With the year 2008 just around the corner, the closure of the Barnwell, S.C. site is becoming an urgent situation for several states. As mentioned in previous blogs, beginning July 1, the Barnwell site will be accessible only to South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey. This entry will take a look at how a couple states are handling this upcoming change.
Arkansas’ low-level waste is generated mostly from “Entergy’s Arkansas Nuclear One, the National Center for Toxicological Research, the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, and the University of Arkansas.” These sites reported to the Central Interstate Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission that they have ample storage for the future. The compact commissioner, Rita Houskie, was quoted stating that there is no need to seek alternate sites to Barnwell at this time. Although most of the waste in Arkansas is Class A, the least radioactive, companies such as Entergy that ship their Class B and C wastes to Barnwell, will now store it on site. A spokesman for Entergy said “[they have] space to store the material for about 50 years.” The other main producers of low-level wastes are taking similar approaches. The other states that are members of the compact and make seek Arkansas’ spatial resources are: Kansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.
The University of Arizona received a formal notice of Barnwell’s closure a few weeks ago. Dan Silvain, the director of UA’s Radiation Control Office stated “[the notice] prompted us to get rid of (our waste). It was an ‘Uh-oh’ we better get it in under the wire moment.” He described the waste as mostly medical material that was used in treating cancer patients. “This stuff we’ve had hanging around…so we’re taking advantage of the [closure] to get [it] out of here.” UA is sending “sealed sources” of waste like Cesium-137 (used for cancer treatment) that has a half-life of 30 years. They are also currently seeking safer treatment methods that involve materials with shorter half-lives. This material that had been stored on campus and in hospitals will now go to Barnwell but soon will need other resources for permanent storage. The university is currently negotiating with vendors to return unneeded radiation materials for disposal but time will tell which direction places like the University of Arizona will look to resolve this issue.
EnergySolutions has gone into some detail regarding its initial public offering. They plan to offer up 30 million shares in an attempt to settle 100s of millions in debt and obligations to officers. According to a recent company statement, “[they] are a leading provider of specialized, technology based nuclear services to government and commercial customers…[and] also own and operate strategic facilities that complement [their] services and uniquely position [them] to provide a single source solution to [their] customers.”
EnergySolutions started in 1988 as a low-level and hazardous waste disposal facility in Tooele created by the U.S. DOE. The payroll has now grown from 250 to 5000+ and revenues from $227 million to $1.8 billion (2006). With this expansion has come nearly $100 million in debt (noted that last year’s profits were $62 million). With the Barnwell site closing in 2008, many Texans may come to rely on EnergySolutions for safe and efficient storage and disposal. The country also needs a centralized disposal facility to limit the risks from storing waste across the nation.
Some details about the IPO…
*The company stated they acknowledged investor risk due to “political and community objections to its operations.”
EnergySolutions is expected to sell 30 million shares between $19 and $20 each. This will most likely take place in December under the NYSE symbol ES.
Their selling points include:
It’s hard to miss the “green” movement taking place in our society. Only, when looking at their information (as in the propaganda on our latest news clips) it seems that sometimes the “green” group is more focused on slandering nuclear organizations than promoting their own. The following will take a look at this anti-nuclear flyer and attempt to set some of the facts straight.
“In-Situ” uranium mining has destroyed aquifers in South Texas so that residents can no longer use their wells and have to buy water. To date, no mining company has ever successfully restored an aquifer.
The fact of the matter is mining is an enormous part of our economy and lifestyle. From the brick, mortar and cement used to build our buildings and roads to the uranium and coal that generate our electricity, mining is essential to our way of life. The aggregates and concrete industries provide over 121,000 permanent jobs in our state with coal mining and generating facilities responsible for another 30,000 jobs. It turns out Texas is the 4th largest producer of clay and aggregates in the nation and 5th largest producer of coal. This is important because we are the number 1 consumer of coal for electricity generation in the country. With all this activity taking place throughout our environment, there are many steps taken to ensure nature is restored and maintained. “Each year, the Texas lignite mining industry spends in excess of $100 million on land restoration and other environmental procedures including ground water protection and improvement, clean air protection and archaeological review and protection (25% of the total spent on products and services by the industry).” [Texas Mining and Reclamation Assoc.] The restored land is well suited for many things ranging from grazing grounds for livestock to growing crops and some even serving as wildlife habitats. The mining industry makes every effort to in many cases restore the land to a better state than it was prior to operation. Another relative statistic; “based on the EPA’s Acid Rain Database, Texas ranks 6th best in the nation and is best among coal-using states in emissions of NOx.” [Texas Mining and Reclamation Assoc.] With the mining industry’s efficient and conservative efforts, we enjoy the luxuries we’ve come to take for granted on a daily basis and at the same time may rest assured our environment’s well being is being attentively sought after.
There is still no known way to safely dispose of radioactive waste, which stays deadly for 100,000s of years. By default, high level radioactive waste is stored at reactor sites. Due to health and safety concerns Texas refused to commission low-level radioactive waste sites in the state in the 1990s. Texas’ current agreement sending low level waste to South Carolina will expire in 2008.
All radioactive materials decay over time. In fact scientists know exactly how long each radioactive material takes to decay. When analyzing a shipment of low-level waste to a plant in Ohio, scientists discovered that after 100 years virtually all the radioactivity would no longer exist. No effect on cancer rates, no effect on births and no effect on public health has ever been found for people living near low-level disposal facilities. In fact science has not shown any link between low-level waste disposal sites and any disease (including birth defects). A study in western New York State looked at a facility that contained both high-level and low-level radioactive waste. They looked at the cancer rates in seven surrounding counties over 10 years. They found no impact on cancer rates. As far as the packaging for disposal, there are strict methods used to isolate the waste that protect humans and the environment. “In dry climates, where little moisture reaches the waste, burying it in engineered shallow trenches is suitable.” For more humid climates the wastes are placed in concrete canisters. The spaces between canisters are filled with sand to function as drainage material that will channel water away from the waste to prevent leakage into the environment. The NRC’s regulations for disposal sites include natural resources being avoided, the site being suitable distance from ground or surface water, and they can’t be in areas of geological activity. The designs for building disposal facilities include:
The closing of the Barnwell disposal site in South Carolina is set to take place on June 30th of the coming year. Access to this facility will be available only to members of the Atlantic Compact. There is a great need for long-term disposal of low-level waste in a safe manner in order to avoid the risk involved in spreading the storage of these products across the state. We risk curbing the advances in areas such as modern medicine, consumer product safety and electricity generation if we don’t act now to seek responsible disposal for low-level wastes.
Uranium & deadly radioactive waste are transported through communities in trucks and trains. A major crossroads for railroads, 21 major train derailments occurred near San Antonio in 2004, killing 5.
In 1992, the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Engineering Lab produced a report that found there were 53 accidents during the transport of low-level waste over the last 20 years. Four of those incidents involved a radioactive release but stated that no public was ever at risk due to the efforts of emergency personnel repackaging the waste. There are in fact extremely strict regulations for the shipment of low-level waste. One of the biggest factors that ensures the public’s safety is that all waste must be in solid form. This prevents the possibility of any explosion that could occur with liquid waste. The packaging for the waste undergoes extreme testing to prevent release even in “severe accidents.” Also, there are licensing, inspection (which takes place at every critical step of the shipping process), and enforcement regulations. Perhaps the most important factor is the nation-wide tracking system that monitors everything from the source to the receipt of the waste. Local governments are involved in preparing for any emergency that may occur along the transportation route. These personnel are highly trained for virtually any problem that could arise. Finally, manifests and records are kept and updated throughout every step of the shipping process to keep close watch on these shipments as they make their way to the destination facility. The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority produced a statistic that states “of the 100 million shipments of hazardous materials transported in the U.S. each year, only 2% are radioactive material shipments.” Therefore, over the past quarter of a century “transportation accidents involving radioactive materials totaled 342, with only 53 involving commercial low-level waste.” Of these only 4 accidents involved low-level waste release and no injuries or deaths have been reported with these accidents. These statistics demonstrate the ability to transport these wastes efficiently and safely.
Living near a reactor is linked with a 10-time higher rate of breast cancer, and higher rates of leukemia, childhood cancers and infant mortality. An accident at a reactor could kill thousands immediately and later through the health effects of radiation exposure.
This is one of the areas where people are simply scared into believing such statements as the one above. In fact a Gallup study for USCEA in 1991 found that the most common word associations with “radiation” were: “cancer, sickness, burns and death” at 36%; “destruction and danger” at 21%; and “nuclear bombs or war” at 21%. The media is the most responsible party for such relations. The subjects of the study stated they formed their impressions about radiation from news reporting (84%) and movies and television (61%). Therefore with these images embedded in the public’s mind it is often difficult to get people to listen to the real facts. There are endless benefits to the use of radiation including: treating some diseases (13 million medical procedures each year involve radiation), smoke detectors, testing prescription drugs for harmful side effects, providing power for satellites, and exploring for oil, gas, and natural resources. The truth is that radiation has been studied for more than 80 years and can be closely monitored and controlled. There are strict regulations and standards for all plants and storage facilities monitored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In fact the National Cancer Institute has concluded that “there is no evidence of any increase of cancer among people living in counties near power plants.” It has been shown that people living next to a power plant receive more radiation from granite buildings, consumer products and nature in general. As far as the plants themselves, there are multiple safety features that prevent any release of high levels of radiation exposure. “Nuclear power was dealt a heavy blow by the tragedy of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, a blow from which the reputation of the nuclear industry has never fully recovered.” (planetark.com) Using predictive computer programs many scenarios have been run through and precautions made to avoid any significant exposure to the public. Therefore, although many people associate power plants and radiation with negative images, the truth is that they are constructed with the people’s safety at the forefront and there have been no accidents that should make people doubt their integrity.
Waste Control Specialists plans to join Studsvik for the storage of Class B & C Low-Level Radioactive waste. This announcement is a result of the closure of the Barnwell County site in mid 2008. The idea behind this partnership is to “have one centrally located facility to store a stable waste form” as opposed to each facility storing its own.
Studsvik’s role in the process involves removing organics to create the more stable waste form. As for WCS, it’s believed that their facility is well suited to service power plants across the United States. Currently the WCS facility is authorized to include the processing, and storage of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive wastes.
Facts about Studsvik:
A pharmaceutical lab that during the 80’s and 90’s was the
largest generator of low-level radioactive waste in
is finally undergoing a safety review. A
reporter from the OC register asked for the remediation plans that would be put
in place for this site last year but was denied the information due to
“homeland security” reasons. This in
itself sparked interest in the site and brought about the involvement of
several legislators. Although the
opposition states the exposure from the site has always been very low, “the
fact that they are having to dig up soil, not just clean up walls, tells [one
professor from UC Santa Cruz] that they leaked badly.” Lawmakers are trying to figure out whether
is shipping this waste to
the only state where it can be disposed of in municipal landfills, rather than
into the special facilities licensed by the NRC. They also are addressing the reasoning behind
refusing to release clean up plans, concerned that “security” is an excuse to
cover up improper waste disposal. The
review is planned to take a few months and costs $210,800. Hopefully this case will serve as an example
and deter others from hiding information that is so important to citizens.
Another radioactive project leaves the question whether
residents in
purchase alcohol products. The home of 45000 tons of Cold War-era nuclear waste
is considering the implementation of a “High Temperature Teaching and Test
Reactor.” This $450 million reactor will
be cooled by helium instead of water thus eliminating any risk of a
meltdown. Another draw for this project
is that it will use spent nuclear reactor fuel.
However, the alcohol situation comes into play when considering the
safety of the workers and residents with such high volumes of nuclear material
being handled. The Keep Andrews Dry
Coalition asks “what company wants you to drink all night and work with
radiation the next day?” The opposition
states “going wet is totally economic” to keep workers in the area.
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is planned for the fiscal year 2008 awaiting ratification. President Bush’s plan is designed to “transform nuclear leftovers to fuel new types of nuclear reactors.” These new processes will potentially allow for 100 times the energy production with 60% less waste than current methods. It is estimated that America’s energy demands will jump 45% by the year 2030 to 5,800 billion kilowatt-hours. The DOE feels this plan may be the best alternative to meet the rising demands while providing a solution for the 2,300 tons of radioactive waste produced annually by our country.
Another argument for the project is the recycling process’ ability to not allow isolation of pure plutonium thus making it harder to produce nuclear weapons form our country’s resources. However, the opposition makes several valid points.
Therefore, in a time when the world feels so much tension between countries and many Americans fear the possibility of nuclear war, we should ask ourselves where does environmental safety on such a large scale rank in our country’s priorities.
There is a website called “RadTown USA,” which highlights different aspects of radiation that one might encounter in everyday life. RadTown USA was created by the EPA.
Each Radtown location:
They say it best when they introduce their website: “Radiation is natural and all around us. It can be man-made too. But it’s nothing new. It is, quite simply, part of our lives…” Check out more here.
ARDT is trying to put together new curriculum that will teach Texas middle school students about radioactivity and the importance of safe radioactive waste disposal. We are currently working together with teachers to formulate proper lesson plans that meet with state regulations and at the same time teach our kids about environmental safety, why we use nuclear, and what radioactive waste exactly is. The earlier we start educating, the less ignorant people we have out there, right?
Electrical demand, already straining the grid, is expected to continue rising in the U.S. Technology has played a huge part in that growth. Researchers estimate that a whopping 8% of U.S. electrical consumption is used solely to power personal computers.
I babysit plenty of families that have 3 and 4 computers in their house- each kid has one in their bedroom, one in the office, maybe a laptop here and there, etc. It’s quite astonishing.
Clearly this energy has to come from somewhere. While wind and solar power, also both non-emitters of greenhouse gases, are expected to be increasingly important, we need more, and a more reliable source of power.
That’s where nuclear power comes in. Now that we know what a huge environmental mess greenhouse gases are- and it’s a fact that global warming is in existence, solving the nuclear waste disposal issue is our focus, not whether or not we’re going to use it.
U.S. Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, will become senate majority leader when Democrats take control of Congress next month. That makes him more effective in opposing the Yucca Mountain plan — and Reid said recently he will do everything possible to derail the project. Consequently, South Carolina could end up indefinitely with nearly 6,000 huge containers of nuclear waste at the Savannah River Site and hundreds of tons of commercial spent fuel if Reid has his way.
Legislation supporting Yucca Mountain will be killed next year in Congress, one of Reid’s aides said.
U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said he doesn’t think Reid’s opposition will stop the Yucca Mountain project. Reid could cut funding for studies at the site, but Clyburn said the project will go forward. Clyburn, the incoming House majority whip, supports opening Yucca Mountain.
Nationally, nuclear waste is growing at a rate of about 2,000 tons per year, experts have said– and that’s only at current operating levels.
The Delta center is now the EnergySolutions Arena, and many Utahns are not pleased with the change. In an exclusive Survey USA poll for Eyewitness News, 40% have heard of EnergySolutions and nearly 60% think the Jazz - EnergySolutions partnership is bad for Utah’s image, and only 13% think it’s good. When asked about the name, 82% say they prefer the old name. In the same Survey USA poll, 41% say it’s a bad trend for pro-sports to name its venues for corporate sponsors. 45% say it makes no difference. But they say “all press is good press”. What do you think? Will this affect the nuclear industry?
I don’t have all the details yet, but what I do know is that Charles Judd filed a new $60 million dollar lawsuit against EnergySolutions Thursday. Judd, a onetime president of what’s now called EnergySolutions wants $60 million, plus damages, for what he claims was EnergySolutions’ fraud against him and violations of the Utah Antitrust Act.
There seems to be a lot of fraud in the air. Judd served as president from 1997 to 2002, while the U.S. Energy Department barred the company’s then-owner from being involved in daily operations because of corruption allegations. The lawsuit also accuses EnergySolutions of using its tight relations with government officials, discriminatory pricing and strong-arm tactics to build a national waste monopoly that is driving him (Judd) and other competitors out of the industry. In addition, the suit claims EnergySolutions and its reps provided “economic considerations to governmental officials and elected representatives, including loans, favors, employment opportunities, business deals and/or other conduct in the nature of payoffs.” (Salt Lake Tribune)
There is talk about a new proposal which would allow the nuclear waste dump in Tooele County to grow again by merging two of its existing waste cells into a new mega-landfill reaching nearly eight stories tall.
If approved, the expansion would further enlarge the largest commercial radioactive waste dump in the country and mark the fourth time the Division has allowed EnergySolutions to expand radioactive waste disposal in Utah. Furthermore, it would increase EnergySolutions’ capacity for nuclear waste to over 13 million cubic yards - more than 5 times its original permitted size of 2.2 million cubic yards.
There is a law which says that when a radioactive waste facility wants to grow by more than 50% over its 1990 size, the Legislature and the governor have to sign off on the move. But apparently this law is not being enforced. Consequently, the dump has grown 400%.
Some say that there should be no more unchecked growth at EnergySolutions. And in addition, there should be free, searchable, online access to nuclear waste dump applications, amendments, reports and Board meeting transcripts. Currently there is not much information available to the public.
What do you think?
Despite fears of uncertainty, a huge underground repository in southeastern New Mexico being used for the disposal of plutonium-contaminated nuclear waste from the defense program has been running for almost a decade and is demonstrating great benefits — short-term and possibly long-term — to the public.
With the building completed seven years ago, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) is the world’s first underground repository for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Thus far, more than 81,000 containers of long-lived transuranic waste have been placed in the facility.
DOE manages WIPP, and its successful operation after years of litigation by anti-nuclear groups and efforts by the state of New Mexico to stop construction of the repository, portray that DOE is absolutely capable of handling another controversial project — the storage of spent fuel from nuclear power plants at Yucca Mountain.
DOE’s experience with WIPP is not unlike the one it is currently having with the Yucca Mountain project.
For more where this came from click here.
Exelon is “actively” evaluating eight sites in Texas as possible locations for a new nuclear reactor. Exelon is actually the fourth company last week to say it wants to apply for a license to build a nuclear plant to meet growing power needs.
It looks like some areas in desolate West Texas might be seeing more action now than ever before due to all of the hype of building a nuclear plant. Residents of Mentone, Texas, which is in the least populated county in the U.S. are hoping for the economic boom that comes along with the growing interest and revenue of an energy boom.
Of the 19 preliminary proposals for new U.S. reactors, Texas has attracted the most interest, with four proposals, according to NEI. However, Exelon is also considering adding reactors in Illinois and as part of NuStart, a 12-member consortium looking at sites in Tennessee and Mississippi. Both NRG and TXU (two other Texas generators) have said that they would like to reduce the risk of building new reactors by attracting partners.
Its common knowledge that coal is America’s leading fuel source for electrical power generation, and it is also responsible for more than one-third of the nation’s carbon-dioxide emissions- pollution that causes global warming!
The problem is, “more nuclear plants in the U.S will not alleviate the global-warming problem so long as other countries roll out new coal-fired power plants. By some estimates China commissions a new coal-fired power station every 10 days even as it moves forward on ambitious plans to open new nuclear plants.”- Matthew Auer (The Desert Sun)