Impacts of nuclear waste

Nuclear wastes are normally classified as low, medium or high-level, according to the amount and types of radioactivity they contain. The high-level waste produced by nuclear reactors is the longest lasting contamination risk of a nuclear power plant.

The European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) is a so-called ‘Generation III’ design of nuclear reactor, designed to use fuel more efficiently. But the amount of dangerous materials in spent nuclear fuel increases significantly with the time the fuel stays in the reactor. Studies have shown that nuclear fuel from EPRs will be up to seven times more hazardous per unit of electric output because of the drastic increases in the amount of easily released, dangerous and long-lasting isotopes such as iodine-129 (1) that that produced by existing nuclear reactors(2).

All of the options for handling nuclear waste have potentially large environmental and health impacts: waste disposal sites have the potential to contaminate the environment for hundreds of thousands of years(3) if the radionuclide dispersion barriers fail; transports of high-level waste or plutonium are at risk from accidents or deliberate attacks and reprocessing facilities have large routine emissions of radioactive substances.

The impacts of a chosen method of waste management should be included in the EIA; if one has not yet been selected then impacts of all possibilities – whether waste is buried on site, transported elsewhere for disposal or reprocessed - should be assessed.

The Jaitapur EIA report ignores the impact of nuclear waste, and questions raised about it during the public hearing have been given conflicting answers. Some say that the waste will be transported away from the site for reprocessing; others indicate that the government will later decide upon establishing a reprocessing facility on site. No assessment of the impacts of either of these is presented. Questions about high-level waste are answered with information about low and medium-level wastes.

 

Sources:

(1) The amount of iodine-129 instantly released, if and when the nuclear waste dump leaks, is seven times as large in the case of the high burn-up waste produced bythe EPR reactor, compared to typical currently operating world reactors.

(2) Posiva 2008, Environmental Impact Assessment Report, p. 137. www.posiva.fi/files/519/Posiva_YVA_selostusraportti_en_lukittu.pdf, Nagra (2004): Estimates of the Instant Release Fraction for UO2 and MOX Fuel at t=0.
www.nagra.ch/g3.cms/s_page/83220/s_name/shopproductdetail1/s_element/142590/s_level
/10190/s_product/20408/searchkey/Instant%20Release%20Fraction

(3) It takes 240,000 years for radioactive plutonium to decay to a level that is safe for human exposure http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/deadly-legacy/

The latest updates

 

The Fight for Free Speech and Democracy

Feature story | April 18, 2015 at 12:26

On January 20, the Delhi High Court ruled that the Ministry of Home Affairs had not followed due process or shown any justification while blocking money from Greenpeace International. Shortly thereafter, the blocked money was transferred to...

Navigating the stormy waters bravely

Blog entry by Ishita Das | April 17, 2015

“What you do matters, but why you do it matters so much more.” I am a volunteer with Greenpeace India. My friends ask me, “Why? Why did you decide to be a part of this organisation when you know that they are so controversial?” My...

More incriminating dirt on Greenpeace

Blog entry by Ruth D'Costa | April 15, 2015

This article first appeared in Scroll on Apr 13, 2015. I am a Greenpeace employee, financial supporter and volunteer. How or why do I play so many roles in the same organisation? The answer is: I love what Greenpeace stands for,...

The CSC does nothing for you

Blog entry by Hozefa Merchant | April 15, 2015

The Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) is an international nuclear liability regime governed by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The convention, signed in 1997, but sofar not in force for lack of interest,...

Attack on civil society continues - Greenpeace at the forefront

Feature story | April 14, 2015 at 17:49

Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has blocked Greenpeace India from receiving funds. The clampdown on Greenpeace India has been unprecedented since June 2014. But this time, the Ministry goes a step ahead by blocking receipt of Indian funds, which...

Greenpeace India works for India's people and environment - here's why.

Blog entry by Lalita Ramdas & Ashish Kothari | April 11, 2015

Greenpeace India has been in the news repeatedly in recent weeks. It is unusual for a campaigning organization to feature in all mainstream news channels over a prolonged period. The reason for this unsolicited publicity was the...

Why target Greenpeace, now?

Blog entry by Ashish Fernandes | April 9, 2015

So why is the government going after Greenpeace India? As soon as our Prime Minister Narendra Modi took off on a weeklong foreign tour, the Ministry of Home Affairs uploaded a notice on its website stating that our FCRA certificate...

Courage of Greenpeace

Blog entry by Pushpinder Singh | April 9, 2015

As I write this, Ministry of Home Affairs have blocked the funds from international supporters for Greenpeace India. But I think now is the time to talk about courage and Greenpeace India. People in Greenpeace take extraordinary...

MHA’s Smear campaign on Greenpeace continues; NGO will respond to MHA

Feature story | April 9, 2015 at 20:21

Greenpeace to continue campaigning on issues fearlessly

The people of Mahan have won; Long live the fight – Zindabad!

Blog entry by Vinuta Gopal | April 2, 2015

I was returning to Mahan and Singrauli after more than two years. I had wanted more than anything to be back in Mahan to see what the people felt on knowing they had won. The Mahan coal block was not going to be auctioned as the...

1 - 10 of 3750 results.