C.A.N. Rallies Anti-Nuclear Groups

PEOPLE’S CLIMATE MARCH • New York City • September 20-21, 2014

Coalition Against Nukes Climate Change Convergence NYC March/Rally Sept 20-21, 2014C.A.N. calls for all environmental, health & safety, labor & civil rights organizations to come clean! and recognize that nuclear power is an integral part of the global climate change crisis: the King C.O.N.G (Coal•Oil•Nuclear•Gas) of climate change disruptors throughout the world!

Today the Coalition Against Nukes joins the effort of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) who will over the next few weeks rally thousands of anti-nuclear activists from around the country to join the PEOPLE’S CLIMATE CHANGE RALLY, in New York City, September 20-21, 2014. The People’s Climate March, supported by 350.org, The Sierra Club and sponsored by a coalition of over 325 environmental, labor, and civil rights organizations, will take place in advance of the UN Climate Summit on September 23rd and will call for immediate action on climate, economic and health issues.

C.A.N.’s goal in joining the march is to permanently remove the myths that nuclear energy is in any way “clean, green or sustainable” and to insist that at least one anti-nuclear speaker be scheduled to address this and be included in all future climate change rallies. C.A.N. founder Priscilla Star said, “It is critically necessary for the climate movement to understand that nuclear energy production is neither clean nor green, so we must all be there to spread this awareness. We are supporting the NIRS initiative to network and coordinate a large, vocal anti-nuclear presence at the People’s Climate March in NYC, Sept 20-21, 2014. Please join us!”

According to NIRS President Michael Mariotte, “We have put out the call to all anti-nuclear groups to take part in this historic demonstration. We need to make it clear that nuclear power is not the solution to climate change, that in fact it’s counter-productive. Our future is nuclear-free and carbon-free, and the faster we get there the better for our planet. We want to have the largest, most visible ‘nukes can’t save the climate’ presence at this event possible to get this crucial point across.”

Among the unexamined issues regarding the enormous, hidden carbon footprint created by nuclear power:

• Creation of nuclear fuel requires that uranium be mined, milled, converted to yellowcake, enriched, formed into fuel pellets – all processes which require tremendous amounts of energy as well as carbon-intensive fossil fuels used to transport the radioactive material between facilities.

• Nuclear power plant construction takes years, using steel and concrete – both requiring carbon-intensive production — and fossil fuel-powered heavy construction equipment.

• Radioactive waste from used fuel rods and decommissioned reactors remains deadly for tens of thousands of years, requiring carbon-intensive cooling and safe storage as well as energy resources to monitor the waste virtually into eternity.

For more information download these fact sheets:
Nuclear power can’t stop climate change
Nuclear Power’s Carbon Footprint

Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrician and Secretary of Health for the Green Shadow Cabinet said, “It is imperative for the health of our population and the planet that we move rapidly to a carbon-free nuclear-free energy economy. Nuclear power is far from being clean.”

To get involved, ask to join the conversation with C.A.N.’s Facebook Group.

3.11 Third Anniversary of Fukushima Nuclear Accident, Events and Actions Worldwide

3-11 Laguna BeachThank all members who selflessly organized 3/11 awareness events around the world and for all the time and attention you invested to make those events outstanding and inspiring.

We are so proud to know you and be a part of this global family. ♥

Report-backs on many events showing up now at http://fukushimathirdanniversaryevents.blogspot.com.

International Events Listing for 3.11 Third Anniversary March 2014

Buddhist March for PeaceTo see the complete listing of international events visit 3.11 Third Anniversary of Fukushima Nuclear Accident Events and Actions Worldwide.

The meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station occurred three years ago on March 11, 2011. The ongoing nuclear catastrophe continues to this day.  For three years TEPCO has been bungling the remediation effort while the life and health of everyone on this planet has been seriously threatened by the uncontained release of radiation, especially in Japan.

It’s going to go on for decades, if not centuries more.  Right now Daiichi is in a state of collapse from every angle: infrastructure weakened, manpower shortages, cooling systems deteriorating, lethally radioactive water storage leaks, contaminated groundwater rising to the surface, electrical systems highly vulnerable, all of this at risk of a major earthquake taking it out entirely.

In spite of all this, the PM is energetically pushing nuclear technology to India, Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. Japan’s new Secrecy Law could make it a crime to investigate nuclear issues; and the harassment and jailing of Japanese anti-nuclear activists must stop!

Tepco’s poisoning of the Pacific is studied the world over except for the U.S. and Japan. Most of us have no illusion that the water is safe and that the marine products are safe. We’re giving up fish- BUT WE’RE NOT GIVING UP THE FIGHT TO FIX FUKUSHIMA and EVACUATE THE CHILDREN!!

We are taking to the streets to demand action. Not weak assurances of safety or outright lies. We want results. Here are a selection of events planned for 3.11 2014 that will bring your voice to the fore, that will let your concerns be heard, that will strengthen your heart, and your resolve.  There’s no turning back; Fukushima is Here.

March 11, 2014 is important; for one day we become one with Japan.

If you would like your event listed here, send the event info to info@fukushimaresponsebayarea,  so it can added.

NO NUKES ACTIONS NYC 2014: Fukushima to Indian Point – We’re All Connected

3.11 No Nukes Action group are organizing two actions for the 3rd Anniversary of 3.11 Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.

No Nukes Fuk3 NYC eventsTUE. MARCH 11TH 3:30PM





March 11th 2014 marks the third year anniversary since the beginning of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster in March 2011. This disaster was caused by not only the massive earthquake and tsunami, but the human error and irresponsibility of the state, nuclear industry and their supporters who prioritize profit over people. Countless issues remain unresolved at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, as well as in the surrounding areas with high levels of radioactivity. The radiation from the coast of Fukushima is also contaminating the Pacific Ocean, reminding us that we are all connected by the sea. Fukushima leaves us an overwhelming question; are there any safe places, food or water left for us, or for future generations?

We New Yorkers also live next to Indian Point Energy Center’s two nuclear reactors, sitting right on Hudson River, 25 miles north of NYC. The utility owner Entergy is still operating the power plant, which releases radioactivity 24/7. Indian Point is on an earthquake fault line and one of the reactor’s operating license has just expired in 2013. At any nuclear power plants, danger is inherent and accidents will happen. While we observe an increasing number of natural disasters affecting our city, it’s no longer a question of if, but when Indian Point suffers an accident. And what about the massive amounts of radioactive waste? United States currently has no long-term solution for the highly radioactive nuclear waste being generated every day at over 100 nuclear reactors throughout the country.

We will not forget Fukushima.

Let’s connect and stand with the people in Japan and elsewhere struggling with the consequence of nuclear production.
Join us & Take action!

Organized by the members of: Brooklyn for Peace, Eco-Logic (WBAI-FM), Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC), Shut Down Indian Point Now!, The Manhattan Project, Todos Somos Japon

For more details visit the source: 3.11 NO-NUKES ACTION NYC

Nationwide protest vigils to oppose Keystone XL

Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline

This is an all-hands-on-deck moment in the fight to get President Obama to reject Keystone XL.

Now that the State Department has released its [sham] final environmental analysis, the decision will soon be in the president’s hands.

We know that the pipeline fails the climate test he set. But whether or not he stands up to the oil industry and rejects it will depend on what we do in the next few months.

That’s why on MONDAY, Feb 3, we are joining with CREDO, the Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network and other groups to organize nationwide protest vigils to send a clear and urgent message: Keystone XL is a climate disaster, and President Obama must reject it.

Click here to RSVP for a vigil in your community (or host your own, if there isn’t already one near you.)

What: Tell President Obama to reject Keystone XL

Where: Your community

When: Monday, February 3, 6 pm.

In this moment, it’s especially important that we come out of the gate with a strong message to the president.

That’s why we need thousands of people, in hundred of communities around the country, to come together on DAY and show that we are prepared to hold the president to his commitment to take action on climate, and reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

RSVP now for a protest vigil in your community on DAY evening.

Thanks for speaking out in this important moment.

If there aren’t any vigils in your community, it’s easy to host one! We’ll invite others to your action, and make sure you have everything you need to make it a success. Even just a handful of people coming together will send a powerful message.

Find an action, or host one in your community.


For Immediate Release: January 23, 2014


HIGH BURNUP NUCLEAR FUEL: Pushing the Safety Envelope

Organizations from across the country are kicking off two campaigns in Washington DC this week, calling on congress and regulatory agencies to address growing nuclear power hazards: the dangers of hotter-than-ever radioactive waste being generated in US nuclear reactors, and the routine, invisible-yet-harmful radioactivity released from every nuclear power reactor.

The first, HIGH BURNUP NUCLEAR FUEL: Pushing the Safety Envelope, led by Dr. Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates [VT], a renowned radioactive waste specialist and nuclear physicist, will bring awareness to the extra-hazardous high level radioactive waste referred to as High Burnup Fuel (HBF) – nuclear fuel that is used for longer than originally designed for and which has led to fuel failures and leaks in nuclear plants across the country and even greater storage and transport challenges. Resnikoff cautions that the policy of burning fuels longer to improve profits was accepted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) without adequate scientific evaluation or public knowledge. The consequences include zirconium fuel cladding corrosion in storage pools and dry storage casks. He cautions the continuance of this policy may be endangering public safety. ‘Burning’ longer in the reactors means the nuclear fuel becomes even more adioactive, as much as doubling its heat and radioactivity. The group declares nuclear fuel casings were not designed for this added stress. The resulting corrosion and cracks are allowing leaks and putting citizens at reactors and along transportation routes at risk. Dr. Resnikoff says, “My concern is the NRC is running an experiment in the field, increasing the transportation and disposal risk.”

The second campaign calls for steps to MAKE RADIATION VISIBLE. A group of concerned citizens in the Tennessee Valley, Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation (MATRR), is proposing a plan to reveal these invisible toxins. First, they call on the NRC to upgrade monitoring rules, replacing outdated quarterly averaging currently reported only once a year with real-time online data about radiation levels around nuclear power plants. Second, just like odor markers for natural gas and propane, they call for florescent dyes to be dispersed with emergency radiation plumes, providing immediate warning about where the radioactive releases are traveling – which could be a critical life-saver for the public and first-responders. Third, they call for public health alerts when these known carcinogens and mutagens are released into the environment. Says the MATRR group’s co-founder, Gretel Johnston, “We have weather alerts, smog alerts, and even pollen alerts – why not radioactivity alerts when these poisons are both routinely and accidentally released into our air and water? We are alerted to other hazardous substance spills, why not radiation alerts?”

The committee was organized by long-time nuclear activists Gene Stone, founder of Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE), and Priscilla Star, founder of Coalition Against Nukes. Among the groups meeting with NRC Commissioners, EPA radiation specialists, and other government officials this week are the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team / Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation (BEST/MATRR), and Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

See enclosed Factsheets:
HBFfactsheet01-09-2014.pdf and MakeRadiationVisible.pdf

Links for more information:

  • ResidentsOrganizedForASafeEnvironment.wordpress.com
  • CoalitionAgainstNukes.org
  • IPSECinfo.org
  • Clearwater.org
  • www.nirs.org
  • SanOnofreSafety.org
  • www.MATRR.org
  • www.rwma.com

25th January 2014: National day of protest against India-Japan nuclear agreement

25th January 2014: national day of protest against India-Japan nuclear agreement

Solidarity statement

To the attention of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the people of India,

The Coalition Against Nukes stands in solidarity with the people of India to send a clear message to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and the nuclear industry. Your nuclear technologies are NOT welcome in India and they are not welcome anywhere.

As citizens of the world we demand an end to the export of nuclear technologies that are spreading cancer and death, contaminating our air and land, and polluting our waters. We instead call for an international cooperation to transform our energy practices into renewable, safe and non polluting technologies. We are tired of our governments acting as front people for the global nuclear mafia and will only intensify our peaceful resistance to these practices.

We are united across borders and continue to grow. We will no longer allow Democracy to be held hostage by the monied interests of your nuclear sponsors. We demand that you represent the interests of the people.

Yours in urgency,

The Coalition Against Nukes


The intent of this plan is to help you understand and educate yourself and others about the dangers of “HIGH BURNUP FUEL” in nuclear reactors and the problems they present in waste management and storage of these extremely dangerous fuels.

This plan consists of 3 actions that must be taken:

  1. Education on High Burnup Fuels
    1. Who to educate: the Congress, activists, communities, all forms of news outlets.
    2. EVERYONE NEEDS TO HEAR ABOUT “HIGH BURNUP FUEL.” Very few people know about it.
    3. This fuel came to your reactor very quietly, without the knowledge of the public, plant workers and their unions, only a few top executives seem to be aware this was happening.
  2. Clear and present dangers of High Burnup Fuels
    1. Reactor problems caused by High Burnup Fuels
    2. Waste management & storage issues of High Burnup Fuels
    3. Much higher levels of radiation with High Burnup Fuels that are now sitting near you
  3. Action Alert process
    1. Email & phone call campaign to Senators and Congressperson & the 5 NRC Commissioners, state governors and legislators, petitions

Residents Organized for a Safe Environment (ROSE) & Coalition Against Nukes (C.A.N.) are taking a group of six activists from around the country to talk with the NRC commissioners and several senators in the third week in January to discuss this important issue. We hope this campaign will provide a minimum of 10,000 phone calls and emails to the groups listed above prior to our arrival to deliver this message.

The use of “HIGH BURNUP FUEL” has gone almost completely unnoticed by everyone and now must be brought to the forefront of our battle to shutdown the remainder of America’s nuclear power plants and to get a handle on our nuclear waste problem that is only magnified by the use of these extremely dangerous fuels.


Below you will find a detailed summary about High Burnup Fuels by Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, noted waste management expert, and Donna Gilmore.

High Burnup Nuclear Fuel
Pushing the Safety Envelope

by Marvin Resnikoff and Donna Gilmore
January 2014

Cladding Cracks

Fig. 1. Cladding cracks
Cross Section Fuel Rod Significant Radial Hydride Orientation DE-NE-0000593

As commercial reactor economics have declined, utilities, with the acquiescence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), have burned nuclear fuel longer and crammed more of it into storage containers. This experiment has unresolved serious safety issues for storage, transportation and disposal of this highly radioactive waste; issues that have been essentially overlooked by nuclear regulators and the general public.

For high burnup fuel (HBF), the cladding surrounding nuclear fuel, is thinner, more brittle, with additional cracks. In a transportation accident, the cladding could shatter and a large inventory of radioactivity, particularly cesium, could be released. The NRC should stop use of HBF and make solving HBF storage problems one of its highest priorities.

High Burnup Fuel Problems

Reactor Fuel Assembly

Fig. 2. Reactor Fuel Assembly

Almost all commercial reactors have HBF. Since the 1990’s almost all spent nuclear fuel (SNF) being loaded into dry casks is HBF.[3] HBF is low-enriched uranium that has burned in the reactor for more than 45 GWd/MTU (GigaWatt days per Metric Ton of Uranium).[4] Many Pressurized-Water Reactors have fuel with projected burnup greater than 60 GWd/MTU.[5]

The only issue NRC staff consider is the highest heat within a storage cask, but this ignores the fact that the cladding of HBF is thinner, more brittle, with additional cracks, as shown in Fig. 1. Longer cooling time will not solve these problems.

Uranium fuel pellets, stacked within long thin tubes called cladding, are struck by neutrons and fission, producing heat. A collection of these tubes is called a nuclear fuel assembly, shown in Fig. 2. After 3 to 4 years, extremely radioactive and thermally hot fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor and stored underwater in a fuel pool. Following a cooling period of 7 to 20 years, 24 to 32 fuel assemblies are removed from the fuel pool and inserted into a fuel canister, which are then pushed into a concrete overpack shown in Fig. 3. Because of the poor economics of nuclear power, utilities are pushing the limits for how long fuel remains in reactors with dire consequences.

NUHOMS canister fits inside a concrete overpack

Fig. 3. NUHOMS canister fits inside a concrete overpack

Fig. 4. Power Output with Time as a Function of Fuel Burnup [25]

Years to Cool: Power Output with Time as a Function of Fuel Burnup [25]

Fig. 5. Power Output with Time as a Function of Fuel Burnup [25]

Here are the high burnup fuel issues:

  • HBF is dangerously unpredictable and unstable in storage – even short-term.
  • HBF is over twice as radioactive and over twice as hot. The higher the burnup rate and the higher theuranium enrichment, the more radioactive, hotter and unstable fuel and cladding become. Fig. 4 shows the increase of heat output of fuel assemblies as a function of burnup.
  • HBF requires a minimum of 7 to 20+ years of cooling in spent fuel pools before storage in dry casks. The years of cooling depends on the burnup rate, percent of uranium enrichment and other factors as defined in the dry cask system’s technical specifications.[6] Lower burnup fuel requires a minimum of 5 years. See Fig. 5.
  • HBF requires more storage space between fuel assemblies due to the higher heat, higher radioactivity, and instability,[7] yet the NRC approves high density of fuel assemblies in fuel pools and dry casks systems. San Onofre requested use of a new dry cask system that crowds 32 fuel assemblies into the same space that currently holds 24.[8] Absent a comprehensive safety analysis, the NRC should NOT approve the NUHOMS® 32PTH2 cask system for HBF, but is considering doing so this year. The NUHOMS system consists of a welded canister that holds 24 or 32 fuel assemblies; the canister slips inside a concrete storage overpack, shown in Fig.3. Diablo Canyon now uses a HOLTEC 32 fuel assembly cask system.
  • No transportation casks for HBF have been approved by the NRC,[9] so even if a waste repository were available, HBF could not be relocated.
  • Nuclear fuel is approved for only 20 years storage in dry casks, based on faulty assumptions about how HBF reacts in the first 20 years of storage.[10]
  • There is insufficient data to approve dry casks for over 20 years, per Dr. Robert Einziger, Senior Materials Scientist, NRC Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation.[11]
  • Experimental data show fuel with burnup as low as 30 GWd/MTU have signs of premature failure.[12] As was done at Maine Yankee,[13] all HBF assemblies should be containerized in damaged fuel cans for dry storage.
  • The NRC has no adequate strategies to detect and mitigate unexpected degradation of HBF during dry storage.[14, 15, 16]
  • HBF has major implications for pool storage before movement to dry storage. The NUHOMS 32 assembly cask requires up to 20 years and longer if HBF is to be transported. As seen in Fig. 4, HBF would require more than 30 years in storage before it could be transported. This has major ramifications for decommissioning reactors. Essentially, reactors cannot be immediately dismantled after ceasing operation. SAFSTOR[17] is the only option. The reactor license must be retained for this period. A longer time is required before HBF can be removed from the reactor site. In addition, the current high spent fuel pool densities present an even greater risk due to inclusion of HBF assemblies.
  • HBF has major implications for disposal in a repository. If DOE intends to open NUHOMS and HOLTEC canisters and repackage HBF for disposal, major problems may arise. Because the cladding is brittle and has cracks, it may be damaged during transportation and storage. Each HBF assembly may have to be containerized before storage, similar to damaged fuel assemblies.
  • HBF has major implications for transportation. Transportation issues have not been well examined by NRC in NUREG-2125, the latest transportation risk assessment, a 509 page report with numerous references.[18] But NUREG-2125 does not investigate transportation of HBF, a major oversight, as is discussed below.

NRC Transportation Accident Analysis

Public input on NUREG-2125 was unwisely curtailed at 60 days. The report was sold to the Commissioners by NRC Staff as a way to gather input from stakeholders, but in practice, this did not meaningfully happen. NRC staff required 7 years to produce this report, yet the State of Nevada’s request for an additional 30 days review was denied. NUREG-2125 should have been critically reviewed.

NUREG-2125 is essentially a transportation risk analysis. As the critique by the State of Nevada[19] shows, the NRC picked and chose which of its reports to include as references. Important accident sequences were not included. Here are just 3 examples of many, some of which are discussed in footnote 19.

Transportation casks have impact limiters at each end. Therefore, the most vulnerable position is a side impact, where the impact limiters are avoided, the so-called backbreaker accident. The references not chosen by NRC discuss this accident. NUREG-2125 does discuss a side impact by a train at a RR crossing. If the train sill directly impacts a transportation cask, the forces and accelerations can be great enough to stretch the bolt lids and leave an opening to the cask interior. But cited references do not include the 1-ton impact limiters at each end, which would increase the bending. For HBF, 140 g forces, a 60 mph side impact, would easily shatter the brittle cladding. HBF has over twice the cesium inventory.
There are serious unanswered questions about long duration, high temperature fires and effect on cask and fuel cladding. Casks have neutron shielding on the outside, generally boronated plastic, within a thin metal cylinder. Fuel would heat up with this plastic blanket, except for the fact that metal brackets that hold the thin outer metal cylinder in place are heat conductors. But in a fire accident, these metal conductors can serve as heat inputs to the cask. This is not correctly modeled by cask manufacturers.
The State of Nevada has been asking for some time for full cask testing. These double layer casks, a canister within a transportation overpack, should be fully physically tested. Instead cask manufacturers rely on computer simulations and scale models. It is important to benchmark these computer models. Examples of failures by manufacturers to properly evaluate effectiveness can be found in the fire insulation failures throughout the US nuclear fleet due to inaccurate manufacture qualifications.

NRC Security Analysis

Finally, malevolent events should be seriously examined. We do not have confidence this has been done. Anti-tank weapons such as the Russian Kornet, or French Milan, can easily penetrate 1 meter of metal. For transportation, the concern is about events that include entrance and exit holes. This is of particular concern with HBF, with large Cesium inventories and suspect fuel cladding.

High Burnup Fuel Recommendations

It is imperative the NRC

  • Stop approval of high burnup fuel (HBF) use.
  • Stop approval of HBF dry cask storage.
  • Make solving high burnup fuel storage problems one of its highest priorities. The DOE EPRI “Demonstration Project” (EPRI High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project),[20] that NEI is promoting[21] is not a solution. This project only tests HBF in existing cask technology (TN-32). The TN-32 cask isn’t even approved for HBF.[22] Over ten years after HBF was first produced and stored in dry storage casks, the industry has finally begun to study the consequences. The NRC has been asleep at the switch, allowing this dangerous experiment in the field to proceed.
  • Develop adequate strategies to detect and mitigate unexpected degradation during dry storage.
  • Absent a comprehensive safety analysis, not approve 32 assembly casks for HBF, such as the NUHOMS® 32PTH2 cask system.
  • Require all HBF assemblies be containerized in damaged fuel cans for dry storage.
  • Require full cask testing, rather than computer simulations and scale models.
  • Reject NUREG-2125 Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment as inadequate as it does not address HBF.

Time is of the essence.

  • As of 2012, most fuel in pools for future loading is high burnup and approximately 200 loaded-casks contain HBF.[23]
  • Dry cask storage of HBF in the U.S. started about a decade ago.
  • Since 2003, Maine Yankee casks contain HBF up to 49.5 GWd/MTU. (Maine Yankee HBF is in damaged fuel cans, due to unknowns with HBF)
  • Since 2005, HB Robinson casks contain HBF up to 56.9 GWd/MTU
  • Since 2006, Oconee casks contain HBF up to 55 GWd/MTU
  • After 2008, many other sites have casks that contain HBF up to 53.8 GWd/MTU, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.[24]



[1] radwaste@rwma.comhttp://www.rwma.com

[2] dgilmore@cox.nethttp://www.SanOnofreSafety.org

[3] DOE EPRI High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project: Draft Test Plan, Contract No.: DE-NE-0000593, September 13, 2013, Page 2-1http://1.usa.gov/1f6LkJH

[4] GAO-12-797 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors Present Storage & Other Challenges, August 2012,http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/593745.pdf. Low-enriched uranium = up to 5% of U-235. GWd/MTU is the amount of electricity produced (gigawatt-days) per metric ton of uranium.

[5] Savannah River National Laboratory, “Inventory and Description of Commercial Reactor Fuels within the United States,” SRNL-STI-2011-00228, March 31, 2011http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/SRNL-STI-2011-00228.pdf

[6] CoC No. 1029 Technical Specifications for Advanced NUHOMS® System Operating Controls and Limits, Appendix A Tables 2-9 to 2-16http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0515/ML051520131.pdf

[7] RWMA Marvin Resnikoff, PhD: The Hazards of Generation III Reactor Fuel Wastes, May 2010 http://bit.ly/19dVRsY

[8] Edison request for NUHOMS® 32PTH2http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12046A013.pdf

[9] SFPO Interim Staff Guidance 11, Rev 3 Cladding Considerations for the Transportation and Storage of Spent Fuel 11/17/2003 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/isg-11R3.pdf

[10] NWTRB Douglas B. Rigby, PhD: The NRC approved the initial 20 year dry cask storage based on assumptions. However, no information was found on inspections conducted on HBFs to confirm the predictions that were made. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, December 2010 report,http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/eds_rpt.pdf

[11] NRC R. E. Einziger, PhD: insufficient data to support licensing dry casks for >20 years, March 13, 2013 http://1.usa.gov/15E8gX5

[12] DOE FCRD-NFST-2013-000132, Fuel Cycle Research & Development-Nuclear Fuel Storage and Transportation-2013-000132, Rev. 1, June 15, 2013 https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=739345

[13] Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company’s Response to the NRC’s Request for Comments Regarding Retrievability, Cladding Integrity and Safe Handling of Spent Fuel at an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation and During Transportation (Docket ID NRC-2013-0004), March 18, 2013http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1309/ML13091A009.pdf

[14] Fancy New Lids for Nuclear Waste Casks, As Contents Get Hotter, Jeff McMahon, May 2, 2013 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/05/02/fancy-new-lids-for-nuclear-waste-casks-as-contents-get-hotter/?view=pc

[15] NRC 10 CFR Part 72: [Docket No. PRM-72-4]: Prairie Island Coalition; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, Federal Register, v. 66, no. 25 (February 6, 2001): p. 9058. FR Doc No: 01-3025 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-02-06/pdf/01-3025.pdf

[16] NRC Acceptance Review of Renewal Application to Materials License No. SNM-2506 for Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation – Supplemental Information Needed (TAC NO. L24592)http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12046A157.pdf

[17] Under SAFSTOR, which utilities refer to as “deferred dismantling,” a nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; afterwards, it is dismantled and the property decontaminated… http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html

[18] Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment, NUREG-2125, May 2012http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12125A218.pdf

[19] Memo from Marvin Resnikoff to Bob Halstead, 7/18/2013, “NUREG-2125 Review”http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/nureg-2125-review.pdf

[20] DOE EPRI High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project: Draft Test Plan, Contract No.: DE-NE-0000593, September 13, 2013, Page 2-1,http://1.usa.gov/1f6LkJH

[21] NEI High Burn-up Used Nuclear Fuel Extended Storage and Transportation Demo, Rod McCullum, INL High Burn-up Used Fuel Demonstration Workshop, August 22-23, 2012 http://www.inl.gov/conferences/highburnupusedfuel/d/extended-storage-and-transportation-demo.pdf

[22] TN-32 Generic Technical Specificationshttp://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0036/ML003696874.pdf

[23] Storage of High Burn-up Fuel, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Marc Nichol, July 25, 2012 NRC Public Meeting, Slide 3,http://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/nei-highburnupslide2012-07-25.pdf

[24] DOE EPRI High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project: Draft Test Plan, Contract No.: DE-NE-0000593, September 13, 2013, Page 2-1http://1.usa.gov/1f6LkJH

[25] Data from Characteristics for the Representative Commercial Spent Fuel Assembly for Preclosure Normal Operation, Bechtel SAIC Co., May 2007, OOO-PSA-MGRO-OO700-000-00A, Table 3. Thermal Power (Watts) per PWR Fuel Assembly with 4.0% U-235 http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0907/ML090770390.pdf

[26] Data from Characteristics for the Representative Commercial Spent Fuel Assembly for Preclosure Normal Operation, Bechtel SAIC Co., May 2007, OOO-PSA-MGRO-OO700-000-00A, Table 3. Thermal Power (Watts) per PWR Fuel Assembly with 4.0% U-235 http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0907/ML090770390.pdf

FFAN’s Holiday Guide for Safer Food Choices


  1. DONATE your time and/or money to FFAN’s crucial effort TODAY!
  3. SUBMIT Your Comment to the FDA: Insist they lower the acceptable levels of radioactive contaminants allowable in our food supply.
  4. WRITE A LETTER to your Representative to demand FDA do their jobs to protect our families by monitoring our food supply.
  5. JOIN FFAN on Facebook to get up-to-date information. Radiation continues to emit from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plants, affecting the global environment and food supply. Education and awareness are key.
  6. DONATE $5 TO FFAN TODAY! Help us continue this vital work.

“FFAN is the only group working toward safe food policy in the U.S.due to the ongoing Fukushima catastrophe. Please support their work.”— Peter Montague, Founder & Director of Environmental Research Foundation