BOISE, Idaho -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may change its rules to allow the nuclear industry to dump some of its waste in landfills.

Opponents say the change poses a public health risk and would allow waste to go unmonitored.

The proposal would enable the NRC to reinterpret the meaning of low-level radioactive waste so that it could be accepted at dumps and hazardous waste sites, rather than regulated storage facilities.

Daniel Hirsch is president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, an organization that focuses on nuclear safety. He says a dump site in Idaho would benefit from this change.

"In addition to the waste potentially going to everyone's municipal landfill, the real focus of this is to allow the U.S. Ecology facility in Idaho to -- without a license -- start taking the material that up until today you're required to have a license for," he points out.

On Friday, the public comment period was extended from April 20 to July 20. But Hirsch and other opponents say the COVID-19 pandemic isn't allowing for proper scrutiny of the rule. They want it picked back up six months after the coronavirus crisis is over.

Diane D'Arrigo, radioactive waste project director for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, says the change would allow the industry to dispose of any waste other than irradiated fuel at landfills. That includes concrete, soil, clothing or any material where radiation still exists. The limit would be 25 millirem per year, a unit of absorbed radiation.

D'Arrigo says the change poses a big public health risk.

"There's some so-called low-level waste that could give a lethal dose in 15 minutes if you're exposed unshielded,"
she point out. "So 'low level' has been a misnomer for a very long time."

Terry Lodge, an attorney who works on nuclear safety issues, says the industry has been working for this change for decades because of the cost of disposing waste at radioactive-storage facilities.

"The utilities build the expense of disposing of the waste into their electrical charges to us customers," he points out. "So it's not as though they don't have the money. But there is a relentless search for quick and dirty solutions."


get more stories like this via email

Today's 80th anniversary of the Trinity nuclear bomb test in New Mexico comes weeks after Congress agreed to include the state in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

The law was first established in 1990 but New Mexicans affected by radiation exposure known as "downwinders" were excluded, while others in Nevada, Utah and Arizona benefited.

Tina Cordova, cofounder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, said the recent action was only a partial victory, because those who qualify must apply and be approved for compensation by the end of 2028.

"We're going to continue to fight for the communities that were left out, we're going to continue to fight for a longer extension, more time," Cordova explained. "Because we firmly believe that two years is not going to be enough for the people of New Mexico that have been waiting 80 years."

A family member can apply on behalf of those who have died but compensation for health care costs cannot exceed $100,000 dollars. More than $2.5 billion in claims have been paid by the federal government since 1990. The expansion also includes downwinders in Colorado, Idaho, Montana and Guam.

Cordova pointed out her group already is working to get people enrolled but complications are expected due to changes in the Medicaid program included in the budget megabill. Based on her health surveys of downwinders the past 16 years, she believes it could be a significant number.

"We do know that they depend on Medicaid to access health care when they become so sick that they can't work any longer," Cordova observed. "It's in many ways very bittersweet for us. We'll take the win, but we're jut so nervous about what it means overall."

The Consortium will unveil a memorial sign Wednesday at the site of the Trinity bomb test, two hours south of Albuquerque. Melissa Parke, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize recipient and executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, will attend, along with other dignitaries.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups are voicing concerns about plans to build the nation's first small modular reactors at the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert Township, Michigan.

Holtec International said it aims to revive Palisades later this year, after it was decommissioned in 2022, and in five years, install the nation's first small modular reactors. Critics warned the reactors would still produce radioactive waste without long-term disposal solutions and pose accident risks like leaks and meltdowns.

Michael Keegan, research director for the grassroots group Don't Waste Michigan, said about 80 companies are competing to market their small modular reactors, which he argued are not really small nuclear reactors.

"A colleague of mine refers to them as 'small mythical reactors' because they don't exist," Keegan asserted. "They're 'PowerPoint' reactors. It's hyperbole, and they're all chasing Department of Energy money. We're talking billions of dollars."

A $1.5 billion U.S. Department of Energy loan backs the Palisades plant revival, as part of a push to extend the life of aging nuclear reactors to produce low-carbon energy.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has formed a panel to oversee the Palisades' restart for safety compliance. The plant is expected to eventually generate 800 megawatts and power 800,000 homes. Keegan noted anyone who wants to challenge the project must do so under the Administrative Procedures Act.

"We have to go through their administrative law judges," Keegan explained. "We have to go through all those processes, be denied, make an appeal to the NRC commission, be denied, before we can go to a federal court. And we're prepared to do that."

Holtec released a statement, saying in part, its restart project includes "thorough inspections, testing, maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to prepare the plant for a return to long-term operation."


get more stories like this via email

Interest in nuclear energy as a solution to "dirty" sources of power is growing, including a proposal in the Northwest. However, some critics say it could divert attention from more practical renewable energy solutions.

Amazon has signed an agreement with X-energy to build new nuclear technology, known as small modular reactors, to meet the company's growing energy needs. The aim is to build the reactors at the Hanford nuclear site along the Columbia River.

Kelly Campbell, policy director for Columbia Riverkeeper, said companies are looking into nuclear because they want it to be a "magic bullet" for climate change.

"It's a distraction," Campbell asserted. "It's a shiny object that you can say, 'Look over here! We're going to do 'clean' nuclear power.' But it's going to take 15 years at least to build these things, and meanwhile there's still part of the problem of trying to get more energy supply for the data centers and AI needs."

While small modular reactors are seen as an innovative way to provide nuclear energy without having to build large power plants, none has been built in the United States or approved by the federal government. An Oregon-based company called NuScale, at the forefront of small modular reactor design, had its only customer back out last year because of repeated delays in the project.

Campbell pointed out the location of the project Amazon and X-energy are moving forward with is also a concern.

"It's right on the Columbia River and if there's an emergency, if there's an accident with any of these nuclear facilities at Hanford, it would affect all of them," Campbell emphasized. "You may end up in a situation where you're not able to get in and do the things that you need to do in order to protect people from radiation."

After Amazon and Google expressed interest in nuclear to fuel their growing energy needs, the U.S. Department of Energy announced it would invest $900 million in this technology.

Campbell is convinced the money would be better spent on proven technology, like wind and solar.

"When we start spending it on nuclear, which people have called 'the most expensive way to boil water,' then that's an opportunity cost that we're losing, in terms of spending that on things we know will work and are safer, quicker to build and cheaper," Campbell contended.