2/14/08
The Post and Courier
Comment sought on nuclear shipment

2/13/08
Knoxville News Sentinel
Congressman: Importing nuke waste would violate U.S. principles

2/11/08
Knoxville News Sentinel
Foreign waste in OR not new
Plant official says pending Italian contract would not differ from past work

1/10/08
Aiken Standard
Latest shipment of weapons grade plutonium arrives safely at SRS

12/12/07
Knoxville News Sentinel
Opinion
DOE incinerator down as waste concerns go up

12/7/07
The Daily News Journal
Editorial
Europe should handle its own nuclear waste

11/29/07
The State
Nuke waste shipments opposed

11/23/07
Aiken Standard
EnergySolutions wants to bring nuclear waste through S.C., La.

Letter to Theodore A. Wyka, Complex 2030 SEIS Document Manager, from the Stop I-3 Coalition

Interstate 3: The Nuclear Connection

<< Research Materials

Public Input Affects
Complex 2030 Nuclear Plans
Stop I-3 Still Wants
Answers on Transportation

The Stop I-3 Coalition Board, in a Jan. 12, 2007 letter (republished below), commented and posed questions regarding transportation aspects of the Department of Energy/ National Nuclear Security Administration plans for Complex 2030. STOP I-3 supporters also wrote to DOE. STOP I-3 questioned issues of public safety as well as environmental impacts.

1/10/08, Aiken Standard
Latest shipment of weapons grade plutonium arrives safely at SRS
The latest shipment of nuclear weapons grade plutonium from a national laboratory in California recently arrived safely at the Savannah River Site, federal officials announced Monday. The cross-country shipment from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory arrived under "high security," according to the National Nuclear Security Administration, a separately organized agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. The shipment is part of plans to consolidate all surplus non-pit plutonium at SRS where the excess material is to be turned into fuel at the future mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. Construction on the MOX plant began in August of last year and, according to the NNSA, the project is now 25 percent complete. Read more...

12/12/07, Knoxville News Sentinel
Opinion
DOE incinerator down as waste concerns go up
"An annual inspection has revealed some unexpected damage to the government's toxic-waste incinerator, which may delay the Oak Ridge facility's planned restart in early January. The 20-year-old incinerator was shut down Oct. 14 for its traditional fall outage, when general maintenance and repairs are conducted. According to Bechtel Jacobs, the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup manager in Oak Ridge, inspectors discovered damage in the steel beams that provide structural support on the outside of the incinerator's secondary combustion roof." Read more...

12/7/07, The Daily News Journal (Murfreesboro, Tennessee)
Editorial
Europe should handle its own nuclear waste
"America draws much of its heritage from Europe: people, language, food. But when it comes to radioactive waste, Europe needs to keep its nuclear refuse to itself. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency should reject a request by EnergySolutions to bring thousands of tons of radioactive nuclear material from Italy and process it in Tennessee. The Volunteer State already has enough radioactive waste to contend with at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and TVA nuclear power plants. U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon has been fighting for years to keep Tennessee from becoming the dumping ground for America's nuclear waste. Gordon, D-Murfreesboro, is adamantly opposed to turning Tennessee into the repository for radioactive waste from Europe. We support his efforts." Read more...

11/29/07, The State

Nuke waste shipments opposed

'Two state senators want to block shipments of Italian nuclear waste through South Carolina — and they’ve asked congressional leaders for help. Democratic Sens. Joel Lourie of Columbia and Vincent Sheheen of Camden wrote the state’s congressional delegation Wednesday, saying they are concerned about “this unpredictable and potentially dangerous plan.’’ “The more people find out about this, the more they are going to become outraged,’’ Lourie said. Their letter asked South Carolina congressional members to join them in opposition to the proposal by Energy Solutions of Utah. Energy Solutions, which operates low-level atomic waste landfills in Utah and South Carolina, wants to bring in up to 20,000 tons of nuclear waste from Italy for disposal or recycling. The company says it has no plans to dispose of the material in Barnwell County, only in Utah or at an incinerator in Tennessee. Any material that is not suitable for disposal or recycling would be shipped back to Italy, records show.' Read more...

11/23/07, Aiken Standard

EnergySolutions wants to bring nuclear waste through S.C., La.

"A company that disposes of radioactive nuclear waste by burying it wants to ship 20,000 tons of the material from overseas through ports in Charleston and New Orleans, raising fears because of the large amount. EnergySolutions Inc. wants to ship about 200,000 cubic feet of waste into the United States, process it in Tennessee before burying it at a site in Clive, Utah, where the company is based." Read more...

Stop I-3 Board Comments, Questions Nuclear Complex 2030 Environmental Impact Statement

Letter to Theodore A. Wyka, Complex 2030 SEIS Document Manager,
from the Stop I-3 Coalition

Stop Interstate 3 Coalition
C/o John M. Clarke, Board Member
Hayesville, NC 28904

January 12, 2007

Mr Theodore A. Wyka
Complex 2030 SEIS Document Manager
Office of Transformation, US Dept of Energy, NA-10.1
1000 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20585

Re: EIS Comment, Complex 2030

Dear Mr Wyka:

The Stop I-3 Coalition would like to make the following points and pose the following questions regarding the Department of Energy/ National Nuclear Security Administration plans for Complex 2030, which involves significantly increasing nuclear weapons activities at Oak Ridge, TN and Savannah River Site, SC, with accompanying nuclear materials transport on the highways of the Southeast region. This is the final version of our comment for the Complex 2030 EIS scoping phase and should replace the preliminary statement we filed at Oak Ridge, Tennessee on Nov 13, 2006.

The Stop I-3 Coalition was formed in 2005 in response to the inclusion in the 2005 Highway Bill (“SAFETEA-LU sec 1927”), of a study of a proposed highway variously known as Interstate 3 or The Third Infantry Division Highway. It would connect Savannah, Augusta, and Knoxville with an interstate highway routed through North Georgia, possibly South Carolina, Western North Carolina, and East Tennessee. The mission of the Stop I-3 Coalition is to preserve the integrity of our communities, mountains, lakes, streams, and forests by preventing the construction of I-3 or any similar highway in the Southern Appalachian and Piedmont Region.

Our interest in nuclear matters stems from the fact that the proposed highway would connect the Y-12 Plant at Oak Ridge with the Savannah River Site in the Augusta area and the Port of Savannah. We have noted with concern that the I-3 proposal coincides with a considerable effort on the part of the government and a number of utility companies to increase nuclear weapons programs and nuclear power activities, including waste reprocessing, and the concentration of these activities in the Southeast. We are convinced that should I-3 ever be built it would become a convenient route for the traffic in radioactive materials which would arise from Complex 2030 and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, as well as expected routing of nuclear wastes and plutonium through the area. This is not acceptable to us or to the coalition of citizens and groups we represent (please see http://www.stopi-3.org/members.html for a list of our supporting organizations). As a coalition, we are not an antinuclear group, but it has been our policy since our formation to research issues related to the possible construction of Interstate 3, including nuclear transport activities in the region.

As our comment on the Complex 2030 Environmental Impact Statement, we offer the following questions and comments. We have also invited those on our mailing list to submit individual comments of their own.

Has the Dept of Energy or its contractors been a party to the proposal to build Interstate 3? Are there any classified or unclassified documents in existence where DOE or NNSA has included I-3 in its planning for nuclear transport?

Would the nuclear transport necessitated by Complex 2030 take place on Interstate 3 if it is ever built? What other routes would be taken by trucks hauling uranium, plutonium, and tritium through the region? Will there be international traffic in these materials through the Port of Savannah as part of Complex 2030 or other DOE programs? What volume (how many tons, how many truckloads or rail car loads) of radioactive cargo would be generated by the implementation of Complex 2030? Will detailed information on the nuclear transport necessitated by Complex 2030 be included in the EIS?

What possible guarantees can the DOE or NNSA offer that all this nuclear transport could be done safely? Would the trucks be marked as containing radioactive cargo? Would local law enforcement and emergency personnel be notified of the shipments? Would the DOE and NNSA be capable of conducting cleanup, public safety operations, or environmental damage containment in the event of a spill, accident, or sabotage? What hospitals along the route would be capable of administering treatment to residents and travelers who may be exposed to radiation?

We understand that even when no notable incidents occur, the process of nuclear materials transport exposes drivers and the public to varying levels of radiation exposure. In the event of a spill or accident, this exposure could become catastrophic, causing thousands of deaths and cancers and potentially rendering uninhabitable large tracts of land. Will the EIS take into account the risk of this kind of event occurring?

Should not the total picture of nuclear transport and its attendant hazards be included in the EIS for Complex 2030? We submit that it should and we will not regard as complete any EIS which ignores the impact of nuclear transport on the environment and the people of our region. It is our hope that the final EIS will address the questions raised above and treat transport between facilities as an integral part of the Complex 2030 proposals.

back to top

For immediate release, July 27,2005

Interstate 3: The Nuclear Connection

The politicians proposing "Interstate 3" tout it as a connection between the port of Savannah, Georgia and the numerous interstates running through Knoxville, Tennessee with connections to the industrial Midwest.

However, a glance at the map of the proposed route shows that I-3 would go right by the massive Savannah river Site (SRS) nuclear complex in South Carolina across from Augusta, Georgia and would terminate, not in Knoxville itself, but at the recently completed I-140 spur running from Maryville-Alcoa to the nuclear facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

While rarely mentioned by I-3 proponents, it is likely that this nuclear connection is a key reason why this interstate project is being proposed. The nuclear weapons complex, composed of widely dispersed sites throughout the West and the Southeast, has for years depended on transporting dangerous radioactive materials, including plutonium and tritium, on our highways. The new nuclear weapons complex being planned will have production facilities concentrated at Oak Ridge, TN, Watts Bar, TN, Savannah River Site, SC, and the Pantex facility in Amarillo, Texas.

Currently there is a large amount of nuclear material shipped between Oak Ridge and the Savannah River Site (see www.nirs.org/factsheets/ashevillenuclearcrossroads2004.pdf). And the nuclear power industry, having no solution to the problem of providing safe long-term storage for reactor wastes, seems to just want to move them around.

Problems with the dump which has been proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, mean that the Savannah River Site may also soon be on the receiving end of large amounts of radioactive waste. The guidelines for routing I-3 as proposed by Rep. Charlie Norwood call for the new interstate to run as "a direct, Savannah to Knoxville Interstate. That's not Statesboro to Anderson, or Savannah to Gainesville - but Savannah, Augusta, and Knoxville tied together in as straight a line as practical." That is to the west side of Knoxville (i.e. Oak Ridge). Isn't it obvious that Interstate 3 would be a very busy radioactive highway?

Some specific examples of the traffic in deadly materials which now take place on I-26 and I-40 and would likely be shifted to I-3 if it is built:

• Weapons grade plutonium moves from Amarillo, Texas to SRS on unmarked trucks. At SRS, the plutonium will be worked over and then re-shipped, if the current proposals move forward. Destinations include Duke Power nuclear plants in NC and SC (experimental MOX plutonium fuel) and the Oak Ridge Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Plant (plutonium "pits", the triggers for nuclear bombs).
• Rods used to produce tritium, which is used for hydrogen bombs, are being shipped from the Watts Bar reactor in Tennessee to the Savannah River Site where the rods will be processed to produce tritium gas. The gas will then be shipped back to Oak Ridge in trucks.
• High level radioactive waste from commercial reactors is likely to be shipped along Interstate 3 to the Savannah River Site.
• So-called low level radioactive waste is trafficked both to Oak Ridge and SRS.

Many of us get very nervous thinking about these dangerous materials being shipped on our highways and especially through our mountains. For the most part the trucks carrying these radioactive materials are not marked and the times and nature of the shipments are classified. Local EMT's and law enforcement personnel might not even know what kind of hazardous material they are dealing with in the event of an accident. Local hospitals in mountain communities are not even remotely equipped to deal with radiation poisoning which might occur as a result of a "Mobile Chernobyl" accident or sabotage. Plutonium is so toxic and so long-lasting that a spill could render large areas of land unusable for centuries.

In conclusion, though the nuclear issue is not the only reason to oppose the building of Interstate 3, it is a significant one and, indeed, may be the driving force behind the proposal. Let us all work to keep the southern Blue Ridge area from being sacrificed for the sake of nuclear pork barrel politics. And while we're at it, we can work to shut down risky and potentially deadly nuclear shipments through Asheville and the I-40/ I-26 corridor.

Respectfully submitted,
John Clarke, Hayesville, NC
Chair, Clay/Cherokee Chapter, Stop I-3 Coalition
jkqualla@verizon.net

Thanks to:

Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads

Mary Olson and Kevin Kamps, NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service)

Dr Lew Patrie, Western North Carolina Physicians for Social Responsibility

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

Much more information on nuclear waste transport can be found on these websites:

www.nirs.org
www.ieer.org
www.bredl.org
www.carolinapeace.org
www.wncpsr.org
www.citizen.org/cmep
www.texasradiation.org
www.stopthebombs.org
www.ananuclear.org

Some other interesting articles:

http://www.ananuclear.org/FactSheetsDCD05/MPF05DCD.pdf

back to top