Over the last 50 years, nuclear energy has reduced US energy-related CO2 emissions by over 30 gigatons compared to if the same electricity were produced by fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. However, many kilotons of spent nuclear fuel have accumulated at different sites across the country, and sociopolitical factors have frustrated efforts to address the challenge of nuclear waste disposal. Presently, a consolidated interim storage facility in Andrews, Texas, provides a promising temporary solution. In this paper, we compare the technical and policy risks of the project to continued storage at independent spent fuel storage installations. Our results indicate that the cost of the radiological risk is low (<$30,000) for both scenarios. However, policy and societal considerations will impact the viability of the proposed consolidated interim storage facility. The safety and suitability of this interim storage facility will be affected by when a permanent repository becomes available, whether insurance for offsite waste storage is available, and the impact of climate risks. Although a consolidated interim storage facility at Andrews can potentially serve as a safe and economically advantageous solution, we highlight why these concerns must be addressed for the successful implementation of this facility, and more broadly for the future of the US nuclear industry.
International Energy Agency. Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System. Paris: EIA, 2019.
2.
World Nuclear Association. Nuclear power in the world today. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx (2021, accessed 20 March 2021).
3.
Houssin DDujardinTCameronR, et al.. Technology Roadmap-Nuclear Energy. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2015.
4.
SovacoolBK. Critically weighing the costs and benefits of a nuclear renaissance. J Integr Environ Sci2010; 7: 105–123.
5.
BirkholzerJHouseworthJTsangC-F. Geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste: status, key issues, and trends. Annu Rev Environ Resour2012; 37:79-106.
6.
National Research Council. Disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel: the continuing societal and technical challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2001, p.3.
7.
Larson R. Nuclear waste storage sites in the United States, Report. Congressional Research Service. 2020.
8.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-nuclear-waste-policy-act (1982, accessed 19 December 2020).
9.
United States Government Accountability Office. Nuclear Waste: Benefits and Costs Should Be Better Understood Before DOE Commits to a Separate Repository for Defense Waste. Report No. GAO-17-174. Washington, DC, 2017.
10.
AlleyWMAlleyR. The growing problem of stranded used nuclear fuel. Environ Sci Technol2014; 48: 2091–2096.
11.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Locations of low-level waste disposal facilities, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/licensing/locations.html (2010, accessed 21 December 2020).
12.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental impact statement for Interim Storage Partners LLC's license application for a consolidated interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in Andrews County, Texas – draft report for comment (NUREG-2239). Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 2020.
13.
U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts Andrews County, Texas, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/andrewscountytexas (2019, accessed 15 December 2020).
Office of the Texas Governor. Abbott Opposition Letter September 2020, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7221057-Abbott-Opposition-Letter-September-2020.html (2020, accessed 6 November 2020).
16.
Railroad Commission of Texas. Permian Basin information, https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/major-oil-and-gas-formations/permian-basin-information/ (2020, accessed 1 November 2020).
17.
MacfarlaneA. Underlying Yucca mountain: the interplay of geology and policy in nuclear waste disposal. Soc Stud Sci2003; 33: 783–807.
18.
WahlströmB. Societal rationality; towards an understanding of decision making processes in society. Technical Research Centre of Finland. Espoo, Finland. 2001.
19.
KhanKJ. Criticality of Communication on Nuclear Risk and Safety in Nuclear Energy Sector. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research2016; 2(11): 1950–1963.
20.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Effective risk communication- The nuclear regulatory commission's guidelines for external risk communication,NUREG/BR-0308. Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Washington, DC. 2004.
21.
AhnJGuarnieriFFurutaK. Resilience: A new paradigm of nuclear safety: From accident mitigation to resilient society facing extreme situations. Springer Nature, 2017.
22.
CookJ. Spent fuel transportation risk assessment (NUREG-2125). Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC; 2014. p.29.
23.
BernardoBC. Design, construction and testing of packaging for the transport of radioactive materials. International Atomic Energy Agency, 1979. pp. 2-1 - 2-9.
24.
BjorkmanGChuangT-JEinzigerR, et al. A pilot probabilistic risk assessment of a dry cask storage system at a nuclear power plant (NUREG-1864). Washington, DC; 2007.
25.
ConnellLW. Dirty bomb risk and impact, USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM. Report No: SAND2017-9121R 656530, 2017.
26.
LunaRENeuhauserKSVigilMG. Projected source terms for potential sabotage events related to spent fuel shipments. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA. Report No. No. SAND99-0963, 1999.
27.
Office of Management and Budget. Discount Rates for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Federal Programs, Office of Economic Policy,Register Volume 85, Number 249. Washington, DC; 2020.
28.
AlvarezR. Spent nuclear fuel pools in the U.S.: reducing the deadly risks of storage. Institute for Policy Studies, 2011. p. 8.
29.
Federal Aviation Administration. Treatment of the values of life and injury in economic analysis. Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 2010, pp. 1-4.
30.
MoranMMonjeC. Guidance on the treatment of the economic value of a statistical life in US Department of transportation analyses (Memorandum to Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators). Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Washington, DC; 2016.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Assessing the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, Types of nuclear facility. Report No. 222. London; 2004.
33.
HarperFTMusolinoSVWenteWB. Realistic radiological dispersal device hazard boundaries and ramifications for early consequence management decisions. Health Phys2007; 93: 1–16.
34.
LaddMD. Risk and the economic impacts of a radiological dispersal device (RDD), USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. Sandia National Lab. Report No. SAND2018-6226PE 664235. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM); 2018.
35.
RosoffHvon WinterfeldtD. A risk and economic analysis of dirty bomb attacks on the ports of Los Angeles and long beach. Risk Anal2007; 27: 533–546.
36.
HornyakT. Clearing the radioactive rubble heap that Was fukushima daiichi, 7 years On. Sci Am, 2018.
37.
World Nuclear Association. Nuclear power in Japan, https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx (2020, accessed 20 December 2020).
38.
National Research Council. Safety and security of commercial spent nuclear fuel storage. Washington,DC: The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine, 2006.
39.
World Nuclear Association. Transport of radioactive materials, https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/transport-of-nuclear-materials/transport-of-radioactive-materials.aspx (2017, accessed 10 October 2020).
40.
RamanaMV. An enduring problem: radioactive waste from nuclear energy [point of view]. Proc IEEE2017; 105: 415–418.
International Atomic Energy Agency. International nuclear and radiological event scale, https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/international-nuclear-and-radiological-event-scale (1990, accessed 1 October 2020).
43.
National Research Council. Improving the regulation and management of low-activity radioactive wastes, Washington,DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.
44.
U.S. Department of Energy. Report to congress on the Price-Anderson Act, Office of the General Counsel. 1998.
45.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage. Vienna, Austria; 1997.
46.
American International Group. Environmental insurance, https://www.aig.com/business/insurance/environmental#accordion-child_po_accordion_3 (2020, accessed 12 October 2020).
47.
Zurich American Insurance Company. Pollution liability insurance, zurichna.com/insurance/pollution-liability (2020, accessed 12 October 2020).
48.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. Terrorism risk insurance program. Federal Insurance Office. 2019, accessed 10 October 2020.
49.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Use of the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1533/ML15335A187.pdf (2015).
50.
SlovicPFlynnJHLaymanM. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science1991; 254: 1603.
51.
Nuclear Energy Institute. Diverse and flexible coping strategies (FLEX) implementation guide. Washington D.C., 2012. pp 8-12.
52.
Flavelle and Lin. U.S. nuclear power plants weren’t built for climate change, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-nuclear-power-plants-climate-change/ (2019, accessed 21 October 2020).
53.
NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Sea level rise viewer, Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/ (2020, accessed 1 October 2020).
54.
PetersenMDShumwayAMPowersPM, etal. The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications. Earthquake Spectra2019; 36(1): 5–41. doi: 10.1177/8755293019878199
55.
FrohlichCHaywardCRosenblitJ, et al.Onset and cause of increased seismic activity near Pecos, West Texas, United States, from observations at the lajitas TXAR seismic array. J Geophys Res Solid Earth2020; 125.
56.
KimJ-WZhongL. Association between localized geohazards in West Texas and human activities, recognized by sentinel-1A/B satellite radar imagery. Sci Rep2018; 8.
57.
The National Drought Mitigation Center. United States drought monitor, https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ (2020, accessed September 15, 2020).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
