After Japan’s devastating 9.0 magnitude earthquake, concern at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex was focused on its six reactors. But there was another problem brewing. Six years worth of hot radioactive waste, in on-site storage pools, started to overheat. They quickly caught fire. Radioactive debris spread into the air and water. The spent fuel pools proved as deadly as the damaged reactor cores.
So why was 3,400 tons of nuclear waste — in seven poorly sheltered pools — held in such vulnerable conditions?
After 45 years of nuclear power generation, Japan still lacks a long-term waste disposal plan. But the tragic consequences at Fukushima frame a starker reality: None of the 31 countries with nuclear power plants have a long-term storage facility in operation.
And the United States — home to more nuclear reactors than any other nation — remains as stymied as ever.
In Nye County, Nev., a barren ochre ridgeline cuts through the Mojave Desert. Temperatures in summer push past 110?. Annual rainfall is six inches. Death Valley is 50 miles west; Las Vegas, hours east. Not exactly prime real estate.
To make the area even less appealing, the Army detonated 904 atomic bombs here between 1945 and 1992. For these reasons, the Energy Department decided in 2002 to build a permanent home for commercial nuclear waste here. The Yucca Mountain Repository was born. Seven years later, Congress killed it.
Why it was killed and how other nations have dealt with their waste disposal challenges, illustrate the options Washington faces in avoiding the catastrophe in Japan.
There are two ways to look at the Yucca Mountain cancellation. First, consider the technical arguments against it. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who once backed the project, laid out these concerns in 2009 Senate testimony.
Chu noted that Yucca Mountain is in a tectonically active zone, prone to earthquakes and volcanoes. In 2007, fears were exacerbated when the Bow Ridge fault line was discovered running directly under the site.
Opponents have also pointed out that the Yucca repository would store spent fuel in an “oxidizing” environment. The waste would be exposed to air and water, causing it to degrade more quickly, releasing higher doses of radiation than health experts consider safe.
Other countries’ proposed repositories have been reduced-oxygen environments, for example in mineral caverns. But the science on both sides here is disputed. There is no consensus on what dangers Yucca Mountain might pose in tens of thousands of years.
There is a second, perhaps more astute, way to explain resistance to the Yucca site: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The Democratic leader made shutting down the Yucca repository a paramount goal. His re-election campaign touted that funding for the site had decreased each year since he became leader. Consider it a case of radioactive NIMBY — Nevada residents don’t want nuclear storage in their back yard.
But what are the alternatives? The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, created by Chu in 2010, has highlighted options from other nations.