Finding a Home for Old Nukes

  • President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign documents on nuclear arms reduction before their news conference at the Kremlin in Moscow Monday, July 6, 2009. (Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

President Obama has reached what he’s calling a “joint understanding” with Russia on reducing the number of nuclear arms. But as Mark Brush reports this agreement doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll be dismantling a lot more nuclear weapons:

Transcript

President Obama has reached what he’s calling a “joint understanding” with Russia on reducing the number of nuclear arms. But as Mark Brush reports this agreement doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll be dismantling a lot more nuclear weapons:

As it stands now, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia will take warheads off of a delivery system, like a missile.

So, unless things go farther with this treaty, the warheads will still be kept in storage. And as it turns out, there are already thousands of these warheads kept in both countries.

Hans Kristensen is the Director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists.

He says even if the warheads get dismantled, there’s still the sticky issue of what to do with all that radioactive plutonium.

“The plutonium cores of those weapons, most of them, are still stored. We have something in the order of 15,000 warhead cores. An enormous amount of plutonium.”

The radioactive plutonium can be reprocessed and used in nuclear power plants.

Kristensen says the U.S. bought plutonium from old Soviet warheads – and that fuel is used nuclear power plants here in the U.S.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Lifting Bans on Nuke Power Plants?

  • The nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois, was started up just after the state banned new nuclear power construction. For its entire history, it's been operating without a permanent home for its spent nuclear fuel. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

There’s been plenty of buzz
about dozens of proposed nuclear power
reactors in the US. Well, Wall Street’s
financial mess is making power companies
scramble to find all the investment money
for them. But, in twelve states, it won’t
matter whether power companies have cash
in hand or not; it’s illegal to build new
nuclear power plants there. Shawn Allee
reports there are efforts to repeal some
of those bans:

Transcript

There’s been plenty of buzz
about dozens of proposed nuclear power
reactors in the US. Well, Wall Street’s
financial mess is making power companies
scramble to find all the investment money
for them. But, in twelve states, it won’t
matter whether power companies have cash
in hand or not; it’s illegal to build new
nuclear power plants there. Shawn Allee
reports there are efforts to repeal some
of those bans:


JoAnn Osmand represents a state legislative district in northeastern Illinois.

Nuclear power is close to her heart – there’s an old, dormant nuclear power plant in her
district. Osmond thought, maybe that plant could be useful again. So, she sat down with
the plant owner.

”And I asked a question: ‘Why are you not taking some of the parts away and
putting them in other nuclear locations?’ They said, ‘there’s a moratorium, we’re
not building any more nuclear plants in the state of Illinois.’”

Osmond was stunned.

Illinois has six existing nuclear power plants – she didn’t know it’s illegal to build more.
She hears plenty of gripes about energy prices – so she thought, why leave nuclear energy
off the table?

“I don’t want my granddaughters to have to buy their electricity from another state.
I want to be able in 2020, 2030 to be able to plug in our electric cars.”

Osmond’s bill to lift the moratorium stalled – it’s still illegal to build nuclear power
plants in Illinois. California and Wisconsin recently had similar fights over their nuclear
moratoria.

Some veterans of nuclear politics are shocked anyone would want to life a ban on nuclear
power plants.

“It makes absolutely no logical, rational sense in any mode of analysis.”

I find Dave Kraft at a coffee shop. Kraft is with the Nuclear Energy Information Service,
a group that’s worked against nuclear power for almost thirty years.

Twelve states severely restrict or ban new nuclear power plants. Kraft says seven have
language almost identical to Illinios’.

“The moratorium simply said, no more new construction of nuclear reactors until
the federal government has a demonstrated means of dealing with the waste
permanently.”

Kraft says states tried protecting themselves from becoming dumps for the most
dangerous nuclear waste – the radioactive spent fuel.

The federal government is supposed to store spent fuel – maybe in Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. But so far, that hasn’t happened, so it’s piling up in nuclear power plants – like
this one in Braidwood, Illinois, southwest of Chicago.

(sound of a door)

Bryan Hanson manages the Braidwood power plant. He leads me to a square storage
pool. It has the bluest water I’ve ever seen.

Hanson: “This is where we store our spent fuel. It’s about thirty feet of water
between us and the top of the fuel bundles down there. So you’re looking at thirty of
water and another twelve feet down below.”

Allee: “If you look into it, it’s almost like honeycomb.”

Hanson: “Honeycomb … looks like an egg crate or honeycomb. Within those cells
are fuel bundles that have been used in the reactor, generated energy, and now
they’re waiting for eventual disposal.”

Braidwood’s pool was meant for short-term storage, but spent fuel’s been stored here for
nineteen years. Hanson says the company is planning for when spent fuel will have to be
stored on-site, but outdoors, perhaps for decades.

It’s a situation the nuclear industry’s is unhappy about, but it’s confident the federal
government will come up with a solution – some day.

So, most power companies support removing bans on new plants. This drives critics like
Dave Kraft crazy.

“To build more reactors at a time when we have no place to put the waste makes no
sense at all. The first rule of waste management is, stop producing.”

Even though Kraft says it doesn’t make sense to lift bans on nuclear power plant
construction, he predicts those bans will get challenged again soon.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part I: Stuck With Old Nuke Plants

  • Ray and Irene Zukley of Zion, Illinois were forced to sell this Lake Michigan beach cottage to make way for Zion Nuclear Station back in the late 60s. The Zukley's and other Zion residents hoped the plant would last for at least forty years, but after fits and starts, it closed fifteen years early. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

America has a new flirtation with
nuclear power. Utility companies are fanning
out across the nation to set up shop. And
they’ve given the government more applications
for new nuclear plants than they have for
decades. Many towns fell under the spell of
nuclear power in the past, but some power plants
stopped running decades earlier than planned,
and towns are stuck with what’s left behind.
Shawn Allee profiles one town’s tarnished
relationship with nuclear power:

Transcript

America has a new flirtation with
nuclear power. Utility companies are fanning
out across the nation to set up shop. And
they’ve given the government more applications
for new nuclear plants than they have for
decades. Many towns fell under the spell of
nuclear power in the past, but some power plants
stopped running decades earlier than planned,
and towns are stuck with what’s left behind.
Shawn Allee profiles one town’s tarnished
relationship with nuclear power:

Irene and Ray Zukley have been together so long, they finish each others sentences.

Especially when I ask how things were in Zion, Illinois back in the 60s.

Zuckley: “The factories were getting downgraded.”

Allee: “What were those?”

Zuckley: “It was the curtain factory, the cookie factory, chocolates and Zion fig
bars.”

But just then, the power company said it would spend hundreds of millions on a nuclear
power plant.

Irene Zukley says most people welcomed it.

“Ray and I never worried about it, you know we just wanted progress is what we
wanted. When you think of having taxes lowered for everybody in Zion, that made
you feel, what else would come in and do that?”

Irene and Ray Zukley were forced to sell their family’s beach cottage to make room for
Zion reactor number one.

Beachfront neighbors did the same.

But, like the Zukleys predicted, taxes and jobs rolled into Zion.

It was supposed to be a forty year windfall.

But it didn’t last.

When you visit the power plant, it’s nearly empty.

“What we’ve got here is what used to be a full-fledged control room.”

Ron Schuster runs what’s left of the Zion nuclear power plant.

Once, it had more than eight hundred employees.

Now, Schuster and about fifty workers help manage the regional power grid.

They also monitor radioactive spent fuel waste.

The generators have been offline since 1997.

“There were large pieces of equipment essential to making electricity that would
have needed total replacement going forward. We’re talking significant dollars so
the economic decision by the board of directors that Zion station would go into safe-
store mode.”

That means the power plant and Zion have been in limbo for ten years.

The radioactive fuel is still on site, but the plant provides no power, few jobs and a
fraction of the property taxes.

Delaine Rogers is Zion’s economic development director. She says the town didn’t plan
on this.

“You’re in a community that has welcomed you. We haven’t had an antagonistic
relationship. They’re not going to close. But they did. And it took 17 million dollars
of our local revenues. We were facing losing all our arts and music and sports in our
schools. How do you fund police the police department. How do you fix potholes? It
was a very scary time.”

Lately, the power company’s gone back and forth about when it will decommission, or
dismantle, the power plant.

It could be done ten years from now or it could take decades more.

But even when most of the buildings are gone, there’s still the radioactive spent fuel.

“They’re just going to leave it. They’re going to put a football-sized concrete pad
filled with 80-90 casks of stored fuel on site, above ground. Tell me how you get a
private developer to think residential or retail. I’m not buying the first condo.”

Dozens of towns are stuck in relationships with dormant nuclear power plants.

Delaine Rogers says the town of Zion is in the same position.

She won’t call it a bad relationship, but says it sure would be nice to know exactly where
it’s going, or when it will be over.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part Ii: Stuck With Old Nuke Plants

  • Rick Delisle co-owns two commercial buildings, one of which is depicted in this photo that dates from the time of Zion, Illinois' founding. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The nuclear industry is eager to
build new nuclear power plants, but for
now they’re just far-off plans. The real
growth industry is in containers to hold
radioactive spent fuel. Dozens of closed
nuclear plants need somewhere to put spent
fuel waste, and these containers fit the
bill. Shawn Allee looks at why one town’s
bracing for their arrival:

Transcript

The nuclear industry is eager to
build new nuclear power plants, but for
now they’re just far-off plans. The real
growth industry is in containers to hold
radioactive spent fuel. Dozens of closed
nuclear plants need somewhere to put spent
fuel waste, and these containers fit the
bill. Shawn Allee looks at why one town’s
bracing for their arrival:

Illinois’ Zion nuclear power plant hasn’t produced electricity for eleven years.

It’s so close to Lake Michigan you can smell the beach. But other than that, the empty
parking lots and office space make the place seem dead.

The plant manager says that’s not the case.

“I think a lot of people have a vision of us playing cards or swinging our golf clubs
on the beach. I would say we’ve been extremely busy the entire time.”

Ron Schuster says he and other workers remove hazards from the station, like diesel fuel
and electrical equipment.

But one hazard is still here: the spent nuclear fuel.

And when the power plant is dismantled, that radioactive waste will be put in new
containers.

They’re concrete casks.

Schuster: “A cask is approximately fifteen feet tall. It looks like a small silo and
there is no radiation exposure on the outside of these things.”

Allee: “So from this office window, can we see where the casks might go?”

Schuster: “We’ve got four spots on this site that have been at least looked at. When
it comes time to actually put the fuel in dry-cask storage it will be a huge structure,
about as big as a football field.”

Schuster’s confident this will be a simple and safe solution.

Not everyone in Zion so convinced.

“This cask issue, just sitting on the site was never appealing to me.”

Rick Delisle co-owns two commercial buildings close to the power plant.

In other towns with spent-fuel casks, nuclear power plants sometimes get turned into non-
nuclear power plants or into parks.

But Delisle and the city of Zion are hoping to do more – maybe build new commercial
buildings or even homes.

Delisle says having concrete containers full of radioactive waste left on-site could make
their work harder.

“So, I hope the casks are relocated somewhere else. Having them next to a
population of about 23,000 people is probably not a great place for it to be.”

Other communities are in the same position – they’ll be left with spent fuel casks even if
their dead nuclear plants get torn down.

There’s a simple reason.

“We don’t really have a final resting spot for these casks at the moment.”

Dave Lochbaum is with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.

“The federal government is way behind schedule providing a repository for high-
level waste.”

Lochbaum says the government has one storage place in mind.

It’s inside Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but that’s still just being studied.

Power companies can sometimes move spent fuel to other plants or facilities.

But Lochbaum says politically, that just won’t fly.

“There’s no revenue from electricity being generated, so it’s a hard sell to go to a
community and say we’d like to have you store spent fuel for decades into the
future. The easiest way out is to leave it where it is, because those communities have
already accepted that fate.”

Well, cities like Zion say they didn’t accept this exact fate.

They bought into nuclear power for jobs and property taxes – they didn’t count on
babysitting spent fuel waste.

But that’s likely to happen, because the government won’t take it. The power companies
won’t dare move it, and the towns can’t move themselves away.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Pint-Sized Power Plants

  • (Photo courtesy of Hyperion)

Most nuclear power plants are huge
multi-billion-dollar operations that take
ten years to build. But they can be much
smaller. Lester Graham reports on a company
that’s planning hot-tub sized reactors:

Transcript

Most nuclear power plants are huge
multi-billion-dollar operations that take
ten years to build. But they can be much
smaller. Lester Graham reports on a company
that’s planning hot-tub sized reactors:

It’s difficult to get political and financial backing for building big nuclear power plants.
But one company plans to build miniature nuclear reactors.

John Deal is the CEO of Hyperion.

He says the small reactor invented at the Los Alamos National Laboratory could be
useful for isolated areas. It could also be used by smaller cities to provide most of
their power needs.

“You might have a community of 20, 30, 40 thousand people and they can have their
own power plant. And then they might feed back their excess or draw down from
some centralized facility for when they’ve got power spikes or peak demand.”

There’s a lot of interest. But for right now Hyperion is not taking orders for the mini-
nukes from Western nations. Deal says Hyperion is first trying to bring power to
isolated areas in the developing world.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Are Nuke Plants Online for Y-2-K?

There are two dozen nuclear power plants operating in the Great Lakes
states. Congressional investigators say they aren’t sure all the
plants
are ready for the Y-2-K rollover at the end of December. But another
government agency insists you have nothing to fear. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has details:

Commentary – Plutonium to Stay in U-S

The U-S recently announced that it’s abandoning plans to export
weapons-grade plutonium to Canada. U-S activists opposed the idea of
shipping the material along American highways. As Great Lakes Radio
Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston observes, in winning the battle
over transport, those activists may have lost the war:

Nuclear Power Looks to Redefine Itself (Part 2)

More than 20 states have now approved some version of electric
deregulation and the new laws have set off a wave of changes within the
electric industry. Though this industry has always deeply affected the
natural environment, deregulation is bringing a new set of wild cards to
the table. It may provide one industry, nuclear power, the chance to
redefine itself. In the second of a two part series on deregulation,
the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ley Garnett reports that conservation
groups and industry officials are just now beginning to sort out what it
all means: