Archive for the ‘Nukes’ Category

May 22, 2012

ScienceDaily

Western Europe has the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination caused by major reactor accidents.

Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) — some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, an area is defined as being contaminated with radiation from this amount onwards. In view of their findings, the researchers call for an in-depth analysis and reassessment of the risks associated with nuclear power plants.

The reactor accident in Fukushima has fuelled the discussion about nuclear energy and triggered Germany’s exit from their nuclear power program. It appears that the global risk of such a catastrophe is higher than previously thought, a result of a study carried out by a research team led by Jos Lelieveld, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz: "After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric models." According to the results of the study, a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation worldwide is likely to occur once in 10 to 20 years. Currently, there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation, and 60 more are planned.

To determine the likelihood of a nuclear meltdown, the researchers applied a simple calculation. They divided the operating hours of all civilian nuclear reactors in the world, from the commissioning of the first up to the present, by the number of reactor meltdowns that have actually occurred. The total number of operating hours is 14,500 years, the number of reactor meltdowns comes to four — one in Chernobyl and three in Fukushima. This translates into one major accident, being defined according to the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), every 3,625 years. Even if this result is conservatively rounded to one major accident every 5,000 reactor years, the risk is 200 times higher than the estimate for catastrophic, non-contained core meltdowns made by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1990. The Mainz researchers did not distinguish ages and types of reactors, or whether they are located in regions of enhanced risks, for example by earthquakes. After all, nobody had anticipated the reactor catastrophe in Japan.

25 percent of the radioactive particles are transported further than 2,000 kilometres

Subsequently, the researchers determined the geographic distribution of radioactive gases and particles around a possible accident site using a computer model that describes Earth’s atmosphere. The model calculates meteorological conditions and flows, and also accounts for chemical reactions in the atmosphere. The model can compute the global distribution of trace gases, for example, and can also simulate the spreading of radioactive gases and particles. To approximate the radioactive contamination, the researchers calculated how the particles of radioactive caesium-137 (137Cs) disperse in the atmosphere, where they deposit on Earth’s surface and in what quantities. The 137Cs isotope is a product of the nuclear fission of uranium. It has a half-life of 30 years and was one of the key elements in the radioactive contamination following the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The computer simulations revealed that, on average, only eight percent of the 137Cs particles are expected to deposit within an area of 50 kilometres around the nuclear accident site. Around 50 percent of the particles would be deposited outside a radius of 1,000 kilometres, and around 25 percent would spread even further than 2,000 kilometres. These results underscore that reactor accidents are likely to cause radioactive contamination well beyond national borders.
The results of the dispersion calculations were combined with the likelihood of a nuclear meltdown and the actual density of reactors worldwide to calculate the current risk of radioactive contamination around the world. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an area with more than 40 kilobecquerels of radioactivity per square meter is defined as contaminated.

The team in Mainz found that in Western Europe, where the density of reactors is particularly high, the contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter is expected to occur once in about every 50 years. It appears that citizens in the densely populated southwestern part of Germany run the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination, associated with the numerous nuclear power plants situated near the borders between France, Belgium and Germany, and the dominant westerly wind direction.

If a single nuclear meltdown were to occur in Western Europe, around 28 million people on average would be affected by contamination of more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter. This figure is even higher in southern Asia, due to the dense populations. A major nuclear accident there would affect around 34 million people, while in the eastern USA and in East Asia this would be 14 to 21 million people.

"Germany’s exit from the nuclear energy program will reduce the national risk of radioactive contamination. However, an even stronger reduction would result if Germany’s neighbours were to switch off their reactors," says Jos Lelieveld. "Not only do we need an in-depth and public analysis of the actual risks of nuclear accidents. In light of our findings I believe an internationally coordinated phasing out of nuclear energy should also be considered ," adds the atmospheric chemist.

Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, via AlphaGalileo. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

By Betsy Blaney
BusinessWeek

LUBBOCK, TEXAS

State regulators have given final approval for a Dallas-based company to begin burying low-level radioactive waste at a West Texas site near the New Mexico border, according to a letter posted online Thursday.

In the letter, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality told Waste Control Specialists LLC that the dump site conformed to design and construction specifications. The letter was posted on the agency’s website.

The dump site will be the final resting place for low-level radioactive waste from 38 states. A separate site nearby will handle radioactive waste from federal sites around the country.

The approval ends a yearslong effort by the company, whose majority owner is big-time Republican contributor Harold Simmons, to accept the waste at 1,340-acre tract of scrub brush terrain about 360 miles west of Dallas. State lawmakers cleared the way for the site with a law passed during the last legislative session, but the commission still had to sign off on it.

The agency said in its letter that its staff is "closely monitoring" four wells nearby the burial facility because of water that has been found in them.

"It is important to ensure that saturated conditions do not exist within 100 feet of the disposed waste," states the letter, which is signed by Brent Wade, deputy director of waste at the environmental agency.

Company spokesman Chuck McDonald said the state now has a safe solution for disposing of low-level radioactive waste. The company said Thursday evening that it hadn’t yet started burying waste.

"The state of Texas has been diligent and thorough in its oversight of this facility, which is the most robust disposal facility ever constructed in the United States," he said. "In addition, the state has been zealous in its geologic review of the site and with more than 600 geologic core samples and monitoring wells that state oversight is continuing."

Environmental groups have voiced concerns about the geology of the site and its potential to contaminate underground water sources they say are too close.

Earlier this month, state Rep. Lon Burnam, a Democrat from Fort Worth, wrote Attorney General Greg Abbott asking him to waive a confidentiality agreement so that Burnam could publicly release documents detailing possible groundwater contamination at the dump.

Burnam said he obtained the documents under a 2009 open records request. Burnam said he couldn’t release what’s in them but that they contain officials’ concerns about the location of groundwater tables near the dump site; the margin of safety in the event of groundwater contamination; and the possible risk of public exposure to radiation.

Karen Hadden, long an opponent of the site, said she was disappointed the company got the go-ahead to bury the waste.

"There aren’t enough assurances in place to protect against water contamination and over time we’ll probably learn the hard way about this serious problem," she said.

Waste Control, which also stores, processes and manages hazardous wastes at the site, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to open the dump. In 2009, the state issued two licenses to the company to bury low-level radioactive waste, making it the nation’s only dump for all classes — A, B and C — of nuclear debris and the first low-level site to open in 30 years.

One license pertains to a compact between Texas and Vermont that allows for disposal of radioactive materials such as uranium, plutonium and thorium from commercial power plants, academic institutions and medical schools. Last year, though, lawmakers approved allowing low-level radioactive waste from 36 other states to be buried in West Texas.

Petitions to bury waste from the compact states and the three dozen other states must be approved by the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Disposal Compact Commission on a case-by-case basis.

The other license deals with similar materials from sites run by the U.S. Department of Energy, such as Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Hanford Site in Washington state and other federal facilities.

April 18, 2012

The Que Bue blog
San Antonio Current

State Representative Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, would love to spill the contents of a top-secret pile of documents he got from the state. But he can’t. Stemming from a state open records request he filed in 2009, Burnam now says he has documents from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that prove serious public health and safety risks associated with the West Texas Waste Control Specialists radioactive waste dump built and owned by Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons. After a two-year court battle, Burnam says a court ordered the documents released to his office as a "legislative privilege," but that he was forced to sign a confidentiality agreement with the TCEQ not to reveal the contents. Burnam’s short on details, saying only that the documents show the presence of groundwater inside the facility’s 100-foot buffer zone, and that they discuss the margin of safety in the event of groundwater contamination along with discussions of possible risk to the public of radiation exposure.

"Until we know the source of this water, the likelihood of groundwater contamination, and the risk to the public, it’s simply irresponsible to open this site," Burnam said in a statement.

WCS is waiting for the final word from TCEQ to open up its Andrews County radwaste site to much of the nation, a decision Burnam says could come as soon as this week. Burnam insists the public should know what he knows before WCS gets the green light. On Monday Burnam sent off two letters, one to AG Greg Abbott asking he clarify whether the "top secret" information is really confidential under state law, and another to TCEQ Executive Director Mark Vickery, urging him not to give the dump final approval. "I don’t think the statutory criteria for keeping these documents secret have been met, especially when you consider the very serious public health and safety implications involved," Burnam said.

WCS has been clear on its intent to make its Andrews County facility a burial site for radioactive waste from across the county. As detailed in a Bloomberg piece early this month, Simmons has even been greasing the political gears hoping to score a rule change from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to expand the definition of ""low-level radioactive waste" so his site can bury waste like depleted uranium.

Critics of WCS’ plan have insisted the dump sits dangerously close to the Ogallala Aquifer (some contend on top of the aquifer, though the company disputes it), the nation’s largest aquifer stretching all the way to South Dakota. If this is starting to ring a bell, it should. Former TCEQ geologists and engineers told their bosses in 2007 that WCS’ radwaste license shouldn’t be approved partly because of concerns over contaminating the nearby water table. They resigned in protest when the TCEQ forged ahead, ignoring their concerns — then the former TCEQ director who issued WCS’ licenses, Glenn Shankle, left to lobby for the company. "Staff professionals at TCEQ have resigned over the licensing of this site — experts quit their jobs because they do not agree that the site is safe enough for radioactive waste," said Karen Hadden with the SEED Coalition in a statement Monday.

Burnam also released a non-confidential report from WCS to TCEQ showing that between November 2011 and March 2012 the company pumped more than 23,000 gallons from a monitor well inside the so-called "buffer zone."

Apr. 15, 2012

BY ANNA M. TINSLEY
atinsley(at)star-telegram.com
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Huge numbers of trucks carrying low-level radioactive waste from dozens of states will soon travel highways nationwide — including those in the Metroplex — on their way to a remote disposal site in West Texas.

Shipments from up to 36 states will head to a dump in Andrews County near the New Mexico border, owned by Dallas billionaire and generous Republican political donor Harold Simmons, despite concerns from environmentalists and others worried about potential accidents or contamination once the loads are left at the Waste Control Specialists facility.

"Texas is going to become a nuclear waste dump if everything happens under their plans," said state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, an opponent of the facility. "We will be the major route for nuclear waste.

"I am absolutely concerned about the transportation of the materials, about the high volume of nuclear waste traveling on our interstates through areas such as Fort Worth and Dallas," he said. "I think it’s a really bad idea to have that much nuclear waste rolling down our interstates unguarded."

The first shipments, possibly this month, will likely come from the state’s two nuclear plants, Comanche Peak near Glen Rose and the South Texas project in Matagorda County. Truckloads of contaminated waste from other states, which require a formal application process and approval, could start by summer.

Officials aren’t publicly outlining the shipment routes, although many say loads are likely to cross major highways in North Texas as dangerous materials already do.

In the past eight years, 72 incidents nationwide involving trucks carrying radioactive material on highways have caused $2.4 million in damage and one death, the Transportation Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration says.

Workers at the Andrews County site say various shipments, including contaminated sludge from New York’s Hudson River in 2009, have arrived without incident.

"We have been successfully and without any incidents at all transporting this material for quite some time," said Chuck McDonald, a spokesman for Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists. "Transportation of low-level radioactive waste is highly, highly regulated, requiring specified types of containers and vehicles.

"It’s going to be addressed and is addressed by appropriate government entities."

A ‘win’ for Texas?

In the early 1980s, the federal government encouraged states to build low-level nuclear waste landfills either by forming compacts with other states or on their own. Texas and Vermont teamed up to create a compact to dispose of waste from the two states and federal sources. Last year, state lawmakers approved the Andrews County site; the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission recently agreed to let as many as 36 states ship waste there.

The Texas Compact Disposal Facility, the nation’s only commercial facility licensed to dispose of certain types of low-level waste, formally opened last year in a sparsely populated area about 350 miles west of Fort Worth. Waste Control Specialists spent millions to build and open it.

Shipments of Class A, B and C waste sent there will include medical materials and hospital equipment such as beakers, test tubes and X-ray machines, as well as items that have come in contact with radioactive material such as gloves, shoe covers, trash, rags and dirt.

Those items will be placed in steel and concrete containers that will then be placed in other steel and concrete containers built into red bed clay. When the main container is filled, the entire area will be sealed, McDonald said.

Texas shipments will be first.

"We’re going to take radioactive materials out of Texas urban centers and dispose of them in an arid, isolated location that we believe is a good location," McDonald said. "We believe it’s a win for the state of Texas."

Nebraska may be among the first of the other states. Officials with a public power district are close to a $3.1 million agreement to dispose of long-stored low-level waste such as radioactive filters.

The company has a 15-year license to collect and dispose of the material, with options to renew for two 10-year terms. State lawmakers have banned materials from foreign countries at the site.

Environmental concerns

Environmentalists have complained about the site for years, worried that the waste might contaminate groundwater.

Opponents say they believe that Simmons’ political clout prompted the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to give favorable treatment to the project, despite environmental questions, and later led the 2011 Legislature to permit limited amounts of waste from other states that were not part of the original Texas-Vermont compact.

Three staff members of the environmental agency quit in protest in 2007, saying that higher-ups ignored their concerns about possible groundwater contamination.

"We continue to have concerns about the site itself and whether or not there is enough protection … and whether there will be contamination of the water," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the statewide SEED Coalition environmental group. "Once radioactivity gets into groundwater, it’s a difficult thing to clean up and it can get into the millions and billions of dollars."

Waste Control officials have said they have responded to concerns through the licensing process and have conducted tests that show the site to be safe.

"We have taken core samples around the site so we know exactly what the geology looks like," McDonald said. "It’s not going to impact any drinking water supply in any way.

"It’s an ideal site."

SEED has asked state officials for an independent audit system to do spot-checks and random audits to make sure that safety procedures are followed, shipping procedures are accurate, and limits on volume and types of radioactive waste are met.

"We want to make sure shipments are right when they arrive — that they are the correct material, packaged properly, don’t have water in the disposal pit," Hadden said. "We want to make sure it’s put in the right place and marked properly."

Accidents happen

In February, an Arlington train derailment blocked traffic for hours. Only corn syrup was spilled, but it could have been much worse: More than a dozen train cars that did not derail were filled with dangerous chemicals including flammable crude oil, sodium hydroxide, liquid chlorine and sulfuric acid, reports said.

While the Arlington accident involved a train, and low-level radioactive shipments will be moved by truck, local emergency management officials say they are prepared for an emergency, partly because of training received for special events such as the Super Bowl.

"I-20 has been a designated radioactive shipment corridor for some time," Arlington Assistant Fire Chief Jim Self said. "We’ve had training over the years … and this is not a foreign idea to us.

"The Arlington Fire Department is prepared for any kind of radioactive-related emergency," Self said.

Local officials say they don’t know when these shipments will pass through the Metroplex.

"We will make sure our first responders are aware of the different types of materials out there," said Juan Ortiz, Fort Worth’s emergency management coordinator. "The response, planning and training is not completely new to us.

"We have a lot of the capabilities in place," he said. "But this is a challenge that most communities will have to figure out how to overcome."

In case of an accident, standard procedure is to contain spilled materials, make sure they don’t get into waterways and prevent people from coming into contact with them, officials have said.

But many communities may not be as prepared, especially small Texas towns that might lack emergency management teams or personnel trained to respond to hazardous-material emergencies, Hadden said.

"Shipments can go through any major city, any major highway, and you have no way of knowing when you see an accident if there are radioactive materials involved," Hadden said. "There has really been no analysis of the best transportation routes or of emergency preparedness."

Anna M. Tinsley, 817-390-7610

Twitter: @annatinsley

March 29, 2012

Jeff McMahon, Contributor
Forbes.com

Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new energy in the United States, the freshly-retired CEO of Exelon, America’s largest producer of nuclear power, said in Chicago Thursday.

And it won’t become economically viable, he said, for the forseeable future.

"Let me state unequivocably that I’ve never met a nuclear plant I didn’t like," said John Rowe, who retired 17 days ago as chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, which operates 22 nuclear power plants, more than any other utility in the United States.

"Having said that, let me also state unequivocably that new ones don’t make any sense right now."

Speaking to about 5o people at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy,Rowe presented a series of slides comparing the economic viability of various energy portfolios, including the "King Coal" scenario favored by Republicans, the "Big Wind" scenario favored by Democrats, and a "Playing Favorites" scenario that shuffles and selects from various energy sources.

All were trumped by a portfolio that relies heavily on America’s sudden abundance of natural gas, which has flooded the market since the boom in hydraulic fracturing of shale gas. Natural gas futures dropped to a 10-year low today—$2.15 for 1,000 cubic feet—on abundant supply, the Associated Press reported.

"I’m the nuclear guy," Rowe said. "And you won’t get better results with nuclear. It just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame."

Nuclear power remains a favorite of the Obama Administration, particularly in the form of small and modular new reactors. But Rowe’s pessimism about nuclear power reinforces statements made by other nuclear experts since the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan.

However, Rowe did not touch upon the political vulnerability of nuclear power since the Fukushima accident. His argument was economic and, he added, paints a picture that Exelon itself does not savor.

Former ComEd CEO Tom Ayers built Exelon’s reactor fleet because, Rowe said, he thought they were best for the environment. But Ayers was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease by the time the reactors broke even on their initial cost. He died in 2007.

"I’m not fond of investments that don’t pay off before I’m incapable of comprehending it," said Rowe, who took over as chairman and CEO of Exelon in 2003.

Rowe also served on the president’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.