For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE.
Term Paper ID:22552
Essay Subject:
Examines alternatives, safety, types of waste, regulations, costs, technology, reprocessing, natural & human hazards, examples.... More...
17 Pages / 3825 Words
6 sources, 29 Citations,
APA Format
$68.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Examines alternatives, safety, types of waste, regulations, costs, technology, reprocessing, natural & human hazards, examples.
Paper Introduction:
Although the nuclear waste storage problem has not yet reached crisis proportions, it is a chronic, complex issue that defies societal consensus, even within the scientific community. Each category of nuclear waste--high-level, low-level, and transuranic (TRU)--presents unique challenges for containment. All are potentially dangerous; at issue is the selection of the best options for long-term storage.
High-level nuclear waste is comprised of spent fuel from private sector and military reactors, as well as the liquids remaining from fuel processed for atomic weaponry. Used reactor fuel is considered intensely hot and irradiated. High-level nuclear wastes have long half-lives and are considered permanent hazards. (Half-life describes the amount of time required for 50 percent of a reactor fuel's original radioactivity to decay.)
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
Water is one of major security issues in nuclear storage:"Water corrodes containers, dissolves contaminants and then migrates,transporting the hazard" (Wheelwright 43). Each methodhas its distinct advantages and disadvantages. One of the major losers in the lack of progress toward completing apermanent storage facility is the utility companies across the country thatexpected the DOE to accept their spent nuclear fuel. The containers would be placed inthe bedrock, surrounded by impermeable material, and sealed with cement.Once the repository reached capacity, it would be sealed at the surfacelevel and a sign posted warning future generations of the presence ofhazardous material below: "The rationale for such warning is that thedurability of the tomb is only as good as the durability of the informationneeded to protect it from disturbance--and human institutions have noproven capability to protect information over hundreds of generations"(Lenssen 23). The test site is located in Clark County, in which two-thirds of Nevada's population resides. Washington residents fear that the Hanford facility will beidentified by the DOE as a "national sacrifice zone." Sacrifice zones aresites of environmental contamination that are too costly for the federalgovernment to remedy and where the fiscal expenditures outweigh the humanrisks. Proponents of the worst case failure scenario for the Ward Valleydisposal site contend that it could potentially be responsible for as manyas 1 , cancer deaths. Irradiated fuel wastes from commercial nuclear power plants arestored in tanks, casks, or cooling pools. . WIPP's burialrooms were excavated to a depth of 2,15 feet below the earth's surface andrest in a massive deposit of salt. Radioactive leakage could escape and infiltratethe groundwater causing TRU to come into contact with human beings. Ecology, submitted an environmental impact reportand filed for a license to use the site for nuclear waste disposal in 1989. (1995, June). Established in 1943 as a top-secret facility to manufacture atomicbomb materials, Hanford Nuclear Reservation at one time employed more than2 , workers in the production of the world's first significant amountsof plutonium. The site, calledthe WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant), is a source of contention forenvironmental groups and other citizen activists. Nuclear wasteswould be transported to the repository where it would be packaged inspecially constructed metal containers. The desert area where YuccaMountain is located only gets about six inches of rainfall per year, noneof which reaches the water table due to evaporation and plant consumption.The mountain itself also acts as a barrier to underground rainfallaccumulation. The opening has again been postponed, this time to 2 1 . Further theEPA insists that it be shown that these limits can be reasonably met for1 , years. Due to the uncertainties of environmental risks, the debate onnuclear waste disposal in the United States has deteriorated into gridlock. Yucca Mountain's location in the desert Southwest makes it ideal fromthe standpoint of the threat of water contamination of underground wastecontainers. High-level nuclear waste is comprised of spent fuel from privatesector and military reactors, as well as the liquids remaining from fuelprocessed for atomic weaponry. The best you can do isgive the probabilities" (Wheelwright 48). Consequently, this approach has beenabandoned by the international community. New York: World Watch Institute. Asone concerned physician notes, "The exposures were the result of policydecisions that gave nuclear weapons production, at any cost, priority overthe lives of the citizens whom the bombs were supposed to protect" (Shulman98). Many keep theirwastes in storehouses and warehouses that are rapidly reaching capacity.Common natural disasters such as fires, earthquakes, and floods could havea devastating impact and cause widespread contamination. All are potentially dangerous; at issue is the selection ofthe best options for long-term storage. Hanford, the worstecological disaster of all the nuclear facilities, remains open. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act called for the scientificanalysis of a number of potential sites. Americans insist on high-level nuclear waste storage that isairtight, watertight, and incapable of even the most minute leakage in theevent of a major natural disaster. Congress 329). At that time it wasdiscovered that one of the 177 tanks at the site was accumulatingpotentially flammable concentrations of hydrogen, ammonia and nitrousoxide. Plutonium production necessitates anabundant supply of cold fresh water to cool the reactors and to supplyelectricity. U.S. This very expensive method carrieswith it the risk of uncertainty due to the experimental nature of theprocess. Hanford officials knowingly released 4 , curies of airborneradioactive particles between 1944 and 1947, during the processing ofuranium (Shulman 97). This figure was morethan double the 1985 accumulated nuclear waste of about 12,6 metric tons. Used reactor fuel is considered intenselyhot and irradiated. The site that the DOE has settled on for its proposed geologic burialof radioactive wastes is Yucca Mountain. Volcanos are another geological hazard presenting potential problemsfor the Yucca Mountain site. The reprocessing of nuclear wastes is already underway in about 2 countries. By law, low-level nuclear wastes can be disposed of in landfills.Some states have designated specific disposal sites for such wastes. As recently as 1 , years ago, a volcanoerupted less than ten miles from Yucca Mountain. What has impressed the scientific community isthe increasing complexity of the problem. Geologic burial involves the disposal of waste in mined repositories. Saltwater has startedputting pressure on WIPP's burial rooms, resulting in some seepage throughthe walls: "Corrosive groundwater could easily eat away steel waste drumsand create a radioactive slurry. Critics of federal environmental policy claim that such anexpectation is unrealistic. TRU is both low-volume and low-activity, but the danger lies in itslong half-life. Engineers excavate a repository deep below the earth's surface.The repository itself consists of a series of rooms spread out from eachother. Until recently, about 3 million gallons of radioactiveliquids were dumped into the ground annually at the Savannah River Plant.Surface water levels of known carcinogens near the facility exceed bythousands of times federal government drinking water standards (Shulman1 1). Nevada officials claim that the proposed rail line that wouldtransport nuclear wastes to Yucca Mountain would have a negative impact ontourism in the state. Technical options for dealing with irradiated fuel includeAntarctica ice burial, seabed burial, space disposal, long-term storage,reprocessing, transmutation, and geologic burial (Lenssen 22). DOE decided on using an industrial pumpto agitate the contents of the tank and reduce the threat of contamination(Valenti 68). The repositorycould leak if boreholes were drilled through it or through a pocket ofsaltwater below the site. DOE scientists insist that Yucca Mountain presents a low risk ofpotential contamination, citing the "Climax Mine" test conducted near thesite in the early 198 s. One of the foremost critics of the Yucca Mountain test site is thestate of Nevada. The worst case failure scenario for the performance of the WIPPrepository involves human intrusion. Department of Energy(DOE) is the federal agency responsible for the disposal of high-levelnuclear wastes. What happens if, in the distantfuture, exploration for gas or oil occurs near the site? The proposed site for California's low-level nuclear waste dump islocated in Ward Valley, a sparsely populated area in the California desert. Such excavationcould disturb the geologic balance of this environmentally sensitive area. Some utilities have sued the federalgovernment for not accepting their high-level wastes. The U.S. The Yucca Mountain regioncontains gold and silver deposits. military. After conducting the test, the DOE retrieved the nuclearwaste from Climax Mine and returned it to temporary storage (Wheelwright41). Although minuscule as a percentage of the volume of all high-levelnuclear waste generated in the United States, commercial nuclear powerplants are major producers of radioactivity: "Commercial nuclear powerplants account for 95 percent of the radioactivity from all civilian andmilitary sources combined" (Lenssen 9). An example is thestorage facility near Idaho Falls, opened in 1975. Nuclear waste: The problem that won't go away. Each category of nuclear waste--high-level, low-level, and transuranic (TRU)--presents unique challenges forcontainment. Despite billions of dollars spent on environmentalstudies, scientists can only calculate the risks, not minimize them.Scientific doubts still persist about the ability of any site to containnuclear material over an extended period of time. The official projection for the year 2 is 4 ,4 tons (Lenssen 1 ). Theexpense of this option and the dire consequences of failure led to itsabandonment. One suchelement, iodine-129, for instance, has a half-life of 15.8 million years(Lenssen 12). Although the climate of the Yucca Mountain area is amenable tonuclear waste storage, its geology raises some concerns. A recent analysis of Hanford's tank farm maintenance program foundthat corrective maintenance backlogs were at undesirable levels. Several years ago, an earthquake measuring 5.6 on the Richterscale jolted the Yucca Mountain test site causing $1 million worth ofdamage to its surface facility (U.S. Still, more than ten yearsafter construction of WIPP, the tests have yet to be completed. The transmutation option converts long-lived waste to shorter-livedisotopes though neutron bombardment. About 2percent of the volume came from medical waste (Lenssen 13). Wheelwright, J. Mechanical Engineering, pp. The dump operator, U.S. Congress 8). Although low-level wastes are less intense, they pose asignificant hazard because they represent a far larger volume of waste. As one geophysicist points out, "In scienceyou can almost never prove something won't happen. Many of these facilities havesince been closed due to environmental contamination. 68-72. Although the nuclear waste storage problem has not yet reached crisisproportions, it is a chronic, complex issue that defies societal consensus,even within the scientific community. Since1989, the United States has stored more than 76, cubic meters ofmilitary low-level waste and 46, cubic meters of civilian low-levelwaste in shallow trenches. In 1987, the Westinghouse Hanford Co. Nevertheless, transmutation is being actively studied by theUnited States, Japan, the former Soviet Union, and France. Water-based systems use electric pumps tocirculate cooled water. The billions of dollars and years of research spent assessing thesuitability of the Yucca Mountain site could go down the drain if the sitewere to be declared unsuitable for accepting nuclear waste. (Half-life describes the amount of timerequired for 5 percent of a reactor fuel's original radioactivity todecay.) High-level nuclear waste depositories must be guardedindefinitely, and require deep storage. Congress 1). (1992). these waste disposalprojects [are] so long in evolving that regulators are forever passing newlaws and applying them retroactively" (Wheelwright 47). This method is prohibited bynational law, the potential for recovery is low, and the risk ofcatastrophic failure is great. The piecemeal reduction of hazards at Hanford has been necessitatedthroughout the years. Critics claim that a future climate changecould lead to higher than average rainfall causing precipitation topenetrate the nuclear wastes at 25 feet as well as the groundwater at 65 feet. For our nuclear wastes, there'sgridlock on the road to the dump. Shulman, S. Environmentalists identified thedesert tortoise as a threatened species on the site. The relatively small volumes of high-level nuclear wastespossess both high-activity and long half-lives (Wheelwright 43). High-level nuclear waste policy.1 4th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives. (1995, May). The DOE was unsuccessful in its attempts to convince the EPA to allowtests to be conducted on barrels of waste on-site at WIPP. Despite theseecological mishaps, the most notorious of the three military facilities isthe Hanford site: "Today, nearly fifty years since it opened, Hanfordrepresents one of the most daunting environmental catastrophes the worldhas ever known" (Shulman 94). The reality of nuclear waste disposalis that no scientist can forecast the unknown. Thusfar 19 states are using two existing dump sites. (1993, November). Long-term storage would depend on human institutions tomonitor and control access to these hazardous depositories. The threat at home: Confronting the toxiclegacy of the U.S. Because these receptacleswere designed for interim storage, many have reached capacity. The heat and radiation did notfracture the rock walls of the mine. Some of thespent fuel is being stacked closer together by means of air-cooled vesselsto prevent overheating. Also, some low-level wastes contain long-livedradioactive material such as plutonium, technetium, and iodine. The prolonged exposure andsuppression of radioactive contamination at Hanford is reprehensible. Lawsuits have beenfiled to stop the construction of the facility. Although notunder serious consideration by international governments, this option isfavored by some public interest groups. The management of low-level nuclear waste was given to states, someof which have entered into mutual compacts to dispose of their waste. Consequently, radioactive wastes entered nearby rivers andworked its way into oceans where even shellfish were contaminated. Low-level nuclear wastes present significantly less of a hazard thanhigh-level wastes. From there the groundwater could travel to a dry lake bed 4 milessouth and then to the Colorado River. Extensive excavation could occur if theregion becomes a target for precious metal exploration. Holes would be drilled in the bedrock of each room. A TRW report estimates that completion of theYucca Mountain project would entail an additional $33 billion at presentmonetary rates (U.S. Human intrusion is another risk factor in the selection of YuccaMountain as a potential geologic burial site. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares health hazardstandards that govern the storage of nuclear wastes. Since then, major opposition has emerged, including a trio of geologistsfrom the U.S. By1995, the DOE had spent more than $4 billion in its efforts to build apermanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain (U.S. A third category of radioactive waste is TRU (transuranic waste).TRU waste is plutonium contamination generated from the United State's bombmanufacture program. Although approximately$32 million is spent on maintenance work, a 1992 study found that one-thirdof gauges for detecting leaks in Hanford's tanks were not functioning (U.S.GAO 3). Although the probability of thisscenario is questionable, the argument has held enough weight to delayindefinitely the 7 -acre Ward Valley facility. Nevertheless,most nuclear countries, including the United States, favor geologic burialas the long-term solution for the disposal of high-level nuclear wastes. (1991). The cost of a 3 -year cleanup program at the Hanford site isestimated at $57 billion (Shulman 99). A total of 4 states are storing someform of high-level radioactive waste on an interim basis (U.S. The DOE proposes to store nuclearwaste 1,4 feet underground. For example, the radioisotope plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,4 years. Hanford was among 17 major facilities that contributed tothe United State's bomb manufacture program. Temporary mid-level nuclear waste has been storedbehind guarded fences on DOE reservations for decades. The Mountain itself wascreated from the explosion of a gigantic volcano about 12 million years ago(Wheelwright 44). Irradiated uranium fuel, in widespread use among commercial nuclearpower plants, is considered to be the most dangerous radioactive waste onearth. By 199 , the United States had accumulated 21,8 metric tons ofirradiated fuel from commercial nuclear reactors. Subcommittee onEnergy and Power of the Committee on Commerce. An alternative to water-based systems is dry caskcontainers, which rely on passive cooling. The safest method of disposing nuclear wastes has been debated fordecades. The EPAinsisted on laboratory tests and prevailed. Current policyregarding high-level waste limits maximum doses of radiation. The environmental risks are uncertainties of long-term geology andgroundwater stability. The remaining states havemade no provisions for the disposal of their nuclear wastes. Each room hasthe capacity to accept 6,6 drums of waste. Military planners chose the Hanford site because of itsproximity to the Colorado River. The hazard potential ofan earthquake is that groundwater could come in contact with hotradioactive wastes resulting in steam explosions that could cause the metalcontainers to burst open, creating the widespread dispersal of radioactivewastes. High-level nuclear wastes have long half-lives and areconsidered permanent hazards. Unfortunately, the entire planet could riskcontamination if a malfunction occurred in a proposed space launch. The presence of the Colorado River exacerbates the effect ofthe groundwater contamination. Congress. Scientists estimate that, over the past decades, at least 75 , gallons of high-level radioactive waste leaked from Hanford's storage tankfarm (Shulman 95). Smithsonian, pp. The first room was completed in 1986and measures 13 feet high, 33 feet wide, and 3 feet long. (1994, November). Clearly, although geologic burial is the federal government'spreferred method of nuclear waste disposal, it is not without itssignificant risks. OnlyCalifornia, entering into an agreement with three companion states, hasmade an earnest attempt at the construction of a new facility.California's effort has been fraught with opposition on environmentalgrounds, however. Included in this price is a $13 million, specially constructed boringmachine (Wheelwright 44). The U.S. A contributing factor is the unrealistic expectations of the Americanpublic. Of the military's nuclear waste storage facilities, HanfordReservation in Washington State, the Savannah River Plant in SouthCarolina, and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory have leakedcontaminants. The long-term storage option would necessitate theconstruction of special buildings where nuclear waste would be storedindefinitely. Critics of the federal government maintainthat the anticipated target date of 2 1 is as unrealistic as thepreviously discarded deadlines. Nevada officials also fear that theworst case failure scenario for Yucca Mountain could materialize--a slippedearthquake fault creating major contamination. Over the past 5 years the military has pursuedthe government's bomb-making program on about 1 sites. This danger is compounded by the factthat 6 percent of the transuranic waste at WIPP also contains hazardouschemicals such as flammable solvents" (Lenssen 26). Weapons manufacture in the United States has already led toenvironmental pollution. Officials at WIPP reason that the public is in greater danger byleaving the TRU on the surface, where it is now, than by burying it in ageological repository. The presence of fault lines is indicative of earthquakes; Nevada isthird only to California and Alaska in the amount of seismic activitygenerated. TRU waste shares characteristics of both high-leveland low-level nuclear wastes. One WIPP official summarizedthe devastating effects of these delays: " . Although the closest inhabited community is thetown of Needles with a population of only 6,5 , the project lies within 75miles of the Colorado River. Although initial costs for completion of a permanent facility wereestimated at $22 million, the projected costs are astronomical. Currentlythese wastes are stored in a variety of facilities throughout the country.For instance, spent nuclear reactor fuel is stored on-site at the nation's73 commercial nuclear power plants. A recentdrilling near the mountain found that water had gotten down 1,4 feet.Scientists attempt to explain such phenomena away, but critics of theproject seize every opportunity to prove its unsuitability. Although safety precautions will be taken, afearful public envisions a worst case scenario in which wastes will beaccidentally spilled, resulting in widespread contamination. Barrels of TRU must be transported to the WIPP site,either by rail or by highway. The State of Nevada is dependenton the gaming revenues generated by the 23 million tourists who visit ClarkCounty annually (U.S. Critics of the proposed burial site contend that more than 3 seismic faults crisscross the immediate area (Lenssen 27). General Accounting Office. . References Lenssen, N. One geophysicist paints the following scenario: "You flood thatthing and you could blow the top off the mountain. Boston: Beacon Press. For three years the government tested thedurability of granite deposits about 4 miles from Yucca Mountain where 11spent nuclear fuel rods, which emitted a tremendous amount of heat andradiation, were placed underground. The critical featuresof nuclear waste are activity, volume and longevity: "The single bestmeasure of a waste's hazard is its (radio)activity, not its volume or half-life" (Wheelwright 43). government is in the midst of hammering out its long-termpolicy for the permanent disposal of high-level nuclear wastes. Some low-levelwastes contain elements of high-level radioactivity, but it is usually invery low concentrations. Currently, hospitals and private research andmanufacturing facilities must dispose of their own wastes. The DOE even storeshigh-level nuclear wastes on some of these sites, burying it in undergroundtanks. Theinterminable delay has been caused by legal challenges and revisions madeto EPA standards with the passage of time. Tourism is Nevada's main industry, employing 7 percent of the Clark County labor force. Parallel faultlines run to the east and the west of the mountain; a third fault line cutsacross it. At the very least, theradioactive material would go into the groundwater and spread to DeathValley, where there are hot springs all over the place" (Lenssen 27). Low-level wastes contain short-lived radioactivematerials that emanate from such sources as hospital medical isotopes andcontaminated refuse from commercial nuclear power plants. About 73 percent of this volume of waste camefrom by-products and equipment from the nuclear power industry. Cooling pools are largereceptacles of water alongside nuclear reactors. Had the rock fractured, DOEscientists would have concluded similar failures would occur in the eventthat radiation leaked from the storage tanks of proposed underground burialrepositories. Not until 1986 was this cover-up revealed, and onlyas the result of a contracted courtroom battle. Further, about 9 percent of ClarkCounty residents live in the Las Vegas Valley, the region containing YuccaMountain. Geological Survey (USGS). The 1987 amendment to this Actexcluded all other potential sites and designated Yucca Mountain as theonly site to be studied. About $1.5billion has been spent on analyzing the rock composition at Yucca Mountain. The manmade risk is human intrusion. Valenti, M. Analysis of the crust determined that it would not combust in caseof an explosion; however, explosion could result from the combination oforganic materials with the salts. Antarctica ice burial wouldrequire burying nuclear waste in ice caps. Rainfall in the desert isminimal and the water table is very deep. At the Idaho facility, 16 billion gallons of waste containing 7 , curies of radioactivity were dumped into injection wells that reached theSnake River aquifer between 1952 and 197 (Shulman 1 1). (DOE'smanagement and operations contractor for the Hanford facility) assumedresponsibility for cleaning up the waste storage site. If facilities such as Ward Valley are not completed in a timelymanner, the worst case failure scenario for low-level nuclear waste couldhave significant effects. Some of the opposition to nuclear waste storage is caused byconfusion over the characteristics of these wastes. As one geologist notes,"No scientist or engineer can give an absolute guarantee that radioactivewaste will not someday leak in dangerous quantities from even the best ofrepositories" (Lenssen 21). Nuclear waste:Further improvement needed in the Hanford Tank Farm maintenance program.Washington, GPO. Although supporters of the Nevada Test Site considerthese geological events ancient history, as long as scientists arepowerless to predict the reoccurrence of volcanos, they present anenvironmental threat to the long-term storage of high-level nuclear wasteswith half-lives typically ranging upward of a quarter of a million years. Water seepagefrom an unexpected fracture could constitute a fatal flaw. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a 1998 target datefor the completion of a permanent facility for the long-term storage ofradioactive waste. U.S. These utilities nowfind themselves in a bind as they scramble to find the means to addadditional storage capacity. Congress 3). A singleunderground repository holding 96, tons of irradiated fuel and high-level nuclear waste is projected to cost $36 billion (Lenssen 23). The anticipated opening of such a facility was pushedforward to 2 3. In light of the devastating impact that a nuclearwaste storage facility could have on the state of Nevada, it is notsurprising that state officials refer to the 1987 amendment as "The ScrewNevada Bill." Unlike Yucca Mountain, which is languishing in the proposal stage,construction has already begun on the WIPP in southeastern New Mexico.Seven burial rooms have been completed although they remain empty.Environmental problems have already arisen with this site. The site is expected to receive about 7 , tons of radioactive waste. Although this option may violateinternational law, it is under active study by a consortium of tencountries. Congress 7). Thus low-level wastes, although existing ingreater quantities or volume, have low activity and generally short half-lives. Below the repository is saltwater, above it is a circulating groundwater system. An independentinvestigation by a federal environmental agency revealed contamination ofplant, animal, and human life: "evidence [exists] that air, groundwater,surface water, sediments, and soil, as well as vegetation and wildlife havebeen contaminated at most, if not all, of the Department of Energy nuclearweapons sites" (Lenssen 14). Space disposal would jettison nuclear waste into solar orbit beyondthe earth's gravity. The process, which involves chemically separating uranium andplutonium from irradiated fuel, increases the volume of waste by 16 fold.The existence of such wastes increases the risk of nuclear armsproliferation, however. 4 -5 .----------------------- 19 Seabed burial raises concerns about transport and thenonretrievability of wastes. The seabed burial option would dispose of nuclear wastes in deepocean sediments. TRU elements have low-levels ofradioactivity at long half-lives. By 1994,a backlog of more than 1,5 uncompleted maintenance projects existed.Maintenance of Hanford's aging tanks is critical. The DOE has selected a site nearCarlsbad, New Mexico to store barrels of accumulated TRU. The geologic burial of nuclear wastes is a fairly uncomplicatedprocess. One of the keys to the resolution of the WIPP waste disposal issue istransportation. In operation prior to many currentenvironmental regulations, personnel at these nuclear weapons sitesroutinely dumped pollutants into the ground or allowed them to becomeairborne. Taming Hanford's most troublesomenuclear waste tank. Yucca Mountain is located onfederal land 9 miles west of Las Vegas.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject