Part 3 of 3 Parts (Please read Parts 1 and 2 first)
     Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. He has a list of serious concerns about current storage methods. Lyman said, “If there’s no long-term plan to transfer that spent fuel to a more durable structure that can last for geologic time, then we can have a problem. real challenge of nuclear waste disposal is finding a way to make sure that it doesn’t affect the environment over this very long time period, that it’ll remain toxic.” Lyman has also said that the nation’s track record in storing spent nuclear fuel is not perfect.
     In 2018, workers moving a canister of spent nuclear fuel in California made an error and almost dropped the canister eighteen feet onto the floor of a concrete bunker. Lyman called this accident a near miss. According to government reports, the risks will only increase if more spent nuclear fuel has to be moved. Lyman also has other concerns like transportation accidents, sabotage and terrorism. He said, “A deliberate attack is certainly one way where you could maximize the potential harm to the community from that facility.”
     Lyman said that any community that considers building a temporary storage facility for the spent nuclear fuel needs to understand they would be accepting this waste without a long-term storage plan in place. He continued, “Because right now, there’s no plausible indication that it’s going to be going anywhere else. So they know they need to consider the fact that their community will ultimately be tagged as that permanent nuclear waste repository.”
     After Jeri Fry tuned into some of the nuclear waste discussions taking place in Northwest Colorado on YouTube last fall, she said she was saddened. A newspaper clipping detailing Jeri Fry’s father’s battle to win a workers’ compensation claim over his cancer that was linked to radiation exposure at the Cotter mill near Canon City hangs in Fry’s home.
     “Because it’s the same old game, and it’s very opportunistic,” Fry said about the federal government’s efforts to manage spent nuclear fuel. She is concerned that a community might raise its hand for a storage facility without being given a complete picture of the risks and should be asking a lot of questions. “If, as a community, we’re going to have to host this, ‘How long is that going on?.’” The containers that this (spent fuel) is in, are the containers going to last the life of the contents?”
     Opportunities for the public to ask questions will likely come soon. Public meetings on the spent nuclear fuel storage idea are being planned in Northwest Colorado. The DoE plans to formally ask which communities around the U.S. are interested in the idea, this fall.
     There are many concerns about the expansion of the U.S. nuclear power fleet. One of the biggest is how to deal with dangerous spent nuclear fuel generated during operation of commercial nuclear power plants. Without a permanent geological storage facility for the U.S., the spent nuclear fuel in temporary storage will only increase and continue to threaten public health and the environment.
Union of Concerned Scientists

Part 2 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Jeri Fry isn’t a trained nuclear scientist. However, she does want communities to know about the history and risks of the nuclear industry. This includes the uranium that was mined and processed to feed those reactors.
     Fry said, “These things have half-lives that are centuries, millennia long. And so a community that is not given full disclosure and full information about what they’re signing on to, could just get a horrible commitment.”
     Historical nuclear waste with no permanent storage and large-scale nuclear disasters have caused many Americans to be distrustful of nuclear power.
      Anna Erickson is a professor of nuclear and radiological engineering in the Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech. She also leads a research consortium sponsored by the DoE’s National Nuclear Security Administration. Major accidents at nuclear reactors like Chernobyl sparked Erickson’s interest in the subject of dealing with spent nuclear fuel. Erickson said, “It was done very carelessly in the past. It is not how we do things today. We have a lot better understanding of material associated with the uranium fuel cycle, and we do not think that depleted uranium is harmless anymore.”
     Erickson added that the scale of today’s waste from power plants is smaller and more manageable than the waste from nuclear weapons and fuel production left in places like Cañon City.
     Twenty years’ worth of spent nuclear fuel is stored at the former Maine Yankee nuclear plant. Nuclear experts say that the nation’s inventory of spent nuclear fuel would fit inside a football field and be about thirty feet deep. This kind of highly radioactive waste, primarily spent nuclear fuel, is stored in large cylinders made of concrete and steel.
     Erickson said, “If you take all of the spent fuel that’s been stored on site of nuclear reactors, and you consolidate it all, it’s (the) size of about a football field, right, about 10 yards deep. “Once the fuel is stored in those casks, the radiation around those casks is actually not that high. Those casks are regularly inspected today by humans with those Geiger counters that you’ve seen or other instruments. But in the future, we’re looking to move to robotics inspection.”
     Erickson continued that the U.S. has a good safety record while storing spent nuclear fuel on a temporary basis. “We have not had major accidents, or pretty much any accidents related to release of the material from those spent fuel casks.”
     According to a federal study from 2016, more than thirteen hundred spent fuel nuclear shipments have been completed safely in the United States over a thirty-five-year period. The report said that four shipments were involved in accidents, but “none resulted in a release of radioactive material or a fatality due to radiation exposure.”
     The Government Accountability Office calls the spent nuclear fuel that was shipped “one of the most hazardous substances ever created by humans.” Federal documents acknowledge that while many safety precautions are in place to prevent leakage of radioactive materials, there are risks to moving the fuel into the storage casks and transporting it. Citing several studies, the government says, “The key risk posed by spent nuclear fuel involves a release of radiation that could harm human health or the environment.”
Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Please read Part 2 next