Japan left awash with nuclear-contaminated water
Meltdown avoided, cleanup could take years
TOKYO – For four weeks, Japanese emergency crews have been spraying water on the damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactors, a desperate attempt to avert the calamity of a full meltdown.
Now, that improvised solution to one nuclear nightmare is spawning another: what to do with the millions of gallons of water that has become highly radioactive as it washes through the plant.
The water being used to try to cool the reactors and the dangerous spent fuel rods is leaking through fissures inside the plant, seeping down through tunnels and passageways to the lowest levels, where it is accumulating into a sea of lethal waste.
No one is sure how to get rid of it safely.
“There is nothing like this, on this scale, that we have ever attempted to do before,” says Robert Alvarez, a former assistant secretary of Energy.
Japanese officials estimate they already have accumulated about 15 million gallons of highly radioactive water. Hundreds of thousands more are being added every day that the plant’s operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co., continues to feed coolant into the leaky structures.
Ultimately, the high level radioactive substances in the water will have to be safely stored, processed and solidified, a job that experts say will almost certainly have to be handled on a specially designed industrial complex. The process of cleaning up the water could take many years, if not decades to complete. The cost could run into the tens of billions of dollars.
Victor Galinsky, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and longtime adviser on nuclear waste, said the problems facing Japan are greater than even the most highly contaminated nuclear weapon site in the U.S., the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
The Department of Energy is decommissioning eight reactors at the site and plans to process about 58 million gallons of radioactive sludge now in leaky underground tanks, all at an estimated cost of $100 billion to $130 billion, according to outside estimates. But unlike Daiichi, none of the Hanford reactors melted down and virtually all of the site is accessible to workers without risking exposure to radioactivity.
“It will be a big job, bigger than Hanford,” Galinsky said, though he cautioned that U.S. costs are unnecessarily high and that the Japanese may be able to accomplish the work more economically.
Major storage problem
The immediate problem facing the Japanese is how to store all that water until the reactors and the spent fuel pools are brought under control. The plant’s main storage tanks are nearly full. To make room earlier this week, the company released a couple million gallons of the least contaminated water into the ocean, with the expectation that its radioactive elements will be diluted in the ocean’s mass.
But international law forbids Japan from dumping contaminated water into the ocean if there are viable technical solutions available down the road.
So the plant operator is considering bringing in barges and tanks, including a so-called megafloat that can hold about 2.5 million gallons. Japan also has reportedly asked Russia to send a floating radiation treatment plant called the “Suzuran” that was used to decommission Russian nuclear submarines in the Pacific port of Vladivostok. The Suzuran was built in Japan a decade ago.
Yet even using barges and tanks to temporarily handle the water creates a future problem of how to dispose of the contaminated vessels.
American and Japanese experts say the key to solving the disposal problem involves reducing the volume of water by concentrating the radioactive elements so they can be solidified into a safer, dry form. But waste experts disagree on exactly how to do that.
The difficulty of concentrating and then solidifying the contaminants depends on how much radioactivity is in the water, the type of isotopes in the water and whether the work can be done right on the Daiichi site or at another location.
University of California, Berkeley nuclear engineering professor Edward Morse said the water needs to be diverted into a concrete-lined holding pond fairly soon, where natural evaporation can help reduce its volume.
Youichi Enokida, a specialist in nuclear chemical engineering at Nagoya University in Japan, agrees that the material should be put into some type of storage that would concentrate it through evaporation, though Japanese experts generally talk about the need for a sealed pool.
“We must concentrate the liquid,” he said.
Even with a pond, it could take up to 10 years before the radioactivity would decay enough for the material to be handled, Morse said. Building a storage pond “buys you time,” he said.
But other experts sharply disagree, saying exposing the material to open air could allow iodine and other volatile substances to blow off the site, adding to the remote contamination that is already spreading dozens of miles from the plant.
A long process
A factor that could vastly complicate the problem is the presence of tritium or heavy water, which is produced during fission. Tritium cannot be filtered out of water, instead requiring extremely expensive treatment processes.
“If the contaminated water has relatively high tritium or tritiated water concentration, then treatment could be more complicated,” said Joonhong Ahn, a nuclear waste expert at UC Berkeley.
Nuclear power plants normally have systems in place to treat tritium on site. But the condition and capacity of the Dai-ichi system is not known.
Enokida and Morse contend that if the water can be concentrated, it can then be put into dry form or even turned into glass, as is planned at Hanford and other contaminated sites around the world. But this process, called vitrification, is expensive and requires a small scale industrial facility to accomplish.
The alternative – processing the waste elsewhere in Japan – is likely to be controversial. “The fishermen will protest, this is inevitable,” Enokida said.
Morse said that faces at least six months of emergency stabilization, about two years of temporary remediation and anywhere from two years to 30 years of full-scale cleanup. Furthermore, the high levels of ground contamination at the site are raising concerns about the viability of individuals to work at the site over coming decades.
It will take a work force in the hundreds or even thousands for years to decades to handle the cleanup, experts said.