|
|
| Fig. 1: Yucca Mountain, the now-closed project site for a nuclear waste repository. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
It has proven exceedingly difficult to find a location for much-needed nuclear waste storage facilities. The inherent danger of the storage process is the obvious reason for the challenge. High-level waste, which is the spent fuel from the power plants, remains radioactive for thousands of years, and any area where its located would be uninhabitable. For example, Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, Tc-99 has a half-life of 220,000 years, and I-129 has a half-life of 15.7 million years. [1] Beside the extremely dangerous possibility of radiation exposure, solutions to nuclear waste containment are a logistical nightmare. It is agreed that the best way to deal with nuclear waste is to put it underground in deep geological repositories, although none are currently in operation. Finding a location for these repositories is difficult for design, geographic, but especially political reasons.
When it comes to design concerns, there are heavy precautions to take at every step of the nuclear waste cleanup process, the first being how to decommission the current nuclear reactors. At Hanford, a site in Washington State that is supposed to serve as an example for how to handle the nuclear cleanup, has had around a million gallons of radioactive liquid leak from storage containers into soil creeping to the Columbia River. [2] In the longer term, the challenge lay in designing a storage facility to last tens of thousands of years.
When it comes to public sentiment surrounding the storage of nuclear waste, most echo the feeling not in my backyard, mostly, if not entirely, because of the safety concerns listed above. With no municipality willing to voluntarily host a nuclear repository, the government was left to find options away from civilization; the United States until recently considered Yucca Mountain in Nevada (see Fig. 1), a site considered to be technically sound by most experts, as a nuclear repository. [3] However, the state of Nevada rallied to oppose the repository. After four decades of atomic bomb government testing, its easy to see why the state would be skeptical of this project, which was shut down in 2011 in what was seen by many as a hasty, political move by the Obama administration. [3] The best solution to finding a site may lie in changing political tactics.
 |
| Fig. 2: Onkalo, site of Finland's nuclear waste storage facility. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
A small island in western Finland, Olkiluoto, shows that approaching the issue from a different political angle could yield better results. Juxtaposed to Yucca mountain, the Olkiluoto site, called Onkalo (see Fig. 2), has enjoyed local and governmental support that has allowed the project to progress smoothly. Executives from the company overseeing the project, Posiva, credit sincere consultation with stakeholders as the reason for the projects acceptance. The company even opened five offices in the communities of the most promising locations to provide information and an open line of communication. Posiva employs a simple approach: If you treat people fairly and present them the information, if the repository is safe, you should be able to get some communities to respond positively. [4]
Treating nuclear waste disposal as a government-only process, one that is divorced from the input of the people most affected by it, is ineffective. Yucca Mountain may have been the United States best bet for a nuclear repository, but the opportunity was squandered due to the governments hostile approach. Next time, the government would do well to follow in Finlands footsteps and engage local municipalities in the process. If safety precautions are met and stakeholders properly informed, theres a good chance that the United States can have an Onkalo of their own.
© Rachel Savage. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] B. Madres, "Storage and 'Disposal' of Nuclear Waste," Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2011.
[2] F. Pearce, "Awash in Radioactive Waste," New York Times, 24 May 18.
[3] "Put Yucca Mountain to Work. The Nation Needs It," Washington Post, 15 Jul 17.
[4] H. Fountain, "On Nuclear Waste, Finland Shows U.S. How It Can Be Done," New York Times, 09 Jun 17.
