Dilemma of Radioactive Waste in the United States - Report Example

Deborah Burton Research Journal W123 College Tutor Date Rаdiоасtivе Waste in the United States: With a specific reference to the Yucca Mountains and Hanford Project. On the 11th of March 2011, the World got awake up call of yet another eminent reality doomsday and threat from the Nuclear energy and power. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in Japan was a remainder of every inhabitant of this globe that it is sits on the time bomb. It is being said that this was the largest nuclear disaster after the Chenobl incident in 1986. The Fukushima accident was triggered by a major earthquake combined with a 15 meter Tsunami that caused a devastating damage on the eastern coastal regions of Japan disabling the power supply, automatically shutting down and cooling all the four rectors that were in operation at the plant. All the scores are believed to have melted in three days releasing high level radioactive for 6 days. The tsunami combined with the earthquake covered about 560 sq km causing a death toll of 19,000 people and destruction of properties worth millions of dollars. Although, no fatalities were reported from nuclear accident some employees died from the earthquake and tsunami. The emergency services struggled to contain the situation due to contamination from the radioactive wastes. The Japanese government indicated that radioactivity produced from caesium-137 had covered a large area of 13,000 km2 with higher doses compared to that of the Chernobyl. Further, the” major releases of radionuclide, including long-lived caesium, occurred to air, mainly in mid-March. The population within a 20km radius had been evacuated three days earlier. Considerable work was done to reduce the amount of radioactive debris on site and to stabilize dust. The main source of radioactive releases was the apparent hydrogen explosion in the suppression chamber of unit 2 on 15 March” (World Nuclear Association). Even though, official reports showed that some “there have been no harmful effects from radiation on local people, nor any doses approaching harmful levels” according to World Nuclear Association, the individual assessment presented to the National Academy of Sciences by Kinoshita (19526-19529) showed that there was “Fukushima and its adjacent prefectures were contaminated with fission products from the accident”. According to Kinoshita a tremendous amount of radioactivity was discharged due to the cooling of the systems of the nuclear reactors in the Fukushima nuclear power plant unit 1. The high levels of radioactive “iodine, tellurium, and cesium were geographically distributed in the surface soils of central-east Japan” contaminating the water, sea and buildings (Kinoshita, 19526-19529). Researchers have drawn lessons from the Chernobyl accidents and Hiroshima and Nagasaki have expressed fears that due to the accumulated radiation exposures, the residents of Fukushima city are likely suffer from cancerous deaths. Christodouleas states that, when the fission products settle on human beings, their internal organs and skins are exposed to the radioactivity and could cause thyroid, lung and skin cancers and genetic diseases ( Christodouleas 2334-2341). The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear accident in Japan in March 11th 2011 serves as wakes up call to the whole world that nuclear energy is real threat to the survival of humanity and all living things. The are both short term and long terms health risks such as cancerous diseases/fatalities often associated with the exposure to the high levels of radioactive materials as seen in the case of Hiroshima/ Nagasaki atomic bombings and Chernobyl Nuclear Accidents. There are just a reminder that therefore is a need for proper management and disposal of radioactive wastes, because the entire world is ill equipped to deal with the future nuclear disasters that can result from improper disposal and long term storage, not only in former USSR bloc countries where nuclear wastes are not monitored but even in the US. By and large, The Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011 has brought to the forefront of public concerns in America, the problem with the use of nuclear energy, specifically the extremely volatile issue of disposing safely of nuclear waste. Americans are very much aware through the media how the lives of hundreds of thousands of people continue to be affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster, especially the 160,000 who fled their homes because of radioactive contamination.  This act as warming to Americans and the entire world that nuclear waste is not only a scourge on our nation's landscape, but a potentially dangerous problem that is plaguing the world.  Nuclear Power cannot be considered as a replacement to other forms of energy until waste can be permanently removed, stored, degraded. From the time humankind started using nuclear energy as a powerful, cleaner and cheaper source of energy for the production of anything from devastating weapons to power plants to electricity and even to combat diseases. Nuclear power has been used for generating power, mining purposes and industrial processing (Wood and Wollenberg, 364). The term nuclear waste is often used to refer to the radioactive waste that has been left over from the bomb productions. It can also refer to radioactive and other toxic products from the nuclear fuel processing plants, nuclear medicine and nuclear weapon industries (Bodansky, 259). The nuclear energy has become the largest and most important sources of energy that has emerged as part of the technological development in the 20th century (Bodansky, 1). The nuclear energy was invented in 1930s in the US, developed as a source of energy and used as an atomic bomb in early 1940s for military purposes oversee (Bodansky, 15). Nuclear energy was invented to solve human problems it has turned out to be the biggest threat to humankind. The problem associated with the nuclear energy is the exposure to the radioactive wastes that are produced from the nuclear products. Researchers have found that human beings and other living things that were exposed to such radioactive wastes were affected in their health. The radiation kills the many cells in the body and causing the risk of developing cancer. Caldicott argues cancerous diseases like Leukemia and genetic diseases are common in amongst the communities living near the nuclear power plants due to the exposure to radioactive wastes (Caldicott, 10-11). The effects of radioactive is being studied by scientists, and Fergusson’s paper (2011) has indicated that scientists are yet to prove the effects of radioactive waste on the environment, although, the effects of radioactive wastes often depends largely on the types or levels of radio activity. The recent research conducted by the US National Academy of Sciences has indicated that there is still a threat of radioactive waste that was stored in the US since 1983 that has not decayed and may take up 3million years. This report has clearly shows the dangers that the American society and that of the world faces from radiation. This report by NAS has also argued there is need to find to both political and technological solution to this problem, which must also address the environmental and health hazards it poses. According to Ferguson (2011) there are three main types of radio actives, these are low level, intermediate level and high level. In Fergusons’ view the low level radioactive wastes are derived from contaminated radioactive materials. The expert opinion indicated in this article has shown that radio active can be stored for a short term solution in safe containers where they cannot be used for attacks. The experts suggests that the long term solution towards radioactive is to bury them in under the earth’s surface. The low level wastes are not considered dangerous because its radioactivity not highly concentrated, but they can still pose a hazard for up to many thousand years (Miller, 3). In most cases the low level are unspent fuel, milling tailings, reprocessed materials or transuranic materials and also includes the residues of radio active wastes, the contaminated rector waters, waste materials from power plants, universities, industries, hospitals and medical laboratories. The low level radioactive wastes consist of “contaminated protective clothing, tools, filters, rags, and medical tubes”. (US NRC, 2012). In most cases, these wastes are kept in the dump sites, containers and sanitary landfills for shorter period before they are disposed. This poses a danger to the future generation who may not have the knowledge these disposals. The second type of radioactive is known as intermediate level according Fergusson (2011) is isolated from the environment in order to allow it to decay to get to the low level standard which is able to safely transport to the low level disposal sites. This type of radioactive is also associated with Mill Tailings used in building constructions, which are left overs from refined and processed ore, comes in huge sand like piles that are blown about by water and air (Miller, 32). Scientist believes that the residue from these tailings often lives on the surface of the earth for thousands of years. In the US alone there were about 140 million tons of mill tailings that that have been blown by 1989. It is recommended that that the best way to deal with this level of radioactive threat is to bury these tailings clay pits. (Vakil and Harvey, 42) The third type of radioactive is known as high level waste, often decays after short period of time but its remains take up to ten thousand years. According to the expert opinion in Fergusson’s report the high level radio active waste still remains to be a problem after many decades (Ferguson, 2011). The high level radioactive waste usually consists of wastes from spent nuclear reactors fuel that comes from military facilities and commercial nuclear power plants whose effects lasts for thousands of years (Miller, 32). The best example of the high level radiation from the military equipments and power plants includes that of the Nagazaki and Hiroshima in 1945 and the Chernobyl Nuclear plant in Russia. The victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were exposed to radioactivity that was produced from the atomic bomb blast such as the fallout of the fission products or the nuclear materials like uranium or plutonium that contaminated the ground (Douple et al, 122-133). Similar thing is believed to have happened at Chernobyl incident whereby the radioactivity from the nuclear plant contaminated the ground. The Chernobyl accident which took place in 1986 is believed to be one of the severest disasters in the nuclear industry having caused a huge release of radionuclide in a larger part of Eastern Europe (Balonov, 6-12). The incidents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings and the Chernobyl are a reminder that nuclear disaster is devastates the lives people and communities for many years. This issue has brought to the forefront of public concerns the problems associated with the use of nuclear energy, and one thing which the Americans are concerned with is the disposal of radioactive wastes. Various researches from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl are a clear indication that nuclear power is scourge on the nation’s landscape and a real threat to the world. Many nations around the world, including the US have adopted the nuclear power as a replacement to other forms of energy. It seen as the solution to and replacement to coal fired power, natural gas oil and coal in heating and other applications. It will also replace the use petroleum in transportation and fossil fuels by electricity (Bodansky 17). The disposal of such high level radioactive wastes has sparked intense debate due to the fear of radiation risk to the environment and human health. Scholars, policy makers and environmental activists have divided views and opinions on how to store and dispose off the high waste radioactive wastes. There is a lot of concern amongst the environmental experts that dumping of radioactive wastes in the oceans is detrimental to the environment, sea life and human beings. Fergusson’s report has argued that 57,000 metric tons of radioactive wastes in the US alone are have been stored for short term solutions there are no plans to indicate that they are yet to be dealt with. This has become worry to many people that this would affect the future generations (Fergusson, 2011). According to Miller the threat of high level radioactive has forced many countries and especially of the developing world to come up with various ways of disposing solid radioactive wastes. Such disposals includes deep under ground purposely built and engineered repositories that can keep high level of radioactive wastes for many years without posing a threat to human health and the environment. The management of nuclear wastes from both commercial industries and military plants is posing as the biggest challenge not for the United States but also for the developed world (Miller, 32). Wolbarst research is a clear indication that a vast population in the US is exposed to the risk of radiation due radioactive contamination. This report asserts that there are many sites in the US that has been contaminated with radioactivity because radioactive materials and products which has used in productions, mining and processing industries for over a century and disposed has become a threat to the environment and human beings. The best sites would include military bases and training facilities, weapon research and production plants, facilities run by the Department of energy, properties owned by the Federal agencies and private government facilities, as well as areas protected by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regularly Commissions (Wolbarst et al, 247-260). As part of the solution to this problem the US government decided to invest heavily on the geologic disposal and sent a side a Yucca Mountain in Las Vegas, Nevada as the permanent dumping site for commercial nuclear wastes since 1987. The Yucca Mountain is located on the Federal Land in Nye County, Southern Nevada which is about 160 Kms from Las Vegas City (Site Map, Appendix). The biggest challenge for the US authorities is not just disposal but also safe transportation of nuclear without causing any accidents. According to Alley et al (2012), radioactive wastes are so different from other wastes because of the risks associated with them, the financial cost involved and political temperatures involved. Various government have addressed this problem differently, for instance, the Bush Administration has been accused of trying to manipulate the research findings to fit into its political agenda. Americans are still concerned with the waste disposals of such high level radioactive wastes, though the general consensus is that geologic repository is the best way for providing a long term solutions to this problem. The Hanford project is an example of the American government plan for handling the large quantity of radioactive wastes Nevertheless, there have some concern about the safety issues at Hanford project concerning the storage of toxic nuclear waste (Brown, 2013). The cost of such storage and clean project is a major cause. In Brown’s view the Yucca Mountain Plant had failed and was therefore a waste of time. The question which many Americans are concerned with is who will pay for this project. The Obama administration cancelled the Yucca Mountain project 2008, but the Hanford project is still on. The Obama administration instead established the clean Energy Deployment Administration what will fund the research, development and risk management of nuclear wastes following the Fukushima Dai –ichi nuclear power plant in Japan (Holt, 2010). Brown has expressed the fear that the many Americans have concerning the Hanford that is the radioactive disaster is likely to happen in the event of an accident or terrorist attack in their own backyards. This fear on the fact there are 177 storage tanks between 1943 and 1986 are showing some defects and linkages. The Hanford is estimated to cost the American taxpayers about $13. 4 dollars, and yet it’s still very complex in that it deals with different ways of operating the biochemical fuels (Brown, 2012). According to Morse (2013) the Hanford project is actually 586 square miles and it is the main site where the American government has used for many decades to produce plutonium for manufacturing the atomic weapons including the ones that were dropped at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For many Americans, Hanford is a disaster in waiting and the main concern is the cost of cleanup of the nuclear wastes. The government has earmarked the year 2022 to begin the cleaning operation which in Morse’s view would involve the process of separating the 56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste. This waste will be turned into glass logs and stored in a safe way for over years without posing a hazard to the environment. The cost of such clean up is concerning disquiet amongst many Americans. Bernton (2013) argues that this clean up process would cost up to $ 2 billion every year because it is duly contaminated and process would go on for decades costing the tax payer about $ 115 billion. In fact the Hanford has become a top political and environmental priority, the way it’s handled is crucial to the survival of future American generations. In Bernton’s view, the approach towards needs not to be based on political process alone but must incorporate the scientific research and highly skilled, expert engineers to review the technical issues associated with building and erecting storage tanks and how to handle the leaking containers. Mean while, in 2004 the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have raised their concern with this short disposal of radioactive in Hanford expressing fear that it could be used in terrorist attacks if they fall on wrong hands. The NAS report concludes that there is need for proper disposal or storage in containers and not in the pools, where it could lead to environmental and health disaster (Fergusson, 2011). Sovacool et al has addressed this issue of storage and waste disposal of nuclear wastes claiming that there is need for the government to stop giving out energy licenses to companies until they have come up with concrete plans for waste disposals (Sovacool, 67-78). Apparently, many Americans feel that the nuclear power cannot be stopped as the source of energy but the issues of radioactive wastes and cleaning process must be addressed so as to divert any disaster for the security of the future generations. Sovacool et al seems to be critical of the way in which high level radioactive waste which includes the “permanent geological repositories, extended on site storage, federal or private interim storage, reprocessing, and even non repositories ideas “is being handled. In Sovacool et al’s view the use of nuclear as a source of power energy needs to be stopped or scrapped altogether until the issue radioactive wastes are addressed. At the moment the US does not have enough space to store the 70, 000 metric tons of high level waste which is expected to increase to 200,000 metric tons by the year 2050. These numbers show that the US did not have an elaborate plan to handle the radio active wastes from the nuclear plants. The World Nuclear Organization asserts that the high level waste from nuclear fuel often takes three years to generate heat for electricity (world-nuclear. Org). The handling of nuclear wastes is still causing a lot of concerns too many Americans and many fear any human errors that are liked to occur. There are many ways of handling the waste disposals which includes burying sealed containers in the ground for short or long term. The disposal of radioactive materials must be done in sanitary sewage system and segregation and disposal. However, the any such disposal must be according to the state regulations and conditions as stipulated under the UTMB. The conditions for such waste disposals indicates that it is only the soluble material that should be dispensed in water, and any radioactive materials containing the chemical or biological nature should not be disposed in water. Meanwhile, as away of ensuring Radiations Safety all the wastage should be done through the disposal sinks. The other wastes can be disposed through the transmutation process, whereby the nuclear wastes are transformed into short term product with less harmful effects. The other ways waste disposals includes long term storage above the ground is a short term measure that involves the construction of facilities at the surface of the earth. Disposal in outer space is another process used to remove the radioactive from the earth to the outer space through the rocket or space shuttle. The other process is the deep boreholes which are drilled deep into the surface of the grounds and the radioactive wastes are buried into them. There are some ways of disposals which includes rock melting of wastes to produce solid mass and dilutes it into liquid form. The disposal of the wastes also includes throwing the radioactive residues into the sea or sinks it into the sea bed (World Nuclear Association, 2013). Appendix : Location of Yucca Mountain The map to the left shows the location of Yucca Mountain, in relation to major highways; surrounding counties, cities, and towns in Nevada and California; the Nevada Test Site; and Death Valley National Park. Yucca Mountain is located on Federal land in Nye County in southern Nevada, approximately 160 km (100 miles) northwest of Las Vegas. Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 29, 2012 Source: http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/photo-loc.html Works cited Alley, William M., and Rosemarie Alley. Too Hot to Touch. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print. Balonov, M. I. "The Chernobyl Forum: major findings and recommendations." Journal of environmental radioactivity 96.1 (2007): 6-12. Bernton, Hal. "Treatment plant at Hanford may not be done by 2019 deadline". The Seattle Times. n.p., 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 July 2013. < http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020389414_hanfordwydenxml.html>, Bodansky, David, ed. Nuclear energy. Springer, 2004. Bodansky, David. Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects. New York: Springer, 2004. Internet resource. Brown, Valerie. "Hanford Nuclear Waste Cleanup Plant May Be Too Dangerous." Scientific American. n.p., 9 May 2013. Web. 17 July 2013. . Caldicott, Helen. Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming or Anything Else. Carlton, Vic., Australia: Melbourne university press, 2006. Print. Cathy Vakil, M. D., and Linda Harvey. "Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation." (2009). Christodouleas, John P., et al. "Short-term and long-term health risks of nuclear-power-plant accidents." New England journal of medicine 364.24 (2011): 2334-2341. Douple, Evan B., et al. "Long-term radiation-related health effects in a unique human population: lessons learned from the atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 5.S1 (2011): S122-S133. Ferguson, Charles D. Nuclear Energy: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Friedlander, Michael. A thin cosmic rain: particles from outer space. Harvard University Press, 2002. Holt, Mark. Nuclear Waste Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca Mountain. DIANE Publishing, 2010. Kinoshita, Norikazu, et al. "Assessment of individual radionuclide distributions from the Fukushima nuclear accident covering central-east Japan." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.49 (2011): 19526-19529. Miller, William. Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes and Natural Analogues: Lessons from Nature and Archaeology. Amsterdam: Pergamon, 2000. Internet resource. Morse, Andrew. "Waste-Dispute Builds." The Wall Street Journal. U.S. News., 9 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 July 2013 . Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Alex Funk. "Wrestling with the Hydra of Nuclear Waste Storage in the United States." Electricity Journal 26.2 (2013) : 67-78. Print. US NRC, Radioactive Waste. Oct 2012. 7th August 2013.< http://www.nrc.gov/waste.html>accessed on Wolbarst, A. B., et al. "Sites in the United States contaminated with radioactivity." Health physics 77.3 (1999): 247-260. Wood, Allen J., and Bruce F. Wollenberg. Power generation, operation, and control. John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print World Nuclear Organization, Radio active Waste Management/ Nuclear Waste Disposal. Retrieved online at< http:// www.world-nuclear.org/.../Nuclear.../Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-.>Accessed on 7th August 2013 Read More

Researchers have drawn lessons from the Chernobyl accidents and Hiroshima and Nagasaki have expressed fears that due to the accumulated radiation exposures, the residents of Fukushima city are likely suffer from cancerous deaths. Christodouleas states that, when the fission products settle on human beings, their internal organs and skins are exposed to the radioactivity and could cause thyroid, lung and skin cancers and genetic diseases ( Christodouleas 2334-2341). The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear accident in Japan in March 11th 2011 serves as wakes up call to the whole world that nuclear energy is real threat to the survival of humanity and all living things.

The are both short term and long terms health risks such as cancerous diseases/fatalities often associated with the exposure to the high levels of radioactive materials as seen in the case of Hiroshima/ Nagasaki atomic bombings and Chernobyl Nuclear Accidents. There are just a reminder that therefore is a need for proper management and disposal of radioactive wastes, because the entire world is ill equipped to deal with the future nuclear disasters that can result from improper disposal and long term storage, not only in former USSR bloc countries where nuclear wastes are not monitored but even in the US.

By and large, The Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011 has brought to the forefront of public concerns in America, the problem with the use of nuclear energy, specifically the extremely volatile issue of disposing safely of nuclear waste. Americans are very much aware through the media how the lives of hundreds of thousands of people continue to be affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster, especially the 160,000 who fled their homes because of radioactive contamination.  This act as warming to Americans and the entire world that nuclear waste is not only a scourge on our nation's landscape, but a potentially dangerous problem that is plaguing the world.

 Nuclear Power cannot be considered as a replacement to other forms of energy until waste can be permanently removed, stored, degraded. From the time humankind started using nuclear energy as a powerful, cleaner and cheaper source of energy for the production of anything from devastating weapons to power plants to electricity and even to combat diseases. Nuclear power has been used for generating power, mining purposes and industrial processing (Wood and Wollenberg, 364). The term nuclear waste is often used to refer to the radioactive waste that has been left over from the bomb productions.

It can also refer to radioactive and other toxic products from the nuclear fuel processing plants, nuclear medicine and nuclear weapon industries (Bodansky, 259). The nuclear energy has become the largest and most important sources of energy that has emerged as part of the technological development in the 20th century (Bodansky, 1). The nuclear energy was invented in 1930s in the US, developed as a source of energy and used as an atomic bomb in early 1940s for military purposes oversee (Bodansky, 15).

Nuclear energy was invented to solve human problems it has turned out to be the biggest threat to humankind. The problem associated with the nuclear energy is the exposure to the radioactive wastes that are produced from the nuclear products. Researchers have found that human beings and other living things that were exposed to such radioactive wastes were affected in their health. The radiation kills the many cells in the body and causing the risk of developing cancer. Caldicott argues cancerous diseases like Leukemia and genetic diseases are common in amongst the communities living near the nuclear power plants due to the exposure to radioactive wastes (Caldicott, 10-11).

The effects of radioactive is being studied by scientists, and Fergusson’s paper (2011) has indicated that scientists are yet to prove the effects of radioactive waste on the environment, although, the effects of radioactive wastes often depends largely on the types or levels of radio activity.

Read More