proposal范本.doc

1、A Proposal to Research the Storage Facilityfor Spent Nuclear Fuel at Yucca Mountain Roger BloomOctober 1997 IntroductionNuclear power plants produce more than 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States Murray, 1989. Unfortunately, nuclear fission, the process used to create this large a

2、mount energy, creates significant amounts of high level radioactive waste. More than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U.S. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and plutonium Roush, 1995. Because of the build-up of this waste, some power

3、 plants will be forced to shut down. To avoid losing an important source of energy, a safe and economical place to keep this waste is necessary. This document proposes a literature review of whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. The proposed review will discuss th

4、e economical and environmental aspects of a national storage facility. This proposal includes my methods for gathering information, a schedule for completing the review, and my qualifications. Statement of ProblemOn January 1, 1998, the Department of Energy (DOE) must accept spent nuclear fuel from

5、commercial plants for permanent storage Clark, 1997. However, the DOE is undecided on where to put this high level radioactive waste. Yucca Mountain, located in Nevada, is a proposed site. There are many questions regarding the safety of the Yucca Mountain waste repository. Researchers at Los Alamos

6、 National Laboratory disagree over the long-term safety of the proposed high level nuclear waste site located in Nevada. In 1994, Charles Bowman, a researcher at Los Alamos, developed a theory claiming that years of storing waste in the mountain may actually start a nuclear chain reaction and explod

7、e, similar to an atomic bomb Taubes, 1995. The stir caused by theory suggests that researchers have not explored all sides of the safety issue concerning potentially hazardous situations at Yucca Mountain. Bowmans theory that Yucca Mountain could explode is based upon the idea that enough waste will

8、 eventually disperse through the rock to create a critical mass. A critical mass is an amount of fissile material, such as plutonium, containing enough mass to start a neutron chain reaction Murray, 1989. Bowman argues that if this chain reaction were started underground, the rocks in the ground wou

9、ld help keep the system compressed and speed up the chain reaction Taubes, 1995. A chain reaction formed underground could then generate huge amounts of energy in a fraction of a second, resulting in a nuclear blast. A nuclear explosion of this magnitude would emit large amounts of radioactivity int

10、o the air and ground water. Another safety concern is the possibility of a volcanic eruption in Yucca Mountain. The long-term nuclear waste storage facility needs to remain stable for at least 10,000 years to allow the radioactive isotopes to decay to natural levels Clark, 1997. There are at least a

11、 dozen young volcanoes within 40 kilometers of the proposed Yucca Mountain waste site Weiss, 1996. The proximity of Yucca Mountain to these volcanoes makes it possible to have a volcanic eruption pass through the spent fuel waste repository. Such a volcanic eruption could release damaging amounts of

12、 radioactivity to the environment. ObjectivesI propose to review the available literature about using Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for spent nuclear fuel. In this review I will achieve the following two goals: (1) explain the criteria for a suitable repository of high-level radioactive wa

13、ste; and(2) determine whether Yucca Mountain meets these criteria. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), a repository for high-level radioactive waste must meet several criteria including safety, location, and economics Roush, 1995. Safety includes not only the effect of the repository on peo

14、ple near the site, but also people along the transportation routes to the site. In my research I will consider both groups of people. As far as location, a waste site cannot be in an area with a large population or near a ground water supply. Also, because one of the most significant factors in dete

15、rmining the life span of a possible repository is how long the waste storage canisters will remain in tact, the waste site must be located in a dry climate to eliminate the moisture that can cause the waste canisters to corrode. The economics involved in selecting a site is another criterion. At pre

16、sent, the Department of Energy (DOE) has spent more than 1.7 billion dollars on the Yucca Mountain project Taubes, 1995. For that reason, much pressure exists to select Yucca Mountain as a repository site; otherwise, this money would have been wasted. Other costs, though, have to be considered. For

17、instance, how economical is it to transport radioactive waste across several states to a single national site? I will try to account for as many of these other costs as possible. After explaining the criteria, I will assess how well Yucca Mountain meets those criteria. In this assessment, I will not

18、 assign a numerical score for each criterion. Rather, I will discuss qualitatively how well Yucca Mountain meets each criterion. In some situations, disagreement exists among experts as to how well Yucca Mountain meets a criterion. In such cases, I will present both sides. In this assessment, only Y

19、ucca Mountain will be considered as a possible site. Although many sites in the United States could meet the DOEs established criteria, I will consider only Yucca Mountain because the DOE is considering only Yucca Mountain Taube, 1995. Plan of ActionThis section presents my plan for obtaining the ob

20、jectives discussed in the previous section. There has been an increase of interest in the nuclear industry concerning the Yucca Mountain site because of the January 1,1998, deadline for the DOE. Several journal articles and papers discussing the possibility of Yucca Mountain as a spent fuel reposito

21、ry in our near future have surfaced as a consequence of that interest. These articles and books about the dangers of nuclear waste should provide sufficient information for me to complete my review. The following two paragraphs will discuss how I will use these sources in my research. The first goal

22、 of my research is to explain the criteria for determining whether a nuclear waste repository is suitable. For example, will the rock structure be able to withstand human invasion in the future Clark, 1997? What will happen if the waste containers corrode and do not last as long as predicted? Will t

23、he natural setting contain the waste? To achieve this goal, I will rely on “Background on 40 CFR Part 197 Environmental Standards for Yucca Mountain“ Clark, 1997, the DOE Yucca Mountain home page 1997, and the book Understanding Radioactive Waste Murray, 1989. A second goal of my literature review i

24、s to evaluate Yucca Mountain meets those criteria. I will base my evaluation on the sources mentioned above as well as specific Environmental Protection Agency standards. I also intend to research the validity of possible environmental disasters, such as the explosion theory. To accomplish this goal

25、, I will rely on the paper presented by Clark 1997, and on the book Blowup at Yucca Mountain Taubes, 1995. Because engineering students are the primary audience for my proposed research topic and may not be familiar with the history of nuclear waste, I will provide a background on past methods used

26、for waste storage. People in the nuclear field with some knowledge of the waste problem facing the industry may be a secondary audience. Management PlanThis section presents my schedule, costs, and qualifications for completing the proposed research. This research culminates in a formal report, whic

27、h will be completed by December 5, 1997. To reach this goal, I will follow the schedule presented in Figure 1. Since I already possess literature on the subject of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste site, most of my time will be spent sorting through the literature to find key results, and presenting

28、 those results to the audience. Figure 1. Schedule for completion of the literature review. The formal presentation will be on October 27, and the formal report will be completed by December 5. Given that all my sources are available through the University of Wisconsin library system, there is no ap

29、preciable cost associated with performing this review, unless one takes into consideration the amount of tuition spent on maintaining the university libraries. The only other minor costs are photocopying articles, creating transparencies for my presentation, printing my report, and binding my report

30、. I estimate these expenses will not exceed $20. I am a senior in the Engineering Physics Department at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, majoring in nuclear engineering and physics. I have taken several classes related to nuclear waste, economics, and environmental studies. I believe that the

31、se courses will aid me in preparing the proposed review. For further information about my qualifications, see the attached resume. ConclusionMore than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U.S. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and pluton

32、ium Roush, 1995. This document has proposed research to evaluate the possibility of using Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for this spent nuclear fuel. The proposed research will achieve the following goals: (1) explain the criteria necessary to make a suitable high level radioactive waste re

33、pository, and (2) determine if Yucca Mountain meets these criteria. The research will include a formal presentation on November 11 and a formal report on December 5. ReferencesClark, Raymond L., “Background on 40 CFR Part 197 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain,“ Proceedi

34、ngs of the 1997 Waste Management Conference (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). Kerr, R., “New Way to Ask the Experts: Rating Radioactive Waste Risks,“ Science, vol.274, (November1996), pp. 913-914. Murray, Raymond L., Understanding Nuclear Waste (Battelle Press, 1989). R

35、oush, W., “Can Nuclear Waste Keep Yucca Mountain Dry-and Safe?“ Science, vol. 270, (December 1995), pp. 1761-1762. Taubes, G., “Blowup at Yucca Mountain,“ Science, vol.268, (June 1995), pp. 1836-1839. Back to Top A Proposal to Review How Geophysical PrecursorsCan Help Predict EarthquakesChristopher

36、GrayFebruary 1995 IntroductionThroughout the world, devastating earthquakes occur with little or no advance warning. Some of these earthquakes kill hundreds of people. If the times, magnitudes, and locations of these earthquakes could be accurately predicted, many lives could be saved. This document

37、 proposes a review of how monitoring geophysical precursors can help in the short-term prediction of earthquakes. The proposed review will discuss the physical principles behind the monitoring of three common precursors and evaluate how accurate each monitoring is in predicting earthquakes. Included

38、 in this proposal are my methods for gathering information, a schedule for completing the review, and my qualifications. Justification of Proposed ReviewOn the morning of April 18, 1906, the population of San Francisco was awakened by violent shaking and by the roar caused by the writhing and collap

39、sing of buildings Hodgson, 1964. The ground appeared to be thrown into waves that twisted railways and broke the pavement into great cracks. Many buildings collapsed, while others were severely damaged. The earthquake caused fires in fifty or more points throughout the city. Fire stations were destr

40、oyed, alarms were put out of commission, and water mains were broken. As a result, the fires quickly spread throughout the city and continued for three days. The fires destroyed a 5 square-mile section at the heart of the city Mileti and Fitzpatrick, 1993. Even more disastrous was the Kwanto earthqu

41、ake in Japan that devastated the cities of Yokohama and Tokyo on September 1, 1923 Hodgson, 1993. In Yokohama, over 50 percent of the buildings were destroyed Bolt, 1993, and as many as 208 fires broke out and spread through the city Hodgson, 1964. When the disaster was over, 33,000 people were dead

42、 Bolt, 1993. In Tokyo, the damage from the earthquake was less, but the resulting fires were more devastating. The fires lasted three days and destroyed 40 percent of the city Hodgson, 1964. After the fire, 68,000 people were dead and 1 million people were homeless Bolt, 1993. The 1906 San Francisco

43、 earthquake and the Kwanto earthquake were two of the most famous and devastating earthquakes of this century. These earthquakes struck without warning and with disastrous results. If earthquakes could be predicted, people would be able to evacuate from buildings, bridges, and overpasses, where most

44、 deaths occur. Some earthquakes have been successfully predicted. One of the most famous predictions was the Haicheng Prediction in China. In 1970, Chinese scientists targeted the Liaoning Province as a site with potential for a large earthquake. These scientists felt that an earthquake would occur

45、there in 1974 or 1975. On December 20, 1974, an earthquake warning was issued. Two days later, a magnitude 4.8 earthquake struck the Liaoning Province; however, further monitoring suggested a larger earthquake was imminent Mileti and others, 1981. On February 4, 1975, the Chinese issued a warning th

46、at an earthquake would strike Haicheng within 24 hours Bolt, 1993. The people in Haicheng were evacuated, and about 5.5 hours later, a magnitude 7.3 earthquake shook the city of Haicheng. If the people hadnt been evacuated, the death toll could have exceeded 100,000. Using geophysical precursors, th

47、e Chinese have predicted more than ten earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 5.0 Meyer, 1977. For example, the Chinese predicted a pair of earthquakes of magnitude 6.9 that occurred 97 minutes apart in Yunnan on May 19, 1976 Bolt, 1993. Despite these successes, the Chinese failed to predict the e

48、arthquake that struck the city of Tangshan on July 27, 1976; this earthquake killed 250,000 people and injured 500,000 more Bolt, 1988. This earthquake wasnt completely unexpected, but the Chinese believed it to be a few years away. Other earthquakes have been predicted, but the predictions didnt ha

49、ve enough precision for warnings to be issued. For example, in 1983, a young geophysicist predicted that an earthquake of magnitude 8 would strike Mexico City within four years Deshpande, 1987. Two years later, an earthquake of magnitude 8 did strike Mexico City. Because the prediction was not more precise, no warning was issued and the earthquake took the population of Mexico City by surprise. Other predictions have turned out to be false warnings. For example, an earthquake warning was issued in August 1976 near Hong Kong