Radioactive Waste Disposal - Assignment Example

Farzeela Faisal Standard Academia Research Nov-13-2005 Introduction: "Radioactive Waste Disposal" In 1998 the UK Government upheld the Cumbrian County Council's refusal to grant planning permission for an underground rock characterization facility near Sellafield, which was intended to be the precursor for a deep repository. That decision has effectively delayed the availability of any future disposal facility for intermediate level waste (ILW), and made it clear that it will be many decades before a disposal route, or other long-term management option, is available for ILW and high-level waste (HLW). An alternative approach favors long-term storage and retrievability of radioactive waste rather than deep disposal. Britishers recognize radioactive waste as a threat to public health, environmental protection, and the economic stability of any community, which might become contaminated. In 1977, the former United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, acting as the agent for the then Department of the Environment, embarked on a programme of research into the geological suitability of particular areas for a possible hard-rock repository. The authority insisted that all that was involved was test drilling. The public, and local authorities saw things differently. They suspected the authority was looking for disposal sites. Protest meetings were held, geologists hounded, and in 1981 ministers abandoned the programme. (Long-term storage of Radioactivity waste, Sheila Hutchison) Features of a nuclear waste repository Radioactive wastes are fabricated by three groups of activities: the production of nuclear electricity; the production of nuclear weapons; and, in much less significant quantities, in nuclear research, medical practice and certain industrial activities. Radioactive waste restrains an extensive range of material with widely varying characteristics. Some has relatively slight radioactivity and is safe to handle, while other types are intensely hot in both temperature and radioactivity. Some decays to safe levels of radioactivity in a matter of days or weeks, while other types will remain dangerous for thousands of years. Major types of radioactive as reflect on two types of wastes are: High-level waste. Spent fuel, which is still in the original fuel rods and the concentrated fission products after reprocessing is often collectively referred to as high-level waste. Highly radioactive residue created by spent fuel reprocessing. High-level waste contains most of the radioactive fission products of spent fuel, but most of the uranium and plutonium usually has been removed for re-use. Enough long-lived radioactive elements remain, however, to require isolation for 10,000 years or more. High-level or Spent fuel from a nuclear reactor will contain quantities of 'fission products' with relatively short half-lives. It will thus be intensely radioactive. If this spent fuel is reprocessed to recover plutonium, these fission products are concentrated to become high-level waste. Low-level waste. Radioactive waste not classified as spent fuel, high-level waste, or by product material such as uranium mill tailings enclose four classes of low-level waste as established by NRC, ranging from least radioactive and shortest-lived to the longest-lived and most radioactive. Although some types of low-level waste can be more radioactive than some types of high-level waste, in general low-level waste contains relatively low amounts of radioactivity that decays relatively quickly. Low-level waste disposal facilities cannot accept material that exceeds NRC concentration limits. Low-level waste also includes such trivia as papers and clothing that may have been contaminated, as well as spent radioactive sources from medical practice or research. How UK will resolve to manage its Nuclear Based Legacy Over the past decade, radioactive-waste management, practice and policy have suffered a number of setbacks in the UK. Governments and the nuclear industry itself have alternately treated radwaste management either as a marginal problem, or as one, which was too explosive to touch. In both cases, only partial management strategies have been devised that the most serious blockage to coherent strategy has been the poor linkage of regulations relating to the day-to-day management of wastes. The UK has escalating demand for power coinciding with a denunciation of its major means to produce energy. Gas, oil and coal based power stations are being rejected on the grounds of emissions of gases causing climate change and existing nuclear power stations need to be retired due to their age. This disparity leads to forecasts that the UK will not have a sufficient generating capacity to meet its demands, perhaps as soon as 2020. Commentators like Scott (Philip Scott, 12 April 2005, Election 2005 "It's this simple: wind farms the size of London, or safe, clean nuclear plants" My big issue, The Times, p18.) consider that the renewable energy sources, such as wind, hydro, tidal, wave and bio-fuels, are not practical solutions to this shortfall. Instead, these may provide only a component of a mix of energy generation sources that almost inevitably include nuclear power. The basis of opposition to nuclear power arises from the wastes that nuclear technologies produce. Therefore it is important in any debate on the future power requirements of the UK that there is a clear understanding of the issues concerning nuclear waste. In order to resolve the Nuclear Waste dilemma Blowers (Andrew Blowers OBE Northumbria University, 12 April 2005) described the various approaches that have been considered and concluded that the problem is not solvable in our lifetimes and that all proposed solutions are unsatisfactory. The process of deciding what to do about this situation must integrate scientists, politicians, the public and stakeholders. Studies have considered 15 options in detail that may be roughly classified into three categories: storage the default option if no better option is found), disposal (some people find all such methods unacceptable) and treatment. Treatment has not discussed yet in detail, the impression being that such approaches are not generally viable at present. Four of the 15 options were short-listed: storage, near surface disposal (for intermediate and low level wastes), deep disposal and phased deep disposal. Whatever approach is eventually taken, the choice should made according to the principles that it is: open and transparent; in the public interest; fair both to local communities and to future generations; and (of course) efficient, cost effective and conclusive. Unfortunately such decisions must be made within a political context that has a time horizon of only four years. Consequently it will always be possible for politicians to ignore the problem as not urgent enough to warrant their attention. Indeed on the time scales that must be considered, the political context must be considered as constantly in flux. (Too hot to handle The what, when, where and how of nuclear waste policy, Andrew Blowers OBE Northumbria University, 12 April 2005) The UK government estimates that it will soon have some 500,000 tons of nuclear waste that will remain dangerous for the next 250,000 years and for which it has no home. In 2003, the UK government assigned a committee on radioactive waste management to re-examine all possibilities to find acceptable solutions to dispose of the country's nuclear waste. The committee advisers have so far considered 14 options, all of which are technically possible but potentially highly hazardous to present and future generations. Examples include: Firing nuclear waste into the sun. While this may rid the earth of nuclear waste, the possibility of rocket failure makes this option a huge risk. Placing nuclear waste on Antarctic ice sheets so that its own heat will cause it to sink to the bedrock. However, the Antarctic Treaty currently bans all nuclear activity on the continent. Burying the nuclear waste under the seabed. However, dumping nuclear waste into the sea is illegal. Exporting nuclear waste. This is against government policy, is likely to draw international protests and does not solve the overall problem of what to do with nuclear waste. Putting nuclear waste in the earth's crust so it is sucked to the molten core. The UK does not have the geological capacity to do this. In addition, the US and USSR previously tried this method to no avail. (Guardian, 14 April 2004, WagingPeace.org, http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/sunflower/2004/05_sunflower.htm) Before coming to the UK's Government current thinking to manage its nuclear waste, I would like to draw some light upon NII's four fundamental expectations, which according to the UK Government are vital for the management of radioactive material: The production of radioactive waste should be avoided and minimized Radioactive material should be managed and stored safely in a responsible manner, i.e. controlled and contained; Full use should be made of existing routes for the disposal of radioactive waste; and Remaining radioactive material should be promptly put into a passively safe state for storage pending future disposal or other long-term solution. Passive safety, which is an element of UK Government policy, requires the radioactive wastes and materials to be immobilized in a form that is physically and chemically stable and stored in a manner that minimizes the need for control and safety systems, maintenance, monitoring and human intervention. Wherever possible it should be packaged in a form that is suitable for both long-term storage and ultimately for disposal. I personally disagree with the UK Government's idea of disposing off nuclear power without properly considering the issues of waste, as it seems very impractical to put waste anywhere that would test the Government's commitment to safety and protractivity. I think the Government should keep concentrating on the long-term disposal rather than to follow an unrealistic approach escorting to a temporary and improbable loom. Some of the factors, in my perspective, which are to be considered for long-term storage, are Safety cases and Containment. Works Cited Bury the Waste, Not Our Heads, For 25 Years, Governments Have Evaded the Problem of High-Level Waste. The Most Credible Solution Seems to Be Burial but Where and How Deep Roger Milne, New Statesman. Volume: 132. Issue: 4657, September 29, 2003, p xvi, 2003 Electricity and the Primary Fuels: Technology, Market Structure and Prices, M.V. Posner - National Institute Economic Review. Issue: 145, 1993 p 64. Guardian, 14 April 2004, WagingPeace.org, http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/sunflower/2004/05_sunflower.htm Long-term storage of Radioactivity waste, Sheila Hutchison Meltdown, Christopher Flavin, Nicholas Lenssen, World Watch. Volume: 9. Issue: 3, May-June 1996. p 22 Radioactive Waste: Politics and Technology, Frans Berkhout, Routledge, 1991, p 35. Restructuring Nuclear Regulations, Kenneth L. Mossman, Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume: 111. Issue: 1, 2003. p 13 The Nuclear Waste Myth, Ron Smith Challenges the View That There Is an Unsolved Problem in Relation to the Disposal of Nuclear Waste, Ron Smith, New Zealand International Review. Volume: 28. Issue: 5, 2003. p 21. Read More