DOCSLIB.ORG

Deadly Crop in the Tank Farm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deadly Crop in the Tank Farm DEADLY CROP IN THE TANK FARM An Assessment of the Management of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in the Savannah River Plant Tank Farm, Based on Official Documents Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.* Robert AIvarez** Brent Blackwelder, Ph.D.*** * Associate Professor, Capitol Institute of Technology ** Director, Nuclear Weapons and Power Project, Environmental Policy Institute *** Vice-President, Environmental Policy Institute Corrections were made to several pages, in January 2012. Changes to pages 27 and 29 are described at http://www.ieer.org/errata.html. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface, ............................................... i 1 . Summary and Recommendations ....................... 1 Part I 2. Site Characteristics ................................. 8 3 . Introduction to Tank Farm Operation ................... 16 4 . Technical Problems ................................33 5 . Catastrophic Events ................................55 6. Environmental Contamination......................... 71 7 . Worker Exposures.................................. 100 Part I1 Tables Compiled From The Savannah River Plant 200 Area Fault Tree Data Bank PREFACE Although much attention over Union where U.S. intelligcncc sources the past decade has been focused on and exiled Sovict scientists suggest an accidental large-scale releases of explosion in 1957 scverely contaminated radioactivity from commercial nuclear several hundred square miles and reactors, a similar potential exists at resulted in a major loss of life. A federal nuclear facilities. In recent potential for similar expIosive years, the risks and consequences of accidents or loss of containment from major radiation accidents as well as the earthquakes also exists at the Savannah health and environmental effects from River Plant site. the routine operations of the facilities The tragic accidental release of owned by the U.S. Department of Energy methyl isocyanate at a Union Carbide (DOE) have also become the subject of plant in Bhopal, India which killed more increasing concern, One principal reason than 2,500 people and injured tens of is that the various DOE installations thousands with long term effects have now been operating for two to four underlines the need to pay much more decades, and the evidence of adverse attention to events which may have a health effects from exposure to small probability of occurring but which radioactivity is now accumulating at an are disastrous if they do occur. alarming rate. This applies to various Initiated in 1981, this study is an exposed populations such as workers at independent evaluation of the management DOE facilities, the veterans of atomic of the high-level radioactive wastes in tests and the people who lived in the the Tank Farm at the Savannah River path of the fallout from these tests. Plant (SRP). These wastes come primarily There also exists the potential for from the manufacture of plutonium for serious damage from large releases of nuclear warheads. Plutonium is produced radioactivity resulting from operating in nuclear material production reactors accidents or from events outside the and extracted at SRP's two reprocessing control of DOE, such as earthquakes. plants. Very large quantities of radionuclides Our study is based upon that part of in liquid form are present at some DOE the official record which has been made facilities. In particular, the public (some of it through Freedom of facilities at the Savannah River Plant Information Act requests filed by the in South Carolina and at Hanford in Environmental Policy Institute in 1981). Washington state, contain very large In all over 14,000 summaries of reported quantities of radionuclides in liquid accidents, worker exposures, spills, form, which are particularly dangerous equipment failures and non-routine because of their mobility. Large maintenance at the SRP Tank Farm were quantities of toxic non-radioactive made available to us for analysis. wastes also exist at these sites. The However, a great deal more data, terrible actuality of a massive accident particularly technical monthly reports, involving nuclear high-level radioactive and more detailed measurements of worker wastes has already been experienced in exposures and environmental the Ural mountain region of the Soviet contamination is still held secret by the U.S. Department of Energy and its calculations of failure probabilities contractor, E.I. du Pont dc Ncmours and and thc statistical model used by DOE Company. This secrecy, which we believe and DuPont for risk estimates. Robcrt for the most part is not justified, Alexander, Chief of the Occupational means that limitations have been put on Standards Branch of the Nuclear . our research. Nonetheless, many Regulatory commission*^ Office of conclusions emerge rather clearly, and Research and his staff, reviewed Chapter we have tried to delineate these and 7 which deals with occupational other issues as best the available exposures. Dr. Alice M Stewart, MD, information permits. Senior Research Fellow at the University The study comes not only in the of Birmingham School of Social Medicine context of a heightened concern about in England reviewed various DOE nuclear facilities, but also at a epidemiological studies pertaining to time when the public and Congress are the Savannah River Plant and- offered considering renewal of a federal law advice on their interpretation. Dr. Karl known as the PricelAnderson Act. 2. Morgan, former Director of Health Enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1957, Physics at Oak Ridge National and renewed every ten years, the Laboratory, reviewed Chapter 6 and 7. Price/.Anderson Act is designed to deal William Lawless, professor of with major nuclear accidents occurring Mathematics at Payne College, Augusta, at federal and civilian nuclear Georgia, and former senior engineer for facilities. The principal mechanism in the Department of Energy at SRP, the law is a ceiling on the total limit reviewed the entire report and made of liability that private utilities and several helpful comments and criticisms. the federal government can bear. Under Yaaron Sternberg, Professor of Civil the law, some 280 DOE nuclear facilities Engineering, University of Maryland, are covered with the liability limit set reviewed sections of Chapter 6 at $500 million, DOE contractors are pertaining to hydrology at SRP. Bernd completely shielded from liabilities Franke, Senior Research Fellow at the arising from a major nuclear accident. Institute for Energy and Environmental We hope that the data and analysis Research in Heidelberg, West Germany, presented in this study will be a reviewed Chapter 6. Dr. Uta Boiket of contribution to the public debate on the University of Bremen in West Germany this question which is not only also reviewed Chapter 6 and made important for our generation, but for comments on soil contamination. David future generations at well. Afbright, research fellow at the We would like to thank the people Federation of American Scientists, who reviewed our report and provided reviewed portions of the Fault Tree Data usef ul criticisms and comments. Dr. Bank on occupational exposures and Peter Bickel, Professor of Statistics helped derive dose estimates for and Divisional Dean of the College of plutonium depositions. Dr. Roland Arts and Sciences, University of Cali- Finston, Health Physics officer at fornia, Berkeley, reviewed statistical Stanford University (California) portions of-the end of Chapter 3 and the provided advice on estimating cancer portion of Chapter 5 dealing with risks. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are ours alone and not necessarily those of the reviewers. Their comments were vital in improving the report and we are deeply indebted to them. We would also like to thank Jackie Williams and Diana Kohn, who helped type, edit and prepare the the report for publication. Finally, we would like to express our thanks to the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation whose financial support made this report possible, and to Frances Close Hart who helped encourage its initiation and final completion. Washington, D.C. July 1986 Arjun Makhijani Robert Alvarez Brent Blackwelder CHAPTER ONE SUhlhlARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Eight hundred million curies of the major equipment--such as the deadly high-level radioactive wastes are reactors and reprocessing plants, as stored in the Savannah River Plant well as many of the tanks, date back to (SRP). Although 27 million gallons of the 1950s. This is a field in which these wastes constitute about one third technological change and safety of the total volume of military standards have changed rapidly. Yet in high-level radioactive wastes in the recent years the basic approach to waste U.S., they contain about 78 percent of management at the Savannah River Plant the total radioactivity in all U.S. Tank Farm has changed but little. military high-level wastes. SRP's In fact, the operating record of the high-level wastes pose a serious threat obsolete facility shows that its very to the plant's workers, to the people design basis was faulty and dangerous. who live in substantial portions of There is also substantial South Carolina and Georgia, to future evidence that these problems have been generations and to the environment. The compounded by unsatisfactory management rates of radiation=-related cancers among in many areas crucial to safety. Both workers are already significantly higher DuPont and DOE appear to be more anxious than expected. The plant site borders to minimize any adverse consequences and the Savannah
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE NATIONAL FORUM the National CFIDS Foundation
    THE NATIONAL FORUM The National CFIDS Foundation Vol. 27, No. 1 – Summer 2021 NCF ANNOUNCES NEW GRANT RECIPIENT By Alan Cocchetto, NCF Medical Director April 22, 2021 – Copyright 2021 The National CFIDS Foundation is pleased to announce their latest research grant recipient, Dr. Jack Wands. Dr. Wands is a Professor of Gastroenterology and Medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Wands' proposal which is titled, “Aspartate asparaginyl beta- hydroxylase (ASPH) as an etiologic factor in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)” has received $65,000 from the National CFIDS Foundation. Dr. Wands has over 600 peer-reviewed medical journal articles in publication. According to the Foundation, there is evidence that ASPH may be accumulating in the cells of CFS patients. As such, this can dramatically impact the body's response to oxidative stress and hypoxia. Wands has planned both in-vitro as well as in-vivo studies in an attempt to understand the upregulation of ASPH on cell migration and signaling through various cellular pathways following exposure to an oxidative injury. Wands will also be comparing CFS patient samples with those of hepatic cancer patients with cancer-related fatigue. In addition, Wands has evidence that ASPH overexpression may be a risk factor for the early development of cancer which may be associated with CFS before the disease becomes clinically apparent or in other words, CFS as a pre-malignancy. Wands has observed this in pancreatic cancer patients. This is of importance since the National Cancer Institute has previously reported that CFS has been associated with increases in pancreatic cancer.
    [Show full text]
  • ROCKY FLA TS PLANT HAER No
    ROCKY FLA TS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Environmental Technology Site) Bounded by Indiana St. & Rts. 93, 128 & 72 Golden vicinity Jefferson County Colorado PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD INTERMOUNTAIN SUPPORT OFFICE - DENVER National Park Service P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD ROCKY FLATS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site) Location: Bounded by Highways 93, 128, and 72 and Indiana Street, Golden, Jefferson County, Colorado. Date of Construction: 1951-1953 (original plant). Fabricator: Austin Company, Cleveland, Ohio. Present Owner: United States Department of Energy (USDOE). Present Use: Environmental Restoration. Significance: The Rocky Flats Plant (Plant), established in 1951, was a top-secret weapons production plant. The Plant manufactured triggers for use in nuclear weapons and purified plutonium recovered from retired weapons ( called site returns). Activities at the Plant included production, stockpile maintenance, and retirement and dismantlement. Particular emphasis was placed on production. Rocky Flats produced most of the plutonium triggers used in nuclear weapons from 1953 to 1964, and all of the triggers produced from 1964 until 1989, when production was suspended. The Plant also manufactured components for other portions of the weapons since it had the facilities, equipment, and expertise required for handling the materials involved. In addition to production processes, the Plant specialized in research concerning the properties of many materials that were not widely used in other industries, including plutonium, uranium, beryllium, and tritium. Conventional methods for machining plutonium, uranium, beryllium, and other metals were continually examined, modified, and updated in support of weapons production.
    [Show full text]
  • Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition
    Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Williams, Peter King. 2010. Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition. Master's thesis, Harvard University, Extension School. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37367548 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition Peter Williams A Thesis in the Field of History for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2010 © 2010 Peter Williams Abstract This study examines the scientific advocacy that shaped President Carter’s April 1977 policy decision to block the domestic implementation of so-called “plutonium economy” technologies, and thereby mandate the use of an “open” or “once–through” fuel cycle for U.S. nuclear power reactors. This policy transition was controversial, causing friction with U.S. allies, with the nuclear power industry, and with Congress. Early in his presidential campaign, Carter criticized the excessive federal financial commitment to developing plutonium-based reactors and adopted the view that the weapons proliferation risks of plutonium economy technologies were serious and needed to be addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • It's Time to Expand Nuclear Power
    Intelligence Squared U.S. 1 01/23/2020 January 23, 2020 Ray Padgett | [email protected] Mark Satlof | [email protected] T: 718.522.7171 It’s Time to Expand Nuclear Power Guests: For the Motion: Kirsty Gogan, Daniel Poneman Against the Motion: Arjun Makhijani, Gregory Jaczko Moderator: John Donvan AUDIENCE RESULTS Before the debate: After the debate: 49% FOR 47% FOR 21% AGAINST 42% AGAINST 30% UNDECIDED 11% UNDECIDED Start Time: (00:00:00) John Donvan: We have a key note conversation because the topic relates to science. Would you please welcome to the stage Bill Nye, the science guy? [applause] Bill Nye: John, so good to see you! John Donvan: Great to see you. [applause] So, that was the appropriate level of applause, I think. Bill Nye: Wow! Intelligence Squared U.S. 2 01/23/2020 John Donvan: There was a really interesting story that relates to you and Intelligence Squared that I want to start with. Bill Nye: Ah, yes. Yes. John Donvan: And you were -- you have been, in the past, a member of our audience. You've been out there. And there was one particular debate that you attended, and an interesting thing happened. Pick it up from there. Bill Nye: So, I was at a debate about genetically-modified organisms, GMOs. And -- John Donvan: The resolution was: Genetically modified food -- Bill Nye: Is good or bad. Or was necessary. John Donvan: No. It was -- it was stated as an imperative: "Genetically-modified food." It was a sentence. Bill Nye: Ah, yes. John Donvan: Okay.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW TITLES in BIOETHICS Annual Cumulation Volume 20, 1994
    NATIONAL REFERENCE CENTER FOR BIOETHICS LITERATURE THE JOSEPH AND ROSE KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC 20057 NEW TITLES IN BIOETHICS Annual Cumulation Volume 20, 1994 (Includes Syllabus Exchange Catalog) Lucinda Fitch Huttlinger, Editor Gregory P. Cammett, Managing Editor ISSN 0361-6347 A NOTE TO OUR READERS . Funding for the purchase of the materials cited in NEW TITLES IN BIOETHICS was severely reduced in September 1994. We are grateful for your donations, as well as your recom­ mendations to your publishers to forward review copies to the Editor. In addition to being listed here, all English-language titles accepted for the collection will be considered for inclusion in the BIOETHICSLINE database, produced at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics under contract with the National Library of Medicine. Your efforts to support this publication and the dissemination of bioethics information in general are sincerely appreciated. NEW TITLES IN BIOETHICS is published four times Inquiries regarding NEW TITLES IN BIOETHICS per year (quarterly) by the National Reference Center should be addressed to: for Bioethics Literature, Kennedy Institute of Ethics. Gregory Cammett, Managing Editor Annual Cumulations are published in the following year (regarding subscriptions and claims) as separate publications. NEW TITLES IN BIOETHICS is a listing by subject of recent additions OR to the National Reference Center's collection. (The subject classification scheme is reproduced in full with Lucinda Fitch Huttlinger, Editor each issue; it can also be found at the end of the (regarding review copies, gifts, and exchanges) cumulated edition.) With the exception of syllabi listed NEW TITLES IN BIOETHICS as part of our Syllabus Exchange program, and docu­ National Reference Center for Bioethics ments in the section New Publications from the Ken­ Literature nedy Institute of Ethics, materials listed herein are not Kennedy Institute of Ethics available from the National Reference Center.
    [Show full text]
  • The Japanese Nuclear Power Option: What Price?
    Volume 6 | Issue 3 | Article ID 2697 | Mar 03, 2008 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus The Japanese Nuclear Power Option: What Price? Arjun Makhijani, Endo Tetsuya The Japanese Nuclear Power Option: What particular, energy-hungry China and India- but Price? also for the region as a whole. In Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere, plans for and Endo Tetsuya and Arjun Makhijani expressions of interest in nuclear energy have been expanding. In the midst of rising oil With the price of oil skyrocketing to more than prices, expectations are growing that nuclear $100 a barrel, many nations including Japan energy will fill the gap between energy demand and the United States, are looking to the and supply. nuclear power option among others. Is nuclear power a viable option in a world of expensive In the area of global warming, the Fourth and polluting fossil fuels? Japan Focus, in the Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental first of a series of articles on energy options Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that centered on renewable options and thethe global temperature will increase by 2.4 to environmental costs of energy options, presents 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st the case for nuclear power recently made by century if fossil-fuel dependent economic Endo Tetsuya and a critique of the nuclear growth is maintained. It is now universally option by Arjun Makhijani. recognized that the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a matter of urgency, and necessitates seeking viable, reliable alternative sources of energy. In this sense, Atoms for the Sustainable Future:nuclear energy can be expected to contribute Utilization of Nuclear Energy as a Way to to global efforts to cope with the global Cope with Energy and Environmental warming problem as its carbon dioxide Challenges emissions are much smaller than those of fossil sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Could Asian Nuclear War Radioactivity Reach North America
    Institute for Energy and Environmental Research For a safer, healthier environment and the democratization of science Could Asianhttp://ieer.org Nuclear War Radioactivity Reach North America? (Earthfiles Interview with Arjun Makhijani) © 2002 by Linda Moulton Howe Reporter and Editor, Earthfiles.com Red arrow points at India and Pakistan on opposite side of the world from Canada and the United States. The Marshall Islands where the U. S. experimented in the 1950swith many atomic tests is at the far left in the Pacific Ocean. From Marshall Island and Nevada Test Site nuclear explosions, radioactive fallout riding on the prevailing westerly winds reached North Carolina and New York, distances nearly equivalent to the 10,000 to 12,000 miles India and Pakistan are from the west coast of the United States. June 4, 2002 Takoma Park, Maryland – If India and Pakistan strike each other with Hiroshima-sized bombs, how much radioactivity could reach the atmosphere and fall out around the world? That is a question I began asking a week ago and discovered that very little is known about the consequences downwind of such a catastrophe. The National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California seemed like it should know. NARAC’s public affairs office describes its “primary function is to support the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) for radiological releases.” But when I asked an page 1 / 7 Institute for Energy and Environmental Research For a safer, healthier environment and the democratization of science informationhttp://ieer.org officer there for information about the spread of radioactivity in the atmosphere from a nuclear war in Asia, the answer was, “That information is classified in the interests of national security.” One scientist who wants to talk about potential radioactive fallout and its threat to earth life is Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) in Tacoma Park, Maryland.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Test Site: Desert Annex of TESTS SINCE the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories 1945 Q Denotes “Subcritical” Introduction Test
    Western States Legal Foundation Nevada Desert Experience Information Bulletin Summer 2005 update 1,000+ U.S. NUCLEAR The Nevada Test Site: Desert Annex of TESTS SINCE the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories 1945 q denotes “subcritical” Introduction test Aardvark 1962 Abeytas 1970 The Nevada Test Site (NTS), an immense tract of desert and mountains northwest of Las Abilene 1988 Able 1946 Able 1951 Vegas, is the test range where the United States government set off over 900 nuclear Able 1951 Able 1952 explosions during the Cold War phase of the arms race. For most Americans, the Test Site is Abo 1985 Absinthe 1967 only a symbol of a closed chapter of history, a time of great danger that now is over. Even Ace 1964 Acushi 1963 those who know that the Nevada Test Site still is used for “subcritical” testing of nuclear Adobe 1962 Adze 1968 weapons materials and components underground may think operations largely have been Agile 1967 Agouti 1962 Agrini 1984 suspended, with unused facilities retained only against the eventuality of a return to full scale Ahtanum 1963 Ajax 1966 underground nuclear testing. But the Test Site remains an important part of the nuclear Ajo 1970 Akavi 1981 weapons complex, both a remote site where dangerous activities can be conducted with little Akbar 1972 Alamo 1988 public knowledge and a weapons laboratory unto itself. High risk programs involving nuclear Aleman 1986 Algodones 1971 material, such as nuclear criticality experiments, are slated for transfer to the Test Site, and it Aligote 1981 Aliment 1969 Allegheny 1962 also is being considered as a location for a proposed factory to mass produce plutonium pits, Alma 1962 Almendro 1973 the atomic explosive “triggers”at the core of most nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management Activities for Groundwater Protection Savannah River Plant Aiken, South Carolina
    \ DoE/Els-o120 Final Environmental Impact Statement Waste Management Activities for Groundwater Protection Savannah River Plant Aiken, South Carolina Volume 3 ~+FNTO&@+@ ~ &v a ~ k~ ;%.” $ +6w& ~+e Q $TiTESOf December 1987 United States Department of Energy TABLE OF CONTENTS ~pendix ~ G ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR NEW DISPOSAL/ STORAGE FACILITIES . ..... ...... G-1 G.1 No-Action Strategy . ..... ...... G-1 G.1.l Sununarvand Objectives . ..... ...... G-1 G.1.2 Groundwater and Surface Water Effects ...... G-4 G.1.3 Nonradioactive Atmospheric Releases . ...... G-4 G.1.4 Ecological Effects . ...... G-5 G.1.5 Radiological Releases . ...... G-5 G.1.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources ...... G-5 G.1.7 SOciOecOnOmics . ...... G-5 G.1.8 Dedication of Site . ...... G-6 G.1.9 Institutional Impacts . ...... G-6 G.l.10 Noise . ...... G–6 G.2 Dedication Strategy . ...... G-6 G.2.1 Summary a;d Objectives . ...... G–6 G.2.2 Groundwater and Surface Water Effects ...... G-7 G.2.2.1 Hazardous Waste . ...... G-7 G.2.2.2 Mixed Waste . ...... G–8 G.2.2.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste ...... G-8 G.2.3 Nonradioactive Atmospheric Releases . ...... G-13 G.2.4 Ecological Effects . ...... G-14 G.2.5 Radiological Releases . ...... G-14 G.2.5.1 Hazardous Waste . ...... G-14 G.2.5.2 Mixed Waste . ...... G-14 G.2.5.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste ...... G–15 G.2.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources ...... G-15 G.2.7 Socioeconomic . ...... G-18 G.2.8 Dedication of Site . ...... G–19 G.2.9 Institutional Impacts .
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear-Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Preface and Acknowledgments 5
    Nuclear-Spent Science Matters, LLC Science Matters, Bethesda, Maryland Fuel and High-Level Radioactive December 2019 Waste Disposal A Review of Options Considered in the United States An independent report Deepcommissioned Inc. Isolation, by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. Table of Contents Preface and Acknowledgments 4 Executive Summary 8 i. Early considerations 9 ii. The 1980 Environmental Impact Statement and geologic disposal 11 iii. Retrospective on the geologic disposal decision 13 iv. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act 14 v. The Continued Storage Rule 15 vi. Conclusions 16 I. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s 18 i. The 1957 National Research Council Report 20 ii. Lyons, Kansas 26 II. The changing framework in the 1970s 33 i. The energy front 34 ii. A change in nuclear power prospects 35 iii. The Indian nuclear test 38 III. Options for spent-fuel and high-level waste disposal 41 i. Transmutation 45 ii. Disposal in space 48 iii. Ice-sheet disposal 54 iv. Sub-seabed disposal 58 v. Island disposal 61 vi. Well injection 61 vii. Rock melt 64 viii. Disposal in very deep holes 66 ix. Disposal in a mined geologic repository 69 IV. Retrospective on disposal options 78 i. Breeder reactors and reprocessing 80 ii. Reprocessing-dependent disposal approaches 83 iii. Non-reprocessing dependent disposal concepts 88 iv. Deep-vertical borehole disposal 93 v. Horizontal borehole disposal 95 V. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 98 VI. The NRC’s Continued Storage Rule and geologic isolation 106 i. The Continued Storage Rule 107 ii. Comments on continued storage and geologic isolation 108 VII.
    [Show full text]
  • Thank You for Listening
    Thank you to our hosts for this opportunity to speak; and Thank You World Family, so many of you gathering here; thank you for listening. Nuclear, is war of human consequences. The Cold War promised “mutual destruction.” Cities were made into targets. Vaporizing large numbers of people was the strategy. Now we know, even regional us of nuclear weapons would cause global damage. It is my job to give a summary of the medical consequences of using these weapons. My slides will be published on line with citation and references. *** Resources: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War: http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/1998ForrowJAMA.pdf “From Hiroshima to Mutual Assured Destruction to Abolition 2000.” Lachlan Forrow, MD; Victor W. Sidel, MD; reprinted from the Journal of the American Medical Association, August 5, 1998; Vol 280, No 5, pages 456—461. European Leadership Network: 2014. Ambassador A. Kmentt. http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/avoiding‐the‐worst‐re‐framing‐the‐debate‐ on‐nuclear‐disarmament_1558.html 1 A nuclear explosion is composed of three types of energy: Blast, Heat, and Radiation. All of these have both immediate and long‐term medical consequnces. *** Broad Resources: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists; http://thebulletin.org/search/topics/nuclear‐weapons Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/our‐work/nuclear‐weapons#.VHpzhDHF8xI International Atomic Energy Agency – Tools for Nuclear Inspection (factsheet): http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/inspectors.pdf Reaching Critical Will: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org The disarmament arm of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. 2 I am using four ICONS to track how each type of energy from these weapons impact human health: • Yellow is Blast.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 15 Facilities and Operations Relevant to the Use and Release Of
    CHAPTER 15 FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS RELEVANT TO THE USE AND RELEASE OF CHEMICALS ABSTRACT This chapter provides information about the major facilities and operations responsible for releases of chemicals to the air and surface water at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The most important facilities and operations were the powerhouses, the separations processes, and raw materials operations. This chapter also describes key sources of information about releases of chemicals, site operations, waste disposal, water treatment, explosions, fires, and spills. RELEASE POINTS AND PROCESSES The SRS has several thousand process exhaust points and “literally tens of thousands of administrative events” according to the Part 70 Operating Permit Application submitted to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Inquiries made to the Air Emissions Inventory database in October 1997 indicate that there were 527 emission points in D-Area; 3023 emission points in A-Area, which includes the powerplant, Savannah River Laboratory (SRL), and Savannah River Ecology Laboratory; 540 emission points in M- Area; 2347 emission points in F-Area, including the Naval Fuels Facility; 2123 emission points in H-Area, including the tritium facilities; 396 in T-Area or TNX; 535 in G-Area or CMX; and from 600 to 650 in each reactor area (Faugl 1996). Six onsite process stacks emitted most of the nonradioactive materials released: three 313-M stacks and one 321-M stack in M-Area and two, 200-ft-high stacks (291/292-H and 291/292-F) in the separations areas. Because of the sensitive nature of some of the information about process equipment, design, and location, exhaust points were combined into one location for each area.
    [Show full text]