Vidic 2:00
L12
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: IMPROVING
REPROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MATERIALS
Jonathan Michael Hightower (jmh216@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: SCENARIO
Paul is a very talented nuclear engineer. He works in a
commercial nuclear reactor in the radioactive waste
management department and he researches different
processes of disposing of radioactive waste products safely.
So far, the company that he works for has been dealing with
the waste formed as a result of nuclear reactions by storing it
in specially designed containers within geological locations
with sparse human populations, essentially making the area
into a hotbed of radioactive waste. During his research, Paul
finds a method of dealing with these waste products in a way
that would be environmentally-friendly. He discovers that
instead of having to dispose of radioactive waste, it can
actually be recycled and reused to further nuclear energy
production. However, while inspecting the costs of this
process, he finds that reprocessing nuclear fuel is a pretty
expensive operation and that it is actually cheaper to just
keep on storing the radioactive waste in special containers
that are far away from large populations. Should Paul utilize
this new technique of recycling used nuclear fuel to reduce
environmental damage, or should he try to save on costs by
continuing to store radioactive waste products in specific
geological sites that do not seem to directly affect human
populations?
ETHICAL SITUATION
In the ethical situation given above, Paul is faced with a
dilemma that many nuclear engineers today are
encountering. The issues that accompany the current
processes of nuclear waste disposal pose complicated
challenges for engineers in regards to environmental wellbeing and ethics. As a result of creating energy through
nuclear reactions, high levels of dangerous radioactive waste
material are produced as byproducts. These byproducts can
and have entered into the ecosystems of locations within the
surroundings of nuclear power plants. Engineers have been
trying to come up with solutions to reduce the amount of
radioactive material released into the environment. One of
the results of their research has been to harvest the nuclear
waste material and reuse it in other nuclear reactions. In this
paper I will further discuss the ethical dilemma facing
nuclear engineers in regards to radioactive waste disposal,
provide information about and detail facts and processes
involving nuclear energy as it pertains to the ethical
dilemma, and utilize the code of ethics from professional
engineering organizations and the larger scientific
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-10-01
community to come to a practical and ethical solution to the
problems associated with nuclear waste treatment.
OVERVIEW OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN
REGARDS TO ETHICS
As the world’s energy demands continue to grow, there
has to be an abundant supply of power systems in place in
order to suit such needs as electricity and heat. There has
also been a growing awareness in regards to environmental
health in dealing with carbon emissions into the atmosphere
from oil, gas, and coal burning, some major forms of energy
today. With these problems comes the challenge to find
alternative forms of energy that are able to produce large
amounts of power while reducing the strain on the
environment. Nuclear energy is quickly becoming the
solution to this growing problem. Authors John Pearson and
Chuck Goodwin state that, “The use of nuclear power
instead of coal or oil has kept at least three billion tons of
emissions out of the air over the US” [1]. Based on this fact,
nuclear energy seems like the answer to the challenge of
finding large-scale and low carbon-emitting power
technologies.
However, while this form of energy does cut down on
carbon emissions, another problem arises: how can these
nuclear waste materials be disposed of? Critics of nuclear
power feel that nuclear energy is potentially dangerous and
can cause physical and chemical disasters to the
environment as a result of the tons of radioactive material
produced as a byproduct of the nuclear reactions that need to
take place in order to create energy. American nuclear
physicist and United States Secretary of Energy Ernest
Moniz says that, “Nuclear energy is generated by splitting
uranium, leaving behind dangerous radioactive products,
such as cesium and strontium that must be isolated for
centuries” [2].
These long-lasting radioactive elements do serve as
potential hazards to the environment, but engineers are
currently researching new methods of dealing with the
disposal of such material. For example, the recycling of used
nuclear fuel is a process that is being heavily researched and
implemented and will cause nuclear energy to become safer
to use.
One of the key tenets of both the National Society of
Professional Engineers’ (NSPE) and the American Nuclear
Society’s (ANS) code of ethics talks about engineers having
to uphold first and foremost the safety, health, and welfare
of the surrounding public and environment [3][4]. According
Jonathan Hightower
to these guidelines and compared to oil, gas, and coal
burning, nuclear energy can be viewed as an ethical
alternative energy choice because of its significant reduction
of the harmful effects that greenhouse gas emissions have on
our environment. However, issues regarding proper waste
treatment prevent this option from being fully ethically
justified.
REPROCESSING RADIOACTIVE WASTE
MATERIAL FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION
In response to the opposition against nuclear power in
regards to waste disposal, nuclear engineers have been trying
to come up with new ways to dispose of radioactive waste
products safely and ethically in order to prevent radioactive
elements from escaping from the facility and into
environmental resources. One such way has been to reuse
the “waste materials” of the nuclear energy production
process to fuel other nuclear reactions [2]. Moniz stated that,
“There is an alternative to disposing of transuranic elements:
they can be separated from the reactor fuel every few years
and then recycled into new nuclear reactor fuel as an
additional energy source” [2]. Uranium, the major
component of nuclear energy production, can be recovered
from the waste material of nuclear reactions using a process
called PUREX (Plutonium URanium EXtraction) [7].
According to the World Nuclear Association, used nuclear
fuel will still contain around 96% of the original uranium
used for creating nuclear energy, which accounts for more
than half of the original energy content [7]. Not all of the
original uranium is used up in the nuclear reactions. In fact,
only a little less than the total amount of uranium is actually
used to produce the amount of energy that we get from
nuclear power today. The worst part of it is that after these
reactions are complete, most nuclear reactor sites have been
trying to dispose of the leftover nuclear fuel that still has a
lot of uranium in it by attempting to just store it in containers
in sparsely populated locations and wait for its radioactivity
to decrease to a safe level, which could take an unreasonably
long amount of time. The PUREX process eliminates the
need for such long amounts of time and storage because it
reuses a lot of the waste in new nuclear reactions in order to
create even more energy. As mentioned before uranium
isotopes can be extracted from used nuclear fuel. This
process is accomplished through first placing the fuel into a
solution of hot concentrated nitric acid, which separates
uranium and plutonium from the rest of the radioactive
byproducts [7]. After this step has been completed, the
uranium and plutonium solution is placed into columns that
contain excess U4++, which further separates the uranium
from the plutonium, causing the end result to be two distinct
solutions of uranium nitrate and plutonium nitrate [7]. These
solutions can be further processed so that there is just
uranium and plutonium present, of which the uranium can be
used again in new nuclear reactions to produce energy [7].
Instead of having to dispose of waste materials that could
potentially damage and harm the environment, engineers
have found ways to optimize resources and use those same
materials to create even more energy inside nuclear reactors
using the PUREX process. This process of recycling used
nuclear fuel serves as a partial solution to the safety hazards
that come along with the disposal of nuclear wastes. The
recovering of radioactive uranium isotopes from nuclear
CONCERNS REGARDING NUCLEAR
WASTE DISPOSAL
Many believe that utilizing nuclear energy would do
more harm to the environment than good. The waste
material produced during the nuclear reactions used to
generate nuclear energy are extremely radioactive and serve
as potential hazards to environmental health. Kristin
Shrader-Frechette, professor in the Department of Biological
Sciences and Department of Philosophy at the University of
Notre Dame, claims that, “Normal reactor-operation
involves airborne and waterborne releases of many
radioactive isotopes, including hydrogen-3 (tritium), carbon14, and plutonium-239; only recently have people
recognized that these allowable-radiation releases already
have contaminated local air and water supplies” [5]. The
byproducts of the nuclear energy production process are
extremely dangerous and, according to Shrader-Frechette,
these materials have already been contaminating the
environment. This is the result of poor nuclear waste
disposal methods in place at nuclear facilities.
Environmental researchers Robert Dupea and David C.
Morley also argue the point that, “Although no longer
useful, nuclear waste remains deadly, and its toxic
radioactive properties remain for tens of thousands of years”
[6]. Having elements with such dangerous levels of
radioactive properties being released from nuclear power
facilities and into surrounding environments is an example
of a poor ethical situation in which the safety, health, and
welfare of the public is not put at the forefront and therefore
violates a key tenet of a nuclear engineer’s code of ethics.
The company that Paul works for should not be storing large
quantities of radioactive materials near large populations or
in specific geological locations away from large populations
because, in either case, the environment is being altered due
to the nuclear waste that engineers should be and are
responsible for [3][4]. Because the waste materials from
nuclear energy production processes have been
contaminating local environments and then stay in the
ecosystem for numerous years, Dupea, Morley, and other
antagonists of nuclear power stress that there are tons of
radioactive waste material that needs to be disposed of and
that nuclear energy should not be considered as an
alternative energy option because of the lack of knowledge
and safety considerations regarding nuclear waste disposal
methods.
2
Jonathan Hightower
the “social costs”. Professor of Economics at Yale T.
Srinivasan and Assistant Professor at Lee Kuan Yew School
of Public Policy T. Rethinaraj further explain this concept
when they say that, “Social costs for each plant and its
associated fuel cycle include routine environmental impacts
such as air pollution as well as risk to the public from reactor
accidents” [10]. The process that Paul’s company is using is
unethical because it puts the public at a greater risk of
exposure to dangerous radioactive materials and causes the
pollution of water and air supplies that are essential to both
the environment and the surrounding public. For this reason,
it is futile to attempt to store radioactive waste material in
specific locations in order to “save money” because the
economic costs of nuclear waste management are small
compared to other costs of residual radioactivity that will
persists for thousands of years and across several
generations if not carefully managed [10].
In order to make an ethical decision, it is important to
take into account these considerations in regards to
environmental justice and go for the option that has the least
detrimental environmental impact. Nuclear energy already
produces significantly less greenhouse gas emissions than
oil, gas, and coal burning, and with new research being done
in fuel reprocessing, nuclear power is on its way to
becoming a self-sustainable form of energy. MIT researchers
say that if we triple worldwide nuclear generating capacity,
then by 2050 25 percent of carbon emissions would be
eliminated, keeping almost two billion tons of carbon-based
resources in the ground [1]. Reducing harmful carbon
emissions and producing less waste material must be key
components of nuclear power usage in order to abide by the
code of ethics. Utilizing the PUREX process of recovering
uranium from used nuclear fuel reduces the amount of waste
material that pollutes environmental resources and produces
even more energy as a result. By implementing this process
into his company, Paul would be making an ethical decision
because he would be adhering to the code of ethics and
putting the health and safety of the environment first.
Environmental psychologists Judith de Groot and Linda Steg
talk about how most environmental activists either promote
nuclear energy in order to reduce CO2 emissions or go
against nuclear energy in order to reduce the chance of
nuclear waste accidents [11]. However, with the proposed
process, nuclear energy could both reduce CO2 emissions as
well as reduce the risk of nuclear waste accidents because
over 96% of the waste would be turned into new sources of
energy. When faced with the ethical situation, Paul should
definitely pursue the option which utilizes the process of
recycling used nuclear fuel because it is an environmentallyfriendly and ethical solution to the problems related to
radioactive waste disposal.
waste material greatly reduces radiation emission into the
environment. Because about 96% of uranium is left over in
nuclear waste, this also means that reprocessing this material
would produce an even larger amount of energy since
uranium is the main element involved in nuclear power
production [7]. Therefore, by pursuing this process of
recycling used nuclear fuel, an ethically sound decision is
being made. Nuclear engineers working on developing these
reprocessing techniques are adhering to the ethical
guidelines set in place by NSPE and ANS because they are
putting environmental health first and making steps to
ensure that the environment and surrounding public are not
put at risk due to excessive storage of radioactive material.
In the ethical situation described, when Paul discovers a way
to reduce the environmental impact of such storage
processes by recycling the nuclear fuel into new reactions,
then he should encourage and pursue this option because it
significantly reduces the amount of radioactive waste that is
produced.
ETHICAL DISCUSSION
So why should Paul choose the more environmentallyfriendly option instead of the more economical option? Well
for one, all engineers have to abide by a certain code of
ethics within their profession. NSPE and ANS provide key
tenets for nuclear engineers to follow throughout their
careers. One of these tenets basically states that engineers
should highly consider the environmental impact of
proposed engineering solutions before making choices to
implement certain related technologies or processes [3][4].
In considering the environmental impact of the processes of
radioactive waste disposal that were utilized by the company
that Paul worked for, it is evident that the company was
making an unethical decision. Choosing to store tons of
nuclear waste material in geological locations that are
sparsely populated is clearly a violation of the code of ethics
set forth by both NSPE and ANS because the environment is
ultimately negatively affected by such methods of waste
disposal. The areas containing these radioactive waste dump
sites suffer severe ecological changes that will end up
adversely affecting populations as well even if the
population is not near the area. According to Environmental
News Science, resources such as rainwater percolate
relatively quickly through the ground and water used by
nuclear waste sites, risking fast corrosion of waste burial
containers and release of catastrophic amounts of deadly
radioactivity into the drinking and agricultural irrigation
water supply below [8]. Simply storing radioactive waste in
specific locations seriously harms both the environment and
the public, and it does not help to have over 430 nuclear
power plants in continuous operation worldwide all
producing this large amount of dangerous radioactive waste
material [9]. In looking at the different options one could
take in order to deal with this problem, one has to consider
REFERENCES
3
Jonathan Hightower
[1] J. Pearson, C. Goodwin. (2013). “Point: Nuclear Power
Plants are Safe, Clean, and Cost Effective.” Points of View.
(Online
Article).
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/12455689/pointnuclear-power-plants-are-safe-clean-cost-effective
[2] E. Moniz. (2011). “Why we still need nuclear power:
making clean energy safe and affordable.” Foreign Affairs.
(Online
Article).
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136544/ernestmoniz/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power#
[3] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2013).
“NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of
Professional
Engineers.
(Online
Article).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[4] American Nuclear Society. (2012). “Code of Ethics.”
American
Nuclear
Society.
(Online
Article).
http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
[5] K. Shrader-Frechette, What Will Work. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
[6] R. Dupea, D. C. Morley. (2013). “Counterpoint: Nuclear
Power is Not Worth the Risk.” Points of View. (Online
Article).
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/82701445/CounterpointNuclear_Power_is_Not_Worth_the_Risk
[7] "Radioactive Waste Management." World Nuclear
Association.
N.p.,
n.d. Web. 30
Sep. 2013.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-FuelCycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-WasteManagement/#.UkkQYDasgdo
[8] “U.S. Nuclear Waste Repository Foes Speak Out.”
Environmental News Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-11091.asp
[9] E. Michaelides. (2012). “Environmental and Ecological
Effects of Energy Production and Consumption.” Springer.
(Online
Article).
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-209512_2
[10] T. Srinivasan, T. Rethinaraj. (2013). “Fukushima and
thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power.”
Elsevier.
(Online
Article).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03014215
12009172
[11] J. De Groot, L. Steg. (2010). “Morality and Nuclear
Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms,
and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy.”
Society
for
Risk
Analysis.
(Online
Article).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.15396924.2010.01419.x/full
Morrow and Anne Schwan, workers at the engineering
library, who showed me how to find the information I
needed. I would also like to thank my friends for their peerediting skills and my writing instructor for her constructive
criticism.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all of the library research assistants in
Bevier Library for helping me find the right resources to
write this paper. I would like to especially thank Megan
4