Tag Archives: nuclear waste

by

Tom Clements: Nuclear Industry Intent On Moving Waste To SC

Tom Clements, writing in the Friday, July 29 edition of The State newspaper issues a warning and a call to action to South Carolinians about the nuclear industry’s plans to store nuclear waste in SC:

Much of the nation’s 65,000 metric tons of radioactive spent fuel now stored at reactor sites across the country could be brought to South Carolina for “interim” storage and reprocessing. The prospect of becoming the new Yucca Mountain spent-fuel dump surely will be rejected by many South Carolinians, but the federal government’s plans threaten to leave us holding the nuclear waste bag nonetheless.

A blue ribbon commission, established by President Obama in January 2010 after the unraveling of plans for a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, is charged with recommending the fate of spent fuel. Those recommendations, expected to beissued today, also will address the deadly high-level waste at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site [SRS] near Aiken.

Draft subcommittee reports were issued in June, and a central recommendation, certain to be embraced by the full commission, is to “establish one or more consolidated interim storage facilities” for spent fuel. Given its uncertain future as federal funding decreases, SRS is now squarely in the nuclear crosshairs to become an “interim” site, with special interests poised to exploit this situation.

The Savannah River Site and politicians allied with the state’s nuclear industry are actively soliciting the nuclear waste. Under the guise of bringing jobs to SC, the politicians and lobbyists will bring waste for storage. Since there is no long term storage site for spent nuclear waste, there will be nowhere to move the reprocessed waste. The waste will certainly stay in at SRS as an “interim” solution that will stretch out into the future.

And the waste that is stored will be more dangerous to the public as it is shipped and from increased radioactivity after reprocessing. Clements again:

It costs nearly $1 billion per year to immobilize SRS waste in robust containers, and the job won’t be finished for two decades. Reprocessing of commercial spent fuel would produce waste of higher radioactivity and larger volume. We can ill afford to manage more such unstable radioactive material at the site.

Clements and the Friends of the Earth propose a safer interim solution:

  • Store the spent nuclear waste on site in solid containers, not pools of water.
  • Immobilize the plutonium in existing high-level waste at SRS with the goal of removing it to a geologic repository along with spent fuel.

Storing on site will reduce the danger of moving the nuclear waste on railroads or highways.  Immobilizing the plutonium in solid containers would render the existing waste at SRS reasonably safe until a permanent solution can be found.

Moving the waste to SRS only increases the likelihood that the waste storage at SRS will become permanent. Unless the burden of nuclear waste disposal is shared through out the industry and the country, there will be no pressure to find a permanent solution to the problem of nuclear waste.

Keeping the waste away from South Carolina will not be easy.  The state’s congressional delegation and powerful nuclear interests are pushing to place the repository here.

Writing last week, Clements discussed the political forces pushing the waste toward SRS:

If you’re interested or concerned about the issue of high-level nuclear waste storage or disposal in South Carolina, take note of the move by SCE&G to store radioactive spent fuel in “dry casks” at the VC Summer plant.  This may be the best option for deadly spent fuel but is not a viable long-term solution.  See information below for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting to be held on Wednesday about the dry cask facility – you can call in and make a comment at the end of the meeting.

In looking at medium-term and long-term options for spent fuel, be aware that the federal Blue Ribbon Commission (on spent fuel and DOE high-level waste, see http://www.brc.gov/) is set to present its draft recommendations within two weeks and they will recommend for one of more “consolidated interim storage” sites for spent fuel.  Special interests at the DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS), which hope to receive money from the Nuclear Waste Fund for interim storage, are pushing for SRS to become one of those “interim” spent fuel storage sites.  An official at Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS), the company which manages SRS, has clearly stated such interest and Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, has also affirmed this view under questioning at a recent SC Public Service Commission hearing.

Isakson, Chambliss, DeMint, Graham

Saxby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham, Johnny Isakson and Jim DeMint joke with an official at the Savannah River Site, May 1, 2009.

If the spent fuel were to be brought to SRS, the momentum for “reprocessing” of that material would greatly increase.  Reprocessing separates the 1% of plutonium in the spent fuel for possible reuse as nuclear fuel and leaves behind a radioactive mess with a host of hard-to-manage nuclear waste streams.  An SRS-SRNS plan entitled “Enterprise SRS,” which has not been released to the public but which we have posted at http://www.nonukesyall.org/pdfs/Enterprise_SRS%20future%20draft%205.2011.pdf, clearly shows interest in reprocessing as the site scrambles for reduced federal funding. (See diagram on page 7 of this document.)  Reprocessing boosters are using a green washing term – recycling – in attempt to trick the public into thinking that reprocessing is clean, so don’t be fooled.  If brought to SRS, spent fuel may well never leave, so consolidated storage and reprocessing threaten to make SRS the new Yucca Mountain and it will take public involvement and participation to help stop this from happening.

The President’s blue ribbon commission today released the draft full commission report.  A quick review of the document reveals that they recommend an interim site be developed as soon as possible.  The BRC makes no recommendation as to where that site should be, but they do acknowledge the danger of an interim placement becoming permanent.

…[T]he most important objection and one that will need to be thoughtfully addressed is the concern that any consolidated storage facility could become a de facto permanent disposal facility and—by reducing the pressure to find a long-term solution—thwart progress toward developing the deep geologic disposal capacity that will ultimately be needed.

There will be hearings and greater discussion about this in the coming weeks and months.  South Carolinians will need to educate themselves on this topic through the work of groups like the Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club to head off this drive to turn the Savannah River Site into a dumping ground.

More Information:

by

Confronting Nuclear Apologists: Tom Clements vs Lindsey Graham

2010 SC Green Party candidate for Senate Tom Clements confronted pro-nuclear Senator Graham at a press conference on Saturday. Graham has taken more than $40,000 in campaign contributions from the nuclear industry.

Clements is Southeast Nuclear Policy Coordinator for Friends of the Earth.  He and the organization do excellent work in South Carolina’s environmental movement.  Graham was touring Duke Power’s Oconee Nuclear Station in support of plans to build 6 new nuclear reactors in and around South Carolina.

The Oconee nuclear plant has serious safety issues, which were discussed in a recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Friends of the Earth and Clements want to keep these safety issues in the public eye.

On his campaign’s Facebook page, Clements described the interaction as follows:

…on Tuesday, I faced off against a panicked Senator Lindsey Graham who was touting for the nuclear industry at the Oconee nuclear plant – at a “secret” news conference in the visitor center. I couldn’t resist crashing it. I showed FEC reports about how much Lindsey got from the nuclear industry in 2009-2010 – about $45,000, more than 1/3 of his PAC donations. Like DeMint, we’ve got another South Carolina snake amongst us, who is exploiting government to benefit special interests.

The State quotes Graham responding to Clements:

The senator faced criticism Tuesday from anti-nuclear activist Tom Clements, who disputed that all of the problems were resolved. Clements also said the press event was little more than an attempt to advance an industry on which Graham relies for campaign funds.

Clements gave reporters data showing that Graham has received in the past two years about $40,000 in campaign contributions from those sympathetic to the nuclear industry, such as major power companies. Clements, who is with Friends of the Earth, raised those questions during a press briefing after the tour.

“The reason people in the nuclear power industry support me is because I believe in what they do,” Graham told Clements. “I don’t get any money from your organization because I disagree with you.”

The nuclear industry is scrambling to fill the pages of The State with enough public relations twaddle to cover up the radioactive disaster in Japan.   Graham is a long-time advocate for nuclear power, as is his colleague in the Senate, Jim DeMint.

Both Senators from South Carolina favor reprocessing nuclear waste at the Savannah River Site.  Reprocessing will mean storing spent nuclear rods in SC.   The exposure of the spent rods in spent fuel pools at the Fukushima plant in Japan are a part of the ongoing disaster there.

In addition to the used fuel stored on site at reactors in and around the state, hundreds of thousands of gallons of irradiated liquid waste and sludge are stored at the Savannah River Site.  Graham and DeMint have proposed bringing nuclear waste to SRS from around the country for reprocessing.   Without a permanent waste storage facility, that reprocessed waste will likely stay in SC.

Graham is correct that the nuclear industry supports him because of his support for nuclear power.   It is also accurate to say that the tens of thousands of dollars he’s received from the nuclear industry interest have swamped the tens and twenties from nuclear power opponents.  When political donations determine the discourse, then only the interests of the rich and powerful are heard.

Further Reading:

by

Fukushima Radioactive Release Should Serve as Warning Greens Urge Obama to Withdraw Loan Guarantees for Nukes

For constantly updated news on the disasters in Japan, we suggest BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393.

 

Georgia Green Party http://www.georgiagreenparty.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, March 12th, 2011

For further information, contact:
Bruce Dixon, 678-298-9463 x3
bdixon@GeorgiaGreenParty.org
Press Secretary, Georgia Green Party

“We are horrified, but not at all surprised by this latest nuclear accident,” said Denice Traina, a health-care worker residing in Augusta Georgia and former co-chair of the Georgia Green Party. “Fukushima has now joined Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as beacons to the human folly of boiling water with nuclear fission.”

News agencies from around the world are reporting on a Saturday explosion at a nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan which destroyed the containment building housing a nuclear power reactor, triggering a radiation leak. The disaster was set off by an earthquake which hit 8.9 on the Richter scale and the resultant tsunami. The explosion and resulting fire were caught on video and have been published to youtube.

In 2010, the Obama Administration announced tax-payer financed loan guarantees for the construction of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia.

“Greens in Georgia and elsewhere urge the administration to reverse itself on the insanity of using public assets to finance a new round of nuclear construction,” said Adam Shapiro, Co-Chair of the Georgia Green Party, resident of Atlanta and a radio show host. “Private capital has known for years what a poor investment nuclear power is. If not for these taxpayer backed loan guarantees and the immunity from liability provided by the ill-advised Congressional Price-Anderson Act, the nuclear industry would have long ago succumbed to market forces.”

Engineering firms and bond financiers still stand to make tremendous profits from the industry, if public tax dollars can be found to underwrite the failed technology. Heralding a new generation of safe nuclear reactors, fission is being sold as a ‘carbon-free energy’. That can only be said if one ignores the tremendous carbon footprint of the nuclear fuel cycle. Greens urge investments instead in solar, wind and geothermal technologies which would harness the Earth’s solar income, rather than tapping its fossile fuel savings.

“While Fukushima underscores the insanity of the Yucca proposal to store nuclear wastes over a fault line, the 1986 explosion in the Ukraine shows us you don’t have to build a reactor on a fault line to incur these risks,” said Traina, whose kids and grandchild all live within thirty miles of Plant Vogtle. Studies have documented nearly a million radiation-related deaths since the April 26th, 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which led to nuclear fallout and raised background radiation levels throughout the Northern Hemisphere.

– 30 –

http://www.georgiagreenparty.org/Issues/NuclearPower/Obama_Props_Up_Nukes_with_Taxpayer_backed_Loan_Guarantees_Is_That_Environmental_Racism

 

by

South Carolina Ranks Near Top Of States In Storage Of Nuclear Waste

A few weeks ago we published accounts of the open hearing conducted by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in Augusta, Georgia.

The Commission was taking public and industry statements on the proposal to reprocess spent nuclear fuel at the Savannah River site.

Today, Matthew McKinzie of the National Resources Defense Council discusses where spent nuclear waste is located around the country.

Even without the proposal to use the Savannah River Site for reprocessing and further storage, South Carolina already stores more nuclear waste than any other state, except for Illinois and Pennsylvania.

Nuclear power plants receive new nuclear fuel once every 18 months to two years, and about one-third of the reactor core is then removed as spent fuel. This spent fuel is cooled in a storage pool next to the reactor, and either remains in the pool or is transferred to casks licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for so-called “dry” storage nearby. For the most part, then, all of the spent fuel produced by U.S. nuclear reactors hasn’t left the grounds of the nuclear power plant – in fact a large portion of it remains in the pools.  The most recent data we have on the quantities of spent fuel at the U.S. reactors is from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, from 2002, and I have mapped this up in Google Earth here. The total quantity of spent fuel stored at U.S. nuclear reactors in 2002 was 47 thousand tons. An additional 20 tons of spent fuel discharged per year from 104 reactors for 9 years totals 18.7 thousand tons, so our estimate is that the total quantity of spent nuclear fuel currently stored at U.S. reactors exceeds 60 thousand tons.

So in terms of where the spent fuel is located, Illinois tops the list, with more than ten percent of the commercial reactor spent fuel in the country. Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Michigan, and New York, Alabama and Florida come next on the list – these seven states together hold more than half of the country’s spent nuclear reactor fuel. And as you can see in Google Earth, many of these spent fuel storage sites are on the shores of the Great Lakes and major rivers like the Mississippi, and along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts – because those waters provide the reactors’ cooling.

In absurdist fashion, the new Waste Confidence Rule contains a “predictive” safety “finding” that simply stipulates spent reactor fuel can be disposed of safely at some unspecified time in the future, whenever it becomes “necessary” to dispose of it. The Rule also concludes that for at least sixty years after the cessation of reactor operations, spent fuel can be safely stored at reactor sites or in “special” facilities.

Environmental advocates like the National Resources Defense Council and Friends of the Earth want to stop the production of nuclear processing.

We aim to require the Government to include the costs and environmental risks of spent fuel disposal within the scope of the licensing review of new nuclear reactors, and weigh the relative costs and benefits of new nuclear reactors against far cheaper energy efficiency savings and new renewable electricity sources.

While it may seem that reprocessing offers an alternative to storage at scattered nuclear reactors, the proposal to use the Savannah River Site does nothing to discourage the continued operation of nuclear plants.

If the Savannah River Site were to be come a major reprocessing facility, as both Senators Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham desire, then South Carolina could become a dumping ground for waste far into the future.

Tom Clements of Friends of the Earth, and U.S. Senate candidate for the SC Green Party told The State back in February:

“We don’t want South Carolina to become the new Yucca Mountain, and we’re going to fight it,’’

by

Webcast of SRS Nuclear Waste Reprocessing and Storage Hearing, January 7.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future is streaming today’s hearing at the Augusta Marriott Hotel and Suites on nuclear waste reprocessing and storage at the Savannah River Site.

A link to site of stream is here: http://webcast.streamlogics.com/audience/index.asp?eventid=14194887

The stream is apparently in Windows Media or Real Player. Although the audio appears to be working, the video is scrambled. There is a helpful closed caption text, however.