It is unfortunate that due to the dangers of climate change and America’s dependence on foreign oil that anyone, anywhere, would be speculating about the expansion of nuclear power/energy.
You are writing on a subject that needs to be presented honestly and I cannot imagine that you can honestly say the things that you do in just your first paragraph.
Uranium mining takes up a tremendous amount of land area and whether it produces 100 times less radioactive or toxic waste than coal power plants is not a positive point. That it produces and leaves behind both radioactive and toxic waste in the very high volumes that it does is what should be considered when dealing with nuclear power/energy. This is not a compare and contrast situation.
If you are fully informed and willing to be honest with your readers you would not, or better yet; could not say that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are emitted by the production of nuclear power/energy. Plutonium does not miraculously appear at a nuclear power reactor. There is a process that gets it there and you, nor anyone else, can separate the process from the product.
You are apparently not considering the carbon emissions created during the use of very heavy equipment while engaged in the mining process, the mining process itself, the coal fired plants used in the uranium processing, or transporting the nuclear fuel to the reactor site.
Uranium ore is the source of the plutonium that is used in our nuclear reactors. Uranium ore has to be mined, like coal, to be used as a fuel source for the production of nuclear power/energy. Uranium is both radioactive and a chemical toxin. Additionally, numerous heavy metals are present in uranium ore.
Uranium milling consists of chemically separating uranium from other ore components. A thousand tons of ore must be processed to get just 2 tons of uranium. The waste produced is known as “mill tailings” which are often left near the land surrounding the mine, creating another dangerous legacy of the mining process. For typical uranium concentrations, the tailings contain 85 percent of the radioactivity in the original ore along with toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Furthermore, the volume of mill tailings is enormous and the majority of the radioactive components are extremely long-lived. Unfortunately, a large portion of mill tailings in the United States were “grandfathered” when more protective standards began to be implemented in the late 1970s, leaving behind more than 100 million tons of uranium waste with limited regulatory oversight.
The mill tailings can infiltrate surrounding waterways. {In 1979, near Churchrock, New Mexico, a United Nuclear uranium mill tailings dam broke, dumping nearly 100 million gallons of liquid radioactive tailings and 1000 tons of solid tailings into a surrounding area, spreading nearly 60 miles from the facility. The Rio Puerco River was contaminated and the local Native American tribe was devastated since their water source was forever rendered toxic by the tailings. Please don’t say that 1979 was a long time ago. When some of the waste has a 200 million year half life, 1979 was not that long ago}
After the uranium ore is milled, it is converted to uranium hexafluoride. It is then further enriched through a chemical process known as gaseous diffusion. Enrichment is required to increase the percentage of Uranium-235, the isotope of uranium needed for nuclear power or nuclear weapons. In natural uranium, U-235 concentration is too low, even after milling and conversion. The end results of gaseous diffusion are called a) the “product,” in which the percentage of U-235 has been increased and b) the “tails,” which is predominantly U-238, also known as depleted uranium, in which the percentage of U-235 has been decreased. Uranium Enrichment has been the largest contributor of wastes to the DOE’s materials inventory.
Nuclear power would not be considered cheap by any stretch of the imagination without our tax dollars supporting it with subsidies. See if any investor would touch it if it were not so subsidized by our federal tax dollars.
How you arrived at your numbers stating that nuclear power produces 70% of the non carbon dioxide polluting electricity in the U.S. is flawed if you did not include the full process of producing nuclear power/energy, i.e. mining, milling, transport, waste storage. It seems that proponents and supporters of nuclear power/energy are very willing to skew numbers and statistical data when promoting it to the general public. If it is so great, why is that necessary?
You might want to look into the realities of reprocessing spent fuel. No matter what you do, or how many times you run it through, there will be hotter, dirtier radioactive waste each time. It will never be a closed fuel cycle, never.
No, it is still not easy to see why numerous countries around the world are interested in nuclear power. There are reasons that there are financial and political obstacles for nuclear power here in America. The biggest reason is that the majority of people have a voice and all voices have the opportunity to be heard. And for those who don’t have the opportunity to be heard, there are people willing to speak up and speak out for those Americans who suffer from the effects of nuclear power/energy expansion who may be in a minority, and who, for whatever reason, cannot speak for themselves. This is America and we tend to not be willing to make one group of people suffer for the comfort and financial enhancement of others. This is America and we prefer to look for solutions that do no harm when we have the option to do so.
The U.S. is not behind the rest of the world, we have moved on ahead of the rest of the world. We are a civilized nation attempting to move into the future with our energy policy, we are not trying to revive a dirty, dangerous dinosaur from the past.
It is unfortunate that you think that the problems that we face with spent fuel and nuclear waste are largely political. I read your four point solution to nuclear waste in your article Short & Long Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste and they were not only farfetched, they were very expensive and not very practical.
I am not sure that you are considering the full breadth of the nuclear power/energy issue. There are a number of areas to which you don’t seem to give any consideration. There are a number of reasons beyond technology that nuclear power/energy is wrong for America and Americans.
It is environmentally wrong because the nuclear fuel cycle is dirty, extremely and irreversibly polluting. The long-term radioactive wastes that are produced on both ends of the fuel cycle are so harmful to this environment we may never recover if you continue on this path. Every aspect of our environment is adversely affected.
Can you tell us:
Expansion of the nuclear power/energy industry is morally wrong for a number of reasons:
Expansion of the nuclear power/energy industry is fiscally wrong for our country in any economic scenario.
Referenced: Appendix C of Code Red Alert: Confronting Nuclear Power in Georgia 1 (published by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, May 2004. (Copyright 2004 Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. All rights reserved.) www.cleanenergy.org/Code%20Red/FinalCodeRed.pdf
Greetings Everyone,
Because the agencies whose missions have been to protect us and our interests as citizens of this country have allowed themselves to be dictated to by political interests rather than there assigned duties as directed by their mission statements, we find our health & well-being, our environment, and our federal and local budgets are in jeopardy.
I am not just referring to the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but I am also talking about agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.
The nuclear power industry has been allowed to tell the American public that it provides safe and clean energy to our country. Though nuclear power is neither safe nor clean, it has been allowed to do this by the FCC and the FTC and SEC when it engages in its advertising and when it engages in its business activities. The nuclear power/energy industry has been allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the Department Of Energy, and state public service commissions to be heavily involved in setting the standards and regulations that govern it. Those standards and regulations, for the most part, do not protect human health or the environment.
The current as well as previous administrations have allowed these regulatory agencies to be run by, and in most cases rendered impotent by having them run with, political appointments and agendas. This has been unfortunate, because now we have an American public who is working from a well ingrained position of ignorance when it has been led to believe that nuclear power is clean, safe, less expensive, and needs to remain 'on the table' as part of our energy solution.
These agencies that were designed to protect us have allowed the nuclear power/energy industry to get away with false advertising in its commercials and publications, they have been allowed to misinform investors with this same false and incomplete information.
A nuclear power reactor/plant is not a stand-alone entity that acts as the sole source provider of nuclear power. It is only one segment of the process of getting nuclear power generated electricity to the public. It is only one link in the fuel chain.
We have to face that we are being led down a path that is false from it beginning. Nuclear energy is one of the most egregious emitters of CO2, toxic heavy metals, and other poisonous emissions and we have to stop being led by the nuclear industry to believe that nuclear power is clean, safe energy.
The electricity produced by nuclear power in and of itself is relatively benign, however the waste, including high levels of CO2, which has been created to get us to the production of that electricity will harm you, your children, your grandchildren, and generations after them.
You should also always keep in mind that CO2 is not the only toxin that we have to deal with or be worried about.
The nuclear industry itself uses enormous amounts of electricity in their gaseous diffusion plants, (created by coal-fired power plants). Enormous amounts of cooling water are needed and used, and the highly corrosive and radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. All have adverse human health and environmental impacts. The waste is pervasive in its movements through our earth, air, and water. It has proven itself to be more than difficult to contain. It has proven itself deadly. Sometimes it will kill you slowly; sometimes it will kill you quickly. The nuclear power/energy industry has of course chosen to do its damage primarily on Native American lands as well as in poor and minority communities. The people who until now had no voice, no say.
But don't be fooled. Nuclear waste is not just a byproduct created at the end of the nuclear weapons, nuclear fuel, or nuclear energy production cycle. The ugliness begins at the beginning and it's not all radioactive. The Uranium ore needed to produce nuclear power or nuclear energy has to be mined. Uranium is both radioactive and a chemical toxin. Part of the uranium mining process is milling which consists of chemically separating uranium from other ore. The waste produced is known as milling tailings. In some cases these highly radioactive tailings are left on and near the land surrounding the mines creating another legacy of dangerous waste. For typical uranium concentrations, the tailings contain an extremely high percentage of the radioactivity in the original ore, along with toxic chemicals and heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic which adversely affect the environment and human health. After being converted to uranium hexafluoride it is further enriched through the process of gaseous diffusion. Enrichment is required to increase the percentage of Uranium-235 (half-life of 700 million years). Considered to be the "product", it's the isotope needed for nuclear power and weapons. Uranium-238, aka depleted uranium, another byproduct of gaseous diffusion, is a heavy metal and radioactive. Uranium-238 can be used to breed plutonium-239. These radioactive and toxic wastes are process and production outcomes. Remember, all of this and we haven't even gotten to the nuclear reactor for the production of the first nuclear energy generated kilowatt.
We really have to let our representatives know that we are not going to continue to allow this industry to control our conversation on our energy needs and our national security. We can look forward to being carbon free and nuclear free if we make that commitment to ourselves, our families, and our environment.
We have to start now to look toward a new type of future, a future that considers all of us, not just one group of people. We have to stop this unsafe practice of giving quick money more importance than sound judgment and survival.
It is time to change how we live in this world, we have to start somewhere, at some point in time. Now is that time.
Peace,
Dianne
Peace & One Love Dianne
My message has ended and I am sharing the City of East Point agenda item written by the City of East Point starts below.
CITY OF EAST POINT
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW PLANT VOGTLE
EXPANSION PROJECT
( X ) RECOMMENDATION ( ) POLICY / DISCUSSION ( ) STATUS REPORT
( ) ORDINANCE ( ) RESOLUTION ( ) OTHER
Date Submitted: 5/28/08 Date Work Session: N/A Date Council Meeting: 6/2/08
BUDGET IMPACT: $62.9 million amortized over 20 years ($4,143,000/year) beginning in 2036
ANNUAL:
CAPITAL:
FUNDING SOURCE: N/A
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED ON: June 2, 2008
PURPOSE: To discuss and request the City Council approve the City of East Point’s participation in the new Plant Vogtle expansion project by purchasing 10MW of power.
HISTORY:
I previously communicated to the Council that staff and I had a change of position in terms of my recommendation on the City of East Point’s participation in the new Plant Vogtle Project. This change is based on the following two reasons:
As you can see in the heading of the attached graph, the MEAG Power Supply staff have recommended the following purchase of the Plant Vogtle Additional Units nuclear generation project for the City of East Point as follows:
1. Year 2016 - Commercial Operation of Units – 0.0 MW
2. Year 2036 - After selling to Third Parties for 20 Years – 9.6 MW
The 9.6MW purchase from the Plant Vogtle Additional Units Project is necessary in order to meet our growing base load requirements by the Year 2038. In order to participate in the project, the City Council must execute a Power Sales Contract for 9.6 MW (or the 10.0 recommended by staff) before June 15th. There will be no action required by the City Council if you choose not to participate in the project.
The MEAG recommendation of 9.6MW will be sold to a third party buyer for 20 years (beginning the Year 2016) to allow for East Point and other MEAG cities in this project to grow into this nuclear generation. The beginning life of the nuclear project will be an operating license from the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for 40 years. Our Nuclear generating unit history tells us that this license might also be extended after the original 40 years for another 20 years to make the total life of the project an expected 60 years.
During the 20 years that the output will be sold to third parties on behalf of the City of East Point (Years 2016-2036), the City of East Point will have no payments to make for the project. The third parties under the 20-Year PPA (Purchase Power Agreement) will provide for :
1. Full Cost Recovery of Debt Service, Operation, Maintenance, Decommissioning Costs, etc;
2. An estimated "premium" for the 9.6MW portion of the PPA of $1.5M (NPV of the contract terms stated in Year 2008 dollars) - this premium will be maintained in an interest bearing reserve account on behalf of the City of East Point and provided to the City at the completion of the 20-Year contract to help mitigate future financial obligations when the output of the 9.6MW begins to be received by the City of East Point in the Year 2036.
FACTS AND ISSUES:
· The cost to purchase the recommended 10MW is $62,900,500 over a 20-year period ($4,143,000/year);
· The City can reinvest all or a portion of the $30 million in credits it will begin receiving over the next ten years to defray the future cost of purchasing the 10MW;
· The City can designate all or a portion of annual power sales revenue to an investment fund to defray the future cost of purchasing the 10MW;
· In May 2005, MEAG Power and the other co-owners of Plant Vogtle entered into a joint agreement authorizing the potential expansion of up to two additional nuclear units at Plant Vogtle, expected to come online in 2016 and 2017.
· MEAG Power is entitled to a 22.7% co-ownership of the expansion, but, depending upon the level of interest of Participants, may reduce its level of participation or even totally withdraw from the project at any time prior to July 1, 2008. For this reason, Participant commitments are required by June 15, 2008.
· MEAG Power is currently working with the other co-owners to address permitting and licensing matters. On March 31, 2008, Southern Nuclear filed, on behalf of the co-owners, an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for construction and operating licenses for the new units.
· On April 8, 2008, Georgia Power Company, on behalf of the co-owners, entered into an Engineering, Procurement and Construction agreement with a consortium consisting of Westinghouse and Stone & Webster, Inc. for two AP 1000 nuclear units with 1,100 megawatt capacity. MEAG Power's estimated costs, assuming it elects not to reduce its 22.7% share of the project, including financing expenses is approximately $3.1 billion.
· Each MEAG Power Participant has the option of participating in the proposed expansion project at Plant Vogtle and determining the level, if any, at which it chooses to participate subject to maximum individual levels if the project is over subscribed. Through Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) each Participant also has the option of laying off any portion of its commitment, until 2036, when additional power may be needed by the Participant.
· On May 12, 2008, MEAG Power entered into PPAs with two buyers to sell up to approximately 71% of MEAG Power's maximum share of output from the additional units for the first 20 years of operation. The contracts require the buyers to pay all operating costs, debt service costs on bonds to be issued, decommissioning costs and certain other payments for the term of the PPA. The amount, if any, to be sold will depend upon whether some or all of the Participants elect to commit all or any portion of their individual entitlements to the PPAs. The PPAs also require the purchasers to pay a premium (in addition to their cost obligation) which, together with the structure of the debt service payments and decommissioning payments, will result in an estimated present value benefit to the PPA Participants in excess of $400 million dollars.
· MEAG Power anticipates that it will establish a separate project to finance the costs associated with that portion, if any, of its interest in the additional units that is not committed to either PPA, and separate projects to finance the costs of each portion, if any, committed to a PPA.
OPTIONS:
1. City Council approval to enter into agreement to purchase 10MW of power in the Plant Vogtle expansion project via the PPA option.
2. City Council declines to participate in the Plant Vogtle expansion Project.
3. City Council defined action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Option 1
DEPARTMENT: Office of the City Manager
CONCURRENCE:
Crandall O. Jones, ICMA-CM Date
Interim City Manager
Greetings,
My name is Dianne Valentin and I would like to share information with you about a project that I am working on with Atlanta Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND). Prior to the end of the Cold War WAND’s acronym stood for Women’s Actions for Nuclear Disarmament. When the Cold War ended the organization thought it could take a new direction. We find ourselves still dealing with nuclear issues.
Atlanta WAND is a local grassroots organization and a chapter of the national WAND organization. Atlanta WAND’s mission is to empower women & men to work politically to reduce violence and militarism and redirect excess military spending towards unmet human & environmental needs.
I am working with Atlanta WAND on a community outreach project designed to increase the awareness of local communities and support their work on environmental and health issues around the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS) nuclear weapons facility and Plant Vogtle which is a nuclear power plant owned by Georgia Power Company and others.
We are working on this project in Georgia and South Carolina, both of which are adversely affected by SRS and Plant Vogtle. Our organizing and outreach efforts will be occurring in Georgia and South Carolina, particularly in the Georgia counties of Richmond, Burke, Screven, and Effingham, and the South Carolina counties of Barnwell, Allendale, and Aiken.
It is important that we engage in these communities and share with them our outreach capacity and organizing efforts to help minimize the adverse impacts of the nuclear industry on their health and environments in ways that we hope might enhance the work that they may be doing currently.
My specific request is that you share the information below with any community partners, organizations, or individuals that may be interested in participating in or submitting statements to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding blocking the issuance of a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) to Southern Nuclear Company for two new reactors at Plant Vogtle. Plant Vogtle already has two reactors.
I am aware that some of your organizations are based in areas outside the southeast region of the United States, but we are all adversely affected by the activities and procedures that permit this type of thing to go on. The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission impact the entire United States with their policies.
We must all be aware that this “early site permit” process secures approval and issuance of a license to build and operate a new nuclear power plant even though submitting the application and securing approval does not commit the application to build new units right away. The licensing process allows them to use it anytime for up to 20 years with any future application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
If the early site permits are issued, the public will not be able to raise concerns about water issues, land issues, public health issues, or safety issues at Plant Vogtle. EVER.
With the concerns that we currently face, no matter what we find out after the permit is issued, even critical data that may emerge moments after the license is issued, our hands are tied, our voices silenced.
In an Information Notice to new reactor license applicants dated April 7, 2008, the NRC informs us that counterfeit parts are being used by the nuclear power industry. Fortunately, the early site permit has not been granted for reactors #3 and #4 at Plant Vogtle, so we can still raise this type of issue on that project.
This type of thing affects all of us regardless of where we live, regardless of which nuclear facility or issue we have to deal with.
Please consider sharing the information provided below and if you know anyone or any organization that would consider participating in the action in Augusta on April 27th and/or April 28th please have them email me or call me at the Atlanta WAND office; 404.524.5999.
I appreciate your patience in reading through this rather long message and I thank you for all consideration given to my request for assistance with this outreach effort.
I bid you peace and blessings,
Dianne Valentin
diannevalentin@gmail.com
404.524.5999
Please read the call to action, critical logistical information, and background information below.
Community Action is Needed
This is a Request for Your Support
Tell the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that you have concerns about the proposed expansion of Plant Vogtle from two nuclear reactors to four. Tell the Board that you are concerned about water use, accident risks, security, nuclear waste, and health impacts.
The Action: Email or fax the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by noon, April 25th to register* to speak at the public hearing being held at the DoubleTree Hotel in Augusta on Sunday, April 27th or Monday, April 28th.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
Mail Stop: T-3F23,
U.S. NRC,
Washington, DC 20555-0001
*Registration is encouraged if you wish to make sure that you have an opportunity to speak, it is not required.
Statements in Person:
Come to the DoubleTree Hotel and Convention Center located at 2651 Perimeter Parkway, Augusta, Georgia on
(Speakers will have five minutes.)
If you can’t be there, Submit Written Statements** and make sure that you reference “Vogtle ESP comments” Submit written statements by:
Statements by Postal Mail:
Office of the Secretary,
Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff,
Mail Stop: O-16C1,
Statements by Email: hearingdocket@nrc.gov or
Statements by Fax: (301) 415-1101
**You must submit a copy of your written statement to:
Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk, III,
Important Note:
Members of the public who pre-register will receive priority consideration to speak at the meetings. Written pre-registration requests must be e-mailed to the ASLB by noon EDT on Friday, April 25. Each request must specify the session (Sunday or Monday) at which the requester wishes to make an oral statement. The Board reserves the right to conclude a session ahead of the scheduled ending time if all speakers present have made a presentation.
The Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) strongly advises those attending the pre-hearing conference or comment sessions to arrive early to allow time for security screening. The Board also requests attendees avoid bringing unnecessary hand‑carried items, such as packages, briefcases, backpacks, or other items that might need individual examination. Attendees will not be able to store such items outside the rooms, and items requiring inspection could delay a person’s admission to a session. Items that could readily be used as weapons are banned from the room where these sessions will be held. The ASLB’s rules limit signs to 18 square inches, and signs may not be attached to sticks, held above one’s head, or moved about in the room. Attempting to disrupt the pre-hearing conference or the sessions will not be tolerated.
The first step Georgia utilities are taking to try to get federal approval to build new nuclear reactors along the Savannah River is to apply for an “early site permit.” If the permit is issued, concerns such as water, land, public health, and safety cannot be brought up again even if we learn new information. For example, the new reactors will require tens of millions of gallons of water above and beyond the tens of millions Vogtle is already pulling from the Savannah River—this issue cannot be revisited again if the “early site permit” is granted. If approved, this permit essentially allows the Southern Company and its utility partners in Georgia to use the permit at any time for up to 20 years in any future applications with the NRC. Together, Atlanta WAND, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Savannah Riverkeeper, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy legally challenged the permit.
Please feel free to use this background information in your comments:
Water Use & Supply:
-Vogtle’s 2 existing reactors require huge amounts of water with only 1/3 of what was withdrawn being returned to the Savannah River [~64 million gallons per day (mgd) withdrawal with consumption of ~43 mgd]. That’s more water than many towns and cities in Georgia use!
-Doubling the number of reactors on site will only make this worse. This excess use of water threatens municipalities, industries, agriculture, recreation, and aquatic species. If there is an extended drought—even a drought 20 or 40 years from now, severe consequences could occur.
Water Quality
-The water discharged from nuclear Plant Vogtle is already hotter than what is withdrawn; more reactors will only make this situation worse. Temperature changes negatively affect the fish, plant, and animal life that depend on the river.
-The water intake systems at nuclear power plants can kill fish and fish larvae, among other organisms; having more reactors on site will only make this worse.
Nuclear Waste
-High-level radioactive waste created (used nuclear fuel) has no place to be stored or disposed, nor is it likely that a ‘solution’ will be found in our lifetimes; building more nuclear reactors will only make this situation worse.
-Existing and future projected waste will remain onsite at Plant Vogtle for generations and generations, threatening indefinitely the health of nearby communities and the environment. Yet the NRC in previous cases has refused to even address or consider this very important issue!
-Nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorist attack and sabotage; building more nuclear reactors will only make this situation worse by providing more targets.
-Plant Vogtle is also very close to the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site, which stores a large portion of the nation’s weapons grade plutonium and other dangerous materials. If an accident or successful terrorist attack occurred, the full impacts to human health and the environment in this region would be immense.
Human Health
-A 1982 Congressional report estimated that if a meltdown occurred at just one of Vogtle’s reactors it could cause 39,000 peak* early injuries, 4000 peak cancer deaths, and 200 peak early fatalities with costs over $60 billion; building more reactors will only worsen these terrible impacts and put more people’s lives and health at risk. These communities are already heavily burdened by pollution in the area. (*Peak means highest calculated value from the study – it does not necessarily mean worst case.)
For more information on nuclear power, see
http://www.cleanenergy.org/programs/programs.cfm?ID=4.
For the NRC’s information on the Vogtle application process, see
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/vogtle.html
***Background information provided by Sara Barczak and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, www.cleanenergy.org.
The National Nuclear Security Administration and the U. S. Department of Energy are in the process of engaging in public hearings on the Draft Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) for what is being calling "Complex Transformation". Complex Transformation is the governments project to build new nuclear weapons. They are taking public comments on this issue and they can be submitted by postal mail, by regular mail, and by fax.
Please go to www.complextransformationspeis.com to see the documents and information presented by the NNSA at the public hearing held on Thursday
1. Written comments can be mailed to:
Mr. Ted Wyka, NNSA
Office of Transformation NA-10.1
1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
2. Written comments can be e-mailed to:
complextransformation@nnsa.doe.gov
3. Written comments can be faxed using the number:
1.703.931.9222
On Thursday, February 21st I spoke, along with many others ranging in age from 12 years to at least 86 years of age, at the first of eighteen SPEIS public hearings that will be held across the country on this issue by the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy.
George W. Bush and Dick Chaney are determined to build new nuclear weapons. This is not the first time that we have had to deal with this issue and it comes to us again under a different name. The last time that we had to deal with it they called it Complex 2030, this time they are calling it Complex Transformation.
When they proposed it before, they did not expect the public out cry that was raised. They received approximately 32,000 public comments on that previous Environmental Impact Statement, the NNSA told us that of those, 30,000 of the comments were in opposition to the project.
We used grassroots efforts to compel our congressional representatives to remove the billions of dollars in funding from the federal budget that the Department of Energy wanted for Complex 2030, something else that they had not expected.
One of my colleagues refers to what they are doing as "putting old wine in new bottles" thinking that we won't know that they are doing the same project if they change the name of the project and change a few of the most benign details like downsizing the square footage of the facilities. The bottom line is that they still want to make new nuclear warheads when the 10,000 that we have still work perfectly well, (6,000 of which are on hair trigger alert), using billions of dollars that we can't afford.
In addition to my oral comments, I have submitted written comments via e-mail and would like to urge you to do the same, particularly if you are an environmentalist, a fiscal conservative, someone who would rather see our dollars spent on meeting unmet human needs of those in our country, or a peace activist.
Your comments can be as long or as short as you desire. Please submit your comments using any of the three methods listed above. I am hoping that you will be opposed to the creation of new nuclear warheads although their documents give the impression that they are downsizing, they are actually reconfiguring to begin to create new and what they consider more efficient nuclear warheads. (they have a section listed as assembly/disassembly, we don't need any assembly) The nuclear weapons that we currently have are quite sufficient.
Please read my written submission below, my goal was to go on record as having asked them to include and consider certain things when they create their final SPEIS document and Record of Decision. If enough people ask for something they have to provide it.
Greetings Mr. Wyka,
I hope this message reaches you well and enjoying your day.
My name is Dianne Valentin and I am saying no to the NNSA's Complex Transformation project at any location in this country.
Nuclear weapons adversely affect each of the categories listed on you SPEIS Impact Assessment list. The creation and development of new nuclear weapons cannot be separated from the process by which they are made. Land, Air Quality, Water Resources, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, Human Health, Transportation, and Cumulative Impacts are all specifically what I wish to speak on.
I am requesting that the Environmental Impact Statement provide details on:
As I said in my testimony yesterday, February 21, 2008, in South Carolina, what the Department of Energy is doing with nuclear weapons creation and development is wrong from a moral perspective, a fiscal perspective, and an environmental perspective.
Morally wrong because we don't need new and more efficient ways to indiscriminately kill millions of people at once to be secure as a nation. Morally wrong because you know that mining and mill tailings have ruined Native American lands and waters. Morally wrong because these toxins and contaminants may very well be the cause of the increases that we see in chronic childhood asthma, autism, and other physical & developmental disorders in children. Morally wrong because you know that nuclear industry workers who are not executives and engineers are still riddled with work related illnesses. Morally wrong because you know that these programs are being kept alive, (even though the people of this country have spoken out in huge numbers against them whatever name you tag on it), because some government insider wants these contracts and the lions share of the money related to these nuclear projects to go to affiliated entities. (My heart sank over and over again when I read the long list of contractor's names that were hired for a previous EIS that was done; after each name, Haliburton was listed as who he or she was affiliated with.) Will any of you there, being paid with tax payer dollars, be willing to stand up for the American people? We are who you ultimately work for. You know that we cannot afford this and you know that we do not need this. Remember what the eighteen year old who spoke yesterday said? You guys are smart.
Fiscally wrong because this country does not have the money for, nor do we need, anymore nuclear weapons. The money that is being spent on this process as well and the project that it proposes could be used for unmet human needs that we currently face in this country. Our health care systems, our education systems, our diplomatic corp, our rapid (and thorough) responses to our natural disasters, our enlisted military pay and family care, our research and development into a number of areas including alternative energy sources, and our advancements in non-war related science and engineering. Again, with the debt that we are carrying, you know that we cannot afford this.It is environmentally wrong because the nuclear fuel cycle is dirty, extremely and irreversibly polluting. The long-term radioactive waste that is produced on both ends of the fuel cycle are so harmful to this environment we may never recover if you continue on this path. Every aspect of our environment is adversely affected.
It is no longer acceptable for our government entities to use what is commonly know as Reference Man or Standard Man when gathering, compiling, and putting out data and statistics related to this area (nuclear weapons development), when our most vulnerable are the ones who are so terribly affected. Until you can prove that these radioactive nuclear, and nuclear related materials do not have adverse affects on children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with compromised health, the project needs to be stopped in its tracks. Regardless of how much you think that it will cost to do this, that cost pales in comparison to the damage that it does and will do to our health and environment.You heard the young students aged 12 through 18 years of age speak on this yesterday. Their voices and their words were compelling, they moved me. They made me know that there are millions of reasons why I fight this nuclear madness. They are not just our future, they are our present. They are here now breathing this air, drinking this water, eating food produced on this earth.
The NNSA and the Department of Energy will be looked upon as committing crimes against humanity and as having perpetuated the encroaching environmental holocaust without ever dropping one bomb. These entities and the people working for them and running them are committing these acts by engaging in the activities required to build these nuclear weapons.
Use the money that would be saved by closing the facilities that you plan to close, to clean up the radioactive mess that has already been made by nuclear weapons production. As you know, we have not successfully dealt with even the very first bit of waste generated by the nuclear industry well over fifty years ago.
As I stated yesterday, the NNSA and the Department of Energy should be ashamed and embarrassed to use terms like "Centers of Excellence", "special nuclear materials", and "Complex Transformation" relative to nuclear weapons. It shows such disrespect for the people of this great country.
Peace Dianne
The nuclear power fuel cycle is a producer of carbon dioxide. I will reference a section of Code Red Alert: Confronting Nuclear Power in Georgia (published by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy May 2004). I have included the end notes for the section on the uranium fuel cycle that I am posting here. I have placed the section that references the CO2 emissions from two plants in bold, (It is the fifth paragraph under the conversion & enrichment section).
In addition to all of its waste and pollution, please note that the nuclear power industry engages in environmental racism as well. If you think that you are someone who can tolerate the CO2 emissions, are you someone who can tolerate the environmental racism? Please read the next section entitled The Uranium Fuel Chain from Code Red Alert: Confronting Nuclear Power in Georgia in its entirety. The complete document can be downloaded for free on the internet.
THE URANIUM FUEL CHAIN
The production of uranium fuel is highly energy and waste intensive, requiring uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication. In fact, uranium enrichment has been the largest contributor of wastes to the DOE’s materials inventory.287 Though these fuel operations do not occur in Georgia, several facilities in the southeast do engage in these activities (see Radioactive Southeast Map).
Uranium fuel production impacts broad geographic areas of the nation—negatively impacting states such as Utah that do not even have nuclear power plants. The production of energy at the nuclear reactor generates dangerous, highly radioactive, long-lived waste. This “spent” nuclear fuel is a dangerous residue that threatens local communities. Types of waste created by a one-year operation of a typical 1000 MW nuclear reactor—of comparable size to the nuclear power plants in Georgia— include 179,728 tons of uranium mill tailings, .2 metric tons of plutonium waste, 159 tons of reactor fuels as well as weapons grade plutonium. 288
Mining of Uranium
Uranium ore has to be mined, like coal, to be used as a fuel source. Uranium is both radioactive and a chemical toxin. Additionally, numerous heavy metals present in uranium ore can have adverse health effects. Many uranium mines in the United States are on Native American lands. Nearly one third of these mines are located within the Navajo nation.289 The mines have had a negative effect on the quality of life of Native Americans living near the mines.290 Even though lung cancer was considered rare in Navajo Indians, a report by Dr. Gerald Buker stated, “the risk of lung cancer had increased by a factor of at least 85 percent among Navajo uranium miners.”291
Uranium mines are found around the globe and both the mining and milling processes disproportionately affect indigenous populations. Africa has long served as a source of uranium for the nuclear industry. Describing an observation during a visit to a French-run uranium mine in the early 1980s, a BBC commentary described the injustice and abuse perpetrated at mines as, “Some of the poorest people on earth labor in one of the deadliest environments to power the electric train sets and fuel the bombs of the world’s richest nations.”292
Milling of Uranium
Milling consists of chemically separating uranium from other ore components. A thousand tons of ore must be processed to get just 2 tons of uranium.293 The waste produced is known as “mill tailings,” which are often left near the land surrounding the mine, creating another dangerous legacy of the mining process. For typical uranium concentrations, the tailings contain 85 percent of the radioactivity in the original ore along with toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Furthermore, the volume of mill tailings is enormous and the majority of the radioactive components are extremely long-lived. Unfortunately, a large portion of mill tailings in the United States were “grandfathered” when more protective standards began to be implemented in the late 1970s, leaving behind more than 100 million tons of uranium waste with limited regulatory oversight.294
The mill tailings can infiltrate surrounding waterways. In 1979, near Churchrock, New Mexico, a United Nuclear uranium mill tailings dam broke, dumping nearly 100 million gallons of liquid radioactive tailings and 1000 tons of solid tailings into a surrounding area, spreading nearly 60 miles from the facility. The Rio Puerco River was contaminated and the local Native Americantribe was devastated since their water source was forever rendered toxic by the tailings.295
Conversion & Enrichment
After the uranium ore is milled, it is converted to uranium hexafluoride at Honeywell International, Inc. (formerly Allied Signal, Inc.296) in Metropolis, Illinois.297 It is then further enriched at Paducah, Kentucky through a chemical process known as gaseous diffusion. Enrichment is required to increase the percentage of Uranium-235, the isotope of uranium needed for nuclear power or nuclear weapons. In natural uranium, U-235 concentration is too low, even after milling and conversion. The end results of gaseous diffusion are called a) the “product,” in which the percentage of U-235 has been increased and b) the “tails,” which is predominantly U-238, also known as depleted uranium, in which the percentage of U-235 has been decreased.298 Uranium enrichment has been the largest contributor of wastes to the DOE’s materials inventory.299
Union Carbide operated two of the three U.S. conversion and uranium enrichment plants, at Paducah, Kentucky and at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Goodyear Atomic Corporation, a subsidiary of the Bechtel Company, originally ran the third plant, at the Portsmouth facility in Ohio.300 In the early 1990s, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a wholly owned government company, was formed to operate the nation’s enrichment plants. On July 28, 1998, USEC, Inc. was privatized, resulting in one of the largest privatizations of a federal government enterprise in American history and making the company the leading global marketer and producer of uranium enrichment services.301
Different end uses require different degrees of enrichment. Some enriched uranium can be used for commercial nuclear power plants while some nuclear weapons needs, or naval and research reactors, require further enrichment. Several by products are created. Depleted uranium (DU), for example, which is produced at a larger ratio than the desired enriched uranium, is a heavy metalpoison and is radioactive.302 Depleted uranium is frequently used in armor piercing munitions.
Gaseous diffusion plants, such as Paducah, require an enormous amount of electricity produced largely from coal-fired power plants in the areas surrounding the plant along with large amounts of cooling water for the processing equipment.303 In order to support the United States’ defense effort, the Atomic Energy Commission needed to construct a uranium enrichment plant. Since the Portsmouth plant required electricity amounts that were not available so the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) and its subsidiary, Indiana Kentucky Electric Corporation (IKEC), were organized in 1952 by fifteen investor-owned utilities in the region. In 1955 two coal-fired powerplants, Kyger Creek in Ohio (OVEC’s) and Clifty Creek in Madison, Indiana (IKEC’s) were built and began supplying electricity to the Portsmouth plant.304
In 1998, energy sold to the Department of Energy for use by USEC was 9.2 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) with costs of over $180 million.305 These two old coal plants were also extremely polluting. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, in 1998 Clifty Creek emitted over 9 million tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas associated with global warming.306 Additionally, in 1999 both plants rated in the top 100 for coal plants emitting hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides.307
During the gaseous diffusion process, though the uranium hexafluoride gas produced is highly corrosive and radioactive, the safety precautions around these facilities were questionable at best. Drums full of trichloroethylenecontaminated uranium along with large amounts of other uranium wastes were buried on site at Paducah, with most of the drum contents having leaked away by 1984, and large releases of uranium to surface waters also occurred.308 Portsmouth originally produced highly enriched uranium for naval nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons and now provides enrichment only for commercial nuclear power. It is also a federal Superfund site as the aquifer beneath it is contaminated. Department of Energy estimates for clean up were approximately $163 million.309
Eventually, the resulting enriched uranium is converted into a metallic form and then made into tiny pellets. This is done at seven uranium fuel fabrication facilities in the country, with six located in the Southeast, such as Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. in Erwin, TN, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (formerly a Division of CBS) in Columbia, SC, and Global Nuclear Fuel Americas, LLC (formerly GE Company Nuclear Energy Production) in Wilmington, NC.310 These pellets are stacked end-to-end like tiny poker chips and encased with a zirconium/aluminum cladding known as Zircalloy in approximately twelvefoot long fuel rods that look like very long pencils. These fuel rods are thenshipped to reactors and inserted into the reactor core in groups known as “assemblies” or “bundles,” approximately 60 per assembly. The reactor cores contain thousands of fuel rods in a large nuclear reactor.311
End Notes
287 U.S. DOE, Linking Legacies, p. 143.288 Dr. Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger, p. 112.
289 Makhijani & Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception, p. 219.
290 M. Annette Jaimes, Ed., The State of Native America: Genocide, colonization, and resistance, (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1992), pp. 248, 249, 264, 265.
291 Dr. Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger, p. 84. From a monograph entitled “Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer Among Navajo Indians.”
292 Makhijani, Hu, & Yih, Nuclear Wastelands, p. 106.
293 Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “The Uranium Burden,” Science for Democratic Action, vol. 8, no. 4, Sept. 2000.
294 Dr. Rosalie Bertell, No Immediate Danger, p. 86.
295 Makhijani & Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception, p. 219; IEER, “The Uranium Burden.”
296 U.S. NRC, Information Digest 2000, NUREG-1350, vol. 12, p.62.
297 Honeywell International, Inc. is the only uranium hexafluoride production facility in the nation, U.S. NRC, Information Digest 2002, pp. 64, 67.
298 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Assessment for PaducahGaseous Diffusion Plant [USDOE] Paducah, McCracken County, KY EPA Facility ID: KY8890008982, May 21, 2002, p.1.
299 U.S. DOE, Linking Legacies, p. 143.
300 Taylor G. Moore, III, “The fateful choice in uranium enrichment,” Time Bomb: A Nuclear Reader from The Progressive, (Madison, WI: The Progressive, Inc., 1980),pp. 23-26. This article also discusses the complicated issue of the Separative Work Unit (SWU), which is the unit of measurement for determining the cost of theend product, the amount of energy required to boost a kilogram of natural uranium from U-235 content of 0.7 percent to 3 percent U-235.
301 U.S. Enrichment Corporation, Inc., 1998 Annual Report, pp. 1, 29; Schwartz, Atomic Audit, p. 346.
302 Makhijani & Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception, pp. 215-220.
303 U.S NRC, NUREG-1437, vol. 1, May 1996, pp. 6-24, 6-25.
304 Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, 2000 Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and Subsidiary Corporation Annual Report, http://www.ovec.com/AnnualReport.pdfConfirmed in conversation with Ohio Public Service Commissioner Leon Wingjet on June 13, 2000 that Kyger and Clifty Creek plants power U.S. EnrichmentCorporation’s Portsmouth facility.
305 OVEC, Annual Report 2000, p. 18.
306 U.S. EPA, “Plant Summary CO2 Emissions Data by Unit,” 1998. www.epa.gov/acidrain/emission/in/983_co2.htm
307 Clear the Air, “Lethal Legacy,” April 2000, pp. 21, 26, 30.
308 Makhijani, Hu, & Yih, Nuclear Wastelands, pp. 206.
309 Ibid.
310 U.S. NRC, Information Digest 2002, p. 64; Information Digest 2000, pp. 62.
311 Daniel Ford, Meltdown: The Secret Papers of the Atomic Energy Commission, pp. 95-96.
It does amaze me when black people allow themselves to be used by white people to denigrate another black person, or black people period, for whatever reason. If Johnson was referring to Obama's community service, I am sure he would have said that Obama was doing local community service while the Clintons were working on a national scale. So, he tries to disrespect our intelligence yet again by saying that we are wrong in assuming that he was speaking about Obama's drug use as a young person.
Unfortunately, Hillary is showing the same disrespect by acting like we don't know that she knows what people are saying in her behalf and she has no say over what is said on the public platform. Unfortunately, it appears that she thinks sending out lackies to be her word surrogates won't be challenged by thinking people, whether black or white.When President Johnson did what he did he was doing his job. He was supposed to be protecting the rights of all Americans, which does happen to include Black Americans. He did it in the safety of his offices with the physical protection of the Secret Service. When Dr. King did what he did, he and all of the unsung heroes and foot soldiers, black and white, of the Civil Rights Movement, it was a calling, it was the fearlessness to wake up everyday and step outside the comfort and embrace of your home and family knowing that you may not see your family again because of oppression, racism, someone's ignorance and hate. President Johnson was doing what he felt was politically correct for his career and his country, Dr. King and his fellows were doing what they felt was right and just for all of humanity.Bob Johnson is an unfortunate character, even with all of his money. He is truly a self-hater, a self-hater of the worse kind. Hillary made a huge mistake with this one. Peace,Dianne
Below is an article that was posted on the Tennesseean.com website on November 22nd. We are not paying attention while this type of thing is happening.
I often speak at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's hearings when they take public comment on nuclear related issues. They need to hear from more people in order for us to protect ourselves from this type of situation.
Please require that your member of Congress demand that this insanity ends. None of us are safe with this type of thing going on. Demand that no new licenses be issued until the waste that we already have in this country is dealt with. We have not disposed of the very first nuclear waste that we generated over 50 years ago and we are going to give out licenses so that we can accept it from other countries????
Write and call the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, any Congressional Committee dealing with nuclear issues, energy, waste, transportation, our ports, health & safety, your local, state, and federal representatives and be very clear that we will not accept this. Fill their phone lines and inboxes with your concerns about the licensing of this process. Don't let this precedent be set.
Dick Cheney and his secret deals and secret meetings with his energy industry friends is selling us down the river in a canoe with no ores, headed directly toward a barge carrying foreign nuclear waste.
We can't let them do this to us without our voices being heard. They may have more money, but we have more people, more voices. Make your voice heard on this issue. Remember in Dr. Suisse's Horton Hears a Who it took that one extra voice, that one small voice to proclaim; "We Are Here, We Are Here!". We must exercise and exert our collective will.
Please read the article below and get on the phone and on email to those listed above.
Thursday, 11/22/07
Firm wants to process overseas nuke waste in Tennessee
Associated Press
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A company that disposes of radioactive nuclear waste by burying it wants to ship 20,000 tons of the material from overseas through ports in Charleston and New Orleans, raising fears because of the large amount.
EnergySolutions Inc. wants to ship about 200,000 cubic feet of waste into the United States, process it in Tennessee before burying it at a site in Clive, Utah, where the company is based.
"That's a lot of waste," said Arjun Makhijani, executive director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nuclear watchdog group.
"As far as I know, it's unprecedented for such a large amount to come to this country for disposal."
In a statement Tuesday, EnergySolutions argued that licenses had been grantedto companies that import radioactive items from France and the Czech Republic.
The company also said it is a leader in safe handling and disposal of radioactive materials.
However, two congressmen wrote in a letter to federal regulators who will ultimately decide if the material can be shipped to the U.S. that EnergySolutions had not said exactly where the waste would come from, other than "reactors, fuel cycle facilities, research facilities, and material licenses or facilities equivalent to U.S. Superfund sites."
Limits may be exceeded
Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Ed Whitfield, R-Kentucky, also argued that some of the waste could exceed federal radiation limits, meaning it would not be allowed to enter the country and would have to be shipped back to Italy.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman David McIntyre said the agency will begin taking public comments on EnergySolutions' application soon.
The approval process typically takes six months.
EnergySolutions, which handles radioactive waste for hospitals, universities and companies, has operated a nuclear waste landfill site in South Carolina since 1971.
But under legislation passed earlier this year, that landfill will close to all but three states next year — South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut.
If EnergySolutions gets approval, it's not clear where the materials would be unloaded in Charleston.
"We don't handle any radioactive materials," said Byron Miller, spokesman for the State Ports Authority.
We have to face that we are being led down a path that is false from it beginning. It is fantastic that Barack Obama has spoken out regarding nuclear weapons, but nuclear is the issue. We are still dealing with the prospect that our future President Obama is ill informed about nuclear energy being an alternative that will help us curb global warming. Nuclear energy is one of the most egregious emitters of CO2 and we have to stop being led by the nuclear industry to believe that this is clean energy.
Time to wake up and act like we know the facts.
