Coalition seeks spent fuel security
A coalition opposed to nuclear development wants to amend the state’s global warming bill to strengthen security for spent fuel.
The amendment proposal is making little progress.
“I’m not ready to make that change,” said state Rep. Jim Soletski, D-Green Bay, one of four lawmakers working on a bill based on the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming. “I believe spent fuel is safely stored right now.”
The omnibus bill would ease Wisconsin’s restrictions on nuclear plant development by removing the state law requiring developers identify a federally licensed dumping ground for spent nuclear fuel.
But if that means on-site pools and dry-cask storage, the Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free Wisconsin Coalition wants utilities to increase security.
The coalition’s amendment would require spent fuel be stored in places that are sufficiently secure from terrorist attacks and that would not cause casualties outside of the power plant.
That means developers of nuclear plants need to consider underground or protected dry-cask storage, said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and a member of the coalition.
“We don’t just want a concrete and metal cask out there in full view of the public,” he said. “The effects of an attack would be long lasting and very severe to any area surrounding a nuclear plant.”
But Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute, said nobody has calculated the costs of building underground storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel because the engineering work would cost too much.
“You’re not just talking about building underground,” he said. “You’re talking about doing all sorts of seismic studies and all kinds of different work.”
Furthermore, Singer said, to say aboveground dry-cask storage tanks are vulnerable to attack is misleading. Not only are the casks within the most secure area of a nuclear plant site, he said, but a 2002 study by the Electric Power Research Institute showed those tanks can withstand aircraft impact without being breached.
But if the purpose of the bill is to reduce the effects of global warming and increase the use of renewable energy, nuclear should not be a part of the conversation, said coalition member Bill Christofferson.
“Let’s at least do something,” he said, “to strengthen the protections we can have.”
![[Print]](http://dailyreporter.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://dailyreporter.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
I want the Wisconsin Clean Energy Jobs Act to pass, as long as it has the nuclear provision taken out. I see no need to build more nuclear power plants, knowing that we can use a variety of renewable energy resources, including solar and wind, and accomplish the goal of enough energy for current consumption rates. Nuclear power plants cost $10 billion dollars to build. Each plant takes 10 years to build. The banks won’t even guarantee their loans, since there is too much risk. The public should not be asked to loan corporations the money for such an immoral and unhealthy source of power. Storage of nuclear waste is not safe for the health of people, animals, soil, groundwater, sea water or our earth. We should not be producing waste that is toxic for our own environment for virtually forever, so much longer than we will be around to guard its safety! Give up using radioactive energy which should remain unmined!