US: Protests Greet Nuclear Power Resurgence in US South

Publisher Name: 
IPS

WAYNESBORO,
Georgia - Residents and environmental activists are in a
bitter dispute with large U.S. energy corporations and the federal
government over the safety of nuclear power, as more than a dozen
corporations plan to, or have filed, paperwork to open new nuclear
power plants, primarily in the U.S. South.



Energy giants
like Southern Company, Entergy, and Florida Power and Light are
attracted by billions in governmental incentives offered under the
George W. Bush Administration.




"There's a whole suite of incentives being pumped out by the
federal government to try and cajole the utilities back into the game,"
Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South told IPS.




The U.S. Congress last month passed 38.5 billion dollars in loan
guarantees to the nuclear industry. "If they can't pay back the loan,
or don't want to pay back the loan, the government will guarantee the
banks up to 80 percent," Carroll said.




Five sites have already applied for the first combined licensing
applications in 32 years, Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, told IPS. They are located in south Texas,
Bellefonte in Alabama, Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, North Anna in
Virginia, and Lee Site in South Carolina.




Four companies have applied for Early Site Permits for sites in Grand
Gulf, Mississippi; Clinton, Illinois; North Hanna, Virginia; and Plant
Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia.




"We've had indications of interest from 12 to 15 other companies," Hannah said.





The NRC held a public hearing in Waynesboro, Georgia, one of the
closest affected cities to Plant Vogtle, on Oct. 4, 2007, to address
the NRC's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The NRC must
produce the EIS, as per the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act.




The NRC insists the risks posed by nuclear power are small and within
federal guidelines. However, activists argue the draft EIS ignores many
issues and contend that nuclear power is unsafe.




At a time Georgia is in a historic drought, when residents are
being told the state is running out of drinking water, the NRC and
other agencies allow over a billion gallons of water per year from the
Savannah River to be consumed by the existing Plant Vogtle Units 1 and
2.




"Vogtle will demand its water supply at the expense of everybody else," William Mareska of Augusta said at the hearing.





"There's only one water system. It's all the same water," Janet Marsh,
executive director of Blue Ridge Environmental Defence League, told IPS
in a phone interview.





IPS reviewed the draft EIS, about 600 pages, to learn more about how the government reached these controversial conclusions.




The proposed Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would consume 1.76
cubic metres per second, on average, amounting to between 0.7 and 1.7
percent of the total river per year, the document says. This would be
over 55 million cubic metres per year, according to IPS's calculations,
confirmed by the NRC.




"This is more than all the residents of Atlanta, Savannah, and Augusta
[Georgia's most populous cities] combined," Sara Barczak of the
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said in her remarks.




Although rain will replenish the river, the NRC estimates "the
resulting decrease in river stage... would be... 5 cm. at Drought Level
3 conditions and... 2.5 cm. under average discharge conditions," each
year.





In addition, the plants would also consume 623 gallons per minute on average, from two aquifers, according to the draft EIS.




One aquifer has already lost 4.6 metres of water since Vogtle
Units 1 and 2 began operation in 1987. "Drawdown" as a result of Units
3 and 4 would be 2.1 metres after 30 years of normal operation, the
draft EIS reports.




"These incremental drawdown levels are small in comparison to the 120 metres" in the aquifer, the Draft EIS concludes.





One local farmer, Doug Rhodes, told the NRC he lives "next door" to
Vogtle Units 1 and 2. "There's half a dozen shallow wells. If we do
have a problem with the wells, what will happen to them? Southern
Company said they would handle the infrastructure. Why hasn't that been
done?"




"In recent weeks we've had reports there are farmers who are concerned
they've had to dig deeper wells for their irrigation. Homeowners have
had to do additional well-drilling. People are blaming Vogtle. The idea
of two new nuclear plants is of real concern," Marsh said.




The NRC has not interviewed Rhodes or other farmers, but has been told
by local agencies that the water consumption would not pose a risk to
wells, Hannah told IPS.




It is unclear how the drawdown of the river and aquifers would
be a small impact, even per the NRC's own regulations. The legal
definition of a small impact is when "environmental effects are not
detectable or are so minor they would neither destabilise nor
noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource." Is seven
feet of drawdown in 30 years neither detectable nor noticeable?




However, the NRC argued it is not detectable. In order to be
detectable, "a farmer living next to a plant... using well water to
irrigate... would have to notice some change in the water resource. We
don't mean a scientist using equipment couldn't notice some difference.
The difference would not be detectable by a user of the resource,"
Hannah explained.




Plant Vogtle's new units, just like any other nuclear power reactor,
will release what the NRC considers to be small amounts of radioactive
pollution through liquid and gas effluents. In the draft EIS, the NRC
states that the amounts of radioactivity projected are lower than the
federally allowed "doses" to the public.




"Currently there are no data that unequivocally establish the
occurrence of cancer following exposure of low doses below about 100
mSv [millisieverts] and at low doses," the draft EIS also states.




However, according to study by Joseph Mangano, MPH, "the
cancer death rate for children and adolescents in the 11 counties
closest to Vogtle rose 58.5 percent, compared to a 14.1 percent decline
nationally," since Units 1 and 2 opened. The study is based on data
from Southern Company and the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and
Prevention.




"During the same periods, the death rate in Burke County... rose
sharply for all cancers, especially for Blacks and for children and
young/middle age adults, while U.S. rates declined," the study
continues.




The Draft EIS does not explain the increase in cancer rates,
although it does note that current rate of cancer in Burke County, 221
per 100,000 people, is higher than the rate for Georgia statewide, 196.
Major respiratory diseases are higher, 141 to 90. Major cardiovascular
diseases are higher, 448 to 326.




Mangano told IPS that his study also shows that Burke County originally
had lower cancer rates than statewide. "In a rural town with no
industry, the cancer rate would be lower," he said. "To not take
evidence of rising radioactivity and cancer in Burke County seriously
is acting irresponsibly and dangerously."




The NRC has reviewed Mangano's study, Hannah said. "This
particular gentleman, for a number of years, has been a very active
nuclear activist. He did not correct for population increases."




However, population increases should not matter because the study looks
not at total cases, but rates of cancer per 100,000 people.




"I'm not here to say whether or not the American Cancer
Society supports the two new reactors at Plant Vogtle. I am here to
tell you Plant Vogtle has supported the American Cancer Society,"
Theresa Carter, spokeswoman, said at the hearing.




Local officials also lauded Plant Vogtle at the hearing and expressed
support for the new reactors. "We have a lot of people here who depend
on Plant Vogtle. They are very friendly to this community," said County
Commissioner Alphonso Andrews.

AMP Section Name:Energy
  • 182 Health
  • 183 Environment
  • 195 Chemicals
  • 209 Construction