Search

Abstract: The debate over a large expansion of commercial nuclear energy for electricity production in the U.S., termed a “nuclear renaissance,” has most recently focused on the issues of spent nuclear fuel transportation and the closing of the once-through nuclear fuel cycle through the licensing, construction, and operation of the national spent nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. While such a commercial nuclear energy expansion is postulated to have environmental, climate, resource utilization, and economic benefits, the fundamental issue for typical U.S. citizens about nuclear energy concerns the potential for exposure to ionizing radiation. Two generations of U.S. citizens have experienced public and media “education” that has heightened their primal fears of ionizing radiation from commercial nuclear energy. In such an environment, comparing the risks of radiation doses from commercial nuclear energy fuel cycle closure and further nuclear energy expansion with ionizing radiation population doses experienced year after year, decade after decade from non-nuclear (conventional) industries seems worthwhile for use in achieving stakeholder education and concurrence. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recently performed its own landmark risk assessment of spent fuel transport in the U.S., demonstrating the guiding principles and methods for use in comparative risk assessments involving radiation dose considerations. Using the NAS assessment approach, this paper broadens its application to the full consideration of the risk of nuclear fuel cycle closure and renewal of the commercial nuclear energy alternative in the U.S., to evaluate the ionizing radiation dose risks of such expansion compared to those routinely accepted for non-nuclear industries by policy makers and the public. The 50-year collective dose risk from the total commercial nuclear fuel cycle, even if the U.S. triples its installed nuclear capacity, transports spent fuel to Yucca Mountain, and operates the Yucca Mountain repository as planned, is shown to be in the range of 3.1-million person-cSv; for five selected non-nuclear industries, the corresponding 50-year collective dose risk exceeds 1 billion person-cSv, a more than 300 times greater risk. A key step towards renewing the commercial nuclear energy alternative, then, is to use this knowledge for education of various stakeholder parties. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]