Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
6. Proposals for constructing “temporary” storage solutions

     Some analysts consider consolidated interim storage sites (CIS) to be a distraction from the fact that a proven geological repository for spent nuclear fuel does not exist anywhere on Earth. The governors of Texas and New Mexico are fighting against the siting of CIS facilities in their states because they are afraid that they would become permanent radioactive dumps. Moving nuclear waste across the country to multiple CIS facilities would create the risk of radiation accidents along transportation corridors.

7. The Nuclear waste dry storage canisters that are currently in use across the U.S. are thin walled.

     The U.S. canisters have walls that are from one half to five eights of an inch thick. They are unsafe for long term storage or for off-site transport. They are susceptible to short-term cracking but cannot be inspected for cracks or monitored to prevent radiation release. Other countries use canisters with walls that are ten to nineteen inches thick. They are designed to prevent cracking, can be monitored. Some canisters survived the 2011 Fukushima earthquake and tsunami.
 

8. The nuclear meltdowns at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima show just how fragile nuclear power plants can be.

     There is absolutely no room for human error or natural disasters when it comes to anything connected to nuclear technology. Human civilizations come and go. Ancient empires could last over a thousand years, but recent empires have had lifetimes of only hundreds of years. The human race cannot even ensure the safety of our current nuclear reactors let alone ensure that futures societies will stay clear of our nuclear waste dumps for the next million+ years.

9. Nuclear plants are easy targets for terrorist attacks.

     All nuclear plants, operating or decommissioned, are vulnerable to attacks. Dry storage canisters are stored onsite at nuclear power plants in the open in Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations. Nuclear power plants vulnerability to malfeasance was highlighted recently by the ease with which Russia captured both the Chernobyl site and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant early in the invasion of Ukraine.

10. The concept that Advanced and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) can save the day with respect to climate change is magical thinking.

     First, SMRs are a completely unproven concept. Somewhere in the neighborhood of ten thousand SMRs would need to be constructed to impact climate change in time. This would create thousands more radioactive dump sites. There would be many opportunities for both nuclear accidents from human error or natural disasters and weapons proliferation from the plutonium generated by nuclear reactors.

     Getting to net zero carbon emissions by the early 2050s will require the greatest reduction in carbon emissions in the shortest time and at the lowest cost. That nuclear cannot deliver on this and should be banned is the outspoken position of the former director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory Jazcko.
     The current support espoused by too many politicians for new nuclear power installations and their explanations for that support blatantly faulty. Every dollar misspent on a new nuclear power plant is a dollar that cannot be invested in efficiency and faster, cheaper renewables. Expanding nuclear power will retard progress on solving the climate crisis.
     No matter what the misguided motivations of some politicians may be, the duty of informed citizens is to demand that they abandon the deadly pursuit of new nuclear energy and commit to shutting down our aging nuclear reactors.

Ambient office = 82 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 123 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 125 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 113 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 81 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     I have posted several articles listing reasons to not expand nuclear power. I decided to do another post on this subject today.
     Former nuclear regulatory officials from the U.S., France, Germany, and the U.K. put out a joint statement last January that strongly opposed any expansion of nuclear power as a strategy to combat climate change. They said that there was not a single good reason to build new nuclear plants. Here is a list of reasons not to expand nuclear power.
1. Nuclear power is takes too long to implement to fight climate change.

     Successful construction and operation of the new generation of proposed commercial nuclear power plants called Advanced and Small Nuclear Reactors are decades away at best. The latest report from the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change points out that limiting global warming to two and seven tenths degrees Fahrenheit means that the world has to reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions globally in the early 2050s. Wind and solar power plants can be constructed and operating in a few months or years. Carbon Tracker is a financial think tank that believes renewables can power the world by 2050.
2. Nuclear Energy is just too expensive

     Renewable power sources like wind and solar are already the cheapest energy in the world. Their prices continue to decline. By 2019, utility-scale renewable energy prices have already fallen to less than half the cost of nuclear energy. In combination with lower natural gas prices, there has been little to no momentum in the U.S. to construct new nuclear power plants for decades. Expanding nuclear power generation would definitely result in higher energy costs for consumers.

3. Nuclear power is not carbon-free or non-polluting.

     While it may be true that electricity produced by an operating nuclear power plant does not emit carbon dioxide, mining and enrichment of uranium are carbon intensive and produce potent greenhouse gases called chlorofluorocarbons. Releases of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and water from operating nuclear power plants are common. The U.S. has already accumulated eighty five thousand metric tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel which is the most dangerous pollutant known to man.

4. Permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel remains technically unsolved.
 
     Although the U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 mandated the construction of a permanent deep geologic repository to safely sequester spent nuclear fuel for a million years or more. Four decades later, there has been little progress. It is estimated that it will be 2050 before there can be an operating spent nuclear fuel repository in the U.S. The nuclear power plants in the U.S. for the foreseeable future are de facto nuclear waste dumps.
5. Nuclear power is not renewable.

     Like coal, oil and natural gas, uranium is a finite resource. The U.S. imports about half of its uranium from Russia and two of its closest allies, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Uranium was not included in the Biden administration’s recent ban on importing fuels from Russia in response to the Ukraine invasion.

Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 117 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Lemon from Central Market = 144 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 84 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 59 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     During the Senate field hearing, attorneys from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and from the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental law firm, brought up the NRC’s proposed rule changes.
     Seth Schofield is a senior attorney at the Attorney General’s office. He took issue with the NRC’s track record of oversight at Pilgrim. He also said that the proposed rules water down the agency’s already anemic oversight. The rules allow the NRC to take a “hands-off approach and allow the licensees to make all the meaningful decisions. It is a risky approach.”
     Geoffrey H. Fettus is an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He said that he hoped the NRC would take all the feedback from those who testified at the May 6th subcommittee hearing and incorporate it into its final decision on rule changes. He added that “This rule [change] is the last good chance to get it right. Set the ground rules for sites around the country. The proposed rule does not do that.”
     The NRC meeting followed the Markey hearing by two days and was much less contentious. The purpose of the NRC hearing was to give an overall description of the changes governing the decommissioning process for nuclear power plants across the country. The presenters at the meeting also asked audience members to send comments about the changes to the NRC during a public comment period that has been extended until the 30th of August.
     The proposed NRC rules would implement specific regulatory requirements for different phases of the decommissioning process. The new rules would be consistent with the reduced risk and based on lessons learned from plants that have recently transitioned to decommissioning. The proposed rules also included changes in emergency preparedness planning, funding, and reporting requirements for plants undergoing decommissioning. The NRC’s final report is expected to be finished by May of 2024.
     The language at the hearing was very technical and it seemed to be geared to industry insiders. However, the audience stayed until the question-and-answer period at the end of the hearing. Although audience members said little about the proposed rule changes, they made it clear that the discharge of radioactive wastewater into Cape Cod Bay should be prohibited by the NRC.
     Henrietta Cosentino is a member of the Plymouth Area League of Women Voters. She said, “I would have to spend days going over this.” She was concerned about the casks of nuclear material stored near the side of the road at the Pilgrim plant. She asked whether the NRC’s oversight extended to such vulnerable storage areas. She was told that the proposed rules did not address changing the storage standards. However, Ms. Cosentino was told that she could submits comments on the matter.
     Many environmentalists stated that they want the NRC to stop the plan to discharge radioactive water into the Bay.
      Diane Turco is a spokesperson for the Cape Downwinders. She said that the NRC should enforce its existing rules before trying to adopt new ones. She added that “I don’t have much faith in your proposals. You need to go back to the drawing board.”

Ambient office = 77 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 126 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 128 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 70 nanosieverts per hour