RAWR: Radioactive Waste Retainment
An Environmental Science project
By:
Nicole Davis
Terah Stewart
Laurel Truesdale
Hattie Fennell
1
Table of Contents:
Cover Page……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……1
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2
History of problem………………………………………………………………………...........................................................3
Causes of problem………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Consequences
-Present……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….4
-Future…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………5
Proposed Solutions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Rebuttal……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
2
History of the Problem:
Nuclear power plants have been a fast growing energy production source in the past
century, but with this has come dangerous consequences. During the production of energy a
radioactive core heats water creating steam. This water then turns a generator and is recycled;
however, more water is used to keep the radioactive core cool and under control. This water must
be changed and stored in cooling pools because it remains radioactive for long periods of time.
Though this seems like a safe process during the transfer of radioactive water waste to cooling
pools it is easy for the water to spill and seep into the ground creating ground water and nearby
lake/river pollution. Also, several countries have not adopted the United State’s plan of disposing
radioactive water waste. Instead many countries have dumped the waste into oceans causing
many current problems.
Causes of the Problem:
When a radioactive reactor needs to be cooled tons of water are pumped into the chamber
to surround it and eventually cool it. Once this takes place the water then becomes radioactive
making it unsuitable to come in contact with human life or the environment so it is transferred to
cooling pools where it will sit until it becomes safe to pump back into the environment. Although
the cooling pools are made of concrete and are covered to prevent leakage into the ground
transferring the water to the cooling pools is not as safe. When transferring the radioactive water
from the reactor to the cooling pool it is not uncommon for water to spill and leak into the
ground thus polluting ground water which can later be used as drinking water for humans and
animals.
3
Radioactive water waste is also produced in military weapon testing, medical diagnosis
and treatment, and biological and chemical research and studies. Although there are several
fields in which radioactive water waste can occur in this project our group focuses primarily on
radioactive waste created during the generation of electricity.
Consequences:
Present: Currently ocean water pollution and air pollution is a large concern when it
comes to nuclear water waste. Countries such as the United States have regulations making it
illegal to dump radioactive water into oceans; instead the nuclear companies must store the water
in cooling pools until it is safe to release back into the environment. Though most developed
countries have these regulations countries such as India do not and their governments have no
regulation on radioactive water waste disposal. Because of the lack of regulations most of the
water waste ends up being pumped into the oceans and is then spread to the rest of the world.
Another example of this was shown in the nuclear power plant Fukushima. This Japanese
nuclear power plant was located on the cost of Japan and its waste was pumped into the nearby
Pacific Ocean. This situation became even worse when the nuclear power plant had a meltdown
a few years back. The meltdown caused excessive amounts of radioactive water waste to be
spilled into the oceans, and though the future consequences are unclear scientists estimate the
impacts within marine life will exceed those of Chernobyl.
4
Soil can be contaminated with radioactive waste during the transfer of radioactive water
from a reactor to a reactor pool. Once in the soil the water can seep into a ground water supply
eventually contaminating nearby water supplies through capillary action. This water is then
drunk by animals and used in households in nearby towns potentially contaminating all life in the
area. Contamination from radioactive waste can lead to cancers such as that of the thyroid gland
or muscles. In more drastic cases contamination can cause bones to break down and muscles to
swell and become unattached from bone structures. Also, even if the ground water polluted does
not go to nearby households farmers using the water for crops or animals can also transfer the
radioactive water to humans by selling the food which was grown using the radioactive water.
This scenario is shown in diagram 1 below.
Future: As stated above many countries are dumping radioactive water waste into oceans
spreading it to other parts of the world. Currently scientists do not know the future impacts of
these dumpings, but they are certain sea life such as algae, coral, fish, zoo plankton and others
will be affected soon. Whether the impacts will be drastic or minute depends on the
concentration of radioactive water in the ocean. If the radioactivity disperses through the whole
ocean the concentration will be small and sea life will not immediately be drastically affected;
however, if the radioactive water does not disperse the concentration will be so great that sea life
5
will have immediate drastic consequences creating even larger problems for all countries
throughout the world.
Though contaminated drinking water is a debated issue, it is regulated more so than
ocean contamination and is not as heavily concentrated on. If the contamination of ground water
is continued drinking water will eventually have traces of radioactivity leading to an increase of
cancer and other health issues resulting from contact with radioactive substances.
Proposed solutions:
France is nearly completely dependent on Nuclear power as the main source of the
nation’s electrical power. In France, however, there is far less criticism toward the fact that the
nation is so reliant on nuclear power. This opinion is due in part to the fact that the public has a
positive opinion about nuclear power. The French government has made an endless effort to
keep bad publicity about nuclear power out of the media because of the regulation and
precautions taken by its government and has in turn equated a better societal opinion about
Nuclear power. Whereas in the United States a far less positive opinion about Nuclear power
6
resides. Although, steps toward a safer relationship between the environment and Nuclear power
have been made. Concerning the effects of Nuclear power, Congress made decision to create the
NRC as an independent agency, in 1974, “to enable the nation to safely use radioactive materials
for beneficial civilian purposes while ensuring that people and the environment are protected"
(The French Connection: Comparing French and American Civilian Nuclear Energy Programs).
Another proposed solution to constitute a safer relationship with the environment is the passing
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The act established the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP) project “to develop, construct and operate a prototype high-temperature gas-cooled
reactor (HTR) and associated electricity or hydrogen production facilities by 2021” (). Although
it may seem like the government and the media for that matter try to avoid the subject of the
possible affects a nuclear disaster may have on the environment, steps toward a safer way to
harness and store nuclear power and waste are in the future.
Rebuttal:
Nuclear power has been used within society since the Second World War. Some may say
that Nuclear power poses too many environmental threats to be safe, other stand by the opinion
that Nuclear Power Plants provide jobs to many and an abundance of power that dwarfs all other
competitors whether they may include natural gas, coal, solar or wind power. Since the
Fukushima disaster, though, many people who once supported Nuclear Power now cast their
doubts to the anti-Nuclear movement. Some supporters of this method of power remain standing
next to their opinion of pro-nuclear. Justin McCurry of Tokyo’s The Guardian, states that the
Fukushima disaster was not the fault of the plant itself, nor the builders or operators. The disaster
alone was caused by a natural disaster, the tsunami and earthquake, stating “nothing could have
protected the plant against the two natural disasters”. Another individual expresses his stance on
7
the pro-nuclear subject. Robert Copyak, co-author of the IEEE Power and Engineering Manual
for Nuclear Power Plant backup generators and a representative of the Energy Development and
Power Generation manual, affirms that the Fukushima disaster was not the fault of the nuclear
aspect of the plant itself, but because of safety regulations not met by the plant. Because the
massive tidal wave, resulting from the non-preventable earthquake, breached the 30ft retaining
wall built to avoid this exact type of disaster, power provided from the plant generators was lost.
The backup generators meant to sustain power to the plant until the main generators were added
once more did not meet international safety regulation standards and therefore the leakage of
radiation and nuclear waste could not be stopped. Both of these accounts do not condemn the use
of and the establishment of Nuclear Power plants but support the fact that the Fukushima disaster
was truly caused by only unpredictable elements of Mother Nature.
8
Works Cited
Aoun, Gabriela. "Hawaii Scientists Seek To Calm U.S. Fears About Fukushima Radiation."The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 03 Sept. 2013. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
"Dueling Reports Argue For, against Richland Nuclear Plant." Dueling Reports Argue For,
against Richland Nuclear Plant. Tri-City Herald, 14 Dec. 2013. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
Fackler, Martin. "Tainted Waters Still Flowing." NY Times. The New York Times, 14 Oct.
2013. Web.
Ferguson, Charles D. Nuclear Energy: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford UP,
2011. Print.
"Tritium Leaks into Groundwater at U.S. Nuclear Plants." Greenpeace. Greenpeace, n.d. Web.
Keniff, Steven. "Fukushima Nuclear Radiation Spreading Across The Pacific Ocean?"American
Live Wire American News. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
Ramana, M.V. The Power of Promise, Examining Nuclear Energy in India. Penguin Books India
Pvt. Ltd, 11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017. Rs. 699.
Rehkopf, Linda. "Leaking Underground Storage Tank." Environmental Encyclopedia. 4th ed.
Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2011. 998-999. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Jan. 2014.
"Renewal a Bridge to Replacement." US Nuclear Power Policy. World Nuclear Association,
Dec. 2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Roberts, Paul C. "The Republic of Denial." » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names.
Counter Punch, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 02 Jan. 2014.
"ROUTINE RADIOACTIVE RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS - IT DOESN’ T
TAKE AN ACCIDENT - NIRS." ROUTINE RADIOACTIVE RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR
REACTORS. Nuclear Information and Resource Service, n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
Metzger, Luke. "News Release." Nuclear Power Plants Threaten Drinking Water for 49 Million
Americans. Environment America, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
9
Metzger, Luke. "Nuclear Power Plants Threaten Drinking Water for 1.2 Million
Texans."Environment Texas. N.p., 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
"Nuclear Waste." ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Ogura, Junko. "Radiation Level Spikes Further near Toxic Water Tanks at Japan's Fukushima
Plant." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 07 Jan. 2014
Sastry, Rahul, and Bennett Siegel. "The French Connection: Comparing French and American
Civilian Nuclear Energy Programs." Stanford Journal of International Press. Stanford University,
n.d. Web.
.
10