Vidic 2:00
L03
THE SOLUTION TO NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT: GEOLOGICAL
DISPOSAL
Ali Shields (ams473@pitt.edu)
THE FOREFRONT OF NUCLEAR
ENGINEERING: WHAT TO DO WITH THE
WASTE?
To this day, management of nuclear waste is one of the
most controversial and widespread issues in nuclear
engineering. I originally became interested in the nuclear
industry after reading articles on the radiation disasters at the
Fukushima and Chernobyl power plants. I was in awe of
their severity and how much was affected by these accidents.
Both of which were classified as level sevens on the
International Nuclear Event Scale and are considered the
worst in history. Following the events, the safety of power
plants came to the forefront of nuclear engineering. The
incidents at both plants led many nuclear engineers to
reevaluate the risks involved with not only operating the
plants but discarding the radioactive waste that could
potentially harm people. Large amounts of time have been
devoted to developing a solution that minimizes the dangers
involved with this task. Countries at the center of the nuclear
industry, including Germany, Japan, and the United States,
have even begun implementing radioactive waste
management programs. Despite the efforts to make their
methods safer and less likely to end in a disaster similar to
Fukushima or Chernobyl, the public is still wary of the
industry. There are many opposing ideas pertaining to
nuclear waste management, but I feel as though geological
disposal, otherwise known as underground repository, is the
safest way to dispose of such products. However, the public
distrust has made it hard to carry out any plan involving this
type of storage.
TYPES OF NUCLEAR WASTE AND METHODS OF
DISPOSING IT
There are two main forms of nuclear waste, the first
being low level. This type of nuclear waste can range from
equipment that has been contaminated with radioactive
materials to products that have been exposed to radiation [1].
The second type is high level nuclear waste. This waste
comes mostly from fuel rods at the center of nuclear power
plants [2]. The plutonium in the spent fuel develops into a
“radioactive byproduct” that makes it extremely dangerous
[1]. The short lived nuclear waste is not a main concern
because it can be stored in on site facilities. The problem
arises when talking about storing high level nuclear waste.
Because it has such a long half live, it can be extremely
difficult to dispose of without serious risks. According to
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-10-29
The World Nuclear Association, “Each year, nuclear power
generation facilities worldwide produce… about 10,000 m3
of high-level waste including used fuel designated as waste”
[1]. With the amount of nuclear waste growing steadily, the
need for a safe storage facility is as well. While people have
focused mostly on surface storage, I do not see this as the
best method. Surface storage involves creating above ground
containers to hold the high level nuclear waste until it is no
longer harmful. This method does not provide a permanent
solution to the problem and it has risks that not only affect
this generation but future generations too. There is a
possibility of releases of radiation; it also requires constant
monitoring and maintenance Because of this, I see
geological disposals as the best method for nuclear waste
management. A geological disposal is basically a very large
underground structure that would hold the high-level waste
forever. The containment structure would have to be placed
in a geological structure that is waterproof [2]. Over years
this structure would be filled until it reached maximum
capacity. Once it held all of the waste it could, it would be
sealed forever, not allowing for retrieval of the waste. This
disposal method would provide a permanent safe place for
the waste to go. Also, it would allow nuclear power plants to
continue to grow because they would not have to use
property to build on site storage that is very limited.
CONTROVERSY WITH NUCLEAR WASTE
DISPOSAL
When many people hear the terms “nuclear” or
“radioactive” waste, they immediately think of the risks
involved and how it could potentially harm them. Part of the
reasons is, as I mentioned before, due to the media coverage
of situations like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile
Island. There has even been a movie made called “The
Chernobyl Diaries” that depicts the lasting disastrous effects
of one of these incidents. This lack of public backing has
made it difficult for nuclear engineers to continue with plans
for waste disposal. It is possible that including more
professional ethics in their development process could lessen
the opposition.
THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN DEBATE
One of the biggest examples of the battle that nuclear
engineers face is the debate over Yucca Mountain. After the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed in 1987, the
Department of Energy was forced to choose a sole site for
Ali Shields
placement of a geological disposal. After research and
experiments, they picked Yucca Mountain, a site 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas. It seemed like the best possible area
because it was a dry, remote area that had a basalt formation,
making it water impermeable [2]. It was also chosen because
it had been used in the past decades as a nuclear test range,
where nuclear devices were detonated. But the people in the
surrounding areas were not happy about this decision. The
community did not want a geological disposal near them
because of the risks involved. The main one that concerned
the public was a possible leakage of the radioactive waste. In
2008, the state of Nevada cited 229 technical objections as to
why the repository should not be built there [3]. The fight
continued for close to 20 years and finally ended with the
Obama Administration ruling out Yucca Mountain as an
option for a geological disposal.
specifically the people of Texas, are worried about what the
effects on them are going to be and are coming to us
demanding answers. There are rumors swirling as to why
this problem has arose so soon after the repository was built.
The first being that my company decided to save money by
choosing a less stable and cheaper material for the
construction that had a slightly higher risk of a leak. Along
with this, people are saying that the workers that constructed
the containment structure took shortcuts to get the job done
within the timeframe that was specified. In doing this, they
made some errors that could have allowed for a leakage to
happen. After investigating the problem more myself, I have
discovered that this is true. The workers were rushed to
finish the project on time so they took a few shortcuts that
they believed would not have a major effect on the project.
Unfortunately, it has led to a serious problem. It was caught
early enough that only a small amount was leaked. However,
it still proposes an ethical issue for our company to be
concerned with.
DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC IN AN ETHICAL
MANNER
The National Society of Professional Engineers code of
ethics provides a guide to the correct behavior and practices
of an engineer. The Yucca Mountain debate shows clearly
how important these canons are and how not following them
can lead to a failed plan. The first canon states clearly,
“Engineers are encouraged to hold paramount the safety,
health and welfare of the public” [4]. Many of the people of
Nevada, specifically the ones located closest to the site, felt
as though the engineers and policymakers were placing the
need for a disposal structure above the health of the public.
Despite everyone’s best efforts, something could always go
wrong with the repository. If something did happen, it would
have a lasting negative effect on the community’s health and
wellbeing. A lack of attention to this canon could be the
reason the Department of Energy’s plan for Yucca Mountain
was met with so much opposition. Had they taken a more
ethical approach and explained their plan and its benefits,
many of the public’s worries could have been reduced.
HOW TO HANDLE THE PROBLEM
I would address this problem by turning first to the
National Society of Professional Engineer’s, the American
Nuclear Society’s, as well as the American Institute of
Chemical Engineer’s code of ethics in which there is an
outline of rules that I must adhere to. Following these
canons, allows me to do my job with integrity, which is one
of the most important aspects in each code of ethics. Once I
have determined the main canons that I have violated or will
need to use, I will go through and determine possible
methods that allow me to correct the mistakes made in an
honest and responsible manner. After I have established a
plan that I think fulfills each of these components, I will
send it out to each member on my team in order to get their
opinions. It is very important to get feedback because it
allows me to see things from a different perspective. Once I
have received their input, I will make any necessary changes
to the plan and turn it in so that members can begin working
on stopping the leak. I will also talk with some people in
public relations to see what the appropriate way of handling
this is so we do not lose their backing of this repository as
well as any future projects.
APPLYING ETHICS TO A POSSIBLE
ENGINEERING PROBLEM
THE SCENARIO
CANON 1: HOLD PARAMOUNT THE SAFETY,
HEALTH, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC
I am working as a nuclear engineer with the Department
of Energy. In years prior, there had been a geological
disposal built on a site in Texas. After years of its being in
use, they think there might be a minor leak that is allowing
tiny amounts of dangerous radioactive waste to escape.
Although there is not anyone within close proximity of the
site, there is still a possibility that people are being exposed
to this harmful waste. It is also a possibility that the water
has been contaminated. However, without further research,
we are not able to determine whether either of these are true.
Even if they are, the severity is still unknown. The public,
For this particular problem, Canon one of the National
Society of Professional Engineers code of ethics has been
violated. Unfortunately, the people working on the
repository years ago skipped a few small steps in the
construction that they did not think were very important.
This ended up being the main reason behind the leakage,
which could lead to health issues for the people in the closest
surrounding area. Exposure to this high level nuclear waste
can cause cancer and shorten a person’s lifespan by a large
2
Ali Shields
amount. Now, we are being forced to think of a plan that not
only makes it so these people do not have to leave their
homes but, also, allows us to fix the botched job so that we
can continue to deposit nuclear waste into the geological
disposal. For now, we have placed a short term block where
the leak is so that the waste is contained until we develop a
more permanent solution. I have assigned the head of
construction to look into the structure now and see what he
can do to make it safer and more secure. Once we have this
research, we must begin reconstruction immediately. The
sooner we can close the repository up, the safer the
population will be.
that if more people were to get on board with geological
disposal, the industry would grow. This growth would allow
the benefits of nuclear power to outweigh the small risk
involved.
REFERENCES
[1]. “Radioactive Waste Management” (2012). World
Nuclear Association. (Online Article). http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/NuclearWastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/#.UkmXEFPD_IW
[2]. M. Kraft. (2013). “Nuclear Power and the Challenge of
High-Level Waste Disposal in the United States.” Palgrave
Macmillan. (Online Article). doi:10.1057/pol.2013.4
[3]. W. Beaver (2010). “The Demise of Yucca Mountain.”
Academic OneFile. (Online Report).
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA221917190
&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=29e0
e0a403959f33a60baf62a6103e0d
[4]. (2007). “Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society
of Professional Engineers. (Website).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Co
de-2007-July.pdf
[5]. “Code of Ethics.” The American Institute of Chemical
Engineers. (Website) http://www.aiche.org/about/codeethics
[6]. (2003). “Code of Ethics.” American Nuclear Society.
(Website) http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
CANON 2: PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
Just as this radioactive waste can be harmful to people, it
can also have an extremely negative effect on the
environment. A geological disposal is built in an
underground structure. Because of where it is located, the
environment is greatly influenced by a leak. It is possible
that nuclear waste can get into the water supply, trickling
down into bodies of water, killing fish and wildlife. One of
the major canons of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers is to protect the environment [5]. It is difficult to
know how much of the wildlife has been affected by this
situation. Hopefully, by handling it in a swift and thorough
manner, it will prevent any future harm.
CANON 3: ENGINEERS SHALL ACCEPT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR ACTIONS
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
H. Louberge, M. Chesney, S. Villeneuve. (2002). “LongTerm Risk Management of Nuclear Waste: a Real Options
Approach.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control.
(Online Article). pp. 157-180
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01651889
01000586?np=y
B. Bonin. (2010). “The Scientific Basis of Nuclear
Management.” The Handbook of Nuclear Engineering.
(Online Book). pp. 3253-3419 doi:10.1007/978-0-38798149-9_28
R. Spier. (2005) “Nuclear Ethics: Industrial Perspective.”
Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics.
(Encyclopedia). pp. 1334-1338
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE
%7CCX3434900468&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=GVRL
&sw=w&authCount=1
M. Davis. (2012) “Three Disasters and a Hurricane: Some
Reflections on Engineering Ethics.” Hokkaido University
Library. (Online Journal). http://hdl.handle.net/2115/50468
W. Wilson. (2013) “Using the Chernobyl Incident to Teach
Engineering Ethics.” Science and Engineering Ethics.
(Online Article). pp. 625-640
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-0119337-4/fulltext.html
According to the American Nuclear Society’s code of
ethics, integrity and honesty are two of the most important
morals of the profession [6]. I believe that as a company we
must handle this situation with honesty and admit to the fact
that we made a mistake. We will be issuing a press release
that says the minor leak was our fault and we take complete
responsibility for the consequences. By taking responsibility
for our actions and not trying to cover it up to the public, we
will be able to maintain our integrity as engineers.
IS GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL REALLY THE
MOST ETHICAL CHOICE?
It is hard to determine what the most ethical choice for
nuclear waste management is because each of the situations
has pros and cons to them. In actuality, there are risks
involved with each type of storage facility but, without one,
the future of nuclear power appears bleak. Geological
disposal is the permanent solution but only if it is built and
handled appropriately using approaches based off the code
of ethics. The Department of Energy needs to offer more
incentives to states willing to house a geological disposal. At
the same time, nuclear engineers need work on making the
structures safer and less likely to experience a leak. I believe
3
Ali Shields
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the Writing Center, specifically Laura
Patterson and Ellen Smith, for their assistance in editing my
papers.
4
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-10-29