Nuclear America and the Answer
By Michael Agnich, Toby Stevenson
Finding better ways to power our nation is always among the most hotly discussed topics in politics and among Americans who care about the environment and economy of the United States. Nuclear power was once flaunted as the answer to all our questions, but after the incidents of Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union and Three Mile Island, a little closer to home, the American public backed away from nuclear power and considered it too dangerous to be an effective means of energy production. We cannot afford to continue with this myth. Most Americans do not know the difference between the two incidents, and they also don’t know the true facts about danger from nuclear plants. As more and more people use an ever-increasing amount of energy, it is essential that we as a nation make informed decisions about the means by which our energy is produced. I will show that nuclear power is by far the best way to produce power for reasons ranging from cost to environmental cleanliness, and in the meantime, try to dispel many of the myths about the dangers of nuclear power by examining the incidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Before
nuclear power can be looks at objectively, we must first look at other means of
power available to us today. There are currently five other means of power used
today. Coal is the first and widest used. Coal power plants produce half the
pollution in the world right now, and cause such environmental hazards as acid
rain. Coal plants also expel more radioactive material into the atmosphere than
nuclear plants do. Another means of power is from natural gas and oil. The
major problem with this is supply. The United States currently imports 40
percent of these materials used within its borders. If we used these materials
for electrical power, there simply would not be enough. Solar power is a source
of power that many see as ideal, the problem here is that in order to have
enough solar power to cover the entire United States, a solar panel the size of
Delaware would have to be constructed, not to mention rainy days. Hydropower is
currently the best option available to us, but Hydropower requires a suitable
river, and right now nearly all suitable rivers are already dammed. There are
other more exotic means of energy production currently in the works such as
harnessing the oceans tidal flows and fission power, but these means are a long
way from being used effectively.(Sietz)
And
now to show the advantages of Nuclear power versus the above methods, first
nuclear power is clean:
Radioactive emissions are negligible, much less than the radioactivity released into the air naturally from the earth or produced by cosmic rays. Standing next to a nuclear plant am exposed to only one-half of one percent more radiation than when sitting in my living room. A coal station, on the other hand, requires huge dumps of fuel and ashes that menace the environment. (Sietz)
Nuclear power is also
inexhaustible. Through a process called “breeding”, used uranium can be
converted into plutonium, which ironically, is a better fuel than the uranium
from which it was produced. Our reserves would extend the range of usable power
by millions of years. Another pro for
nuclear power is the small size of the used power source and the fact that
uranium is scattered across nearly all parts of the world, meaning that
shortages in materials and susceptibility to strikes and mineral resources to
be unlikely. And then there is cost. . .in France, where 70 percent of power in
generated from nuclear reactors, nuclear power costs 30 percent less than coal
generated power. This allows France to actually export power to surrounding
countries producing a nice profit.(Rhodes)
Now to examine the myths of nuclear power; some worry
about the transport on nuclear materials. Nuclear waste never constitutes more
volume than about a six pack of beers, and when dealing with a substance of
that size it is easy to make an indestructible container. There are currently
containers that have been shown to be able to withstand a direct hit by a
locomotive and heats upwards of 1475 degrees ferenheit without sustaining a
single crack. No truck crash I have ever heard of will surpass these
conditions. Others worry that if the waste portion from the plants is hijacked,
terrorist groups could use it for nuclear weapons. This also holds no basis in
fact because the waste still has to be extracted at a reprocessing plant which
costs hundreds of millions of dollars, in which case the terrorist group would
be much better off mining the ore directly.(Sietz) Others worry about waste
disposal, this topic is covered in another portion of this paper. The last thing people view as a danger is
the so-called “meltdowns” of the power plants. Side affects from these
meltdowns can be enormous, but the explosion itself is nothing like an atomic
weapon, as some people believe. This chart details the fatalities of the two
meltdowns and compares them to some of the other disasters: This shows the actual results of
the two incidents.
And
now having laid the facts out, it would seem to be difficult to see why our
country has such reluctance to adopt nuclear power plants as the backbone of
energy production. Few people realize the number of nuclear power plants
existing today that operate without problem. This map shows the location of
power plants within the United States today:
(Pool)There are currently
108 plants operating within our borders. The main reason nuclear power is not
the primary source of our power is because of two incidents with nuclear power,
namely Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Most people know little about the
incidents other than they involved nuclear power being expelled into the
atmosphere. Even this is not entirely true. I will show why these incidents
occurred and why we as a nation should not view them as our basis of
understanding for nuclear power.
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are completely different events and in a
controlled environment such as the United States, could never happen again. For
this reason, they should not carry significance in our decisions about nuclear
power. The two major downsides to nuclear plants, according to the government
and to popular belief are accidents in the plants, and waste management. Waste
management is discussed in another part of the paper and now I will talk about
the danger of meltdowns of the plants.
There have been two major accidents in the history of
nuclear power in the world. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl molded the world’s
view of nuclear power, yet very little is common knowledge about these two
incidents. Hopefully by exposing the facts of these two incidents, I will be
able to show that danger from nuclear meltdowns should not be an issue when
making decisions about nuclear power in the United States.
The partial meltdown of the TMI-2 reactor at Three Mile
Island in March of 1979 was the first instance of nuclear meltdown in the
world. It was due to a number of mistakes, both human and mechanical. The
original cause of the incident was in a pressure valve that failed in the
closed position. This value was in the steam generator and caused a buildup of
pressure and heat in the containment apparatus. The next step was the fault of
the operators. Believing that water was still left in the main coolant tank,
they turned off the backup coolant systems. This caused the pressure and heat
to build inside the containment. The operators then turned off the emergency
coolant pumps because they were worried about damage from vibrations caused by
the pumps. At this point, the first layer of containment, surrounding the
nuclear fuel, began to melt, increasing the steal in the containment structure
and eventually setting off an emergency valve which allowed the steam in the
containment to escape to a backup tank, bypassing the faulty valve. At this
point, after a brief spike in pressure probably due to a reaction between the
hydrogen and oxygen in the tank, the pressure began its fall to normal status.
The 2nd layer of containment never failed, and no excess radiation
escaped into the atmosphere as a result of the incident. This diagram shows the
containment apparatus of the TMI-2 reactor: (Gonyeau)
1.
Reactor
2.
Once-through
Steam Generator(valve stuck here)
3.
Pressurizer
4.
Quench
Tank
Exposure
into the atmosphere was minimal. Studies conducted indicate that the maximum
potential offsite radiation exposure likely was 83 millirems. An actual
individual located on a nearby island is believed to have received at most 37
millirems. Extensive studies by federal agencies led to these conclusions and
to an estimate that one excess cancer fatality due to the accident could be
expected over a 30 year period.(Rambo)
On
the other hand, much was learned from the incident. A large-scale investigation
commissioned by President Carter called the Kemeny Commission reviewed the
accident and reported that improvements were needed in four major areas. They
were operator training, emergency planning, dissemination of industry
information, and use of probabilistic safety assessment and analysis of more
probable events. A regulatory group was also put into place called the
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations whose function was primarily to inspect
all nuclear plants in the United States, and secondarily to provide ongoing
training for nuclear operators in the United States. The NRC also issued orders
for equipment changes for all the faulty parts of the TMI-2 reactor and
continue to do this today with any minor problems occurring inside American
nuclear plants. With these changes, a re-occurrence of Three Mile Island is
impossible inside the borders of the United States.(Gonyeau)
The second of the world’s two
nuclear meltdowns was far more serious that it’s first. The meltdown of the
RMBK-1000 reactor in the Ukraine of the former Soviet Union was a completely
different situation than the incident at Three Mile Island. The effects of
Chernobyl could be felt as far west as some parts of Western Europe and the
area surrounding Chernobyl will be irradiated for hundred of years to come.
First I will explain how the disaster occurred, then I will show why this could
never happen inside the United States.
This
is a diagram of the Chernobyl reactor. I will use it to try to explain how and
why the incident took place. The unit 4 reactor of Chernobyl was scheduled to
be shutdown on April 25th, 1986. A group of electrical engineers
wanted to test the slowing turbine and its ability to power the emergency
systems of the plant. The main test was to ensure that the coolant systems of
the plant would continue to operate at low power levels. The planned test
called for shutting down the emergency core cooling system of the reactor,
which ironically did not affect the situation, but does show a very lax
attitude towards safety by the individuals conducting the test. Because the
test called for running the plant at a very low power level, almost all the
automatic regulating systems were switched off. The engineers then removed all
but 6 of the control rods to do their experiment. The operational minimum for
the plant was 30 rods. Because there were not enough control rods in the
reactor, the reactor began to heat up. The experiments should have immediately
stopped at this point, but pressure from supervisors of the engineers caused
them to continue with the experiment. Because many of the safety systems had
been bypassed, the reactor began to heat uncontrollably without the technicians
noticing. When the reactor fuel began to melt, all of the control rods were put
back in the reactor. This is when the explosion happened because of a nasty
design fault. The tips of the control rods are made of graphite and when they
were inserted into the nuclear fuel, an unexpected reaction took place with the
fuel because of its changed state due to excess heat. Instead of slowing down
the nuclear reaction, the graphite tips sped up the reaction causing a massive
explosion and immediately killing 31 operators at the plant.(Marples)
The
explosion sent a huge amount of highly reactive debris into the air and exposed
the reactor to the environment. The heavier debris such as the graphite was
deposited in the immediate area causing additional fires and the lighter
material including a lot of radioactive noble gasses was carried by the wind to
the northwest of the plant. The graphite fire required a great deal of effort
to put out and exposed more than 100 firefighters to intense radiation and took
nearly two days to put out.(Gayles)
The
most important thing to realize about the Chernobyl incident is that it could
have been easily avoided, and never would have happened in the United States.
If you look at the diagram of the reactor above, the thing that is blatantly
missing is the lack of a containment structure. If Chernobyl had a containment
structure, there would have been NO exposure to the atmosphere. This type of
plant could not be licensed in the United States due to the lack of the
containment structure, and thus could not happen in the United States. It is
truly a shame that the Soviet Union bypassed such important safety issues to
save some cash.
Hopefully
I have shown why the danger of meltdowns is next to non-existent within the
United States. Three Mile Island was 20 years ago and we have learned much
about safety in that time. We learned from mistakes and in thirty years of
operating over 100 nuclear plants, there has been one incident, and there was
no fallout. A mistake of the magnitude of Chernobyl could never happen today in
America due to the huge number of safety regulations followed by the plants.
But despite this, the consensus in the United States is that nuclear power is
simply too dangerous. Our economy and our environment cannot afford this
mentality. Nuclear power is good for this country in all areas and the trend
towards less and less nuclear plants should be stopped. An average coal plant
produces an annual yield of 16000 rems to its surrounding area. The catastrophe
of Chernobyl produced this same exposure to a larger area. But there are an
uncountable number of coal plants running every day, in almost every corner of
the nation. (Rossin) It simply does not make sense to continue building coal
plants when we have such a better option that helps all involved and presents
next to no danger to the surrounding communities and environment.
The Answer is
Technology: Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal
The disposal of low-level radioactive waste is a very
meaningful and controversial subject.
The ever increasing stockpile of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) and
its impact on society is troubling and very quickly becoming more than just an
impending concern. Economists have
always seen the important relationship between our standard of living and waste
production but now the academic community must evaluate society’s response to
this and other major waste disposal issues.
This paper will discuss the political reaction to radioactive waste
disposal and the major problem this reaction has caused. Understanding the difference between
high-level waste and low-level waste is crucial and will be discussed. How and where these two very different
by-products are produced will also be shown.
The main focus of this paper will be to give documented examples of
technologies presently available to dispose of LLRW and the management of these
disposal alternatives. This
presentation of successful technologies
to dispose of low-level radioactive waste is an attempt to educate the
public and legislators to some important facts about the waste crisis that faces the world and this nation.
The facts are, chemically hazardous waste, solid waste,
agricultural waste, pesticides, infectious medical waste, and especially low
and high-level radioactive waste have created a world-wide disposal problem of
gigantic proportions. Since the early
1950’s thousands of temporary radioactive active waste sites have appeared all
across the nation. It is common
knowledge that these toxic waste sites leak radiation, pollute the ground water
and poison the environment, yet there exists a strange paradox about how to
solve this problem. Most people agree
that radioactive waste is extremely dangerous and that it should be disposed of
properly, yet no one wants it buried in their back yard. This problem is becoming more than critical
and will eventually interfere with U.S. economic growth, not to mention
becoming a public health problem and a political nightmare[i].
The political reaction to this waste disposal problem so
far has been negative and pessimistic[ii]. This pass-the-buck strategy stems from the
fact that most educators, legislators and the general public do not appreciate
the difference between lethal high-level waste and safe low-level radioactive
waste. News stories of communities protesting the dumping of any and all toxic
wastes in their area are very common.
This ignorance about low-level radioactive waste and the paranoia
provoked by high-level waste has handcuffed the communities of this country and
stopped the disposal of the very material that may eventually overwhelm
them. As Alvin Weinberg (Science
177:27-34), one of the founders of nuclear technology and past director of the
Oakridge National Laboratory, summed it up:
“we seem to have struck a Faustian bargain. We are given the miraculous nuclear fire...very clean,
inexhaustible energy. The price we must
pay for this great boon is a never ending supply of radioactive trash.”
Low-level waste can be separated from high-level by-products and disposed of
now.
The difference between low-level and high-level
radioactive waste is in the concentration of radioactive elements (plutonium,
uranium, uradium, tritium, etc.) contained in the waste by-product[iii]. Waste with high levels of radioactivity
emits so much radiation that it cannot be handled directly. It must be totally contained and shielded
and requires remote handling. High-level
waste is thermally hot and requires submersion in water for cooling. It subjects surrounding objects and tissues
to intense heat and lethal doses of radiation for extremely long periods of
time (up to millions of years). On the other hand, low-level waste contains
only minute traces of these same radioactive elements. It is not thermally hot and may be handled
with none or minimal body protection.
The exposure dose of radioactivity in low-level waste is minuscule when
compared to high-level by-products. The
emitted radiation from low-level by-products is also short lived, from a few
seconds up to as long as 200 years.
Because these two very different waste by-products are presently mixed
together, dumped in the same fashion and in the same locations there is a
massive stockpile accumulating. The
political failure to separate these two types of waste from the beginning now
condemns the world to the eventual disposal of the entire stockpile using
high-radiation methods. These
high-radiation disposal technologies are immensely more expensive, dangerous
and complicated.
Some scientists say that the high-level waste problem has
apocalyptic implications. It has been
suggested that there will never be a disposal solution to the problem of
high-level waste. A few believe that it
is not an asteroid or nuclear war that will destroy life on earth. It will be trash! Page 14 of this paper is a chart showing the inventories of all
radioactive waste generated in the U.S. through 1988. In his book “Too Hot To Handle” Edward Woodhouse says “that on
July 16, 1946, on a desert in New Mexico, The United States exploded the
world’s first atomic bomb and thereby catapulted the world into the nuclear
age”. On that day Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos project that
developed the bomb, had these thoughts:
from the “Bhagavad-Gita” in which God is speaking: “I am become death,
the shatterer of worlds; Waiting that hour that ripens to their doom.”
At the heart of the problem is the fact that low-level
radioactive waste is only responsible for 1% of all harmful waste radiation,
yet it accounts for 95% of the bulk of the world’s stock-pile of radioactive
waste. Contrary to that, 99% of all lethal waste radiation is produced by
high-level waste which comprises only 5% of the world’s build-up of radioactive
trash[iv]. High-level “bomb grade” waste will be a
lethal threat to all living things for many centuries to come. Its disposal
will require much more technology, many more resources and eternal vigilance[v]. On the other hand low-level radioactive
waste can, with present technology, be easily handled and disposed of
successfully. In his book “Management
of Radioactive Wastes”, Colin Mawson states “Knowledge in the field of
radioactive waste management is more advanced than is popularly supposed. There
is a general belief that a problem exists, in the sense that the future of the
nuclear industry is threatened by an ever-increasing volume of wastes that are
a potential danger to the welfare of mankind.
The problem that actually exists is how to choose the most economically
effective method for disposing of the wastes.”
There are technologies in place now to safely and successfully deal with
this major waste product created by our modern industrialized culture.
There are six very successful methods of LLRW disposal
that are presently in use and can be evaluated now. These disposal facilities have been built to exacting
specifications and subjected to strict government guidelines. All six
technologies are currently available, all six are land burial strategies, and
are presently being used to reduce and eliminate the LLRW stock pile[vi].
These technologies include Shallow Land
Burial (SLB), Below-Ground Vaults (BGV),
Above-Ground Vaults (AGV),
Earth-Mounded Concrete Bunkers (EMCB),
Shaft Disposal (SD) and Rock Cavities Disposal (RCD). For any new waste technology to be used or
receive legal consideration it must meet stringent federal guidelines.
In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has established strict disposal objectives for the land disposal of LLRW. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s “Code of
Federal Regulations” stipulates that these sites must be located, manufactured,
operated, closed and controlled to meet all established objectives[vii]. This code (CFR) is divided into 50 titles
which represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. Each title is divided into chapters and
further subdivided into subparts covering specific regulatory areas. Each volume of the CFR is revised
yearly. Chapter 40 regulates and
defines radioactive waste disposal.
The objectives of
chapter 40 of the CFR is that the surrounding population must be protected from
the release of radioactivity and that any individual within the site itself be
protected. Site stability must be
insured and safe from any inadvertent intrusion. These sites must also remain intact for at least 300 years after
their closure. Careful site selection
is required and the hydrology, geology, land use, ecology and socioeconomics of
any proposed site must be exhaustively studied. The actual disposal site must be large enough to comprise a
buffer zone encircling the disposal unit.
This buffer zone will provide a controlled space in which to monitor any
radiation leaks and provide early warning should they occur. The six most proven technologies can meet
all of these objectives. All are land
disposal methods and all involve some type of waste burial technology. All are proven effective and should be
implemented across the U.S.
The first technology is Shallow Land Burial (SLB). In this simple facility the low-level wastes
are buried within 30 meters of the surface and later when the facility is full
it is covered with soil. These SLB
facilities have been used at all the commercial disposal sites in the United
States and in other countries. France
and Russia have used this method successfully for over 30 years. This disposal unit is a lined, sloping
trench. The lining is cement and heavy
plastic. Around this lining, water drainage pumps and riser pipes are
installed. The radioactive waste is
first stored in concrete caskets, steel drums or steelbins. It is then
inventoried and placed in the disposal unit.
When the trench is full of containers it is backfilled with the earth
which was originally removed. The earth
is compacted and capped with a layer of clay to minimize water seepage. Finally, a sloping mound of earth is put in
place over the entire facility and vegetation is planted to stabilize the
soil. The only problem so far involving
these type facilities was during the early implementation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had not at
that time implemented its now stringent requirements for waste containers.
There have been no leaks or seepage of waste since the new packaging
regulations took effect. The lessons
about quality waste containers and good site selection were learned early and
now experience shows that these SLB facilities are probably the answer to the
LLRW waste problem in the future.
Another good alternative is Below-Ground Vaults
(BGV). BGVs are excavated and
constructed totally below ground. The
depth of excavation will depend on the site requirements and size of the
facility. These engineered structures
are so cost effective because of the wide variety of material and technology
allowed in their construction. Because
they are completely underground BGVs can be constructed of metal, concrete
blocks, poured or precast concrete and even molded plastic. The floor can be engineered material or rock
and natural soil. Water drainage must
be installed in the sub-floor. The
operational access to this vault is an excavated ramp leading to a service door
from the surface. This ramp and door
are covered at the time of closure. The
packaging of the waste to be stored in these vaults must meet the same (NRC)
regulation codes as all facilities.
BGVs are successfully used in this country at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and in Canada at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory and Whiteshell
Nuclear Research Establishment. Many
areas will build this type of facility because of the cost effectiveness and
the fact that it is totally below ground facility.
Another type vault strategy is the Above Ground Vault
(AGV). Basically this type facility
must meet the same construction standards as the below ground version. The difference being that it must be a
completely engineered building with a roof, floor, ceilings and walls. A portion of the building may extend above
the post-closure surface and remain visible afterwards. These buildings may be concrete blocks,
reinforced molded or sprayed concrete or molded plastic. There is limited access to a service door
near the surface that will be filled in at closure. Only one AGV is presently in use in the United States. It was constructed for the West Valley
Demonstration Project in New York in 1986.
Canada has two of these facilities in operation. One at New Brunswick Electric Power
Commission’s Point Lepreau site and Ontario Hydro’s Bruce site. They have been in operation for 10 years.
One of the most used burial technologies to date is
Earth-Mounded Concrete Bunkers (EMCB).
It is a combination of trenches, earth mounds and below-ground
vaults. These popular facilities are
excavated square concrete bunkers. The
heavy-wall concrete bunker is set below the surface and incorporates an
extensive water drainage system within the outer walls. Inside of this initial
wall other monolithic concrete walls are constructed to hold the packaged waste
products. Radioactive waste is then
stored in this cavity with the highest level waste stacked in the concrete
monoliths on bottom beneath ground level and lower level waste at ground
level. At closure, the whole bunker is
back-filled with the excavated soil and covered with a layer of clay. Over this a layer of top soil is compacted
and planted to stabilize the surface.
EMCB storage facilities have been in successful operation in France since
1969 at Centre de LaManche. A new
facility was opened at Centre de l’Aube in 1990. Canada uses this technology at its Chalk River facility and also
at the Whiteshell Research site. An
extremely versatile design, this excavated square bunker offers many options of
loading and storing waste within its thick walls. Its open design lends itself
to overhead loading verses some type of service door and EMCB facilities are
efficient to manufacture and easily covered when closed.
Shaft Disposal (SD) is a simple, straight forward
disposal technology. Using conventional methods shafts are bored into the
surface rock. These shafts may be lined
or unlined and may be of any diameter.
If the shafts are lined with concrete or metal or some other
non-permeable material then the packaging requirements are less stringent. Without linings in the augured holes then
the waste must be encased in asphalt or concrete before burial. This method of disposal shows great
potential so far. In 1983 the DOE began
storing LLRW in large diameter augured holes at its Nevada Test Site. The DOE is also using this technology at the
Savannah River Plant and at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. At Los Alamos National Laboratory augured
holes have even been used to store some high-level waste in cement encased
drums. Canada also uses Shaft Disposal
technology. Since 1985 the Canadians
have used augured shafts and sunken pre-fabricated concrete pipes to store
waste at Ontario Hydro’s Bruce site and The Chalk River facility. Although
technologically sound, these augured holes and linings are expensive to drill
and implement. Maybe this technology
would best be reserved for areas of the country where there is a great deal of
oil field drilling equipment already
being used. Maybe a good deal of the
oil field drilling technology and experience that already exists in this
country could be taken advantage of to help store this stockpile of LLRW.
The last commonly used burial strategy is Rock Cavity
storage. The success of this method is
strictly dependent on the stability of the formation in which the cavity
exists. These cavities may be natural
caverns, man-made mine shafts or cavities specially excavated for this
purpose. Rock cavity storage has many
advantages. Intact rock cavity
formations offer excellent containment of solid waste material and are very
resistant to water permeability. They
may be located in many different geologic formations and can be situated near
the surface or down to any depth appropriate for disposal. The biggest drawback to the facilities is
the potential for earthquake and geologic fractures. This can lead to rapid de-containment and underground water
contamination. These facilities have
been in use for many years around the globe.
Czechoslovakia, East Germany (FRG), West Germany and Spain use this
method of LLRW disposal. East Germany has been using abandoned salt mines since
1967. In the United States, The DOE is
developing technology to use salt formations for disposal near Carlsbad, New
Mexico and considering mined repositories in many other locations in this
country.
The description of these six disposal technologies is
necessarily brief. All six of these technologies are widely publicized and
documented in great detail[viii]. The existence of good disposal alternatives
is common knowledge but the political reaction to which method is the best or
most effective isn’t what is being argued.
The popular debate is whether to let any radioactive waste be disposed
of, under any conditions, using any plan what-so-ever. The saying (fail to plan--plan to
fail) will definitely prove its truthfulness
in regard to radioactive waste disposal.
Winston Churchill said “success is going from failure to failure with no
loss of enthusiasm.”
This certainly has been the scenario so far in the
radioactive waste dilemma facing this planet.
The primary objective of legislators, educators and this paper should be
to change public perception and convince a stubborn public that a major
environmental threat can safely and efficiently be eliminated now. The six technologies described above offer
documented proof that the LLRW risk is very manageable. The actual engineering, designing,
construction and cost comparison of these technologies should be done by the
regional politicians, scientists and
technicians involved. There is no way
around the problem. Eventually, all
radioactive waste will have to be disposed of.
The only question remaining is, which disposal method is the most
efficient and the most practical for each region of the country?
This massive problem will only get worse if we continue
to believe that all radioactive waste is the same. HLRW is generated almost entirely by the mining and processing of
uranium and plutonium ore for military applications and the reprocessing of
spent reactor fuel. It emits huge,
lethal doses of radiation and can have a half-life of many thousands of years,
even into perpertuity[ix].
The greatest risk from low-level waste is the massive build-up currently taking
place in temporary storage facilities[x].
Because it is commonly believed to be just as dangerous as highly radioactive
waste, LLRW is improperly mixed and stored with HLRW. If this practice was stopped and low-level waste disposed of
properly the radioactive disposal nightmare in this country would end. The EPA
estimates that even if an effective clean up began today it would continue well
into the next century[xi].
A mushroom cloud erupting over Nagasaki or Hiroshima is a
far cry from the low-level discharge of an x-ray or a smoke detector or the
irradiation of a corn crop in Iowa.
Selective use of low-level radiation is not only beneficial but
absolutely necessary to continue our quality of life, economic growth and
technical progress. Today, radio
chemicals are produced and used in massive quantities. In his book “Radioactive Waste Disposal:
High and Low-Level” William Gilmore
says “in the U.S. there are literally thousands of commercial generators of
radiochemicals, radiopharmaceuticals, and solid or aqueous low-level
radioactive products. These companies are not even fully regulated until they
produce more than 2,200 lbs. of product per month. Even at that rate of production they are given up to 270 days to
store waste by-products.” These
processes range from non-destructive testing of pipe welds to sensitive
chemical analysis to thousands of medical procedures used to combat
disease. Academic institutions use an
immense amount of radiochemicals in their research labs. Petrochemical plants
use low-level radiochemicals in many processes. There is certain to be a
continual stream of low-level waste by-products in the future.
In her book “Silent Spring” Rachel Carson says ”The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon
the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with
dangerous and even lethal materials.
This pollution is for the most part irrecoverable; the chain of evil it
initiates not only in the world that must support life but in living tissues is
for the most part irreversible. In this
now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and
little-recognized partners of radiation in hanging the very nature of the
world--the very nature of its life”. As
Albert Schweitzer has said ”Man can hardly even recognize the devils of his own
creation”.