2009 June 02 « nuclear-news

Environmental groups seek to overturn Oyster Creek nuclear plant license renewal

Environmental groups seek to overturn Oyster Creek nuclear plant license renewal nj.com by MaryAnn Spoto/The Star-Ledger Monday June 01, 2009,

LACEY TOWNSHIP — Two months after the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey Township won a 20-year extension of its license, a coalition of environmental and citizens groups has asked a federal court to overturn the decision.

Citing inadequate information provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the plant’s safety, the coalition wants a federal court to invalidate the relicensing of the 40-year-old facility

“We are appealing the decision because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not have sufficient information available to it to decide whether Oyster Creek can operate safely for the next 20 years,” said the coalition’s attorney, Richard Webster, of the Eastern Environmental Law Center.

The coalition is composed of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, the New Jersey Sierra Club, the Public Interest Research Group, the Nuclear Information Resource Service and Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety (GRAMMES).

They contend the continued operation of the plant, which stores 650 tons of radioactive waste in an above-ground fuel pool, is an unnecessary risk for the 3.5 million people who live within a 50-mile radius of Oyster Creek — the nation’s oldest nuclear power plant. They said its safety record is the second worst of the nuclear plants throughout the country and its thermal releases into a nearby body of water create environmental problems for Barnegat Bay.

Environmental groups seek to overturn Oyster Creek nuclear plant license renewal – NJ.com

June 2, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear wastes, radioactive, uranium | Leave a comment

The Problem With Nuclear Power

Early on man realized that fossil fuels would soon run out, and so nuclear power was born. It was glorified as the cleaner alternative to oil and coal power stations, promising lower emissions and environmental safety. But has it really lived up to our expectations? And is it the ideal energy solution for the future? We think not…………………

Nuclear power cannot solve global warming:

Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain – from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant – greenhouse gases are emitted.

Furthermore, their construction takes too long to solve global warming. In fact, investing in nuclear power deprives other efforts – such as energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy – of further funding and development.

Nuclear plants release radiation:

The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered “safe”. However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.

They create harmful radioactive waste:

From mining to milling, processing to enrichment, fuel fabrication to fuel irradiation in reactors, large amounts of harmful, long-lasting radioactive waste is produced. In addition to 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste per reactor per year, this includes so-called “low” level radioactive waste.

The current solution for the “disposal” or “storage” of this waste is unacceptable. There is no scientifically safe place to dump this waste, and new reactors would exacerbate the problem. Additional “low” level radioactive waste would have to be dumped in landfills or incinerated, polluting the water and air.

Nuclear plants are too costly:

At $6 to $12 billion each, nuclear reactors are not a cheap solution. Nuclear power has already been subsidized hundreds of billions of dollars. Why should we, the taxpayers, subsidize the electric utility companies’ investments any longer?

Development of nuclear technology brings war and terrorism:…………………..Any accident will be catastrophic: