Barnwell radioactive waste site, cancer, clean water, Clive dump, corruption, dangers of nuclear, Doug Kimmelman, Energy Capital Partners, Energy Solutions, EnergySolutions, environment, Goldman Sachs, Hanford, Investment Bankers, NRC, nuclear, nuclear accident, nuclear energy, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, radioactive waste, radioactive waste burial, risk management, Russia, South Carolina, Texas, US NRC, Utah, Washington, water, WCS
Related comment deadline 11.59 pm 20 December: “Report on Changes to Low-Level Waste Burial Charges; Draft NUREG for Comment ID“: NRC-2016-0220-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2016-0220-0001
Goldman Sachs Investment banker “alumnus” – now nuclear waste “king” Doug Kimmelman was a major Trump donor: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml. When investment bankers deal in nuclear waste, especially the burial thereof, we need to be very, very scared. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/when-investment-bankers-deal-in-nuclear-waste-for-investment-profit-we-need-to-be-very-scared/
The document for comment, showing some costs, is found here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2016-0220-0002. The document discusses the literal and metaphorical killing being made in the burial of so-call Low-Level Nuclear waste, which isn’t low level at all, but rather mostly dilute high level waste. To be safe for burial it would need to have a half-life in days, in which case it could be held on site.
Common sense suggests that this nuclear waste could be stored properly and monitored for a long time for the insanely high amounts being charged to bury it. The monitoring of nuclear waste should be not-for-profit, instead of for profit! Burial of nuclear waste is simply a disaster waiting to happen – whether poisoning of aquifers and waterways, or radioactive waste burping or exploding into the air.
Former Goldman Sachs Investment Banker “Alumnus” become nuclear waste man Doug Kimmelman (EnergySolutions) donated between $285,000 and $335,000 to Trump http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml (FEC has $335,000 plus another smaller amount, approx. $2700 by a Margaret Kimmelman – probably his mother or daughter. His wife Carol doesn’t appear to have been a Trump fan. The FEC may have counted one $50,000 donation twice, in which case it is the lower amount.) Kimmelman also has ties with the US-Russia Business Council board through Energy Capital Partners Senior Advisor Daniel Yergin. Doug Kimmelman is Sr. Partner and founder of Energy Capital Partners, which owns EnergySolutions.
Someone needs to start a petition telling Trump to take his Presidential salary to pay back Kimmelman and other donors in this intermediate range. Kimmelman also did a fund-raiser which can’t be paid back. Before the law was changed, a couple of thousand dollars could buy the attention of a politician. Now large donors give in the millions and the US appears totally fxcked. Compared to millions, Kimmelman’s hundreds of thousands are probably “intermediate”. Kimmelman gave more to Stanford University, where Condi Rice still works.
Currently the US DOJ is examining EnergySolutions plan to take over competitor WCS (Anti-Trust violation), which could help explain the large donation to Trump: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-block-energysolutions-acquisition-waste-control-specialists One can but hope that Senator Sessions will be honest in this matter, as head of the US DOJ, despite the large donation to Trump. It is surely a tax write off and no skin off Kimmelman’s nose, but how much clout did it buy? This is very frightening and there is a risk that the US DOJ will fail to do its job in stopping the clear violation of anti-trust law that the EnergySolutions purchase of WCS would constitute.
As one example of this nuclear waste con, PWR (Pressurized Water Nuclear Reactor) decommissioning burial at US Ecology Washington (2016), the (reactor pressure) vessel burial cost is 1.5 million$; concrete “bioshield” is 4.46 million$, according to the US NRC document. Total for burying a PWR at US Ecology Washington is $156.6 million dollars.
Compare to large Trump donor Doug Kimmelman’s Energy Solutions Barnwell Site where the charge for burying the (reactor pressure) vessel is 12 times more than US Ecology Washington site. Barnwell charges 18.6 million $ for burying the (reactor pressure) vessel and a concrete “bio-shield” costs 17.4 million for a total of 540.77 million $ for burial of this nuclear waste or 3.5 times more than US Ecology in Washington State .
Energy Solutions is trying to buy Waste Control Specialists (WCS): Waste Control Specialists, reactor pressure vessel burial cost is 13.5 million$, bio-shield concrete at WCS costs $4 million for a PWR total of 153 million$.
THUS DOUG KIMMELMAN’S ENERGY SOLUTIONS IS CHARGING 3.5 TIMES MORE TO BURY NUCLEAR WASTE AT THE BARNWELL SITE THAN WCS CHARGES IN TEXAS. THE US NRC FAILS TO GIVE US THE FIGURES FOR THE RELATIVELY ARID ENERGY SOLUTIONS CLIVE RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE. Energy Solutions is charging four times more for the concrete “bio-shield” at the Barnwell site than competitor WCS in Texas charges.
This is especially noteworthy since Energy Solutions is trying to buy Waste Control Specialists (WCS) which is in clear violation of antitrust law: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-block-energysolutions-acquisition-waste-control-specialists
How do these nuclear waste burial costs compare to monitored, above ground, disposal? To a monitored underground facility?
It is entirely unacceptable that the US NRC continues to allow burial of this radioactive waste, most of which is long-lived and not low-level. If it were truly short-lived – meaning half-lives in days – then it could be held on-site. Do these charges include digging the waste up, re-packaging them? It appears not.
This quote “Error! Reference source not found” says it all about the US NRC’s poorly written and badly organized document, bad even for the US NRC’s usual low standards. As almost always the case, the US NRC is in violation of the rule that these documents are to be readable for the general public! https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2016-0220-0002.
The entire costs for Utah’s Clive facility should have been included. Since Energy Solutions is trying to buy the WCS facility this is especially important. We are left without an idea of why the cost in South Carolina is so much higher as compared to Washington State? It appears to be Energy Solutions investment banker greed. Is there a difference between practices in South Carolina vs. Texas vs. Washington State vs. Utah? If so, what? The better of these evils seems to be the newer Texas facility.
LOL and not one should shed a tear when the US NRC is soon shut-down by Trump.
EnergySolutions Clive Nuclear Waste Dump
Competitor Waste Control Specialists (WCS), which EnergySolutions is trying to buy, site. The WCS site is inadequate but appears superior to the other sites:
What seems to be the Energy Solutions Barnwell Nuclear waste site – located in a swamp-like environment and known to be leaking.
Hanford LLW managed by US Ecology found here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/llrw/use.htm
Update note: If the following is true, then Energy Solutions is being allowed to overcharge by the State of South Carolina. According to an SEC filing: “The Barnwell facility property is owned by the State of South Carolina. The State sets fees and rates for disposal, approves disposal agreements, determines the types and amounts of waste to be accepted, and specifies the technical conditions under which the site may operate. Duratek’s subsidiary Chem-Nuclear Systems LLC, acquired by Duratek in 2000, merely operates the Barnwell disposal facility for the State of South Carolina consistent with the State’s directions. South Carolina reimburses the site operator of the facility for this service on a cost-plus basis in accordance with provisions specified under South Carolina law./. The State of South Carolina’s control over the Barnwell facility will continue once the proposed acquisition is completed. EnergySolutions will not gain any control over the Barnwell facility or over the pricing or any other competitive decisions affecting the facility, which are made exclusively by the South Carolina Budget and Control Board under South Carolina law….” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/785186/000110465906010216/a06-5304_1defa14a.htm