Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants

National strategies to manage nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power plants are analyzed and compared. The current strategy is to try to operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to dispose of high-level nuclear waste underground. The main alternatives involve temporary above-ground storage at a centralized facility or next to nuclear power plants. If either of these is pursued now, the analysis assumes that a repository will be built in 2100 for waste not subsequently put to use. The analysis treats various uncertainties: whether a repository at Yucca Mountain would be licensed, possible theft and misuse of the waste, innovations in repository design and waste management, the potential availability of a cancer cure by 2100, and possible future uses of nuclear waste. The objectives used to compare alternatives include concerns for health and safety, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and direct economic costs, as well as equity concerns (geographical, intergenerational, and procedural), indirect economic costs to electricity ratepayers, federal government responsibility to manage nuclear waste, and implications of theft and misuse of nuclear waste. The analysis shows that currently building an underground repository at Yucca Mountain is inferior to other available strategies by the equivalent of $10,000 million to $50,000 million. This strongly suggests that this policy should be reconsidered. A more detailed analysis using the framework presented would help to define a new national policy to manage nuclear waste.     

Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository

The siting of nuclear waste facilities has been very difficult in all countries. Recent experience in Sweden indicates, however, that it may be possible, under certain circumstances, to gain local support for the siting of a high-level nuclear waste (HLNW) repository. The article reports on a study of attitudes and risk perceptions of people living in four municipalities in Sweden where HLNW siting was being intensely discussed at the political level, in media, and among the public. Data showed a relatively high level of consensus on acceptability of at least further investigation of the issue; in two cases local councils have since voted in favor of a go-ahead, and in one case only a very small majority defeated the issue. Models of policy attitudes showed that these were related to attitude to nuclear power, attributes of the perceived HLNW risk, and trust. Factors responsible for acceptance are discussed at several levels. One is the attitude to nuclear power, which is becoming more positive, probably because no viable alternatives are in sight. Other factors have to do with the extensive information programs conducted in these municipalities, and with the logical nature of the conclusion that they would be good candidates for hosting the national HLNW repository.     

Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository

A questionnaire with items that had been used in a national survey of the general public was administered to persons attending an American Nuclear Society meeting. The items asked about risks associated with high-level nuclear waste (HLNW), trust in nuclear-waste program managers, costs and benefits of a repository project, and images of a HLNW repository. The results suggest that nuclear industry experts may have very different opinions from the general public about most of these items and their images of a repository indicate a vastly different conceptual framework within which their opinions are formed.     

An Analysis of the Portfolio of Sites to Characterize for Selecting a Nuclear Repository

The U.S. Department of Energy has selected three sites, from five nominated, to characterize for a nuclear repository to permanently dispose of nuclear waste. This decision was made without the benefit of an analysis of this "portfolio" problem. This paper analyzes different portfolios of three sites for simultaneous characterization and strategies for sequential characterization. Characterization of each site, which involves significant subsurface excavation, is now estimated to cost $1 billion. Mainly because of the high characterization costs, sequential characterization strategies are identified which are the equivalent of $1.7-2.0 billion less expensive than the selected DOE simultaneous characterization of the three sites. If three sites are simultaneously characterized, one portfolio is estimated to be the equivalent of $100-400 million better than the selected DOE portfolio. Because of these potential savings and several other complicating factors that may influence the relative desirability of characterization strategies, a thorough analysis of characterization strategies that addresses the likelihood of finding disqualifying conditions during site characterization, uncertainties, and dependencies in forecast site repository costs, preclosure and postclosure health and safety impacts, potential delays of both sequential and simultaneous characterization strategies, and the environmental, socioeconomic, and health and safety impacts of characterization activities is recommended.     

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.     

The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco

The U.S. Congress has designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the only potential site to be studied for the nation's first high-level nuclear waste repository. People in Nevada strongly oppose the program, managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Survey research shows that the public believes there are great risks from a repository program, in contrast to a majority of scientists who feel the risks are acceptably small. Delays in the repository program resulting in part from public opposition in Nevada have concerned the nuclear power industry, which collects the fees for the federal repository program and believes it needs the repository as a final disposal facility for its high-level nuclear wastes. To assist the repository program, the American Nuclear Energy Council (ANEC), an industry group, sponsored a massive advertising campaign in Nevada. The campaign attempted to assure people that the risks of a repository were small and that the repository studies should proceed. The campaign failed because its managers misunderstood the issues underlying the controversy, attempted a covert manipulation of public opinion that was revealed, and most importantly, lacked the public trust that was necessary to communicate credibly about the risks of a nuclear waste facility.     

Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities

The paper by Metz challenges the view that stigma associated with a nuclear waste repository might lead to significant economic losses to the host region. We have been invited to comment on the general issues raised by this paper. We find that much of the evidence presented in the paper consists of factual and conceptual errors and misrepresentations of the research literature. Based on our review of evidence documenting the social and economic impacts of perceived risk, we conclude that stigma is an important phenomenon that is symptomatic of fundamental problems with the way in which nuclear waste facilities are sited.     

Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model

Residents in the State of Nevada hold strong opinions about the federal government's proposal to site the nation's first high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The model developed in this study is designed to examine the relationship between public perceptions of risk, trust in risk management, and potential economic impacts of the current repository program using a confirmatory multivariate method known as covariance structure analysis. The data used to test the model was collected in a 1989 statewide survey of Nevada residents. The results indicate that, for a statewide sample, perceptions of potential economic benefits do not have a significant role in predicting support or opposition to the repository program. On the other hand, risk perceptions and the level of trust in repository management are closely related to each other and to positions on Yucca Mountain. Trust directly influences risk perceptions which, in turn, have a direct effect on the attitude toward the repository, and an indirect effect through perceived stigma effects.     

Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada

This paper examines the sources of public opposition to a high-level nuclear waste repository among samples of 1001 residents of Nevada and a national sample of 1201 residents. Two models of choice are contrasted: A benefit-cost model and a risk-perception model of individual choice. The data suggest that the willingness of Nevada residents to accept a repository at Yucca Mountain depends upon subjective risk factors, especially the perceived seriousness of risk to future generations. Perceived risk depends in part on level of trust placed in the Department of Energy to manage a repository safely. Opposition to a local repository did not decrease significantly if compensation in the form of annual rebates, either ($1000, $3000, or $5000 per year for 20 years) were offered to residents. The public needs to be convinced before compensation is considered, that the repository will possess minimal risks to themselves as well as to future generations, and that the site currently targeted is suitable. One way to do this is through adoption of mitigation and control procedures such as strict federal standards and local control over the operation of the repository. The federal government should also consider returning to the fair procedure for selection between candidate sites specified in the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.     

Improbability of Igneous Intrusion Promoting a Critical Event in Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposed in Unsaturated Tuff

In their regulations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit the omission of features, events, or processes with probabilities of <10(-4) in 10(4) yr (e.g., a constant frequency of <10(-8) per yr) in assessments of the performance of radioactive waste disposal systems. Igneous intrusion (or "volcanism") of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for radioactive waste is one disruptive event that has a probability with a range of uncertainty that straddles this regulatory criterion and is considered directly in performance assessment calculations. A self-sustained nuclear chain reaction (or "criticality") is another potentially disruptive event to consider, although it was never found to be important when evaluating the efficacy of radioactive waste disposal since the early 1970s. The thesis of this article is that the consideration of the joint event--volcanism and criticality--occurring in any 10,000-year period following closure can be eliminated from performance calculations at Yucca Mountain. The probability of the joint event must be less than the fairly well-accepted but low probability of volcanism. Furthermore, volcanism does not "remove" or "fail" existing hydrologic or geochemical constraints at Yucca Mountain that tend to prevent concentration of fissile material. Prior to general corrosion failure of waste packages, the mean release of fissile mass caused by a low-probability, igneous intrusive event is so small that the probability of a critical event is remote, even for highly enriched spent nuclear fuel owned by the U.S. Department of Energy. After widespread failure of packages occurs, the probability of the joint event is less than the probability of criticality because of the very small influence of volcanism on the mean fissile mass release. Hence, volcanism plays an insignificant role in inducing criticality over any 10(4)-yr period. We also argue that the Oklo reactors serve as a natural analogue and provide a rough bound on probability of criticality given favorable hydrologic or geochemical conditions on the scale of the repository that is less than 0.10. Because the product of this bound with the probability of volcanism represents the probability of the joint event and the product is less than 10(-4) in 10(4) yr, consideration of the joint event can be eliminated from performance calculations.     

Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues

Unconventional gas development (UGD) is growing rapidly in the United States. Drawing on insights from risk perception and risk governance theories and recent public opinion surveys, we find that UGD is an emerging technology that is likely to be perceived as risky, even though objective risk assessments suggest that risks are low and controllable through best risk management practices. Perceived risk varies significantly depending on the state and locality but perceptions of risk appear to be increasing as the technology is used more widely in the United States and as organized opponents of the technology intensify their efforts. Risk perceptions are attenuated somewhat because of the perceived benefits of UGD and compensation schemes for individuals and communities. The types of triggering events necessary for large‐scale social amplification and stigmatization have not yet occurred but awareness of UGD is growing and organized opposition has been sufficient to cause prohibitions of UGD in some U.S. states and localities. Additional directions for social science research on public reactions to UGD are recommended.     

Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources,Perceived Risks,and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power

We examined how individuals perceive nuclear energy in the context of climate change mitigation and how their perceptions are associated with trust in different risk information sources. We analyzed the interrelationships between trust, perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, perception of nuclear energy as an acceptable way to mitigate climate change, and willingness to pay (WTP) for alternatives to nuclear power. A nationwide survey (N = 967) collected in Finland was analyzed with structural equation modeling. The associations between trust and perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, and perception of nuclear power as a way to mitigate climate change varied by the type of information source. Political party support and other background variables were associated with trust in different information sources. The effect of trust in information sources on WTP was mediated by perceived risks and benefits. The results will increase our understanding of how individuals perceive nuclear energy as a way to cut CO₂ emissions and the role of trust in different information sources in shaping nuclear risk perceptions and energy choices.     

Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust

Perceived risk and related attitudes have been implicated as major factors in many of the difficult policy problems that face modern society (nuclear power, genetically modified food, etc). Experts often argue that no or very small risks are involved; people are still worried. Why? The standard answer is lack of trust. Data on trust and risk perception, however, point to only a weak relationship between the two (r approximately 0.3). It is suggested here that the reason for the surprisingly minor importance of trust is that people believe that there are clear limits to how much science and experts know. Results are presented from studies of risk perception of the public, experts, and politicians. Politicians and members of the public believe that there are many unknown effects of technology and such beliefs were strongly related to their perceived risk. Experts on nuclear waste, on the other hand, seemed to believe that little is unknown in their field of expertise. Regression analyses of risk perception showed the unknown‐effects factor to be a more important explanatory factor than trust for the public and politicians.     

Waste Package Performance Evaluations for the Proposed High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain

The evaluation studies of the proposed repository for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, are underway. Fulfillment of the requirements for limiting dose to the public, which includes containment of the radioactive waste emplaced in the proposed repository and subsequent slow release of radionuclides from the Engineered Barrier System (EBS) into the geosphere, will rely on a robust waste container design, among other EBS components. Part of the evaluation process involves sensitivity studies aimed at elucidating which model parameters contribute most to the waste package and overlying drip shield degradation characteristics. The model parameters identified for this study include (1) general corrosion rate parameters and (2) stress corrosion cracking (SCC) parameters. Temperature dependence and parameter uncertainty are evaluated for the general corrosion rate model parameters while for the SCC model parameters, uncertainty treatment of stress intensity factor, crack initiation threshold, and manufacturing flaw orientations are evaluated. Based on these evaluations new uncertainty distributions are generated and recommended for future analyses. Also, early waste package failures due to improper heat treatment were added to the waste package degradation model. The results of these investigations indicate that the waste package failure profiles are governed by the manufacturing flaw orientation model parameters.     

A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Alternative Sites for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste

Five potential sites nominated for the Nation's first geologic repository for disposing of nuclear waste are evaluated using multiattribute utility analysis. The analysis was designed to aid the Department of Energy in its selection of 3 sites for characterization, a detailed data-gathering process that will involve the construction of exploratory shafts for underground testing and that may cost as much as $1 billion per site. The analysis produced insights into the relative advantages and disadvantages of the nominated sites and clarified current uncertainties regarding repository performance.     

Perceived Risks of Radioactive Waste Transport Through Oregon: Results of a Statewide Survey

Transportation of hazardous materials, and particularly radioactive wastes, on public highways has become an important risk management issue. The unfavorability of public attitudes regarding hazardous and nuclear wastes signals the potential for strong public opposition to programs for transporting these materials. This paper presents the results of a survey conducted to assess public reactions to a long-term nuclear waste transport program planned to follow a route through a portion of rural Oregon. The survey assessed a number of key risk perception issues, including perceived health and safety risks of nuclear waste transport, relative risks of transport vs. storage at an existing site, trust in state officials, and satisfaction with life in communities along the transport route. The survey identified a number of attitudes and concerns that need to be understood and considered by those in charge of designing and implementing the waste-transportation program.     

Risky Business: Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research

Attracting new technologies to a region can mean significant economic growth, so understanding why some communities may not favor becoming “the next Silicon Valley” merits consideration. This study investigates the relationship among the perceived behavior of local scientists and community members' attitudes toward their research. Drawing on theories from organizational justice, it hypothesizes that when local residents consider scientists as more just in their behavior, they will also have more favorable attitudes toward the scientists and their research. Just, in this sense, refers to whether scientists are perceived as fair in terms of outcomes, procedures, interpersonal treatment, and explanations in their dealings with the community. Favorable attitudes are measured in terms of concern about new technologies and satisfaction with research. Data were collected via a mail survey of residents in two upstate New York counties (N= 1,306) that host substantial technology research facilities. Controlling for demographics, media use, basic science knowledge, and technology awareness, the results show that distributive justice (i.e., fairness of outcomes) had a consistent, negative relationship with technology concern. In comparison, all four justice variables were positively related with research satisfaction. The findings suggest that the perceived behavior of local scientists may indeed impact community support for their research.     

Probabilistic Risk Analysis for a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository

A probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) for a high-level radioactive waste repository is very important since it gives an estimate of its health impacts, allowing comparisons to be made with the health impacts of competing technologies. However, it is extremely difficult to develop a credible PRA for a specific repository site because of large uncertainties in future climate, hydrology, geological processes, etc. At best, such a PRA would not be understandable to the public. An alternative proposed here is to develop a PRA for an average U.S. site, taking all properties of the site to be the U.S. average. The results are equivalent to the average results for numerous randomly selected sites. Such a PRA is presented here; it is easy to understand, and it is not susceptible to substantial uncertainty. Applying the results to a specific repository site then requires only a simple, intuitively acceptable "leap of faith" in assuming that with large expenditures of effort and money, experts can select a site that would be at least as secure as a randomly selected site.     

Developing and Testing a Facility Location Model for Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste

The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a facility location model for the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility in Canada. The model is based on successful Canadian siting processes related to hazardous waste and low level radioactive waste facilities, as well as attributes of facility siting found in the literature. The proposed model was presented to a sample of participants in the federal environmental assessment review of the technical feasibility of the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept (CNFWDC) held throughout Canada in 1990. Results demonstrate that despite the fact that over half of the survey respondents did not support the CNFWDC during the public hearings, the majority favorably rated the proposed facility location model. Components of the model that were tested included siting criteria and goals, decision-making groups, and siting safeguards. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility must make the decentralization of decision-making authority to local communities and governments a priority.     

Municipal Waste Management: Inequities and the Role of Deliberation

Like radioactive waste, municipal solid waste (MSW) requires consideration of a complex mix of intergenerational and intragenerational risks surrounded by uncertain science. Unlike radioactive waste, MSW is a common problem and hence one often perceived to be controllable, at least until a required facility is proposed in a particular community. The intragenerational risks focused on local communities rouse intense public pressures for management. Although some of the risks can be quantified, the risk assessment process cannot deal with all questions. This article examines the multiple dimensions of the decisions required to be made and the weaknesses of a number of decision tools traditionally used. A case is made for the need to integrate decision tools appropriate to the risks into reflexive and iterative decision processes open to public involvement. It is argued that this presents the best hope of both optimizing decisions about the intragenerational risks as well as raising public debate about the importance of sustainable waste management in transgenerational terms.