Donate! Alliance Logo

Latest News

Nuclear power: not green, clean or cheap
National Forum
By Mark Diesendorf
June 16, 2006

With growing international concern about global climate change from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, the nuclear power industry has attempted to change the image of its product into that of an energy source that is “clean, green and cheap”. In reality, all the problems that worried us about the nuclear industry in the 1970s and 1980s are either unchanged or have become worse. In the latter case:

* the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons is worse because the US and Australian governments are undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by selling uranium to non-signatories, India and Taiwan. While the NPT is far from adequate, it is better than nothing or unilateral US control; * since September 11, 2001, the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities has increased. The fewer the facilities, the safer everyone is; * now that several countries have created competitive markets for electricity, it is clear that the cost of nuclear electricity is even higher than previously projected (see below); and * detailed recent calculations of the CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle reveal that nuclear energy, based on existing technology, cannot be a long-term solution to global climate change from the human-induced greenhouse effect (see below).

This article addresses the last two of these points.

CO2 emissions

The nuclear industry has disseminated widely the false notion that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gas emissions. The truth is that every step (except reactor operation) in the long chain of processes that makes up the nuclear fuel “cycle” – mining, milling fuel fabrication, uranium enrichment, construction and decommissioning of the reactor, and waste management – burns fossil fuels and hence emits carbon dioxide (CO2).

Over the past 20 years there have been several calculations of CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle. The most detailed calculation comes from Van Leeuwen and Smith (VLS) (2005).

Contrary to the claims of the nuclear industry, VLS find that the CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle are only small when high-grade uranium ore is used. But there are very limited reserves of high-grade uranium in the world and most are in Australia and Canada. As these are used up over the next several decades, low-grade uranium ore (comprising 0.01 per cent or less yellowcake) will have to be used.

This means that to obtain 1kg of yellowcake, at least 10 tonnes of ore will have to be mined and milled, using fossil fuels and emitting substantial quantities of CO2. These emissions are comparable with those from a combined cycle gas-fired power station.

In response, the nuclear industry cites a report by Swedish utility, Vattenfall, which only considers a single power station and obtains lower emissions than VLS in the case of high-grade uranium ore and apparently doesn’t address low-grade uranium at all. This report has not been published and is not available on the Internet – only a summary  that does not reveal most of the assumptions or results, is available.

It is very poor science to cite a report that is unavailable to the public. Van Leeuwen and Smith’s report, which is based on the analysis of many uranium mines and power stations, stands unrefuted at present.

In theory, a technically possible solution to the shortage of high-grade uranium would be to switch to fast breeder reactors, which produce so much plutonium that in theory they can multiply the original uranium fuel by 50. Large-scale chemical reprocessing of spent fuel would be necessary to extract the plutonium and unused uranium, and this has its own hazards and costs, since spent fuel is intensely radioactive and plutonium is an excellent nuclear explosive. The “commercial” reprocessing industry has failed in the US and UK. Only France hangs on.

Fast breeders use liquid sodium as a coolant and so are more dangerous than ordinary nuclear reactors. So far, fast breeders have all been technical and economic failures. The largest was the French 1,200 megawatt Superphoenix, a name that alludes to the mythical bird that burnt itself on a funeral pyre and then arose from the ashes to live again with renewed youth.

Reality was rather different from the myth: Superphoenix commenced operation in 1985 as a “commercial industrial prototype”. It operated only intermittently and very rarely at full power, experiencing leaks from its cooling system and several other accidents. It was shut down at the end of 1998 after costing an estimated total of about A$15 billion.

At present there are no commercial scale fast breeder reactors operating. There is a 600 megawatt demonstration fast neutron reactor in Russia, but it has a history of accidents and does not seem to have ever operated as a breeder. The pro-nuclear study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), entitled The Future of Nuclear Power, does not expect the breeder cycle to come into commercial operation during the next three decades.

In summary, nuclear power, based on existing technologies, is a dead-end side alley on the pathway to reducing CO2 emissions.

Nuclear economics

In most countries where there is a competitive electricity industry, it is clear that nuclear electricity is much more expensive than fossil
electricity. In the UK and US nuclear energy is even more expensive than wind power. More specifically, the MIT (2003) report (cited above) estimates that the cost of electricity generated by a new nuclear power station in the US would be US6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh), or about AU9c/kWh Australian. For comparison coal power in eastern Australia costs under AU4c/kWh. Wind power in US costs US4-5c/kWh and in Australia AU7.5-8.5c/kWh, depending upon site.

When the UK electricity industry was privatised, the British Government had to impose a fossil fuel levy to subsidise nuclear electricity. By 1998 the annual subsidy had reached £1.2 billion per year, equivalent to a subsidy of about AU6c/kWh Australian on each unit of nuclear electricity generated. In addition, it has recently been estimated by the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that dismantling Britain’s existing nuclear power stations will cost about £70 billion. Since a full-size nuclear power station (1,000
megawatts or more) has never been decommissioned anywhere in the world, the costs could turn out to be even higher.

The only new “commercial” nuclear power station under construction in a developed country is currently taking shape in Finland. The nuclear industry claims that this demonstrates nuclear energy is competitive in market conditions. But the power station is being built by a consortium, that includes a 40 per cent share by the government of Finland, which will sell its electricity to its own members. Thus the consortium avoids conditions of a competitive market and so has obtained finance at interest rates far below market rates. The European Commission is currently considering a complaint about this practice.

On the global scene, consider the following frank summary of the 1998 electricity generating cost study that was published jointly by the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. The raw data was supplied by the nuclear industries in the countries surveyed, so they are hardly likely to be biased against nuclear energy. The summary was presented by Dr Fatih
Birol, the chief economist and head of the Economic Analysis Division, International Energy Agency (IEA), at an annual international forum of the Uranium Institute:

The results confirm the current cost advantage of fossil-fuelled power generation … Clearly, under BAU [business-as-usual] assumptions the contribution of nuclear power over the next two decades will be limited.

The harsh reality is, at market interest rates of 10 per cent real or more, nuclear electricity is uneconomic almost everywhere in the world. It is at least double the cost of coal power in the US and UK, and would be nearly three times the cost of coal power in eastern Australia.

The nuclear industry’s solution to these harsh economic realities has been to produce a series of reports on the economics of a “new generation” of nuclear power stations that only exists on paper at present. In theory such reactors would be slightly cheaper and possibly slightly safer than existing models. The latest estimate of “new generation” economics is the report to ANSTO by leading nuclear industry figure, John Gittus, claiming that a non-existent nuclear power station, AP1000, would be competitive with coal power in eastern Australia under certain conditions.

The Gittus report’s conditions are indicated in two alternative scenarios. One involves substantial government subsidies on the capital and operating costs of the proposed power station. The other involves “no subsidy”, according to Gittus, just a massive government guaranteed, unsecured, “insured loan, which would be repaid to government, together with a retrospective premium, out of revenues from the station once it began to generate electricity”.

But, what if the untried nuclear power station proves to be more expensive to build and operate than the paper study estimates? That has always been the case with nuclear power in the past. What if the earnings from electricity sales prove to be insufficient to repay the additional costs and the loans? The Gittus report is vague on such details, suggesting that the government (i.e., the taxpayer) would share the risk. If so, this is a subsidy dressed up as a loan and neither of Gittus’s scenarios is anywhere near being economically competitive with conventional coal power. If this proposal is a good deal for the lender, why is it necessary for the government to lend anything? Surely, private financial institutions would be queuing up? Though it’s strange that no private investors have funded a new
nuclear power station in the US for over a quarter century, despite massive subsidies to the industry.

The investor’s choice

The nuclear industry is offering investors and the community a false choice between coal and nuclear power, which are both dirty and dangerous technologies. But the real choice is between clean power – comprising a mix of efficient energy use, natural gas and renewable sources of energy – and dirty power – comprising coal and nuclear power.

Both coal and nuclear power have severe adverse environmental, health and social impacts. Both offer big financial risks to investors. That’s why the Gittus report requests that the government either pay a direct subsidy or take on much of the financial risk, which is an indirect subsidy. It is essential that the Australian community does not permit the government (i.e., the taxpayer) to take on the financial risk of building new coal-fired or nuclear power stations.

A truly ethical and clean investment portfolio in energy would exclude both the coal and nuclear industries. Efficient energy use and renewable energy offer safe and clean investments. Over the past 15 years, wind power has been both the fastest growing and cleanest energy technology in the world. Bioenergy is already making valuable contributions to energy supply in Finland and Austria. China’s target is for renewable energy (mostly wind power) to contribute 12 per cent of electricity and nuclear only 4 per cent by 2020.

Meanwhile, huge potential for hot rock geothermal power has been demonstrated in Australia and a new generation of solar electricity
generators (thin films including CSG cells developed at UNSW, sliver cells developed at ANU and solar thermal electricity) is coming onto the global market.

‘Downwinders’ deserve their due
Idaho Mountain Express
June 16, 2006
Our Opinion

The news out of Washington is a baffling set of contradictions. The Federal Emergency Management Agency freely and hurriedly ladled out $1.4 billion in aid to hundreds of ineligible Katrina hurricane claimants—call it fraud—and just as quickly peeled off $60,000 in compensation to families of 24 Iraqis shot and killed in Haditha by U.S. Marines who’re being investigated for murder.

But several hundred Idahoans have been denied compensation from the same government for illnesses they and experts contend were the result of radioactive fallout from Nevada nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. Mind you, the government doesn’t reject claims of all “downwinder” families living where radioactive fallout rained down. Washington has paid claims to families in Utah, Nevada and Arizona—a handsome total of $440 million, in fact.

But nothing for Idahoans.

That despite data showing that four Idaho counties—Blaine, Custer, Gem and Lemhi—ranked among the nation’s top five in per capita thyroid dosage of radiation.

Idahoans claiming illnesses from nuclear dust were just as unwitting and unknowing victims of secret nuclear tests that showered them as were residents in the other states, and surely deserve better of their government than cold indifference.

If the U.S. Treasury can shell out $1.4 billion to pay fraudulent Katrina claims, it certainly can find just and relatively modest compensation for ill survivors of nuclear tests about which they were not warned and therefore could not escape.

Downwinders rail at government Rally participants demand cancellation of planned Nevada explosion
Idaho Statesman
June 6, 2006
Tim Woodward

EMMETT — Downwinders told their stories with tears and breaking voices at a rally in Emmett on Sunday, but the prevailing emotion was anger at the government.

“We’ve been nice,” said Doris Pattenger of Eagle after telling the crowd that nuclear testing had damaged the health of 13 of her family members. “Now we need to get mad.”

“Yeah, hit ’em where it hurts!” an audience member shouted to enthusiastic applause.

Tom Gatfield used his turn at the open microphone in Emmett City Park to add that, “if we can’t get our representatives to stop being lieutenants to the executive branch, we need to replace them — even if it means voting for the other party.”

About 80 people attended the rally to repeat the call for federal compensation for Idaho’s downwinders and demand that the “divine strake,” a massive non-nuclear explosion planned for this month in Nevada but postponed, be canceled. They fear the explosion could kick up existing radioactivity in the soil, potentially repeating the scenario that created downwinders — people who contracted cancer as a result of nuclear bomb testing in Nevada in the 1950s and ’60s.

More than $440 million in compensation has been paid to downwinders and their survivors in Nevada, Utah and Arizona, but none to downwinders in Idaho. Four counties in Idaho — Gem, Blaine, Custer and Lemhi — ranked in the nation’s top five in having the highest per capita thyroid dosage of radiation, Sen. Mike Crapo said in a speech last year.

Patricia Cluff, who grew up on a dairy farm near Emmett, spoke of drinking fresh milk, picking and eating cherries and washing dirt from the windows after rainstorms, never knowing she was being exposed to radioactivity. She, her siblings and her children have had such a high incidence of cancer, she said, that the University of Connecticut is doing a study on them.

“When I heard they were going to do another test, it made me absolutely sick — not for myself but for my grandchildren,” she said.

Event organizer Tona Henderson said the government “created generations of downwinders, and now they’re trying to do it again. We don’t want to be their lab rats.”

Joanne Torrez of Boise said she had lost two downwinder aunts and an uncle, and several friends in Blaine County. She is fighting lymphoma herself.

Peter Rickards of Twin Falls said it was his understanding that “they’ll only do the test in Nevada when the wind is blowing north. They’re not going to do it when it’s blowing toward Las Vegas. Or Washington, D.C.”

New Jersey native Lee Rigdon, who has spent the last 12 years in Idaho, said she learned she was a downwinder when she saw a map in Henderson’s Emmett shop. Rigdon’s former home in New Jersey was in a fallout zone. She’s had breast cancer and ovarian cancer, she said, and her mother, daughter and granddaughter have also been victims.

“Now they want to do it again and create another 60 years of death, devastation and illness,” she said. “We can’t let this happen again.”

Los Angeles Times
June 13, 2006
by Ralph Vartabedian

In the Cold War arms race, scientists rushed to build thousands of warheads to counter the Soviet Union. Today, those scientists are racing once again, but this time to rebuild an aging nuclear stockpile.

Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico are locked in an intense competition with rivals at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the Bay Area to design the nation’s first new nuclear bomb in two decades.

The two labs have fiercely competed in the bomb trade with technologies as disparate as Microsoft’s and Apple’s.

The new weapon, under development for about a year, is designed to ensure long-term reliability of the nation’s inventory of bombs. Program backers say that with greater confidence in the quality of its weapons, the nation could draw down its stockpile, estimated at about 6,000 warheads.

Scientists also intend for the new weapons to be less vulnerable to accidental detonation and to be so secure that any stolen or lost weapon would be unusable.

By law, the new weapons would pack the same explosive power as existing warheads and be suitable only for the same kinds of military targets as those of the weapons they replace. Unlike past proposals for new atomic weapons, the project has captured bipartisan support in Congress.

But some veterans of nuclear arms development are strongly opposed, contending that building new weapons could trigger another arms race with Russia and China, as well as undermine arguments to stop nuclear developments in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.

And, the critics say, It would eventually increase pressure to resume underground nuclear testing, which the U.S. halted 14 years ago.

Inside the labs, however, emotions and enthusiasm for the new designs are running high.

“I have had people working nights and weekends,” said Joseph Martz, head of the Los Alamos design team. “I have to tell them to go home. I can’t keep them out of the office. This is a chance to exercise skills that we have not had a chance to use for 20 years.”

A thousand miles away at Livermore, Bruce Goodwin, associate director for nuclear weapons, described a similar picture: The lab is running supercomputer simulations around the clock, and teams of scientific experts working on all phases of the project “are extremely excited.”

The program to build the new bomb, known as the “reliable replacement warhead,” was approved by Congress in 2005 as part of a defense spending bill. The design work is being supervised by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is part of the Energy Department.

The laboratories submitted detailed design proposals in March that ran more than 1,000 pages each to the Nuclear Weapons Council, the secretive federal panel that oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons. A winner will be declared this year.

If the program is implemented, it would require an expensive remobilization of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex, creating a capacity to turn out bombs at the rate of three or more a week.

Proponents of the project foresee a time when nuclear deterrence will increasingly rest on the nation’s capacity to build new bombs, rather than on maintaining a massive stockpile.

The proposal comes as Russia and the United States have agreed to further reduce nuclear stockpiles. The Moscow Treaty signed in 2002 by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin calls for each country to cut inventories to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.

Without the reliable replacement warhead, U.S. scientists say the nation will end up with old and potentially unreliable bombs within the next 15 years, allowing adversaries to challenge U.S. supremacy and erode the nation’s so-called strategic deterrent.

The new bomb “is one way of ensuring that our capability is second to none,” said Paul Hommert, a physicist who heads X Division, the Los Alamos unit that built the first atomic bomb during World War II. “Not only today, but in 2025.”

But critics say the program could plant the seeds of a new arms race.

The existing stockpile will be safe and reliable for decades to come, according to defense experts and nuclear scientists who have long supported strategic weapons. They say that rather than making the nation safer, the program will squander resources, broadcast the message that arms control is dead and even undermine the reliability of U.S. weapons.

The new bomb would have to be built and deployed without testing. The U.S. last conducted an underground test in Nevada in 1992 and has since imposed a moratorium on new testing.

But without a single test, doubts about the new bomb’s reliability would eventually grow, said Sidney Drell, former director of Stanford University’s Linear Accelerator Center and a longtime advisor to the Energy Department.

“If anybody thinks we are going to be designing new warheads and not doing testing, I don’t know what they are smoking,” Drell said. “I don’t know of a general, an admiral, a president or anybody in responsibility who would take an untested new weapon that is different from the ones in our stockpile and rely on it without resuming testing.”

If the U.S. breaks the moratorium on testing, then Russia, China, India and Pakistan, if not Britain and France, probably would conduct tests as well, said Philip Coyle, former assistant secretary of Defense and former deputy director of Livermore. Those countries would gain more information from testing than would the U.S., which has invested heavily in scientific research as an alternative to testing.

Physicist Richard Garwin, who helped design the first hydrogen bomb in the early 1950s and remains a leading authority on nuclear weapons, opposes the new bomb and is worried it would lead to new testing. “We don’t need it,” he said. “No science will be able to keep these political doubts away.”

Linton F. Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration, disagrees, saying warheads based on modern technology and advanced electronics would be more reliable.

“We are more likely to face a problem if we stick with the existing stockpile,” Brooks said. “It is easy to overstate the degree to which the current stockpile [has been] tested.”

The stockpile includes thousands of weapons held in reserve in case a defect is discovered. Each year, some of those weapons are disassembled for inspection. The U.S. could significantly reduce the reserve if it had greater confidence in the reliability of its warheads, Brooks said.

That confidence involves not only whether a weapon will explode, but whether it will do so with the intended force. In every U.S. nuclear weapon, a primary blast must be strong enough to trigger a secondary thermonuclear reaction. If the first stage falls short, the weapon has half the power.

The driving force for developing the new weapon has come from the scientific community and members of Congress. Although the Defense Department did not initiate the program, it has won wide support within the military as well as the Bush administration.

Democrats who are closely involved in nuclear weapons issues, including Reps. Ellen O. Tauscher of Alamo, John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina and Ike Skelton of Missouri, have also given the program support, according to their spokesmen.

The support of Tauscher and the other lawmakers is conditional on a reduction in the total number of U.S. nuclear weapons and an absence of testing — precisely the policy set up by Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), who spearheaded the program in Congress.

In the past, a wide range of proposals for new bombs fizzled politically, including the neutron bomb, the bunker-busting “mini-nuke” and the “robust nuclear Earth penetrator.” Each represented weapons envisioned for specific military missions, triggering fears that they might be used preemptively rather than to deter an attack.

The reliable replacement warhead has dodged such opposition, largely because it is not intended for a new military mission.

Still, the U.S. maintains a goal of staying ahead of any other nuclear power that could pose a challenge, according to S. Steve Henry, a Pentagon advisor on nuclear weapons to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. “It is hard to say what kind of a threat we will face in the future,” Henry said.

To assuage fears that scientists and military leaders have a hidden agenda to build new classes of bombs, Congress has directed that the new warhead be limited to the same explosive yield as the existing bomb and usable only for the same kinds of targets.

The first design would replace the W76, the warhead used on the submarine-launched Trident missile. The W76 was introduced in 1979 and has maximum explosive power estimated at 400 kilotons of TNT — roughly 27 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Production would require approval by Congress and construction of new manufacturing facilities — all of which would be at least several years off.

Meanwhile, the Los Alamos and Livermore labs are revving up their culture of one-upmanship.

During the Cold War, the scientists adhered to a motto that the Soviet Union was the rival, but the competing lab was “the enemy.” Still, it is a scholarly competition with few fighting words.

“I feel we have a great design for the country,” said Martz, 41, the Los Alamos program manager who began working at the lab as an 18-year-old college undergraduate. “Ours is better without a doubt.”

But Livermore’s Goodwin, 55, counters: “We have chosen a particularly effective design. I believe we have done the better job.”

Brooks, the federal nuclear weapons chief, gives no hint about whose bomb he favors, saying only that both “are very good designs, very responsive to what we are trying to do.”

Though neither lab has developed a new weapon since the late 1980s, they have received billions of dollars in investments by the federal government for office buildings and massive physics machines.

Since the end of the Cold War, the labs’ top priority has been to maintain existing weapons. The labs predict that the plutonium components in existing weapons have a life of 45 to 60 years, meaning that in the next 15 years some will begin to deteriorate and replacements will be needed.

Christopher Paine, a program critic and nuclear weapons specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, contends the labs have everything to gain from these kinds of assessments — generating funds for a new program even though older weapons remain in perfect condition.

But the labs say their actions are subject to oversight by government agencies and independent boards. “We take the integrity of our job pretty seriously,” said Hommert, the Los Alamos division chief.

Though the labs say they don’t yet have a cost estimate, they believe the reliable replacement warhead will save money over time. They aren’t providing any details.

On average, the U.S. has spent an estimated $6 million per warhead since World War II, said Stephen I. Schwartz, author of “Atomic Audit,” a history of strategic weapons costs. Based on that, replacing all of the nation’s 6,000 nuclear weapons could cost $36 billion.

So far, a fraction of the ultimate cost of the program has been spent; Congress approved $25 million this fiscal year.

A portion of the cost involves engineering designed to make the bombs more secure. In charge of that is Sandia National Laboratories, which has vowed to ensure that terrorists cannot use a stolen or lost weapon.

“We are setting the goal of absolute control — that you always know where the weapon is and what state it is in and that you have absolute control over its state,” said Joan B. Woodard, executive vice president at Sandia. “People will say you can break the bank achieving that goal, but it is the right goal to set.”

Los Alamos sits atop a 7,000-foot-high mesa, a half-hour drive from Santa Fe, occupying 43 square miles of pine forests. Livermore has dozens of buildings jammed into a single square mile on the outer edge of the Bay Area, amid rolling hills.

The idea of having two labs compete to design nuclear weapons dates to the 1950s, when federal officials concluded that such a system would promote innovation and also allow the labs to monitor each other’s science in an area crucial to national security. The labs are federally funded and operate under contract with the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Each has about 20 physicists, chemists, metallurgists and engineers on its reliable replacement warhead team, backed by a few hundred other experts working part time on the weapon. Among them are younger scientists learning the art and craft of nuclear bomb design from Cold War veterans.

Over the last decade, the labs have invested several billion dollars in computing, creating a succession of the world’s fastest supercomputers and other innovations. Livermore has taken the lead in that field. Its “purple” computer, with a footprint the size of a tennis court, does mathematical models of nuclear detonations. It uses enough megawatts of electricity to supply about 4,000 homes with power.

Meanwhile, Los Alamos is developing better ways to cast molten plutonium into hollow spheres, a key part of nuclear bombs, according to Deniece Korzekwa, a casting expert at the lab’s manufacturing center.

Each laboratory’s culture and body of technology is very different from the other’s. Each has developed its own recipes for plastic explosives used to start an atomic chain reaction.

Even in promoting their designs, each lab has taken a different approach.

At Los Alamos, scientists took defense officials inside a “virtual reality cave,” where they could walk around and look inside images of the proposed bomb. At Livermore, scientists took a less glitzy approach, building physical models that visiting officials could hold in their hands.

The advanced tools are giving nuclear weapons managers insights into the science of nuclear weapons they never had before.

Last year, the nation’s top nuclear weapons managers packed a high-security auditorium at Los Alamos, elbow-to-elbow, and donned 3-D glasses to watch a classified simulation of the new hydrogen bomb.

On a movie-theater-sized screen, powered by a supercomputer, the audience was taken inside the bomb. As it detonated, they were engulfed in the blast.

WIPP truck involved in minor accident
June 4, 2006
By Kyle Marksteiner

CARLSBAD — A Waste Isolation Pilot Plant truck loaded with three containers of transuranic waste was involved in a traffic crash in Idaho on Friday, WIPP officials said Saturday.”It’s a traffic accident,” said Kerry Watson, director for the office of characterization and transportation in Carlsbad’s field office. “It wasn’t a hazardous materials release. We just want to be open about it and (let the public) know one of our trucks was involved in a traffic accident.”

Watson said the truck was bringing a shipment of waste from the Idaho National Laboratory to the WIPP site near Carlsbad.

The accident took place at around 6:30 p.m. on Interstate 15 in southeast Idaho between Pocatello and the state’s southern border.According to state police reports, Watson said, the WIPP truck was rear-ended by a private pickup truck.No damage was done to the packages in the trailer, Watson said, but the rear portion of the trailer itself was slightly damaged.”State police responded and verified that there was no release from the package as a result of the accident,” Watson said.The WIPP truck pulled to the side of the road while mechanics did repairs on the suspension of the vehicle’s rear axle. State police then escorted the trailer to a nearby maintenance facility, where additional repairs were made.

After a second inspection for contamination indicated that all was well, the truck then returned to Idaho National Laboratory.”There was no loss of containment by the packages,” Watson emphasized.The two drivers of the WIPP truck were uninjured. The driver of the pickup truck was transported for medical attention due to a complaint of a leg pain and concerns of a potential fracture, Watson said.”We were told that there was a wind gust that picked up dirt from a plowed field near the interstate,” Watson said. “A section
of highway was impacted by that where there was reduced visibility.”

Additionally, Watson said, another vehicle may have struck the rear of the pickup truck after the pickup struck the WIPP truck.”This
is part of an ongoing investigation,” he stressed. “That’s just part of what we heard.”The investigation is ongoing, Watson said, “but it doesn’t sound like there will be any citations against WIPP drivers.”