Fukushima Keeps Fighting Radioactive Tide 5 Years After Disaster – NYTimes.com

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-disaster.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20160311&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=60578025&_r=0&referer=

Update on Fukushima clean up:

“But a full cleanup of the site — including the extraction of melted uranium fuel from the damaged reactor cores — is expected to take at least 40 years according to the government’s timetable and a century by other estimates. In the meantime, officials acknowledge, Fukushima remains vulnerable.”

‘Serious radiation incident’: Japan to radically raise the severity level of Fukushima leak — RT News

This story is not going away. Excerpt from RT NEWS:

image

TEPCO reported that another tank with highly radioactive water had leaked at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant. The NRA first classified the leak as a Level One “anomaly.”

The contaminated water contains an unprecedented 80 million Becquerels of radiation per liter – compared to the normal level of around 150 Bq/l.

This is considered to be the most serious setback to date for the clean-up of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

The increase to ‘Level Three’ will be formally adopted later on Wednesday after a meeting that is currently under way, a spokesman for the agency told Reuters by phone.

This is the first time Japan has issued an INES rating for Fukushima since the accident, which was caused by a massive earthquake and tsunami, took place in 2011.

The most dangerous ‘Level Seven’ has only been applied twice – for the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986 and for the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima plant.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, each increase on the INES scale represents a 10-times increase in radiation severity.

http://rt.com/news/japan-fukushima-level-three-762/

Nuclear waste: WIPP vs NNSS | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Senator Dean Heller asks Energy Secretary Dean Moniz for more information on transportation of nuclear waste from Oakridge to outside Los Vegas. Keith Rogers reporting in the following excerpt:

“Heller asked Moniz to respond to six points to clarify his July 30 testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and to elaborate on “additional information that has come to light.”

“Nevadans have a right to be safe in their communities and on the roads, and I am not convinced DOE has a plan to import waste to Nevada that meets this basic threshold,” Heller wrote.

“In the past, Nevada Governors and DOE have worked together to avoid shipping radioactive waste through Las Vegas to the NNSS (Nevada National Security Site). Will you commit to continue this practice?”

DOE spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler said the agency received Heller’s letter and is reviewing it.

“The Energy Department will continue to work with Congress and the state of Nevada to resolve these concerns,” she wrote in an email Thursday.

At the Senate hearing, Moniz said, “There were long discussions held, many memos signed on specifically this particular low-level waste movement. That exchange of memos to us was saying this works, with our special precautions.”

Gov. Brian Sandoval has objected to DOE’s plans to haul bomb-usable, uranium-laced waste from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee for disposal in a shallow landfill at the security site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Disposing of the ton of waste containing atom-splitting uranium material and one isotope that decays into a form that emits deadly gamma radiation “sets a dangerous precedent,” Sandoval wrote in a June 20 letter to Moniz.

Instead of disposing the long-lived radioactive waste that could be used in a dirty bomb in a trench at the former Nevada Test Site, the waste, though considered by DOE to be low-level, should be disposed in the department’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, Sandoval said in his letter.”

Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0308.

http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-and-west/heller-asks-doe-chief-clear-discrepancies-over-nuclear-waste