Hanford has been called the most contaminated spot in the western hemisphere. A cautionary monument to the cost of war and nuclear ambitions. It is one of the places the world should be looking as long as there continue to be arguments made in favor of nuclear energy use.

Decades after their construction; long after the energy has been "used" (much of it wasted in inefficient processes); long after billions of gallons of irreplaceable water have been used up and contaminated- the reactors and their forever deadly waste remain. The reactors are showing their age- leaking and cracking, but the waste will be with us, in human terms, forever. 

What this means is that we face a deadly problem without a real solution. At Hanford alone there are:

56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. The radioactive sludge is so dangerous that a few hours of exposure could be fatal. A major leak could contaminate water supplies serving millions across the Northwest. The cleanup is the most complex and costly environmental restoration ever attempted.

And, at Hanford, they are struggling to contain it. But, history is proving that the waste may not be containable, not in time, or for enough time, to be ever be considered safe. Not at Hanford, the other Cold War sites, or at "ordinary" reactor sites located all around the world. They say "to the victor go the spoils," but in this case, the victor will spoil everything. Because, to the growing horror of a slowly awakening post-Fukushima world- it is clear that with nuclear, the waste is winning.

Peter Eisler, USA Today l 25 January, 2012

even decades after scientists came here during World War II to create plutonium for the first atomic bomb, a new generation is struggling with an even more daunting task: cleaning up the radioactive mess.

The U.S. government is building a treatment plant to stabilize and contain 56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. The radioactive sludge is so dangerous that a few hours of exposure could be fatal. A major leak could contaminate water supplies serving millions across the Northwest. The cleanup is the most complex and costly environmental restoration ever attempted.

A USA TODAY investigation has found that the troubled, 10-year effort to build the treatment plant faces enormous problems just as it reaches what was supposed to be its final stage.

In exclusive interviews, several senior engineers cited design problems that could bring the plant's operations to a halt before much of the waste is treated. Their reports have spurred new technical reviews and raised official concerns about the risk of a hydrogen explosion or uncontrolled nuclear reaction inside the plant. Either could damage critical equipment, shut the facility down or, worst case, allow radiation to escape.

The plant's $12.3 billion price tag, already triple original estimates, is well short of what it will cost to address the problems and finish the project. And the plant's start-up date, originally slated for last year and pushed back to its current target of 2019, is likely to slip further.

"We're continuing with a failed design," said Donald Alexander, a senior U.S. government scientist on the project.

"There's a lot of pressure … from Congress, from the state, from the community to make progress," he added. As a result, "the design processes are cut short, the safety analyses are cut short, and the oversight is cut short. … We have to stop now and figure out how to do this right, before we move any further."

Read full text

  October 5, 2011 Re: Blue Ribbon Commission’s July 29, 2011 Draft Report The following are PSR’s comments on the Blue Ribbon Commission’s Draft Report dated July 29, 2011. PSR supports the BRC’s draft recommendations to develop one or more perman...

David Crosby l Huffington Post  21 September, 2011 Lets go through it again, shall we? We'll keep it simple, and not even wander into the economics of it. First of all, human beings make mistakes. You simply can't argue with that -- no one can arg...

North Anna "firsts":

First US nuclear plant to have "protective electrical devices" shaken so hard by an earthquake that the reactors shut down.

First US nuclear plant to have earthquake shake ground so hard that twenty-five, 115 ton, spent fuel storage casks moved on their pads from 1-4 1/2 inches. 

But, nothing to worry about...?

Richmond Times Dispatch l Peter Bacque 31 August, 2011

Last week's central Virginia earthquake caused 25 spent-fuel storage casks — each weighing 115 tons — to move on their concrete pad at Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna nuclear power plant.

The shifting of these massive casks holding used nuclear fuel was the first caused by an earthquake in the U.S., according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

None of the metal cylinders was damaged and no radiation was released, Dominion Virginia Power said.

Like hockey pucks on a jostled tray, the 16-foot tall casks shifted from an inch to 4½ inches, utility company spokesman Rick Zuercher said.

Read full text

The future will have some choice thoughts about us. Are we thinking of them?

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists l Allison Macfarlane  6 July, 2011

Abstract

In light of Japan’s nuclear disaster, a major lesson can be learned related to the back end of the fuel cycle: Planning is necessary for the safe and secure management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. But the topic of storing waste continues to be subject to last-minute solutions, as the experiences of a number of countries besides Japan show. Countries with nuclear power programs need a medium-term strategy for spent fuel storage prior to the long-term plan for spent fuel or high-level waste disposal. Though difficult, the disposal of high-level nuclear waste is possible, and a clear strategy to develop a repository combines both technical and societal criteria in a phased approach. After Fukushima, it is now imperative to redefine what makes a successful nuclear power program—from cradle to grave. Nuclear waste management must be designed from the beginning; otherwise, the public in many countries will reject nuclear as an energy choice.

Though nuclear power produces electricity with little in the way of carbon dioxide emissions, it, like other energy sources, is not without its own set of waste products. And in the case of nuclear power, most of these wastes are radioactive.¹ Some very low level nuclear wastes can be stored and then disposed of in landfill-type settings. Other nuclear waste must remain sequestered for a few hundred years in specially engineered subsurface facilities; this is the case with low level waste, which is composed of low concentrations of long-lived radionuclides and higher concentrations of short-lived ones. Intermediate and high-level waste both require disposal hundreds of meters under the Earth’s surface, where they must remain out of harm’s way for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (IAEA, 2009). Intermediate level wastes are not heat-emitting, but contain high concentrations of long-lived radionuclides. High-level wastes, including spent nuclear fuel and wastes from the reprocessing of spent fuel, are both heat-emitting and highly radioactive.

Today, 437 nuclear reactors are in use around the world in 31 countries. In addition, more than 60 countries have expressed an interest in acquiring nuclear power for electricity production in the future (IAEA, 2010). Each reactor will produce its own wastes. Yet no repository exists for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world.² Even the topic of storing waste continues to be a minor priority in the planning stages. But this lack of foresight does not come without consequences: Reactor sites can be overburdened with spent fuel without a clear plan for dealing with this material in a timely manner. This is the case right now in South Korea, where the country’s utility foresees a crisis in the next 10 years as the storage at all of the country’s four nuclear plants fills up. The United Arab Emirates, which broke ground on its first nuclear facility on March 14, 2011 and is set to bring four nuclear reactors online beginning in 2017, has yet to announce storage as a priority. Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and current chairman of the UAE’s International Advisory Board notes, “The question of a final disposal plan is still open and more attention should be spent on deciding what to do” (DiPaola, 2011).

When it comes to the severity of an accident at a nuclear facility, there may be little difference between those that occur at the front end of the nuclear power production and those at the back end: An accident involving spent nuclear fuel can pose a threat as disastrous as that posed by reactor core meltdowns. In particular, if spent fuel pools are damaged or are not actively cooled, a major crisis could be in sight, especially if the pools are packed with recently discharged spent fuel.

So why, if the danger is comparable to that at the front end, is there so little foresight and planning regarding the back end of the fuel cycle? Certainly for nuclear engineers, there are more rewards for reactor design than waste disposal. The nuclear industry in general has focused on electricity production, and few players in the field of electricity generation writ large put much time and effort into clean-up of their waste products—just think about the coal and natural gas industries and the production of mine wastes, ash ponds, waste water from gas extraction, and, of course, carbon dioxide. Put bluntly, money is made on the front end, not on the back end. But the reality, as South Korea is now realizing, is that a lack of planning for waste streams may cause the front end to collapse, halting the production of nuclear energy. This planning should include a medium-term strategy for spent fuel storage prior to the long-term plan for spent fuel or high-level waste disposal.³

Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant has seven spent fuel pools—one at each reactor and a large, additional, joint pool—as well as dry cask storage for spent fuel on site. Initially, Japan had planned a short period of spent fuel storage at the reactor site prior to reprocessing, but Japan’s reprocessing facility has suffered long delays (it was expected to begin operations in 2007, but is still not open), causing spent fuel to build up at reactor sites. In light of the country’s nuclear disaster, a major lesson can be learned related to the back end of the fuel cycle: specifically, that careful planning, not ad hoc solutions, is necessary for spent nuclear fuel. A strategy for dealing with nuclear waste is essential to a successful nuclear power program, and it is best enacted early in the planning of a nuclear power program.

Read full text

Rumors about the Howard /Bush deal have been floating around for years, but will Alexander Downer's desire for huge profits turn Australia into the world's radioactive waste dump? If this is on the Australian table, why is no-one talking about it? The dangers of transport, issues of land ownership, the viability of this even being feasible in the sense of safety? If this is being considered, it needs to be considered openly, not in back room deals. This proposed site is over Australia's largest aquifer, its major source of drinking water. Should this become contaminated, what would be the plan? It would be impossible to remediate. Australia needs to know what is being proposed, and then Australians must say a resounding NO! 

Independent Australia l 18 April, 2011

Despite the Fukushima disaster, Alexander Downer has come out in support of Australia storing the world’s nuclear waste. Sandi Keane looks at the secret plans developed by John Howard and George W. Bush to turn Australia into the world’s radioactive waste dump, with healthy profits for all. Is this how Tony Abbott plans to pay for “direct action”on climate change?

Is the Fukushima nuclear fallout heading for Australia?  Yes, if Alexander Downer and the Liberal Party have anything to do with it. But, relax, dear reader. I’m not talking about some large, menacing radioactive cloud lighting up our northern skies. No, I’m alerting you to another kind of nuclear fallout threat from Fukushima: the urgent need to find a place to store the world’s deadly waste.

Fukushima’s reactors were inside thick containment walls but the waste, or to use nuclear spin, spent fuel rods, were out in the open.  Two of the three ponds lost their roofs in explosions, exposing the spent fuel pools to the atmosphere, eventually catching fire and spreading the radiation. Unfortunately, this is the practice followed by many countries around the world.  There is simply no safe place to store the waste so it is often stored in cooling ponds at the reactor site.

This is the grim reality of the nuclear experiment. Forty years ago, when the first reactors were built, it was naively assumed that a solution would eventually be found to store or recycle the waste safely.  For 3 million years?  Might this not transcend the scale of man’s experience?   In hindsight it was a fatal mistake.  We now know that the frequency of earthquakes is increasing due to global warming as is extreme weather.  There will be more Fukushimas.  Our World Heritage listed national park, Kakadu, is also now threatened with radiation from the Ranger mine due to heavy rain.  So we can’t even mine the stuff safely any more.

Antinuclear fear in the aftermath of Fukushima is consuming the global psyche with public demonstrations in Japan, Germany and France.   The world may be “over” nuclear, but the legacy of the toxic waste will last for millions of years. Generations to come will wonder at the greed and stupidity of their forebears.  Build it, make the money and run is the credo of our generation.  Leave the problems to future generations who will foot the bill – if they and the planet survive.

Read full text

Independent Australia

Despite the Fukushima disaster, Alexander Downer has come out in support of Australia storing the world’s nuclear waste. Sandi Keane looks at the secret plans developed by John Howard and George W. Bush to turn Australia into the world’s radioactive waste dump, with healthy profits for all. Is this how Tony Abbott plans to pay for “direct action”on climate change?

Is the Fukushima nuclear fallout heading for Australia?  Yes, if Alexander Downer and the Liberal Party have anything to do with it. But, relax, dear reader. I’m not talking about some large, menacing radioactive cloud lighting up our northern skies. No, I’m alerting you to another kind of nuclear fallout threat from Fukushima: the urgent need to find a place to store the world’s deadly waste.

Fukushima’s reactors were inside thick containment walls but the waste, or to use nuclear spin, spent fuel rods, were out in the open.  Two of the three ponds lost their roofs in explosions, exposing the spent fuel pools to the atmosphere, eventually catching fire and spreading the radiation. Unfortunately, this is the practice followed by many countries around the world.  There is simply no safe place to store the waste so it is often stored in cooling ponds at the reactor site.

This is the grim reality of the nuclear experiment...

Read full text

Principles for Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at Reactors BRC.GOV   Including info on Hardened Onsite Storage (HOSS)

Cathryn Anderson interviews Dr Caldicott on some of the issues in question at Port Hope. And, on the reception she received there.

rabble.ca l CATHRYN ATKINSON   FEBRUARY 8, 2011

Renowned Australian physician and anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott has for four decades lectured around the world about the medical dangers inherent in the use of radioactive materials for nuclear energy and weapons. Her work was captured in the 1982 National Film Board of Canada short documentary, If You Love This Planet, which won an Oscar.

Last November, Dr. Caldicott was due to speak in Port Hope, Ont., when she found herself persona non grata there. Cameco, a producer of uranium fuel for nuclear power plants around the world, is a major employer in this town of 16,000 on Lake Ontario.

Dr. Caldicott explains what happened to rabble's news editor Cathryn Atkinson.

Read interview