Energy - Environmental Science - page 303

■ Dump it into descending zones of the earth's crust in
the deep ocean. Wastes eventually might be spewed
out somewhere else by volcanic activity, and contain-
ers might leak and contaminate the ocean before be-
ing carried downward. Also, retrieval would be im-
possible if the method did not work. This strategy is
prohibited by international law.
■ Bury it in thick deposits of mud on the deep-ocean
floor in areas that tests show have remained geologically
stable for 65 million years. The waste containers eventu-
ally would corrode and release their radioactive con-
tents. This approach is prohibited by international law.
■ Change it into harmless, or less harmful, isotopes. Cur-
rently, no way exists to do this. Even if a method was
developed, costs would probably be very high, and
the resulting toxic materials and low-level (but very
long-lived) radioactive wastes would need to be dis-
posed of safely.

complex problem and to evaluate other sites and stor-
age methods.
Opponents also contend that the Yucca Mountain
waste site should not be opened because it might de-
crease national security. The plan calls for wastes to be
put into specially designed casks and shipped by truck
or rail cars to the Nevada site. This would require
about 19,600 shipments of wastes over much of the
country for the estimated 38 years before the site is
filled. At the end of this period, the amount of newly
collected radioactive waste stored at nuclear power
plant sites would be about the same as before the
Yucca Mountain repository opened. Critics contend
that it will be much more difficult to protect such a
large number of shipments from terrorist attacks than
to provide more secure ways to store such wastes at
nuclear power plant sites.
The DOE and proponents of nuclear power
counter that the risks of an accident or sabotage of nu-
clear waste shipments are negligible. Opponents dis-
agree. Utility companies oppose improved storage at
plant sites because it would add to their costs and make
nuclear power a more unattractive energy option.
Despite these and other objections from scientists
and citizens, in 2002 Congress approved Yucca Moun-
tain as the official site for storing the country's commer-
cial nuclear wastes. Opponents want the law repealed.
In 2005, Congress temporarily halted efforts to get fi-
nal approval for the project after learning that some of
the data used to justify the project were made up.

Science and Politics Case Study: High-Level
Radioactive Wastes in the United States
Scientists disagree over the decision to store high-level
nuclear wastes at an underground storage site in
Nevada.
In 1985, the DOE announced plans to build a reposi-
tory for underground storage of high-level radioactive
wastes from commercial nuclear reactors on federal
land in the Yucca Mountain desert region, 160 kilome-
ters (100 miles) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada.
The proposed facility is expected to cost at least
$58 billion to build (financed partly by a tax on nuclear
power). It is scheduled to open by 2010, but may not
begin operation until 2015.
Some scientists argue that it should never be al-
lowed to open, mostly because rock fractures and
tiny cracks may allow water to leak into the site and
eventually corrode radioactive waste storage casks.
Geologists also point out a nearby active volcano and
32 active earthquake fault lines running through the
site—an unusually high number. In 1998, Jerry Szy-
manski, formerly the DOE's top geologist at Yucca
Mountain and now an outspoken opponent of the
site, said that if water flooded the site it could cause
an explosion so large that “Chernobyl would be small
potatoes.”
In 2002, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, in
collaboration with Harvard and University of Tokyo
scientists, urged the U.S. government to slow down
and rethink its nuclear waste storage process. These
scientists contend that storing spent fuel rods in dry-
storage casks in well-protected buildings at nuclear
plant sites is an adequate solution for at least 100 years
in terms of safety and national security. This approach
would buy time to carry out more research on this

x

H OW W OULD Y OU V OTE ? Should highly radioactive
spent fuel be stored in casks in well-protected buildings at
nuclear power plant sites instead of shipping them to a single
site for underground burial? Cast your vote online at http://
biology.brookscole.com/miller11.

Science: Dealing with Worn-Out
Nuclear Plants
When a nuclear reactor reaches the end of its useful
life, we must keep its highly radioactive materials
from reaching the environment for thousands of years.
When a nuclear power plant comes to the end of its
useful life, it must be decommissioned, or retired—the
last step in the nuclear power fuel cycle. Scientists have
proposed three ways to do this.
One strategy is to dismantle the plant after it
closes and store its large volume of highly radioactive
materials in a high-level, nuclear waste storage facility.
Many scientists question the safety of such facilities. A
second approach is to install a physical barrier around
the plant and set up full-time security for 30-100 years
before the plant is dismantled. A third option is to en-
close the entire plant in a tomb that must last and be
monitored for several thousand years. Regardless of