) high-energy alpha particle, and this isotope’s half-life is 46 minutes. I am in no position to assess Dr. Rosenman’s claim that 46 minutes is a desirable half-life for a medical radioisotope.
His argument, though, requires that there be a usable amount of Bi-213 available. Suppose that eventually there comes online some type of reactor that runs on the Th-232 & U-233 fuel cycle. A small fraction of the uranium-233 would eventually decay to bismuth-213.
However, to what extent is that bismuth technically accessible? Is it technically feasible to extract bismuth-213 and any other socially desirable components of used nuclear fuel and then reseal the fuel bundle?
Not possible for the bismuth at least because of the short half life. Other elements, with much longer half lives, have been extracted in the past, notably Americium.
Fair point David; I forgot to clarify something.
For precisely this reason I expect this guy supposed a longer-lived parent isotope would be extracted for transport and that the bismuth would only be separated the day it was to be administered.
Small Modular Reactors Will Soon Face a Moment of Reckoning
Jason Deign
Green Tech Media
2018 May 14
The Nuscale SMR has a “target” LCOE of but $65/MWh. It is not clear whether or not this target is for the first 12pak scheduled to be built on the Idaho National Laboratory reservation outside of Idaho Falls.
Does anyone know what their planned control room staffing is?
NuScale is proposing a control room staff of six licensed operators for their 12 pack power plant design.
Here’s some relatively recent correspondence from the NRC laying out NuScale’s obligation to provide sufficient evidence to support this substantial exemption to current regulations.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1530/ML15302A516.pdf
In other words, the concept has been neither accepted, nor rejected.
There are some places in this country that require people to recycle everything. There is now so much recycled trash that can’t be sold it is being dumped in landfills, yet by law we can not recycle SNF that still has 95% of its fuel.
Cuttler’s comments on the strategy of anti-nukes regarding used nuclear fuel/waste mirror perfectly my local anti-nuke numbskulls. One thing should be added, however, anti-nukes have no hesitation in lying, providing false information, and engaging in hyperbole. They will keep repeating debunked reports and their exposed exaggerations no matter how many times you refute them…so keep calling them out.
“anti-nukes have no hesitation in lying, providing false information, and engaging in hyperbole. They will keep repeating debunked reports and their exposed exaggerations no matter how many times you refute them…so keep calling them out.”
Why do they do this? Are they somehow getting paid to do this?
I am not refuting your assertion. However, it seems like people would have bigger fish to fry and easier targets than nuke plants. They can’t all be paid by the oil industry.
Of course they are. The Sierra Club, for example, is a captive of a certain wealthy donor. “Atoms Not Dams” became “No Nukes” because that’s where the money was. The position goes 100% against the declared goals of keeping energy consumption and population down to protect the environment. Once the price of plants went up it would have made FAR more sense to demand that all California electricity be nuclear and hang the cost (because it would be emissions-free), but they were being paid to kill nuclear.
The once-ZPG Sierra Club’s donor is also interested in open borders. Hang the environment, he’s got 6 billion wannabe-Americans to accomodate.
Nuclear generated 805 TWh in the US last year. If that had been generated by natural gas instead at 45% efficiency, it would have consumed 6.1 quads of gas. This would have added some 20% to US consumption and probably given pricing power back to producers. Even at $4/mmBTU, that market would be worth over $24 billion a year. That’s one mighty big fish.
Richard Rhodes has an excellent presentation on the history of energy substitution from animal power to nuclear power. It was given at ORZnzl.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3vZPTmHS7o
Sure, the waste ”problem” continues to dominate the discussion.
It is difficult to get the public to understand and accept the realities.
I have tried. See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-LC
However the exaggerated prices we pay for nuclear in The West may be an even more serious issue.
It is a shame that the accident at Three Mile Island should be allowed to impose ridiculous regulations for more safety.
On http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1TM I have tried to analyze the accident at Three Mile Island and the consequences for the industry.
To be short: We went into panic and left the market for Russia, Korea and China.
Who will try to mend also this problem?
@Thorkil says June 25, 2018 at 10:11 AM
“It is a shame that the accident at Three Mile Island should be allowed to impose ridiculous regulations for more safety.”
I understand what you are trying to say, but it is not that “accident” that is imposing ridiculous regulation… it is PEOPLE, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is long past time for a discussion about a more effective way to regulate nuclear power.
“To be short: We went into panic….” Sorry… but if you lived through this history in real time, we were told by none other that NRC, via national news and press releases, that it was TIME TO PANIC! And panic they did.
If you want to continue this discussion, Rod has my contact info.
Let’s not forget the report the Jimmy Carter himself knew that the TMI problem was far less harmful than the anti-nuke extremists among his supporters wanted to hear. He was about the only openly Christian president of whom I approved, but that was cowardly lying.
I really like the idea of declaring the used material to be valuable private property. At the current price range of eight to fifteen cents a kWh, the fact that one kg of U-238 can become a kg of Pu-239 and by fission in current quite low temperature reactors produce 8 million kWh, means that every kilogram of 96% of that property is worth a million dollars, more in a higher temperature reactor.
It’s a propaganda argument, but it’s also true!
I like the idea that the nuclear power plant owners should be proud of safeguarding this Good Stuff.