With uranium from Queensland, Japan will want to return nuclear wastes

Uranium Mines More Dangerous Than Nuclear Power Confirms Japanese Atomic Expert At Brisbane Forum http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au/articles/article-display/uranium-mines-more-dangerous-than-nuclear-power-confirms-japanese-atomic-expert-at-brisbane-forum,32305#.UofD39Jwo7o 16 Nov 13, Fears for worker safety at future uranium mines in Queensland were confirmed by a top Japanese atomic expert at this week’s Australia-Japan Dialogue Forum in Brisbane.

Japan Atomic Energy Commission vice chairman Dr Tatsujiro Suzuki said at the forum “Mining actually poses larger risks than reactors, even when there are not accidents. Uranium miners are regularly exposed, there’s high exposure in areas around mines and the potential for atmospheric contamination.”

Anti-Nuclear Campaign Coordinator, Mark Bailey said Mr Suzuki’s comments showed why uranium mines were not worth the risk in Queensland. ”The Ranger mine in the Northern Territory, in a similar wet season climate as North Queensland, has an appalling safety record with more than 150 documented mishaps including workers drinking and bathing in radioactive water.”

“The latest reported mishap occurred only last week.  The safety of workers and nearby communities cannot be guaranteed by the uranium industry given their very poor record.” Dr Suzuki also confirmed that Japan is set to run out of nuclear waste storage capacity within six years and is looking to sign deals with uranium suppliers who are prepared to help it dispose of radioactive waste. Mr Bailey warned “Once we allow uranium mines in Queensland it is inevitable that nuclear waste storage and nuclear power will soon be on the agenda. Uranium mines are the thin edge of the nuclear wedge in Queensland.” ”Once the nuclear industry has their radioactive foot in Queensland’s door, they will want to move in and take over the whole house.”

“Queensland doesn’t need uranium mining, nuclear waste dumps or nuclear power and we should re-instate the ban on uranium mining promised before the last election before it’s too late,” said Mr Bailey. ”The Newman government has no mandate from the people of Queensland to allow uranium mining as they explicitly ruled it out before the election.”

For Australia’s uranium industry to survive – call to store nuclear wastes in Australia!

Call to store nuclear waste to sustain uranium industry http://www.afr.com/p/business/sunday/call_to_store_nuclear_waste_to_sustain_bQJnppe7viMuI9dlCLPbmJ CLAIRE STEWART, 22 Sept 13 Australia will need to start enriching uranium and storing the nuclear waste if it is going to sustain a competitive ­uranium industry in the future, says senior finance and resources figure Mark Johnson.

Mr Johnson, a former deputy chair of Macquarie Bank and former chairman of AGL, said Australia had a “great opportunity” to become a participant in a “free world nuclear fuel cycle”, if it produces uranium. “But the consequence of that is we would also have to store spent uranium,” he told Financial Review Sunday.
Federal government laws explicitly prohibit the building of nuclear fab­rication, enrichment or power plants and the return of nuclear waste to ­Australia for storage. “Nobody wants spent nuclear fuel in their backyard, even if it would be right in the centre of the outback of Australia, [with] very stable geological conditions,” Mr Johnson said.

The price of uranium has halved since governments around the world promised to cut their reliance on nuclear power following the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Energy Resources Australia chief executive Rob Atkinson said the market will turn, particularly given expected demand from China.

For other democracies, nuclear power is “off the table for generations”, Mr Johnson said, prompting sug­gestions that enrichment and storage of waste will be a key part of expanding the industry. Australia currently processes uranium to the “yellow cake” stage, which is then exported for further processing and concentration, and in some cases turned into fuel rods.

Uranium as a fuel source can only be used for about three years before it becomes too unstable, said Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear ­campaigner Dave Sweeny. He said making Australia part of the global fuel cycle was about opening the country up for return of that spent material. “Industry returns are meagre and the risks are significant and continuing,” he said. “Storage is the Achilles heel . . . it highlights the political, social and technical difficulty of doing this.”

Radioactive wasteland from Utah’s Moab uranium facility

TV: Western U.S. turned into “radiant wasteland” by nuclear-related facilities http://enenews.com/tv-western-u-s-turned-into-radiant-wasteland-by-nuclear-related-facilities
Title: Moab, Utah: Beauty and the Nuclear Feast
Source: KCET
Author: Char Miller
Date: June 19, 2013  

[…] The [uranium] tailings made Moab [Utah] glow — and not in a good way. For nearly 30 years, the various companies that operated the facility dumped ton after ton of the radioactive sandy byproduct into an unlined impoundment area located 750 feet from the river. Over the decades, this Geiger-hot waste, which ultimately totaled 12 million cubic yards, was spread over 130 acres at a depth of more than 80 feet. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), which took over remediation of the site, the tailings “have an average radioactivity of 665 picocuries per gram of radium-226,” and because the center of the monstrous pile has a “high water content…excess water in the pile drains into underlying soils, contaminating the ground water.”

Some the deleterious consequences are revealed in “The American West at Risk,” an illuminating book whose authors pay special attention to the Moab mill. It’s hard to dispute their claim that it ranks “high in the annals of indiscriminate disposal,” for the tailings each day continue to release “an estimated 28,000 gallons of radioactive pollutants and toxic chemicals into the only major river draining the southwestern United States.” […]

The Moab mine, like Washington’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Rocky Flats weapons facility in Colorado, and Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico, helped turn the west into a radiant wasteland. […]
See also: Los Angeles-area Meltdown: Cesium-137 still up to 1,000 times higher than standard — Plutonium also detected — Located between Chatsworth and Simi Valley

Scandalous environmental destruction through uranium mining – Canada’s Beaverlodge area

Uranium mining legacy expensive, The Star Phoenix,  By Ann Coxworth, May 30, 2013 “…….The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission recently reviewed plans for continuing management of some of the contaminated sites in northern Saskatchewan – relics of uranium mining activities that took place during the 1960s and 1970s.

The cost of remediating surface waters to levels compatible with Saskatchewan surface water quality objectives is so overwhelming thatwe know it will never happen.

Because the companies that caused the pollution are no longer in existence, these costs now fall to the federal and provincialtaxpayers. The goal of industry and regulators now is simply to prevent the contamination from getting any worse.

One such contaminated region is the Beaverlodge area.

Beaverlodge Lake, just north of Lake Athabasca and east of Uranium
City, is linked to Lake Athabasca through a series of small lakes and
rivers. It is beautiful, and is home to an abundance of fish……..
Beaverlodge Lake, however, is contaminated with the poorly managed
wastes from uranium mining operations that closed down in the early
1980s. Eldorado Nuclear was a federal crown corporation that mined and
milled uranium close to the northeast corner of Beaver-lodge
Lake……
Eldorado no longer exists. The federal government created a new body,
Canada Eldor Inc., to be responsible for liabilities remaining from
Eldorado’s operations.

Canada Eldor has been financing work on continuing monitoring,
decommissioning and planning of remediation of the actual mine and
mill sites. However, this does not include Beaver-lodge Lake itself,
although much of the contamination has drifted downstream into that
lake and, from there, into the smaller lakes and streams that feed
into Lake Athabasca.

The situation is complicated by the fact that other abandoned mine
sites a little further west, owned by other defunct companies, have
also contributed to the problem in Beaverlodge Lake. The end result is
that Beaverlodge, a 57-squarekilometre body of water, is contaminated
with uranium and selenium at levels many times higher than
Saskatchewan surface water quality objectives require. Fish
consumption restrictions now apply…..
In April, Cameco appeared at a public hearing of the CNSC to apply for
a 10year extension of its licence to manage the old Eldorado sites on
behalf of Canada Eldor Inc. Cameco presented a plan for stabilization
of the contamination which, it hopes, would get the sites into a
condition where they could be turned over to Saskatchewan’s
Institutional Control Program, relieving the federal government of
responsibility and of the need for CNSC licensing.

This plan would still leave unacceptably high levels of contamination
in five watersheds. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Uranium+mining+legacy+expensive/8453403/story.html#ixzz2UvWzGKon

Call for uranium companies to clean up their radioactive trash in Colorado

A Fight in Colorado Over Uranium Mines NYT, By DAN FROSCH April 16, 2013 SLICK ROCK, Colo.”……..Despite bursts of activity from 2003 through 2008, most uranium mines scattered across Colorado have largely been out of production for decades, a testament to fluctuating mineral prices. Now the future of these mines is at the crux of a dispute that could set a precedent for how they are handled.

Environmental groups in Colorado contend that many of the state’s 33 uranium mines should be forced to clean up, given that uranium mining, which flourished here during the cold war, has gone dormant. In legal filings, they have alleged that companies like Cotter are skirting potential costs associated with cleanup, which is required by the state after an operation shuts down.

The environmental groups say the companies should be prohibited from obtaining state-issued exemptions, under which the companies do not have to produce but are not obligated to restore the land, either. Letting the mines idle heightens the risk of contaminating treasured areas like the Dolores with radioactive substances like uranium and radon, the groups argue. At a hearing on Wednesday, Colorado’s mining board will review the environmental groups’ objections.

The dispute cuts especially deep in the West, where abandoned uranium mines pock the region and have cost the federal government millions to reclaim.

“State law says that you should be either mining the land or you should be reclaiming the land so it can released for other uses,” said Travis Stills, a lawyer with Energy & Conservation Law, a firm that represents the Information Network for Responsible Mining, a Colorado watchdog group that goes by the acronym Inform. “But you can’t just go out and occupy the land for decades while doing essentially nothing, except be an ongoing source of pollution.”…..

The United States Geological Survey is also poised to start researching the potential long-term impacts of uranium mining on wildlife, the environment and humans….. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/a-fight-in-colorado-over-uranium-mines.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Plans near completion for dumping nuclear wastes in Nevada desert

DOE finalizing plans to dump man-made uranium in Nevada, Fox News, By Barnini Chakraborty April 12, 2013 WASHINGTON –  A Department of Energy plan to drag hundreds of canisters of radioactive nuclear material into the Nevada desert for a “shallow land burial” is raising safety concerns as experts worry what could happen if the security of the bomb-making material were compromised. Energy officials told FoxNews.com the department is preparing to ship 403 welded steel containers of a man-made highly radioactive cargo to the Nevada National Security Site, about an hour northwest of Las Vegas. 

The canisters would carry about 2.6 kilograms of uranium-233 and uranium-235 – two products so dangerous that they require safety escorts and can only be handled with remote-controlled cranes.

The radiation at the exterior of the canisters is about 300 rads (radiation absorbed dose), which categorizes it as a high-hazard level. According to Robert Alvarez of the Institute of Policy Studies, this raises serious proliferation and safety concerns.

“I went over to the headquarters, talked to project managers. They all sort of gave me the ‘I don’t know’ response,” Alvarez told FoxNews.com. “Nobody wants to deal with it.”

The DOE says the container sleeves act as a shield and reduce the radiation field by about half. The uranium 233 will be in ceramic form and welded shut which will add an extra level of protection.

The material would be transported from Tennessee’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the government’s only facility for handling, processing and storing weapons-grade uranium.  The radioactive waste that could be headed Nevada’s way in a matter of days is what’s left over from a government research program in the 1980s called Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Project……

“This is nasty stuff,” one federal official told The Las Vegas Review-Journal. “It’s a safeguard material that you watch over with lots of guns and make sure it is in a place you could safely say would be safe and people won’t be able to get to it.”

Uranium-235 is an isotope made up of 0.72 percent of uranium and was attractive to the government because it can undergo induced fission – something needed for producing nuclear power.

While some experts tell FoxNews.com they are not worried about the safety surrounding the disposal plan, others, like Alvarez urge caution.

Alvarez says DOE has yet to meet or address the challenges of ensuring that the uranium is accounted for and stored in safe facilities or creating a viable plan to safely dispose of it. He adds that the department’s decision to move the nuclear material “sets an exceptionally bad precedent for the rest of the world not just in terms of non-proliferation but in protecting public safety and security from concentrated fissile materials.”

Alvarez, who worked at the DOE and also served for five years as a senior investigator for what is now the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is widely regarded as an expert on the country’s nuclear weapons program…… http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/12/doe-finalizing-plans-to-dump-man-made-uranium-in-nevada/

Secret convoy of depleted uranium from Ontario to South Carolina

How should any public right to know be weighed next conflicting needs of secrecy and security?

Uranium convoy heading your way? North Country Public radio, February 17th, 2013 by Lucy Martin  ”….sometime soon an armed convoy of trucks carrying depleted uranium may be trundling down roads between a nuclear facility in Chalk River Ontario and a reprocessing site in South Carolina.

For obvious reasons, specifics about transporting highly-enriched uranium (HEU) are not being publicized. As the crow flies, though, such a journey could easily involve cutting across New York State.

Here’s the story as reported in the Ottawa CItizen this week by Ian MacLeod:

…a 2011 federal government memo says the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) considers it unnecessary to hold public sessions that would allow citizens to ask questions and comment on the HEU repatriations to the U.S. The CNSC declined to comment on the memo Tuesday.

Documents from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission say an “expedited” approval is being sought for transport of the liquid HEU. It is believed to be the first time such a highly radioactive solution has been transported by road in North America and, according to U.S. commission documents, could happen as early as August.

Other U.S. commission documents show March 1 is the U.S. target date for approving transport of the spent fuel rods to the Savannah River Site.

Filing for the National Post Ian MacLeod also reports:

“This does seem to be an unprecedented, cross-border shipment of liquid high-level waste and, for that reason alone, it needs the highest order of environmental review on both sides of the border,” says Tom Clements, a South Carolina campaign co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth and former executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington.

(More technical information regarding this complex subject is discussed in both articles.)…… The conveyance choices consist of plane, barge, truck or rail. Each has potential problems.

How should any public right to know be weighed next conflicting needs of secrecy and security?

tootightmike says:

February 17, 2013 at 3:54 pm

One reasonable concern that must be answered is whether our homeowners policies will cover us in a worst case, traffic accident. Another would the concern over a terrorist attack sort of threat, and I’m pretty sure my policy expressly DOES NOT cover such damages.
Do our governments have some sort of policy that would re-locate and re-build an entire town that might be polluted by a random catastrophy? How about a river and all affected parties downstream?
I understand the need for secrecy. Handled properly such a transport will pass by un-noticed like so many other hazardous loads through town. The daily trains that run through Potsdam and Canton carry truly frightening chemicals, every day, and several times per day, and in the event of an accident, dead is dead.
So is there some assurance that we’ll all be safe and happy in the event of a mishap, or are we, along the route, involved in this risk too? http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2013/02/17/weapons-grade-uranium-convoy-nimby-on-wheels/

Tax-payer, not MArathon, will pay for Arkaroola uranium cleanup

In February of this year, Marathon was paid $5 million in compensation by the State Government over the decision to stop it exploring in the Flinders Ranges.

 it is ironic the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is home to a radioactive waste facility.

Radioactive waste being stored in shed in Arkaroola, THE AUSTRALIAN   BRYAN LITTLELY  with Giuseppe Tauriello From: adelaidenow December 25, 2012  IT’S the nuclear-waste facility that few people know about – 21 barrels of medium- to high-level radioactive material stored in a tin shed in South Australia’s Outback paradise.

The waste is in the heart of Arkaroola, the Outback wilderness sanctuary the State Government hopes will one day be included on the World Heritage list.

The facility, known as Painter Camp, is not registered under the Radiation Protection Act and a management plan for its safe and secure operation is still being developed.

In a revelation likely to outrage environmental groups and anti-nuclear campaigners, responsibility for Painter Camp now lies with the State Government, which a decade ago took its fight against the construction of a national radioactive waste depository in our Outback to the High Court. Former premier Mike Rann said in 2003 that “80 per cent of South Australians were opposed to the radioactive waste dump”.

South Australian tax-payers now landed with costs of Marathon’s uranum radioactive wastes

In February of this year, Marathon was paid $5 million in compensation by the State Government over the decision to stop it exploring in the Flinders Ranges.

 it is ironic the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is home to a radioactive waste facility.

Radioactive waste being stored in shed in Arkaroola, THE AUSTRALIAN   BRYAN LITTLELY  with Giuseppe Tauriello From: adelaidenow December 25, 2012  IT’S the nuclear-waste facility that few people know about – 21 barrels of medium- to high-level radioactive material stored in a tin shed in South Australia’s Outback paradise.

The waste is in the heart of Arkaroola, the Outback wilderness sanctuary the State Government hopes will one day be included on the World Heritage list.

The facility, known as Painter Camp, is not registered under the Radiation Protection Act and a management plan for its safe and secure operation is still being developed.

In a revelation likely to outrage environmental groups and anti-nuclear campaigners, responsibility for Painter Camp now lies with the State Government, which a decade ago took its fight against the construction of a national radioactive waste depository in our Outback to the High Court. Former premier Mike Rann said in 2003 that “80 per cent of South Australians were opposed to the radioactive waste dump”.

Sorry history of Australian rare earths company Lynas’ venture into Malaysia

Lynas was attracted to Malaysia because it was offered tax free status for 10 years.

there was little mention of the waste — or “residue”, as Lynas prefers to call it.

Lynas and its supporters assert its operations are completely safe, but as NM reported on Monday, others — including scientists — are less confident.

The IAEA also recommended that Lynas proceed no further until it had filed comprehensive plans for the permanent disposal of waste, decommissioning of the plant and remediation of the site at the end of its life.

Lynas’ waste plans a toxic pipe dream  Aliran,   19 December 2012 Scientists and community leaders are concerned about radioactive waste from Lynas’ Malaysian plant but the company representative who took Wendy Bacon’s questions brushed off the criticism. This is the second of two articles about Lynas by Wendy Bacon. Read the first here.http://aliran.com/11005.html Australian rare earth company Lynas has always known it had a waste problem.

It plans to process rare earth concentrate, imported from its mine at Mount Weld in Western Australia, at its Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (Lamp) in Malaysia. It will not only produce rare earths for export but also a huge amount of waste, including more than a million cubic metres of low level radioactive material.