Fedoseyev Lev/ITAR-TASS/Landov LLCMurmansk nuclear waste site.438 CHAPTER 17 Nonrenewable Energy Resources
EnviroDiscovery
A Nuclear Waste Nightmare
Over the past three decades, Soviet (and now Russian) practices
for radioactive waste disposal have often violated international
standards:
;beebhglh`Zeehglhebjnb]kZ]bhZ\mbo^pZlm^lp^k^infi^]
directly underground, without being stored in protective
containers. Russian officials claim that layers of clay and shale
at the sites prevent leakage but admit that more leaks than
expected have occurred.
AbaerkZ]bhZ\mbo^pZlm^lp^k^]nfi^]bgmhma^h\^Zgbg amounts double those of dumped wastes from 12 other nuclear nations combined. ;hmang]^kkhng]bgc^\mbhgZg]ng]^kpZm^k]nfibg`h_
radioactive wastes continue because Russia lacks alternatives
for nuclear waste processing. Potential health and environmental
hazards associated with these wastes are unknown because so
little data exist for these types of long-term storage.
that storage of high-level radioactive waste in deep under-
ground repositories is the best long-term option. Using an
underground waste facility is far safer than storing high-
level nuclear waste as we do now; storing this waste at many
different commercial nuclear reactors poses a risk of ter-
rorist attacks, theft, and, possibly, human health problems.
Decommissioning Nuclear
Power Plants
As nuclear power plants age, certain critical sections, such
as the reactor vessel, become brittle or corroded. At the
end of their operational usefulness, nuclear power plants
are not simply abandoned or demolished because many
parts have become contaminated with radioactivity.
When a nuclear power plant is closed, it undergoes
decommissioning. The International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) defines three options for decommission-
ing: storage, entombment, and immediate dismantling.
If an old plant is put into storage, the utility company
guards it for 50 to 100 years while some of the radioactive
materials decay, making it safer to dismantle the plant
later. Accidental leaks during the storage period are an
ongoing concern.
Most experts do not consider entombment, perma-
nently encasing the entire power plant in concrete, a via-
ble option because the tomb would have to remain intact
for at least 1000 years. Accidental leaks would probably
occur during that time, and we cannot guarantee that
future generations would inspect and maintain the site.
The third option for the retirement of a nuclear power
plant is to dismantle the plant immediately after it closes.
Advances in robotics may make it feasible to tear down
sections of old plants that are too “hot” (radioactive) for
workers to safely dismantle. As the plant is torn down, small
sections of it can be transported to a permanent storage site.
According to the United Nations Environmental
Programme, 138 nuclear power plants worldwide were
permanently retired as of 2012 (28 of them in the United
States). Many other nuclear power plants are nearing re-
tirement age. During the 21st century, we may find that
we are paying more in our utility bills to decommission
old plants than we are to construct new ones.- How does a nuclear reactor produce electricity?
- What are the environmental effects of
generating electricity with conventional nuclear
fission, and how do they compare to the envi-
ronmental effects associated with burning coal? - Why is waste disposal an important aspect of
nuclear waste management?