Nuclear Waste Management Essay

In 1982, Congress passed the nuclear waste policy act that said the Department of Energy (DOE) was to build and operate a repository for used nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste (NEI). The DOE had until 1998 to find a location and build a site. In 1987, the nuclear waste policy act was amended and the DOE was told to study the Yucca Mountains only because it was a remote desert location (NEI). Even thought it is a desert location it still affects the nearby civilizations. The federal government in 2008 filed a construction license application to

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

Studies have been performed on activities like disposing in the oceans, as well as on more exotic proposals such as deep geological disposal and launching into space. Some of these methods have been found wanting in terms of feasibility, costs and legal restrictions [1]. The management community in charge of nuclear waste disposal had come to the agreement that the only practical route for ensuring sufficient long-term isolation of HLW from the environment is deep geologic disposal[3].For example, Canada has focused on the concept of Deep Geological Disposal for long term management of nuclear wastes generated from nuclear activities. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is in charge of disposing radioactive wastes in the country. Canada’s long term management plan for used nuclear fuel is called “Adaptive Phased Management” [3] ,The plan is to confine and isolate the used fuel in a suitable host-rock with the help of a multiple barrier system. Selection of the site is based on screening of potential sites followed by a preliminary assessment of

Highly radioactive waste disposal has become one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear technology. As the amount of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste from defense-related processing plants has continued to mount, the issue has become increasingly contentious and politicized.2 The politicization of this issue is especially evident in the site selection process of a permanent national repository for the disposal of highly radioactive waste.

The word “Nuclear” instills fear in the general American public’s mind. The simple utter of said word brings memories of huge mushrooms clouds and destruction, or the thought of communism and 50 years of an uncertain, yet terrifying Cold War. Whatever it may be the fact of the matter is that Americans are extremely afraid of anything that has the word Nuclear in it. In the article “Nuclear Waste” published in 2008 by physics professor, and winner of the MacArthur Fellowship award, Richard Muller claims that storing nuclear waste under the Nevada Yucca Mountains can prove to be a safe and efficient way to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. Muller supports his argument by first providing the reader with the anti-nuke

Yucca Mountain is a long flat ridge of volcanic ash that reaches 5,000 feet high. The site is attractive for several reasons. First of all, Nevada receives an average rainfall of only seven inches, which is important because corrosion due to water is a major concern with nuclear waste storage. Also, Yucca Mountain is located within Nye County, an area with only a few hundred residents. Lastly, the Nellis Air Force Base is located nearby, providing a certain amount of protection, which helps to address many fears raised by the threat of terrorist attacks and a generally unstable world situation (Environmental Protection Agency/ Yucca Mtn. Standards).

In addition to that, it cost hundreds of billions of dollars to build and operate this facility. Scientists have even tried to develop new alternative such as sending the waste to the sun or sinking it to the bottom of the ocean. Although this is a problem that needs to be addressed, are the effect as considerably high as one might think? According to Richard Muller the risk of not depositing the waste is higher the not doing so. He explains “When I work out the numbers, I find the dangers of storing waste at Yucca Mountain to be smaller compared to the dangers of not doing so, and significantly smaller than the dangers we ignore.

The primary concern when disposing of nuclear waste and cleaning the facilities that produce it is the duration of half-lives of the elements that make up nuclear waste. One example is Uranium-235, which is used widely by nations that have a nuclear weapons program. U-235 has a half-life of 703,800,000 years. This means that U-235 will take over 700 million years for it to decompose by half. It is estimated that these elements will still be hazardous for ten times their half-lives. At this rate, U-235 will take around 7 billion years for it to become non-threatening to humans. It should be noted that seasons, temperature, or any known solvents will not affect the rate of decay. During the Cold War, very little attention was paid to the high volume of radioactive waste generated and even less to its effects on the environment. U-235 is an extreme example, we still have to contend with low level radioactive waste produced daily by Industry and Medical facilities. Some of the effects on the environment are; groundwater contamination, soil contamination, buried soil and water containing waste, and underground disposal facilities storing large volumes of hazardous, radioactive waste. One such facility was the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, which was designated in 1987 by the NWPA Amendments, and located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in Nye County, Nevada some 80 miles Northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Congress approved the site in 2002,

While reading Richard A. Muller Nuclear Waste a professor of physics from the University of California. I really enjoyed the reading and learning how nuclear waste “is one of the biggest technical issues that any president is likely to face”. In this chapter he also spoke of Plutonium which is a transuranic radioactive chemical element with symbol Pu and atomic number 94. Richard also went on to say that there is a “safe” nuclear waste disposal located in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In order to keep the waste disposal safe, it is buried in a storage room in which is 1000 feet below the surface.

In 1987 Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) which made the department of energy (DOE) responsible for investigation and determination of the Yucca Mountain site. For more than twenty years the DOE has investigated and come up with preliminary designs for the mountain. Option one is to continue with the plan to use Yucca Mountain as the permanent storage site for nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain would function by Receiving spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in shipping casks certified by the NRC, then unloading, handling, and packaging spent nuclear fuel and

In response to the potential scientific perjury, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff issued a report in 2006 concluding that the Yucca Mountain depository site has consistently been proven in scientific studies to be an appropriate location for the disposal of nuclear waste (Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet, 2006). Later that same year, the DOE announced contracts with multiple private laboratories and scientific associations for the purpose of conducting expert scientific review of the Yucca Mountain project (DOE, 2006). Despite the efforts made by the DOE to legitimize the science behind their project, the planned repository still faced questions regarding the quality of science behind it by the State of Nevada and other Congressional members. The Yucca Mountain project remained the nation’s answer to nuclear waste until the Obama Administration took over the Executive branch in 2008, and in 2009, had announced the discontinuation of the Yucca Mountain project amid scientific uncertainty and growing political and public pressure (Government Accountability Office). Making this announcement a reality, in 2010 the DOE filed a motion with the NRC to withdraw the Yucca Mountain project licensing application, of which the NRC had almost

Long term storage of nuclear waste has been a debated topic for many years. “The properties of nuclear waste that affect the disposal strategy include radioactivity, chemistry, and thermal output” (Long & Ewing, 2004). Nuclear waste contains uranium and plutonium that have exhausted their energy potential. These materials have a very long half-life, which is the amount of time it takes to lose half its energy, and some half-lives can take thousands of years. In 1982 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) mandated that the Department of Energy (DOE) create regulations to find a suitable site for long term storage. With that the DOE recommended Yucca Mountain as the number one option. Since then scientists have been studying the site to make sure

Nuclear power in its not so finest form—nuclear waste—has recently sparked several debates and protesters. Major powers on all sides realize that a crucial situation has been thrust upon us by the aging nuclear reactor facilities across the nation. In the past two decades, research has been done on Yucca Mountain in order to assess the effectiveness of the location to become the nation’s comprehensive nuclear repository, AKA a Giant Radioactive Mountain. Yet, the hidden technology of reprocessing has somehow managed to escape the minds of many, or has been repressed by large organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Reprocessing is recycling. Simple right, then why are we not utilizing this equipment to lower the amount of

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?