Interim Storage, Environmental Justice, and Generational Equity

With the termination of the Yucca Mountain project, which was proposed to be our nation’s first repository for the disposal of military and civilian spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, the future of nuclear waste management and disposal in this country became increasingly uncertain. Interim storage has been advocated by many as a temporary solution while a permanent solution is studied for potentially several more decades to come. Should we embrace interim storage as a safe and effective method of storage while this country takes a fresh new look at the nuclear waste problem, or are we simply passing this burden on to future generations? One could argue that we have an ethical obligation to provide a safe and secure environment for future generations; thus, we need a long-term (permanent) solution to the nuclear waste problem now rather than delaying any further. Interim storage potentially exposes nearby residents to radioactive contaminants from accidents and leaks or acts of sabotage or terrorism, and it threatens the national security of this country because these nuclear materials will be more vulnerable to theft, especially during transportation to storage sites for the surplus waste. Additionally, interim storage presumes that future societies will maintain adequate knowledge and will be sufficiently stable and capable of maintaining the safety of the facility and protecting human health and the environment, and there is always the risk that the waste will be forgotten or simply ignored over time. More importantly, it is not fair to leave this problem for future generations to resolve. On the other hand, one could argue that interim storage would provide a safe, flexible, and cost-effective short-term solution while scientists and authorities evaluate alternatives (e.g., disposal options) and policy issues (e.g., reprocessing of spent fuel). Interim storage is a necessary part of the fuel cycle and is meant to complement, not replace, other approaches. It keeps all options open and provides maximum flexibility to adapt to future policies, perceptions, attitudes, regulations, and technology developments. Moreover, the technology is safe and cost effective. The cost of storing spent fuel for 40 years is less than a tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that dry cask storage of spent fuel would be safe for 100 years1 . The argument that interim storage is a risk to national security is overblown because the plutonium is bound up in spent fuel assemblies making it difficult to steal and recover the plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. Finally, is it fair to deprive future generations the opportunity to decide the fate of this country’s nuclear waste? Both sides of the issue are discussed and debated.