Tag: reactor

Studying Cancer Near Nuke Plants

  • The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.(Photo courtesy of the Rancho Seco Reactor)

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

Transcript

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

The federal agency that’s looking for an up-to-date cancer study is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC.

It’s asked the National Academy of Sciences to do that study, but the Academy hasn’t made up its mind. The academy asked the NRC, the nuclear power industry, and the public to explain why a new study’s even needed.

It broadcast the hearing over the Internet.

“Our first speaker is Sarah Sauer, private citizen.”

Sarah Sauer is 16, but looks much younger.

“I am one of the statistics you’ll be studying. When I was seven years old, I was diagnosed with brain cancer. I hope in this study you will remember who you’re doing this for.”

“Thank you Sarah, let me invite your parents to say something if they’d like to.”

“I am Cynthia Sauer, Sarah’s mom. For my family and i this study is long overdue. nine years ago today, Sarah was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. The pain has been so shattering that we still cannot give it words.”

Cynthia Sauer tells the National Academy how her family once lived near the Dresden nuclear power station, about 50 miles Southwest of Chicago.

She’d learned that power plant leaked radioactive water years ago.

Cynthia Sauer can’t say for sure the plant caused Sarah’s cancer, but she wonders … because other kids were diagnosed with cancer, too.

“I began searching for answers to my questions regarding the leaks and the numbers of children diagnosed with cancer in our small town.”

Cynthia Sauer turned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.

“The scientists in the ad hoc committee statement clearly stated the study was flawed and that further monitoring and investigation was needed.”

What are the flaws? For one, the old study concluded people living near nuclear power plants do not face extra risk of dying from cancer … but it didn’t answer whether they’re at risk of getting cancer.

It ignored cancer survivors or people who moved before dying of the disease.

Sauer tells the academy that … this is why we need a new cancer study – we just can’t be confident in the old one.

And that’s a problem because at least three million people live within ten miles of a nuclear power plant.

Some US Congressmen want the safety issue settled, and in fact, so does the nuclear power industry.

Ralph Anderson is with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

He says other studies suggest power plants are safe … so the industry has nothing to worry about from a new study – unless the Academy misinterprets results:

“There have been studies where people simply collect the data and let the computer go to work to bend the data in a wide variety of ways. We have been the victim of a number studies that have done precisely that. So, you end up with weird age groups and things like that because the data’s carefully selected to prove the point. That’s what we’d like to see avoided.”

So the public, the government and industry want some kind of follow-up study on cancer rates near nuclear power plants.

But that might not be enough for The National Academy of Sciences to move forward.
Many scientists say we can’t begin good studies, because it’s hard to collect the necessary data.
In fact, one group that says that … is the same group that conducted the original cancer study twenty years ago.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Billions Down the Yucca Hole

  • Without the Yucca mountain site, companies like Exelon have to pay extra to safely store spent fuel in pools or in concrete casks. (Photo courtesy of Lester Graham)

The federal government had one place in mind to store the country’s most hazardous nuclear waste.

It was at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

President Barack Obama recently killed that project, even though the country had spent more than nine billion dollars on it.

Shawn Allee found that figure is just the beginning:

Transcript

The federal government had one place in mind to store the country’s most hazardous nuclear waste.

It was at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

President Barack Obama recently killed that project, even though the country had spent more than nine billion dollars on it.

Shawn Allee found that figure is just the beginning.

The Yucca Mountain project claimed more money than just the nine billion that’s on the books.

It also tied up cash from electric rate payers, power companies and taxpayers.

Let’s start with the first group – rate payers.

CHA-CHING

Yucca Mountain was supposed to store the radioactive spent fuel left behind in nuclear reactors.

The U-S government charges power companies a fee to cover costs.

Power companies pass it on.

“Everybody in the state of Georgia that uses electricity and pays an electric bill is paying into this Yucca Mountain trust fund.”

This is Bobby Baker.

He’s serves on Georgia’s public service commission.

Baker says now that President Obama took Yucca Mountain off the table, the federal government should return the money.

Georgia’s share of fees and interest is more than one point two billion dollars.

“We were supposed to be shipping our spent nuclear fuel out to yucca mountain back in 1998 they were supposed to be receiving shipments at that time. The only thing that’s been done is the fact that Georgia ratepayers are continuing to pay into that trust fund and getting nothing from that trust fund other than a big hole in Nevada.”

So far, the federal government’s collected a total of 31 billion dollars in fees and interest for the nuclear waste fund.

The next group who paid extra for Yucca – power companies.

CHA-CHING

By law, the federal government’s supposed to take away radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants.

But without Yucca, it stays put.

John Rowe is CEO of Exelon, the country’s biggest nuclear power company.

Last hear he complained to the National Press Club.

“My mother used to say, somebody lies to you once that’s his fault … lies to you twice and you believe it, that’s your fault. I don’t know what she would have thought about somebody lying to you for fifty years.”

Rowe is especially mad because his company and others like it have to pay extra to safely store spent fuel in pools or in concrete casks.

They sue the federal government to recover costs.

The US Government Accountability Office figures the government will lose these lawsuits and owe power companies twelve point three billion dollars within a decade.

The last group that paid extra for Yucca – taxpayers.

CHA-CHING

Yucca Mountain was supposed to handle nuclear spent fuel from civilian power reactors, but it was also supposed to handle decades-worth of the military’s radioactive waste.

That includes waste from former weapons sites, like Hanford in Washington state.

Washington’s Senator Patty Murray brought it up in a recent hearing.

Here, she’s looking straight at Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

“Congress, independent studies, previous administrations pointed to, voted for and funded yucca Mountain as the best option as the nuclear repository.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government chipped in at least three point four billion dollars to cover military costs at Yucca Mountain.

But the tab’s bigger than that.

Murray says without Yucca, Hanford has to store its waste on-site. it’s not cheap.

“Billions of dollars have been spent at Hanford and sites across the country in an effort to treat and package nuclear waste that will be sent there.”

The Obama administration’s getting complaints from states and industry and taxpayer groups.

The Administration hasn’t responded publicly, but Energy Secretary Steven Chu mentioned the financial fallout from Yucca Mountain during a U-S Senate hearing.

He said the administration’s convinced Yucca Mountain just won’t work …

So, no matter how much money people have paid so far, it makes no sense to send good money after bad.

He didn’t mention paying any money back.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Burying Radioactive Waste (Part 1)

  • Waiting for new waste solutions, power plants across the country are still stacking spent fuel in concrete casks like this one at the Yucca Mountain site. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

Hazardous radioactive waste is building up at nuclear power plants across the country. For decades, the U-S government’s only plan was to stick that waste out of sight and out of mind … far below Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Recently, President Barack Obama scrapped that plan. Shawn Allee looks at where the President wants to go now:

Transcript

Hazardous radioactive waste is building up at nuclear power plants across the country.

For decades, the U-S government’s only plan was to stick that waste out of sight and out of mind … far below Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Recently, President Barack Obama scrapped that plan.

Shawn Allee looks at where the President wants to go now.

The old nuclear waste plan was simple: take spent fuel leftover from nuclear reactors and bury it under Yucca Mountain.

That would have moved the problem away from nuclear power plants and people who live nearby.

The Obama Administration cut the program but only said, the program “has not proven effective.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu tried explaining that to the U-S Senate.

“I don’t believe one can say, scientists are willing to say Yucca Mountain is the ideal site, given what we know today and given what we believe can be developed in the next 50 years.”

So … Obama’s administration is switching gears, and government scientists have to adjust.

“I worked at Yucca Mountain for ten years.”

Mark Peters is a deputy director at Argonne National Laboratory west of Chicago.

“I ran the testing program, so I got intimate involvement in Yucca Mountain. The license application has pieces of me all through it.”

Peters says he’s disappointed Yucca Mountain was killed.

But he says that’s a personal opinion – he’s on board with the new policy.

In fact … he’s helping it along.

Obama created a blue-ribbon commissison.

Commissioners will come up with new solutions for nuclear waste within two years.

Peters will tell them about new technology.

“There are advanced reactor concepts that could in fact do more effective burning of the fuel, so the spent fuel’s not so toxic when the fuel comes out.”

Peters says these “fast breeder reactors” might not just produce less nuclear waste.

They might use the old stuff that was supposed to head to Yucca.

“You extract the usable content, make a new fuel and burn it in a reactor, so you actually get to the point where you’re recycling the uranium and plutonium and other elements people’ve heard about.”

But Obama’s blue – ribbon nuclear waste commission could find problems with fast-breeder technology.

In the 1970s, we ran a commercial prototype, but it didn’t work very long.

Peters says new versions might be decades away.

There’s another problem, too.

“One important point is that there’s still waste from that process. So we have to go back to ultimately, some kind of geologic repository for part of the system.”

In other words … we’d have less waste, but we’d still have to bury it … somewhere.

History suggests there’s gonna be a squabble over any location.

After all, Yucca Mountain wasn’t the government’s first stab at an underground nuclear waste site.

“It had an embarassing failure in Lyons, Kansas between 1970 and 1972.”

That’s Sam Walker, a historian at the U-S Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He’s talking about the old Atomic Energy Commission, or AEC.

The AEC pushed hard to bury nuclear waste in a salt mine, even though scientists in Kansas had doubts.

“And then it turned out that the salt mine they had planned to place the waste in was not technically suitable either. So, what the AEC did was to lose its battle on both political and technical grounds.”

Walker says for 15 years, the government scouted for another location to dump hazardous nuclear waste.

“There was lots of vocal public opposition to even investigating sites.”

Eventually, the debate got too hot.

Congress settled on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, even though scientists debated whether it’d work.

Congress kept Yucca Mountain going because it promised to keep nuclear waste out of everyone’s back yards … except for Nevada’s.

Now with Yucca Mountain out of the picture, it could take years for Obama’s administration to settle on a way to handle nuclear waste.

In the mean time, power plants across the country are stacking spent fuel in pools of water or in concrete casks.

For decades the federal government said this local storage is both safe and temporary.

It still says it’s safe, but now, no one’s sure what temporary really means.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Plug Pulled on Nuke Plant

  • Vermont Yankee Corp. is one of the oldest nuclear power plants in the country. (Photo courtesy of Vermont Yankee Corp.)

One of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants is setting its operating life shorter than expected. Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

One of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants might have its operating life cut shorter than expected.

Shawn Allee reports:

The federal government has been leaning toward letting the Vermont Yankee reactor renew its license in 2012 for another 20 years.

But Vermont’s state legislature says has voted to shut it down – no matter what the federal government says.

One reason is the plant’s been leaking radioactive water.

State senator Peter Shumlin says plant owners said that couldn’t happen.

SHUMLIN: What’s worse? A company that won’t tell you the truth or a company that’s operating their aging nuclear power plant next to the Connecticut River and doesn’t know they have pipes with radioactive water running through them that are leaking and they don’t know because they didn’t know the pipes existed … neither is very comforting.

The federal government says the leaks have not been a health threat.

The closure of Vermont Yankee would be a setback for the nuclear power industry.

It’s trying to extend the operating life of reactors across the country, since its far cheaper to run old reactors than to build new ones.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

What to Do With Nuclear Waste

  • A diagram of a dry storage cask for nuclear waste. (Photo courtesy of the US Energy Information Administration)

President Barack Obama is
proposing billions to build
new nuclear power plants in
the US. But Shawn Allee reports the President
is also trying to tackle a
problem facing the country’s
old nuclear reactors:

Transcript

President Barack Obama is
proposing billions to build
new nuclear power plants in
the US. But Shawn Allee reports the President
is also trying to tackle a
problem facing the country’s
old nuclear reactors:

President Obama mentioned the future of nuclear power in his State of the Union Address.

“But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.“

At the same time, Obama’s dealing with an old nuclear problem: what to do with the hazardous radioactive waste building up at reactors in thirty one states. Obama gave up on an old plan to bury spent fuel inside Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. That project dragged on for decades and cost nine billion dollars.

Recently, the President set up a panel that recommend what to do with all this waste. That panel’s supposed to report to the President in less than two years.

Meanwhile, spent nuclear fuel is stored at nuclear power plants.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

New Nukes Stalled

  • One nuclear reactor was delayed because government regulators said they can't say whether the current design can withstand earthquakes and other disasters. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The power industry wants to create
loads of low-carbon electricity. To
make that happen, they want to build
more than two dozen nuclear reactors.
Shawn Allee reports there could be
delays for at least half of those:

Transcript

The power industry wants to create
loads of low-carbon electricity. To
make that happen, they want to build
more than two dozen nuclear reactors.
Shawn Allee reports there could be
delays for at least half of those:

Westinghouse’s AP-1000 reactor was supposed to revive the nuclear industry. But recently, government regulators said they can’t say whether the current design can withstand earthquakes and other disasters.

Critics of nuclear power are pouncing on the news.

Henry Sokolski is with the Nonproliferation Policy Center. He says one government agency’s set to approve loan guarantees to build these reactors.

“If you do that, there won’t be much discipline in the industry to not screw up, there’ll be less.”

Westinghouse says it will provide the government with tests to prove its reactor is safe.

It’s not clear whether the government will delay final approval of the design.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Government Meeting on New Nukes

  • Some nuclear companies envision reactors in tiny power stations or even factories. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Commercial nuclear reactors pretty
much come in two sizes: big and huge.
Companies want to create much smaller,
cheaper reactors. Shawn Allee reports they’re pitching their ideas
to the government this week:

Transcript

Commercial nuclear reactors pretty
much come in two sizes: big and huge.
Companies want to create much smaller,
cheaper reactors. Shawn Allee reports they’re pitching their ideas
to the government this week:

These nuclear companies envision reactors in tiny power stations or even
factories. They expect good sales because nuclear power creates almost no
carbon emissions.

But before they can sell even one reactor, they have to go through a
nuclear gate-keeper. That’d be the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell says, today, the government is laying out the
ground rules.

“The NRC has focused on large commercial scale nuclear power plants for
several decades. We have requirements for safety systems, for security
where these small reactor designers need to look at our requirements
closely, to make sure they can meet them.”

Burnell says some small reactor designs include technology the NRC has
never approved before.

He says it could take the government up to ten years to evaluate those
designs.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Pint-Sized Power Plants

  • (Photo courtesy of Hyperion)

Most nuclear power plants are huge
multi-billion-dollar operations that take
ten years to build. But they can be much
smaller. Lester Graham reports on a company
that’s planning hot-tub sized reactors:

Transcript

Most nuclear power plants are huge
multi-billion-dollar operations that take
ten years to build. But they can be much
smaller. Lester Graham reports on a company
that’s planning hot-tub sized reactors:

It’s difficult to get political and financial backing for building big nuclear power plants.
But one company plans to build miniature nuclear reactors.

John Deal is the CEO of Hyperion.

He says the small reactor invented at the Los Alamos National Laboratory could be
useful for isolated areas. It could also be used by smaller cities to provide most of
their power needs.

“You might have a community of 20, 30, 40 thousand people and they can have their
own power plant. And then they might feed back their excess or draw down from
some centralized facility for when they’ve got power spikes or peak demand.”

There’s a lot of interest. But for right now Hyperion is not taking orders for the mini-
nukes from Western nations. Deal says Hyperion is first trying to bring power to
isolated areas in the developing world.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Reactor Back Online at High Cost

One of the biggest nuclear power facilities in the region recently brought another idled reactor back online. The Pickering Nuclear station is just east of Toronto on Lake Ontario and has a total of eight reactors. Some say the cost of operating these reactors isn’t worth the power they generate. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:

Transcript

One of the biggest nuclear power facilities in the region recently brought another idled reactor back online. The Pickering Nuclear station is just east of Toronto on Lake Ontario and has a total of eight reactors. Some say the cost of operating these reactors isn’t worth the power they generate. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:


The Pickering facility is Canada’s oldest nuclear plant: two stations with for reactors each. The newer B station has been operational since it was built in the 1980’s. One reactor at the older A station was restarted last year and a second one, this fall, at a cost of a billion dollars.


Shawn Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace says they’re not worth it.


“We know that the other four reactors at the Pickering B station… they’ll be reaching the end of their operational life around 2009. What we should do is prepare for that, and start building other energy sources to replace the energy that we need as those reactors come offline.”


The Ontario government is looking to develop other sources of energy, but the nuclear industry says the province won’t find it easy to give up nuclear energy. They say it’s clean, emission-free, and despite the problems at the plants, it has still proven to be affordable and reliable.


For the GLRC, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links