New, smaller designs for nuclear reactors have been touted as vital for the clean energy future, but new research found they could generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants.

The study from Stanford University and the University of British Columbia said small reactors could produce two to 30 times the amount of waste in need of management and disposal compared with typical reactors.

NuScale Power plans to build a small modular reactor near Idaho Falls.

Don Safer, co-chair of the Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign, said it is one of the first investigations into waste problems for the new designs.

"You can find a lot of information about all the wonderful things that they're supposed to do, but you can't find hardly any information about the waste they will create," Safer pointed out. "It's hard to get any of the technical details about the downsides of these reactors."

Nuclear reactors produce little carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. They provide about one-fifth of the country's energy.

Rodney Ewing, professor of nuclear security at Stanford University and one of the study's authors, said there should be a greater onus on the vendors developing and receiving federal support for advanced reactors to conduct open research on the nuclear waste issue.

Commercial plants in the U.S. have produced about 88,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, with the most radioactive waste to be stored underground for hundreds of thousands of years. However, the study's authors noted the U.S. does not have a program to develop its own underground repository.

Safer argued it is another major concern.

"It should be required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that before they license any of these designs, they have a full understanding of where this waste is going to go, how it's going to be stored and what the realities that we're going to be placing onto future generations are," Safer outlined.

Safer added the report should send a message to potential host communities of new reactor technologies, such as Idaho Falls and the nearby NuScale project.

"The takeaway is to ask questions about the fuel cycle, and what the waste will be and what the coolant will be, and how they're going to deal with the physical and chemical realities that those choices make," Safer concluded.

Environmental groups in Tennessee will soon learn more about the approval process behind a radioactive waste landfill which has been processing and storing highly enriched uranium for six decades.

The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility sued the Environmental Protection Agency to gain access to documents related to the approval of the Y12 Uranium Processing Facility in Oak Ridge.

Jeff Ruch, Pacific director for the group, explained the landfill is being built despite objections from senior government officials. He said they used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the documents and the EPA has agreed to provide 400 documents a month, through September.

"The fact that EPA is not being candid about this indicates that they have something to hide," Ruch contended. "And they've already produced several hundred documents, almost none of which are substantive. We do a lot of FOIA litigation and for us, it's a kind of a safe form of whistleblowing."

Ruch pointed out one issue is the Clean Water Act protections for the streams running by the landfill and emptying into other bodies of water have been set aside. He added unacceptable levels of radiation in the water will affect the fish and wildlife. Critics of the uranium-enriching process say it poses safety and health risks to Tennesseans.

Tanvi Kardile, coordinator for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said her group continues to raise concerns to local communities and lawmakers about what it sees as the environmental hazards and public health risks tied to creating a landfill for toxic waste.

"Oak Ridge has pretty high cancer rates already, because of the Y12 weapons complex," Kardile asserted. "As an organization, we're worried about the increase of cancer rates because of a radioactive waste landfill."

"We all live downriver from Hanford," is the message painted on the windows of the Patagonia store in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood. It is a reminder of the continuing danger created by the remaining toxic nuclear waste at the Hanford Site in Benton County.

Advocates with the nonprofit Hanford Challenge painted the mural to remind people everyone will suffer if the waste seeps into the groundwater and into the Columbia River.

Nikolas Peterson, executive director of the Hanford Challenge, tracks the cleanup efforts.

"We are holding the federal government -- the contractors doing this work -- accountable," Peterson explained. "To make sure that they don't walk away from this cleanup and leave a mess that future generations will have to deal with."

During World War II, U.S. government nuclear scientists at Hanford created the plutonium used in atomic bombs, contaminating the soil and leaving behind 56 million gallons of high-level toxic waste. The current plan is to transform much of the waste into a glasslike material, put it in steel tanks and bury it underground.

The Yakama Nation's Environmental Restoration/Waste Management program has teamed up with the nonprofit Columbia Riverkeeper to teach future generations about the ongoing cleanup and offer field trips to the site.

Peterson noted his organization is working to get Hanford into the standard curriculum in all Washington state high schools.

"We want people, in especially the Pacific Northwest, to really take ownership of Hanford," Peterson emphasized. "And we can demand a better and safer cleanup for all of us."

The U.S. Department of Energy maintains a page dedicated to the Hanford Site cleanup. People interested in volunteering can contact Hanford Challenge and Columbia Riverkeeper.


get more stories like this via email

A Knoxville-based environmental group is voicing health and safety concerns about the development of a landfill for radioactive waste from the Y12 Uranium Processing Facility in Oak Ridge.

For six decades, Y12 has been processing and storing highly enriched uranium.

Tanvi Kardile, coordinator for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said her group is raising concerns to the community and lawmakers about what it sees as the environmental hazards and public health risks that come with creating a landfill for toxic waste.

"There's been some violations with the Clean Water Act," Kardile pointed out. "Right now, a radioactive waste landfill in Oak Ridge is approved to be built, but this required waiving the Clean Water Act rules. So, there's upcoming litigation around this."

Kardile noted the landfill concerns are in addition to the ongoing threat of radioactive contamination in Oak Ridge's land, water and air due to the Y12 weapons complex activities. She stressed the issue is not new, citing a lawsuit against the Department of Energy over mercury released decades ago. Critics of the uranium-enriching process say it poses safety and health risks to the community.

According to Kardile, she has spoken directly with Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration officials, raising her group's objections to the $8 billion Y12 processing facility over serious health concerns. But proponents of the weapons plant point to the jobs and economic impact it has for the local area.

"They're not concerned about environmental issues at all," Kardile observed. "They were like, 'This is necessary for our nation's security,' like building our nuclear weapons stockpile is 'necessary.' So, it's something that we have to do. And they also said that it provides jobs for people in the area."

Kardile acknowledged the Alliance does not want to see anyone lose their job, but said closing the facility would also provide employment opportunities through an extensive cleanup phase. The latest defense spending bill, approved by both houses of Congress in July, authorized $760 million for Y12's Uranium Processing Facility.