Top
BEYOND NUCLEAR PUBLICATIONS
Search
JOIN OUR NETWORK

     

     

 

 

ARTICLE ARCHIVE

Radioactive Waste

No safe, permanent solution has yet been found anywhere in the world - and may never be found - for the nuclear waste problem. In the U.S., the only identified and flawed high-level radioactive waste deep repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada has been canceled. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an end to the production of nuclear waste and for securing the existing reactor waste in hardened on-site storage.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Entries by admin (643)

Monday
May272013

States tell NRC to review storage of radioactive waste at reactors

The dry cask storage units outside of the Vermont Yankee plant. Photo by Laura Frohn, News21.orgFrom AP: Attorneys general in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut announced Thursday they are petitioning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a more thorough environmental review of storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste at plant sites.

"Federal law requires that the NRC analyze the environmental dangers of storing spent nuclear fuel at reactors that were not designed for long-term storage,’’ said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.

In a landmark ruling last year, a federal appeals court in Washington said the NRC needed to do a full environmental review of the risks of storing the waste — spent nuclear fuel — in storage pools and casks made of steel and concrete on the grounds of nuclear plants while the search continues for a disposal solution.

Activists in Vermont have come to mistrust the NRC "dog and pony" shows that show up in their state. Now four attorneys general are demanding some meaningful accountability from the agency on prolonged on-site storage of high-level radioactive waste. The position of Beyond Nuclear is that this waste must not be moved to so-called "interim" sites but properly stored in hardened, protected casks - a process known as Hardened On-Site Storage.

‘‘NRC staff is continuing to ignore serious public health, safety and environmental risks related to long-term, on-site storage,’’ New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a news release. ‘‘The communities that serve as de facto long-term radioactive waste repositories deserve a full and detailed accounting of the risks.’’ More.

DateMay 27, 2013 | Print ArticlePrint Article | |
Friday
May242013

Beyond Nuclear's responses, and additional thoughts, to questions from Senate ENR Committee on its "discussion draft" of CIS/Mobile Chernobyl legislation

An infrared photo of a high-level radioactive waste rail shipment. The high temperature of such shipments, however, is the least of our worries. A severe accident, or attack, involving such a shipment could breach the container, leading to disastrous releases of hazardous radioactivityBeyond Nuclear has submitted the following responses, and additional thoughts, to the U.S. Senate's Energy and Natural Resource (ENR) Committee, regarding its list of questions about its proposed "discussion draft" of legislation that would rush centralized interim storage sites into operation. If enacted, this legislation would launch unprecedented numbers of high-level radioactive waste shipments by truck, train, and barge -- a risky radioactive waste shell game on our roads, rails and waterways! (see web site postings below for more detailed information) The Senate ENR Committee had set 5 PM today, Friday, May 24th (close of business on the Memorial Day holiday weekend) as the deadline for responses to its bill, which was unveiled on April 25th, ironically on the eve of the 27th anniversary of the beginning of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe.

Be sure to scroll down to the second page, in order to see the Beyond Nuclear Responses to the various questions (#2 to 8).

Executive Summary (referred to as "Question #1"); Response to Question #2; Response to Question #3; Response to Question #4 [correction: the casualty figure on page 4 of 9, first full paragraph, should be over 30,000 latent cancer fatalities, not 13,000; to see the cited reference, go to http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2001/nn11459.htm, page 13 of 31, Table 1]; Response to Question #5; Response to Question #6; Response to Question #7; Response to Question #8; Additional Thoughts.

In addition, Beyond Nuclear signed onto an environmental coalition statement spearheaded by NIRS.

A group of 7 Ph.D.'s also submitted comments. The authors included: Dr. Seth Tuler, a Research Fellow at the Social and Environmental Research Institute in Greenfield, MA who serves on the Board of Directors of Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA; Beyond Nuclear is a proud member group); and Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette at Notre Dame University, who wrote the 1993 book Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste.

Dave Kraft, Director of Nuclear Energy Information Service of IL, a 32-year-old watchdog group in Chicago, also submitted comments. On the weekend of Dec. 2, 2012, Dave coordinated the conference entitled "A Mountain of Radioactive Waste 70 Years High: Ending the Nuclear Age," at the U. of Chicago were Enrico Fermi fired up the first nuclear chain reaction, generating the world's first cupful of high-level radioactive waste, for which we still have no solution. The conference, which brought together hundreds, was devoted in large part to not only looking back, but countering the present Mobile Chernobyl bill. Beyond Nuclear was a proud co-sponsor of the event, as was Friends of the Earth (which also submitted comments today).

Bob Alvarez, a former senior advisor the the Secretary of Energy, and now a senior scholar at Institute for Policy Studies, also submitted comments. Beyond Nuclear often cites Bob's work on the risk of catastrophic fires in high-level radioactive waste storage pools, including in its comments to the Senate ENR Committee today.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also submitted comments. NRDC's comments included two attachments: written testimony by NRDC Senior Attorney, Geoff Fettus, presented to the U.S. Senate ENR Committee on 9/12/12, at a hearing on closely related legislation introduced by now-retired ENR Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); and a 3/27/13 letter, signed by Fettus, as well as Tom Carpenter of Hanford Challenge and Don Hancock of Southwest Research and Information Center, sent to Energy Secretary Chu, re: DOE proposals to ship Hanford's high-level radioactive wastes to WIPP in New Mexico.  

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), of which Beyond Nuclear is a member group, also submitted comments.

Thanks to everyone who has responded to our action alerts going back weeks and months, urging action be taken to stop this latest Mobile Chernobyl bill dead in its tracks.

DateMay 24, 2013 | Print ArticlePrint Article | |
Wednesday
May012013

U.S. Senators introduce Mobile Chernobyl bill on eve of Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe anniversary

An infrared photo of a high-level radioactive waste rail shipment. The high temperature of such shipments, however, is the least of our worries. A severe accident, or attack, involving such a shipment could breach the container, leading to disastrous releases of hazardous radioactivity

{Directions for Submissions

Please submit comments electronically to: Nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov 

Submission due date: Friday, May 24, 2013 at 5:00pm (EST)

The documents attached below can be used as a template for submitting comments.  We request that you submit your comments in the template format, but will accept comments in other formats.  Please feel free to respond to as many or as few of the questions as you like.

Please provide your name and affiliation in the header of your comments.

The committee may post the comments, including any personal identifying information you provide (street or e-mail addresses, or phone numbers) it receives on its website.  If you would like your personal identifying information withheld, please indicate that.

The comment period will close on Friday, May 24, 2013.

Please find the submission documents below [linked here] and the link to the discussion draft, summaries and questions here.}

For the second year in a row, U.S. Senators have introduced the latest Mobile Chernobyl bill on the eve of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe anniversary. On April 25, 2013 -- the eve of the 27th anniversary of the beginning of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe -- U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Chair and Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the Chair and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, published a "Discussion Draft" of proposed legislation on high-level radioactive waste management. They issued a press release, one page summary, section-by-section summary, and the full text of the 58-page bill. 

In essence, if enacted, the proposal would launch shipments of high-level radioactive waste onto the roads, rails, and waterways in unprecedented numbers, bound for "consolidated interim storage sites," from which they would have to be removed someday, to permanent dumpsites. Unless, that is, they never are transferred -- which would lead to de facto permanent surface storage, parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste.

Last year, on April 26, 2012 -- the actual 26th anniversary of Chernobyl, to the day -- Sens. Feinstein and Alexander led the passage of a Mobile Chernobyl bill through not only their Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, but through the full Senate Appropriations Committee. Their bill, however, was never considered by the full Senate last year.

Now, Sens. Feinstein and Alexander have -- simultaneously to the "Discussion Draft" rollout -- proposed alternative legislative language. It would further expedite the shipment of high-level radioactive waste on our roads, rails, and waterways to "consolidated interim storage sites." Their alternative proposal, and its summary, are also available.

As this is a "Discussion Draft" of the proposed bill, the Senators state in their press release:

"The members are seeking comment on the discussion draft and a number of policy and technical questions from experts and stakeholders, including utilities, conservation groups, Blue Ribbon Commission members and others, by May 24."

Perhaps the single most important question involves "linkage" -- or lack thereof -- between "consolidated interim storage sites" and permanent dumpsites. As stated in the Senators' list of "Nuclear Waste Questions":

"Linkage between storage and repository

Should the bill establish a linkage between progress on development of a repository and progress on development of a storage facility?  If so, is the linkage proposed in section 306 of the bill appropriate, too strong, or too loose?  If a linkage is needed, should it be determined as part of the negotiations between the state and federal governments and included in the consent agreement rather than in the bill?"

Currently, as stated in the one page summary section entitled "Linkage Between Storage Facilities and a Repository," there is no linkage:

"The bill authorizes the Administrator [of a newly established Nuclear Waste Administration, outside of the Department of Energy, DOE] to begin siting consolidated storage facilities immediately, and does not set waste volumes [sic] restrictions on storage."

In this regard, the currently proposed legislation is significantly worse than the bill proposed last September by U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the now-retired former chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Although Bingaman unaccetably "gave away" the first 10,000 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel for "centralized interim storage" as a political compromise (a "pilot" parking lot dump, strongly advocated by Sen. Feinstein, with no strings attached to permanent disposal), his bill would have required linkage between permanent disposal and any further "centralized interim storage." He did this in order to guard against "interim" storage sites -- including one threatened in his own state of New Mexico, at WIPP -- from becoming de facto permanent surface storage, if a geologic repository is never pursued, developed, and operated.

The most likely targets for "consolidated interim storage sites" are at DOE facilities, including the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, the Idaho National Lab, and as previously mentioned, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. In fact, SRS hopes to reprocess the irradiated nuclear fuel moved there for "consolidated interim storage." This would be not only a serious nuclear weapons proliferation risk, but also a risk of widespread radioactive contamination of the environment downwind and downstream. It would also cost taxpayers and/or ratepayers many tens of billions of dollars.

Other likely targets for "consolidated interim storage sites" are Native American reservations, as well as nuclear power plants themselves. Over the course of decades, scores of Native American reservations have been targeted for high-level radioactive waste parking lot dumps, a shameful history of environmental racism. And, as but one of numerous such examples, Illinois' three-reactor Dresden nuclear power plant, and immediately adjacent General Electric-Morris reprocessing facility, already "host" around 3,000 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel on a single site. There is a high risk that this bill, if enacted, would increase the pressure to import and "consolidate" yet more waste there, as documented in an Oak Ridge study.

Rushing into high-level radioactive waste shipments on the roads, rails, and waterways makes no sense. Risks of Mobile Chernobyls, Dirty Bombs on Wheels, and Floating Fukushimas include severe accidents (high-speed crashes; high-temperature, long-duration fires; underwater submersions; etc.) or even intentional attacks. Such shipments to parking lot dumps would merely launch a radioactive waste shell game, as the wastes would have to be moved again someday, this time to permanent disposal sites. Thus, high-level radioactive waste transport risks would be multiplied, for no good reason.

Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) makes a lot more sense than this bad bill. HOSS calls for emptying vulnerable high-level radioactive waste storage pools into on-site dry cask storage, but would require significant upgrades to the safety, security, and environmental protections associated with dry cask storage: safeguards against accidents and natural disasters; concealment, distancing between casks, and fortification against attacks; and quality assurance on cask design and fabrication to ensure they will last not decades, but centuries, without leaking radioactivity into the environment. Nearly 200 environmental groups, representing all 50 states, have endorsed HOSS. They've been calling for it for well over a decade now.

Contact not only Sen. Wyden, but also your own two U.S. Senators, and urge that a strong linkage between "consolidated interim storage" and permanent disposal be re-established in this proposed legislation! Warn them that the risk of de facto permanent parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste is unacceptable! Let them know that rushing into Mobile Chernobyl shipments, and playing a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways, makes no sense and takes unnecessary risks. Urge that Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) be required instead, as a common sense interim alternative to this bill's bad ideas.

Contact Sen. Wyden at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee he chairs {per their instructions immediately below, as posted on their website}:

{Directions for Submissions

Please submit comments electronically to: Nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov 

Submission due date: Friday, May 24, 2013 at 5:00pm (EST)

The documents attached below can be used as a template for submitting comments.  We request that you submit your comments in the template format, but will accept comments in other formats.  Please feel free to respond to as many or as few of the questions as you like.

Please provide your name and affiliation in the header of your comments.

The committee may post the comments, including any personal identifying information you provide (street or e-mail addresses, or phone numbers) it receives on its website.  If you would like your personal identifying information withheld, please indicate that.

The comment period will close on Friday, May 24, 2013.

Please find the submission documents below [linked here] and the link to the discussion draft, summaries and questions here.}

You can contact your own two U.S. Senators at their websites, or via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Urge your Senators to oppose de-linking "consolidated interim storage" and permanent disposal. Urge them to block a rush into Mobile Chernobyl risks merely to play a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways. Urge them to weigh in with Chairman Wyden and other members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee.

DateMay 1, 2013 | Print ArticlePrint Article | |
Monday
Apr292013

Tritium contamination of growing stockpile of radioactive water leads to outcry against release to Pacific at Fukushima Daiichi

Gray and silver storage tanks filled with radioactive wastewater are sprawling over the grounds of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Kyodo News, via Associated Press.In an article entitled "Flow of Tainted Water Is Latest Crisis at Japan Nuclear Plant," the New York Times has reported that continuing leaks of groundwater into the rubblized Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is causing a flood of radioactively contaminated water requiring a sprawling -- and ever growing -- complex of water storage tanks.

As the New York Times reports:

'...But the biggest problem, critics say, was that Tepco and other members of the oversight committee appeared to assume all along that they would eventually be able to dump the contaminated water into the ocean once a powerful new filtering system was put in place that could remove 62 types of radioactive particles, including strontium.

The dumping plans have now been thwarted by what some experts say was a predictable problem: a public outcry over tritium, a relatively weak radioactive isotope that cannot be removed from the water.

Tritium, which can be harmful only if ingested, is regularly released into the environment by normally functioning nuclear plants, but even Tepco acknowledges that the water at Fukushima contains about 100 times the amount of tritium released in an average year by a healthy plant...

...The public outcry over the plans to dump tritium-tainted water into the sea — driven in part by the company’s failure to inform the public in 2011 when it dumped radioactive water into the Pacific — was so loud that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe personally intervened last month to say that there would be “no unsafe release.”

Meanwhile, the amount of water stored at the plant just keeps growing.

“How could Tepco not realize that it had to get public approval before dumping this into the sea?” said Muneo Morokuzu, an expert on public policy at the University of Tokyo who has called for creating a specialized new company just to run the cleanup. “This all just goes to show that Tepco is in way over its head.”...'

It should be pointed out that tritium is not a "relatively weak radioactive isotope," but rather a relatively powerful one, once incorporated into the human body. Tritium is a clinically proven cause of cancer, birth defects, and genetic damage.

It must also be corrected that ingestion is not the only pathway for tritium incorporation -- inhalation, and even absorption through the skin, are hazardous exposure pathways.

DateApril 29, 2013 | Print ArticlePrint Article | |
Sunday
Apr282013

Agency warns high-level nuke waste casks deteriorating, already

Nuclear waste storage casks for irradiated reactor fuel assemblies from two Pennsylvania nuclear power plants are showing signs of “premature degradation” after just a few years of storage of the timeless hazard. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Information Notice 2013-07) is cautioning operators of all nuclear power plants with the on-site dry cask storage systems that these hazardous material storage canisters are showing signs of deterioration. from “environmental moisture.”  At the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant, water has caused the corrosion of an O-ring seal on the lid of one of the nuclear waste storage casks allowing some of the helium coolant to leak out.  Not good, particularly because this cask was only 10 years old when a low pressure alarm sounded and its supposed to be licensable for up to 100 years. Meanwhile, a nuke waste cask from Three Mile Island Unit 2, the unit that had the nuclear accident in 1979, what fuel didn’t melt was put into dry casks for storage and shipped out to Idaho National Energy Laboratory. Seasonal freezing and ice has caused cracks to form in the concrete outer structure of one of the casks potentially shortening its projected 50 year service life.

Given that the nuclear waste is going to be extremely hazardous for millions of years, the "quality" of these casks suggests that this system is going to fail much sooner than currently credited.

 

DateApril 28, 2013 | Print ArticlePrint Article | |
Page 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 ... 129 Next 5 Entries »