Nuclear information & Resource service
Southeast office
WE INVITE
YOUR PARTICIPATION:
Public Meeting on
experimental plutonium (MOX) fuel production and use in the
Carolinas
May 8 in Charlotte,
NC
7 – 10 pm, “open house” 6 –7
pm
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 (McGuire 1 & 2 near Charlotte and Catawba 1 & 2 near Rock Hill) as well as 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.
Nuclear fuel has never before been made from weapons-grade plutonium, nor has such fuel been used in a commercial nuclear reactor. Compared to the waste plutonium used in Europe, bomb plutonium will present unique challenges. 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…THIS PROPOSAL AFFECTS YOU!
From the NRC notice: “Participants may express their views verbally and will also be encouraged to submit their comments in writing. The meeting is scheduled from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. NRC staff will be available at 6:00 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.
Nirs southeast:
Mary Olson 828-251-2060 nirs.se@mindspring.com
P.O. Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 http://www.nirs.org/
Please network this
information to anyone you know, there is still little public awareness of this
proposal…plan to attend yourself…
ALL VOICES
NEEDED!
“SCOPING:” 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. The proposed action is under a Department of Energy contract (tax dollars)
by a consortium of Duke, COGEMA (French government) and Stone and Webster. 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! The goal of the meeting is to register as many potential
impacts we see and questions we have about this program to inform the federal
regulators.
Increased nuclear liability under the current federally sponsored insurance program would fall directly to the tax-payer and to the victims. The nuclear industry and their insurance liability is capped below true cost for a uranium fuel accident, while plutonium fuel may cause significantly more health impact and property loss. Further, un-used weapons-grade plutonium fuel can be used to make a nuclear weapon. McGuire and Catawba reactor sites, and the transport routes to them will have to be subject to national-security-level control. What are the impacts of all of this on property values?
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)…including service industries such as nuclear laundries, decontamination services, incinerators…what are we forgetting?
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.
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 could be safeguarded 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?
Waste Impacts
Plutonium fuel is hotter both in heat and radioactivity and will have more plutonium in it than conventional fuel. More plutonium would go to so-called “low-level” dumps, less high-level waste would fit in fuel pools and dry storage or transport casks (due to heat)…if a federal waste site opens, that means more shipments and also more space there too! DOE is not paying for these increased waste costs or decommissioning impacts. Who is?????