BEYOND YUCCA MOUNTAIN: DECENTRALIZATION AND INNOVATION FOR U.S. NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT SEPTEMBER 2019 JAMESON MCBRIDE, JESSICA LOVERING, TED NORDHAUS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The future of nuclear power in the United States depends on the future of nuclear waste management. For nuclear to have a sustainable future in providing clean and reliable electricity, spent fuel from commercial reactors must be handled safely, se- curely, and with the consent of local communities. Little progress has been made on a nationally centralized nuclear waste repository, as the effort has been dogged by controversy and partisan conflict. Since the pas- sage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, every administration has vacillated on key aspects of commercial nuclear waste policy, including construction of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, pursuit of reprocessing capacity, and planning for interim storage facilities. Over time, the federal government has effectively foreclosed every potential solution other than building the repository at Yucca Mountain. However, since the government is not building the repository, it is failing to meet its self-imposed legal obligations to own and manage waste, and taxpayers are paying legal penalties that amount to billions of dollars per year. Meanwhile, the federal government has suspended col- lection of the Nuclear Waste Fund from utilities and ratepayers. Concerns about nuclear waste and its disposal continue to represent a significant source of public opposition to nuclear power, and several states have moratoria on the construction of new commercial reactors until a solution for waste is identified. Because nuclear energy remains the largest source of clean electricity in the Unit- ed States, and expanding nuclear capacity is virtually necessary to achieve deep reductions in carbon emissions, the failure to develop a politically acceptable ap- proach to nuclear waste management is a climate issue too. The key recommendations of this report are consent-based, decentralized waste storage in the near term, and public investment in innovative waste management technologies for the long term. 2 THE BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE / BEYOND YUCCA MOUNTAIN In Part I, we analyze the historical development of US waste policy through to its current impasse. We note the sources of the current dysfunction, as the federal gov- ernment narrowed the options for waste management and made no substantive progress toward constructing a centralized disposal site. In Part II, we propose ending the current federally centralized, one-site model and instead decentralizing nuclear waste management by formalizing the existing system of interim dry cask storage. Currently, nuclear waste is safely managed in cooling pools and dry casks at the sites of existing power plants. Dry cask storage has had a flawless safety record and allows waste to be easily monitored, accessed, and managed. We argue that these decentralized storage sites should be formally licensed as interim storage sites with the consent of local communities. Then, as designated nuclear waste management facilities, the sites can provide benefits to their communities through payments from the Nuclear Waste Fund. For communities that do not consent to on-site storage, waste should be moved to the closest available consolidated interim storage sites that gain consent. Rather than expecting the federal government to build a single, centralized repository, this decentralized policy would formalize the existing successful system and enable it to evolve, with local communities as formal stakeholders. In Part III, we discuss the need for innovation in advanced waste management tech- nologies to ensure a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle in the long term. We canvass a suite of emerging technologies for waste disposal, waste-fueled reactors, alter- native reprocessing techniques, and proposed reforms to the international fuel cy- cle. We propose expanding the current federal funding and policies for promoting advanced nuclear energy generation to include technologies that would explicitly improve waste management; we also envision the use of decentralized interim waste storage facilities as sites for ongoing innovation for both advanced nuclear genera- tion and disposal technologies. 3 CONTENTS 5 I. The Waste Challenge Reaching the Waste Impasse Expanding the Options and a Vision for the Future 10 II. Formalizing and Improving the Existing Waste System Decentralization Consent-Based Site Selection 17 III. Innovating for the Nuclear Future Alternative Disposal Technologies Waste-Fueled Reactors Recycling and Reprocessing An Innovation Agenda for Waste 35 References 4 THE BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE / BEYOND YUCCA MOUNTAIN I. THE WASTE CHALLENGE The future of nuclear power in the United States depends on the future of nuclear waste management. For political, legal, economic, environmental, and public health reasons, nuclear waste matters. The failure of US nuclear waste management policy is holding back nuclear power, and a change to the current policy is desperately needed. Nuclear waste continues to be a significant source of public opposition to nuclear power, and the American public is not confident in the government’s current plans for waste management.1 Public opinion polls illustrate a distrust for centralized nuclear waste disposal.2 On occasion, nuclear advocates dismiss the nuclear waste issue as merely “political” and not technical in nature, with the implication that the technical questions have been solved.3 But the remaining public concern around waste man- agement should serve as ample reason to take the issue seriously. There are numerous economic and legal ramifications from the current dysfunction. The federal government has faced lawsuits due to its inaction on nuclear waste, and taxpayers have been forced to pay at least $7.4 billion to utilities in damages.4 A total of seven states have moratoria on the construction of new nuclear power plants until a waste disposal or reprocessing technology is identified and approved.5 These states include California, Illinois, and New Jersey — three of the biggest po- tential markets for new nuclear plants. Regardless of the future of nuclear generation technology, these states will have no new nuclear capacity until the waste issue is resolved. Nuclear waste management matters for public health and environmental steward- ship. Although the existing commercial nuclear waste at reactor sites around the country is stored safely, and properly managed nuclear waste poses little threat to human welfare, public health should still be the primary criterion for nuclear waste policy. The experience with weapons-related military waste can be instructive for the commercial power sector. Difficulties in radioactive cleanup at the nuclear mili- tary sites at Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina, illustrate the 5 public health risks of poor waste management. Creating a sustainable nuclear waste regime for the power sector would help mitigate public health risks in the future. Managing nuclear waste is also a climate issue. A majority of climate stabilization scenarios published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change require nu- clear generation to be either sustained or expanded.6 Countries with a high share of their electric generation from nuclear power, like France, have some of the lowest carbon intensities of electricity in the world — whereas Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear reactors, is set to miss its climate targets.7 Current efforts to protect American nuclear plants from closing are driven largely by concerns about carbon dioxide emissions. When reactors have closed, they have been replaced mostly by fossil fuels.8 Thus, achieving rapid decarbonization in the United States requires pro- tecting or expanding our nuclear power supply. Policy solutions for nuclear waste management will help ensure that can happen. US Power Sector Nuclear Waste by the Numbers How much waste is there? 81,518 tonnes of high-level waste in storage in the US at the end of 201779 97 percent of all nuclear waste by volume is low- or intermediate-level waste, like contami- nated clothing, tools, filters, and reactor components80 3 percent of waste is HLW, mostly spent fuel, but this waste accounts for 95 percent of the radiotoxicity81 Where is it stored? 90 storage installations, mainly near reactor sites, in cooling pools and dry concrete casks82 How much is generated per year? 2,200 tonnes of spent fuel per year in the United States83 Reaching the Waste Impasse The earliest regimes of US nuclear waste management were characterized by strong federal control and an overwhelming focus on military waste. The first declassified government document on nuclear waste disposal dates from 1957.9 It proposed using geological formations of salt deposits to store waste from nuclear weapons production, which had been stored in the interim at federal sites in Hanford, Wash- 6 THE BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE / BEYOND YUCCA MOUNTAIN ington; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Savannah River, South Carolina.10 At that point, commercial nuclear power was still in its infancy. Notably, this early report was confident that a future adoption of fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors would limit waste from commercial reactors significantly. Commercial nuclear power grew rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, largely with light-water reactor designs that used fresh fuel. However, the federal government decided not to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and justified