The
proposal to store all the nation's spent nuclear fuel rods in New
Mexico raises more questions than I can fit into a column. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's public comment period ends July 30th.
It's
“temporary” (thus will be buried just 30 feet deep) but given the
history, it'll probably be here forever. New
Mexico would likely become a de facto permanent dump site for the
most dangerous radioactive waste, at a site designed only for
temporary storage. With aging canisters, it is unlikely the waste
would move again. Storage casks, canisters and the site itself are
not necessarily designed for permanent disposal. Leaks, cracks, and
contamination may result. Opponents say that most low-level
radioactive-waste dumps have leaked, and remediation costs have been
over a billion dollars.
Transportation
is critical – and not addressed in the proposal. They'd move the
rods in thousands of rail deliveries over twenty years. Since some
would come from the West Coast, shipments would pass through El Paso
and/or Las Cruces. Each rail car has about as much plutonium as we
dropped on Nagasaki – although not in bomb-grade form. (If the
site's temporary, these would move again.)
Terrorists
will love all those targets; and terrorism may continue and increase.
(When proponents say containers would be “invulnerable,” it
sounds like White Star Lines promoting a big ship in 1913.)
Steve
Pearce and Susanna Martinez say this'll be perfectly safe. During the
next 20 years, every time a passing train awakens me, I'll go back to
sleep easier knowing that they say so – they've proven so wise and
dispassionate!
I
can't calculate the odds on a disaster; but they're not zero, unless
this project doesn't happen. State
Sen. Cisco McSorley (D-Albuquerque) has said, “The
idea that we are going to give a for-profit company, the ability to
handle uranium that is going to be radioactive and deadly for six
million years … to me that seems ridiculous.”
Governments
and companies have budget troubles. Safety and infrastructure can
suffer. We could be talking not about a pothole but a deteriorating
railroad or lax safety procedures. An accident could have disastrous
consequences.
A
private company isn't subject to open-meetings, IPRA, and other
open-government requirements that would help us elicit facts about an
accident.
Environmentalists
and New Mexico's oil-and-gas industry finally agree on something. An
oil company safety manager testified before New Mexico lawmakers last
month that leaks at the facility could have devastating impacts on
the state’s extraction industry.
Our
vulnerability will worry many Las Crucens, perhaps muting some folks'
enjoyment of our remote desert. Would associating New Mexico with
nuclear waste encourage folks to move here?
Yes,
the federal government and the nuclear industry have screwed things
up by not dealing with permanent storage. But knowing something
should be done doesn't mean signing up to be the victims.
All
this for what? Additional jobs in eastern New Mexico, some of them
temporary, and some incentive payments to host
communities.
Las
Cruces is considering voicing opposition in a resolution, as
Albuquerque, Bernalillo County and some other local governments have
– to protect citizens.
Jeff
Steinborn is chair of the legislative committee holding hearings on
this. There's a key hearing scheduled for July 19th
in
Hobbs.
I
urge you to read up on this – what both sides are saying – and
express your view to the NRC, the Las Cruces City Council, and
Senator Steinborn.
-30-[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 24 June 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website newspaper's and on KRWG's website. A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG Radio and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (streamable at www.lccommunityradio.org.]
[There will be several opportunities to discuss this issue or hear it discussed in the near future. There's a legislative committee hearing in Hobbs the morning of July 19th; but that requires a long drive and (unless you know someone) an overpriced hotel room. The Las Cruces City Council seems likely to entertain the possibility of passing a resolution, so look for agendae for work sessions or council meetings -- which can be attended and spoken at in person or can be watched and listened to on video on the City's website. The Dona Ana County Commission may also entertain such a motion. I will also try to schedule a radio program on it, possibly with Senator Steinborn and (I hope) a major proponent of the project. But that likely won't be until 25 July -- the last Wednesday before the NRC comment period closes.]
[Further information from opponents is available here and from Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club the Sierra Club.]
Peter Goodman’s 27 June radio address, delivered in his usual soft, soothing voice, is, nevertheless, a biased and, wittingly or not, a fear-mongering commentary on a proposal to store nuclear waste in New Mexico. To the ordinary NIMBY response to most large-scale construction projects, Goodman adds unreasonable concerns about anything labeled “radioactive.” Whether he means to or not, he thus associates himself with other environmentalists who inflame discussion of proposals to build nuclear power plants or waste storage facilities, or to transport nuclear wastes from one to the other.
ReplyDeleteBy either outright lies or concealed truths, environmentalists compromised their trustworthiness about nuclear power long ago. I recall a front-door meeting with an activist seeking signatures on an anti-nuclear power petition; we knew each other, yet with a perfectly straight face, he affirmed the lie in the first sentence in his handout: it takes more energy to build a 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant than it generates in 30 years. When I challenged this claim, he assured me that he had a report supporting it and would give me the reference if I called his office; when I phoned on the appointed day, I learned that his group had disconnected the phone and closed the office.
I knew the truth because, for the better part of twenty years, I consulted on many aspects of nuclear power, including safety, health, and environmental issues. Concerns about transporting and storing nuclear waste have prompted studies of the possibilities of accidents and terrorist attacks on rail or road shipments or at surface or subsurface storage facilities. In turn, these studies have prompted regulations and programs to protect citizens from hazards and the environment from harm. As a result, the record for transporting and storing nuclear wastes, from low-level medical to high-level military waste, for well over half a century is unblemished as far as citizens and the environment are concerned: no deaths, no ascertainable adverse health effects, and, though remediating even small releases can be expensive, negligible environmental effects.
Anti-environmentalists do not deny this record; indeed, they say, as Goodman said, nothing about it. Instead, they alarm the public about the very risks which some of the smartest scientists, engineers, and technically oriented public officials have addressed and—so far, so good—effectively abated. Yes, radioactivity is persistent, can cause death and impair health, and can pollute soil and water. But none from civilian nuclear power facilities has identifiably done so because these specialists have worked diligently and successfully to ensure that potential risks of transportation and storage are not realized in actual effects.
The industry’s big failure has been poor public relations; it has not trusted the public by being open about either the risks or their success in reducing them. Transparency is prerequisite to trust. The public should focus on the company’s ability and willingness to act immediately with sufficient resources to prevent or mitigate any mishap and on management’s openness to address citizens’ concerns about anything at any time.
I have no stake in the proposal for storing nuclear wastes at a new site in New Mexico and for transporting wastes to it. I can well believe that “temporary storage” can last for a long time. But I know that no public good can be served by fanning fears and thereby vitiating public discussion of this issue. Goodman’s snide remark about Governor Martinez’s and Congressman Pearce’s “wisdom” is a cheap shot, self-demeaning and disrespecting his hearers by appealing to their prejudices and passions. He is ordinarily a better columnist than one who uses slanted reporting and sarcastic remarks which arouse emotions about nuclear waste. I urge a do-over broadcast to balance, by amending, his analysis of this proposal.