As the millenium approaches, we are faced with the problems created by our technological advances. Everyday we are forced to see the results, from acid rain to polluted beaches. But there is one problem in particular that will probably out-live our generation and the generation which has created it. If properly contained and monitored, it has little affect on us and our environment. However, once it is free of it's containment, it is a destructive and deadly force. This problem is nuclear waste.
Thirty thousand metric tons of spent fuel rods from power reactors and another 380,000 cubic meters of high level radioactive waste, have been produced in the United States since the beginning of the nuclear age. Presently, these fuel rods are stored at the nuclear reactors in water filled basins and accumulate at the rate of six tons per day (Whipple, 1996). As the populataion increases, so does the demand for electricity. If we continue relying on nuclear power to provide our electricity, we will continue producing more and more nuclear waste. Greater use of nuclear power and volumes of waste mean a greater chance of accidental release of radiation into the environment.
How does radiation in our environment affect us? In order to understand how radiation affects us, we first must understand how it is produced. Fission is the initial step. It is the splitting of uranium or plutonium atoms which produces radioactive "fission fragments" and "activation products" (Bertell, 1985). These products then ionize normal atoms, which leads to a sort of domino affect microscopically. This chain reaction can also cause activation products to be produced by causing chemicals in the air, water, or other materials to absorb energy, undergo structural changes, and become radioactive. In this chain reaction as many as 300 different radioactive substances can be created which take hundreds of thousands of years for them to return to a stable form (Bertell, 1985).
In a nuclear reactor of a nuclear power plant, the fission process is contained within the zirconium or magnesium cladding that surrounds the fuel rods. The fuel rods are "spent" after the fission takes place. They are highly radioactive and give off dangerous gamma radiation, which is similar to X-ray and can therefore penetrate through a human body. It is necessary to shield the spent fuel rods with water and thick lead walls (Bertell, 1985). These fuel rods and their contents, are essentially what comprises nuclear waste and is what needs to be kept secure for hundreds of thousands of years.
There are two types of radiation; particle and penetrating. Penetrating radiation or gamma radiation, can pass through human tissue and damages cell functions. After about 500 years, gamma radiation in nuclear fuel waste drops to low enough levels that it poses no real threat to humans (AECB, 1992). Particle radiation includes alphan and beta radiation. This type of radiation is given off by the longer lived radioactive substances. This means that the substances remain hazardous for many thousands of years. Neither these types can penetrate human tissue. However, they can affect cell function and therefore cause cancer if the radioactive substance has been ingested or inhaled (AECB, 1992).
Exposure to radiation cn have very harmful results and could even cause death. It has been shown that radiation exposure causes cancer, reproductive failure, genetic defects, birth abnormalities, and cell-death (Lipshutz, 1980). The severity of these results depends upon several factors such as; amount of exposure, rate of exposure, type of radidation (alpha, beta, gamma), how the subject was exposed, and the age and health of the subject exposed (Lipshutz, 1980).
Phrase such as long-term and short-term are used to describe radiation effects on living things. "Radiation sickness" is used to describe a short-term effect from exposure to intense radiation for a short period of time. Long-term effects may not show up for years. They are caused by intense radiation exposure for a brief period of time or long time exposures to low radiation levels.
Radiation sickness, which is a short-term effect, can occur if the subject is exposed to a dose of radiation that is 100 rems (roentgen equivalent in man, it is the product of the rad times the Q, quality factor) or more. Radiation exposure above 1000 rems is fatal (Lipschutz, 1980). The sickness is divided into three phases and the time of onset is dependent on the dose of exposure. The first phase is called the initial phase and the symptios are nausea, vomiting, intense headache, and dizziness. Next, is a latent period with very little noticeable symptoms. The final phase often requires hospitalization and includes skin hemorrhages, diarrhea, loss of hair, seizure, prostration, and loss of antibody production (Lipschutz, 1980).
Long-term affects do not usually develop until many years after exposure. These effects cause different cancers, alterations in chromosomes by breaking and therefore damaging reproductive cells, and birth defects. Exposure of fetal cells to radiation causes chromosome damage which causes severe morphological and/or mental defects (Lipschutz, 1980).
Entry of radioactivity into the environment can occur in many different ways. Some is intentionally discharged from different nuclear facilities. Dilution and dispersion methods are used to reduce the concentrations of radioactivity in the environment to federally allowed limits (Lipschutz, 1980). However, even if the initial concentrations are below the federal limit, the radionuclides can be reconcentrated in the food chain. For example, if a radioactive element, such as stronium-90, is present in the grass a cow eats, it is ingested and further concentrated in the cow's milk. When humans drink the milk the stronium-90, which is similar to calcium, becomes incorporated into bone. The stronium-90 in the bone can then cause leukemia because of it's radioactivity (Lipschutz, 1980). Accidental releases, such as at Three Mile Island in March of 1979, may also occur.
What are the exposure limits prescribed by federal government? The first radiation exposure limits were issued in the 1930's (Lipschutz, 1980). As the effects and dangers of exposure became realized, the limits were gradually reduced. Today the suggested radiation-level that any person can recieve safely is 2-20 mrems per year. This was determined by the National Academy of Sciences (Flynn, 1997).
The levels of radiation released are required to be monitored by the utility companies which operate the nuclear power plants. The state health departments also monitor the levels by surveying air, water, and food (Commoner, 1975). In addition, the EPA's Office of Radiation Programs analyzes samples of milk for stronium-90, cesium-137, and iodine-131 (Commoner, 1975). However, we can not rely completely on these organizations to monitor the radiation levels. Independent scientists and the public needs to stay alert for the entry of radiation into our environment.
There are two techniques used to manage nuclear waste; storage and disposal. Storage is used to describe management in which the waste is retrievable. Disposal is the permanent isolation from humanss and our environment (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980).
Presently, we only have methods of short term storage. For example, when the spent fuel rods are taken from the reactor, they are immediately placed in a water filled, stainless-steel-lined, concrete chamber. The water circulates through and removes the heat created by the radioactive decay. The water also serves as a radioactive shield (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980). These containment facilities are kept and maintained at the reactor site for the low level nuclear waste. Storage space is becoming scarce as more and more spent fuel rods are being created.
The higher level of nuclear waste, created from nuclear weapon production, is stored in huge tanks below the earth's surface at AEC's (Atomic Energy Commission) three major sites in Hanford, Washington, Savannah River, South Carolina, and the Nulcear Reactor Testing Station in Idaho (Commoner, 1980). The life of the radioactive waste put into these tanks far outlives the tank itself. The tank's seams begin to corrode only after twenty years and the waste must then be moved to a new tank. On top of this factor, these tanks are very susceptible to natural and man made disasters further showing the need for a safer, more permanent solution.
The permanent solution of course would have to be disposal of the waste in some way. There have been serveral ideas for this perminent waste disposal since this problem became appartent. These include disposal in space, polare ice sheets, under the seabed, and geological formations (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980).
Disposal of nuclear waste in space is the only way to ensure complete isolation from humans and the environment. There are several differnt theories for disposal in space. They are; in high earth orbit, in solar orbit other that that of the planets, solar impact, and sending it out of our solar system (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980). However, space disposal is, at this point, impractical and expensive becaouse of the cooling and shielding requirements and the need for a durable containner in the event of an aborted mission. If we could seperate the solid waste form the transuranium elements, all elements heavier that uranium, and only dispose of these elements in space and store the solid waste on earth, the complications and expense could be decreased. Also, because the solid fission products decay in about 800 years, and the transuranium elements have much longer half-lives, isolation time for the wastes would be much shorter (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980). For this method to become a reality, we need to develope a way to safely seperate the solid from the transuranium elements. Disposal of nuclear waste in space would therefor still leave a large amount of waste on earth that is long lived.
Polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are permanent layers of ice laying over the land masses. These locations are in areas where there is little if any human activity and will, in theory, remain that way in the future. since disposal requires isolation from the human population, these sites could be ideal.
Ice sheet disposal includes three concepts; meltdown, anchored emplacement, and surface disposal. In meltdown, a hole fifty to one hundred meters deep would be drilled into the ice (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980). The canister containing the waste could then be placed in the hole and the heat generated by the radioactive decay could then melt the ice. Through time the canister could sink through the ice until it settled on the bedrock, three to four kilometers below (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980).
An anchored method involves the same principles except the canister would be prevented from sinking below 200-500 meters by a cable connected to the surface. With time, new snow and ice would form on top so the canisters would very slowly sink until they reached bedrock. This process would take 30,000 years (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980).
Surface disposal involves storage of the canisters in a structure above the surface of the ice. Winds would cool the canister and over time, gradually snow and ice would build up on the structure and it would eventually sink through the ice layers. These last two methods would allow for retrieval of the canisters up to 400 years (Glasstone and Jordan, 1980).
Seabed disposal is another method which would involve almost total isolation from human activities and natural disasters such as storms. This method would also involve international approval and monitoring. Charles Hollister first suggested this method of disposal nearly twenty-three years ago (Nadis, 1996).
In 1974, research began on the sub-seabed disposal program. Within a few years it had grown to include ten countries and 200 scientists. Core sampling of the North Pacific floor was then conducted to determine the stability of this area. the heavy muds and clays that layer the nid-ocean basins is well suited for holding and containing nuclear waste, not only because of their sticky nature but also because the mud flats are stabile. They are in fact unaffected by volcanic activity and/or the shifting of the earth's tectonic plates and have been stabile for the past 65 million years, as found by research in 1976 (Nadis, 1996). In theory, if nuclear waste canisters were placed ten meters below the surface of the mud layer, any leaks would be contained by the muds and clays for millions of years. If placed 100 meters below, it would ensure an even greater measure of safety (Nadis, 1996).
There are still issues dealing with how to go about depositing nuclear waste in the seabed. The waste could be put into a torpedo shaped canister which would then be allowed to sink into the mud or it could be implanted by first drilling a holl and then placing the canister in the hole. They there are the questions of how deep the canisters should be placed and how the heat that is generated by the radioactive materials, would affect the mud (Nadis, 1996).
If sub-seabed disposal is thought to be such a great idea, then why has it not been developed fully and put into action? It began in 1982 with the passing of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which required the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a land-based repository for disposal of nuclear waste by the year 1998 (Gardner, 1996). In this legislation a Nuclear Waste Fund was also established to pay for the development of this geological repostitory. This fund was paid for by utilities and industries which had a vested interest in geting rid of their waste (the funding of this was essentially passed on to the public in the form of a tax placed on nuclear-generated electricity). The sooner a repository was built, the sooner they could get rid of their waste and therefore the waste problem (Nadis, 1996).
As suggested by Nadis, another reason this method of disposal was rejected, was because both environmentalists and government officials assumed that the sub-seabed disposal method was merely a "wholesale ocean dumping." (1986). Greenpeace International has fought against sub-seabed disposal since 1978 (Nadis, 1986). Greenpeace's political advisor prefers land-based disposal because, "the people who produce nuclear waste should deal with it in their own territory--that would force everyone to pay more attention to what their producing." (Nadis, 1986). He also argues that land-based disposal is preferable because of the retrievability factor. If there is a problem, he argues that it would be easier to retrieve the waste if it were on land.
In 1986, the rejection of sub-seabed disposal was completed legally. The Department of Energy cut off all funding for alternative research in order to develop a land based repository. Walter L. warnick, director of the Office of Sub-seabed Disposal Research stated, "It merely reflected the feeling that land based disposal technology was more advanced at the time." (Nadis, 1996, p30). Warnick and other scientists still hold on to the idea tha sub-seabed disposal is the best solution to the nuclear waste problem because in the research that occured between 1974 and 1986 no formidable problems have been found against the method.
Although seabed disposal came close to being a forseeable method, it was set back by political events which were influenced by industrialists and environmentalists. It was made clear that a land-based, geological repository was to be the disposal method of choice.
After 1982, the selection of possible sites began and the DOE chose three sites in Nevada, Texas, and Washington. Public and environmentalist opposition rose up in these areas, however the DOE ignored this as it worked above the public and state interrests. Research began on these sites and in 1987 the Yucca Mountain site was chosen to be developed into the land based repository (Wipple, 1996).
Yucca Mountain is about 160 km northwest of Las Vegas and is near the Nevada Test site where the DOE has tested nuclear weapons. The mountain is made up of tuf rock, or rock form from volcanic ash, and is between 11 and 13 million years old (Whipple, 1996). The repository would be composed of two chambers 300 meters below the surface in which canisters containing the nuclear waste will be stored. The chambers will be 240-300 meters above the water table (Wipple, 1996).
Research conducted by DOE and scientists hired by the state of Nevada have found several possible problems with this site. There are questions as to whether Yucca Mt. is in an area of potential seismic and volcanic activity. The area of the repository site includes Ghost Dance Fault which cuts throught the mountain from North to South. Government geologists are not sure when this fault was last active or even if it is connected with other major faults in the area. However, there is a good chance that this fault could be a problem because the are of Southern Nevada itself is relatively young, geologically active area. On June 29, 1992 an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.6 occured at Skull Mt., 12 miles from the repository site, which damaged the DOE's project buildings (Flynn, 1997).
There is also a dormant volcano located seven miles from Yucca Mountain. It is dormant now but, when the time needed for stable storage of wase is that of 10,000 years, how is this possible danger handled? In 1995, the DOE put together a panel of scientists to determine how likely future volcanic activity is. The conclusion was "the probability of a volcano errupting through the repository during the next 10,000 years is one in 10,000." (Flynn, 1997). How low of a chance do we need to make this a suitable site? Do we ignor the possibilities and dangers in order to find a suitable site? Ten thousand years is a long time for an area to remain stabile. Is any site therefore suitable for land-based nuclear disposal?
It is also not known wheter the radioactive waste could come in contact with ground water and eventually the human population. As the canisters corrode, water that leaches through could pick up radioactive elements and carry them down to the ground water below (Whipple, 1996). However, depending on the amount and the rate of leaching, the amount of radioactive particles reaching the ground water and humans could be low.
This method of disposal does not only affect Nevada. Transportation of the nuclear waste from the reactors to the repository will be conducted by train and truck routes. This will, in fact, affect 43 states (Flynn, 1997). Indiana is one of those states; with shipments through Portage, Indianapolis, Porter, Southbend, Wellsboro, Fort Wayne, Evansville, Jeffersoonville, and Goshen (St. Joe Valley Greens, 1997).
The Yucca Mt. Project is very controversial. Partially because of the fact that nobody wants nuclear waste in their back yard and also because of the way the DOE has thusfar handled it. "After spending 2 billion dollars on technical studies and preliminary excavation, the DOE still hasn't shown any signs of geological stability in the (Yucca) site," stated Nadis (1996, p 30). And so far the DOE has not shown any signs of attempting to calm the fears of the public.
The DOE made a commitment to build a land-based repository for the nuclear power plants and utilities. In this agreement they were to build a repository which would begin accepting nuclear waste in 1998. So far they are way behind schedule due to setbacks and resistance from environmentalist and the public. The date of acceptance of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mt. repository has thus been set back until 2015 (Whipple, 1996). The utilities are angry and they want to get rid of their waste as soon as possible. However, should we be in such a rush to get this repository operational without first studying the problems?
John Cantlon, Chairman of Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board thinks it would be ineffective to try and determine the possibilities of what could occur within 10,00 years and he is willing to take the chance to build the repository in spite of the uncertainties. He states, "There is no scientific basis for predicting the probability of inadvertant human intrusion over the long times of interest for a Yucca Mt. repository....intrusion analysis should not be used during licensing to determine the acceptability of the candidate repository." (Flynn, 1997, p27).
According to Flynn, however, there is no need to rush into this project. He thinks that nuclear waste has been safely stored at the nuclear reactors for the past forty years and can continue for at least another century. New technologies are being developed in which to better store nuclear waste such as dry cask storage which will allow storage at the reactors for up to a century. J.K.Bates, a chemist, is also currently working on developing an alkali-tin-silicate glass that doesn't deteriorate when plutonium is dissolved into it (Liptkin, 1995). This new glass can hold 7% of it's weight in plutonium and it is resistant to deterioration into clay like normal glass (Liptkin, 1995).
Flynn goes further to call for a total reformation of the nuclear waste disposal program. He suggests we need to keep an open mind to the many options that lay before us and we should not limit ourselves to just one option. We also need to work on public relations and new processes of determining a site for disposal. He suggests we set up a voluntary selection process where a desposal site is not forced onto a community. The community should be able to have an active role in deciding and planning for the sites construction and design. But most of all he stresss that we need to take more time to think carefully about the consequences of our actions (1996).
When we are thinking about this issue, we need to keep in mind what God would want us to do. Because we are the earth's stewards as designated by God, we need to always keep ourselves and our given advantages in perspective. As Richard T. Wright explained, "This concept-stewardship-captures in one word our proper relationship to God's creation. We are Managers, but not owners." (Wright, 1989, p173). We must also realize that for our mistakes in managing the creation, we must be held accountable. Every decision we make, every bill we pass, affects our future. If we make the wrong decision along the way, we are held responsible by God. That is why we need to take this and other environmental issues so seriously. We may not know at this moment what God wants us to do, but we should take the time to slow down and examine all of the options.
This is a difficult problem, one that won't go away. How we handle it now will surely affect the way it affects our children and our children's children; be it positive or negative. After all, 10,000 years is a long time! We must thoroughly examine all of the possibilities and make an informed decision. We must not let money and other superficial issues cloud our judgement in choosing the correct path. The easiest path is not always the best, as written by Rober Frost:
Atomic Energy Control Board. (1992). The Hazards of Nuclear Fuel Waste. http://ulysses.srv.gc.ca/aecb/docs/regnfw/eng/file3.htm.
Bertell, Rosalie. (1985). No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. Summertown, TN: The Book Publishing Company.
Brodine, Virginia. (1975). Radioactive Contamination. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Flynn, James et al. Redirecting the U.S. High-Level Nuclear Waste Program. Environment. 39(3), 7-11, 25-29.
Frost, Robert. The Road Not Taken. In Williams, Oscar. ed. (1952). Immortal Poems of the English Language. (pp 504). New York: Washington Square Press.
Gardner, Beth. (1996). Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. http://www.public.iastate.edu/smevela/policy.html.
Glasstone, Samuel and Jordan, Walter H. (1980). Nuclear Power and It's Environmental Effects. LaGrange Pk., IL: American Nuclear Society.
Liptkin, R. (1995). New Glass Could Store Unused Plutonium. Science News. 148 (23). pp374.
Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (1980). Radioactive Waste: Politics, Technology, and Risk. Cambridge, Massachussesetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Nadis, Steven. (1996). The Sub-Seabed Solution. The Atlantic Monthly. 278(4). pp28-30, 38.
St. Joe Valley Greens. (1997). Nuclear Waste Transportation Map. http://users.michiana.org/greens/editorial/transpor.htm.
Whipple, Chris G. (1996). Can Nuclear Waste Be Stored Safely at Yucca Mountain?. Scientific American. 274(6). 72-79.
Wright, Richard T. (1989). Biology Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: Christian College Coalition.