Presently, nuclear waste generated in the U.S. is stored at or near one of the 121 facilities across the country where it is generated. Some say it should stay that way, rather than risk transporting it across the nation to a central repository, during which time accidents or even terrorist attacks could expose untold numbers of Americans to radioactivity.
Image: GETTY IMAGES
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that there are plans to build a large repository for nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that plans have been slow and are very controversial. Where is our nuclear waste kept now and what dangers does it pose?
-- Miriam Clark, Reno, NV
Plans to store the majority of our nation’s spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste at a central repository underneath Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert 80 miles from Las Vegas were first hatched in the mid-1980s. But the project has languished primarily due to opposition from Nevadans who don’t want to import such dangerous materials into their backyard. Critics of the plan also point out that various natural forces such as erosion and earthquakes could render the site unstable and thus unsuitable to store nuclear isotopes that can remain hazardous to humans for hundreds of thousands of years to come.
But the Bush administration is keen to jump-start the project and recently submitted a construction license application to develop the facility—which when completed could hold up to 300 million pounds of nuclear waste—with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In announcing the filing, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said that the facility being proposed can “stand up to any challenge anywhere,” adding that issues of health safety have been a primary concern during the planning process.
But the administration has still not submitted a crucial document declaring how protective the facility will be with regard to radiation leakage. Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the facility needs to prevent radiation leakage for up to 10,000 years. But a federal judge ruled that to be inadequate and ordered the administration to require protection for up to one million years. The White House argues that the NRC should press on with its review process and that the standard can be settled on later.
Currently, without any central repository, nuclear waste generated in the U.S. is stored at or near one of the 121 facilities across the country where it is generated. Nevadans like Democratic Senator Harry Reid, who has doggedly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository, say it makes more sense to leave such waste where it is than to risk transporting it across the nation’s public highways and rail system, during which accidents or even terrorist attacks could expose untold numbers of Americans to radioactivity.
But others say that the current system, or lack thereof, leaves Americans at great risk of radioactive exposure. The non-profit Nuclear Information and Resource Service concluded in a 2007 report that tons of radioactive waste were ending up in landfills and in some cases in consumer products, thanks to loopholes in a 2000 federal ban on recycling metal that had been exposed to radioactivity.
As with all issues surrounding nuclear technology, where and how to dispose of the wastes is complicated. While some environmental leaders now cautiously support development of more nuclear reactors (which are free of fossil fuels) to help stave off climate change, others remain concerned that the risks to human health and the environment are still too high to go down that road. Whether or not the NRC approves plans for Yucca Mountain won’t resolve the larger debate, of course, but perhaps the greenlighting of other promising alternative energy sources could ultimately make nuclear power unnecessary altogether.
CONTACTS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov; Nuclear Information and Resource Service, www.nirs.org.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add Comment"perhaps the greenlighting of other promising alternative energy sources could ultimately make nuclear power unnecessary altogether."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make it sound as if some almighty evil is what is stopping us from using wind/solar power. When the reality is unless we want to cover a ridiculous amount of the country's surface area with windmills and solar panels (and we still have no way to store energy efficiently when its cloudy or not windy or transport it to areas where its cloudy and calm often), the only legitimate alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. It is a proven form (20% of our current electricity) of energy with nearly inexhaustible fuel.
Yes, there is inherent risk to nuclear energy, and we do need to deal with nuclear waste. But these are mostly political issues not technological ones (see France, Japan, etc). With a widespread adoption of nuclear energy, use of wind/solar in areas where it is cost efficient, and plug-hybrids that run off ethanol and the electric grid, we can stop global warming, remove our dependency on foreign oil, and essentially have renewable energy for tens of thousands of years.
But wait, then what could environmentalists feel self righteous about&?
The simple answer is store them in a manner that the risk of someone dying from them is far less than their risk of dying from anything else. There are a number of different ways that can be done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, what is PC is storing them with absolutely zero risk. Since nothing we do carries no possible conceiveable risk, we cannot store nuclear wastes in a PC manner.
So, my question is what is your criterion for safety. Mine is whether the risk to my grandchildren, etc. is smaller than many other risks I (and nearly every other loving parent) have taken with my children. What is yours?
Dan M.
Many tonnes of deplete uranium are being shipped overseas in the form of munitions, and if this isn't common knowledge, it very well should be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, I wish they would fill the WhiteHouse pool with it and let Dictator Bush go for a swim! LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.iurlz.com/demtools
Maye we could send some up to space instead of sending disney toys. How about storing it in alaska where all that oil is sitting there waiting to be tapped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear has come a long way in the last 30 years. Most of the waste is not spent fuel it is clothing and trash that has radioactivity. Not to mention all ways of trasporting the nuclear waste i have seen can stand almost any direct hit or collision. There is nothing to be affraid of. Oh and look at hiroshima - its be over 50 years and the area is safe now. Go figure - this 100 years to 1000 for radioactivity is bull. There is nothing in the desert in nevada just like nothing in ANWR. I wish the eco-nuts would just let us progress in technology and make sure we are doing these things as best be can instead of limiting all of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't they just dump the nuclear waste in the ocean? Then it would just be gone and would free up alot of space where the stuff is sitting now....problem solved. Bye.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeoff
The blog at dearscience.org has some excellent articles about how next generation nuclear power production wouldn't cause such a need for disposal. So much of the debate regarding nuclear power is based on outdated ideas of the technology involved, and I really wish people would stay up to speed with scientific developments before getting all worked up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe extent of nuclear waste goes much farther than the article indicates. There is nuclear waste generated at each of the following steps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Mining
2. Milling the ore
3. Conversion of the nearly 100% Uranium to UF6 gas
4. Enrichment from .7% U235 to 3.2-3.5%
5. Fabrication of the enriched uranium into fuel pellets and then rods of zircalloy fuel cladding
6. Spent fuel is covered by this article
Please see SafeEnergyAnalyst.org for more information.
The French generate 78% of their nation's electricity with nuclear fission, but have never had a nuclear waste problem. The reason? They recycle it and reuse it! But in the US, Jimmy Carter made it ILLEGAL to recycle nuclear waste! Overturn this idiotic ban and solve the problem the right way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe it's the pick your poison kind of thing. If we don't go Nuclear, then yes there is no risk of worrying about Nuclear waste but then we will continue to use coal plants which are very pollutive, and will continue to greatly depend on oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we do go Nuclear we have a great energy source that is far less pollutive and emits water vapor from it's cooling towers, but we have the risk of meltdowns (which are catastrophic) and nuclear waste problems.
If we are all going to die from Global Warming as I've had Professors try to say to instill fear in me, then we have to go Nuclear because there is less risk there of dying than there is from Global Warming.
I think we should produce Hyrdogen fuel cell vehicles, and the batteries for them will be charged by Nuclear Power plants during off peak hours, and then during peak hours the power plants will just power cities. Then we shoot the waste into space and piss off some aliens. :-)
I strongly recommend to those who have posted replies review recent articles from Scientific American:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i]Detecting Nuclear Smuggling[/i], April 2008
[i]Rethinking Nuclear Fuel Recycling[/i], May 2008
The editors and authors have done an admirable job presenting reasoned analysis and expert opinion.
Some of the responders to this article seem to be lacking relevant knowledge about the byproducts of nuclear energy, and at least in one case have misconceptions about how other countries deal with this mess.
One cannot make nuclear waste either more or less dangerous by offering simplistic models or political solutions. These two articles may help your own analyses develop on a more realistic foundation.
I came up with the solution to this when I was in grade school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is only one place to send nuclear waste. Straight to the earths core.
Let plate tectonics carry it in. Don't build your storage facility in the middle of the country where it's going to sit and wind up in someone's backyard, build it on the edge of a plate sliding under another one in toward the center of the earth.
Seal it well so it doesn't contaminate the ocean and wipe out all life on earth, have robots carry it down to a subsea storage station drilled into the rock, and say bonvayagey. Easy.
Now where's my Nobel prize? Hahaha. Seriously though, I wish I knew how to get this looked at as an option.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA mister Obama sees the prospect of energy correctly. We have также- warm a reactor on a cluster fuel is consonant with atomic technology. Without extrass in an atmosphere and radiation contamination. It economic advantageously and ecologically clean energy. It is jointly possible quickly to realize such projects small resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy doesn't the U.S. get smart and reprocess it's spent fuel like the rest of the world does. The only thing this would affect are the large donations from nuclear fuel manufacturers to politicians. I guess that trumps getting smart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this