Pages above:
Transport
Nuclear site in Takahama, Japan, under heavy guard for loading of rejected plutonium MOX fuel, which is being returned to the UK by ship.
Enlarge Image
Nuclear transports involve significant risks to human health and the
environment. One cask full of highly radioactive spent fuel elements
contains approximately as much radiation as was released by the
Chernobyl accident. As well as being
vulnerable to accidents, transports could be targets for terrorist
attacks or the theft of fissile materials.
The transportation regulations in most countries are based on various versions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "Regulations on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials." These regulations were drafted with the aim of guaranteeing the ability of the nuclear industry to operate, not to guarantee nuclear safety. The waste is transported in casks that the nuclear industry claims are safe because they have to undergo some crash tests.
But in reality the standards for the transportation of spent fuel do not reflect real accident conditions. Spent fuel casks and other type B containers are required to survive drops of only 9 metres. Even less burdensome are the fire standards whereby containers are required to resist temperatures of 800° C for up to 30 minutes. Studies, including those commissioned by Greenpeace, have shown that in real accidents, for example at sea or in tunnels, fires often burn at temperatures exceeding 800° C and for considerably longer than 30 minutes. Average ship fires for example burn for 23 hours, and at over 1000 degrees.
Reassurances from industry and governments that the containers are "safe" have been challenged by governments, independent experts and citizens. For example, sea shipments of nuclear waste and plutonium between Europe and Japan have been vociferously opposed by tens of governments in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Africa and the South Pacific.
Public at Risk
Transports in western Europe, in particular in France and Germany have
been opposed by communities and thousands of ordinary people. This
opposition has been bolstered by revelations of contamination,
accidents, and cover-ups. For more than two years (1998-2000) all
movement of spent fuel from Germany to France was suspended following
disclosures of external contamination of containers above the permitted
level.
While the nuclear industry had ambitions to move large amounts of nuclear material by air, they have been thwarted in most of their plans due to the evidence of weak standards and the real concerns of both professional institutions (such as international pilot's federation), politicians and the general public. The same drop test standard of 9 metres when applied to aircraft carrying nuclear containers, highlights the fundamentally flawed approach of the nuclear industry.
Highly sensitive nuclear transports, including those carrying large amounts of plutonium, are extremely vulnerable to deliberate attack. The fundamental problem is that materials that are directly usable in nuclear weapons, are treated like any other commodity.
In addition to the profound safety issues, nuclear transports are conducted without prior notification, let alone the consent, of the communities or countries along the transport routes. All of these factors have led to the continued growth of opposition to nuclear transports by many communities, environmentalists and politicians around the world.
Find out more:
Remember that renewables are the future!
Read our briefing on Nuclear Shipments and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Meeting in The Bahamas, January 26-30, 2004
Check out our story about nuclear transports recklessly endangering Pacific States
Read this review of aspects of the marine transport of radioactive materials from Australia
Find out where radioactive shipments are being made in the USA
Read about Nuclear Titanics, our report into the dangers of MOX shipments through our oceans
Check out the safety risks of spent fuel transports in the UK at: www.greenpeace.uk
Download our Nuclear Glossary.
The transportation regulations in most countries are based on various versions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "Regulations on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials." These regulations were drafted with the aim of guaranteeing the ability of the nuclear industry to operate, not to guarantee nuclear safety. The waste is transported in casks that the nuclear industry claims are safe because they have to undergo some crash tests.
But in reality the standards for the transportation of spent fuel do not reflect real accident conditions. Spent fuel casks and other type B containers are required to survive drops of only 9 metres. Even less burdensome are the fire standards whereby containers are required to resist temperatures of 800° C for up to 30 minutes. Studies, including those commissioned by Greenpeace, have shown that in real accidents, for example at sea or in tunnels, fires often burn at temperatures exceeding 800° C and for considerably longer than 30 minutes. Average ship fires for example burn for 23 hours, and at over 1000 degrees.
Reassurances from industry and governments that the containers are "safe" have been challenged by governments, independent experts and citizens. For example, sea shipments of nuclear waste and plutonium between Europe and Japan have been vociferously opposed by tens of governments in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Africa and the South Pacific.
Public at Risk
A plutonium convoy passing through a small village. Even if you don't live near a nuclear plant, dangerous nuclear material could be passing your door.
While the nuclear industry had ambitions to move large amounts of nuclear material by air, they have been thwarted in most of their plans due to the evidence of weak standards and the real concerns of both professional institutions (such as international pilot's federation), politicians and the general public. The same drop test standard of 9 metres when applied to aircraft carrying nuclear containers, highlights the fundamentally flawed approach of the nuclear industry.
Highly sensitive nuclear transports, including those carrying large amounts of plutonium, are extremely vulnerable to deliberate attack. The fundamental problem is that materials that are directly usable in nuclear weapons, are treated like any other commodity.
In addition to the profound safety issues, nuclear transports are conducted without prior notification, let alone the consent, of the communities or countries along the transport routes. All of these factors have led to the continued growth of opposition to nuclear transports by many communities, environmentalists and politicians around the world.
Find out more:
Remember that renewables are the future!
Read our briefing on Nuclear Shipments and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Meeting in The Bahamas, January 26-30, 2004
Check out our story about nuclear transports recklessly endangering Pacific States
Read this review of aspects of the marine transport of radioactive materials from Australia
Find out where radioactive shipments are being made in the USA
Read about Nuclear Titanics, our report into the dangers of MOX shipments through our oceans
Check out the safety risks of spent fuel transports in the UK at: www.greenpeace.uk
Download our Nuclear Glossary.
GREENPEACE EMAIL
Press releases
Zapatero Fails to be a Climate Leader
02 July 2009
New revelations in the EDF Spying Scandal
16 April 2009
