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

Trinity Nuclear Test

Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge

near San Antonio, New Mexico

On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb test was performed at a site about 35 southeast of Soccorro, New Mexico.  The test was code named 'Trinity' by Dr Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos Laboratory involved in the Manhattan Project.  It used a 20 kiloton Plutonium implosion device, of a similar design to what would ultimately be dropped over Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, less than a month later.  The Manhattan Project was a war-time effort to develop an atomic bomb, which occurred over a time period from 1942 to 1946.  The effort extended to a number of facilities, including Hanford, Washington and Oak Ridge, Tennessee in addition to the Los Alamos, New Mexico  site where major design work occurred.  Ultimately testing would be done in a number of areas, including Nevada and the Pacific Islands, including Bikini Atoll, after World War II.

The Trinity test differed in nature from that used on the first atomic blast at Hiroshima.  The Hiroshima blast used a gun type, or projectile type detonation of uranium while the Nagasaki and Trinity Blast involved implosion of a plutonium core.

The Trinity atomic bomb test followed a period of development of nuclear expertise in a number of areas, from study of the atom itself, to study of high energy collisions and the study of nuclear chain reactions. A key development was a letter by physicists Eugene Szilard  and Albert Einstein,   expressing their concern that Germany could develop an atomic bomb.  The result of their efforts, which included collaborations with other physicists such as Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller , was that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt accelerated scientific research with a new committee on June 28, 1941 and approved the atomic program on October 9, 1941.  The response to their letter came on October 19, 1941.

This timeline is interesting, taken in the context of the historical evolution, from World War I, in 1914-1918 to World War II and its aftermath in the nuclear arms race.  The historical context included the 1918 Flu Pandemic (Spanish Flu), aided by a World War I fought in the trenches, the Great Depression,  and the ever continuing battle between commercialization, globalization and nationalist interests.  The development of nuclear weapons ratcheted up the stakes, due to the wider implications of their use and the attendant risks.

Nuclear risks include the potential manufacture, storage, transportation, testing and potential use of nuclear weapons in conflict (including WWII).  These risks are in addition to risks arising from nuclear usages in other areas, such as power generation and medical usages.  We have seen impacts from the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plant incidents.  I've discussed some of these issues in other blog articles, including: Nuclear Balance of Risks, Chernobyl 25th Anniversary and Energy Choices and Risk.

Development, testing and use of nuclear weapons has left a long lasting radiological footprint on the landscape in areas such as Hanford and the Pacific Northwest, the Trinity Site and White Sands and the Southwest, the Pacific Islands, including Japan during WWII, and downwind (and water) areas.

The above photograph is taken at Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, near San Antonio, New Mexico in February, 2009, about 20 -30 miles from the Trinity Test Site, some 63-64 years after the test.  Another image, taken at Valley of the Fires State Park, New Mexico, was taken near Carrizozo, New Mexico, one of the areas harder hit by the Trinity plume.