Ad

Showing posts with label nuclear waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear waste. Show all posts

Monday, March 14, 2011

About Radiation from Nuclear Power Plant Explosions

    About Radiation from Nuclear Power Plant Explosions The nations of the world now have more than enough nuclear bombs to kill every person on Earth. The two most powerful nations -- Russia and the United States -- have about 50,000 nuclear weapons between them. What if there were to be a nuclear war? What if terrorists got their hands on nuclear weapons? Or what if nuclear weapons were launched by accident?
    • Nuclear explosions produce radiation. The nuclear radiation harms the cells of the body which can make people sick or even kill them. Illness can strike people years after their exposure to nuclear radiation.
    • One possible type of reactor disaster is known as a meltdown. In such an accident, the fission reaction goes out of control, leading to a nuclear explosion and the emission of great amounts of radiation.
      • In 1979, the cooling system failed at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Radiation leaked, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee. The problem was solved minutes before a total meltdown would have occurred. Fortunately, there were no deaths.
      • In 1986, a much worse disaster struck Russia's Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In this incident, a large amount of radiation escaped from the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to the radiation. Several dozen died within a few days. In the years to come, thousands more may die of cancers induced by the radiation.
    • Nuclear reactors also have waste disposal problems. Reactors produce nuclear waste products which emit dangerous radiation. Because they could kill people who touch them, they cannot be thrown away like ordinary garbage. Currently, many nuclear wastes are stored in special cooling pools at the nuclear reactors.
      • The United States plans to move its nuclear waste to a remote underground dump by the year 2010.
      • In 1957, at a dump site in Russia's Ural Mountains, several hundred miles from Moscow, buried nuclear wastes mysteriously exploded, killing dozens of people.
    • Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years.
    • read more http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_energy.html

      Three Mile Island

      One minute past 4 a.m. on Wednesday, March 18, 1979, maintenance workers cleaning sludge from a small pipe blocked the flow of water in the main feedwater system of a reactor at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The sift foreman heard "loud, thunderous noises, like a couple of freight trains," coming from Unit 2. Loudspeakers broadcast warnings. Since the reactor was still producing heat, it heated the blocked cooling water around its core hot enough to create a pressure surge which popped a relief valve. Three emergency feedwater pumps started up to restore circulation. But the relief valve stuck open, and some 220 gallons of water per minute began flowing out of the reactor vessel. Two valves that normally channeled water from the emergency pumps on the system could have supplied the reactor vessel with enough cooling water to replace the escaping water, but he control-room operators didn't know that the valve was stuck open. Within five minutes after the main feedwater system failed, the reactor, deprived of all normal and emergency sources of cooling water, and no longer able to use its enormous energy to generate electricity, gradually started to tear itself apart. The loss of coolant at the reactor continued for some 16 hours. About a third of the core melted down. Radioactive water flowed through the stuck relief valve into an auxiliary building, where it pooled on the floor. Radioactive gas was released into the atmosphere. An estimated 140,000 people were evacuated from the area. It took a month to stabilize the malfunctioning unit and safely shut it down. The reactor was a total loss and the cleanup required years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. No one was reported injured and the little radiation that leaked out was quickly dispersed. Although this accident did cost lots of money and time, no one was hurt. Three Mile Island inspired the NRC mandated safety modifications to nuclear plants throughout the United States that averaged $20 million per plant. "It is not an exaggeration to say," Cohen concludes, "that lessons learned from the Three Mile Island accident revolutionized the nuclear power industry."

      Chernobyl

      A far more serious accident occured at Chernobyl, in what was then still the Soviet Union. At the time of the accident--April 26, 1986--the Chernobyl nuclear power station consisted of four operating 1,000 megawatt power reactors sited along the banks of the Pripyat River, about sixty miles north of Kiev in the Ukraine. A fifth reactor was under construction. All the Chernobyl reactors were of a design that the Russians call the RBMK--natural uranium-fueled, water-cooled, and graphite-moderated--a design that American physicist and Nobel laureate Hans Bethe has called "fundamentally faulty, having a built-in instability." Because of the instability, an RMBK reactor that loses its coolant can under certain circumstances increase in reactivity and run progressively faster and hotter rather than shut itself down. Nor were the Chernobyl reactors protected by containment structures like those required for U.S. reactors, though they were shielded with heavy concrete covers. Without question, the accident at Chernobyl was the result of a fatal combination of ignorance and complacency. "As members of a select scientific panel convened immediately after the... accident," writes Nobel laureate Hans Bethe, "my colleagues and I established that the Chernobyl disaster tells us about the deficiencies of the Soviet political and administrative system rather than about problems with nuclear power." Although the problem at Chernobyl was relatively complex, it can basically be summarized as a mismanaged electrical engineering experiment which resulted in the reactor exploding. The explosion was chemical, driven by gases and steam generated by the core runaway, not by nuclear reactions. Flames, sparks, and chunks of burning material wree flying into the air above the unit. These were red-hot pieces of nuclear fuel and graphite. About 50 tons of nuclear fuel evaporated and were released by the explosion into the atmosphere. In addition, about 70 tons were ejected sideways from the periphery of the core. Some 50 tons of nuclear fuel and 800 tons of reactor graphite remained in the reactor vault, where they formed a pit reminiscent of a volcanic crater as the graphite still in the reactor had burned up completely in a few days after the explosion. The resulting radioactive release was equivalent to ten Hiroshimas. In fact, since the Hiroshima bomb was air-burst--no part of the fireball touched the ground--the Chernobyl release polluted the countryside much more than ten Hiroshimas would have. Many people died from the explosion and even more from the effects of the radiation later. Still today, people are dying from the radiation caused by the Chernobyl accident. The estimated total number of deaths will be 16,000.
      read more 
      http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/TMI.html

Power Plants - Nuclear Accidents

3 January 1961
The world's first nuclear-related fatalities occurred following a reactor explosion at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Three technicians, were killed, with radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins. Another incident three weeks later (on 25 January) resulted in a release of radiation into the atmosphere.24 July 1964
Robert Peabody, 37, died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical, starting a reaction that exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation.
19 November 1971
The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.
March 1972
Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submitted to the Congressional Record facts surrounding a routine check in a nuclear power plant which indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.
27 July 1972
Two workers at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia were fatally scalded after a routine valve adjustment led to a steam release in a gap in a vent line. [See also 
9 December 1986]
28 May 1974
The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."
22 March 1975
A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.
28 March 1979
A major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. At 4:00 a.m. a series of human and mechanical failures nearly triggered a nuclear disaster. By 8:00 a.m., after cooling water was lost and temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses, leading as many as 200,000 people to flee the region. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that "no one died at Three Mile Island," a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.
1981
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year.
11 February 1981
An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee.
July 1981
A flood of low-level radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement at Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 (in New York state) caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of low-level radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup. The discharge was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the sub-basement contamination was not. A report leaked to the press 8 years later resulted in a study which found that high levels of radiation persisted in the still flooded facility.
1982
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year.
25 January 1982
A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
15-16 January 1983
Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.
25 February 1983
A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.
9 December 1986
A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding [see also 
27 July 1972].
1988
It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc.
28 May 1993
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.
15 February 2000
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there wasa leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.
6 March 2002
Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.
Nov 2005
High tritium levels, the result of leaking pipes, were discovered to have contaminated groundwater immediately adjacent to the Braidwood Generating Station in Braceville, Illinois.

Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

December 12, 1952

A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.

October 1957

Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.

Winter 1957-'58

A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.

January 3, 1961

Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.

July 4, 1961

The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.

October 5, 1966

The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.

January 21, 1969

A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.

December 7, 1975

At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.

March 28, 1979

Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.

February 11, 1981

Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

April 25, 1981

Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.

April 26, 1986

The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.

March 24, 1992

At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.

November 1992

In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.

November 1995

Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.

March 1997

The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.

September 30, 1999

Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.

Office of Nuclear Energy

The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is working with its partners to demonstrate the commercial-scale production of hydrogen using heat from a nuclear energy system by 2017. In addition to the emission-free electricity currently produced by nuclear reactors, some advanced nuclear reactor designs operate at very high temperatures, making them well suited for promising new thermally-driven hydrogen production processes. These advanced reactors, now being developed by the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative (Gen IV), could provide the low-cost heat necessary for these processes to economically produce hydrogen.
NE established the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative to further the development of nuclear-based hydrogen production processes. The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative will research and develop the following technologies that use nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen.
  • Thermochemical water-splitting cycles (TC): Research conducted under the Department'sNuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) indicates strong potential for the use of thermochemical water splitting processes to produce hydrogen. Thermochemical cycles are a series of chemical reactions that convert water to hydrogen and oxygen using chemical catalysts at high temperatures. These processes offer the potential for high efficiency hydrogen production at large-scale production rates, but the technology is relatively immature.
  • High-temperature electrolysis (HTE): HTE, or steam electrolysis as it is also called, uses electricity to produce hydrogen from steam, instead of liquid water. This method promises higher efficiencies than standard electrolysis, which is employed commercially today. The new high-temperature design involves many technical challenges, including the development of high-temperature materials and membranes.
  • Reactor/Hydrogen Production Process Interface: The interface between the nuclear reactor and the hydrogen production system involves potentially long heat transfer paths at elevated temperatures, heat exchangers that are subject to both elevated temperature and corrosive chemical environments, new safety and regulatory issues, and supporting systems for chemical processes and hydrogen and oxygen storage.
  • http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/nuclear.html

    Saturday, May 2, 2009

    EnergySolutions Cited for Safety Lapse

    State cites EnergySolutions for safety lapse

    May 2nd, 2009 @ 2:57pm

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- State regulators have cited EnergySolutions for it part in a hazardous materials leak of radiation-tainted solvent from the duct-taped hose on a shipping tanker.

    The Utah Division of Radiation Control issued a notice of violation to the company on Thursday. The agency is proposing a $2,500 fine and corrective action to make sure the violation isn't repeated.

    Agency director Dane Finerfrock says regulations require shipments to remain intact while in transit.

    The tanker was hauling about 3,000 gallons of toxic sludge between an EnergySolutions facility in Utah and an incinerator in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The leak was discovered at a weigh station in Price.

    Carbon County officials found up to a half-gallon of material had come from the broken hose. No radiation was detected.

    ------

    Information from: The Salt Lake Tribune

    Thursday, May 8, 2008

    Nuclear Waste From Italy. Is This Free Trade?


    With the controversy regarding nuclear waste from Italy and the planned shipping and dumping in Utah some may wonder, once again, what benefits the U.S. is receiving from free trade.

    Why would Italy suddenly need a dumping ground for its nuclear waste if their nuclear program was reportedly stopped in 1990?

    "Italian nuclear power referendum, 1987
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Italian nuclear power referendum of November 1987, rejected expansion of the country's nuclear power industry by the construction of new nuclear power plants.

    Voters were actually polled about three issues:
    abolishing the statutes by which the Inter-ministries Committee for the Economical Programming (CIPE) could decide about the locations for nuclear plants, when the Regions did not so within the time stipulated by Law 393;
    Abolishing rewards for municipalities in whose territories nuclear or coal plants were to be built;
    Abolishing the statutes allowing Enel to take part in international agreements to build and manage nuclear plants.
    Some commenter’s find that the questions were actually too technical for non-experts and were used to obtain popular consent after Chernobyl disaster in 1986.[1] [2]

    Subsequently, the Italian government decided in 1988 to phase out existing plants. This led to the termination of work on the near-complete Montalto di Castro nuclear power station, and the early closure of Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant and Caorso NPP, both of which closed in 1990. Italy's other two nuclear power plants had already closed prior to the decision, Alto Lazio NPP in 1982 and Latina NPP in December 1987."


    While Italy has been decommissioning their Nuclear Power Plants, www.planetark.com posted an article on January 17, 2008 stating that there may be a relaunch of nuclear energy in Italy.

    "Debate on a relaunch of nuclear energy in Italy, banned 20 years ago in a referendum, got a boost in the past few days when it emerged that major utilities were to draft a plan to build nuclear power stations.

    Italy, with scant energy resources, wants to diversify supplies and ease its 80-85 percent dependence on fuel imports. Various energy players and politicians call for a nuclear renaissance, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears so far."

    ...

    "Italy does not need a new referendum to lift the existing ban but the Economic Development Ministry would need to issue a decree -- which would later have to be passed as a law -- to scrap the moratorium, energy experts say."

    ...

    "Opponents say there are no suitable sites in Italy for building new power stations and storing nuclear waste; the construction and decommissioning costs are too high and there is still a considerable risk of accidents. (Reporting by Svetlana Kovalyova, editing by Anthony Barker)"


    In a report directed by the U.S. Department of Energy regarding the Yucca Mountain, Nevada disposal site, they specifically mention that more information is necessary to understand the effect the disposal would have on the groundwater flow, as well as additional information being necessary regarding the safety with transportation of the waste.

    Additionally, a letter dated April 11, 2008, written to Dr. Garrick, the Chairman for the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board from Edward F. Sproat, III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at the Department of Energy shows little regard for the concerns regarding the water and transportation issues.

    Should this not be alarming to everyone in the United States? The nuclear waste is due to travel across multiple states, through many highly populated areas. Additional correspondence and documentation regarding these U.S. nuclear disposal issues can be found at www.nwtrb.gov.

    While researching the topic of dumping Italy's nuclear waste in Utah, I delved into the U.S. Department of Energy site for additional information. During this research, I have found no license agreement, location research, nor do I find Energy Solutions to be one of the contractors listed for this process.

    Additionally, while researching the nuclear waste topic on www.radwaste.org, I clicked on the link for Italy, called "National Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Task Force", where I was promptly told,

    The page cannot be found
    The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please try the following:

    If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

    Open the www.casaccia.enea.it home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
    Click the Back button to try another link.
    HTTP 404 - File not found
    Internet Information Services


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The site they defered me to doesn't seem to show any indication of a relationship between Italy and the U.S. and the disposal of their nuclear waste.

    EnergySolutions seems to think that, because it will make them more money, the risks for the citizens don't matter. In an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, dated May 7, 2008, the author states that

    "...the company's multi-billion-dollar plan to import low-level radioactive materials from Italy's decommissioned nuclear power plants. Approximately 1,600 tons of the materials would be shipped across the country and buried in Utah after processing at an EnergySolutions' recycling facility in Tennessee."


    The author also states that the eight-state Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management has the power to regulate the source of the waste dumped at Clive, the company's facility. Additionally, a defeat of the proposal is virtually assured.

    However, "EnergySolutions officials claim that only the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission can regulate foreign waste imports. Company attorneys will argue that the compact does not have authority over the dump because it's a private commercial facility, that the compact's authority is pre-empted by federal statutes and regulations, and that the U.S. Constitution forbids the compact from discriminating between identical foreign and domestic materials. (The firm's predecessor, Envirocare of Utah, didn't have a problem recognizing the authority of the compact nearly 20 years ago when, with Utah's blessing, it sought and received the compact's permission to open the dump.)"

    Note: I bolded "(The firm's predecessor, Envirocare of Utah, didn't have a problem recognizing the authority of the compact nearly 20 years ago when, with Utah's blessing, it sought and received the compact's permission to open the dump.)"

    So, I proceeded to research by looking up the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I clicked on the link to the EnergySolutions' Proposal and found it to be more troubling than the article in the Salt Lake Tribune. Not just 1600 tons would be imported. Here is a direct quote.

    "EnergySolutions, based in Salt Lake City, is seeking a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to import up to approximately 20,000 tons (a total volume of up to approximately 1 million cubic feet) of various types of materials from decommissioned nuclear facilities in Italy. These materials would be primarily metals, wood, paper, plastic, liquids and ion-exchange resins that have various levels of radioactive contamination."


    "EnergySolutions would process and recycle (as shielding blocks for use in nuclear facilities) most of the contaminated material at its facilities in Tennessee, in accordance with licenses issued by the state of Tennessee. The remaining waste would be sent to EnergySolutions’ low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah, for disposal in accordance with its Utah license. The company has also applied for an export license, to return to Italy any waste that does not qualify for disposal at the Utah facility."

    "NRC regulations require any company wishing to import or export low-level radioactive waste to apply for a specific license from the NRC. When considering these requests, the NRC reviews the applicant’s proposal to ensure that the waste would be handled in accordance with NRC regulations to protect public health and safety and the environment. For imports, the review considers whether an appropriate facility has agreed to accept the waste for management or disposal. Under the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, the states are responsible for regulating access to low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. The NRC consults with Executive Branch agencies and all states that would be directly affected by the proposed import before deciding whether to grant the license."

    "As part of its review of the license application, the NRC is seeking public comments and has offered members of the public the opportunity to request a hearing. The following information is provided to help answer questions about the EnergySolutions proposal for importing low-level waste from Italy."


    The recorded Hearing Docket number 11005711, dated March 12, 2008, with attachments from Jamie L. Golliher with Energy Solutions includes ten (10) identical letters stating the following.

    Date (hand-written by each signer)
    Office of Secretary
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Washington DC 20555
    Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications

    EnergySolutions
    Docket No. 110057

    Subject: EnergySolutions' license application to import Italian waste.

    As an employee working at the EnergySolutions Bear Creek facility in Oak Ridge,
    Tennessee, I am writing in strong support of the import license application. We have safely processed foreign materials at Bear Creek for at least the last 12 years. In fact, we are currently processing material from Canada that is very similar to the material we would process from Italy.

    EnergySolutions' record of the safe handling of waste materials, meeting applicable license requirement, regulation, and state and federal law demonstrates its absolute commitment to environmental safety. The Bear Creek facility has received the National Safety Council's Perfect Record Award and is in the process of obtaining the Tennessee OSHA Voluntary Protection Programs Star status. I have no doubt in my mind that if the Commission grants the license application, EnergySolutions will continue meeting its high safety standards.

    I strongly urge the Commission to approve the license request.

    Sincerely,

    (each separately signed by the following individuals...Eric Niles, Randy S. Owensby, Mark West, Carl West, Becky Harwell (almost illegible), two others that are totally illegible, Tammy D. Payne, David Dyer, and Mathew C. Davis.)


    Note: I bolded the section stating "We have safely processed foreign materials at Bear Creek for at least the last 12 years".

    Regarding the status for their request for the license,

    The NRC has requested the views of the states which license EnergySolutions operations (Tennessee and Utah), the low-level waste compacts in which these states are members (the Northwest and Southeast compacts), the Executive Branch and the public. The states of

    Tennessee and Utah have informed the NRC that they have no technical objections to the proposed licenses. The public comment period and the time to request a hearing or petition to intervene expire on June 10, 2008.

    For more information on import and export of radioactive material, please see

    http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/export-import.html.

    April 2008


    Note: I bolded "The public comment period and the time to request a hearing or petition to intervene expire on June 10, 2008".

    There is a location on this site for comments regarding this project.

    Regarding the NorthWest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management, here is what their site says they represent.

    "NWIC was created in 1981, and consists of the member states: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The NWIC was ratified by Congress in 1985. The eighth state, Wyoming, joined the Compact in March of 1992. The Compact is a cooperative effort of the party states to protect their citizens, and maintain and enhance economic viability, while sharing the responsibilities of low-level radioactive waste management."


    "Disposal Options for Low-level Radioactive Waste Within NWIC
    Low-level radioactive waste generated within the Northwest and Rocky Mountain Compacts may be disposed of at the commercial disposal site operated by US Ecology Inc. in Richland, Washington. Click on the links below:

    For questions about Washington's Site Use Permits
    To print out a Site Use Permit application
    For state regulations regarding radioactive waste disposal
    Out-of-region low-level radioactive waste that complies with the NWIC Third Amended Resolution and Order may be disposed of at the disposal site operated by Envirocare of Utah Inc. in Clive, Utah.

    Send mail to our Web manager with questions or comments about this web site.

    Last modified: May 2, 2008"


    For those of you who are unaware, Envirocare is now EnergySolutions.

    Here is part of the Third Amended Resolution and Order of the Northwest Interstate Compact, dated May 1, 2006 and signed by Lawrence Goldstein, Chair.

    "3. While the Compact allows the above described wastes access to the licensed EnergySolutions facility in the Northwest Interstate Compact region, in accordance with Article V of the Compact, Utah retains the right to specifically approve each disposal arrangement before the waste is allowed access to the licensed EnergySolutions facility.

    4. All federal and state environmental and other laws and regulations shall be complied with by the licensed EnergySolutions facility accepting the above referenced media or waste for treatment, storage, or disposal. The Compact has no authority and assumes no responsibility for the licensing and operation of the EnergySolutions facility.

    5. It is the intent of the Committee that only those wastes approved by the compact of origin (including the Northwest Compact) be allowed. For states unaffiliated with a compact, state approval for export is required to the extent states can exercise such approval. This Resolution and Order shall constitute an arrangement under Article V of the Compact statute with any unaffiliated state or compact that approves waste for export to the EnergySolutions facility."


    Note: I bolded "Utah retains the right to specifically approve each disposal arrangement before the waste is allowed access to the licensed EnergySolutions facility.", and "This Resolution and Order shall constitute an arrangement under Article V of the Compact statute with any unaffiliated state or compact that approves waste for export to the EnergySolutions facility.".

    A public meeting was scheduled today May 8, 2008 for The Committee of the Northwest Interstate Compact regarding this very issue.

    My question is that if this has been ratified by congress, doesn't this committee have the say regarding whether or not Utah permits the importation of this 20,000 tons of Italian nuclear waste regardless of what high horse EnergySolutions seem to think they are on?

    Additionally, if we accept this waste from another foreign country, doesn't this open the flood gates for others to attempt to dump their waste in the United States?

    Sources:
    en.wikipedia.org
    HAARETZ.com
    www.planetark.com
    www.nwtrb.gov
    www.ocrwm.doe.gov
    www.sltrib.com
    www.nrc.gov
    www.ecy.wa.gov