Spent Fuel Reprocessing Efforts Dealt Set-back by NRC – Tom Clements writes for Aiken Leader

The Aiken Leader has published a piece by Tom Clements on the difficulties in opening a facility for reprocessing nuclear waste at the Savannah River Site.  As Clements points out in the article, the proposal would result in the movement of large amounts of nuclear waste into South Carolina, with no future plans for removing the waste, even after it has been reprocessed.

Clements has written previously on this issue for the Leader, and pointed out the complicity of South Carolina lawmakers in dangerous and wasteful plan to bring nuclear waste into the state.  His previous article, “Documents Reveal Time-line and Plans for “Small Modular Reactors” (SMRs) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Unrealistic and Promise no Funding“, was published on June 19.

An important Department of Energy (DOE) hearing on disposal of weapons-grade plutonium is coming up on September 4 (5:30-8:00 p.m.) at the North Augusta Municipal Center, 100 Georgia Avenue, North Augusta, SC 29841.  This hearing looks at production of plutonium fuel (MOX) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and MOX use in nuclear reactors operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

Here is a link to a fact sheet on the issue from the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability:

http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/MOX%20hearing%20fact%20sheet%208.31.2012%20pdf%20FINAL.pdf

Tom notes that even if you can’t make the hearing on September 4, you can submit written comments.  Just go to the DOE webpage and find the contact information there.  Written comments are accepted through September 25, 2012.

Tom Clements was the South Carolina Green Party nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010.  He received 121,474 votes and 9.22% of the total running against Tea-Party Republican Jim DeMint and Democrat Alvin Greene.

Read Tom’s article below.

Tom Clements: No Nuclear Waste Storage In SC

Tom Clements of Friends of the Earth, and the SC Green Party’s 2010 nominee for U.S. Senate, is encouraging the public to let Governor Nikki Haley know where you stand on nuclear waste storage in the state of South Carolina.

It is possible that SC will become a repository for spent nuclear fuel rods. This is a recommendation of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear waste storage.

Right now, this old fuel is stored on site at the nuclear plants where it was used.  Many of these rods are stored in water, and are subject to exposure should the water level dropped – as happened at the Fukushima reactors in Japan in April 2011.

These waste rods could be stored in dry concretized containers on site.   But such are the dangers of the waste, that people around the country would rather see them exported to anyplace else that will take them.   South Carolina could be that place.

It is likely that any temporary storage of this waste will become permanent.    There is no permanent repository for the spent nuclear fuel.  Without a permanent plan for disposing of these rods, South Carolina will be made a dumping ground.

Tom covers the controversy completely in a recent opinion column printed in Columbia’s The State newspaper.

Take a moment to print this letter, and mail it to Governor Haley, or fax it to 803-734-5167.  Let her and your local officials know that South Carolina cannot be the nuclear waste dump of the nation.

Print and mail or fax this letter to SC Governor Nikki Haley. Email the text to Governor Haley via this link: http://www.governor.sc.gov/contact/Pages/Contact.aspx.

Read Tom’s guest editorial in The State after the jump:

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.

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:

• Friends of the Earth’s Nuclear Reactor Page
• South Carolina Sierra Club’s Nuclear Energy Page

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:

• Water Report. Chapter 15: Savannah River Site.  Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. PDF.   http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/Water%20Report/waterreportsavannahriver.pdf
• S Area Radioactive Waste Storage – Savannah River Site, South Carolina. Sciway.net. http://www.sciway.net/srs-savannah-river-site/s-area-radioactive-waste-storage.html

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,’’