Henry Raymond

Fairfax News => Political Issues/Comments => Topic started by: proservative on January 24, 2009, 06:02:36 PM

Title: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: proservative on January 24, 2009, 06:02:36 PM

Please support decommissioning Vermont Yankee in  2012

Vermont Yankee is an old, obsolete and dangerous power plant and its electrical output is only 2% in the New England Power grid. This grid collects the electric current for New England and supplies Vermont and other states. There are several clean and safe sources to replace Vermont Yankee's production. However Vermont Yankee is very profitable and is owned by Entergy, a huge conglomerate in Mississippi. Entergy has not been shy to pay supporters and Governor Jim Douglas is their chief advocate in Vermont. Bottom line: Entergy gets the profit and Vermonters assume the risk of a catastrophic meltdown which could wipe out Vermont's population and habitability.Possible reasons for catastrophe: mechanical failure, operator error, earth quake, sabotage, terrorism. As the decades pass, the probability of such mishaps grows inexorably.
 
The Legislature is considering a bill to decommission VY in 2012 when its operating license expires.   I have not been able to get on the Town Meeting Day warning a note about the need to pass a town resolution supporting closure in 2012, but I plan to raise the issue under "Other Business" toward the end of the March 3, 2009 Town Meeting and will ask for a show of hands to see how many people are willing to oppose this unnecessary risk to our lives, health, and property.
 
If you would like more information, please e-mail me at peter28moss@yahoo.com or phone me at 849-2108 or write to me at Box 413, Fairfax 05454. We have all February to build support for decommissioning and closure in 2012 by the Vermont Legislature. Many towns are circulating petitions for this purpose. Thank you.

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 25, 2009, 04:11:22 PM

There is a "Kill Vermont Yankee!!!" group on Facebook,  if you're trying to reach people who might be interested in shutting the ol' POS down! 
Suzy Kneeland

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: cedarman on January 26, 2009, 02:30:33 PM

Until I see more towns and more Vermonters support and embrace new "clean" technologies that everyone talks about, I will NOT be amung the doomers and gloomers who advocate for shutting down VT Yankee.   Nuclear power is still one of the cleanest, most reliable power sources we have available to us.   Personally, I perfer windmills, but until all of the "green" hypocrits in vermont STOP STANDING IN THE WAY OF TRUELY GREEN ENERGY, nuclear power is still our best (cleanest, cost effective and most reliable) form of energy.   
Any plug into the grid to recharge electric cars are not really benefiting the global environment that much when the CO emmissions from coal plants is calculated into their total carbon footbring  (Man, I hate that buzz word).

ANYWAY, VT Yankee and nuclear generated electricity are not the evil monsters that many antagonist try to convince the uneducated they are.

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 12:24:33 AM

I like how the DOE wanted to build a plutonium incinerator at the Idaho National Laboratory where radioactive waste is already in the Snake River Aquifer.  Luckily we used their own words against them to stop it!  How would you like to be downwind of that?  No thank you!  Apparently I'm not the only one who thought so, since we stopped British Nuclear Fuels from continuing their efforts to pollute the world.  Apparently the lobsters near Sellafield, UK are radioactive from the contamination they've polluted the ocean with.  I urge everyone to learn all they can about our nation's nuclear past.  The Snake River Alliance of Idaho has some great photos of what we've done with our nuclear waste on their web site.  It's pretty darn scary!

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 12:49:41 AM

How is nuclear energy clean?  It is not clean.  It creates the biggest messes on earth, that will last long into the future.
For some more interesting reading on our country's history of dealing with radioactive waste I would recommend Len Ackland's book:  Making a Real Killing
Or the work of Chuck Broscious of Moscow, Idaho:  A Citizen's Guide to INL
There is a reason the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC now known as the DOE) moved the Nuclear Reactor Test Site (now called the Idaho National Laboratory) from it's location near Chicago out into the middle of nowhere in Idaho.  (It's the size of Rhode Island, by the way).  They did it to move it farther away from people because it's dangerous stuff that will mess you up!  It may seem like it's clean energy to you, but where do you think all that waste is going?  It's also unhealthy to live near low level radiation. 
I also encourage people to read the World Survey of Government Statements on BNFL's Sellafield Plutonium Site.  Or, The New York Times article from April 20, 2000 on the front page of the Business Section titled:  A Mass of Nuclear Friction:  Tension and Mistrust at New High for British Complex (regarding Sellafield)
Then there's the March 5, 2000 article from the London Observer regarding seizure of unsafe batches of uranium fuel that would be unsafe to be used as nuclear fuel because of welding cracks in the assemblies.  They were going to be dispatched to two reactors run by privatized nuclear generator British Energy. 
Interestingly enough, the plutonium incinerator planned for INL was going to be built by British Nuclear Fuels...hmmmm...in Idaho!
Then there's the 56 ton door meant to protect workers from radiation at Sellafield that was left hanging from a single hinge. 
The falsified safety reports...it just goes on and on. 
I could probably type more and more examples regarding the "safety" of nuclear energy, transuranic waste, MOX fuel...I just don't have enough time in the day.  But I encourage everyone to learn more.  You will be amazed and astounded what kind of pollution we can create and release into our oceans, aquifers, and bloodstreams!

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 12:52:58 AM

Here's the link to the Snake River Alliance's web site:

http://www.snakeriveralliance.org/

They are awesome people who care about the future of our planet!

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: special ED on January 27, 2009, 06:27:22 AM

AS MUCH AS i hate to admit it she is right ,,,,but let us build wind mills on the mountain

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 07:40:34 AM

I don't hate to admit that I agree with Special Ed...it does suck that I'm right about this.    I've just spent years researching this crap.  Like Arjun Mahkajani says, "I'd rather be reading poetry."  But sometimes it's important to learn about the Center for Disease Control incinerating thousands of boxes of documents regarding the health and safety of people living near nuclear reactors. 

Here's a nice link to a description of radioactive waste, and what we plan to do with it:   ('cause that part hasn't actually been figured out yet)

http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm643.pdf

Also, check out www.nirs.org (Nuclear Information Resource in Washington DC)  They are an awesome resource for learning more about the Nuclear Industry.  Arjun has an "Ask an Egghead" column he does for their newsletter if you have any questions. 

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: cedarman on January 27, 2009, 08:09:39 AM

I think if half of the efforts spent AGAINST nuclear energy and other types of energy were spent SUPPORTING windmills, and shutting up all of the "Save the view" hypocrits, we might actually have clean wind or hydro electricity.   Or maybe we can just all go off grid and live like a 1/3 of the world without electricity at all.

Suzy, from your wealth of knowledge, please provide some examples of nuclear accidents/incidents in the US in the last 30 years.  I've found references to 2, including 3 Mile island in '79, which while stories and images conjured up by the incident scare the hell out of ppl, from my understanding, the highest radiation exposures incurred as a result of that incident were no higher than the annual radiation each of us receives from natural sources.  The reality is, there are more people injured and killed every year supply us with petroleum products.  IF you believe that our use of carbon fuels is the cause of global warming, than use of such products can in theory impact our planet for as long or longer than nuclear waste.

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 09:07:47 AM

 
OKay,
This is just some of what I know about the Idaho National Laboratory's accidents and safety record.  (alone...without even getting into problems in Tennesee)  The full version of the Citizen's Guide to INL can be found from the Environmental Defense Institute's web site.  Much information regarding safety, and emissions is kept secret for Homeland Security reasons, so often it takes great efforts to get this information through the Freedom of Information Act.  Google "Citizen's Guide to INL," and sign up for their newsletters. 

I also recommend ieer.org for more information as well.  I really don't have all day to go look for and document all this stuff.  It can take a lifetime, so I urge you to get out there and learn this for yourself.  I have file cabinets full of this stuff and I have to get to work!

From The Citizen's Guide to INEEL (They did change the name back to INL, costing thousands of dollars...just to change the name)  They even made a monopoly game about INL so that people could learn the history of INL, and in their own words, "there aren't a lot of people left who know the history of INL)  I have met two different men who have serious cases of rare cancer who worked at INL.  (The monopoly game they made was dedicated to an INL worker who had died of brain cancer.)

I.- B.  INEEL Accident History
 
 INEEL has had forty two reactor meltdowns in its history of operations.  Sixteen of these
meltdowns were accidents. The remaining twenty six were experimental/intentional meltdowns to test
reactor design parameters, fuel design, and radiation releases.  These nuclear experiments were conducted
with little regard to the radiation exposure to workers and surrounding residents. Below is a partial listing
of the more notable meltdowns and criticality releases. See Appendix (A) for a listing of acknowledged
melt-downs, accidents, and experimental radioactive releases.  The term accidental, used by DOE, is
perhaps not an appropriate term any more than when the term is applied to a hot-rodder who
"accidentally" crashes his car while speeding at 100 miles per hour down a road designed for 30 mph. 
Hot-rodding a nuclear reactor just to see what it will take is no accident and no less irresponsible. 
 According to Boyd Norton, manager of the SPERT tests in the early 1960s notes, "These reactors
are, essentially, stripped-down hot-rodders; they had no radiation shielding and no elaborate safety
systems.  Sitting as they were, in the middle of more than nine hundred square miles of desert, there
wasn't much concern over such things.  Not back then." [ Norton]
 An ICPP criticality accident on October 16, 1959 required evacuation of the facility.  "Outside the
building and for 130 yards west to the area entrance the radiation field was 5 R/hr or greater." [IDO-10035 @ 4] 
Thankfully, it was a night shift and less than 10% of the normal work-force was on the site.  Twenty-one
workers were considered at immediate risk from exposure.  Film badge dosimetry and calculations on
internal radiation exposure found the highest skin exposure was 50 rem and the highest penetrating
exposure was 8 rem. Highest internal dose was 29 mrem. [IDO-10035 @ 5 & 38]    This accident followed a Rala
run the previous day. [see I(D)(1)] Over the course of the accident 337,717 Ci of long-lived fission product was
released to the atmosphere. [DOE/ID-12119@A-99]
 “The accident at the Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One (SL-1) occurred on January 3,
1961.  Located in the Auxiliary Reactor Area, SL-1 was a small compact Army nuclear power plant
designed to generate electricity at remote military locations such as the Arctic or Antarctic.  The reactor
served both as an experimental prototype and as a training facility for military personnel.  On the bitterly
cold afternoon of January 3rd, three Army technicians arrived at the facility for the four to midnight shift. 
The SL-1 reactor had been shut down for routine maintenance, and the task of the three men that evening
was to complete certain preparations for nuclear startup.  Apparently, in the process of attaching control
rods to drive motors, one of the men raised the central control rod too far and too fast.  Evidence indicates
that the rod might have stuck momentarily.  In the past, there had been sticking problems with that rod. 
When it came unstuck, it moved upward much higher than anticipated and triggered a supercritical power
excursion in the reactor core.  In a fraction of a second the power reached a magnitude of an estimated
several billion watts, melting and perhaps even vaporizing a large part of the core.  The water in the core
region was vaporized, creating a devastating steam explosion.  The remaining water in the reactor vessel
was hurled upward at high velocity, striking the underside of the reactor’s pressure lid and lifting the
whole nine-ton vessel upward, shearing cooling pipes in the process.  The three men, who had been
Page 20
 
standing atop the reactor vessel, were crushed against the ceiling of the building before the huge vessel
dropped back into place.  One of the men remained impaled on the ceiling by a piece of control rod
rammed through his groin.  It all happened in a second or so.” [Norton]
 “It [SL-1]was a terrible accident, made even more grisly because the intensely radioactive fission
products scattered inside the building by the accident hampered the work of recovering the bodies. 
Staying in the building for mere seconds resulted in a year’s allowable dose of radiation for rescue
workers.  And it took six days to remove the body that was impaled on the ceiling by use of a remotely
operated crane and a closed circuit television.  The bodies were so badly contaminated, the heads and
hands of the victims had to be severed and buried with other radioactive wastes at the Radioactive Waste
Management Complex.” [Norton] The Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Union protested vigorously that the
government refused to provide a proper Christian burial for the workers.
 The SL-1 reactor explosion not only resulted in three deaths but also serious exposure of 0.1-0.5
roentgens [rem] to nearly 100 personnel.  Over 12 workers received exposure greater than 10 roentgens
[rem]. [IDO-19301@138] The maximum acknowledged personnel exposure was 1,000 R/hr (Rad per hour). [ERDA-
1536,p.II-243]  The exposed reactor was still emitting 22,000 R/hr five months after the accident.  Readings
above the reactor one month after the accident were 410 R/hr. [IDO-19301,p.109] 1,128 Ci including 80 Curies of
radioactive Iodine were also released during the SL-1 accident. [ERDA-1536,p.II-243] [DOE/ID-12119@A-53]  A
temperature inversion kept the radiation plume close to the ground and at 25 miles the radioactive iodine
levels were 10 times above background.  At 100 miles the radiation levels were above background.
 The author interviewed the widow of James Dennis who was a member of the SL-1 involuntary
Army demolition crew brought in to dismantle the reactor after the accident.  Dennis died of a rare blood
cancer called Waldenstrom's micro globulin anemia, which his medical documents confirm, was caused
by exposure to 50 rem/hr for nine hours and ten minutes at the SL-1 site. [Dennis ,p.10]  Dennis' documents
further challenge the government's acknowledged exposure of whole body - 2135 mrem, and skin - 3845
mrem [Dennis citing AEC/SL-1,CAB] as grossly understated.  Dr. Charles Miller M.C., hematologist / oncologist,
chief of Medical Services at Letterman Army Medical Center and Dennis' internal physician, supports the
allegation that Dennis' cancer was caused by exposure to radiation. [Dennis, p.17] The government refused to
grant Dennis any compensation for his radiation exposure injuries that caused his early death.  John
Horan, an INEEL health physics technician, was an expert witness brought in by the Atomic Energy
Commission to refute Dennis’ claims to radiation induced injuries.    Dennis is only one of thousands of
individuals who are victims of the health effects of radiation exposure caused by radioactive releases from
DOE facilities.
 Another ICPP criticality accident on January 25, 1961 released 5,200 Ci [ERDA-1536 @ C-5] and
required full evacuation of the plant.  Two hundred fifty one workers were on-site at the time.  The
highest exposure as determined from film badge readings did not exceed 55 mrem of penetrating
radiation. The maximum thermal neutron exposure detected in the 65 badges analyzed was less than 10
mrem.  Excessive cesium-138 was detected at the Central Facilities Area three miles south of the ICPP
after the accident. [IDO-10036@5&6]   "Highest personnel exposure received for the four-week period of January
20 through February 16, 1961 by any Phillips' employee in the ICPP at the time of the incident was 240
mrem gamma, 310 mrem beta." [Ibid.@37]  Considerable uncertainty exists in relying on the badge reading
due to variability in isotope exposure, and the distance the badge is from the worker's hands.  More often
than not, the badges are considerable understatements of exposure.


 
 
 

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Loctavious on January 27, 2009, 10:26:39 AM

I must agree that before you state things you must preface your comments with a context.  However, in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM is Nuclear energy clean.  I think that poster was touching on what another is trying to convey - that we hear far less about nulcear waste these days then we do about global warming, C02, and benzene in terms of pollution and bad for the environment stuff. 
Sure, we can safely "STORE" nuclear waste - but talking about a long term investment - this stuff has over 1000 year self life.  it'll be just as toxic in year 2500 as it is today.  if we keep using Nuclear for even another 100 years- where do you think all that waste is going to be stored?  With what we can expect from Mother Nature - how long do you think we can go without another catastrophe?  It's a matter of time.

WHAT WAS accurate about Nuclear is that is probably the most abundent source of energy in the universe ( as it's all about atom-splitting) - probably more so than Hydrogen power.  The pollution from it CAN BE stored thus it's not going right int0 the air ( like fossil fuel plants and cars). 
STILL, this is another area where we Humans need to evolve - evolve into a more responsible being - no matter what the cost to us.  For in the end, all we're doing is killing the planet quicker and quicker. 
Scientists estimate that we have abotu 4.5 billion years before our sun dies.  When it does, part of the process entails it ballooning to as much as 25X it's original size.  this means all Terristrial Planets ( that is the inner planets) up to and including Earth, will be destroyed.  We'll be lucky at this rate, if humans live another millenia. 
Well, at least there will be some nice quiet time on the planet before it all goes BOOM!

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: cedarman on January 27, 2009, 02:51:37 PM

I thought I asked in my previous post about accidents in the past 30 years.  From what I read of the stories posted (typical worst case horror stories used to scare the un-educated) were from the 1950's and 60's.  It sounds like they were "experimental" reactors with few safety precautions in place.
I don't believe nuclear generated electricity in it's current form is the the best method of electrical generation.  We would have very little radioactive waste if our new president would lift Mr. Carter's '77 ban on breeder reactors which are far more efficient than current reactor designs.  I envy the windmill farms in Ellenburg, NY every time I drive through there.  I wish they were far more prevalent.  But the reality is, Nuclear generated energy is the most efficient, most reliable, lowest emmission (lowest global impact) form of energy production we have available today - especially when it is produced with the level of scrutiny and control that the US government is known for piling on.  I think the only other industry that is regulated as closely as Nuclear plants is pharmaceuticals.

Until there is a more reliable, cleaner method of energy production, shutting down Yankee is not a viable option for VT.

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 02:53:59 PM

So, do you work for the nuclear industry?

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 03:03:08 PM

I see, you don't work for VT Yankee.  You sure do talk like you do. 

Did you check out any of the references I gave you?  Snake River Alliance?  IEER?  They have a larger "wealth of knowledge," than I do. 

Have you talked to any people who have lived near 3 Mile Island?  Oak Ridge, TN?  I remember hearing three young men speak here in Wyoming telling us about their lives when they lived next door to 3 Mile Island and all three of their moms ended up with rare forms of cancer.  I have met nuclear engineers whose lives have been decimated by cancer.  There are high rates of rare forms of cancer in Rexburg, ID right next to INL.  The argument that "we didn't know then what we know now," doesn't hold up for me.  We still don't know all there is to know about nuclear energy's dangers, and the dangerous waste produced.  There is a breeder reactor at INL and they want to start up an outdated 40 year old reactor over there now that has been closed down already. 

There are problems with VT Yankee too, I've heard recently in the news.  You won't convince me that creating the worst, most toxic waste on the planet is safe.  Especially when there is no plan for the waste generated.  Nobody wants it, or wants to deal with it.  That's one of the major problems with nuclear power.  It is NOT clean energy!

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 03:09:40 PM

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For further information:   
Arjun Makhijani (301) 270-5500 or (301) 509-6843
 
N E W S   R E L E A S E
for use after 11am EST Wednesday, January 7, 2009 teleconference
To receive the call-in number and code, contact IEER 301-270-5500, ieer@ieer.org
 
NEW REPORT: U.S. RADIATION PROTECTION REGULATIONS 
HEAVILY RELY ON “REFERENCE MAN,” WHITE, MALE, ADULT STANDARD
But Women and Children Often Get Higher Doses and Are at Greater Cancer Risk
 
 EPA tells Sen. Obama and Chairman Waxman it “does not believe in continued
use of Reference Man” but has made no regulatory changes
   
 
Takoma Park, Md., January 7, 2009: A major new study released today shows that U.S. radiation
exposure regulations and compliance assessment guidelines often fail women and children
because they are based on “Reference Man,” a hypothetical 20 to 30 year old “Caucasian male”. 
 
At least three federal agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Department of Energy (DOE) -- still use Reference Man in
radiation dose regulations and compliance assessment, including the Clean Air Act and some
safe drinking water rules, despite evidence that it fails to adequately protect many groups. 
 
“The use of Reference Man standard is pervasive in U.S. radiation protection regulations and
compliance guidelines,” said Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., author of the report and president of the
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). “This is wrong because it often fails to
adequately protect groups other than young, adult white males. Children, for instance, frequently
get larger, and hence more dangerous, doses of radiation from the same environmental
conditions.  Moreover they often have a higher risk of cancer per unit of dose.  In such cases,
they suffer a double whammy – greater dose and greater risk per unit of dose.  Reference Man
needs to be replaced with a framework that better protects all members of the public.”
 
Dr Makhijani noted that women are 52 percent more likely to get cancer from the same amount
of radiation dose compared to men. Children are at even greater risk than adults. A female infant
has about a seven times greater chance of getting cancer than a 30-year old male for the same
radiation exposure. Pregnant women and the developing fetus are particularly vulnerable to
radiation exposure. Yet, non-cancer reproductive effects are generally not part of the U.S.
regulatory framework for radiation protection.
 
In May 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama and House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman sent a letter to the EPA asking about the agency’s use of
“Reference Man.” In its response, EPA stated that it “does not believe in the continued use of
Reference Man,” but admitted that it is still being used in some guidelines.  Bit it also made the
sweeping statement that “current standards and guidance are protective.”   
 
"This is not a hypothetical problem -- it affects real people," said Cynthia Sauer, who lived with
her husband and three young daughters near two nuclear power plants in Illinois. "I became
aware of and concerned about the use of Reference Man in radiation standards after my daughter
was diagnosed with brain cancer." Mrs. Sauer's 7-year old daughter was among other cancer-
stricken children in the area. 
 
"I started asking questions when I read about the leaks at the Dresden and Braidwood nuclear
power plants that released more than six million gallons of radioactive waste into our
groundwater," Mrs. Sauer said. "Government agencies could not answer my question as to what
levels were safe for a 7-year-old, 40-pound girl. The fact is, current standards are not protecting
the most vulnerable members of our society and this must be changed."
 
The report recommends that compliance with radiation protection always be estimated by
calculation doses for those most at risk and calls for a significant reduction in the maximum
allowable dose to the general public from 100 millirem per year to 25 millirem per year.  It also
recommends a revamping of EPA’s guidance documents to reflect doses received by males and
females of all ages.
 
“If the EPA truly ‘does not believe in continued use of Reference Man,’ as it said in its letter,
then it should carefully examine the continued use of this model and change the regulations and
compliance assessment guidance documents,” said Dr. Makhijani. “We hope that the incoming
Obama administration, with its commitment to health and environmental protection, will do so
with dispatch. The NRC and DOE also need to make significant changes.” 
 
Other recommendations of the report include tightening of radiation protection for women in
radiation workplaces who declare their pregnancies and the development and publication of
official federal guidance on in-utero dose estimation methods, including in the early stage of
pregnancy. 
 
The IEER report provides policy guidance for the incoming Obama Administration and
Congress. It is currently being considered by the Transition Team along with House leaders.
 
--30--
 
IEER’s “Reference Man” recommendations, the full report (46 pages) and the correspondence
between Senator Obama and Chairman Waxman and the Environmental Protection Agency
regarding Reference Man are available at www.ieer.org (the specific URL is
www.ieer.org/reports/referenceman.pdf).

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 27, 2009, 03:18:52 PM

 NIRS Energy Fact Sheet ---------------------
 
 
Reprocessing Is Not the “Solution” to the Nuclear
Waste Problem
 
The Radioactive Waste Burden
Splitting atoms to make electricity has created an
enormous problem: waste containing 95% of the
toxic radioactivity produced during the Atomic
Age. Nuclear weapons production, industrial
activity, research and medicine combined, create
only 5% of this problem.
 
Every nuclear power reactor annually generates
20-30 tons of high-level nuclear waste since the
irradiated fuel itself is the waste when removed
from the reactor core. Like fuel, the waste is a
solid ceramic pellet, stacked inside a thin metal
tube or ‘cladding.’ In addition to residual
uranium, the waste is about 1% plutonium that is
formed inside the fuel rods by the reactor. The
waste also contains about 5% highly radioactive
fission products like cesium, strontium and iodine,
making it millions of times more radioactive than
“fresh” uranium fuel. Unshielded, it delivers a
lethal dose in seconds and will remain a hazard
for at least 12,000 human generations.
 
No End in Site
High-level waste is piling up at reactor sites,
stored outside of containment in pools, and in
large dry containers called casks. A growing
security threat, storage has been repeatedly
approved to enable continued reactor operation,
and therefore continued nuclear waste production,
making risks greater. Now new reactors are being
proposed, even though there is no credible
solution for the approximately 120,000 tons of
waste the first generation of reactors will produce.
 
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has
devoted nearly 20 years to the development of a
high-level dump at Yucca Mountain, a
geologically unstable, sacred site of the Western
Shoshone people in Nevada. The State of Nevada
and the Shoshone Nation have vigorously opposed
this dump. Growing evidence substantiates that
the Yucca site will fail in the fundamental goal of
a repository: to isolate radioactivity from our
environment. A second, industry-owned,
alternative for centralizing the waste on an Indian
Reservation in Utah let by a consortium called
Private Fuel Storage (PFS) meeting enduring
opposition from that state. Both Yucca and PFS
would trigger a “Mobile Chernobyl”–the largest
nuclear waste shipping campaign in history–with
so many transport miles that accidents are
inevitable and security is an oxymoron.
 
Disregarding Hard-Won Wisdom
The Bush / Cheney administration and its
congressional allies are intent on reversing over
30 years of extraordinarily rare common sense in
nuclear policy. In the 1970s it was decided that
irradiated fuel and the plutonium it contains,
should be treated as waste–not as a resource. This
was in part due to the catastrophic failure after
only one year of operations at West Valley, New
York–the only commercial reprocessing site to
operate in the U.S. West Valley’s reprocessing
mess is still not cleaned up – and the projected
cost is over $5 billion.
 
Every reprocessing site (France, UK, Russia, and
soon Japan have the largest sites) is an
environmental catastrophe, with massive releases
of radioactivity to air, land and water; high worker
radiation exposures; and residues that are harder
to handle than the terrible waste it begins with.
Reprocessing creates stockpiles of nuclear
weapons-usable plutonium, and is unviable
without large taxpayer subsidies. President Carter
banned reprocessing as a nuclear non-proliferation
measure; while Reagan lifted the ban, no
commercial interest has pursued this expensive
boondoggle, since it is not a profitable enterprise.
Our current president apparently intends for
taxpayers to pay for the relapse to reprocessing.
 
At the end of 2005, Congress awarded $50 million
to the U.S. Department of Energy with
instructions to make a new waste-reprocessing
plan. DOE is directed to use one of its sites–in
2006 it instructed to hold a “competition” and the
“winner,” to be announced in 2007, will get the
--------------------- NIRS Energy Fact Sheet ---------------------
 
new reprocessing site. Congress specified (another
promise?) that the site should be opened by 2010.
 
Reprocessing Destabilizes Waste --
The fuel rods are taken out of the assemblies,
chopped up and then dissolved in nitric acid. The
resulting highly radioactive and caustic stew is
then processed to remove the plutonium and the
uranium, leaving the highly radioactive fission
products in the liquid. While there are methods to
attempt to re-stabilize this material, there has been
a fundamental loss in the stability of the dry
ceramic pellet in the metal clad fuel rod.
 
Completely False Claims
1. Reprocessing is NOT recycling. The
formation of fission products in the fuel rods
makes high-level waste fundamentally
different from the uranium it came from. It is
not possible to remake the original fuel again
from high-level waste – thus it is not a cycle.
 
2. Reprocessing does not reduce radioactivity.
No credible expert says reprocessing reduces
total radioactivity; some less informed sources
imply this. Reprocessing does change not the
amount of radioactivity – except to smear it
around a large surface area, thereby diluting it
without any actual reduction of radioactivity.
 
3. Reprocessing does not reduce waste
volume; to the contrary, fuel pellet volume is
magnified by a factor of 100–100,000. The
resulting “dilution” allows the reclassification
from “high-level,” to the so-called “low-
level” waste category, which is still deadly.
 
The “Midas-Touch” in Reverse
The King Midas story of childhood teaches about
the hazard of greed. Radioactive waste
contaminates everything it comes in contact with--
but instead of turning it all to gold, everything it
comes in contact with is turned to expensive,
dangerous radioactive waste!
 
Kicking the Can... 
A stated goal of reprocessing is to use plutonium
for reactor fuel. The most common form is MOX
(short for ‘mixed oxide’), made from plutonium
and uranium 238 (depleted uranium). While
today’s reactors can use MOX fuel, it is both
riskier and more hazardous: MOX is harder to
control, and twice as deadly as uranium fuel if
control is lost.  MOX does not “solve” the waste
problem since reprocessing MOX fuel is even
harder than reprocessing uranium fuel, and not
widely done. Princeton’s Dr. Frank Von Hippel
likens MOX use to “kicking the can down the
road”–not dealing with the waste problem at all.
 
Plutonium Destabilizes Our World
High-level nuclear waste contains so much lethal
radioactivity that the plutonium inside the waste
fuel rods is effectively safeguarded. Separating
out the plutonium makes it available for weapons
use. For the United States to reverse more than 30
years of policy against recovering civil plutonium
also reverses the moral authority with which the
U.S. calls on other nations to refrain from this
activity. North Korea and Iran are the most recent
examples of countries ready to join the “nuclear
weapons club.” Reprocessing is a direct
contradiction to US reprimands of these nations
for nuclear proliferation. The clear intention of the
Bush / Cheney team to return to full-scale
production of new nuclear weapons adds to this
atomic hypocrisy.
 
Far from putting the atomic genie back in the
bottle, reprocessing creates millions of gallons of
highly radioactive, caustic, destabilized high-level
waste that history shows will leak; be evaporated;
residues put into glass that may, or may not retain
the radioactivity for even a generation; and now,
under a new policy, be left forevermore on the
reprocessing site, mixed only with grout in a thin
effort to keep it from contaminating soil, water,
food and our bodies. This is NO SOLUTION. 
--Mary Olson, January 2006
 
Nuclear Information
and Resource
Service 
1424 16th St. NW   # 404 
Washington, DC  20036 
202-328-0002
www.nirs.org 
 
NIRS Southeast Office 
PO Box 7586 Asheville, NC  28802
828-675-1792 nirs@main.nc.us 

Title: Re: Decommission Vermont Yankee in 2012
Post by: Suzy on January 28, 2009, 08:09:01 AM

January 27, 2009

Dear Friends:

Thank you to everyone who called the Environmental Protection Agency last week asking the agency not to publish dangerously deficient Protective Action Guides (PAGs) written by the Bush Administration. As we noted then, these guides would permit radioactivity in drinking water hundreds to millions of times higher than longstanding EPA standards.

We're happy to tell you that your calls worked! Here is the first part of an article from this morning's Inside EPA trade journal:

"The Obama EPA will review a controversial draft guide for responding to nuclear emergencies -- which the Bush administration approved in its waning hours despite strong activist outcry -- prior to publishing the document for public review and comment in the Federal Register, an agency spokeswoman says.

"The decision to review the document, signed as a draft Federal Register notice by former Bush EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock Jan. 15, is a victory for environmentalists who recently urged the Obama EPA to halt the notice's publication. Activists, some EPA staffers and state regulators argue the guide could lead to dramatically weakened public protections.

"However, an activist cautions that the new administration could still ultimately decide to move forward with the guidance as written after it completes its review.

"The EPA spokeswoman says the Obama administration wants to review the scientific basis for the document, known as the draft Protective Action Guidance for Radiological Incidents, "before proceeding with a broad notice of availability and public comment on the draft." The spokeswoman says the guide is "an important science-based guideline that addresses safe levels for radiation exposure" and that "new team at EPA wishes to review the scientific basis" of the document."

Lisa Jackson has now been confirmed as EPA Administrator by the Senate and is in her job. We encourage you to call her office at 202-564-470, thank her for temporarily suspending the radiation PAGs pending review, and urge her to permanently block them until the outrageous parts put in by the departing Administration are removed:  in particular, the astronomical increases in radioactivity permitted in drinking water compared to Safe Drinking Water Act levels, and the shockingly high radiation levels permitted for long-term cleanup.

*The January 21 White House Call-In Day, which was suspended because the White House phones weren't working, has not been rescheduled. However, watch soon for Alerts from NIRS on a campaign to e-mail your legislators on nuclear loan guarantees (it looks like the industry wants Congress to pass $100 BILLION in new loan guarantees!), and on a National Lobby Day in Washington on February 27 (just before the start of the huge Power Shift conference in DC) to stop nuclear subsidies and support clean, safe, sustainable energy.

*Finally, please help us continue and expand this type of outreach and activity. We know it works! Please make a small, tax-deductible donation to NIRS and support our work for a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future. You can do so here. Just imagine: if each of you receiving this e-mail donated just the equivalent of a cup or so of coffee a month--just $5--we could hire 2 new people and expand our outreach budget by 50%! That's the kind of huge difference your contributions can make!

Thanks for calling the EPA and thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

nirsnet@nirs.org

www.nirs.org