Nuclear information & Resource service
Southeast office
WE INVITE
YOUR PARTICIPATION:
Public Meetings on
experimental plutonium (MOX) fuel production and use in the
Southeast
April 17 in North Augusta,
SC
April 18 in Savannah, GA
Georgia Coastal
Center, at 305 Martin Luther King Blvd
Tentatively:
May 8 in Charlotte,
NC
These meetings are sponsored by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to gather in-put on the “scope” of what should be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on using weapons grade plutonium as a fuel in 4 Duke Power reactors and making this fuel on the banks of the Savannah River at the Savannah River Site near Augusta, GA. The EIS will also consider transportation impacts.
Weapons grade plutonium has never been made into or used as a nuclear reactor fuel. Remember the accident at the fuel factory in Tokai Japan? MOX will challenge reactor operators. If 100% MOX fuel is in use, and there is a major reactor accident, it could be as bad as Chernobyl X 2…
From the NRC notice: “Participants may express their views verbally and will also be encouraged to submit their comments in writing. The meetings are scheduled from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. NRC staff will be available at 5:30 p.m. to informally discuss the project.
Those interested in attending are asked to register in advance by calling Betty Garrett, 301-415- 5808 or e-mail her at bsg@nrc.gov. Background information on the MOX project is located at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NMSS/MOX/index.html on the web. The NRC expects to publish its draft environmental impact statement next February and will schedule additional meetings shortly thereafter to obtain public comment.” See also http://www.nirs.org/ http://www.nci.org/ http://www.ieer.org/ and http://bredl.org/
We ask that you also RSVP to NIRS Southeast – we can tell you about “pre-meetings” and conference calls that are being held in advance of these meetings to share ideas. For instance, folks attending the North Augusta session are meeting that afternoon, location as yet to be determined.
Nirs southeast: Mary Olson 828-251-2060 nirs.se@mindspring.com
P.O. Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 http://www.nirs.org/
The Scope of an
Environmental Impact Statement should encompass all of the IMPACTS that proposed
plans or actions will have. NRC was directed by Congress to regulate and license
the use of weapons grade plutonium in the production and use of nuclear power
reactor fuel. This is considered a “major federal action” and by law, NRC must
consider our concerns in defining the scope of their environmental
analysis.
Here are some impacts – you can think of more — and embroider these! The goal of the meeting is to register as many potential impacts we see and questions we have about this program – and also speak out our thoughts about plutonium fuel production and use -- to NRC, others folks present, members of the press who may attend. The meeting is not designed to collect opinions, but it would be a missed opportunity if we do not express our point of view about these potential impacts. NIX MOX!
Weapons plutonium presents unique criticality challenges – so they need to analyze all the potentials for criticality accidents, and not dismiss them as unlikely.
Building another plutonium handling factory, when weapons – grade plutonium disposition could be accomplished by a cheaper, cleaner more direct immobilization process, constitutes a burden at the already contaminated Savannah River Site. What are the consequences of this additional burden in an earthquake or other catastrophic event? What other burdens are there – waste production, water use, etc?
What is the operating and environmental record of COGEMA since the US factory is based on theirs?
Since plutonium would also be transported to SRS for immobilization, and will be done by DOE, the impact of transport that NRC will likely look at is from SRS to the Duke reactors near Charlotte and Rock Hill. They should compare and contrast accident and terrorist scenarios and impacts with conventional fuel, including impacts on state agencies, emergency responders and local communities.
There are a host of differences between uranium and plutonium that show that plutonium is harder to control in a reactor, and also that it ages reactor components more rapidly, and also that the health consequences of plutonium fuel are severely worse in the event of a reactor accident…. So impacts would include: operator training, reactor modification, emergency training and planning and notification, accident and release scenarios, health consequences as well as liability coverage and plans for dealing health emergencies and property damage in the metro Charlotte area and beyond. There will also be increased decommissioning and waste costs of all kinds (see below)…laundries, incinerators…
NRC is planning to do a generic analysis of MOX
reactor issues. We must OPPOSE ANY GENERIC reactor analysis in this EIS.
Such an analysis opens the door for plutonium fuel in ANY reactor in the US and
plays into the hands of nuclear advocates who support reprocessing and a
plutonium economy.
Waste Impacts
Plutonium fuel is hotter both in heat and radioactivity and will have
more plutonium in it than conventional fuel (duh). More plutonium in so-called
“low-level” dumps, less high-level waste will fit in fuel pools, dry casks,
transport casks…if Yucca or Goshutes happens: more shipments and space there
too! DOE is not paying for these increased costs or decommissioning impacts. Who
is?