The public has long been familiar with the problem of high level radioactive waste disposal at Yucca Mountain. In the next 12 months, the nation will face a second crisis, of disposal of low level waste. Low level waste is not the spent fuel itself, but rather many objects that have absorbed radiation, such as pipes, tools, resins, filters, medical tools, protective clothing, and whole sections from decommissioned nuclear power plants.

The scheduled closing of the disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina in June 2008 will leave the majority of reactors unable to dispose of certain low-level waste. Hospitals, universities and research facilities will also be affected. For the lowest-level radioactive waste there will be only one privately owned disposal site available for the majority of the waste generated, in Clive, Utah. The answer to this challenge is in part additional disposal sites—a difficult proposition since most states don’t want to allow new sites to be built within their borders. We also must take steps to assure that existing sites are used optimally. The best technology should be encouraged, including volume reduction, waste stabilization and best disposal site management techniques to conserve space.

Until now, our system has silently but effectively dealt with the disposal of low-level nuclear waste. However the GAO reports that this system no longer meets the disposal requirement for the United States. The consequences may harm the $15 billion per year commercial nuclear power industry, which is on the verge of a renaissance. As general counsel of Studsvik, a leading company involved in using modern technology to efficiently and safely dispose of low-level waste, it is clear to me that the government must act now.

After 2008, hospitals, universities, and commercial nuclear power stations will need to store the most dangerous classes of low-level waste indefinitely, on-site, and closer to the public.

In the 1980s, Congress enacted a program permitting formation of multi-state compacts to encourage creation of more low-level waste disposal sites. Commercial nuclear generators and state governments spent over $800 million attempting to open new sites. States have resisted creating such facilities within their borders. As a result of this failure and the huge price of entry (licensing, public opposition, etc.), no new low-level waste disposal sites have opened in almost 20 years. Only three active, designated disposal sites exist with one new site in Texas in the permitting processes. One, in Richland, Washington, only accepts waste from 11 Northwestern and Rocky Mountain states (notably, only one reactor is in operation in these states).

The second, in Barnwell, South Carolina, has for years been open to disposal of low-level waste, but starting in June 2008, the site will accept waste from only three states (containing just 12 of America’s 104 operational reactors). A bill to keep Barnwell more accessible failed when the South Carolina legislature declined to act. While the federal government seems concerned, it has not made clear how it will respond under its limited emergency powers to keep the site open for out-of-compact waste.

The third site, a privately-owned facility in Clive, Utah, after 2008 will be the last remaining one to accept commercially-generated low-level waste from across the nation. However, in March, Utah’s governor signed an agreement with the owner of the site capping the volume of the lowest class of low-level waste (Class A) that Clive will accept, and forbidding delivery of higher activity “Class B” and “Class C” waste. It is unlikely the governor will revisit his decision.

Taken together, the South Carolina and Utah actions mean that after 2008, nuclear generators in 36 states will have access to no permanent disposal facilities for Class B and C waste. As a result, hospitals, universities, and commercial nuclear power will need to store the most dangerous classes of low-level waste indefinitely, on-site, and closer to the public. Worse yet, guarding these myriad small storage sites from terror attacks is more difficult than securing a few designated disposal facilities.

Further, the nation is on the verge of markedly increasing the volume of low-level waste it generates. This increase is largely due to the growing number of older reactors now going off-line, requiring dismantling of the reactor and decommissioning of the site. At the same time, the nation is considering building approximately 20 new nuclear power reactors, the first application for construction of a new reactor having been recently submitted to NRC.  

We must face this looming second crisis in nuclear waste disposal because nuclear energy itself is a direct and positive answer to our national goal of energy independence. It is also a key component in meeting expected demands for electricity. Without support for and expansion of nuclear energy, neither of these challenges can be achieved. The Administration and Congress have recognized the key role that nuclear power will play in our future.

Nuclear energy has a proven safe record in electricity generation and the technology is very inexpensive to operate compared to fossil fuels. As an example, South Carolina residents enjoy very low electricity rates in large part due to the significant portion of electricity generated by nuclear energy in that state.

Of no less importance is the fact that nuclear energy does not generate any greenhouse gases to create electricity. In the May 2005 edition of Technology Review, noted environmentalist Stewart Brand wrote: “The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.”

Since it is clear that the 20 year old system of state-compacts has not led to sufficient waste disposal, national, state and local governments must mobilize to help meet these challenges. Sound policy can address the looming crisis and provide the framework for the expansion of nuclear energy to safely and economically meet our Nation’s energy demands.

Given these stakes, Congress, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must address this lack of disposal capacity. There are essentially three options.

First, the federal government could again try to encourage states to accept the waste. But this is unlikely to yield dividends, given that states have not welcomed radioactive waste from other states.

Second, the government could open up federally-owned disposal sites to commercially-generated low-level waste. This probably will not happen, because the federal government currently uses the three state sites to dispose of its own low-level waste.

A third option—the most environmentally-conscientious one—is for the government to promote techniques that stabilize and minimize the volume of low-level waste prior to disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1981 issued a policy calling for increased attention to this option, but the Commission has done little to implement it. Those technologies can lengthen the life of disposal sites without the need for expansion as well as substantially reducing the possibility of contamination outside of disposal site boundaries. An effective market-based option available to the federal government is to end the practice, followed by some disposal sites and state governments, of price discrimination. This practice results in the disposal facilities charging higher rates and taxes for stabilized and compacted waste than for the same volume of untreated waste. As a result, the United States fails to use optimally our scarce disposal capacity.

There is no more time to wait. The federal government must do everything possible to encourage or require the few existing disposal sites to stabilize and reduce the volume of low-level waste. And direct federal intervention is necessary to ensure that after June 2008, 28 states (housing 91 of the 104 reactors in the U.S.) can deposit their “Class B and C” waste in a designated disposal site, rather than leaving it scattered at power plants, universities, and hospitals. After the actions in Utah and South Carolina, the clock is ticking.

Joseph DiCamillo is the general counsel of Studsvik, Inc., a subsidiary of a Swedish firm providing nuclear technology and radiological services to the nuclear industry around the world.

Image credit: Photo by flickr user cudmore.