Background on Nuclear Waste Issues
Nuclear Waste storage is a multi-generational challenge
The waste that comes as a byproduct of our nuclear weapons complex and nuclear reactors will impact thousands of generations. We have no storage and disposition plan that can tackle a problem of that scope so we currently look at methods that will allow us to mitigate the risks and costs associated with this growing challenge. The need for consent by those affected becomes essential to avoid the dumping of this hazardous waste on populations that are disempowered. In addition, we urgently need an interim waste management plan that will allow the Federal Government the time it needs to consider a more enduring solution.
Yucca Mountain poses risks beyond Nevada communities
When Nevada lacked clout in Congress, a plan was made for the nation’s nuclear waste to be shipped to a proposed centralized storage site in Yucca Mountain. Beyond geological concerns with the plan, local communities in Nevada near Yucca Mountain have protested the decision to move this waste into their backyard. Yucca Mountain also poses risks beyond Nevada communities. Because of its distance from the vast majority of nuclear waste in the country (which is mostly east of the Mississippi), the transportation routes for this hazardous material would impact a wide swath of the United States. While rail accidents are rare, low probability events occur over time and the risk posed from the transport of this material should concern many Americans.
Hardened Dry Cask Storage offers an interim solution
While the debate over waste management continues, nuclear waste is currently being stockpiled at a number of different sites and on-site at nuclear reactors. Left is an image of dry casks that, if hardened from attack, could offer a realistic interim solution that limits the movement of this hazardous material. While this will not eliminate the risk associated with nuclear waste, hardened on-site storage (HOSS) represents a practical solution that can be implemented far quicker and with less far-reaching problems as any proposed centralized waste facility would engender.
Reprocessing is not a responsible waste management plan
Reprocessing refers to the chemical separation of fissionable uranium and plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. The International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC), formerly the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), aims to accelerate the development and deployment of advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies while providing greater disincentives to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. GNEP was initiated by the USA early in 2006, but picked up on concerns and proposals from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia. The vision was for a global network of nuclear fuel cycle facilities all under IAEA control or at least supervision. (Source: World Nuclear Association)
Although the Department of Energy (DOE) has not provided a life-cycle cost estimate for GNEP, the National Academy of Sciences estimated in 1996 that a reprocessing project like GNEP could cost more than $500 billion. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that “Reprocessing of U.S. spent fuel would cost 25 percent more than plans for direct disposal” in a permanent repository. Under the current plan for GNEP, the taxpayer and rate-payers, not the nuclear power industry, would bear this cost.
Reprocessing has already failed in the United States: West Valley, New York is the site of the only commercial reprocessing plant that operated in the United States. From 1966 to 1972, West Valley ran at 18% capacity and accumulated 600,000 gallons of high-level waste onsite. The cleanup of West Valley will cost more than $5 billion.
France has demonstrated that reprocessing does not solve the nuclear waste problem. According to the recent report Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France, issued by the International Panel on Fissile Material, “there is no clear advantage for the reprocessing option either in terms of waste volumes or repository area.” French reprocessing has left large quantities of solid waste contaminated with plutonium that will need to be stored in a repository.
Separating plutonium under GNEP would increase the production and stockpiles of nuclear weapons usable materials. Spent fuel that has not been reprocessed is considered “self protecting” because it is highly radioactive. Separated plutonium is a fine powder, and approximately 18 lbs. are required to make a bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency already allows for a 3% margin of error in accounting for plutonium in existing reprocessing facilities. All of this increases the risk that material could be lost or diverted by terrorists. In addition, since the announcement of GNEP, several countries that do not currently reprocess spent fuel or enrich uranium have expressed interest in developing the dangerous technologies, and could thereby acquire the ability to produce nuclear weapons-usable material for nuclear weapons.
RELATED POSTS & RESOURCES
☢ New LANL SWEIS Action Page – Comment Today!
Located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, LANL was—and remains—ground zero for nuclear weapons production, with a long history of operations that continue to endanger the health and wellness of local and Tribal communities, contaminate air, water, and soil, and threaten Tribal sacred sites and cultural resources. The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE NNSA) is developing the LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) to justify expanding these dangerous operations for the next 15 years (to 2040!)—without fully accounting for the devastating environmental, human, and cultural costs. Now is the time to act! Help our local and Tribal communities urge for meaningful Tribal consultation, environmental protections, and accountability for legacy and planned impacts by submitting your public comment today!
Summary of Template Comment
I am submitting this comment regarding the Draft LANL SWEIS because its decisions will have lasting consequences for local and Tribal communities, natural resources, public health, and cultural heritage. First and foremost, I urge DOE NNSA to fulfill its federal statutory obligations for meaningful government-to-government Tribal consultation with Pueblos and Tribes. Additionally, public engagement must be transparent and comprehensive ensuring that disproportionately affected communities especially have a meaningful voice in the decision-making process.
The DOE NNSA has failed to meet its federal statutory obligations for meaningful public and Tribal engagement, particularly by limiting timely access to physical copies of the 1,200-page document. The Draft SWEIS also fails to assess all reasonable alternatives, omitting a true No Action Alternative based on maintaining current operations without expansion as well as a Reduced Operations Alternative that prioritizes community and environmental protection over any expanded operations. The Expanded Operations Alternative (DOE NNSA’s proposed path forward) poses severe risks, including increased plutonium pit production, nuclear waste generation, water contamination and scarcity, seismic and wildfire hazards, radiation exposure, local socioeconomic strain, and harm to Tribal sacred lands including the Caja del Rio. Given these significant shortcomings, DOE NNSA must restart the public comment period, revise and reissue the Draft SWEIS, and fully evaluate a No Action Alternative that does not expand operations as well as a Reduced Operations Alternative that prioritizes nuclear safety, cultural preservation, and public and environmental health protection.
———
Thank you for standing with us in defense of local and Tribal communities, our environment, and beloved relatives afar!
In solidarity,
Honor Our Pueblo Existence and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
Idaho Falls Power Going Nuclear?
Aalo Atomics, another nuclear startup, and Idaho Falls Power are discussing a power purchase agreement for seven “microreactors,” nuclear reactors that “generally” produce less than 50 mW, for energy. While the company has never designed a nuclear reactor, Yasir Arafat, their lead engineer, was given a “90% design complete seal of approval” from the Department of Energy.
The “Aalo-1” nuclear reactor is “inspired by” the MARVEL reactor (Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation Project), another unfinished so-called advanced reactor.
In fact, MARVEL keeps getting delayed. The Department of Energy (DOE) first said MARVEL would be done “by the end of 2024” in May 2023, but by October 2023, DOE said MARVEL “is expected to be completed in early 2025.” According to the DOE’s latest announcement, “Fuel loading for MARVEL is anticipated to occur in 2026, with the microreactor expected to be on line by 2027.” I wouldn’t call that inspirational.
Like MARVEL, Aalo-1 would be a sodium-cooled microreactor fueled by uranium zirconium-hydride, enriched up to 10%.
Aalo CEO Matt Loszak claims the first reactors will have an output of “7¢/kWh,” and the second line as low as “3–5 ¢/kWh.” These are premature and wild claims. We remember NuScale’s cost hike and subsequent Idaho project collapse. NuScale is now facing lawsuits for deliberately misleading investors.
Not only does this proposal risk wasting a lot of money, it would waste time. Aalo only recently started the pre-application process this July; it is not feasible to get a design certified by December 2025, then submit a COLA application in 2026, and receive it in time to build the 7-reactor plant and have them online anytime soon. If the primary reason for pursuing a nuclear power plant is “clean energy,” then Idaho Falls would get more bang for its buck with rooftop solar, storage, and efficiency in a fraction of the time. And without spent nuclear waste.
From what I’ve read in the excited, promotional articles and press releases, significant issues are left out. There is no mention of radioactive waste or community safety. Safety and security concerns for storing nuclear waste near people need to be addressed. There are moral implications for creating nuclear waste and dumping it on other people in a “consent-based siting” or CIS scenario. People need unbiased information not written by promoters and pro-nuclear activists to assess the whole picture. We need transparency to build trust.
The post Idaho Falls Power Going Nuclear? appeared first on Snake River Alliance.
Nuclear Power in a Changing Climate
Wildfires and Water Scarcity Pose Challenges
Nuclear power has been touted as a “clean” energy source due to its minimal carbon emissions during operation. However, recent events highlight the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to the very climate change they aim to combat.
The recent wildfire near the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) in California serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers posed by extreme weather events. The fire, which originated at the lab’s explosives testing range, raised concerns about airborne radioactive and toxic materials due to the burning of contaminated soil. Snake River Alliance allies at Tri-Valley Cares point to past incidents where LLNL activities have sparked wildfires, raising questions about safety protocols.
This incident underscores the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to wildfires, a growing threat fueled by climate change.
Beyond wildfires, rising global temperatures pose a different kind of threat. In 2023, France was forced to shut down several nuclear reactors due to excessively warm water in the Rhone River. Nuclear power plants rely on water for cooling, but discharging hot water back into rivers can harm aquatic life. Heatwaves exacerbate this issue, making it difficult to maintain safe cooling temperatures.
The 2022 drought in Europe further underscored this vulnerability. With river water levels at historic lows, France was again forced to shut down a significant portion of its nuclear capacity.
Extreme climate events demonstrate the complex interplay between nuclear power and climate change. While proponents claim that nuclear energy is a low-carbon solution (ignoring the carbon emissions of uranium mining, fuel fabrication, plant construction, and transportation to a non-existent radioactive waste storage facility), its reliance on stable environmental conditions raises concerns about its long-term viability in a warming world.
The post Nuclear Power in a Changing Climate appeared first on Snake River Alliance.
2023 DC Days Ask Report: Break the Cycle for a Safer Future and Two-Pager Recommendations to Congress
MEDIA ADVISORY: WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S FY 2024 NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND CLEANUP BUDGET REQUEST
The Biden Administration is releasing its Fiscal Year 2024 federal budget on Thursday, March 9. It is expected to be a “skinny budget” with just topline financial numbers. If the pattern of the last few years for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) budget is continued, there can be three more releases over the next six weeks that grow progressively more detailed (there is initially little if any site-specific budget information). Historically around 60% of DOE’s funding has been earmarked for nuclear weapons production and cleanup of Cold War wastes and contamination.
The release of the presidential budget begins the annual legislative process for funding DOE programs and sites. The two bicameral congressional subcommittees that have jurisdiction over the DOE budget are the Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces Subcommittee which “authorizes” funding, and the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee which actually provides funding. Congress has managed to pass the Defense Authorization Act for more than 50 consecutive years, but is increasingly unable to pass appropriations bills, leading to short-term Continuing Resolutions (CRs). Given bipartisan friction and the beginning of election campaigning, Continuing Resolutions are likely for this coming federal fiscal year 2024, which begins October 1, 2023.
Ike White Discusses Cleanup with Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
EM Senior Advisor William “Ike” White met with members of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) on May 17 to discuss timely topics in the cleanup program, from DOE’s Justice40 Initiative and stakeholder involvement in EM’s Strategic Vision to waste disposal and deactivation & decommissioning (D&D) work around the complex.
“I really appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of you on your different perspectives and where the cleanup program should be and where it should go in the future,” White said to the members of the grassroots network of 34 community organizations focused on health, cleanup and weapons issues at EM sites.
White and other EM senior managers met with the alliance in a virtual meeting during the ANA DC Days event in which ANA members convene with congressional and administration officials on nuclear issues. For over 30 years, EM management has met with the ANA for the annual event. DC Days normally takes place in person but has shifted to a virtual format in recent years due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Full Event Recording: Bob Alvarez Lifetime Achievement Award Party
View above the live recording of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) honoring Bob Alvarez with a Lifetime Achievement Award on Saturday, March 19, 2022!
Also take a look at this kudoboard where we’ve collected stories and gratitude for Bob!
Robert (Bob) Alvarez is one of the bedrock founders of the national movement to unmask the human and environmental carnage that resulted directly from the US production of a massive nuclear arsenal.
Bob helped found the Environmental Policy Institute in the mid-1970’s. He is an intrepid researcher, author, investigator, professor, and an unflagging resource to dozens of organizations around the nation. Bob always was and remains today an ally (and sometimes an accomplice) of grassroots efforts to hold the nuclear power and weapons establishment accountable.
New Beyond Nuclear fact sheets opposing Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities
New Beyond Nuclear fact sheets opposing Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities:
Licensing Now Underway for Two Unlawful Consolidated ‘Interim’ Storage Nuclear Waste Facilities: New Mexico and Texas/What Measures Are Needed for Reasonably Safe Interim Storage at Reactor Sites Pending Repository Siting and Licensing?;
Packaging and Transporting Highly Radioactive Nuclear Waste: Adding Unnecessary Costs and Risks/Transportation Detour;
How Can the U.S. Achieve Success on the Road to a Repository?/Federal and State Officials Are Refusing to Take the Dangerous Dead-End Detour to Consolidated “Interim” Nuclear Waste Storage;
Consent–Based Repository Siting: A Necessary and Viable Path to Permanent Disposal of Nuclear Waste/Federal and State Officials Are Refusing to Take the Dangerous Dead-End Detour to Consolidated “Interim” Storage.
The intended audience for the fact sheets are Members of Congress and their staff, as well as other officials at all levels of government — federal, state, county, local, and Indigenous. (Please feel free to use the fact sheets as hand outs in your meetings with officials, whether face-to-face and hardcopy, or Zooms and links to PDFs!) But the fact sheets can also serve as important educational tools for citizens and activists concerned about highly radioactive waste, the general public, as well as the news media.
The author of the fact sheets is Beyond Nuclear’s radioactive waste specialist, Kevin Kamps. Legal support for the fact sheets was provided by Diane Curran of Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
Beyond Nuclear would also like to thank numerous respected colleagues who provided peer review on these fact sheets. However, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear remains responsible for any errors of commission or omission.
📅 September 11, 2021 | 🖨️ Print Article | | 📨 Email Article
What is the U.S.’s Nuclear Waste Future
Bleak.