Trump Presidency: Alarming for the Environmental Justice Movement?

The recent United States election is historic, controversial, and "roller coastery" to say the least! Donald John Trump became victorious, but some community organizers and environmental justice advocates are unhappy and frightened by what a Trump Administration might mean for the country's environment and public health. Several confirmed and potential Cabinet picks are quite alarming. As the current Attorney General of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a couple of times unsuccessfully in objection to "burdensome" regulations. Ironically, the generally anti-EPA Pruitt is expected to be President-elect Trump's Administrator to the EPA. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson may be Trump's Secretary of State. You and I might conjecture that the impact of climate change around the world as well as the importance of environmental justice around the world will not be issues of concern for Tillerson. Tillerson (if chosen) and Pruitt will require the Senate's advise and consent, meaning a formal questions-and-answers process to determine if they will be fit for carrying out their duties.

Also, could the Trump transition team's questionnaire (New York Times) — a list of 74 Department of Energy wide-ranging questions delivered to Dept. of Energy officials — indicate an interest in "efforts to promote nuclear power" as well as undermine research related to protecting the environment? As Nuclear Waste Concerns discussed in multiple posts, promoting a stronger reliance on nuclear power could lead to more radioactive waste being disposed in locations where environmental injustice against underprivileged populations (especially impoverished, Native-American, and African-American people) is an alarming concern for many activists and underprivileged people. Two questions from the Trump transition team stood out to me, considering that they pertain to a topic I previously discussed:

       28.     Are there statutory restrictions related to reinvigorating the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)?

       29.     Are there any statutory restrictions [against] restarting the Yucca Mountain project?

The colloquially named Yucca Mountain project refers to a proposed nuclear waste storage site in southern Nevada. Managed and supervised by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, this controversial project was temporarily stopped and defunded by the Obama administration. Officials took into consideration the health concerns that might affect Western Shoshone Native Americans and also wondered if that site was safely capable of holding the country's nuclear waste. Retiring Senator Harry Reid vocally criticized the Yucca Mountain project. Did the Trump team know about Reid's strong stance against this site? Do they therefore hope this projection gets a second chance, given that Reid will retire? Trump's future presidency is arguably a case of "only time will tell." We would have to wait until his presidency actually starts in order to truly understand the consequences of his administration's policies and actions. In the meantime, though, environmental justice advocates will need to revitalize, organize, and support the organizations, activities, and actions related to environmental justice, making sure we "hold Trump's feet to the fire" so that the next administration will think about everyone in their decisions. It is unfortunate to realize that Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for President, was the only after-Primary candidate to (1) visit Standing Rock* in solidarity with Native American protestors and (2) talk about the importance of remedying environmental injustice and environmental racism concerns.

* If you hadn't heard, this was the site for an extremely controversial Dakota Access pipeline, which has been halted for now until other sites are considered for evaluation.

Thank You

Hello, readers! Thank you so much for your readership on the Nuclear Waste Concerns Blog! We hope that our posts are properly informative about the effects of nuclear waste storage, disposal, and energy on us humans and our planet. For questions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to post comments on any post. Thanks a million!

Sincerely, Zach

Comparing Illinois's Nuclear Power Produced (MW) & Median Household Income per County

Based on the compiled data, there seems to be a direct correlation between Median Income per County and the placement/electricity produced by Nuclear power plants in Illinois.

Data gathered from:
https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/

Nuclear Waste Disposal Documentary

Future Nuclear Waste "Storage"

Check out this short video on a new "nuclear glass" waste disposal process!

The Dangers of Nuclear Waste (A Snapshot)

            Nuclear power has long since been considered a great way to generate massive amounts of electricity without emitting any greenhouse gas pollution. However, the rare nuclear disaster poses a rather significant threat to humans and the environment to which it is exposed. The storage of nuclear, or radioactive waste can also be cause for concern about health and safety of the general public. Nuclear power operations have become more strict over the years, but tons of hazardous waste materials are produced every year, which is difficult to transport and shift around. Despite tight efforts to keep nuclear disasters at a minimum, nuclear waste still poses many dangers. Storage containers made of steel and concrete are designed to keep nuclear waste from leaking out and harming anything in the vicinity, however, there are other dangers are involved in the storing of radioactive materials.

1.    Long half life:  The products of nuclear fission have long half lives, meaning the bi-products will continue to emit radiation for a long, long time to come. We're talking thousands of years! If anything were to happen to the storage container, a nuclear facility would have a dangerous radioactive leak on their hands.

2.    Storage:  As mentioned in previous blog posts, storing methods in themselves pose a threat of a nuclear waste mishap. The steel and concrete storage cells are relatively cheap and are stored out in the open air. If one were to be punctured, the radiation would already be exposed to the surrounding environment. Cooling pools are not exempt from the worries, as you will notice by referring to post Safer Storage for Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods.

3.    Effects on Nature:  Generally, the huge steel and concrete drums are purported to safely seal in radioactive material, but when leaks occur, effects can be extremely hazardous to plant and animal life. Side-effects can include cancerous growths or genetic mutations that may be present for many generations following exposure.

4.    Human Health Effects:  Arguably the most important concern of improper radioactive waste disposal are the negative effects that it can have on the human body when exposed to radiation. Immediate effects of exposure include rapid sickness, such as headaches and vomiting, while long term effects can cause cancer, benign tumors, cataracts, and even death. Other issues involved with nuclear disposal accidents can be observed in historical accidents, such as Chernobyl, where an entire town was evacuated and is still off limits to this day. Monetary expenses are also a big concern when considering clean up of any degree of nuclear exposure.

Nuclear weapon and its impacts

The first world nuclear test was processed by the US on July, 16 1945. They used these nuclear weapons after three weeks against any enemy for the first time in the Japanese city of Hiroshima. In August 1945, another nuclear bomb was set off above Nagasaki. Both nuclear bombs caused over 214000 deaths. The United Nations passed its first resolution calling for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in January 1946. Still many countries went forth with research and nuclear tests.

There are at least 23,000 nuclear weapons in existence: an amount great enough to wipe out the entire human population of the planet more than once.

Nuclear weapons have many impacts on human life.

The direct and immediate effect: nuclear weapons have blast and heat effects as buildings collapse and all inflammable materials burst into flames which People inside the buildings or shielded will be more than likely killed.  Ninety percent of people will face instant death. Also, nuclear weapons produce fire storm. People in underground shelters who survive the initial heat flash will die because all the oxygen will be sucked out of the atmosphere. The International Red Cross has stated that the use of a single nuclear weapon in or near a populated area is likely to result in a humanitarian disaster that will be hard to manage.

The short term effect: Survivors are affected within a matter of days by radioactive fall-out. The effects of exposure in high levels of radioactive fall-out can lead to hair loss, bleeding from the mouth and gums, internal bleeding and hemorrhagic diarrhea, gangrenous ulcers, vomiting, fever, delirium and terminal coma.

The long term effect: nuclear weapons will directly effect on generations to come. For survivors there is a serious risk of developing cancer and the children of those surviving will have birth defects or leukemia and other various forms of cancers. Nuclear weapons cause severe damage to the climate and environment not comparable to any other type of weapon. The five million tons of smoke produced by the raging fires can cause global temperature to fall by an average of 1.3C. The unstable global climate would have an overwhelming impact on food production. The Red Cross estimates that more than a billion people around the world could face starvation as a result of nuclear wars.

sources:

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/effectsofnuclearweapons/

http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/global-abolition/effects-of-nuclear-weapons

Nuclear Waste Disposal Exacerbates Environmental Injustice

Related to Subrat's blog posting last Sunday, there is evidence that the government of Taiwan and Taipower "failed to fulfill the requirements of environmental justice" in deciding where to locate a final disposal repository for radioactive/nuclear waste (Huang et al. 2013, 1555). In Huang et al.'s case study paper, the authors assert that their paper accomplishes the following objectives:

"First, it adds to the growing number of studies that show how siting decisions systematically and deliberately disadvantage vulnerable communities. Second, it finds the basis of this discriminatory policy to lie in the wider pattern of inequality that exists in Taiwanese society — a pattern that is rooted in historical traditions of racial and tribal prejudice, reinforced by contemporary forms of corruption. Third, it suggests that a solution to the problem of environmental injustice in nuclear waste siting policy may have to wait until these broader practices of unequal treatment in Taiwan are addressed. Fourth, it speculates that the need for a solution to the nuclear waste problem may be a catalyst for dealing with these broader patterns of unequal treatment" (Huang et al. 1555).

With personal accounts from interviews the authors conducted, there is some reason to believe environmental injustice regarding improper nuclear waste disposal siting did exist in Taiwan because of a variety of facts.

1. Only one public hearing took place — therefore there was only one major opportunity for local residents to discuss their complaints and input regarding the siting process (ibid. 1564).
2. Allegedly peaceful anti-disposal protesters were unfoundedly arrested by police (ibid. 1565).
3. Taipower may have "coerced poor people...to accept nuclear waste in their area" by influencing them with money, promised trips, and other types of bribes (ibid. 1565).

While interviews are helpful in finding possible detailed information from local residents who could possibly know what's going on in their community, a survey with hundreds and thousands of volunteers and unbiased questions (related to assessing the siting process) could provide more comprehensive information that can be analyzed in concert with statistical, empirical analysis (which does not appear in this paper). In the meantime, the authors practically encourage the readers to believe the interviewed residents. The authors adequately explained "contemporary forms of corruption" by telling facts regarding the government and Taipower working together to choose waste disposal sites. However, they did not quite explain examples of the "historical traditions of racial and tribal prejudice" in Taiwanese culture and society.

The authors are correct in saying that their research is a contribution to the growing study of environmental injustice regarding the siting of hazardous waste disposal centers. For example, other researchers have studied the effect of hazardous waste disposal facilities in Taiwan. According to Weng 2001, "Over 80% of nuclear waste is stored in an indigenous people’s island [Orchid Island] situated 75 km from the main island" (Huang et al. 1557). Plenty of other national case studies exist of nuclear waste disposal sites that are misplaced geographically in regards to environmental justice considerations. Much of the United States' hazardous waste is disposed in Western states, even though states in the East have higher populations and higher nuclear waste usage. Northern Canada is the site for nuclear waste disposal sites despite having a larger population in Southern Canada.

Nuclear waste in the United Kingdom is mostly stored in Sellafield (northwest England) and Dounreay (northern Scotland), which are both communities featuring disadvantaged (especially low-income) populations. Thankfully, hazardous waste sites in both Dounreay and Sellafield (website hyperlinks) are in the lengthy process of decommissioning, attempting to rid those sites of their hazardous waste. Michigan (Saha and Mohai 2005), India (Kumar et al. 2008) and Namibia and South Africa (Glazewski 1993) are some other places where environmental injustice plays a role in the geographic placement of hazardous waste disposal centers. In the case of India, South Africa, and other so-called developing countries, imported hazardous waste can be a serious problem since there are shortcomings in handling domestic waste, let alone in handling large quantities of imported waste (Kumar et al., Daniel 2012, and Glazewski 1993).

Citations — Literary Resources

Daniel, Anne. "Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste." Yearbook of International Environmental Law 23.1 (2012): 280. Web.

Glazewski, JI. "Regulating Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste: International Developments and Implications for South Africa." The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 26.2 (1993): 234-49. Web.

Huang, Gillan Chi-Lun, Tim Gray, and Derek Bell. "Environmental Justice of Nuclear Waste Policy in Taiwan: Taipower, Government, and Local Community." Environment, Development and Sustainability 15.6 (2013): 1555-71. Web.

Kumar, Sunil, et al. "Hazardous Waste Management System in India: An Overview." Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 38.1 (2008): 43-U1. Web.

Saha, Robin and Paul Mohai. "Historical Context and Hazardous Waste Facility Siting: Understanding Temporal Patterns in Michigan." Social Problems 52.4 (2005): 618-48. Web.

The Nuclear Waste Dump 
It was in 1980  the government of Taiwan build a fish cannery with its own port facilities in the point of Orchid Island. This was supposed to be a project that would be beneficial for the local people as it would provide employment. But soon after its installment, in 1982, Taipower, began shipping nuclear waste barrels from the three nuclear plants in Taiwan. Three story down, it has the capacity to hold upto 100,000 barrels.
 This so called safe storage facility has deformed fish and other biological. Some have also reported to see broken barrels being dumped in the hills! These careless activities have led to several cases of cancer with also resulted in deaths. The government has tired its best to bury the bodies before the autopsy  could be done and the actual cause of the dame to be proved. As much as 50 newborn babies have been formed with deformities and this shows that the infection from the plan is contagious.
   Several protests have been done in the past and youth organizations have bee formed. Tao youth organization was also one of the major anti-nuclear organization in the nation. Due to their efforts, in 1994, there was a ban imposed on the shipment of the nuclear barrels. However, there were already 97,000 barrels in the storage unit.   The government has sanctioned  $10 million to the Orchid Island community that was effected by the effect of this leftover  waste but due to corrupt officials and most of the money does not reach its destined location. The indigenous people not only have to fight for their rights for environmental justice, but also the corrupt governing body that does not allow much reformation to take place. Even though there is some hope, for a major change to be seen in the nuclear safety, changes have to be made in the governing body itself.

    

This Month in Nuclear History

On April 26, 1986, the infamous and catastrophic Chernobyl nuclear accident occurred. 28 years later, the world still remembers the worst-ever nuclear disaster when the Chernobyl power plant blew up as a result of faulty designs and subpar attendant training.

On April 25, a routine shutdown was conducted in preparation of a technical experiment that would theoretically determine how long the turbines would spin and supply power. As this experiment was previously attempted a year prior, new voltage regulator designs were going to be tested in conjunction.

By the time the nuclear operator went to shut down Reactor No. 4 was extremely unstable, resulting in a power surge that consequently led to fuel fragmentation, vessel rupture, and a series of steam explosions. The explosions and fire that followed the meltdown released massive amounts of radioactive material into the environment. Immediate actions to curb the fire and nuclear leaks included pouring sand and boron on to the reactor via helicopter.

Three kilometers away, the city of Pripyat evacuated 50,000 residents following the nuclear meltdown, and a radius of 30 kilometers was closed off by officials, totaling 115,000 people. Another 220,000 people were evacuated in subsequent years.

Within weeks, workers coated Reactor No. 4 in a temporary concrete "sarcophagus" to limit further release of radioactive material. Despite attempts to prevent  this, Reactor No. 4 continued to leak fumes of contaminated waste. Four times more radioactive material was released for Chernobyl than by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Large quantities of radioactive material was released into the air for about 10 days.

This image depicts the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's fourth reactor in this May 1986 file photo. (Reuters)

The following months accounted for 28 deaths in all, two from the explosions themselves, the others from excessive exposure to radiation. To date, about 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer had been diagnosed in children who were exposed to the radiation from the meltdown. Many residents in Pripyat prior to the massive evacuation reported symptoms of radiation exposure, including migraines and a metallic taste in their mouths.

As for the surrounding environment, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and flora and fauna suffered damaging effects as a result of the nuclear meltdown. Water sources in the affected areas of the Ukraine had levels of radiation  that were cause for concern for months afterwards. Concentrations in fish were so high that they were unfit for consumption. However, groundwater was not affected nearly as badly since the majority of radionuclides decayed in the soil above long before it reached the water table. Animals in the worst hit areas either died or stopped reproducing. Livestock as far as northern Europe were required to take uncontaminated feed for a period before slaughter to ensure safe consumption.

The after-effects of Chernobyl were expected to be seen for upwards of 100 years following the disastrous meltdown of the Ukraine nuclear power plant. Economic expenses for containment and decontamination were equivalent to $18 billion dollars. The damaged reactor was sealed off with 200 cubic meters of concrete, and the entire facility was completely shut down on December 15, 2000, following the shutdown of the last operation reactor. The nearby town of Pripyat is still abandoned to this day as a result of the extreme radiation levels that contaminated the area.

Citations — Literary Sources

https://www.rt.com/news/155072-chernobyl-images-now-then/

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

Partisan Geography of Nuclear Waste Disposal

Abstract of “Not on Your (Half) Life: The Partisan Geography of Nuclear Waste Disposal” by Moscardelli and Becker (2007):

Between 1987 and 2002, the United States Senate held 20 key roll call votes related to the designation of Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the location for the nation's first high-level nuclear waste repository. During that period, conflict over the issue became increasingly structured by party. At first glance, the highly technical issue of nuclear waste disposal has no obvious partisan dimension. But, linking theories of party government with recent studies of message politics and issue ownership, we show that individual motives – geographic and electoral – tell only part of the evolving story of Yucca Mountain. A complete explanation of senators' behavior on the issue of nuclear waste disposal must incorporate collective (in this case partisan) motives as well.

            As mentioned in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maps post, the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility project in Nye County, Nevada was halted or postponed due to disputes among U.S. Senators, the President, members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, etc. Moscardelli and Lawrence (2007) examine an interesting political and geographic perspective as to why this project was controversial and widely debated. “In an effort to understand the process by which issues become more partisan over time, we investigate the changing partisan political geography of the nuclear waste disposal issue in the Senate” (Moscardelli and Becker 56). One potential point of partisanship – and evolving perceptions among senators such as Tom Daschle (Democrat, SD) – that is explained involves Democrats supporting the efforts of Harry Reid (D, NV) to prevent a nuclear waste disposal facility in Nevada. Initially, 21 Democrats such as Alan Cranston (CA) and Robert Byrd (WV) strived to “defeat a Reid amendment that would have made health and safety the primary criteria for site selection” (ibid. 57). Given that Harry Reid lives one county away from the proposed site, the close proximity of his home and district provides a possible explanation to what I would call the “geography of opposition” to the Nevada disposal project.

Being from Nevada, Senator Harry Reid has always opposed the Yucca Mt. nuclear waste disposal site proposed in Nye County.

            In later years, “…Senate Democrats came to believe there was a collective benefit to be gained from [their party] being perceived as the party dedicated to keeping high-level nuclear waste out of Nevada (56). The authors comment that – based on empirical data from Wright and Schaffner (2002) – the polarized structure of voting in Congress may be partially due to each party wanting to adopt assertive positions on “new issues” in order to persuade more people to affiliate with its party (59). Moscardelli and Lawrence makes an interesting argument that Democrats framed this nuclear disposal site issue into a broader environmental (and environmental justice) issue that Democrats and others would be especially concerned about. This argument hints as to how an issue such as determining the Yucca Mountain disposal site’s fate can become a partisan issue within several years. On the other side of the Senate aisle, some or most Republicans were opposed to Harry Reid’s efforts – especially Senators with ties to the nuclear industry. In fact, their opposition was unified against Reid’s opposition since the disposal site was proposed in the 1980s. As a possible implication for Republicans’ positive relationship with the nuclear power industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) donated $554,047 to Republicans, versus $212,197 to Democrats (62).

            Moscardelli and Becker’s scholarly article was peer-reviewed and contained citations – mainly from news media organizations (Boston Globe; Las Vegas Review-Journal; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; New York Times), journals (American Journal of Political Science; CQ Weekly; British Journal of Political Science; Journal of Politics), and authors of books printed by academic publishers (CQ Press; John Hopkins University Press; Ohio State University Press; University of California Press; University of Chicago Press; Westview Press). Therefore, their citations are from arguably respectable media sources as well as authors of peer-reviewed works. Their concluded associations between multiple variables (party, party leader, casks originating in states, NEI contributions, etc.) were supported by their empirical data analysis – in which most of the p-values are less than or equal to 0.05, meaning these are statistically significant associations and correlations to make. In particular, the authors “used OLS [ordinary least squares] to estimate models of “Reid Support Scores” for the 1987-2000 period, and a separate logistic regression model of the single, decisive veto-override vote cast in the 107th Congress” (67).

Citation — Literary Resource

Moscardelli, Vincent G., and Lawrence A. Becker. 2007. "Not on Your (Half) Life: The Partisan Geography of Nuclear Waste Disposal." Congress & the Presidency 34 (1).

Nuclear Waste: World Issue

Nuclear waste has not only been a problem in the United States, it is a problem all over the world. The waste is stored in different and similar ways than the United States does. In Sweden they have a specific way in which the waste is stored. In this table it shows the level of waste, the volume, and the radioactive content. This helps show the amount of nuclear waste they have at the plant. With this table set up they are able to know how radioactive the type of waste is and also know what kind of waste they have to work with. When low and intermediate level waste is being transferred, the people moving it are not shielded from radiation that it is transmitting. They mentioned that it still releases a form of radiation but they do not shield from it.

Table from World Nuclear Association. 

How the fuel is managed: 

The fuel is extremely hot when radioactive when used. It is stored and handled after it has cooled. the workers are shield by steel or concrete like material or a few meters of water. 

Used nuclear fuel stored underwater in
CLAB facility located in Sweden 

Low level and intermediate waste stored in Finland.

The disposal process depends on the level the waste is. Low and intermediate level are buried close to the surface since it is not that radioactive. High level are disposed underground in engineered facilities in stable ecological land. Since there are not any facilities that are built to store the high level waste there are some countries in which they are in the process of building them. There is no images or sketches showing how they would store the waste.

"Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/what-are-nuclear-wastes.aspx
This website is pro nuclear power but only facts of storage were taken,
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_technology/got-water-nuclear-power.html#.VyJ0abgrK70

Safer Storage for Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods

First of all, what are "spent" fuel rods? "Spent" just means that the fuel rod as reached the end of its life, or is no longer usable and is removed from the nuclear reactor core. Once they're removed, they're replaced by new fuel rods, but where do they end up? The spent rods are still extremely hot, not to mention highly radioactive.

As of current, most spent fuel rods are kept on site in cooling pools. The fuel rods are submerged onto racks in pools of circulating water that draws away the heat from the rods, maintaining stability. But just how safe is this method of containment? Turns out, not very. Should something go wrong, such as a malfunction or natural disaster that causes the water to either leak out of the pool or the circulation to cease, the spent fuel rods would heat the water to the point of boiling and evaporation. If water cannot be replenished efficiently, the rods may become exposed as the water level drops. Increasing temperatures can cause the metal cladding encasing the uranium fuel could rupture and catch fire releasing great amounts of radioactive substances into the environment. The spent fuel rods are held in less adequate containment, so any release of radioactive materials would more than likely reach the outside atmosphere.

What can we do to avoid such a disaster? Well, with more and more spent fuel rods being added to such cooling pools, the risk for overheating is escalating. But, there may be a solution in a safer storage method: Dry cask storage. Spent fuel rods that have been chilling in the cooling pool for more than five years are considered cool and safe enough to move to dry cask storage. A dry cask is made of steel and concrete, with the concrete acting as a radiation buffer, and further cooling of the fuel rod can be accomplished by air flow driven by the heat of the spent fuel.

Dry casks also have their share of security and safety concerns, but with less spent fuel being kept in cooling pools, workers may have more time to compensate for a loss of water in the pool. There would also be more space in the pool, allowing for greater cooling of the spent fuel rods. Finally, if an accident should occur in a cooling pool to which point workers could not reverse the damage, less radioactive material would be emitted from the pool than if the pool was full.

Citation — Literary Source: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel#.VwbRYKQrLIU

Nuclear Waste and Its Effects on Minorities

Nuclear waste is the material that the nuclear fuel emits after it has been in a reactor. What makes this kind of waste so harmful is that it looks exactly as fuel that is safe to use. It is highly radioactive and the natural decay process could take up to thousands of years to decompose. In fact it is so dangerous that contact even for few seconds could lead to death with radiation sickness.

The disposal process of the nuclear waste initially starts by storing the fuel underwater until the radiation has decayed. Then it is shielded in the concrete storage tanks. It is the final step that is quite controversial. Usually the last stage is the decay of the waste when it is kept in underground or shielded on the surface. The major problem with this is that nuclear waste could take thousands of years to be normal again and could cause serious contamination in the region where they are stored. The growing concern today is not the how the nuclear waste is disposed, but rather where. Sadly around the world, it is the poor and under developed regions that fall prey for this. Minorities, especially in the United States are a victim of the impact of the hazardous waste. A nuclear sacrifice zone is a region where nuclear wastes is being dumped. One of the most affected regions in the country is the skull valley region in Utah, which is primarily a Native American preserve. There is about 40,000 tons of highly reactive nuclear waste dumped in that region. The native American Communities are clearly being targeted in the nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal.

The disposal of toxic waste in this region is also political. Due to weak governing bodies and weak legal authorization over the land use policies, big companies such as Private Fuel Storage (PFS) are taking advantages. What makes the relocation of these native American a big issue is that fact that this land has historical value. It was where their ancestors grew up and abandoning it would not be possible. There have been several situations where the natives have been refused to relocate even when proper land and money was given. This land is like their mother. Knowing that it is wrong, government does little to fight it against the big companies. Even though there is mass opposition, and the waste dumping is facing trouble, a lot more effort would be needed to bring about a substantial change.

Citation — Literary Resource

"Environmental Racism, Tribal Sovereignty, and Nuclear Waste." 2012 Apr 21. Environment and Resource Service. http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pfsejfactsheet.htm.

Radioactive waste and its impact

Every year and a half to two years, every nuclear plant goes through a cleaning cycle that shuts down the plant to allow for the removal of radioactive waste. There are many factors of radioactive waste. Everything from where it comes from, to the different types, to the effects it has, and what is radioactive waste as a whole.

What is radioactive waste exactly? Well, radioactive waste is a nuclear fuel that is produced after being used inside a nuclear reactor. It looks identical before and after it is used. The radioactive material that is left is highly dangerous to anyone in contact with it. It remains very dangerous for thousands of years. It has to be maintained in the proper way to avoid any global catastrophe.  Anyone in contact with radioactive waste exposure could die in only the matter of seconds.  In a whole radioactive waste in any state is still radioactive waste from nuclear substances that is very harmful.

Where does radioactive waste come from? 

Radioactive waste is produced from a nuclear reactor. Radioactive waste is produced or used in mining, defense, medicine, scientific research, and nuclear power generation industries that make a byproduct that includes radioactive waste. Some types more harmful than others, but any radioactive waste is severely toxic and anyone to come within meters of it can result in radiation sickness. People working in such industries have to be trained extensively to maintain the well-being of themselves and the world around them.

Since radioactive waste is so dangerous and the government has to take various actions as to its disposal. This is a big issue because there are not many places you can dispose of something so dangerous. It is stored for 40-50 years while the radioactivity decays to less than one percent of its original level. Then after this time span it is disposed of deep underground and away from the biosphere. In more than 50 decades of nuclear power generations there have been no known incidents or health risks caused from this plan of disposal.

There are various types of radioactive waste. Some of these types are more dangerous than others. That being said none of them should be taken less serious than the others they are all just as important to maintain properly to insure the safety of mankind and the world.

High level radioactive waste is obvious to be the most dangerous type. There are two types of nuclear reactors, pressurized and boiler water reactors. High level nuclear waste is basically fuel spent that still exists after it has been used inside of a nuclear reactor. This type of waste takes several years to cool in temperature. This is one of the main reasons it is so dangerous because it takes a great length of time to drop temperature to be able to properly dispose of the waste. To cool this type of radioactive waste it is placed in pools of water hundreds of feet deep. This type of cooling takes place at specified sites that are approved by the government. High level wastes make up 95 percent of radioactivity produced in nuclear reactors.

Intermediate level waste is second in line for level of danger. This type of waste has less amounts of radio activity than high level radioactive waste but still needs the same level of seriousness taken to handle the disposal properly. Shielding is required during handling and storage of this waste. Refurbishment waste, ion-exchange resins, chemical sludge’s and metal fuel cladding are the normal wastes brought about in this level of radioactive waste. Intermediate level waste makes up 4 percent of all radioactivity. This level of waste that needs longer time management is transferred to appropriate facilities to insure proper disposal.

Low level waste is the least dangerous but should not be ignored. Most of the waste around today is classified as a low level waste making up 90 percent of the nuclear waste as a whole. Nuclear reactors, hospitals, dental offices, and similar types of facilities use low-level nuclear waste materials daily to provide the services that are utilized in these facilities. This level of waste is considered to be not dangerous and is disposed of in landfills. No shielding is required for the transportation or disposal of this level of radioactive waste.

Nuclear Storage & Disposal

There are many misconceptions about disposal and storage practices associated with nuclear waste, at least according to two pro-nuclear-energy information sources: Nuclear Energy Institute and World Nuclear Association. Nuclear power plants processes are heavily monitored and regulated due to the hazardous material dealt with. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that nuclear power facilities produce about 200,000 m^3 of low level radioactive waste, and about 10,000 m^3 of high-level waste including used fuel designated as waste each year. However, there have been no evidence linking nuclear energy plants to negative effects on the health of the local residents or workers as reported by numerous sources such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.

As such, currently there are two many methods of storing/disposing the used nuclear fuel rods and waste, storage ponds and strategic burial.

Relative activity of used fuel with 38 GWd/t, IAEA
(referenced in Radioactive Waste in Perspective NEA 2010, pg. 74)

After being buried for about 1,000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed. The amount of remaining radioactivity would be similar to naturally occurring, though more concentrated, uranium ore. In mined repositories, retrievability can be straightforward, but any deep borehole disposal is permanent.Deep boreholes are more appropriate for smaller amounts of wastes than national programs involving direct disposal of used fuel, and hence are more likely to be used for smaller volumes of shorter-lived wastes
Currently the United States has instilled a "Direct disposal but reconsidering" policy.

Citations — Literary Resources

"Radioactive Waste Management." World Nuclear Association. N.p., Oct. 2015. Web. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx.

"Myths & Facts About Radiation." Nuclear Energy Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. Mar. 2016. http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Myths-Facts-About-Radiation.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maps

Located at nrc.gov, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) created and updates several maps relating to operating nuclear power reactors, new nuclear power reactors being implemented, and the decommissioning of sites with "complex materials." While not the only source of nuclear waste, nuclear power plants and their reactors do inevitably seek ways to dispose of nuclear waste. A national (and underground) nuclear waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada was to be opened to allow nuclear waste to be transported from various nuclear power plants and other facilities. However, this project was stalled especially since "the Department of Energy lacks the required land and water rights and has no reason to expect that it will obtain them in the future," according to Nevada Senator Harry Reid in a January 2015 released statement regarding the NRC's latest Yucca Mt. evaluation report. With the halting of a national nuclear waste disposal site, nuclear power plants such as the one in Zion, Illinois have stored tons of spent fuel rods in potentially unsafe concrete casks, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Operating Nuclear Power Reactors
There are 100 licensed nuclear power facilities in the United States of America, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They are located in about 30 states. Click here to access an interactive version of the map below.

Possible New Nuclear Power Facilities
Click on the image below to access the NRC's webpage, which allows you to...
1) click on each site for more details.
2) click on the bottom abbreviations for specific details and images of nuclear reactor designs.

Map of Complex Materials Sites Undergoing Decommissioning
This map shows the facilities where the NRC will perform the task of decommissioning, which means these places will no longer produce or store complex materials: manmade chemicals, nuclear waste products, etc. Click here to access an interactive version of the map below.

Hello World

Hey there! The authors of the Nuclear Waste Concerns blog are students in a class called Race, Class, Politics, and Environment (GEO 490). We will provide information about nuclear waste disposal and associated information that is as unbiased as we possibly can make it. We hope you can enjoy this blog and be informed about a major environmental justice issue. Thank you so much for your readership!