Uranium mine would produce tons of waste AltaVista Journal, Virginia, Hildred C. Shelton May 9 - "..................An expert in Canadian uranium mining, in discussing "stripping ratios" (waste rock to uranium ore) has stated "an underground mine generates one tonne of waste rock for every tonne of ore produced." He also stated "an open pit mine may generate 40 tonnes of waste rock for every tonne of ore," (The Canadian spelling of "ton" is "tonne.")...........................................................The Coles Hill mining site was described ....as covering 1,265 acres, with the mine pit on 135 acres, the mill on 25 acres, and the waste rock and tailings disposal area on 930 acres. So an estimate for waste rock should be easily calculated.

There are 2,000 pounds in a ton (U. S.) and 110 million pounds of uranium ore yields 55,000 tons of uranium, at 40 tons of waste rock for every ton of uranium. Therefore, the estimate is there will be 2,200,000 tons of waste rock. How much land does it take to hold about two and one-quarter million tons of waste rock?..........."

Is nuclear power the answer to the energy crisis? The Guardian, Ian Sample April 30 2008 - "………………….One of the biggest problems the nuclear industry faces is what to do with the radioactive waste it produces. Some of it will remain radioactive and hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.

High-level waste is the most dangerous because it can melt through containers and is so radioactive it would be fatal if someone was near it for a few days. This type of waste makes up just 0.3% of Britain's total volume of nuclear waste, which is mostly waste from spent fuel rods. The largest amounts of radioactive waste are made up of nuclear fuel cases reactor components and uranium ……………

……………Britain already has more than 100,000 tonnes of higher activity radioactive waste that needs to be stored. Large amounts of low-level waste are already stored in concrete vaults in Drigg in Cumbria...................................................... Other plans for disposing of nuclear waste have included dumping it at sea and blasting it into space......................................."

Doomed Chernobyl reactor to be buried in giant steel coffin Associated Press By MARIA DANILOVA 28 April 08 - "KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - Twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,

work is under way on a colossal new shelter to cover the ruins and deadly radioactive contents of the exploded Soviet-era power plant.

For years, the original iron and concrete shelter that was hastily constructed over the reactor has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse. The new one, an arch of steel, would be big enough to contain the Statue of Liberty...........

..........In the two months after the disaster, 31 people died of radioactivity, but the final toll is still debated. The U.N. health agency estimates that about 9,300 will eventually die from cancers caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Groups such as Greenpeace insist the toll could be 10 times higher...............

................... those directly affected by the disaster, accuse the government of playing up the new shelter at the expense of treating their health problems.

Scientists continue to debate the Novarka solution, with some saying the reactor should be dismantled or embedded in concrete. Others say the government should be more concerned about the contaminated land, ground water and equipment, and the spent nuclear fuel..

A hero?s meltdown
Hindustan Times Mahommad Shehzad 3 April 2007 - " For the gullible masses of Pakistan, A.Q. Khan, for the past 25-odd years, has been Mohsin-e-Pakistan (Pakistan's biggest benefactor), Father of the Nuclear Bomb, Hero of Islam, Angel among the Sinners, 'Alive-Martyr', etc. But for the liberals - a negligible minority - he has been a publicity hound, racketeer and scoundrel who was using Islam, the two-nation theory and permanent animus with India and Israel for personal gains through a clique of journalists on his payroll. …………………

…………………For environmentalists, Khan has been the source of huge pollution - not in the context of the Rawal Lake, but by dumping nuclear waste in the Arabian Sea.................................".

Cost of nuclear waste could kill off plans for a new fleet Greenpeace UK , Tracy, 27 March 08
"The government says the decision on building new nuclear reactors will be entirely up to the market and utility companies will have to pay their "full share" of decommissioning and waste management costs, but Gordon Brown is going to have to cook the books like a cordon bleu chef he if wants to attract new investment.
....................a government advisor is publishing a new cost analysis that suggests energy companies cannot be charged a fully commercial price for waste disposal without "killing the prospect" of a new generation of nuclear reactors. .................................The analysis by Ian Jackson, who has worked in the nuclear industry for over 20 years and is a former nuclear regulator, says that a "fully commercial price would make disposal far too expensive, killing the prospects of any new nuclear build programme in Britain".

That means that the government could not charge energy companies the rates already being paid by foreign utility companies storing waste at Sellafield - which, commercially speaking, they should be - without scuppering any plans for new nuclear reactors. The government would need to cap costs at six to 12 per cent of their actual commercial value to make it worth while for investors. ......................

Storing waste from the new reactors alongside waste from existing reactors in the £10 billion repository would add about another £500m to the cost. Ultimately taxpayers would end up having to subsidise new nuclear power stations contrary to the government's promises. If nuclear power had to stand on its own two feet in a truly liberalised energy market, there's no way anyone would be talking about building new reactors. ............"

53 million gallons in danger of leaking Seattle.pi.com 21 March 08 By LISA STIFFLER - "The wastes stored in underground tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation are so dangerous that their fumes give people headaches, nosebleeds and sore throats and make them nauseated.

An unfortunate few have been doused with the deadly stuff in accidents; one now is dying of cancer.

Called by state regulators 'the most toxic waste known to this environment,' the 53 million gallons of waste sit in 177 massive, buried tanks near the Columbia River. Intended for short-term use, some of the tanks are more than a half-century old. They were built of carbon steel -- an alloy prone to corrosion. They are cocooned in concrete that in places has cracked and crumbled. The contents historically boiled and exploded, and the tank bottoms buckled. More than one-third leaked.
.................................Some of the risks are catastrophic -- tanks so rotted that they collapse under the weight of pumps and other gear used to remove the waste, or shake apart in an earthquake............

.........Already about 1.2 million gallons of waste have leaked from the tanks. The waste hasn't reached the Columbia River, but it has seeped into pools of groundwater deep beneath the tanks. There is a lot of uncertainty as to when the polluted groundwater will reach the river -- estimates range from 30 to 200 years. ......................

'We could not tell you that there are no leaks happening today based on the monitoring they have,' said Jane Hedges, the nuclear waste manager for the state Ecology Department, which is responsible for making sure the cleanup is done right.........................................". .

Hanford waste slowly seeps our way The Daily Astorian March 18, 2008 It is much easier to make a mess than it is to clean it up. We're unlucky to have at our doorsteps one of the great all-time examples of this in the form of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near the Columbia River in southeastern Washington state.

Hanford has 177 steel underground storage tanks - 67 of them leaking - which contain a potently toxic concoction of radioactive heavy metals and other waste products from the nation's decades of super-secret atomic weapons research. Unlined landfills, ponds, drainfields and ditches at the site contain vast additional quantities of awful stuff, any single barrel of which would result in a code red terrorism alert if it was dumped in downtown Washington, D.C.

DOE Idea: Going Private With Nuke Waste
Associated Press By ERICA WERNER 14 March 08
WASHINGTON (AP) - "Energy Department officials trying to promote nuclear power are suggesting that private industry assume some responsibility for the country's nuclear waste.
Edward F. "Ward" Sproat said Thursday that the idea could ensure more stable management and financial support for the long-delayed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump project in Nevada that he manages.

..............................................Meanwhile, liability to taxpayers is surpassing $7 billion because the department contracted with utilities to take possession of their nuclear waste beginning in 1998.

The idea of a public-private partnership to manage Yucca Mountain and other elements of spent fuel disposal has support from the nuclear industry and is garnering some interest on Capitol Hill. But the change would require legislation that also would have to deal with the liability to utilities and dedicating money from a special nuclear waste fund paid into by utilities, according to Sproat. No one thinks that could come about anytime soon........................................................"

100 Years of Waste
Jackson FREE PRESS by Greg Williamson
March 12, 2008 - "…………………..Entergy wants to reduce its investment risk. Despite the tremendous demand for electricity in the United States, a nuclear power plant is a dicey investment.

That is why so few plants have been built in the last 20 years. Part of the danger is public aversion to nuclear power, which can slow the building process. Another serious financial hazard is the significantly long-term commitment of waste, which the plant typically stores on-site indefinitely. To add to the problem, at the end of a nuclear power plant's life, the nuclear reactor itself becomes waste and must either be dismantled and removed to a long-term storage facility or entombed in concrete. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency requires Entergy or any nuclear utility to set aside at least another $300 million for that eventuality and allows up to 60 years to complete the task.

But where does the waste go, and how will it get there? The United States built a long-term repository for high-level radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain, Nev., but the good people of Nevada don't want it, and who can blame them? It is also a bit of a logistical and public relations nightmare to transport the waste. How are we going to move tons of high-level nuclear waste through the country? Secretly?

Yes, probably, if at all, because of the threat of terrorism and public protest from people who will not want it going through their town.

Nuclear Waste for Sale Environmental Graffitti March 10, 2008 - "You know you have a problem when you have to start selling off your nuclear assets to pay the cleanup costs for your nuclear assets, all while acquiring new nuclear assets.

It may seem odd, but that's just what the British government is doing. Thursday night, assets from Britain's nuclear power stations were made available to the private sector in an effort to raise £72 billion ($144 billion) for nuclear waste cleanup costs....

. Just like every other environmental project undertaken by the British government the cleanup of these sites is behind schedule and over budget, to the tune of £300 million ($600 million) for 2006 alone.
What's an enterprising government to do? Sell off the nuclear processing plants that caused the problems to begin with of course!

According to The Ecologist: 'The sale could include fuel reprocessing plants such as Thorp and the Sellafield Mox Plant - as well as the fuel manufacturing facility at Springfields in Lancashire.

Thorp suffered an accident three years ago and has been largely out of action since. Malcolm Wicks, energy minister, recently admitted that the Sellafield Mox plant has produced barely five tonnes of fuel since 2002.'

I'm sure private investors will be lining up to buy the Sellafield Mox plant, which Wicks recently admitted was a 'total failure'.

So what, you may ask, is the government planning to do once these old plants are cleaned up? Build brand new ones, obviously

At the same time that John Hutton, UK secretary of state for finance, announced the government's intention to dump its stake in nuclear provider British Energy, he also committed to building many more nuclear power plants.........

........................If there's one thing I've learned, it's that governments are frequently stupid.................

Nuclear fuel reprocessing. A cure that's worse than the disease? Nuclear power's future: Reprocessing returns? The Why Files 28 Feb 08 - "………………….we see little cause for optimism about a second key source of the nuclear willies -- safe disposal of the intensely radioactive spent fuel that must be removed from reactors. The giant, federal nuclear-waste warehouse at Yucca Mountain, Nev. was supposed to solve the spent-fuel problem. But Yucca was scheduled to open 10 years ago, and it is unlikely to open for another 10 years -- if ever. With Yucca in limbo (some scientists say it cannot contain radwaste for 1 million years), the high-level waste problem remains unsolved. ……………

The goal at Yucca is to safely store 70,000 tons of radwaste for 1 million years. Over those 10,000 centuries, the radioactive isotopes will gradually cool and be converted into stable, non-radioactive isotopes…………………..in the meantime, spent fuel will continue stacking up at reactors across the country, making a splendid target for terrorists eager to release a deadly cloud of radiation or even trigger a nuclear meltdown. …………………………
Rejecting reprocessing , Alvarez, who was a senior policy advisor in the DOE from 1993 to 1999, says GNEP is unlikely to survive scrutiny. "All this was flying around at the level of magical thinking, because no-one has taken a hard look" at the implications.

For example, GNEP proposed to remove the fission products strontium and cesium from the spent fuel, Alvarez says. "No one has done this before, the amount of radioactivity is breathtaking; it's billions of curies. This is fantastically hot." (One curie of radioactive material emits the same radiation as one gram of radium 226: 37 billion radioactive disintegrations per second.)
This waste would need to be stored above ground for 100 years, before being diluted and placed in underground storage.Even if, as GNEP plans, only 1 percent of elements heavier than uranium (including plutonium, americium and curium) end up in the waste, Alvarez sees danger. "That turns out to be many times more curies than was generated by the nuclear arms race."

Overall, GNEP seems rather helter-skelter, Alvarez charges. "These guys did not have any kind of plan, no estimate of the waste volume, concentration, how to manage it, dispose of it, and how much it is all going to cost." ……………….during reprocessing, plutonium is separated from spent fuel, and it can then become a primary fuel for nuclear weapons. ………………………..Recycling builds up a waste stream containing short-lived (and intensely radioactive) isotopes like strontium 90 and cesium 137, while making electricity from the long-lived isotopes of plutonium and other transuranics, Corradini adds. "My message is that you always have to bury something... There is no magic bullet. Eventually you will have a radioactive substance which has various times in which it decays, and you will have to put it in geological isolation."

The Problem Of Atomic Waste Dealing with the long lived reactor-produced radioactive wastes MOTHER EARTH NEWS .by ANNE AND PAUL EHRLICH 22 Feb 08 - "……………………..What can be done with the remaining long-lived wastes . . . those that will continue to be deadly for 1,000 to 500,000 years? In theory, these reactor by-products can be shipped to a 'reprocessing plant' . If the wastes have been held at the power plant for 150 days, they will only contain about three percent of the radioactivity that they had when they were removed from the reactor. But, though this figure may sound small, these elements are still emitting an abundance of lethal radiation.

Furthermore, the heat generated by continuing radioactive decay is so intense that the used fuel rods would melt if they weren't constantly cooled during shipment. Therefore, any shipment must take place in heavily shielded, cooled casks which can weigh from 35 to 100 metric tons ... depending upon whether they're to be shipped by road or rail.

…………………………….What happens then? Well, first of all, the fuel rods are chopped up by automated equipment and dissolved in acid so that the various elements can be separated chemically. Now unfortunately, current reprocessing-plant design allows some gaseous radioactive isotopes to be routinely released from the plants into the atmosphere. In fact, it is here that the largest routine releases designed into the nuclear fuel cycle occur, and these add a small fraction of natural radiation to the burden of ionizing radiation that humanity must already bear.

But all is not pure waste.Plutonium 239 and uranium 25-both fissile and thus usable as reactor fuel-can be recovered at the reprocessing plant and shipped back to be recycled through the power plant. The rest of the high-level wastes become concentrated into a highly radioactive liquid ... about 10,000 gallons of it per power reactor per year.

You will note that we said above that "in theory" this reprocessing could occur. But there are, at present, no reprocessing plants in service in the United States! One such installation (a small capacity plant owned by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) did operate from 1966 until 1971, when it was shut down for repairs and expansion……………

………In many ways, this so-called "back end" of the nuclear fuel cycle is actually the soft underbelly of the whole atomic power establishment. The shipment and especially, the reprocessing of spent fuel are hazardous and technically difficult enterprises. They must be accomplished almost entirely by automation, and the barriers

between the radioactive materials and the environment tend to be much thinner during these processes than at the power plants themselves...........

...........we don't even know if reprocessing plants can be designed with adequate safeguards against catastrophic accidents, tornadoes, earthquakes, and sabotage. In the meantime, spent fuel elements are constantly accumulated at power plant sites, while we wait for someone to solve the problems…….….…..What then would become of the millions of gallons of highly radioactive, long-lived liquid wastes that would be generated annually?

This particular question has vexed the nuclear establishment from the start............

.....……Like space disposal, another alternative-ocean disposal- presents known hazards, because a great deal of low-level radioactive waste-encapsulated in steel drums-has already been dumped in the oceans close to our shores. The result? Many of the containers are now leaking ... and the degree to which radioactivity will be concentrated in oceanic food chains (thereby threatening humanity) is not yet known. ………................…………..People sense that our knowledge of geology makes it difficult to guarantee the integrity of burial sites for the requisite hundreds of thousands of years ... and they are rightly nervous about the possibility of accidents that may occur in the process of transport and burial. …………………….Finally, techniques must be devised to dispose of the highly radioactive remains of nuclear power plants when their 20- to 40-year service lives are over ... to say nothing of the carcasses of failed reprocessing plants...."

Deadly secrets underground Thestar.com By ANGELA CHARLTON 5 Feb 08 - "If the world embraces nuclear energy, where will the deadly waste go?
THOUSANDS of canisters of highly radioactive waste from the world's most nuclear-energised nation lie, silent and deadly, beneath a jutting tip of Normandy. Above ground at the site in Beaumont-Hague in France, cows graze and Atlantic waves crash into heather-covered hills.

The spent fuel, vitrified into blocks of black glass that will remain dangerous for thousands of years, is in 'interim storage.' Like nearly all the world's nuclear waste, it is still waiting for the long-term disposal solution that has eluded scientists and governments in the six decades since the atomic era began. ………………………………….recent talk of a nuclear renaissance has focused on the 'front end,' or reactor construction. Engineers are designing the next generation of reactors to be safer than today's -- and they're being billed as a solution to global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, blamed for heating the planet. Few people have been talking about the 'back end' - industry-speak for the hundreds of thousands of tons of waste that nuclear plants produce each year, and the lucrative, secretive business of storing it away. ………………Greenpeace and Norwegian environmental group Bellona say European nations have for years been illegally shipping radioactive waste to Russia and leaving it there. ……

The French fuel stays in Normandy indefinitely, while bulkier, lower-level nuclear waste is piling up in dumps worldwide........................................".

Solution for deadly nuke waste eludes science
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE REVIEW By The Associated Press January 27, 2008 BEAUMONT-HAGUE, France -- "Thousands of canisters of highly radioactive waste from the world's most nuclear-energized nation lie, silent and deadly, beneath this jutting tip of Normandy. Above ground, cows graze and Atlantic waves crash into heather-covered hills.

The spent fuel, vitrified into blocks of black glass that will remain dangerous for thousands of years, is in 'interim storage.' Like nearly all the world's nuclear waste, it is still waiting for the long-term disposal solution that has eluded scientists and governments in the six decades since the atomic era began.
………………………………….recent talk of a nuclear renaissance has focused on the 'front end' or reactor construction. Engineers are designing the next generation of reactors to be safer than today's -- and they're being billed as a solution to global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, blamed for heating the planet. Few people have been talking about the 'back end' industry-speak for the hundreds of thousands of tons of waste that nuclear plants produce each year, and the lucrative, secretive business of storing it away.
Waste 'is the main problem with this so-called nuclear rebirth,' said Mycle Schneider, an independent expert who co-authored a recent study for the European Parliament casting doubt on a global nuclear resurgence.

………………………………………Greenpeace and Norwegian environmental group Bellona say European nations have for years been illegally shipping radioactive waste to Russia and leaving it there. …………………….Areva makes $2.2 billion in revenues a year on treating and recycling waste. The plant at Beaumont-Hague takes in 22,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel a year, from France, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Australia. The foreign fuel by law must be returned to its owners once it has been reprocessed into a more stable form that -- through lack of alternatives -- is buried or held in storage.
The French fuel stays in Normandy indefinitely, while bulkier, lower-level nuclear waste is piling up in dumps worldwide......................"

Chernobyl "sarcophagus" to be renovated" MOSCOW. RIA Novosti Tatiana Sinitsyna 17 Jan 08 - "…………………..Tens of thousands of highly-professional clean-up workers, risking their lives, built a gigantic sarcophagus in an extremely short period of time - only six months.

But there are no engineering miracles. A gain in one respect, comes with a loss in another. The remote-control methods used due to the high radiation levels could not achieve the required tightness. The total area of cracks in the shelter reached almost a thousand square meters. Every year they let in up to 2,000 cubic meters of rain and melted snow.

The moisture has steadily found its way into the structures and can spread radioactive material or in a worst-case scenario produce a runaway nuclear reaction.
Radiation also prevented a reliable check on the actual strength of the structures chosen for support. All information was supplied by pictures taken from a helicopter.

GROWING NUCLEAR STOCKPILES REQUIRE NEW SECURITY MEASURES (THE STANLEY FOUNDATION)
UNITED NATIONS - / MaximsNews Network / - 31 October 2007 -- "Muscatine, Iowa - Today 2,000 metric tons of separated highly enriched uranium and plutonium stockpiled in civilian and military programs pose a significant proliferation risk. These stockpiles could grow if plans for an expansion in civilian nuclear energy materialize.

Since 2005, more than 20 countries that do not now have nuclear power have expressed interest in installing nuclear reactors. With more reactors, it is likely that additional uranium enrichment and possibly plutonium reprocessing plants would also be built. Current efforts to restrict the expansion of such sensitive technologies are competing with efforts to promote plutonium as an energy resource.
The systems that guard against state diversion of and terrorist access to sensitive materials that could be used in nuclear weapons are already under duress............................."

UK lumbered with foreign nuclear waste Just as the Government was mulling a new nuclear programme, an 800 ton problem emerges THE INDEPENDENT 17 June 2007 By Tim Webb "The UK is set to become home to some 800 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste after it emerged that the disaster-prone Thorp reprocessing plant may have to remain closed permanently. The Government has admitted that the spent nuclear fuel shipped in from overseas and currently stockpiled at Sellafield may have to remain in Britain.

The revelation is a major blow to the reputation of the nuclear industry at a time when the Government is mulling whether to approve the construction of a new generation of atomic plants.The admission came as the Department of Trade and Industry prepared the ground for the permanent closure of Thorp, its controversial nuclear reprocessing plant at the sprawling nuclear complex in Cumbria.The £1.6bn plant is now largely obsolete, as reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is no longer considered viable. It has been closed since April 2005 after a major radioactive leak was discovered.........."

New threat perceptions in storing nuclear waste - EARTH Times.org Fri, 12 Jan 2007 Author : Zipporah Koganowich "LONDON: Radioactive waste kept underground in preservative coatings can destroy the coating materials earlier than previously thought and can leak out endangering safety. Scientists at Cambridge University in the U.K. and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the U.S. have found that the synthetic material called zircon, which is used in preserving plutonium, cannot hold the material until it becomes safe.

The material can break down faster than thought earlier when exposed to radiation, the scientists found in their recent research. Zircon is a durable natural chemical and mixing nuclear waste with this material is a recommended method of storing the waste safely for thousands of years.. ........"

.