1204 Whiskey Rd, Suite B
Aiken, SC 29803-4318
(803) 649-3456
1-800-299-CNTA
cnta@bellsouth.net
Letters and Guest Editorials
|
1204 Whiskey Rd, Suite B
Letters and Guest Editorials |
October 15, 2008
Letter to the Editor
News & Observer - Raleigh NC
Hugh Haskell's opinion piece on nuclear power suggests he is averse to factual information on the subject. He lists five apocalyptic horsemen - cost, proliferation, risk, waste, and water consumption.
Cost? Utilities throughout the U.S. and the world are planning to build nuclear plants to make money, not to lose money. The higher capital cost of nuclear plants is made up by much lower operating and fuel costs. Current lifetime busbar cost of electricity from a nuclear plant is $75 per megawatt hour. That is lower than any alternative.
Proliferation? This is indeed a concern that must be addressed by international agreements with teeth. Rogue nations with covert programs and evil intentions must be stopped. But, it is wrong to think that curtailing nuclear production of electricity will have an influence on proliferation. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, when implemented, will make theft of nuclear materials much, much, harder, not easier.
Risk? Today's reactors are very safe, and tomorrow's will be much safer. Estimates are that atmospheric emissions from coal plants cause about 30,000 premature deaths annually. Worldwide, thousands die annually from mining accidents and natural gas fires and explosions. Nuclear power's record? Zero. The probability of a "catastrophic" nuclear accident is incredibly low - lower than the probability of being killed before dinner by a meteorite.
Waste? All of the used nuclear fuel produced in the U.S. every year could easily be stored in a couple of box cars, and its radioactivity is contained. A coal plant releases all of its waste to the environment, including over 100 times as much radioactivity as a nuclear plant. Eventually, the used fuel will be recycled because 95% of its energy value is still there. Meanwhile it is being stored quite safely.
Water Consumption? This is no show-stopper. It does indeed take a lot of water to make the steam to drive the turbines, to make the electricity that we depend on. But, nearly 98% of that water is cooled and put back into the lake or river it came from.
Malvyn McKibben
Executive Director Emeritus
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
September 28, 2008
Op-Ed Article
The Augusta Chronicle
Chicken Little may be right after all
For decades, those who have overdramatized the dire consequences of a particular situation have been ridiculed as being "Chicken Littles." Proclamations that the sky is falling have always been met with derision and disdain for the messenger of the foreboding news. However, in-depth analyses of our energy situation often result in "you can't get there from here" as all of the options are examined. This time Chicken Little may be right.
I like to think of myself as an optimist who believes the United States can do anything it commits to do. Therein lies the rub - commitment. Who among us believes that the U.S. could pull off another Manhattan Project or Man on the Moon program? It isn't that we don't have the talent, but rather we don't have the commitment or the leadership to help supply that commitment. The dilemma we face is as follows.
The global economy is rooted in oil. The worldwide supply of oil is peaking. Maximum oil production is at hand and future production will decline. Because we are basically chasing harder-to-access oil with energy derived from easier-to-access oil, we eventually get to the point where we are expending an amount of energy equivalent to the amount we are recovering, and at that point we stop oil production. If we merely pursue the status quo, then long before this time occurs, there will be worldwide economic chaos that will make today's economic troubles seem like the good old days.
Because we focus on higher gas prices, many don't realize that about one-third of every barrel of oil goes into production of petrochemicals. It is from this class of materials that we derive many of our common goods such as pharmaceuticals, plastics, tires, clothing, plumbing materials, and asphalt. One could make a convincing argument that if we do increase domestic oil exploration and production, then we should optimize refinery operations for petrochemicals rather than gasoline.
How then can we prove Chicken Little wrong? If it isn't too late, we can start by establishing a no-nonsense energy policy that appropriately incentivizes the development of a different energy basis for our economy. This policy should recognize the potential contributions of different forms of energy production, energy efficiency initiatives, and conservation and encourage (mandate?) their implementation. Although we should be open to all reasonable options, the only alternative energy source that could do the heavy lifting required to wean us from oil is nuclear power. Whether it is charging batteries for electric cars or making hydrogen for transportation, huge new electricity demands will be upon us as we graduate from oil and that will require a massive investment in nuclear power.
Do we have the will and the leadership to make that investment?
Uh-oh! Gotta go. Something big and blue just fell in my backyard.
Clint Wolfe
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
September 15, 2008
Remarks at Media Conference, Columbia SC
related to Rep. Gresham Barrett's (R-SC) initiatives
supporting nuclear development
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, Congressman Barrett, members of the media. I am Clint Wolfe, Executive Director of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, headquartered in Aiken, SC, home of the DOE's Savannah River Site, a unique resource in our quest for energy independence.
It is indeed a pleasure for me to speak for the overwhelming majority of people in South Carolina who have rejected the superstitions and myths perpetrated by those who have fought to keep us in the dark. Instead, the majority of people want clean, abundant, reliable, emission free, safe energy and they want it when they need it. Nuclear power is the only alternative form of energy that fits that bill for the generation of baseload electricity.
The debate over energy choices needs to recognize that every day of delay in implementing an urgently needed energy policy is contributing further damage to our planet. We need to focus on a plan with bipartisan support for nuclear power, which we are fortunate to have among our delegations in SC and GA. This makes it particularly appropriate that SC be the hub of the Nuclear Renaissance. Not only do we already generate more than 50% of our electricity from nuclear and therefore enjoy among the lowest rates per KWHr in the country, but our educational resources are aligned to propel workforce development to the fore of the renaissance.
Our technical colleges stand ready to produce the certified technicians and craftsmen necessary for a resurgent industry. USC and SCSU have reversed the previous trend of declining programs in nuclear engineering and, instead have started new programs.
The Savannah River Site presents the opportunity to have safe, secure facilities and an experienced, talented workforce to advance new technology investments to fruition.
In short, SC has all the necessary ingredients to lead the way, but we need a national commitment in a "man on the moon" sense to make it happen in time to avoid calamity. We pledge our support to help put nuclear power first and foremost in a national energy plan, and to support all legislative efforts to provide the national commitment to nuclear energy.
Thank you very much.
Clinton R. Wolfe, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
August 20, 2008
Op-Ed Article
USA Today
The Energy Doctor
A funny thing happened at the doctor's office the other day. A patient was complaining to the doctor that he didn't have enough energy. The doctor said, "are you taking anything for energy now"? He said yes he was, but that what he was taking was causing 30,000 deaths annually in the U.S. alone, contributing to air pollution, global warming, and the death of our oceans and he wanted to try something else. He had heard about renewable energies and thought he would like to try one of those.
"Well," the doctor said, "we have several alternatives to what you are currently taking, but none of them are renewable." He went on to explain that energy cannot be renewed. The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. However, we do have several remedies that some people mistakenly refer to as renewable, which are more appropriately called sustainable or in some cases, inexhaustible energies. "Yeah, OK tell me more," said the patient. "Well, we could give you a shot of wind or solar which should give you some partial relief like when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing." "What do I do for energy the rest of the time?" responded the patient. "Well, you could try to not use energy during those times."
"That's it? That's all you can do to help me"? The doctor then pointed out that the patient would have to continue taking what he was currently taking for the foreseeable future while researchers search for those breakthroughs which would enable alternatives to replace his current prescription. "But that's a death sentence for thousands of people and most likely for the entire planet", the patient countered.
"Your only other alternative would be large doses of nuclear energy." The patient recoiled and immediately started a barrage of objections, too dangerous, too much waste, don't know what to do with waste, too expensive, radiation, etc. The doctor repelled each objection with crisp statements of fact. "Too dangerous? There has never been a fatality due the generation of nuclear power in this country. Too much waste? No greenhouse gas production. All the high level waste produced annually by all 104 reactors in the U.S. would fit into a normal sized house. Don't know what to do with waste? Not a technical issue. Recycle and/or repository. Too expensive? Nuclear has the lowest operating cost of all baseload energy candidates. Radiation? Nuclear plants emit 100 times less radiation than coal fired plants. Levels are inconsequential."
The flustered patient said, "if nuclear is this good, why aren't we already prescribing it for our energy woes"? "Beats the hell out of me," said the energy doctor.
Dr. Clint Wolfe
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
July 16, 2008
Op-Ed Article
The Aiken Standard
Do facts matter?
One of the traits of Americans is that we love a spirited debate where we skewer the opposing view and denigrate the credentials of those who don't see things our way. We have a real donnybrook going now because our dire energy situation has led to a loud cry for drilling anywhere we can find domestic oil. Psychologically it is comforting to argue this point and by becoming self sufficient with oil extracted from the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) we could then thumb our noses at the Mideast.
Being a nuclear power advocate, I have followed these debates closely to gauge the impact on the overall energy picture. Usually, I am making a case for nuclear power versus coal based electricity and we don't worry about oil based electrical generation because very little oil is used for this purpose. Most of the oil we consume is for transportation. If we didn't have oil, we would be running automobiles on batteries or hydrogen, both of which require electrical energy either to recharge the batteries or to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen. If the latter scenario were real then we would require enormous new baseload electrical generation capacity. Enter nuclear power.
When we run into anti-nuclear sentiment we try to evaluate the basis of that sentiment and provide factual information which we hope people will use to develop more informed opinions as opposed to emotionally based ones. So I tried to do that with the "let's drill our way out of this" argument.
First, I was shocked to find so many experts saying this was not, as I had believed, a quick solution. Seems it would be 10-15 years before oil began to flow were we to decide to exploit the ANWR and the OCS and secondly, the impact on oil prices would be negligible.
Thirdly, the average estimate of the ANWR reserves is a little over 7 billion barrels of oil or about the equivalent of one year of U.S. consumption. Similarly, the OCS estimated reserves would provide about 11 years of our current consumption. These estimates assume that we could instantaneously extract the oil for our immediate use. Obviously, it would take many years to gear up and then decades to actually pump the oil. This is not to say that we shouldn't exploit domestic reserves, just that it is not sufficient to solve the problem. Some have even suggested we should dump some portion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) on the market to provide a psychological effect that would cause the price of oil to plummet. The SPR has about 33 days worth of supply. This is not likely to have a lasting impact on oil prices and we would have to replace it with $150 a barrel oil.
Additionally, the assumption we have all probably used from time to time is that we are at the mercy of the Mideast for our source of oil and we blame them for high prices. This is partially true, but not so much as we might think. According to infoplease.com in 2006 we imported 58% of the oil we consumed. Canada provided 11% of what we consumed, Mexico 11%, Saudi Arabia 9%, Venezuela 8%, Nigeria 7%, Iraq 4%, and 25 other countries 8%. These countries are all pumping at, or near, capacity. Worldwide, we are discovering about one barrel of oil for every 9 barrels that we consume. You don't need to be a mathematician to figure out that we are rapidly depleting world oil resources. Even if we were to significantly reverse the downward domestic oil production trend of the last 35 years we would have to solve the refining bottleneck as our refineries are operating at, or near, 100% of capacity.
So what is the answer? There will not be a single silver bullet. The oil based economy is not sustainable and shows ominous signs of worldwide economic calamity. We urgently need a bold new energy policy that is not centered on fossil fuels. It will probably entail a transition period with a number of approaches including drilling for new oil, conservation, expanded rail systems, increased use of public transportation, and improved fuel efficiency. It is also likely to entail rapid development of electric and hydrogen powered automobiles. The latter options require significant increases in our electrical energy output over and above that which already has been projected for increases in our electrical energy needs. Wind and solar power may be able to make niche contributions to the energy picture, but increases in energy on this scale can only be provided by nuclear power if we are to avoid the environmental catastrophe of producing that much new energy from carbon based sources. Let's get on with it before it is too late.
Cline Wolfe,
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
June 20, 2008
Article Submitted to
The State
The Latent Risk Myth
Have you ever heard someone say that exposure to some low level of radiation will lead to some number of cancer deaths? You have if you have attended Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings on new site applications for nuclear power plants or have attended a conference of interveners. It is a favorite scare tactic. Their argument goes something like this: "According to the Department of Energy's Office of Science, we know that an acute dose of 1000 rem (a measure of biological risk associated with radiation exposure) has an extremely high probability of killing the unfortunate one exposed; therefore, if we expose 1000 people to a dose of one rem we have the same level of certainty that one of the 1000 will die from this acute dose." This kind of logic actually has a statistical name called "Linear Non Threshold" or "LNT" methodology. It is sort of like saying "if one person consumes 1000 aspirin tablets at once and it proves to be fatal, then if we give one tablet to a thousand people we should expect one fatality among the 1000 participants, and furthermore if we give an aspirin to 10,000 people we should expect 10 deaths, and so on." Now you probably think that sounds ridiculous and if you do then you are right, but that doesn't keep nuclear activists from predicting latent cancer cases based on the same rationale.
More than 500 years ago, a medieval pharmacist named Paracelsus, was posed the question, "What is a poison?" His response was, "It depends on the dose". Humans must have salt in their diets to maintain appropriate body chemistry, but too much salt can kill you. The same can be said for a number of metals, e.g., selenium, arsenic, chromium, manganese, cobalt, iron and a number of vitamins and even water. This observation by Paracelsus leads logically to the concept of a dose response curve which shows toxicity increasing only after some threshold value of the agent has been exceeded.
The use of LNT methodology is rationalized by some as providing "a worst case scenario" when we don't know enough about the actual effect of low level radiation exposure to make accurate estimates of health effects. The reason we don't know enough is that the effects are so miniscule that they can't be accurately measured and we don't even know whether the effects are detrimental or beneficial. How can we attribute something sinister to low level exposures of millirems (one millirem equals one one-thousandth of a rem) of radiation when natural background levels of radiation vary widely around the earth from just less than 100 millirems to more than 25,000 millirems per year with no apparent human health effects?
The fact that anti nuclear activists trot out the latent cancer arguments when fighting the nuclear renaissance is not only bad science, but it is counterproductive to their own cause since coal fired power plants, which we would hope nuclear plants would replace, emit 100 times more radiation than do nuclear plants of the same size.
It is time to eliminate the fear mongering and superstition and get on with a responsible, urgent implementation of nuclear power if we are serious about saving our planet from the ravages of carbon based energy production.
Dr. Clinton Wolfe
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
June 1, 2008
Letter to the Editor
The Aiken Standard
U.S./Russian Cooperation Good News
Heaven knows there has been precious little to cheer about in recent times as higher and higher gas prices prevail while international tensions persist and we struggle as a nation to deal with health care, education, and energy in general.
Against that backdrop I was invited to a dinner the other night in honor of joint work performed between the U.S. and Russia which should make us all feel good. Agreements between the U.S. and Russia call for the U.S. to allow inspection of our former plutonium production reactors at SRS and Hanford and for Russia to allow the inspection of their shutdown and plutonium producing reactors at three different sites in Russia. These inspections have been going on for about ten years now with the U.S. players being guided jointly by officials from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) with major contributions, of course, from the contractors at SRS as well as Hanford. Although the teams change players occasionally, for the most part there is continuity that allows time for relationships to build and to develop respect for the members of the other team. Thus, the dinner to which I was invited as representing the interested citizenry of the area demonstrated that the watchdog approach to the enforcement of this nonproliferation agreement had fostered considerable respect among the two groups as well as genuine friendships.
What these two teams are doing is serious business, but their success illustrates that well meaning people searching for common ground can be a mighty force. They deserve our deepest gratitude. Hmmm, I wonder if we could apply this approach to any of the other issues confronting us?
Dr. Clinton Wolfe
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
June 4, 2008
Opinion Article for
Spartanburg Herald-Journal
Nuclear Concerns: Real and Imagined
I attended two public hearings recently concerning the environmental impacts on two proposed nuclear power plant sites. One was in Georgia and one was in Gaffney, S.C. All in all I listened to more than five hours of statements both pro and con relative to the proposed new plants. Those opposed seemed to have both real (based on experience) and imagined (not based on experience) concerns.
Real concerns were typified by one resident who believed that a proposed transmission line from the plant would cut across property on which he intended to build a home. Other real concerns were related to the impact of the water usage. This is a real concern for any steam based power producer. Still other concerns centered on cost. In these times of escalating commodity and construction costs it is difficult to pin down a good estimate of final costs 10 years hence. It would be so for any method of power production. These are real concerns, but they are not showstoppers and can be resolved.
Imagined concerns were the most troubling to me because it was obvious some citizens have very genuine concerns which are fed by people and organizations disseminating false information. For example, there was a grandmother concerned that the health of her grandchildren would be endangered by tritium in the drinking water. Utilities must comply with environmental law and standards. They are required to monitor groundwater and theoretical release points to ensure they are not releasing tritium into the environment. These concerns are fanned by persons with official sounding titles representing professions that should have credibility, such as physicians. They insist on perpetrating a hoax that there are cancer clusters around nuclear power plants. There has never been a credible study that showed any causal relationship between nuclear plants and cancers of any type.
Other concerns ranged from the "dangers" of transporting large volumes of "deadly or lethal" nuclear waste to building a "nuclear bomb." Nuclear waste never killed anybody. There have been hundreds of thousands of shipments of radioactive materials worldwide over the last 60 years without incident. Opponents of nuclear power would have you believe we are awash in high level nuclear waste. Not true! The annual production of high level waste by all of the nuclear plants in the country would not even fill one railroad car. Compare that to the incredible amounts of coal ash, slag, and millions of tons of carbon dioxide put into our air by burning fossil fuels. Lastly, there was the inevitable claim that the utility was building a nuclear bomb right in our backyard. It simply is not possible. The fuel used in commercial nuclear reactors cannot be used as a nuclear weapon.
If we are to save our planet from the ravages of real concerns, such as global warming, air pollution and the increasing acidity of our oceans (due to carbon dioxide absorption) we must aggressively pursue the implementation of new nonpolluting nuclear power plants, as they represent the only real alternative to fossil fuels for baseload electrical energy production.
Dr. Clinton Wolfe
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
June 5, 2008
Letter to the Editor
USA Today
May 21, 2008
Letter to Vern Anderson
Editor of the Editorial Page
The Salt Lake Tribune Newspaper
I am dismayed to observe the fuss that has been made over the possibility of low level waste from Italy being disposed of in Utah. It will make a miniscule addition to the same type of waste already being disposed of at the Utah site by a conscientious, law abiding, safety minded company. All along the proposed route from Italy somebody protests the "dangers" of transporting the cargo.
We know about radioactive waste here in Aiken, South Carolina, home of the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site, and because of good stewardship, our local citizens are comfortable with the management of the nuclear materials there.
Our neighboring community, Graniteville, experienced a train derailment, which spewed a deadly cargo of chlorine gas over the community. Nine people died, 250 were injured, some seriously, and claims for damages to property and businesses ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Many lost their jobs because equipment in some businesses could not recover from the exposure to the corrosive gas.
Just imagine that the train that derailed in Graniteville was carrying nuclear waste. No one would have died. No one would have been injured. No property damage would have occurred. No jobs would have been lost. No one would have lingering injuries. No lives would have been altered forever.
No fatalities or serious injuries have ever been caused by the hundreds of thousands of nuclear material shipments around the world, yet many blanch at the thought of radioactive materials on our highways and our rail systems. Radiation doses to the public and any hypothetical health effects from such shipments are too infinitesimally small to credibly estimate.
The next time you are on the interstate dodging tankers carrying chlorine or gasoline, or ammonia, or concentrated nitric or sulfuric acid, snuggle up to the truck with the yellow sign with the magenta trefoil that says "radioactive material." It is a whole lot safer than the others.
Dr. Clinton Wolfe
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
May 20, 2008
Letter to The Editor
Scientific American
Re: Rethinking Nuclear Fuel Recycling
In his article in your May issue F.J. von Hipple made two arguments that demand at least a reexamination if not outright rebuttal. First, he makes the point that recycling is expensive, perhaps $50B to process the 62,000 tons of fuel currently in interim storage, but destined for Yucca Mountain. This inventory would almost fill the repository. No credit is given to recycling for avoiding the cost of multiple Yucca Mountains which will be necessary to handle the used fuel if we build the number of nuclear power plants that we need. Those costs make recycling cost effective.
Secondly, he makes the point that plutonium separated during recycling might fall into the wrong hands. This is not a given as we have made plutonium in this country for 60 years and kept it safe. Additionally, not all recycle schemes produce pure plutonium.
The Department of Energy's GNEP concept may need some work, but it is a step in the right direction. A recycling plant co-located with a power reactor and a fast burner makes a lot of sense. The material would never leave the site except when the final waste products are shipped out to either Yucca or to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (a facility in New Mexico currently receiving defense transuranic waste) where they would occupy much less volume than the used fuel. These two repositories could handle our nuclear high level wastes for hundreds of years if we recycle.
Lastly, if we want to help make the international nuclear rules, we need to be in the game.
Clinton R. Wolfe, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
March 23, 2008
Guest Editorial
The Augusta Chronicle
The Nuclear Power Renaissance
There is no doubt that a renaissance of nuclear power is underway in the U.S. and around the world. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses and regulates commercial nuclear activities, has received expressions of interest for building 32 new reactors. They have received four license applications for combined construction and operation, and several utilities have submitted Early Site Permits, including Southern Nuclear (Georgia Power) and Duke Power. Many other countries are building new reactors or plan to do so, including Canada, Brazil, England, France, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Finland, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and many others.
The reason is clear. People have become aware that for several decades, nuclear power has had an incredibly good record of safety, environmental protection, and low costs, and everyone wants a way to produce electricity that does not pollute. A wise person once said, "Facts are stubborn things". Here are some pertinent facts.
Safety - No one has died from the radiation from power reactors, spent fuel, or radioactive waste except for the Chernobyl accident which could not happen any where else, yet the only competitors of nuclear power, coal and natural gas, each cause several thousand deaths each year, worldwide, from coal mining accidents and gas explosions and fires. In addition, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that 30,000 people die prematurely each year in the U.S. from the emissions of coal-powered plants. Nuclear is safer by a huge margin, and the next generation of nuclear plants, already designed and being built, will be even safer.
Environment - The outstanding environmental record of nuclear power plants is becoming legendary. They have no emissions that make acid rain, smog, global warming, ozone depletion, or heavy metal pollution. For these reasons, many professional environmentalists and ecologists support nuclear power. A partial list includes: Dr. Patrick Moore, founder and past President of Greenpeace, Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, James Lovelock, considered the founder of the environmental movement, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore, Friends of the Earth, and Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute. And, Environmentalists for Nuclear Power, a worldwide organization, has several thousand members.
Global warming is indeed occurring, and the principal human contributor is carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from the burning of trees, coal, oil, and gas. Fortunately, we can do something about that without reducing our standard of living by going to nuclear production of electricity and using hydrogen for transportation. It is likely that the cheapest way to make hydrogen will be in nuclear plants.
Cost - The operating cost for making electricity in nuclear plants is lower than any of its competitors; in 2006, nuclear plant operating cost in the U.S. averaged 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, coal 2.37, natural gas 6.75 and oil 9.63. Since then, the cost advantage of nuclear over coal has grown in part because coal plants are spending money to reduce their emissions. If construction costs are included, nuclear is already competitive, and is expected to gain an advantage as the price of new nuclear plants comes down, and the cost and time to get licenses is reduced.
Public support - Americans have become aware of these advantages, and are supportive of nuclear power. Several national polls show that 68 to 70% of adult Americans support building more to meet our growing need for electricity. Support among people living near existing nuclear plants is 87%, and among college graduates with a technical degree, 85%.
In spite of this, a small minority of anti-nuclear zealots are mobilized to oppose all things nuclear. For example, they claim that even a tiny amount of radiation is dangerous. If that were true we would all be dead from the 370 millirem annual "background" radiation that we all receive, without harm, from natural sources plus medical and dental x-rays. There is no evidence that our background radiation is harmful.
The anti-nuclear community also exaggerates the problem of used nuclear fuel. When nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor, it is stored in cooling ponds at the reactor site until its radioactivity had decayed enough to be stored dry at the site in large shielded casks on concrete pads. These operations are quite safe, and well protected from terrorist attack.
Ultimately, used fuel will be recycled. That will do several important things - recover the remaining 95% of the energy value that is still there, greatly reduce the radioactivity in the final waste, and allow all of the waste for the next 100 years, or longer, to be disposed of in Yucca Mountain. The cost of disposing of the waste will be greatly reduced. Yucca Mountain geologic repository will be opened eventually, but there is no urgency to do so.
Anti-nukes incorrectly claim, based on a couple of epidemiological studies, that people living near nuclear plants have an increased risk of developing leukemia. The incidence of leukemia varies widely with location. When a location with high incidence happens to be near a nuclear plant the anti-nukes say "Ahah! The nuclear plant did it!" This ignores the hundred of independent and scholarly studies that have concluded the opposite.
The nuclear renaissance is real. It is already occurring. And, folks who want cheap electricity and a clean environment are happy about that.
Dr. Susan Wood, Board Chair
Mal McKibben, Consultant
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
February 7, 2008
Letter to the Editor
The State Newspaper
Your guest editorial Tuesday, February 5 entitled "Nuclear misplaced among renewables" took issue with the inclusion of nuclear energy in the definition of "renewable" energy for purposes of the "Plan for State Energy Policy" in the "South Carolina Energy Efficiency Act." Two of the purposes of that plan are (1) "ensure access to energy supplies at the lowest practical environmental and economic cost" and (2) "ensure long-term access to adequate reliable energy supplies." Nuclear energy is the only source that can meet these criteria.
The editorial says that uranium is a finite resource that we import from outside South Carolina at significant cost. The fact is that the cost of producing energy per kilowatt hour is less with nuclear energy than with any other energy source and there is enough uranium in the world to last several hundred years.
The claim that solar, wind and geothermal energy are nearly free of environmental impacts also demands clarification. It takes approximately 50 square miles of solar panels to generate 1000 MW of energy, which is generated in a nuclear power plant on less than 1/3 of a square mile of land. Approximately 200 square miles are required for wind generation of 1000 MW, and thousands of square miles of biomass are required to produce 1000 MW of electricity. In addition, the production of solar panels involves the use of extremely toxic materials that must be discarded in a carefully regulated manner.
The claim is made that no one considers nuclear to be a renewable source. That is not true. The pursuit of breeder reactors promised nearly inexhaustible energy and, as far back as 1983, the noted Professor B. L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh published an article in the American Journal of Physics entitled "Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source." The prestigious American Nuclear Society (ANS) published a position statement in 2005 entitled "Fast Reactor Technology: A Path to Long-Term Energy Sustainability." In 2005 the ANS supported President Bush's contention that nuclear belongs among the renewable sources of energy.
South Carolina is to be commended for including nuclear power in its definition of renewable energy sources. Other renewables can meet only a very small percentage of energy needs. Our organization supports the use of all forms of renewable energy in the niche markets for which they are best suited, and we support incentives for the development of renewable energy sources; however, we object to spending taxpayer money in a disproportionate manner compared to nuclear when the latter is clearly the only alternative for displacing fossil fuels for the generation of baseload electrical power.
Clinton R. Wolfe, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
February 1, 2008
Letter to the Editor
USA Today
There are many ways to deal with spent nuclear fuel that are technically acceptable. Sending it to Yucca Mountain is a very workable solution except that some Nevadans do not want it. Never mind that the Nevada Test Site (home of Yucca Mountain) has experienced more nuclear testing than any place on earth. In the meantime, the American taxpayer is paying fines to the utilities because Yucca is not available.
Used fuel is a valuable resource because it retains 95% of the energy value in the original fuel and is reprocessed to recover that energy in England, China, Russia, France, and Japan. So a second way to deal with it is to reprocess, which requires some investment, but is less expensive than spending $500M annually and still not getting Yucca operational. The waste from reprocesssing has a much shorter half life than spent fuel, occupies much less volume, and enables a facility such as Yucca to accommodate many more years of power generation than the original design basis assumed.
Also, waste from reprocessing could be containerized like that being sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and disposed of in that facility. The New Mexicans have been very supportive of their WIPP. This facility has operated successfully for several years and has been an economic boon to the Carlsbad area.
It is easy to find technical, but not political, solutions. Hopefully, we can generate the support required to move this issue off dead center and down the track of resolution. Our future depends upon it.
Clinton R. Wolfe, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
September 21, 2007
Letter to Warren Bolton
The State
There has been a great deal of controversy - and misinformation -- about government loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, this has thrown a gigantic roadblock in the way of efforts to move ahead with construction of nuclear reactors that are vitally needed.
The Energy Policy Act, which Congress approved in 2005, is supposed to provide guarantees for loans to fund new nuclear plants and other "innovative" clean-energy technologies, with the goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. What is at issue is whether the funding will be approved.
The loan guarantee program is designed to be self-financing, with banks responsible for underwriting the cost to the government of providing the credit support. There would be no cost to the taxpayer.
The loan guarantees will allow new nuclear plants into the market quicker than would otherwise be the case. The guarantees will enable companies to lower financing costs for construction, thereby reducing their cost of capital. Thus, consumers' cost of electricity would be substantially less. Over its full commercial life, the life-cycle price of power from a new nuclear plant could be reduced from 8-11 cents per kilowatt hour to 6-7.5 cents per kilowatt hour, cutting the cost of electricity by about one-third.
Companies are preparing to invest in a new generation of nuclear power plants, which will cost $4 or $5 billion each. This amount is very large relative to the size of the companies making the investments. So without loan guarantees for new plants, some companies may be unable to secure the financing necessary.
Contrary to claims of some critics, the size of loan guarantees would not be indeterminate. They are limited by amounts Congress provides from one year to the next. The money must be available before any loan can be guaranteed and total guarantees cannot exceed fund balances.
Nuclear plants must compete for loan guarantees with other innovative technologies such as those for capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants, coal to liquids projects, advanced designs for fuel-efficient vehicles, and technology to produce ethanol from switch grass and other cellulosic sources.
Meanwhile, the climate for nuclear power construction is improving. Sixteen companies are gearing up to file license applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build as many as 35 new nuclear plants and do it in the near term. We will need at least this many nuclear plants by 2030 if we have any hope of addressing global warming and enhancing our nation's energy security.
We urge our congress to approve these loan guarantees promptly.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
September 5, 2007
Op-Ed Item
The Spartanburg Herald
Spartanburg SC
Some newspapers, elected officials, and anti-nuclear activists in South Carolina are determined to close the Chem Nuclear low-level waste repository in Barnwell County. Sadly those efforts have relied on misinformation and baseless fear. It is time to step-back and examine factual benefits and costs.
First, the facility has provided essential services to the nation for 36 years, disposing of low-level waste from universities, hospitals, and utilities. It has been monitored and regulated by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).
There have been two major independent appraisals of their practices, one by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and another by "Blue Ribbon" committee appointed by DHEC. Here are some highlights of those appraisals.
That's about what a person gets from a couple of chest x-rays. The DHEC limit at that point is 25 millirem. For comparison, the average person in the U.S. receive about 370 millirem from all sources. This 25-millirem limit is somewhat silly since there is no public access to the water until it eventually enters the Savannah River. The radioactivity in the Chem-Nuclear discharge is diluted by a factor of about three as it enters Mary's Branch, and is diluted further, probably by a factor of six to ten, when Mary's Branch enters Lower Three Runs creek. That water then enters the Savannah River. In the river, it is further diluted by a factor of thousands. The bottom line here is that there is certainly nothing for anyone downstream to worry about, as the NRC report had already pointed out.
It is obvious that these facts contradict some of the opinions expressed recently in editorials, statements by some elected officials, and anti-nuclear activists.
The Barnwell facility is highly regulated by well-qualified experts. An onsite DHEC inspector closely monitors all activities and inspects and approves every incoming waste shipment. If a shipment does not meet requirements, it goes back where it came from. DHEC examines all survey data collected by Chem-Nuclear and independently analyzes samples to confirm the Chem-Nuclear data.
Over the years, the site has implemented a number of improvements. The design of the trenches where waste is buried, the use of polyethylene high integrity containers, concrete disposal vaults, and engineered trench closures have greatly reduced the potential for significant amounts of radioactivity to reach the groundwater. The trenches were sloped to the side and along its length with a monitored collection sump should any water be present. The engineered cap that covers the trench for closure has five layers, including a geosynthetic clay layer and a high-density polyethylene layer. The cap is very well designed to eliminate surface water intrusion after closure.
The economic value of the facility has been questioned. Barnwell County gets almost 3 million dollars, which is about 16% of their county budget. The site has 51 employees who take home about $4 million in salary and benefits, which is well above Barnwell's average. Barnwell County benefits even more because many of the site's procurement dollars are spent there, and there are Barnwell businesses that perform work for the site. In addition, this year the state will receive over $11 million that goes directly in the state's education budget.
Nearly all articles and editorials used the word "dump" to describe the facility. That clearly indicates a bias because "dump" is a pejorative word, deliberately used create a negative impression .
Fears that South Carolina could become the nation's "dump" for low-level waste are without merit. In 2005, Chem-Nuclear received only 2/10 of 1% of the total low-level waste that was disposed of in the United States.
In summary, the Chem-Nuclear low-level waste repository meets a vital national need for safe disposal of low-level wastes from hospitals, universities, commercial businesses, and nuclear power plants, and in doing so it provides valuable economic benefits to the area. There is simply no reason to shut this facility down or restrict its operation.
Dr. Susan Wood, Chairperson
Mal McKibben, Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
August 27, 2007
Letter to the Editor
The Aiken Standard,
Aiken SC
The State,
Columbia SC
The Island Packet,
Hilton Head Island SC
An article was printed August 20 in the Aiken Standard, implying some dire threat from tritium found in groundwater beneath the Chem-Nuclear low-level waste disposal site. It was very misleading. The article was based on a long and very misleading article by Sammy Fretwell in The State newspaper August 19.
What was not stated was that the article contained nothing new even though that was implied. The situation that caused the tritium to be in ground water under the site happened thirty years ago and was corrected. All information regarding tritium has been well known to SCDHEC and anyone interested for all of that time. No new leaks are believed to have occurred.
That contaminated water does not flow toward local wells or drinking water supplies. As it flows, quite slowly, through the site it is greatly diluted. It flows out the east side of the site into Mary's Branch. At that point, it does not exceed drinking water standards. In fact, if someone could drink a liter of water every day at that point (they can't) the radiation exposure would be only 20% of the safe limit. There is no public access until it eventually enters the Savannah River where the tritium concentration is far below drinking water standards.
There is no threat here and nothing new.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director , CNTA
August 6, 2007
Letter to the Editor
The New York Times
New York, New York
Your 8/3/07 article titled "Building Starts on Plant to Convert Plutonium" on the construction of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility was appreciated.
This has a long history. The first President Bush recognized that a thoughtful decision would be needed on how to dispose of tons of weapons-grade plutonium if his START initiatives were successful. National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to identify best options. Two NAS committees wrote reports concluding that fissioning (burning) the plutonium by using it as fuel in commercial reactors would be a good way to do it. DOE then created committees to assess options, and they chose the MOX option.
Most opposition has come from people and organizations with long histories of opposing nearly everything nuclear. Most legitimate organizations that are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons support it as a genuine "swords into plowshares" program.
J. Malvyn McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
August 4, 2007
Letter to the Editor
The Augusta Chronicle
Augusta, Georgia
Don't buy those nuclear scare tactics
A recent news report ("Cancer rate near Vogtle questioned," June 21) and a letter to the editor ("Report highlights nuclear dangers," June 25) have attacked Georgia Power's plans to build two more reactors at Plant Vogtle, near Waynesboro. The charges leveled in both attacks, by long-time anti-nuclear zealots, are at best misleading.
One report said cancer rates around Burke County have increased since Plant Vogtle began operation, implying that Plant Vogtle was the cause. Hundreds of studies around the world, and dozens around Savannah River Site, have shown that nuclear plants do not contribute to illnesses, especially cancer. To suggest otherwise is highly irresponsible.
The other said that low levels of radiation, specifically from plants such as Plant Vogtle, are harmful to health. This is a subject that has been studied intensely for more than 50 years. We know very well that radiation doses above 10,000 millirem can have harmful effects. We all get about 370 millirem of radiation annually from background environment, and that causes us no harm at all. If you lived directly outside the fence at Plant Vogtle, you might get an additional 1 to 5 millirem a year, which would be insignificant.
The anti-nuclear zealots try to frighten people with their scares du jour, but facts are facts. There is no threat here.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
July 5, 2007
Letter to the Editor
The Idaho Statesman
Boise, Idaho
The letter in the July 4 issue on nuclear power by Audra Green and Doug Paddock appears to be deliberately misleading.
Nuclear uses "vast amounts of water"? They give the example of Georgia's Plant Vogtle "which uses 64 million gallons of water." That's what is taken out of the river. Most of that is put back in after it is cooled. The net loss to the river is only the amount that goes into the atmosphere as vapor.
The only ways to supply the base-load electricity for the nation's growth and quality of life are nuclear, coal, and natural gas. Of these, nuclear is the cleanest, safest, and cheapest. Wind, solar, and geothermal will be used, but those can only supply niche markets.
Their letter also says, incorrectly, that ".....nuclear energy produces vast amounts of hazardous and highly radioactive material". Coal plants release their waste - heavy metals, carbon dioxide, and more radioactivity than nuclear directly to the environment. Nuclear contains theirs. Nuclear waste has never injured or killed anyone, but coal plant releases cause about 10,000 premature deaths per year according to the Centers for Disease Control, and another 5,000 to 8,000 people die every year worldwide from coal mining accidents and also from natural gas fires and explosions.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
March 26, 2007
The State Newspaper
Columbia, South Carolina
Guest Editorial: Chem-Nuclear
In 2000, South Carolina enacted Act 357 prohibiting Chem-Nuclear's low-level waste repository in Barnwell from receiving waste from states other than New Jersey and Connecticut after July 1, 2008. At that time, the state joined with those two states to form the Atlantic Compact for low-level radioactive waste disposal.
Recently, however, a bill was submitted that would allow the repository to continue receiving low-level waste from other states for 15 more years. This proposal has generated letters, editorials, and speeches in opposition. Sadly, nearly all of this opposition has been based on groundless fears, and presented with great emotion and exaggeration. For just one example, nearly all used the word "dump" to describe the facility. That clearly indicates a bias because "dump" is a pejorative word, deliberately used create a negative impression.
We write to contribute factual and objective information to the public discussion. Our organization, Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA), is the nation's largest independent, citizen-based nuclear education group.
To begin, we should examine the site's performance over the past 36 years. We don't have to guess about it because there is a massive amount of data, not just from Chem-Nuclear documents, but also from their regulator, South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), and from two very large independent and expert appraisals, one by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and another by a prestigious "Blue Ribbon" committee appointed by DHEC. Here are some highlights.
In the late 1970s, tritium (a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) was detected in shallow groundwater beneath the site. Considerable effort has been expanded to prevent future tritium migration by improved placement designs. More recent samples taken at the point of compliance, where groundwater leaves the Chem-Nuclear site and enters the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Mary's Branch, showed that that the concentration of tritium is so low that if a hypothetical (non-existent) person at location drank two liters (about a quart) of that water every day for a year he (or she) would get an insignificant radiation dose of 5.7 millirem. Mathematical modeling based on trench samples indicated the maximum possible future (hypothetical) dose at the compliance point could be no higher than 13 millirem. That's about what a person gets from a couple of chest x-rays. The DHEC limit at that point is 25 millirem. For comparison, the average person in the U.S. received about 370 millirem from all sources. This 25-millirem limit is somewhat silly since there is no public access to the water until it eventually enters the Savannah River. The radioactivity in the Chem-Nuclear discharge is diluted by a factor of about three as it enters Mary's Branch, and is diluted further, probably by a factor of six to ten, when Mary's Branch enters Lower Three Runs Creek. That water flows into the SRS then enters the Savannah River. In the river, it is further diluted by a factor of thousands. The bottom line here is that there is certainly nothing for anyone downstream to worry about, as the NRC report had already pointed out.
It is obvious that these facts contradict some of the opinions expressed recently in editorials, statements by some elected officials, and by some anti-nuclear activists.
The Barnwell facility is highly regulated by well-qualified experts. An onsite DHEC inspector closely monitors all activities and inspects and approves every incoming waste shipment. If a shipment does not meet requirements, it goes back where it came from. DHEC examines all survey data collected by Chem-Nuclear and independently analyzes samples to confirm the Chem-Nuclear data.
Over the years, the site has implemented a number of improvements. The design of the trenches where waste is buried, the use of polyethylene high integrity containers, concrete disposal vaults, and engineered trench closures have greatly reduced the potential for significant amounts of radioactivity to reach the groundwater. The trenches are sloped to the side and along their length with a monitored collection sump should any water be present. The engineered cap that covers the trench for closure has five layers, including a geosynthetic clay layer and a high-density polyethylene layer. The cap is very well designed to eliminate surface water intrusion after closure.
Some have questioned the economic value of the facility. Barnwell County doesn't agree with that; the almost 3 million dollars per year they get from the facility is about 16% of their county budget. The site's 51 employees don't agree with that either. As a group they take home about $4 million in salary and benefits, which is well above Barnwell's average. Barnwell County benefits even more because many of the site's procurement dollars are spent there, and there are Barnwell businesses that perform work for the site. In addition, this year the state will receive over $11 million that goes directly in the state's education budget. I doubt if the State Board of Education considers that an insignificant amount.
Fears that South Carolina could become the nation's "dump" for low-level waste are without merit. In 2005, Chem-Nuclear received only 2/10 of 1% of the total low-level waste that was disposed of in the United States.
In summary, the Chem-Nuclear low-level waste repository meets a vital national need for safe disposal of low-level wastes from hospitals, universities, commercial businesses, and nuclear power plants, and in doing so; it provides valuable economic benefits to the area. There is simply no reason to shut this facility down or restrict its operation.
Dr. Susan Wood, Chairperson
James Malvyn McKibben, Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
March 23, 2007
Letter to the Editor
The Aiken Standard
Aiken, South Carolina
A couple of days ago the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) held a press conference and released a report claiming that non-radioactive emission (toluene, oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, etc.) were being released from SRS and endangering the health of people who live around the site. They based this on air samples taken in communities around the site.
Their report does not stand up to a scientific examination. It tries to look like a bona-fide scientific report, but it is not. As the old adage goes: "You can't tell a book by its cover."
The total number of samples taken was only five, far too few to be statistically significant. No data is given on the quality control of the analytical methods used. The chemicals that were reported to be found in the samples are very common industrial chemicals that would be detected in any community almost anywhere in the country. And there is no reason to believe that chemicals found in air samples from New Ellenton, Jackson, or Hattieville actually came from SRS.
The air emissions from the stacks at SRS are very carefully measured and reported to SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and in an annual environmental report. These emissions are far below EPA limits. The claim in the report that the cumulative effect of these chemicals is not considered is simply wrong.
If the site emissions were high enough to endanger the health of residents around the site then DHEC records of county-by-county incidents of cancer and mortality would show that. They do not. For example, of the 46 counties in South Carolina, Aiken County is 38th in cancer frequency.
For BREDL to raise the specter of negative health effects based on their findings, and to imply that SRS is the primary or sole culprit, is at best a careless interpretation of their meager data ... or at worst, a dishonest use of it.
Literally, dozens of organizations have conducted studies of the health of area residents and SRS employees. The overwhelming results have been that SRS has no adverse effects on health. The most recent of these was a very long and detailed study by the Centers for Disease Control.
So dozens of unassailable scientific reports have found no health effects but the BREDL thinks all of those are wrong. BREDL is an organization of anti-nuclear zealots, and they have no credentials in nuclear science or environmental science. Their pronouncements, including this report, cannot be taken seriously.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
CNTA
March 1, 2007
Letter to the Editor
The Augusta Chronicle
Augusta, Georgia
Sir:
Mr. Henry Gurr wrote in yesterday's, 2/28 Augusta Chronicle that he attended the February 15 public scoping meeting on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and was troubled that no one addressed what he thought were the "negative aspects" of the program.
He wrote: "There are plenty of alternate sources of energy, such as solar and wind...". No bona-fide study of energy options for the future has come to that conclusion; not even nearly. The forecast need for electricity, worldwide, is expected to double by 2030. The most optimistic estimates for wind and solar are that they can produce only a small percentage of that. Where wind power and solar power make sense they should, and will be, used. But they both suffer from the disadvantage that the wind doesn't blow all the time, and the sun doesn't shine all the time.
He also wrote: "Why do they say nothing about this terrorist-nuclear weapons (proliferation) problem?" A major advantage of GNEP is that it just about eliminates proliferation concerns. The recycling of used fuel from commercial power reactors and the fabrication of recycled fuel would occur in only a handful of nations that already have extensive nuclear programs. The facilities to do those things would be designed for security and would have security forces on-guard continuously. They will be armed fortresses. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have persons onsite at all times keeping continuous account of fissile materials. Opportunities for theft of either enriched uranium or plutonium would be nearly eliminated.
Finally he noted: "Most speakers ... hoped to gain ... more jobs, higher pay, higher living standards and generally better local economy." Gee! Most of us think those are pretty good things.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
CNTA
February 15, 2007
Guest Editorial
The Greenville News
Greenville, South Carolina
Congress needs to help NRC approve nuke applications
The federal budget impasse threatens to delay new reactor construction here and nationwide.
By J. Malvyn McKibben
Because we dare not gamble with something as fundamental as electrical supply, the biggest problem we face with nuclear power is not having enough of it. The government has provided incentives to kick-start the renewal of nuclear power plant construction but that will be in jeopardy if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can't quickly process the applications for licenses. At this time, NRC does not have sufficient staff to do that and the budget for the necessary additional money is uncertain.
With the cost of natural gas and coal soaring, we're now paying the price for a decade of underinvestment in new nuclear capacity. Electrical reserve margins are shrinking fast and here in South Carolina we will need more electricity for our growing population and economy.
Clearly, the decision of our utilities to renew the operating licenses of the seven nuclear power plants in South Carolina was the correct energy choice for our state. Now all of the reactors at the Catawba, Oconee, Robinson and Summer plants will be able to continue operating for an additional 20 years, generating electricity while protecting the environment. This combination will put South Carolina in the driver's seat for an expanding economy in the years ahead.
The numbers demonstrate that the nuclear plants are operating well and that high performance levels can be sustained.
For the fifth year in a row, through 2005, the plants recorded average capacity factors - a measure of reliability - in the 90-percent range. By comparison, gas-fired generating plants in this country are operating at an average of 35 percent of capacity.
Nationally, all indicators show that nuclear plants are being operated safely and reliably. In 2005, the nuclear industry achieved the fewest number of automatic (accidental) shutdowns since the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations began collecting this data in the early 1980's. Nuclear power has become a model of industrial safety in America, with a near-record low industrial accident rate of 0.24 accidents per 200,000 worker hours. Radiation exposure has declined significantly over the years. Refueling that once required a few months is now done in a few weeks.
It's an impressive accomplishment and this has allowed the nuclear industry to accelerate plans for construction of new nuclear plants. Utilities are gearing up to build as many as 31 new plants, including two or three in South Carolina to meet a projected 45 percent increase in electrical demand by 2030. The companies are investing over $2 billion in design and engineering work and development of license applications. And if current schedules hold, utilities are expected to break ground on three or more nuclear plants by the end of next year.
In order to maintain the current schedule for nuclear plant construction, however, there must be adequate financial support for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct efficient reviews of nuclear plant licenses. Congress passed the Energy Policy Act with loan guarantees and limited production tax incentives for the first new reactors. Now it must provide funds for NRC to staff up to meet the license applications that are on the way.
The current budget impasse for fiscal 2007 and 2008 threatens to delay the licensing and construction of new plants. Failure to provide funding will mean 12-24 month delays at the very least, and possibly deferral of nuclear plant construction, because utilities will build coal and gas plants instead as the only alternative to meeting growing electrical demand. That would be regrettable from both economic and environmental perspectives if the window into new nuclear plant construction were to close and deny access to clean power generation for years to come. Soon, if the deadlock is not broken, we may be paying huge premium for costly environmental controls.
Nuclear power has proven its value and importance. We cannot let it be sidelined by a lack of congressional funding for the regulator.
January 27, 2007
Letter to the Editor
The State Newspaper
Columbia, South Carolina
Nuclear power is safest, cleanest and cheapest energy source
I am surprised that a minority of people continue to oppose beneficial nuclear technologies. Ms. Susan Corbett's letter January 3 is an example. She thinks nuclear plants are dirty, dangerous and expensive.
Dirty? Hardly! It is far cleaner than any alternative way of making the large amounts of electricity that are needed. That's just one of the reasons why over 70% of the electrical power generated in France is produced in nuclear plants and why there is a world-wide surge in construction of new nuclear power plants. Objective environmentalists in this country and elsewhere are supporting nuclear power precisely because it is clean. It does not contribute to acid rain, smog, heavy metal contamination of soil and water, or global warming.
Dangerous? No! Thousands die worldwide every year in coal mining accidents and natural gas fires and explosions, while the record at nuclear plants is zero. Chernobyl is irrelevant because no one in the western world has built, or will build, that cheap and unsafe reactor type. And, the accident at Three Mile Island, which did not hurt anyone, can't happen again in the new reactors with their additional safety features.
Expensive? No! It is already cheaper than coal, oil, or gas and that advantage will grow because coal burners will have to spend money to reduce their emissions and the price of natural gas will continue to rise while nuclear plants are in a steep price decline. Many utilities in the U.S. and worldwide are lining up to build new nuclear plants without subsidy. They are not doing this to lose money.
Currently, 68% of adult Americans support building more nuclear plants. 75% of people living within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant support building more, as do over 80% of people with technical college degrees. That is about as close to unanimous as you can get in America.
Nuclear is safer, cheaper, and far more environmentally friendly. The facts speak for themselves.
James Malvyn McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
November 21, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The Aiken Standard
Aiken, South Carolina
Mr. Douglas Law had a thoughtful and well-written letter in the November 17th Aiken Standard in which he opined that the world would be a better place if the U.S. simply eliminated its nuclear weapons.
It would, indeed, be a wonderful thing if that were true, if the world we live in would respond with peaceful intentions to our unilateral disarmament. But, many events in the last 100 years make it clear that is not the world we live in.
President Truman did not authorize building the "super" (hydrogen) bomb until convinced of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons goals and their open hostility toward the U. S. Nearly everyone agrees that the U.S. Military strength was a major reason for winning the Cold War, preserving freedom.
Hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives were spared by Japan's early cessation of World War II.
I do not know of any international security experts who believe that the leaders of North Korea or Iran would abandon their nuclear adventurism if the West laid down their arms.
It has always been as true then as it is today that "good" nations must defend freedom and morality by force of arms, if necessary against those whose quest for power without regard for those values.
That is sad, but it is true. So let us pray for, and work for, that perfect world. But, in the meanwhile let us be prepared to defend our values.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
CNTA
October 25, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The New York Times
New York, New York
Contaminated Food
The Food and Drug Administration investigators have identified the farm from which the e-coli-contaminated spinach came to cause illness and death across the country. But, they still have not determined the exact source. They think it may have come from irrigation water that, somehow, was contaminated with cattle waste.
Strangely, I have not seen any articles pointing out this type of food contamination and many others can be easily eliminated for a few cents per pound by irradiation with x-rays, beta radiation, or gamma radiation.
Irradiation technology is already very widely used, is harmless, and does not affect food nutrition or flavor. It does, however, extend food "shelf life" and eliminates pathogens. An interesting fact is that one fourth to half of all the food produced in the U.S. is not eaten because of infestation and spoilage. What a waste!
Irradiation of food is endorsed by health and food organizations throughout the world, including, in the U.S., FDA, AMA, CDC, NASA, and many, many more.
The Center of Disease Control reports that each year contaminated food causes 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths. The solution to this tragic epidemic is at hand, and has been for 40 years. Why not use it?
Dr. Susan Wood
Chairperson, Board of Directors
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
October 22, 2006
The history of SRS is the history of the nuclear age
By J. Malvyn McKibben, Special Columnist
The Augusta Chronicle
In the past few years, many newcomers have moved into the area.
They might not be aware of the 55-year love affair between the area and Savannah River Site. It is a story worth telling.
President Truman wrote to the president of E.I. DuPont, Crawford Greenewalt, in 1950, asking the Du Pont Company to design, build, and operate a site for the production of plutonium and tritium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen) to be used in making "super" bombs, subsequently called hydrogen or thermonuclear bombs.
Truman had become convinced that Russia's successful test of an atomic bomb, its continuing nuclear weapons research, and its aggressive expansion constituted a threat to the free world that could not be ignored, so he decided to pursue the development of the super bomb.
Du Pont agreed to lead this effort, as it had at Hanford, Wash., during the Manhattan Project, as a public service and without profit. Actually, Du Pont received $1 for the life of the contract.
Both the government and Du Pont viewed this mission as having wartime urgency.
After buying the land and moving communities, including graveyards, construction began Feb. 1, 1951, on five reactors; two huge separations areas to process used fuel and targets; a heavy water production area; a fuel fabrication area; a research and development laboratory; and an administration area. Then there was the infrastructure - roads, bridges, power plants, steam plants, cafeterias, and offices - to be built.
The design and construction task facing Du Pont was daunting. No facilities like these had ever been built, and they required huge quantities of scarce materials and precise fabrications that pushed the limits of known technology.
For example, the project completely consumed the stainless steel the free world could produce for several years.
Yet, in spite of these difficulties, the site was completed quickly, and everything worked. In about four years, what had been 300 square miles of Southern farmland with five small communities with about 1,500 families had been converted into a massive site for the production of nuclear weapons materials. The peak construction force had been about 38,000.
The heavy water plant started in October 1952, the first reactor in December 1951, and the Purex separation plant (the first in the world) began operations in November 1954.
A few years later, Reader's Digest wrote an article stating that the Savannah River Plant, as it was called then, was the largest construction project in the history of mankind.
Like it or not, the Cold War was on. Most observers later concluded that the U.S. nuclear arsenal was a major contributor to the victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
Without a doubt, the site employees felt their efforts were instrumental in the victory.
DuPont decided not to renew its contract in 1989 because it said there were other companies capable of operating the site. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. was awarded the contract to operate the site. To signal the change, the U.S. Department of Energy changed the name from Savannah River Plant to Savannah River Site.
With the Soviet Union in collapse from 1989 to 1991, the paramount question became: "What are we going to do at SRS now?" Most of the original reasons for building the site no longer existed. The reactors were shut down, the fuel fabrication facility was shut down, and the heavy water manufacturing plant was shut down and demolished. Now what?
Westinghouse and DOE went to work to identify national missions to take advantage of the large site, its facilities, and its well-trained personnel.
Three mission goals were identified:
- Clean up the waste and contamination at the site;
- Continue to support the maintenance of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, mainly by recycling the tritium from old weapons, and by helping DOE create a plan for making new tritium as needed;
- Help DOE safely manage, consolidate, and stabilize nuclear materials that were scattered throughout the nation in many forms.
Out of these goals came several ongoing missions - a large decontamination and decommissioning program; the $2 billion Defense Waste Processing Facility that is turning 36 million gallons of high-level waste into a durable glass waste for permanent geologic disposal, and the K-Area Complex for safe storage of nuclear material.
There also is the Pit Disassembly and Storage Facility and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, along with the Plutonium Vitrification Facility for disposal of plutonium that is not compatible with the MOX process.
Meanwhile, recognizing that many of these missions have a limited life, DOE, along with site contractors, area groups and elected officials, began searching for long-range missions that would support national objectives using the unique expertise and facilities at the site.
Among these potential missions are a plutonium consolidation facility, a private Energy Park for commercial nuclear activities, and a teaching and research reactor facility.
What newcomers to the area need to know is that the site always has had the nation's best record among nuclear facilities for safety and environmental protection.
The good news is that the current operating contractors and DOE are firmly committed to continuing its records of excellence.
We pray that the love affair continues.
Ellenton train station, circa 1950
October 19, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The Augusta Chronicle,
The Aiken Standard, and
The State
To the Editor:
River ecology lab monitoring SRS must be spared
Considering the government's budget woes, it is easy to understand why the U.S. Department of Energy is searching for ways to reduce costs, but when they drastically cut funds for the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, I can't help but wonder if those budget-cutters are aware of the value of the program they are eliminating.
The SREL is the premier ecological research center on the planet and has monitored the Savannah River Site's environment since 1951. Their baseline and continuing studies are irreplaceable and have enormous value.
When anti-nuclear people say that SRS is badly polluted, it is easy to prove them wrong by referring to hundreds of SREL scientific papers. Most of the 300-square-mile site is unaffected by human activity, and is a unique location for studying nature without human intervention.
The SREL is a gem, and an irreplaceable source of objective scientific scholarship on ecology and the environment. It must not be allowed to die.
We ask the DOE and our elected representatives to do whatever is necessary to fully fund the SREL now and for the future.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
1204 Whiskey Rd, Ste B
Aiken, SC 29803-4318
September 14, 2006
Letter to the Editor
Atlanta Progressive News
Atlanta, Georgia
Sept 5, 2006 Article on Nuclear Threat
Betty Clermont's lengthy article opposing Georgia Power's plan to add a possible new nuclear reactor (actually, it is two) was filled throughout with factual errors and irrelevant information.
Nuclear Dangers? For four decades, the nuclear power industry has demonstrated to anyone susceptible to facts that nuclear power is far safer than alternatives. Worldwide each year thousands die in coal mining accidents and natural gas explosions and fires. Nuclear power? Zero. The "accidents, leaks, and fires" the article referred to had no adverse health effects. None. The statement that "studies ... show in every community where these facilities are sited there are higher incidents (sic) of cancer, leukemia, birth defects" is nonsense. Hundreds of independent, scholarly studies have shown the opposite. Want a list? The worst calumny in the article was the claim that nuclear plants "release radioactive contaminates, such as tritium, along with hazardous chemicals and heavy metals during operation". Nuclear plants release only a fraction as much radioactivity to the environment as coal plants, and release no hazardous heavy metals, smog-producing chemicals, acid-rain producing chemicals, or chemicals such as carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. None.
Rate Hike? Time will tell, of course, but as of today the operating cost of nuclear plants is below coal or gas plants, and forecasted capital costs should put the overall cost at least equal to, and probably below, coal and natural gas.
Squandered Resources: Providing funds for electricity that is needed to grow businesses and to improve the quality of lives for Georgians does not sound like squandering to me.
Nuclear Proliferation: No person wants nuclear weapons to spread to countries that do not already have them, especially irresponsible nations. The President's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will nearly eliminate that threat when fully implemented. Of course, nothing other than international pressure can prevent a rogue nation like Iran from developing nuclear weapons if they wish to, and nuclear production of electricity has nothing to do with that.
Dependence of Foreign Governments? We are already importing liquefied natural gas, and plan to import more to make electricity. Nuclear could greatly reduce that dependence.
J. Malvyn McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
August 18, 2006
Letter to The Editor
The State Newspaper
Columbia, South Carolina
The August 13 letter from Mary Kelly opposing the MOX plant at SRS was consistent with her decades-long opposition of everything at SRS. She cites her attendance at public meetings. The disposal of surplus weapons-grade plutonium by burning it as MOX fuel has been endorsed by two committees of the National Academy of Sciences and many others. It is the right thing to do. The anti-nuclear community thinks it would be better to simply bury it at Yucca Mountain in high-level waste canisters, even though they oppose opening Yucca Mountain. Burying it would create weapon-grade plutonium mines for the future, which has nuclear weapons proliferation implications.
She claimed Russia is "not keeping up its end of the bargain". Within the past month Russia signed an agreement with the U.S. to dispose of its 34 metric tons of plutonium in a "fast reactor" rather than in low-enriched thermal reactors as we are planning to do. The point is they are disposing of it.
Ms. Kelly's concluding statement that this and other activities at SRS are endangering us is, quite simply, nonsense. The 54-year record of safety at SRS is exemplary, and well documented.
Finally, she seems to think creating hundreds of high-paying jobs for South Carolinians is a bad thing to do. We do not.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
August 18, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The State Newspaper
Columbia, South Carolina
It amazes me that anti-nuclear zealots continue to oppose anything "nuclear" no matter how much benefit they have and no matter how good their record is. Mrs. Barczak's letter August 17 is a conspicuous example.
She expressed opposition to about six nuclear activities without explanation, and made several statements that are plainly wrong.
SRS highly polluted? Not by a long shot. Ask the University of Georgia environmental scientists who have been monitoring the site for the past 50 years.
The disposal of surplus weapons grade plutonium via the MOX project has been blessed by the National Academy of Sciences and many others. It is a non-proliferation program to dispose of 68 thousand kilograms of plutonium in Russia and the U.S. Ms. Barczak somehow thinks it may spread nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite is true.
Strangest of all is her concern about expansion of nuclear power which has demonstrated that it is cheaper, safer, and greener than alternatives. She recommends reliance on wind and solar which clearly cannot supply the amount of electricity the nation needs even though they can supply niche markets.
The root of the problem is an irrational fear of anything nuclear, a modern superstition.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
August 18, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The Aiken Standard - Phillip Lord
Aiken, South Carolina
Victor Reilly suggests that instead of building a MOX plant, surplus weapons-grade plutonium be simply buried at Yucca Mountain within canisters of high-level waste. Ironically, this is the party line of the anti-nuclear community even though they are doing everything they can to keep Yucca Mountain from opening. That option was exhaustively studied before finally being rejected by DOE because it would cost more than the MOX option. Also, both the U.S. and Russia opposed it because it did not actually destroy the weapons-grade plutonium. Future generations could safely recover the buried plutonium to proliferate nuclear weapons. Not a good idea and not a good precedent for Russia and China.
We agree with Mr. Reilly that SRS will need a certified long-term plutonium storage facility. That is why the K-Area Material Storage (KAMS) facility was built. It meets all requirements for plutonium storage.
Yes, the estimated cost of MOX has increased, possibly because the designers found it more difficult than they had anticipated to convert the French design into an NRC licensable design. But even at the higher cost, it is the disposal method of choice.
J. Malvyn McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
June 21, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
To the Editor:
Re: "Make utility pay own nuclear tab". June 18
Your opinion piece on Georgia Power's nuclear plans raised several questions that should be answered.
It questioned the wisdom of building new nuclear plants. In the U.S. more than nine consortia of utilities have expressed interest to NRC to build 20 new nuclear reactors. Worldwide there are hundreds. The motives are primarily profit, safety, and environmental responsibility. Unwise? I don't think so, and neither do they.
Your article questioned the "critical issue of safety". For safety, nuclear shines. It is far safer than any other way of making the large amounts of electricity that are needed. EPA estimates that in the U.S. tens of thousands of people die prematurely from the pollutants from coal plants. Thousands die annually, worldwide, from coal mining accidents and from natural gas explosions and fires.
You questioned public confidence. The latest surveys show that building more nuclear plants is supported by 68% of adults, 75% of college graduates, 85% of technically educated college graduates and people who live within 20 miles of a nuclear plant. Those are close to unanimous.
It was inappropriate to raise the specter of Three Mile Island, because many improvements and operating requirements have been made that nearly eliminate the meltdown concern. Besides, Three Mile Island proved that the containment system worked. No one was hurt, not even a grasshopper or earthworm.
J. Malvyn McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA)
1204 Whiskey Rd, Ste F
Aiken, SC 29803
April 28, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The Augusta Chronicle
To the Editor:
More see the need for nuclear power
It is not surprising that thoughtful leaders of the environmental movement have come to understand the need for nuclear energy ("Ex-critic backs nuclear power," April 20). In fact, several international leaders in the environmental movement are now urging more nuclear power.
It was the vision of cheaper electricity and rampant air pollution from coal burning that drove the developers of nuclear power plants in the 1950s. Back then, global climate change was unknown; today, it provides an even greater impetus for us to expand the use of nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels.
Now is the time to start building the next generation of nuclear plants. The confluence of new economic and safe designs, the need for more electricity, and the growing understanding that nuclear is indeed an environmentally preferred energy source makes it inevitable.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA)
1204 Whiskey Rd, Ste B
Aiken, SC 29803-4318
April 25, 2006
Letter to the Editor
Chemical & Engineering News
Your article by Michael Heylin in the Hindsights April 10, addresses a major concern for the community of civilized nations; how can we assure that irresponsible, and perhaps irrational national leaders don't use nuclear weapons against the rest of us.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a nice "feel good" device for many of the world's nations, but it has been adequately demonstrated that nations with nefarious intentions can either not sign it, or sign it and ignore it. You mentioned a few of those.
A farcical aspect of the NPT is, and always has been, that signators will work toward eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. The raw materials for nuclear weapons can be mined from the ground all over the world. A few competent physicists and chemists can take those widely available materials and convert them into weapons. Many books and internet articles can assist them. So the notion that the nuclear genie can be returned to the lamp is dangerous fantasy.
So, what's to do? President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is a giant step in the right direction. When (and if) fully implemented a few nuclear nations would provide fuel services for everyone else. They would recycle spent fuel and provide new or recycled fuel as needed. The fuel facilities would be designed and staffed for maximum security, and IAEA would have on-site presence to make sure fissile material would be carefully safeguarded and accounted for. Opportunities for the theft of illicit weapons fabrication would be near zero.
Other steps will be required, but this would be a good start.
J. Malvyn McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
April 24, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The Washington Post
The excellent opinion piece by Dr. Patrick Moore (4/16) supporting expansion of nuclear power drew quick response from traditional anti-nuclear folks (4/21 letters).
Fortunately, their objections are old, and irrelevant to the current real world. Their anti-nuclear bias blinds them to objective analysis.
New spent fuel recycling technology is being developed in Japan, France, and the U.S. The best will be demonstrated. Uranium, plutonium and minor heavy elements will be recycled into fuel to burn it up. Long-lived fission products will be separated and either used or stored separate from the high-level waste that will be made into glass and disposed of in the Yucca Mountain repository, which will serve our needs for hundreds of years.
Plenty of real data exist to prove that nuclear power is safer, cheaper, and cleaner than any alternative ways of making large amounts of electricity. Chernobyl experience is not relevant.
Many bona fide environmentalists are recognizing, like Patrick Moore, that nuclear power is best for earth's environment.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
1204 Whiskey Road
Aiken, SC 29803
January 26, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The Washington Post
Dear Sir,
We were delighted to read in the January 26 Post that the Bush Administration and DOE are considering a global plan to centralize the recycle and manufacture of nuclear fuels.
If implemented, it will essentially eliminate the (shrill and exaggerated) concerns about terrorist threats and proliferation. Perhaps even more importantly, it will greatly reduce the volume, and thus cost of disposing of the final waste, and it may eliminate radiological risks from leaks from the repository because the long-lived isotopes will have been removed and transmuted.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
CNTA
1204 Whiskey Rd, Ste F
Aiken, SC 29803
December 2, 2005
Letter to the Editor
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Senator Frist had it right (Nov. 14) and Representative McKinney had it wrong (Nov. 24). Furthermore, Rep. McKinney's editorial with its Chernobyl photo seems deliberately misleading.
No country outside Russia operates a Chernobyl-type reactor, with no containment dome, and no country would operate a reactor with safety systems switched off as Chernobyl did. Comparing Chernobyl with current or planned American reactors is like comparing a Model T with a NASCAR winner.
Last-ditch efforts by anti-nuclear zealots to stymie new nuclear stations try to convince the public that minor incidents at nuclear plants (like cooling water leaks) are dangerous and frightful. The public is not buying it. National surveys reveal 70% of Americans support building more nuclear power plants. They also show that 87% of people living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant favor more nuclear plants. These people know from their own experience that there is no safer or cleaner way to provide the much needed energy.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
1204 Whiskey Rd, Suite F
Aiken, SC 29803
September 29, 2005
Aiken County Council
736 Richland Avenue W
Aiken, SC 29801
Sirs:
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA) has concerns about the Council's recent lawsuit against DOE. For over fifty years, elected officials around the Savannah River Site have fully supported our nation's missions performed there. This has given SRS a big advantage when new missions are being competed. In the past, when issues arose regarding SRS they were dealt with by amicable discussions. Your lawsuit is the first departure from this long and very successful practice. For the reasons discussed below in this letter, CNTA asks the Aiken County Council to withdraw the lawsuit.
The two key components of the suit are (1) a requirement that DOE accelerate the MOX project completion to meet the original goal by January 2009, and (2) prohibition of shipments of plutonium to SRS until the project is back on that original schedule.
There have been two reasons for the MOX schedule slippage. The first is the congressionally mandated requirement that the U.S. program proceed in lock-step with the identical Russian program. The Russians raised a liability issue, resolved only recently, that caused a significant delay.
Currently, the delay is being caused by the failure of the House to appropriate the funds that were in the President's budget and were passed by the Senate and the House. Specifically, Rep. David Hobson (R, Ohio), who chairs the appropriations sub-committee of the House Energy Committee, has held up this appropriation and is threatening to "zero it out." Senator Lindsey Graham is leading an effort by our congressional delegation and DOE to reverse Hobson's threat.
Your lawsuit was issued without consulting with Senator Lindsey Graham or any of our Congressmen, who are working very hard to resolve these issues. We believe if you had done that, or even if you had discussed it with CNTA or other knowledgeable parties, you would have concluded that issuing the lawsuit would be counter-productive, with no chance of success. Former Governor Hodges filed a very similar suit that was unsuccessful. DOE cannot be held legally responsible for delays that were clearly attributed to acts (and non-acts) of Congress.
The issue of plutonium shipments to SRS is even more complicated. There are two issues, (1) the suitability of SRS facilities for receipt, inspection, and temporary storage of the plutonium, and (2) how to dispose of the plutonium that is not scheduled to be made into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel.
DOE-SR had planned to receive the plutonium shipments into an F-Area facility where the shipping containers would be opened and the contents inspected and analyzed. After repackaging, the plan was to send the plutonium to a facility in K-Area for storage until it was processed. The General Accounting Office and the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board both reviewed the plans and reported that these two facilities did not fully meet existing requirements. In response, DOE-SR is upgrading K-Area to perform all activities there, in full compliance with regulations and best practices.
DOE and WSRC are developing and designing a facility (also in K-Area) to put the plutonium that is not going to MOX into a glass waste form. This process is called vitrification. The molten plutonium glass would be poured into small stainless steel cans, and welded shut. Those would be put into a rack inside an empty DWPF canister. At DWPF the canister would be filled with high-level waste glass and stored onsite until it can be sent to Yucca Mountain for permanent disposal.
So, it is clear that DOE fully intends to process and dispose of all the plutonium that is being shipped here. There are no secret plans to permanently store any plutonium at SRS. All of the plutonium will be processed and disposed of. That means jobs, and SRS is better qualified to do those jobs than anyone in the world.
One councilman said several times that the lawsuit protects the health and safety of area citizens. That is not correct. Nothing in the lawsuit addresses a safety question. SRS has made, processed, packaged, stored and shipped tons of plutonium for fifty years, without any significant incident or accident. They know how to do that!
In summary, we believe the lawsuit is not only unnecessary and un-win-able, but detrimental to continuing efforts to bring new missions to the site. CNTA requests an opportunity to discuss this issue at a future Council meeting. I am certain that other organizations striving to bring new missions to SRS would also want to participate. Please let us know when this discussion can take place.
Sincerely,
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
CNTA
1204 Whiskey Rd, Ste F
Aiken, SC 29803
August 31, 2005
Letter to the Editor - Richard Anderson
Planet Jackson Hole
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Sir:
The public meeting last Saturday, August 27, by "Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free" opposing DOE's proposed production of plutonium-238 (Pu-238) at the Idaho National Laboratory, prompted me to write.
All of the Pu-238 made in the western world was made at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina by irradiating neptunium-237. The irradiated neptunium targets were dissolved and processed to make purified oxides of Np and Pu. The Pu-238 oxide was compacted then clad to make heat sources. SRS began making and processing this Pu-238 in 1959 and did it for 40 years. During all that time there was no significant incident or accident that released any Pu-238 outside of the facility. No more can be made there because the SRS reactors were shut down. So DOE decided to make it at INL where they have an operating reactor.
So, the shrill cries of alarm that Pu-238 production at INL might contaminate people or biota offsite strike me as irresponsible fear mongering. The 40-years of safe operation at SRS are ample evidence that it can be done quite safely.
First, the processing facilities will have multiple engineered barriers to prevent the Pu-238 from getting out. They work. Second, if the impossible happened and some went up the stack it is ludicrous to think it would travel air-borne for miles. It is very dense, and would fall quickly to the ground within yards, not miles. This was proved, twice, at Rocky Flats decades ago when they had fires in plutonium production lines. None got offsite.
The laws of physics are immutable. What the fear-mongers are saying is analogous to saying that when the apple falls from the tree it will go up, not down. Would I live downwind of such a facility? You bet! I have for 40 years.
Mal McKibben
Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
August 23, 2005
Letter to the Editor
Gainesville Times
Gainesville, Georgia
A letter August 20 by Adele Kushner claimed, "nuclear power is neither clean, cheap nor safe." The references cited show that she has been reading the voluminous fiction put out by professional anti-nuke zealots.
Nuclear power is far cleaner than plants fueled by coal or natural gas. That is why noted ecologist James Lovelock, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalogue support nuclear power. Nuclear power plants emit no heavy metals, (e.g., mercury), or chemicals that produce acid rain, smog or global warming.
Not safer? The 103 operating reactors in the U.S. have had outstanding safety records and have never caused radiation injury or death. But many people are routinely killed in natural gas explosions and coal mine accidents.
Nuclear power is not only greener and safer than fossil fuel plants, it is also a cheaper source of electricity. The average operating cost of the 103 U.S. nuclear plants is 1.82 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 2.13 for coal and 3.69 for natural gas. The capital cost to build the next plants will be far less than in the past, and new licensing procedures by NRC should shorten construction time to about four years, which will greatly reduce its cost.
These are the reasons that 440 nuclear power plants are now operating around the world and 125 more are on order or under construction.
Susan Wood, Chair - Board of Directors
Mal McKibben, Executive Director
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
August 22, 2005
Guest Editorial
Charleston News and Courier
South Carolina may lead nuclear power resurgence
It is no longer news that nuclear power is experiencing a resurgence in the U.S. and in the rest of the world. It now appears that South Carolina has the opportunity to take a lead role.
A recent study by NuStart, a consortium of twelve utilities (including Duke) and reactor vendors, identified SRS and five commercial sites as suitable sites for this demonstration. A previous study had concluded SRS would be the best of the DOE sites for a commercial nuclear power plant.
President George Bush created several programs in his first term to breathe new life into U.S. nuclear power. One of those programs was Nuclear Power 2010 (NP-2010), which provides financial incentives for building one or more new, improved nuclear power plants by 2010. This program would demonstrate new reactor designs can be built cheaper than in the past, and that new licensing procedures will shorten the time required to get the plants running. If these demonstrations are successful, it will open the door for nuclear power in the U.S.