July 25, 2016
Let’s begin with a riddle of sorts. What do the National Sierra Club, Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario, the South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club, Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina, nearly 24,000 kilograms of highly radioactive liquid waste, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission all have in common? Well, if you guessed something radioactive, you’re on the right path.
The answer: approximately 175 kilograms of liquid, weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium (HEU). The Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy have entered into an agreement to ship HEU from Chalk River, in over 100 secret truckloads, to Savannah River, where it will be processed and repurposed. The National Sierra Club and the South Carolina Chapter are both pursuing legal means to oppose this agreement, and the Atlantic Chapter and Niagara Group will be joining as well.
This highlights one of the more ubiquitous, less publicized elephants in the room of the nuclear industry: nuclear waste. Currently, all the waste generated by nuclear reactors in the U.S. must be stored on site. The plan to house all high-level nuclear waste in a permanent repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada (on Shoshone land), was scrapped when the site’s geologic stability was determined to be inadequate, and further compromised by previous nearby nuclear tests. Another site — Skull Valley, Utah, on Goshute land — was similarly targeted by a private company for temporary storage, but that plan was defeated through legal action.
Now, for good or ill, the Department of Energy believes it has an answer for high-level radioactive waste storage: integrated waste management and consent-based siting (http://energy.gov/ne/consent-based-siting). Translation: “convince” specific communities to agree to allow the DOE to build permanent repositories within their boundaries. Superficially this idea appears democratic and transparent, but the locations of the public meetings for this proposal were hardly evenly distributed around the nation. Also, input is specifically requested of Tribal Nations, which may indicate the very real likelihood of a disproportionate number of sites on indigenous lands. Once again, environmental injustice rears its ugly head. Unfortunately, this flew under the radar — it quietly appeared in the Federal Register 12/23/15 and public comment ends 7/31/16.
These are incredibly significant factors to consider when debating the nuclear tier in the Clean Energy Standards or weighing the role of nuclear power as a bridge fuel until there’s a full rollout of renewable energy sources. We’re still reeling in shock from Cuomo’s multibillion-dollar, 12-year nuclear industry bail-out. This pronuclear push will generate yet more high-level nuclear waste, for which no viable storage solution exists. Each day, each month, each year exacerbates the problem. In nearly 70 years, no one has found a credible solution.
Back in the 1950s, a short nuclear industry film was made from which this article derives its title. At the time, the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) was predicting that 1,000 atomic reactors across the nation would provide a better, easier, more efficient life by harnessing the power of the atom. However, the AEC acknowledged the necessity of pragmatism — an atomic utopia wouldn’t exist unless a means of handling the tons of generated waste could be developed.
For many reasons, utopia proved illusory — meltdowns, explosions, leaks — some made public, some kept secret both here and abroad. Despite reality, nuclear reactors were built, though not in the thousands. Today there are 99 nuclear reactors operating in the United States, four in New York, all producing highly toxic waste, all at varying degrees of risk for accidents, and almost all nearing or past their age of optimal retirement. These issues cannot be emphasized enough. This waste, if mishandled, can achieve criticality and melt down or explode. Pripyat, the Ukrainian city built for reactor workers at Chernobyl, will be uninhabitable for another 20,000 years.
The National Board remains committed to the Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign and is currently considering some updates to its policy, specifically dealing with waste storage issues and subsidies. Contrary to the position of some other environmental organizations, Sierra Club is not willing to accept nuclear as a “clean” bridge to renewable energy. The Club’s policy update discussion will take place through the fall and winter.
A little magic wouldn’t hurt at the moment — an epiphany to magically enlighten Governor Cuomo about the jobs he could create and the renewable energy businesses he could jump-start with only a portion of the nuclear subsidies he proposes. Let’s request a magical moment for a handful of scientists and engineers who will design a safe, cost-effective, permanent solution for the high-level nuclear waste storage problem. Since we’re all composed of atoms, is that really so much to ask?