kamata hii... BE VERY KEEN ON INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE YOU START HANDLING THE PAPER and REVIEW VERY KEENLY UKIMALIZA

Roger Bloom October 1997

Adapted by Prof. Richman March 2015 / March 2017

A Proposal to Write a Paper Researching the Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear

Fuel at Yucca Mountain

Introduction Nuclear power plants produce more than 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States (Murray 89). Unfortunately, nuclear fission, the process used to create this large amount of energy, creates significant amounts of high level radioactive waste. More than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U.S. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and plutonium (Roush 1761-62). Because of the build-up of this waste, some power plants will be forced to shut down. To avoid losing an important source of energy, a safe and economical place to keep this waste is necessary. I propose to review whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which was selected by the United States government, is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. I will discuss the economical and environmental aspects of a national storage facility. This proposal includes my methods for gathering information and a schedule for completing the review. This topic is not only interesting for its technical challenges but also is essential to the future of the United States and humanity.

Discussion

On January 1, 1998, the Department of Energy (DOE) must accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial plants for permanent storage (Clark 102). However, the DOE is undecided on where to put this high level radioactive waste. Yucca Mountain, located in Nevada, is a proposed site. There are many questions regarding the safety of the Yucca Mountain waste repository. Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory disagree over the long-term safety of the proposed high level nuclear waste site located in Nevada. In 1994, Charles Bowman, a researcher at Los Alamos, developed a theory claiming that years of storing waste in the mountain may actually start a nuclear chain reaction and explode, similar to an atomic bomb (Taubes 1838). The stir caused by the theory suggests that researchers have not explored all sides of the safety issue concerning potentially hazardous situations at Yucca Mountain. Bowman's theory that Yucca Mountain could explode is based upon the idea that enough waste will eventually disperse through the rock to create a critical mass. A critical mass is an amount of fissile material, such as plutonium, containing enough mass to start a neutron chain reaction (Murray 75). Bowman argues that if this chain reaction were started underground, the rocks in the ground would help keep the system compressed and speed up the chain reaction (Taubes 1837). A chain reaction formed underground could then generate huge amounts of energy in a fraction of a second, resulting in a nuclear blast. A nuclear explosion of this magnitude would emit large amounts of radioactivity into the air and ground water. Another safety concern is the possibility of a volcanic eruption in Yucca Mountain. The long-term nuclear waste storage facility needs to remain stable for at least 10,000 years to allow the radioactive isotopes to decay to natural levels (Clark 110). There are at least a dozen young volcanoes within 40 kilometers of the proposed Yucca Mountain waste site (Weiss zzy-zzz). The proximity of Yucca Mountain to these volcanoes makes it possible to have a volcanic eruption pass through the spent fuel waste repository. Such a volcanic eruption could release damaging amounts of radioactivity to the environment.

Conclusion

I propose to review the available literature about using Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for spent nuclear fuel. In this review I will achieve the following two goals:

(1) explain the criteria for a suitable repository of high-level radioactive waste; and

(2) determine whether Yucca Mountain meets these criteria.

According to the Department of Energy (DOE), a repository for high-level radioactive waste must meet several criteria including safety, location, and economics (Roush 1762). Safety includes not only the effect of the repository on people near the site, but also people along the transportation routes to the site. In my research I will consider both groups of people. As far as location, a waste site cannot be in an area with a large population or near a ground water supply. Also, because one of the most significant factors in determining the life span of a possible repository is how long the waste storage canisters will remain in tact, the waste site must be located in a dry climate to eliminate the moisture that can cause the waste canisters to corrode. The economics involved in selecting a site is another criterion. At present, the Department of Energy (DOE) has spent more than 1.7 billion dollars on the Yucca Mountain project (Taubes 1838-39). For that reason, much pressure exists to select Yucca Mountain as a repository site; otherwise, this money would have been wasted. Other costs, though, have to be considered. For instance, how economical is it to transport radioactive waste across several states to a single national site? I will try to account for as many of these other costs as possible.

After explaining the criteria, I will assess how well Yucca Mountain meets those criteria. In this assessment, I will not assign a numerical score for each criterion. Rather, I will discuss qualitatively how well Yucca Mountain meets each criterion. In some situations, disagreement exists among experts as to how well Yucca Mountain meets a criterion. In such cases, I will present both sides. In this assessment, only Yucca Mountain will be considered as a possible site. Although many sites in the United States could meet the DOE's established criteria, I will consider only Yucca Mountain because the DOE is considering only Yucca Mountain (Taubes 1837) .

My schedule for completing the proposed research is presented in Figure 1. Since I already possess sources on the subject of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste site, most of my time will be spent sorting through the sources to find key results, and presenting those results to the audience.

Figure 1. Schedule for completion of the literature review. The formal presentation will be on October 27, and the formal report will be completed by December 5.

More than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U.S. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and plutonium (Roush 1761). I propose research to evaluate the possibility of using Yucca Mountain as a repository for this spent nuclear fuel. The proposed research will achieve the following goals: (1) explain the criteria necessary to make a suitable high level radioactive waste repository and (2) determine if Yucca Mountain meets these criteria. The research will include a formal presentation on November 11 and a formal report on December 5.

Works Cited

Clark, Raymond L. "Background on 40 CFR Part 197 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain." Proceedings of the 1997 Waste Management Conference. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1997/sess10/10-01.htm . Accessed 26 Mar. 2017.

Kerr, Richard A. “A New Way to Ask the Experts: Rating Radioactive Waste Risks.” Science, vol. 274, no. 5289, November 1996, pp. 913–914, www.jstor.org/stable/28912 . Murray, Raymond L. Understanding Nuclear Waste. Battelle Press, 1989.

Roush, Wade. “Can Nuclear Waste Keep Yucca Mountain Dry -- and Safe?” Science, vol. 270, no. 5243, Dec. 1995, pp. 1761–1762, www.jstor.org/stable/2888147.

Taubes, Gary. “Blowup at Yucca Mountain.” Science, vol. 268, no. 5219, June 1995, pp. 1836–

1839, www.jstor.org/stable/2887834.