|
|
 | NUCLEAR LEGACIES Nuclear Waste Disposal and Issues of Health and Safety November 22, 1996 |
|---|
Return to the Splitting the Atom top page.
Return to the nuclear waste forum top page.
Topics covered in this forum:
- Will taxpayers or utility customers pay for nuclear waste cleanup?
- What is the best way to handle nuclear waste, at nuclear plants or at a central location?
- How can nuclear waste be transported safely?
- What is the status of the Rocky Flats Arsenal cleanup?
- Why can't nuclear waste be mixed with the ground it came from?
- How long before we have the techonology for a permanent solution to nuclear waste?
- Is Yucca Flats the solution for America's nuclear waste?
- Is the nuclear industry more responsive to criticism than before?
- Viewer comments on nuclear waste
C. Peterson of Las Vegas, NV, asks:
Do you think it is better to keep highly radioactive spent fuel at reactor plants, or to dispose of then in safer long term storage facilities?Tom Carpenter of the Government Accountability Project replies:
It depends on what you mean by "long term storage." I am for retrievable storage in a remote, guarded, scientifically-defensible location (i.e., dry) until a permanent solution is agreed upon.Jim Werner of the Department of Energy replies:
The consensus throughout the world is that the best approach to the disposal of high level nuclear waste is to emplace it in a deep geologic repository. Such a repository will rely partially upon an engineered system of containers and perhaps constructed barriers and partially upon the natural geologic setting to prevent radiologic materials from escaping to the accessible environment. The United States is evaluating the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada to assess its capability to support a repository. Although the engineered technologies that will be used are important, the critical issues at that site involve the projected behavior of the geologic setting over thousands of years after the waste is emplaced. The Department of Energy will complete a description of the potential repository and the technologies that will be used in 1998. The independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have to license the project before it can be constructed. If the project proves to be capable of meeting the safety standards, waste could begin to be emplaced in the year 2010.C. Peterson of Las Vegas, NV, asks:
Do you believe that by not reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel, that it is less harmful?Tom Carpenter of the Government Accountability Project replies:
Yes. Plutonium is a perfect weapon for terrorists. The more difficult it is to retrieve, the better.Jim Werner of the Department of Energy replies:
"Reprocessing" is the industrial operation developed during the Manhattan project to chemically separate plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel. The acids and organic solvents used in the process, together with the other radioactive materials, known as "fission products" are a liquid form of high level waste that is being solidified in a glass form for eventual disposal in a repository.Both spent fuel and liquid high level waste can be harmful if they are not handled properly. The question may be reworded to consider which form is easier to manage safely. Reprocessing poses additional challenges in the end products that are generally more difficult to manage. First, reprocessing creates a liquid acidic waste form that must be stored and pumped with extraordinary precautions before it is solidified in a glass form impregnated with boron to moderate the radioactivity. Second, the volume of this liquid is larger than the original volume of the spent fuel, which, in combination with the liquid acidic form, requires higher costs than spent fuel storage. Third, the separated plutonium and uranium (if it is at a high enrichment level) must be safeguarded to prevent it from being used for nuclear weapons.
The official policy of the United States is that we do "not encourage the civil use of plutonium and, accordingly, does not itself engage in plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear power or nuclear explosive purposes. The United States, however, will maintain its existing civil commitments regrading the use of plutonium in civil nuclear programs in Western Europe and Japan."
C. Peterson of Las Vegas, NV, asks:
What is the current World projection for nuclear reactors and the fuel produced, in tons per year?Jim Werner of the Department of Energy replies:
Currently, there are 109 operable nuclear power plants in the United States and a total of 437 worldwide. The U.S. reactors are expected to discharge a total of 2,300 metric tons of uranium in the form of spent fuel in 1996. Annual spent fuel discharges in the United States are expected to decline to 1,400 metric tons by 2015. These annual discharges will add to the 32,200 metric tons of uranium in the spent fuel already being stored in the United States. Worldwide annual discharges of uranium in the form of spent fuel are expected to be between 10,000 and 11,000 metric tons for the next twenty years.This answer is based on projections by the Energy Information Administration published in "Nuclear Power Generation and Fuel Cycle Report 1996," DOE/EIA-O436(96). The document was published in October, 1996. For more detailed information please contact the National Energy Information Center at (202) 586-8800 or visit EIA's Web site at http://www.eia.doe.gov.
The document (GPO Stock No.: 061-003-00975-1) may be ordered by contacting:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650; (703) 321-8547 (fax)
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
