Our Nuclear Future - Hanford and Spent Nuclear Fuel

Hanford Site, Washington

This nation depends on nuclear energy for a great deal of it's power generation.  Indeed, as we see the Polar Pioneer take off for marginal Chukchi Sea, we note the difficulties faced by our declining resources and the issue of Peak Oil.

How can a world which depends on energy to operate gain power generation resources when there are so many demands, both by developed countries who have already built up a large demand for resources, and by developing nations, in areas such as Africa and Asia, where demands for energy resources will increase with industrialization and commercialization.

I have already discussed some of the issues posed by the Polar Pioneer in my recent blog article. It is clear that there are many risks in oil drilling as we seek to drill at greater and greater depths, in locations where the risk is greater, such as the Chukchi Sea between Alaska and Russia, and engage in practices such as fracking which present their own risks.

My previous blog article, "Energy Choices and Risk", following the Fukushima Disaster on 3/11/2011, discusses some of the emerging risks. Hydroelectric power is a major source of energy which meets much of the energy generation needs in the Pacific Northwest.  Climate change and global warming impact the generation of hydroelectric power and water resources.  Declining glaciers and mountain snow impact climate change and global warming through a positive feedback mechanism as the lower snow pack decreases the albedo through lower reflectivity in the mountain snow pack.

Alternative energy choices are increasingly being considered.  These include biofuels, wind power and solar power.  Can these alternative energy sources meet the bulk of our needs for energy consumption? They can help mitigate the demand for energy but cannot completely fill it. Would filling the planet's surface with wind generators disturb our meteorological balance?  Would over use of solar panels mean that solar energy is diverted into household appliances rather than photosynthesis? To what extent can we generate energy without disturbing other entities within our environment, beyond a de minimus impact?  We do not know the answers to many of these questions.

 I have discussed issues of low probability, high impact risks in conjunction with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima in my blog article "Energy Choices and Risk".

While large scale accidents see significant press coverage (and they should), those who have studied, researched or worked in the nuclear industry have compelling stories about how exposures have impacted their lives in many ways.  Many others, through occupational exposures not directly related to the nuclear industry may also have been impacted in many ways and to various degrees.

However, occupational exposure is not the whole story; many others, in various walks of life, have been exposed to radiation or other environmental risk in a number of ways.  These individuals may include family members of those having occupational exposure, those living in down wind areas, those transiting through areas with exposure, and those who may be handling product that might have some radiological contamination, and many more. It is clear that those with non-occupational exposures must be cared for just as those with occupational exposures are cared for. The impact of radiation on the populace is an externality issue.

Radiation released into the atmosphere is carried downwind; radiation released into water is carried with the currents.  Radiation released into materials is carried with those materials. Radiation will follow its decay path, which varies with the radionuclide.  One may consider bananas, which are high in potassium, and carry the naturally radioactive element Potassium 40 at low levels.  Every time we carry bananas from the store to our home we carry some (low level) amount of radioactivity with us.  Believe it or not, radiation from bananas is expressed as a "banana equivalent dose", about 0.1 micro-sievert, at least on Wikipedia.

The impact of exposure to radiation is a serious one involving physiological and psychological issues.

Dr Yuri Yablokov's work, "Consequences of the Catastophe for People and the Environment" is an extensive body of work by the Russian Scientist who reported to Mikhail Gorbachev. Dr Yablokov has provided probably the most complete body of work relating to the impact of Chernobyl on people and on the environment.

The Marshall Islands is but one example of an area where nuclear testing has impacted residents. Sixty years later there are still impacts as indicated by this article in The Guardian.

Nevada and New Mexico have a history of atomic testing where test sites and downwind areas have been impacted..  My article on the site of the first atomic test, the initial Trinity nuclear test in New Mexico, discusses these issues.

There are a garden variety of risks along a risk spectrum surrounding the use of nuclear energy.  Risk studies for the Indian Point Reactor at Buchanan, New York, consider a variety of factors: This study takes into account information from the Chernobyl and Fukushima events.

Wikipedia lists some incidents at Indian Point Reactor. To what degree have radiation incidents at Indian Point impacted the surrounding industries and the neighboring communities?  To what extent was a gypsum plant just south of the Indian Point Reactor exposed by incidents at Indian Point?  This is a matter for further investigation.  Gypsum is used in many applications, including in wallboard. Could radioactivity could have traveled from a point of origin in Buchanan, New York, via trucks, trains, vessels or aircraft to residential and commercials interiors: bedroom, kitchen and bathroom walls all over the world?  Can we know the answer to these questions? Certainly we would need to answer these questions in assessing future risks where industrial and other activities are carried about in areas contiguous to nuclear facilities.

According to the Indian Point Report: "Also note that these calculations were performed for a hypothetical accident at only one of Indian Point’s two operating reactors, and the accident scenarios did not involve radiation release from the spent fuel pools, unlike for Fukushima, which was a multi-unit accident with damage to spent nuclear fuel storage. " states one section of the document.

A continuing issue is the handling of spent nuclear fuel.  This is an increasing issue as the amount of spent nuclear fuel, especially that containing plutonium, increases.

A March 18, 2011, article in the Seattle Times discusses the use of MOX plutonium fuel at Hanford.

Nuclear waste may be stored, for example at Tank Farms, for example, at Hanford Tank Farms, or in Dry Cask Storage or at deep geological repositories such as the Carlsbad Waste Isolation Storage Plant in New Mexico.  Yucca Mountain was designated as a deep geological depository for the storage of high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel.

Nuclear waste can be processed in various ways, for example via vitrification at the Vitrification Plant at Hanford and potentially transported elsewhere for long term storage.  The storage and processing of spent nuclear fuel has thus been the subject of extensive debate.  Many of these storage methods involve keeping the isotopes in their original processed state, so that many long lived isotopes are stored in what is an accumulating storage of spent nuclear fuel.

Nuclear fuel can also be processed in a reactor.  This processing allows for isotopes with higher levels of radioactivity, to be processed down their decay chain, reducing the level of radioactivity while producing power, and thus reducing the level of radioactivity in the spent fuel that has to be stored.  This methodology, which is referred to in the March 18, 2011 article in the Seattle Times, has its own risks.  Risks include the risk of nuclear accident while reprocessing the fuel, escape of containment and risks involved in transporting the nuclear spent fuel from the sites at which it is being processed to the sites where it is reprocessed (Hanford Power Plant).

These risks include many of the same issues discussed above regarding the Indian Point plant. There are longer terms risks as well, which involve how to use the potential energy stored in the radionuclide's decay chain; whether it should be used immediately to generate power or whether it should be put back in the ground to be available for later use, or whether there is some planetary need relating to global warming and climate change that should dictate its usage.  That is a matter of continuing discussion.  There is a considerable continuum of risk involved in studying this issue of nuclear waste.

Dr Yablokov's work on Chernobyl illustrates this risk in a very powerful way.  Many areas could potentially be impacted, including the Palouse of Washington, the Seattle Area, and the Washington and Oregon Coasts.

I heard Dr Yablokov speak on "Chernobyl 25 Years Later: Lessons Learned" on March 28, 2011 at the University of Washington, at Kane Hall about his experiences dealing with that nuclear disaster. It was quite an experience.

Nuclear power plants also pose financial risk.  I address this issue in my blog post,
Energy Choices and Risk.  This issue is a matter of continuing investigation as we look towards issues of financial risk management, and the cost of externalities as imposed on society and individuals.


marilyndunstan.photoshelter.com

Hanford 
Palouse
Seattle
Washington Coast
Oregon Coast

Hanford - Use of Plutonium Fuel
Indian Point Energy Plant
Marshall Islands Nuclear Testing Legacy
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment - Dr Yablokov
Seattle Times - Plutonium Fuel Could be Used at Hanford Power Plant

Wikipedia:
Indian Point Energy Center
Radiation
Hydraulic Fracturing
Banana Equivalent Dose
Carlsbad Waste Isolation Storage Plant
Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Depository

marilyndunstan.blogspot.com
Externalities
Chernobyl 25th anniversary 
Energy Choices and Risk
Global Warming and Climate Change-Polar Pioneer
Processing Risk and Uncertainty
Log in the Surf - 8.9 Japan Earthquake (9.0 updated)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Dry Cask Storage

Mt Rainier - Balance of Risks

Mt Rainier and Puget Sound Vessel Traffic, Seattle, Washington (on Photoshelter)

Low probability - high impact events present difficulties in weighing the balance of risks in such events. There may be an intellectual understanding that the risk exists and what its consequences are. However, how that intellectual understanding is translated into that marriage of sense and intellect that informs the weighing of risks, is problematic when the high impact event happens so rarely in our experience. Experience, after all, guides our reactions and decision-making in the face of risk. We experience intellectually and emotionally, and this informs future choices. We are guided by instinctual underpinnings that alert us to danger.

When we weigh the balance of risks we look at how to mitigate the low probability - high impact event. This includes identifying the risks and probabilities, assessing how to prevent them if possible and how to mitigate the impacts should they occur. What is the cost of dealing with the risk versus the impacts of ignoring them as if they could never occur in our lifetimes, putting our heads in the sand and tempting to fate?

Studies that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have done regarding the various risks associated with Mt Rainier are an example of risk assessment. These studies outline probabilities of various classes or sizes of volcanic events occurring.

In recent blog articles, Mt St Helens 31st Anniversary of May 18, 1980 Eruption and

Mt St Helens and other Cascade Volcanoes I discussed the impact of the Mt St Helens 1980 volcanic eruption and potential volcanic hazards in the Cascade volcanoes.

Risks of volcanic hazards have been closely studied on Mt Rainier and are discussed in the USGS report on “Volcano Hazards From Mount Rainier, Washington”, 1995. Mt Rainier’s proximity to major population centers, and it’s size, with a summit at 14,410 feet, mean that Mt Rainier presents an important risk, both in the scale of a potential geological event and potential population impact. Mt Rainier is 54 miles southeast of Seattle and 37 miles east of Tacoma..

The USGS examines each of the volcanic risks in detail. It discusses risks from tephra (volcanic gas/rock ejecta), ballistic projectiles, pyroclastic flow and surges, lava flows, volcanic gasses, debris avalanches and lahars, lateral blasts and glacial outburst floods. All of these are impressive risks. My previous post on Mt St Helens and other Cascade Volcanoes points to excellent USGS material on these topics.

What impressed me most about the Vocanco Hazards From Mount Rainier, Washington (USGS) was the information regarding hazards from debris avalanches, debris flows and lahars. The report states:

“Circumstances conducive to future debris avalanches and debris flows—substantial volumes
of hydrothermally altered rock, substantial topographic relief, great volumes of ice, and the
potential for renewed volcanism—are all present at Mount Rainier. Thus, debris flows are a greater threat to communities down valley from Mount Rainier than any other volcanic phenomenon.” “Volcano Hazards From Mount Rainier, Washington”, (USGS)

Debris avalanches, flows and lahars can arise from weakened mountain rock that has been hydrothermally altered by the action of acidic volcanic gases below the surface to a clay substance that undermines the structure of the mountain, leaving it susceptible to failure. The USGS report, explains this as: “Like a house infested with termites, the affected part of the volcano eventually becomes so weak that it collapses under its own weight, and generates a debris avalanche”

These type of debris flows, containing high quantities of water and hydrothermally altered material are called “cohesive” debris flows.

What I found particularly interesting was that debris avalanches and flows can occur without the type of warning that is typically available when a mountain begins eruptive activity. This may happen if the debris avalanche is due to causes not related to magma movement within the mountain. Weakening in the mountain structure due to underlying hydrothermally altered rock, or, a steepening in mountain slope walls with attendant loss of stability due to glacial erosion (USGS report) can increase the risk of debris avalanche. The historical retreat of glaciers has let mountain sides steepen as the glacier retreats.

The Osceola Mudflow, 5600 years ago, was a cohesive debris flow and the largest debris flow in the last 10,000 years. The flow reached Commencement Bay. The National Lahar, about 1200 years ago flowed all the way to Puget Sound, inundating the Nisqually River.




Nisqually Tideflats and Boardwalk, Nisqually Wildlife Refuge, Olympia, Washington (on Flickr)

The USGS has grouped debris flows into categories according to severity. Class M, the greatest, applies to the Osceola mudflow. This category occurs too infrequently to allow the USGS to assess an annual probability. The USGS Map Insert Low Probability High Consequence Events shows the extent that would be covered by a class M event.

The USGS Map Volcano Hazards From Mount Rainier similarly displays flows expected from Class I, II and III events. An example of a Class I event is the Electron Mudflow which reached the Puget Sound lowlands. According to the USGS, Category I occurs on average 500 to 1,000 years (over a 5,600 year period) with an annual probability of .1 to .2 percent. Class II occurs on average 100 to 500 years tending towards the lower end of the range with an annual probability of 1 percent. The USGS puts this more in the realm of a engineering categorization of a “100 year flood” in it’s paper. Class III debris flows are more common.




Kautz Creek, Mt Ranier National Park, Washington, March 2008 (on Photoshelter)

The Kautz Creek Debris Flow of October 2-3, 1947 was an intermediate size debris flow of class II. It was the largest debris flow since the park was established. It is thought to have been triggered by heavy rains that triggered an outburst flood from Kautz Glacier. The photo shows Kautz Creek in snow, with the water coloring reflecting the iron deposits and geothermal activity of Mt Rainier.

Tahoma Creek on a Foggy Morning, Mt Rainier National Park, Washington, June 2011 (on Photoshelterl)

Debris flows occur along Tahoma Creek. These debris flows may impact a bridge near the park entry, thus requiring dredging and other maintenance.

Mt Rainier has displayed some powerful rock and snow avalanche activity in recent days. An article and photographs in the Seattle Times portray this powerful activity.

Mt Rainier “speaks to us”. We cannot simply consider our environment an inanimate actor upon which we act; indeed our environment may present us with challenges that tax our abilities just at the moment when we are most complacent.

I can recall being on the Emmons Glacier with a group when it was 90 degrees in Seattle; suddenly boulders were rolling down the moraine and we soon (carefully) crab-like scurried down the moraine. A wonder that a glacier would want to melt in the heat, but apparently it does just that.

Debris flows often have their origin in heavy rains and hot temperatures.

So the challenge is to internalize the risks in a fashion that doesn’t over exaggerate the low probability high impact event, yet at the same time seeks to mitigate the associated risks with all risk classes. This involves enjoying Mt Rainier in its many splendors while at the same time understanding its risks, even those that may at time seem remote.