Nuclear Waste Disposal - Issues and Impact on

Industry and Society

Sarah M. Don

Physics ERT
Semester 4, 2008
Mr Maud

October 24, 2008

© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008

Introduction
The issue of nuclear power sparks debate worldwide due to its controversial waste disposal dilemma.
The use of nuclear fuel to generate power is becoming more prevalent in many countries around the
world as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise; however, its many benefits are often
overshadowed by the complications of nuclear waste disposal. New technologies are constantly
being developed to allow for more effective reprocessing and safer storage and disposal of nuclear
waste. Sometimes environmental issues are not the only governing factors in whether a country
decides to adopt waste reprocessing strategies. However controversial it is, nuclear energy seems to
be the cleaner power production method for present and future generations.

Nuclear Power Generation

Different designs of nuclear power plants vary in the way they use nuclear reactions to heat water.
However, the process of producing electricity from heated water is no different in a nuclear power
plant than it is in a coal or geothermal power plant. A circuit of water is heated to produce steam,
which turns turbines attached to a dynamo, which in turn produces electricity which is supplied to
the city grid.
In a nuclear power plant, the heat for creating steam is generated by nuclear fissions. The fuel
assembly inside a reactor can be made up of several different actinide compositions, but commonly
the most essential isotope is fissile U235. Only 0.7% of naturally occurring uranium is U235, while the
rest is U238 so U235 has to be enriched in the fuel assembly in order to have enough fissile material to
keep a steady nuclear reaction going.
The burnup (irradiation) process is started by firing several neutrons into the core of the reactor.
Some of these neutrons will collide with U235 atoms and be absorbed. The nucleus of U236 is very
unstable and begins to wobble, eventually causing the atom to split (fission) into two or three parts.
As shown in Figure 1, when the U236 atom fissions, several neutrons are liberated. These neutrons
then collide with other U235 atoms causing a chain reaction of nuclear fissions.
This chain reaction must be controlled, however,
by neutron absorbing materials called neutron
poisons. The neutron flux and thus rate of
fission in the core of a reactor can be manually
and electronically controlled by control rods
which slide in and out of the core between fuel
assemblies, absorbing neutrons. The wall of the
reactor core (steel and concrete) and any water
or gas inside the core also help to absorb
neutrons. The most ideal situation is that only
one neutron from every fission is allowed to
Figure 1 – Nuclear fission (NSDL, 2008)
cause another fission, while the others are
absorbed.

Fast vs. Thermal Reactors

The difference between a fast and a slow (“thermal”) reactor is the temperature at which it runs. In
a fast reactor, the core runs at a very high temperature compared to that of a thermal reactor. It is
called a fast reactor because as the core temperature increases, the speed of the liberated neutrons
increases.
The more water a reactor contains, the more “thermal” it is considered to be. As the amount of
water between the fuel rods in the reactor core decreases, the neutrons that are produced as a
result of nuclear fission are able to maintain a higher amount of energy since there are fewer water

© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008

molecules to slow them down. This causes the relative quantities of the different actinides in the
waste to be altered since the actinides’ ability
to capture neutrons varies with neutron
energies. This in turn, alters the ratio of the
waste constituents.
As shown in Figure 2, when a neutron is
travelling very fast, the cross-section of a
target atom appears small. This means that
when the majority of neutrons in the core are
travelling at high speeds, the ratio of liberated
neutrons to absorbed neutrons is quite large.
However, when the neutrons have less energy,
the cross-section of target atoms becomes Figure 2 – Atom cross-sections for neutrons of
much larger, making it easier for a neutron to different energies
be captured by an atom. This reduces the ratio between liberated and absorbed neutrons in the core
which requires less moderation by the control rods in order to keep controlled burnup inside the
core.
Thermal reactors use moderators such as light water (H2O) or heavy water (D2O), with which fast
neutrons from fission collide. This way the efficiency of the neutron captures is higher. Typically,
thermal reactors burn fuel for 50-60 MWd/kg (approximately 3-5 years depending on the type of
thermal reactor), staggered between three fuel batches inside the core. Fast reactors avoid
moderation. This increases the ratio of fission to capture and also facilitates the breeding of new
fissile isotopes such as Pu239 from U238 in certain designs (see Equation 1).
𝟐𝟑𝟖 1 239
𝟗𝟐𝐔 + 0n → 92U

239 239 0 Equation 1

92U → 93Np + −1e

239 𝟐𝟑𝟗 0
93Np → 𝟗𝟒𝐏𝐮 + −1e

This allows extended burnup to 140 MWd/kg (approximately 7-9 years) which means that the fuel is
spent more efficiently and more electricity can be generated from the same volume of fuel.
Such fast and breeder reactors can also house a blanket, which is a mass of actinide waste from
previous burnup cycles that is placed inside the core of a fast reactor for the purpose of transmuting
the isotopes into less radiotoxic isotopes for further recycling or safer final disposal.

Nuclear Waste Constituents

Uranium, neptunium, plutonium, curium, californium, and americium are the most prevalent
actinides produced by nuclear fission. These elements are problematic because of their radioactivity
and extremely long half-lives. Am241, in particular, decays to Np237 (as shown in Equation 2), which
has a half-life of 2.144×106 years, (Berthou, 2003) and thus determines the long-term radiotoxicity of
the nuclear waste. If the amount of Am241 in the spent fuel is reduced, then the part of the spent fuel
that cannot be recycled can be more easily stored and disposed.

241 237 4
95Am → 93Np + 2He
Equation 2

© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008

Nuclear Waste Disposal
When a fuel assembly has reached
maximum burnup, it is removed and
stored in a cooling pond (see Figure 3) for
several months to years. After 40 years of
storage in a cooling pond, only about one
thousandth of the spent fuel’s radiation
remains, compared to immediately after
the spent fuel assembly was removed
from the reactor. The water in the cooling
pond lowers the temperature of the spent
fuel assembly and also shields it so that
further nuclear decay can occur to reduce
the radiotoxicity for safer disposal. (WNA,
2008)
Figure 3 – Cooling pond for spent fuel assemblies (WNA, 2007)

Spent fuel assembly from

New fuel nuclear reactor
assemblies are
“burnt” in nuclear
reactor to produce
electricity Spent fuel assembly is
stored in a cooling pond

Recyclable isotopes are Unrecyclable high

reprocessed into MOX or level waste is stored in
UOX fuel assemblies or dry casks
breeder reactor blankets

By-products of Disposal
reprocessing are
disposed of

Figure 4 – Nuclear waste storage and disposal options

After cooling in the storage pond, there are two options for the waste
(see Figure 4) – one option is that the waste is reprocessed and burned
again and the other option is that it is moved to dry cask storage (see
Figure 5). Spent fuel assemblies are encapsulated in dry casks made of
metal or concrete to shield the spent fuel’s radiation so that it can be
stored before final disposal. After the inner cylinder is filled with
approximately 10-80 fuel assemblies (depending on their size), the
canister is filled with an inert gas and sealed. The casks are then stored
in concrete bunkers. So far, all nuclear waste generated that has to
eventually be disposed of is stored in dry storage casks (or cooling
ponds) until the final disposal facilities become available.

Figure 5 – Dry storage cask

© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008 (U.S.NRC, 2007)
Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed in several different ways if the country has access to the
reprocessing facilities. As shown in Figure 6, one approach to reducing the long-term radiotoxicity of
spent nuclear fuel involves recycling some of the more radiotoxic nuclides by adding them to a MOX
(heavy metal oxide) fuel assembly. MOX fuel consists of the Plutonium vector from spent thermal
reactor fuel added to depleted or natural uranium and can be used in thermal reactor cores
designed to run on uranium oxide (UO2 or “UOX”) fuel.
The transuranics part of thermal reactor spent fuel can be added to the MOX fuel to create a
modified MOX assembly. As these minor actinides are exposed to the neutron and thermal flux of a
thermal reactor, they capture neutrons or undergo fission, transmuting into less radiotoxic isotopes.
This in turn makes disposal of the spent fuel much easier. However some of the nuclides that are
reprocessed and added to such modified MOX fuel assemblies are also neutron poisons and absorb
more neutrons than required in the reactor. This reduces the fuel’s overall efficiency and increases
the cost of running a nuclear reactor to generate power. Some countries choose not to reprocess
spent fuel to recycle the transuranics due to the high cost of reprocessing and the cost of diminished
efficiency of the fuel over the burnup cycle.

Figure 6 – Creating a modified MOX fuel assembly to partially recycle spent nuclear fuel

Not all the nuclear waste can be reused in a MOX fuel assembly, however, so the remaining high
level nuclear waste has to be stored (in dry storage casks) and eventually disposed of. At this point in
time, the final disposal stage of non-recyclable waste has not been established yet. However, there
is worldwide research currently being conducted in order to design a facility that meets the
expectations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S.NRC) and local governments of the
areas where such disposal facilities would be constructed. The U.S.NRC has declared that any
permanent storage facilities to be built must be able to guarantee that the waste will be immobilised
for at least 1,000,000 years – a regulation that is near impossible to comply with.
Currently at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the biggest studies into terminal
nuclear waste disposal looks at methods that could be used to develop a nuclear waste repository in
Yucca Mountain, Navada, USA. The latest design of the repository constists of several 5cm-wide,
5km-deep bore-holes into granitic rock, incorporating a millimeter wave drilling technique. (Lai,
2008) The bore-holes would be filled in with sand around the waste canisters as silicon is one of the
most effective neutron poisons, preventing any further nuclear fissions from developing into an
uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction (see Figure 7). To further this study, researchers at MIT are
looking into the drilling process to line the bore-holes with melted granite glass which would offer
further shielding as well as sealing off the bore-hole to the surrounding granite.

© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008

 This seems to be a promising design for the first
nuclear waste repository in the world as well as any
future repositories in other countries. Just one of
these bore-holes can hold 3.32 years worth of US
minor actinide waste and only costs about 0.5% that
of current US storage methods. If nuclear waste can
be stored in geologically stable areas in such a
sealed and controlled way as this, there would be
less cost involved in the nuclear fuel cycle.
Figure 7 – Schematic of the canister, the sand One particular downside to providing such cost-
gap and the surrounding rock. effective disposal of nuclear waste is that for some
countries, it may be more cost effective to simply
dispose of all the waste rather than reprocess and recycle. However, it is likely that most countries
will continue to use reprocessing strategies for social and political reasons (to appear “green”) if not
just for the safety and health of the environment.

Social Impact and Opinion of Nuclear Power and Waste Disposal

Many people around the world have the attitude of “not in my backyard”. It’s because of this
attitude that a lot of politicians world-wide win votes by declaring that they will not implement
nuclear waste programs. Most of the fear and anxiety concerning nuclear waste storage and disposal
has to do with misleading information or a lack of education. After the accident at Chernobyl’s
reactor in 1986, a lot of people believed that it is easy for a meltdown to occur. (Dean, 2006) This is
however untrue – it is actually more difficult to keep a nuclear reactor running than it is to cause it
to run out of control due to the reactor’s sensitivity to neutron flux. Also, there are many electronic
as well as mechanical mechanisms in place to drop the control rods in case of an unexpected rise in
neutron flux to shutdown the reactor even before turning in the direction of a meltdown. So people
have little to worry about when it comes to the production of nuclear powered electricity.
Nuclear waste disposal is also a controversial issue because of radiation’s mysteriousness to the
uneducated and the lack of answers about the disposal issue. The reason why there are no nuclear
repositories as of yet is because the world is only just beginning to accumulate enough nuclear
waste to require a final disposal stage in the nuclear fuel cycle. At least the nuclear waste can be
contained and stored or immobilised and disposed of in sealed canisters (or other materials such as
certain types of glass) that are buried deep in the ground. This is much unlike current coal or oil
power plants that release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year that immediately
affects people all over the world. The damage that CO2 has done to Earth is almost irreversible,
however, if a nuclear leak occurred, the damage would be very localised, and in much smaller
quantities than certain other types of pollution such as CO2.

Summary
Although nuclear power generation and waste storage has its disadvantages, its advantages far
outweigh those of coal or oil power generation. Many people find it disconcerting that there is
currently no nuclear waste disposal program, and consequently believe that nuclear waste will
become a serious problem. However CO2 pollution in the atmosphere is already causing a much
larger problem than the nuclear waste issue could. There are very promising designs of different
types of waste repositories that will be constructed in the near future. Recycling will still play a large
roll in nuclear waste reduction, and this process, along with terminal storage methods will continue
to be improved in the future due to the extensive current and future world-wide research. People
shouldn’t be concerned about nuclear power as electricity will be predominantly generated by
nuclear fuel within the next few decades and disposal strategies will soon be well established.

© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008

Bibliography
ABC (2008) “Carbon Conundrum”, ABC – the lab, Australia,
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/carbon/default.htm (23/10/08)
Dean, T. (2006) “New Age Nuclear”, COSMOS Magazine, Australia.
Don, S. (2008) “Optimisation of the Nuclear Reactor Neutron Spectrum for the Transmutation of
Am241 and Np237”, Research Science Institute Paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
Lai, A. C. (2008) “Thermal Optimization of Deep Boreholes for Minor Actinide Waste Disposal”,
Research Science Institute Paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
National Science Digital Library (2008) “Nuclear Fission: Basics”, AtomicArchive.com,
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fission1.shtml (23/10/08)
U.S.NRC (2007) Dry Cask Storage, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USA,
http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/dry-cask-storage.html (22/10/08)
V. Berthou, C. Degueldre, and J. Magill (2003) “Transmutation Characteristics in Thermal and Fast
Neutron Spectra: Applications to Americium,” Journal of Nuclear Materials, 320, 156-162.
WNA (2008) Used Fuel Management, World Nuclear Association Information Papers,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/how/usedfuelmanag.html (20/10/08)

© Sarah Don, Australia, 2008