|
WASTE STORAGE
AND DUMPING
courtesy:
the Plutonium Free Future
resource library
Millions of tons of lethal radioactive waste have
accumulated (D'Arrigo 1986). A number of possibilities have been
considered for dealing with what is not already loose in the
environment. These possibilities are not necessarily based on a
commitment to keep the material from mixing with the biosphere
over the time period necessary to render it benign. Ten to 20
half-lives may be required for most radioactive material to
reach levels that are indistinguishable from original
background, "half-life" referring to the time it takes for a
particular radioactive element to give off half its radiation.
Twenty half-lives or more generally will apply to highly
concentrated wastes such a those from nuclear power plants
(Nuclear Information and Research Service 1996). For comparison
with historic and geologic time, uranium-239 will remain
radioactive into the future for as long as our solar system has
been here; technetium-99 and uranium-234 for as long homo
erectus has been around; and plutonium-239 for longer than our
species has had burial rituals or musical instruments (Nuclear
Guardianship Project 1994a).
Referring to the nuclear materials as "waste" products to
be "disposed of," when they will remain radioactivity toxic for
up into the millions of years, is oxymoronic. These are concepts
we deal with every day: we flush our bodily wastes down the
toilet and dispose of our garbage in bags and cans that are
trucked off to be dumped somewhere out of sight. We can forget
about it. Or so we, in the industrialized world, have been lead
to believe. No doubt the pernicious, pervasive "out-of-sight,
out-of-mind" premise is discussed elsewhere in this issue of
International Issues. The "waste" and "disposal" vocabulary
create the impression that, being no longer useful, they can be
dumped and abandoned. And, in fact, that is precisely what has
happened to much of the nuclear industry's leftovers (Caufield
1989).
The weapons branch of the worldwide industry has repeatedly
disregarded the environmental consequences of dumping.
Radioactive liquids have been dumped into the ground and waters
at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, contaminating the ground
water and the Columbia River. Lake Karachi, in Russia, by the
Chelyabinsk complex is so toxic with abandoned radiation that to
stand next to it only a few minutes would provide a lethal human
dose of radiation, and the water level is dropping, reaching
toward the ground water. Sellafield, in England, now and in its
former life as Windsacale, pipes radioactive waste a mile into
the Irish Sea.
This is the state of radioactive waste disposal in the 20th
century.
Regarding the stuff not yet abandoned, official policies vary
around the world in part because the materials have been
classified more in the interest of those who bear liability than
in the interest of future generations. In the U.S. this has
resulted in categories primarily determined by one regulating
commission for so-called commercial waste, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), and another, the DOE, for that of
the military (Young 1994).
"High level" wastes, which include the euphemistically
named spent fuel from commercial reactors, "need to be set aside
not because their vigor is drained or their fever cooled but
because these poisonous materials have become too irradiated for
further use" (Erikson 1994). Deep underground burial is the
disposal method currently proposed. The problems with putting
the waste underground include that changing water tables,
earthquakes, and other geological factors will eventually
disturb the buried waste and lead to contamination of soil,
water, and air (Thomas, Greensfelder, and Akino 1996). No
scientist or engineer can give an absolute guarantee that
radioactive waste will not someday leak in dangerous quantities
from even the best repositories. Nor can we be confident that
our descendants will not dig into the burial sites hundreds or
thousands of years from now, out of curiosity (Peaslee 1993) or
lack of information.
Military reprocessing wastes are also called high level.
They are currently destined for deep geological burial inside
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is tantamount to abandonment.
Material which will continue to emit radioactivity for as long
as 240,000 to half a million years will be sealed in underground
caves that have demonstrated salt water seepage in their first
five years. We simply do not know how to make containment
materials that will outlast the radioactivity (Hamilton 1996).
Commercial producers of nuclear materials in the U.S. were
initially held responsible for their unusable leftovers.
Creation and management of dumps were contracted out by the
utilities and military producers to waste management companies,
who proceeded to put the stuff in unlined shallow trenches from
where it has leaked into the soil and water. Suits for damages
followed because of mismanagement and leakage. Five of the six
commercial nuclear waste landfills are currently leaking. Four
of those leaking have been managed by U.S. Ecology, the only
company still being considered to manage the dump planned in the
California desert at Ward Valley. All other firms have withdrawn
their bidding due to insoluble liability issues. No other
low-level dumps are proposed at this time. The NRC's unilateral
emergency-access power to direct waste from any state to the
Ward Valley site would make this site a national repository. The
Ward Valley plan includes shifting financial liability from the
producers to the tax payers (Goitein, Klasky, and Young 1996).
The siting of new waste dumps, long opposed by local public
interest groups, has been identified by the American Nuclear
Society as a necessary precondition for any new construction of
nuclear power plants (Eichelberg 1994).
The "low-level" waste stream from nuclear utilities,
(including the extremely long-lived plutonium leached from the
irradiated fuel rods) accounts for 99% of the radioactivity,
measured in curies, shipped to burial grounds (Hamilton 1994).
An argument put forth to justify the need for these shallow
dumps is the disposition of radioactive isotopes used in medical
diagnosis and treatment. The short half-lives of most medical
radionuclides (hours, days, weeks) enable them to be stored on
site until the material has decayed to undetectable levels (and,
in fact, most are) (Hamilton 1994). Only 1% of the "low-level"
radioactive waste stream is generated by research and medical
wastes.
Also perplexing is the argument of military, or security,
necessity for geological burial of radioactive wastes. To those
who conclude that serviceable storage sites could be targeted in
war, there is less "risk" involved in choosing deep burial. "The
objection that accessible storage sites would be vulnerable to
terrorist attack is one I frequently encounter, especially among
advocates of nuclear power," comments Joanna Macy (1994a). "I
suspect that it is a 'red herring,' because if this concern were
sincere, it would be seen to apply right now to every nuclear
establishment, from fuel assembly plants to operating reactors,
since any one of them would cause widespread disaster if
bombed." Every nation that has nuclear power is a potential
nuclear weapons state (Nuclear Information and Resource Service
1995). Any nuclear materials, including those unaccounted for,
could be the basis of terroristic threat or activity. The
nuclear industry is silent about this.
Along with generating waste, nuclear industry seems
also to generate large amounts of muddled thinking. Japan, the
nation that suffered 200,000 killed immediately by the use of
atomic weapons, has begun a "breeder" (of plutonium) reactor
program which, if fully carried out, will result in the largest
stockpiling of plutonium in the world. And the U.
S., the only nation to have used nuclear power as weapons, has
told the world that it is the most trustworthy nation to protect
the world's stockpile of plutonium (Tanahashi 1996).
Back to the Health Page
|