Group items tagged

The Korea Nuclear Energy Foundation (KNEF), whose major role is national promotion and advertisement of nuclear power, has been receiving harsh criticism for not having conducted any public opinion polls this year in contrast to the 12 polls last year. Observers say it is clear that the organization is conveying public opinion only when　the public atmosphere is in favor of nuclear power, but dodging public opinion that is critical of nuclear energy. The KNEF said Tuesday, “We could not conduct public-opinion polls this year since　expenditures on hosting symposiums and issuing informational brochures in response to the　Fukushima accident exceeded the budget. We plan to conduct surveys next year instead.”

However, observers say that KNEF is avoiding public surveys for fear of publicizing the negative image for nuclear power that Fukushima accident in March 2011 has triggered. In fact, according to a public opinion poll conducted by Busan chapter of the Korea Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM), only 7.4% of 1,000 respondents supported the government’s plan to spur the development of nuclear power while 60.9% did not.　 Even when reflecting on the steps that KNEF has taken in the past, their explanations have failed to sway observers. Last year, when the finalized contract for exporting nuclear power plant to　United Arab Emirates (UAE) boosted the public support for nuclear power, KNEF actively conducted　12 public opinion polls from February to December. They spent 45 million won ($39,379) on one survey throuth one-on-one interviews and 8 million won on each 11 phone surveys. It is　drastically different from their old practice of conducting surveys only once a quarter. Based on the　results of the numerous public opinion polls conducted last year, KNEF advertised that the majority　(88%) of the citizens support nuclear power.

Lee Hun-seok, head of Energy Justice Actions, said, “It appears that they have failed to conduct any public opinion polls for fear of publicizing the anti-nuclear atmosphere. They only provide　polls and information in favor of nuclear power. How can anyone trust such biased information?”

An independent panel advising Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry confirmed Friday that the ministry's nuclear watchdog was involved in attempts by utilities to manipulate public opinion in favor of nuclear power, a conclusion likely to reinforce public mistrust in the nuclear industry and to raise further hurdles for the restart of idled reactors. The ministry also announced later in the day that it has suspended former Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency spokesman Hidehiko Nishiyama for one month after finding he engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a female staffer during working hours at the height of the nuclear crisis. The panel's conclusion is likely to renew calls for reforming governance at power companies, which have a reputation for being secretive about their nuclear-power operations and for covering up mishaps at their plants.

"The revelations may further undermine public confidence in nuclear policy after the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant," said Takashi Oizumi, chairman of the panel and former public prosecutor, at a news conference. The panel looked into 41 government-sponsored events over five years. No attempts of manipulation were found at symposiums involving Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the Fukushima plant. According to the panel report, the ministry's officials—mostly from its NISA offices—asked the operators of five nuclear-power plants to encourage employees, between 2005 and 2009, to attend government-sponsored briefings and symposiums and to express opinions in favor of nuclear energy.

Such gatherings are meant to provide an opportunity for the government to explain nuclear-power policy and for the public to express opinions. Local mayors and governors often used such events to gauge public opinion and make decisions on whether they would proceed in line with the government's nuclear policy. The government already announced over the summer plans to overhaul the regulation of nuclear power and to step up safety checks at nuclear plants. But there has been little sign that public confidence in nuclear-power is returning. Only 11 of the nation's 54 commercial reactors remain in operation.

An independent investigation of power companies and the regulatory agency NISA found a total of 7 situations where nuclear support was faked by power company employees. All of the power companies named either have MOX plutonium mix fuel running in a reactor at the area in question or were attempting to do so. There were also influence attempts related to restarts. The companies were accused of influencing public opinion back in July, the investigation agreed that this was the case. NISA colluded with the power companies to have employees pose as average people in support of the nuclear power companies plans. One power company employee went so far as to pretend to be a farmer in a meeting. The employees did not disclose their relationship with the power companies and it is thought that these staged events heavily influenced the approval of the projects.

People familiar with the industry said this kind of thing has been going on for 20-30 years. Another known tactic is for employees to attend the meeting in large numbers in order to deny available seats to the public. This tactic being a method to push out any dissent and control the debate. TEPCO has admitted it used employee influence tactics at meetings on the desired restart of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa after it was shut down due to damage from a 2007 earthquake. Companies named in the investigation: Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Genkai plant Shikoku Electric Power Co.’s Ikata plant Chubu Electric Power Co.’s Hamaoka plant Tohoku Electric Power Co.’s  Onagawa Hokkaido Electric Power Co.’s Tomari

Power companies in Japan running MOX fuel Tomari’s plan to run MOX fuel and influence public support

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Six months after the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, solid majorities of Americans still view nuclear energy favorably, still support the extension of operating licenses at existing facilities that meet federal safety standards, and still believe that construction of a new reactor is acceptable at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that already is operating, a new national survey shows.While support for nuclear energy has declined from the historically high level seen one year ago, support on a variety of measures is holding at the majority levels found consistently in public opinion surveys conducted throughout the past decade.

In the new telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. adults, 62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed. Those strongly favoring nuclear energy outnumber those strongly opposed by a two-to-one ratio, 28 percent vs. 13 percent, according to the survey conducted Sept. 22-24 by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK Roper. The survey was sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Numerous surveys conducted by Bisconti Research over the past decade show that public support for nuclear energy topped 60 percent each year, rising as high as 74 percent of Americans in March 2010.

"While there is some evidence of impact of the Fukushima events, support for nuclear energy continues at much higher levels than in earlier decades," company President Ann Bisconti said. "Turmoil in oil-rich areas of the world and hikes in oil prices historically have focused public opinion even more on nuclear energy, and may have helped to preclude serious impact of events in Japan on public attitudes."Despite the Fukushima accident, 67 percent of Americans rate U.S. nuclear power plant safety high. This is identical to the safety rating found in a national survey last February, one month prior to the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima accident. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that "we should learn the lessons from the Japanese accident and continue to develop advanced nuclear energy plants to meet America's growing electricity demand," the new survey showed.

The private notes of the head of a U.S. cultural center in Hiroshima revealed that Washington targeted the city's residents with pro-nuclear propaganda in the mid-1950s after deciding a swing in their opinions was vital to promoting the use of civil nuclear power in Japan and across the world. The organizers of a U.S.-backed exhibition that toured 11 major Japanese cities from November 1955 to September 1957 initially considered opening the first exhibition in Hiroshima.

According to the private papers of Abol Fazl Fotouhi, former president of the American Cultural Center in Hiroshima, the idea of choosing the city was proposed at a meeting of officials of the U.S. Information Service in December 1954.

The proposal was dropped because officials were worried that it would link nuclear energy too closely with nuclear bombs. Tokyo was chosen to open the tour and three other cities were visited before the exhibition opened at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, which commemorates the 1945 bombing, on May 27, 1956.

On August 26, 2011, Prime Minister Kan Naoto resigned from office after a tempestuous fifteen months in power. Since May 2011 a virtual lynch mob egged on by the media bayed for his resignation. Kan’s ouster became an obsession of the nation’s powerbrokers. This article examines why, in the midst of an unprecedented cascade of disasters, natural and nuclear, the Kan problem trumped all others.

The fiercely partisan politics of the complex Tōhoku catastrophe has slowed action on recovery and discredited politicians of all political stripes. The public views Diet members with growing contempt because too many politicians seem to have prioritized petty party politics over reconstruction and safety of the victims. In early June 2011, while nearly 100,000 evacuees languished in evacuation centers, and with relatively little progress towards recovery in many battered coastal communities or controlling the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi, the Diet devoted its energy to a no-confidence motion to oust Prime Minister Kan Naoto. Naturally, the public was dismayed by this unproductive vendetta at a time when the nation was looking for substantial emergency measures. Polls taken at the time of the no-confidence motion showed that a vast majority of Japanese did not think ousting Kan was a pressing priority even though he was unpopular. In the court of public opinion, the verdict on national politicians is dereliction of duty.

On the eve of 3/11, PM Kan looked to be on his way out as scandals sullied his administration and he plunged in public opinion polls. In the wake of the multiple disasters, Kan enjoyed a brief bounce in public support and a lull in the escalating vilification by the media and political opponents in the Diet. Within a month, however, this fragile solidarity unraveled and it was back to politics as usual featuring internecine sniping by the Ozawa Ichiro wing of Kan’s Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and shrill criticism coupled with stonewalling of many legislative initiatives by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

Extract An independent investigation in Japan has revealed a long history of nuclear power companies conspiring with governments to manipulate public opinion in favour of nuclear energy. One nuclear company even stacked public meetings with its own employees who posed as ordinary citizens to speak in support of nuclear power plants. “The number one reactor has been operating for 30 years and I’ve never had a problem selling my rice or vegetables because of fears of radiation,” a man posing as a farmer told a gathering of citizens discussing a proposal to use plutonium fuel at the Genkai nuclear plant on the southern island of Kyushu. The man was not a farmer at all. It turns out he is an employee of the Kyushu Electric Power Company, the operator of the Genkai nuclear plant. End Extract http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-03/japan-nuclear-companies-stacked-public-meetings/3206288/?site=melbourne

External radiation is not counted in this number, as opposed to their draft plan in July which did include external radiation, and it is in addition to the natural radiation exposure (by which is meant pre-Fukushima natural).The experts on the Commission didn't rule on the radiation limit for children, leaving the decision to the Ministry of Health and Labor as if the top-school career bureaucrats in the Ministry would know better.Yomiuri and other MSMs are spinning it as "tightening" the existing provisional safety limits on food.From Yomiuri Shinbun (10/27/2011):

The Food Safety Commission under the Cabinet Office has been deliberating on the health effect of internal radiation exposure from the radioactive materials in food. On October 27, it submitted its recommendation to set the upper limit on lifetime cumulative radiation from food at 100 millisieverts.

On receiving the recommendation, the Ministry of Health and Labor will start setting the detailed guidelines for each food items. They are expected to be stricter than the provisional safety limits set right after the Fukushima I Nuclear Plant accident. The Radiation Commission under the Ministry of Education will review the guidelines to be set by the Ministry of Health and Labor, and the new safety limits will be formally decided.

SciDev.Net reporters from around the world tell us which countries are set on developing nuclear energy despite the Fukushima accident. The quest for energy independence, rising power needs and a desire for political weight all mean that few developing countries with nuclear ambitions have abandoned them in the light of the Fukushima accident. Jordan's planned nuclear plant is part of a strategy to deal with acute water and energy shortages.

The Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) wants Jordan to get 60 per cent of its energy from nuclear by 2035. Currently, obtaining energy from neighbouring Arab countries costs Jordan about a fifth of its gross domestic product. The country is also one of the world's most water-poor nations. Jordan plans to desalinate sea water from the Gulf of Aqaba to the south, then pump it to population centres in Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa, using its nuclear-derived energy. After the Fukushima disaster, Jordan started re-evaluating safety procedures for its nuclear reactor, scheduled to begin construction in 2013. The country also considered more safety procedures for construction and in ongoing geological and environmental investigations.

The government would not reverse its decision to build nuclear reactors in Jordan because of the Fukushima disaster," says Abdel-Halim Wreikat, vice Chairman of the JAEC. "Our plant type is a third-generation pressurised water reactor, and it is safer than the Fukushima boiling water reactor." Wreikat argues that "the nuclear option for Jordan at the moment is better than renewable energy options such as solar and wind, as they are still of high cost." But some Jordanian researchers disagree. "The cost of electricity generated from solar plants comes down each year by about five per cent, while the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power is rising year after year," says Ahmed Al-Salaymeh, director of the Energy Centre at the University of Jordan. He called for more economic feasibility studies of the nuclear option.

"A poll for the BBC shows that worldwide support for nuclear power has dropped significantly in the past 6 years. However, while support has dropped in most countries, the UK has defied the trend, where 37% of the public support building new reactors. Unsurprisingly, support in Japan has dropped significantly, with only 6% supporting new reactors. The U.S. remains the country with the highest public opinion of nuclear power, though support has dropped slightly. Much of the decline in approval has been attributed to the events in Fukushima earlier in the year, although a recent Slashdot poll indicated that many readers' opinions had not been affected by the events, and there was an even split between those who found the technology more or less safe since the events. With reports on the long lasting effects in Fukushima still conflicted, is nuclear power still a viable solution to the world's energy problems?"

Nuclear Phase-Out Related articles, background features and opinions about this topic. Print E-Mail Feedback 07/13/2011   Phase-Out Hurdle Germany Could Restart Nuclear Plant to Plug Energy Gap dapd Germany might need to switch a nuclear power plant back on. Germany's energy agency is warning that one of the German reactors mothballed in the wake of Fukushima may have to be restarted to make up for possible power shortages this winter and next. Berlin is also   using money earmarked for energy efficiency to subsidize coal-fired power plants. For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol. Nuclear energy, as has become abundantly clear this year, has no future in Germany. For once the government, the parliament and the public all agree: Atomic reactors in the country will be history a decade from now. Before that can happen, however, the country has to find alternate power sources. In fact, amid concerns that supply shortages this winter could result in temporary blackouts, Germany's Federal Network Agency on Tuesday indicated that one of the seven reactors shut down in the immediate wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan could be restarted this winter to fill the gap . "The numbers that we currently have indicate that one of these nuclear energy plants will be needed," said agency head Matthias Kurth on Tuesday in Berlin. He said that ongoing analysis has indicated that fossil fuel-powered plants would not prove to be adequate as a backup.

Nuclear Phase-Out Related articles, background features and opinions about this topic. Print E-Mail Feedback 07/13/2011   Phase-Out Hurdle Germany Could Restart Nuclear Plant to Plug Energy Gap dapd Germany might need to switch a nuclear power plant back on. Germany's energy agency is warning that one of the German reactors mothballed in the wake of Fukushima may have to be restarted to make up for possible power shortages this winter and next. Berlin is also   using money earmarked for energy efficiency to subsidize coal-fired power plants. For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol. Nuclear energy, as has become abundantly clear this year, has no future in Germany. For once the government, the parliament and the public all agree: Atomic reactors in the country will be history a decade from now. Before that can happen, however, the country has to find alternate power sources. In fact, amid concerns that supply shortages this winter could result in temporary blackouts, Germany's Federal Network Agency on Tuesday indicated that one of the seven reactors shut down in the immediate wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan could be restarted this winter to fill the gap

Nuclear Phase-Out Related articles, background features and opinions about this topic. Print E-Mail Feedback 07/13/2011  Phase-Out Hurdle Germany Could Restart Nuclear Plant to Plug Energy Gap dapd Germany might need to switch a nuclear power plant back on. Germany's energy agency is warning that one of the German reactors mothballed in the wake of Fukushima may have to be restarted to make up for possible power shortages this winter and next. Berlin is also using money earmarked for energy efficiency to subsidize coal-fired power plants.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a fan of nuclear energy.  I was able to get an inside look at the current state of the nuclear industry from a friend at Qualitech Solutions named Chris Sewell.  Qualitech Solutions provides mission-critical software to many industries, including the energy industry.  They have customers that are involved in nuclear utilities as well as design engineering firms working on major construction projects.  Qualitech Solutions has been in business for more than a decade.

Sewell says, “There is a hesitancy to continue with nuclear construction projects amidst the public concern over nuclear safety.  Society as a whole has become hypersensitive with anything pertaining to nuclear plant issues and safety.  The Fukushima incident not only altered the social climate, but also affected the financial backing of various new construction projects. There is however, a general consensus that due to its low carbon imprint, nuclear energy must be part of our energy future.”

The general public fears nuclear energy.  That is understandable considering the information that the public has been given.  The catastrophes and the mistakes are front page news.  But if the general public had more information about how the best nuclear plants are run, the opinion could turn.  This is why I asked Sewell about the success of nuclear energy in France.

Arnie Gundersen, who lives here in Burlington, is Chief Engineer of Fairewinds Associates is a well-known authority on the subject, someone who has figured prominently in recent accounts of Vermont Yankee circumstances.

I think he exaggerated his responsibilities for projects at NU, 1972-6.

There are several exaggerations in that brief statement. Because he has been an expert witness, Mr. Gundersen has been required to provide an accurate resume to public bodies; you can find one such document at the end of the testimony that he provided in March 2006 to oppose the Public Service of Vermont’s decision to allow Entergy to increase the power output from Vermont Yankee.

As the full cost of the Fukushima nuclear accident continues to climb—Japanese officials now peg it at $64 billion or more—nuclear power’s future is literally headed south. Developed countries are slowing or shuttering their nuclear-power programs, while states to their south, in the world’s hotspots (think the Middle East and Far East), are pushing to build reactors of their own. Normally, this would lead to even more of a focus on nuclear safety and nonproliferation. Yet, given how nuclear-reactor sales have imploded in the world’s advanced economies, both these points have been trumped by nuclear supplier states’ desires to corner what reactor markets remain.

This spring, Germany permanently shut down eight of its reactors and pledged to shutter the rest by 2022. Shortly thereafter, the Italians voted overwhelmingly to keep their country nonnuclear. Switzerland and Spain followed suit, banning the construction of any new reactors. Then Japan’s prime minister killed his country’s plans to expand its reactor fleet, pledging to reduce Japan’s reliance on nuclear power dramatically. Taiwan’s president did the same. Now Mexico is sidelining construction of 10 reactors in favor of developing natural-gas-fired plants, and Belgium is toying with phasing its nuclear plants out, perhaps as early as 2015.

China—nuclear power’s largest prospective market—suspended approvals of new reactor construction while conducting a lengthy nuclear-safety review. Chinese nuclear-capacity projections for the year 2020 subsequently tumbled by as much as 30 percent. A key bottleneck is the lack of trained nuclear technicians: to support China’s stated nuclear-capacity objectives, Beijing needs to graduate 6,000 nuclear experts a year. Instead, its schools are barely generating 600.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 25, 2009) — Concerns about climate change and energy independence have led to renewed calls for the resurgence of nuclear power. Therefore, it is important to understand the level of and bases for public attitudes, both supporting and opposing nuclear power. According to a new study published in the March issue of the journal Risk Analysis, the American public is ambivalent about nuclear power.

Nuclear power is no magic solution, argues Pervez Hoodbhoy — it's not safe, or cheap, and it leads to weapons programmes. A string of energy-starved developing countries have looked at nuclear power as the magic solution. No oil, no gas, no coal needed – it's a fuel with zero air pollution or carbon dioxide emissions. High-tech and prestigious, it was seen as relatively safe. But then Fukushima came along. The disaster's global psychological impact exceeded Chernobyl's, and left a world that's now unsure if nuclear electricity is the answe

Core concerns The fire that followed the failure of emergency generators at the Daiichi nuclear complex raised the terrifying prospect of radiation leaking and spreading. The core of the Unit 1 reactor melted, and spent nuclear fuel, stored under pools of water, sprang to life as cooling pumps stopped. Fukushima's nuclear reactors had been built to withstand the worst, including earthquakes and tsunamis. Sensors successfully shut down the reactors, but when a wall of water 30 feet high crashed over the 20-foot protective concrete walls, electrical power, essential for cooling, was lost. The plume of radiation reached as far as Canada. Closer, it was far worse. Japan knows that swathes of its territory will be contaminated, perhaps uninhabitable, for the rest of the century. In July, for example, beef, vegetables, and ocean fish sold in supermarkets were found to have radioactive caesium in doses several times the safe level. [1]

The Japanese have been careful. In the country of the hibakusha (surviving victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), all reactors go through closer scrutiny than anywhere else. But this clearly wasn't enough. Other highly developed countries — Canada, Russia, UK, and US — have also seen serious reactor accidents. What does this mean for a typical developing country? There, radiation dangers and reactor safety have yet to enter public debate. Regulatory mechanisms are strictly controlled by the authorities, citing national security reasons. And individuals or nongovernmental organisations are forbidden from monitoring radiation levels near any nuclear facility. Poor and powerless village communities in India and Pakistan, that have suffered health effects from uranium and thorium mining, have been forced to withdraw their court cases.

A new government energy panel, with nearly half of member experts critical of nuclear power generation, began discussing Monday revising Japan's national energy policy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear crisis. The panel's deliberations are important as they will "probe a road Japan will take over the next 100 or 200 years," Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano told the first meeting of the group.

The panel, newly created under the energy advisory committee of the industry ministry, is tasked with reviewing Japan's basic energy plan that calls for greater reliance on nuclear energy, revised just last year. It envisages nuclear power accounting for 53 percent of all electricity generated in Japan by 2030 from about 30 percent before the March 11 disaster. With around 10 of the 25 panel members opposing nuclear power generation, opinions both for and against nuclear energy were presented during the panel meeting. It differed from similar meetings in the past. A previous panel contained few opponents of nuclear energy, with the ministry playing an important role in promoting nuclear power generation. The panel, headed by Nippon Steel Corp. Chairman Akio Mimura, plans to compile a new energy plan by around next summer.

Edano asked panel members to promote discussions to sufficiently explore how the nation's energy policy should be, without being constrained by the current energy situation, saying, "Since the (Fukushima) accident, citizens' opinions and their trust on nuclear power have changed substantially." Since the start of the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, the government has shifted its stance to reducing the nation's reliance on nuclear power. The panel experts differ on how quickly to reduce Japan's reliance on nuclear power, as well as ways to introduce renewable energy.

Global growth in the civilian nuclear energy sector represents an annual trade market estimated at $500 billion to $740 billion over the next 10 years.  As new nations consider nuclear energy technology to produce low-carbon electricity, the United States should take a leadership role that will enhance the safety and nuclear nonproliferation regimes globally, while creating tens of thousands of new American jobs. The United States is the world leader in safe and efficient operation of nuclear power plants, with an average capacity factor of 90 percent or higher in each of the past 10 years.  When ranked by 36-month unit capability factor, the United States has the top three best performing nuclear reactors in the world, seven of the top 10, and 16 of the top 20.  Nuclear energy facilities produce electricity in 31 states and have attained a four-fold improvement in safety during the past 20 years.  This underpinning in safety and reliability is one reason why America generates more electricity from nuclear energy than the next two largest nuclear programs combined.

Bilateral agreements on nuclear energy cooperation are vital to advancing global nonproliferation and safety goals as well as America’s interests in global nuclear energy trade.  A 123 agreement, named after section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, establishes an accord for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear energy trade between the United States and other nations.  The agreement contains valuable nonproliferation controls and commitments.  One of the most significant elements of U.S. agreements is approval granted by our government as to how other countries process uranium fuel after it is used in a commercial reactor.  Under U.S. agreements, these nations cannot reprocess the fuel—chemically separating the uranium and plutonium—without U.S. notification and consent to do so.  This is a significant safeguard against the potential misuse of low-enriched uranium from the commercial sector.

Several public policy considerations must be weighed in evaluating the impact of 123 agreements, including those related to national security, economic development, energy production, and environmental protection. In the competitive global marketplace for commercial nuclear technology, inconsistent bilateral agreements will have unintended consequences for U.S. suppliers.  Imposing overly restrictive commercial restrictions or conditions in U.S. 123 agreements that are not matched by other nations’ bilateral agreements may significantly bias the country against selecting U.S.-based suppliers, even if the agreements don’t have malicious intentions. 

nergySolutions is once again asking for the State of Utah’s permission to accept another vagrant bunch of radioactive waste. It plans to blend, or dilute, Class B and Class C waste with less radioactive waste until it just meets the Class A waste levels its license allows at its Clive disposal site. Think of it as kind of a radioactive smoothie.

This blended waste is a unique waste stream: something unforeseen and unknown to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when it developed its low-level waste regulations in 1981. While the commission is currently trying to develop coherent new guidance on this, its rules state that it is only OK to intentionally mix wastes “as long as the classification is not altered.” Utah does not have such a regulation.

At present there are no disposal sites that accept Classes B and C low level waste, but that will change in about a month when a Texas disposal site opens and starts accepting these materials, without any of the hazards incurred in actually putting these things in the blender. The public understands how corporations often use regulatory loopholes to their own benefit.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Environmental Protection Agency Grant #X-826842-01, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grant #NRC-04-98-061, and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology Grant #60NANB5D1003. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

This is the seventh in a series of reports from the National Research Council (NRC) prepared to advise the U.S. government on the relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and human health. In 1996 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to initiate a scoping study preparatory to a new review of the health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiations. The main purpose of the new review would be to update the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation V (BEIR V) report (NRC 1990), using new information from epidemiologic and experimental research that has accumulated during the 14 years since the 1990 review. Analysis of those data would help to determine how regulatory bodies should best characterize risks at the doses and dose rates experienced by radiation workers and members of the general public