Science in Christian Perspective
Benefits of Nuclear Power Outweigh Its Risks
Everett H. Irish
From: JASA 32
(June1980): 91-96.
In response to the companion
article1, I asked myself questions about nuclear
wastes such as: Why do some people fear them? Flow should they be
viewed in perspective?
Could we ever get along without them? Hopefully, in this response
these questions
are answered and nuclear waste management will he better understood instead of
feared.
In order to he both informative and brief, several approaches to
responding specifically
to the subject article were considered. These ranged from (a) writing
a parallel
article with a balanced presentation of facts and interpretations, to
(b) selecting
a few portions of the article for critique in depth, to (e) selecting numerous
items for comment. Writing a complete article is not feasible in the allotted
space and is also unnecessary; there are numerous publications on the subject
in varying degrees of technical detail for interested readers .2-10 The last
approach was selected because of its feasibility, directness, and
breadth of coverage.
The comments cannot be comprehensive; however, they hopefully are adequate to
apprise readers about nuclear waste management and some specific
issues raised.
Comments on Winchester Article
The companion article is one of the better articles written in
opposition to nuclear
power. Many of the facts are summarized satisfactorily; in particular, file description of the types of
radiation (i.e., alpha, beta and gamma) and the categorization of the types of
wastes (i.e., mill tailings, lowlevel wastes, transuranie wastes,
etc.) are cited.
In addition, quite a few of the factual aspects of waste management practices
are correct, but there also
are numerous misstatements of facts. Incorrect impressions or interpretations
all too frequently are given when the article alludes to situations or explains
information. In addition, the beneficial uses of nuclear power and
its waste products
are completely omitted from the discussion. The following paragraphs expand on
some of these aspects with reference to specific examples from the text of the
article.
The companion article arouses fear and anxiety more than it provides
understanding
about nuclear wastes.
For example, the risk-however small-of radiation causing cancer is presented as
the ultimate measure of safety without recognition of many risks of
other types.
Imagery and associations are also used for this purpose to allude to situations
rather than deal with documented facts in perspective. Numerous
examples (quotations
in italics) can be given:
Radioactive wastes from commercial and military production are
already more abundant
than all the water in the world's oceans could dilute without risking dangerous
re-concentrations of radioactivity in marine organisms and sediments. Possibly
true but irrelevant. Even if so, the total toxicity (lethal doses) of nuclear
wastes, aged 100 years, which would result from an assumed
all-nuclear U.S. electric
economy annually would be several orders of magnitude lower than the
lethal doses
of commonly used chemicals (e.g., arsenic, barium, hydrogen cyanide, et. al.)
annually present in the U.S.A6 It has also been shown that the toxicity of the
plutonium which would go to waste (projected for the year 2000) is comparable
to the toxicity of lead sent to waste in 1973.11 However, such
quantitative representations
of potential hazards are virtually meaningless unless one also takes
into account
the barriers that prevent or retard movement in the environment and
the possible
pathways that hazardous materials could take to reach man; that is what nuclear
waste isolation is all about, as discussed later.
The tragic limit over which human hubris may have tripped is that nuclear waste
stays poisonous practically forever. "[he tragic limit" of what? The
potential of nuclear power to provide a long-term supply of energy is a major
step (not trip) toward ameliorating a growing world energy shortage.
Furthermore,
whereas arsenic, barium and lead are stable and will last forever,
radionuclides
decay; in fact, after about 500 years of decay, the radiotoxie hazard
of high-level
waste from the light water reactor industry will be lower than that of the ore
that was required to make the fuel."12 This suggests that
isolation time frames
of 500 years are most important for isolation of high-level waste.
Alpha-emitters such as polonium and fissile plutonium 239 can be transported in
any kind of a sealed container, even pockets' or briefcases, without
harming anyone.
True but irrelevant and misleading. (Polonium 210 is a radioactive isotope not
normally considered a nuclear waste because of its presence in nature.)
...gammas penetrate through skin, sinew and bones well as through heavy
lead, steel
and concrete shielding Misleading statement because lead, steel and
concrete are
very effective shields.
It is worth asking whether the Nevada test-site disposal of liquid wastes could
pass the skeptical scrutiny geologists, geochemists and hydrologists
are currently
giving to concepts for using geologic formations to isolate spent
fuel and high-level
wastes encased in steel and titanium. Yes, the practice would pass the scrutiny
of knowledgeable persons. The wastes about which this allusion is
made are estimated
to contain less than 1 curie/year and
are produced during metabolism and biological transfer rate research
on both animal
and plant life using radioactive and non-radioactive materials." Certainly
the radiological safety of the practice is not in question.
Intermediate-level waste liquids produced at Oak Ridge National Laboratory are
injected into a deep underground shale bed after first being mixed with grout.
The grout solidifies and is intended to fix wastes into place. Whether it does
or not, over the very long periods that some of the waste remains radioactive,
will remain in question for many thousands of years. The safety of
this practice
is well documented" and accepted by knowledgeable persons as
being entirely
satisfactory. Earlier comments are also apropos.
The fact that radioactive particles can travel through
the air has been widely known since Hiroshima. It became more
immediately apparent
at Three Mile Island. Linking Hiroshima and Three Mile Island is
technically irrelevant
but evidence of scare tactics. Movement of particles through air has been known
since before the days of Tyndal's research.
The final IRG) report, produced by representatives of fourteen
federal agencies,
further advised the President, who is expected to make the key
decision on geologic
storage before this article is published... The intent of the statement can be
implied, but no "key decision" was made by the President before the article was published, it is neither to be
expected nor desirable that all decisions he acted on immediately, but rather
that waste management policy evolve in an orderly manner, in consultation with
the Congress.
The above examples show how imagery or allusions are used to create anxiety and
fear about nuclear waste, in general. The companion article also
contains numerous
misstatements, misinterpretations or distortions of facts that lead
to substantive
misunderstanding of the subject. Some of these statements regarding radiation
will he commented on as before with the hope of correcting misimpressions.
New information is released almost doily concerning heightened cancer incidence
among workers exposed to low-level radiation. The reliability and validity of
the information releases must he seriously questioned. Whereas
radiation is easy
to measure accurately with sensitive instruments, at low radiation levels valid
data from which conclusions can he drawn are extremely difficult and
time-consuming
to achieve. The data on which some claims have been based, and the
analyses involved,
have been heavily criticized and discredited as is the case for the
cited studies
of Hanford workers;15
data from others such as the nuclear shipyard'' are highly qualified
with regard
to the interpretation of results.
Recently Ralph Nader's Health Research Group asked President Carter to act on
a National Academy of Sciences recommendation that allowable
occupational exposures
to low-level radiation he reduced ten fold, from 5 rem to 0.5 rem per year. The
National Academy of Sciences has not made such a recommendation.
Continued study
of the radiobiological basis for assessing the risk of radiation exposure per
unit of dose equivalent indicates increasingly that the linear,
no-threshold assumption
represents an upper-limit and conservative estimate. In consideration
of the risk
now experienced in other "safe" industries, justification
for a change
is lacking unless a "double standard" were to he accepted
by which occupational
standards for radiation workers would be more restrictive than are
safety standards
for other industries."17
For 22 years the accepted wisdom has been that annual exposures of
170 mrem above
background radiation levels was a permissible level for the general population.
However, in 1977 the Environmental Protection Agency suggested 25 mrem
as the annual
limit. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NBC) has adopted that figure as the
permissible dose to the public created by the nuclear fuel cycle. In
taking over
the role previously held by the Federal Radiation Council, EPA promulgated the
lower limit, not on the basis of new knowledge about risk to the
health and safety
of the public but on what EPA believed the industry could live with.18 This
is consistent with the philosophy of maintaining exposures as low as reasonably
achievable and a credit to both government and industry.
Meanwhile cancer mortality is on the rise ... it seems evident that the release
of carcinogens into air, water, or the food chain should be reduced rather than
permitted to escalate over time. Nuclear power plants release much lower quantities of radioactivity than coal-fired power plants and also do not
release the carcinogen benxo-(a)pyrene, the main cancer-causing agent
in cigarettes,
or large quantities of CU2, NO, and SO2, that have significant
environmental health effects.6 Estimates show the lung cancer risk due to coal-fired power
plants orders
of magnitude higher than that due to nuclear power stations."19
The controversy about low-level radiation is both scientifically and
politically
complex. For the interested lay person complete understanding is unlikely, but
a recent book20 has been written to provide information and
helpful insights
about bath aspects of the controversy.
Before the isolation of high-level wastes is discussed, some misstatements and
distortions of facts related to New York State need to he commented upon:
Waste at West Valley neutralized with on alkaline solution has turned out to he
very difficult if not impossible to remove from a carbon steel tank. There is
no factual basis for this statement, A key report on the West Valley plant21 discusses
removal of these neutralized wastes, potential difficulties, comparisons with
tanks at the Hanford and Savannah River plants and removal methods, predicting
more than 99% removal of the sludge. In March 1979, the technique and equipment
were very successfully demonstrated at Savannah River.
The United States Deportment of Energy has proposed placing radioactive wastes
1000 feet below ground in a salt formation in the Finger Lakes region
of New York
State. This is a false statement. The subsequent statements are thus irrelevant
and also gross distortions. However, in this connection mention should be made
of the policy of "consultation and concurrence" that involves States
at an early date in the repository site selection process.22 This process
involves several years of geological/hydrological exploration
combined with environmental
impact assessments. The policy implies an ongoing dialogue and
cooperative relationship
under which the State effectively has a continuing ability to
participate in activities
throughout the process of evaluation of a potential repository site and, if it
deems appropriate, to prevent the continuance of Federal activities.
Following the above allegation the companion article proceeds with a distorted
and misleading discussion purportedly to show "why salt is the wrong media
for a waste repository." In particular, the author presents an exaggerated
conjecture of potential disaster based no an interesting phenomenon
of brine migration
under thermal gradients toward higher temperatures23 and
potential movements
of waste canisters in plastic salt.24 If brine inclusions were
sufficient to reach
canisters, the brine would corrode the canisters. However, this
phenomenon apparently
is a localized one involving relatively small amounts of fluid (e.g.,
a few liters
per canister); therefore, the brine inclusions would be insufficient to corrode
the canisters significantly and would also not provide a means of transporting
radio-nuclotides away from a salt repository. With regard to potential movement of
canisters, the article also conjectures an extremes scenario without
factual basis.
In reality, appropriately low thermal gradients and temperatures can be established during engineering of a repository system through
use of variable parameters such as: (a) the predisposal cooling time
for the waste;
(h) the geometry of the waste canister; (c) the waste concentration
in the canister;
and (d) the spacing of the canisters in a repository.
Space does not permit commenting specifically on other numerous mistatements or
misinterpretations included in this section; thus, reference is made
to a relevant
discussion of the subject for a perspective:"25
Expectations of extensive, undisturbed beds of dry salt may riot have
been realized
but niany researchers believe that the technical questions concerning salt will
be resolved at least as promptly as those concerning other media, it
not sooner.
with its edge in engineering, salt may still be the first geologic environment
selected for a repository. But other geologic environments have been
under study
all along, and their accelerated evaluation recently received a boost from the
report 0f President Carter's Interagency Review Croup. Non-salt rocks
under consideration
include granites and basalts, which cooled in place from molten rock; shales,
which are insets turned into rock by high temperature and pressure; and tuffs,
which are volcanic ash solidified by its own heat.
A unique mined geologic repository concept that is not yet being investigated
but has considerable merit is the controlled tunnel environment.26 An alternate
to mined geologic repositories, seabed disposal (considered by the Interagency
Review Croup on Nuclear Waste Management (IRC)), is also discussed in Reference
25. IRG found that disposal in mined geologic repositories is the nearest term
option for implementation of the six candidate technologies studied .22
Engineering of a Waste Repository
The concept and safety of nuclear waste disposal in mined geologic repositories
are discussed in numerous publications from general presentations for
the laytnan6
to detailed environmental impact statements.9 The status of relevant
technologies27
is dynamic because of the extensive research, development and demonstration
work being performed in many countries of the world. Present
scientific and technical
knowledge is adequate to support siting and preliminary design activities.
The technical process of site selection can he considered as a set of
information
screens proceeding from general ideas to specific details, from large areas
to small, well-defined ones, and from literature surveys to measurements in the
field. The technology for exploration and characterization of repository sites
is generally adequate to proceed, particularly because it has been
well developed
to fulfill other requirements for geologic exploration (e.g., for oil, gas and
minerals). The information screening process involves a progressively
more stringent
investigation of site characteristics and evaluation with reference
to specified
criteria. Information obtained at each successive step permits reevaluation of
uncertainties and the ability of the site and repository to meet
regulatory standards.
Such reevaluations lead either to a decision to proceed to the next step or to
abandonment of the site.
Engineering of a waste repository requires consideration of numerous
other factors
in addition to those involving site selection. The construction of
mined geologic repositories is based on available mining technology resulting from extensive,
worldwide experience in mining for minerals and constructing caverns. however,
engineering a repository also requires consideration of other
aspects. The repository
engineering is viewed and analyzed as a system. That is, the engineering will
consider the cumulative effects of the hydro-geological, geo-chemical, and tectonic
characteristics of the environment and potential future human
activities, as well
as the physical and chemical properties of the host rock chosen for
waste emplacement,
the waste form, and other engineered aspects of the repository. Thus, detailed,
systematic, site-specific investigations and evaluations of these
factors, including
multiple barriers to radio-nucleotide migration, are used to engineer a
repository.
Why hasn't a repository system yet been demonstrated? There are two
major reasons.
The first is that the present and projected volume of high-level
wastes for tens
of years is so small that it has not created an urgency. The second reason partly
sterns from the first. From a technical standpoint, the time is being used to
perform research and development work in order to determine the best designs of
a system. As a consequence, a final system design has not been
completed. However,
the IRG has concluded that "successful isolation of radioactive
wastes from
the biosphere appears technically feasible for periods of thousands
of years provided
that the systems view is utilized rigorously."22
Epilogue
Space has not permitted discussion of the outstanding record and
benefits of nuclear
energy: (a) how it has provided reliable electrical energy for sections of the
United States during extreme winter weather or coal strikes '21 (b) how it has
benefited agriculture and reduced use of chemical insecticides;29 (c)
how it can
be used for sewage sludge disinfection for fertilizer use;3° (d) how it has
been useful for space, terrestrial and marine power applications;
etc. Even though
its use has not been completely free of operating problems, I am convinced that
the benefits of nuclear power outweigh its risks and that the potential impacts
of significant energy shortages without it present greater hazards to humankind
than the worst predictions of opponents to the continued and increased use of
nuclear power.
Nuclear waste management can he and is being improved. I view waste management,
like other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, as a set of engineering tasks and
a set of political problems. Hopefully, the above will contribute to
amelioration
of the political problems so that the engineering tasks can he
completed in time
to provide needed energy for the future.
Chiseled into the monument to the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk,
NC. is a challenge
for the nuclear age:
In commemoration of the conquest of air . . conceived by genius,
achieved by dauntless
resolution and unconquerable faith.
REFERENCES
1Winchester, Ellen, "Nuclear Wastes," Sierra, July-August 1979, pp.
46-51.
2Voss, J. W., 'Nuclear Wastes in Perspective,"
PNL-SA-7588, Battelle,
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, April 1979.
3Radioactive Wastes," NED of The American Institute of
Chemical Engineers,
345 East 47th Street, New York, New York, 10017,1979,19 pp.
4Radioactive
Wastes," IAEA Bulletin, Vienna, December 1978, 49 pp.
5Nuclear Waste
Disposal," Atom, Volume 259, May 1978, pp. 122130.
6Cohen Bernard
L., "The
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from Fission Reactors,"
Scientific American,
236, No. 6, June 1977, pp. 21-31.
7 "Report to The American Physical Society by The Study Group on Nuclear Fuel
Cycles and Waste Management." Reviews of Modern Physics, 50, No. 1, Part
II, January 1978.
8Alternatives for Managing Wastes from Reactors and Post-Fission
Operatinsu in
the LWR Fuel Cycle, ERDA 76-43, 5 Volumes, May 1976.
9Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Management of Commercially
Generated Radioactive
Waste, uoE/EIS-oO-ts D, 2 Volumes. Prepared for the U. S.
Department of Energy,
April 1979.
10Lapp, Ralph E., Radioactive Waste-Society's Problem Child, Rrddy
Comunications,
Greenwich, Connecticut, 1977.
11Cohen, Jerry J., "A Systems Analysis Approach to Nuclear Waste
Management Problems," Proceedings of the Symposium on Waste Management, Tucson, AZ,
March 1975, pp. 57-81.
12Hampstra, J. "Radiotoxic Hazard Measure for Buried Solid
Radioactive Wastes,"
Nuclear Safety, 16 (2), March-April 1975, pp. 180-189.
13Environmental Impact
Statement, Nevada Test Site, ERDA-1551,
September 1977, pp. 4-17.
14Management of Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory,
ERDA1553, September 1977.
15Anderson, Terence W., "Radiation Exposures of Hartford Workers:
A Critique
of the Mancuso, Stewart and Kneale Report," Health Physics, 35, December
1978, pp. 743-750.
16Evans, H. J. et. al., "Radiation-induced chromosome aberrations in
nuclear-dockyard
workers," Nature, 277, February 15, 1979, pp. 531-534.
17Bond, V. P., "Radiation Standards: Radiological Basis,
Development, Characteristics,"
Testimony before the house Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittees on
Energy Research and Production, and Natural Resources and Environment, June 14,
1979.
18Erickson, L. E., Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Establishing
Federal Radiation
Protection Standards: A Review, PNL-2678, Rauelle, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories,
August 1979.
19A Perspective on the Radiation Protection Problem and Risk Analysis for
the Nuclear Era." IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 5, October 1978, p.39.
20Lapp, Ralph E. The Radiation Controversy, Reddy Communications, Greenwich,
Connecticut, March 1979.
21Western New York Nuclear Service Center Study TID-28905-2, 1979,
p.
4-5 to 4-10.
22Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste
Management, TID-29442, March 1979.
23Anthony, 1, N. and H. E. Cline, Fourth International Symposium on
Salt,
A. It. Cooper (Rd.), Volume I, The Northern Ohio Geological Society, Cleveland,
Ohio, 1974.
24Dawson, P. R. and J. R. Tillerson, "Nuclear Waste Canister Thermally
Induced Motion," SAND 78-0566, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (June
1978).
25Kerr, Richard A., "Geologic Disposal of Nuclear Wastes: Salt's
Lead Is Challenged," Science, 204. May 11, 1979, pp. 603-606.
26Hammond, R. Philip, "Nuclear Wastes and Public
Acceptance," American Scientist, 67, March-April 1979, pp. 146-150.
27Cooley, Cad B. and Everett B. Irish, "Status of Technology Related to
Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal in Mined Geologic Repositories,"
In preparation.
28"The Irrational Fight Against Nuclear Power," Time
Magazine, September
25, 1978, pp. 7172.
29"Isotopes in Day to Day Life," IAEA Bulletin, Vienna,
November 1977.
30"Sewage Sludge Disinfection Using Cesium-137," Sandia
Laboratories
Bulletin, Albuquerque, NM 1979, pp. 9.