Allegations vs. Facts

The Sierra Club made a series of allegations involving the Barnwell Low-Level Nuclear Waste Facility. As you will see, the allegations sometimes are misleading, sometimes wrong and facts often are taken out of context.

ALLEGATION: “When South Carolina considered closing or limiting access (to the Barnwell Facility)…politicians relented, kept widespread access open, and killed momentum to open disposal sites in other states.”

THE FACTS: South Carolina’s refusal to close the Barnwell Facility was based on the need to provide a cost-effective, environmentally safe disposal option to South Carolina generators, including the utility companies. South Carolina has in fact limited access to Barnwell with statutory volume caps. The volume cap for the current fiscal year is 40,000 cubic feet, significantly less than the highest volume of 2.4 million cubic feet in 1980. It is not true that no new facilities have opened in other states. A LLRW disposal facility opened in Utah in 1988. There have been difficulties in siting new facilities, but many factors are involved. A 2004 report issued by the U. S. General Accounting Office cites several factors including the significant decrease in LLRW generation, the available capacity at the 3 existing facilities (Washington State, Utah, and South Carolina) to meet disposal needs, the rising costs of developing new facilities, and political opposition to siting facilities in states designated to host them.

ALLEGATION: “South Carolina entered into an Atlantic Compact with New Jersey and Connecticut in 2000, and agreed to reduce the volume of nuclear waste at Barnwell each year and to close the site to waste from outside (the Compact) on July 1, 2008.”

THE FACTS: As Paul Harvey would say, here’s the rest of the story. As the host state for the regional disposal facility, South Carolina also agreed to provide disposal capacity until all nuclear reactors in the Atlantic Compact are decommissioned, which will be many years in the future. Historic data now indicate that generators in the 3 member states will ship at most about 8,000 cubic feet of LLRW to Barnwell a year. At this volume, even with cost-reducing measures, the Facility will operate at an estimated $3.65 million deficit. Allowing disposal of a limited amount of out-of-Region LLRW will keep the Barnwell Facility economically viable and available in the future for the State to meet its obligations to the Atlantic Compact and provide disposal capacity to South Carolina generators. This will enable South Carolina to meet its obligations to the Atlantic Compact without financially hurting the State of South Carolina, in-state generators and their ratepayers and the citizens of Barnwell County. This proposal will not expand the footprint of the landfill and will not expand overall disposal capacity.

ALLEGATION: “The annual projection for 2009, after the compact is in force, is 10,000 cubic feet, with half coming from within South Carolina.”

THE FACTS: Current projections are that the in-Compact volume after 2008 will be at most about 8,000 cubic feet per year. About one-third of that volume is expected to come from South Carolina generators. Prohibiting disposal of a limited volume of out-of-Compact waste will mean higher disposal costs for in-Compact generators and their ratepayers. South Carolina generators will also lose the rebate on their disposal costs, which is currently about $250,000 per year.

ALLEGATION: “This new company (EnergySolutions)…has no track record as a waste site manager.

THE FACTS: While EnergySolutions is its new parent company, Chem-Nuclear remains the entity licensed to operate the Barnwell Facility and has been the licensee since 1971. Chem-Nuclear has maintained a remarkably stable and experienced work force, with the average length of employment of 15 years at the Barnwell Facility.

DHEC has also included conditions in Chem-Nuclear’s license requiring the continued employment of personnel at the Facility or replacement by individuals of comparable qualifications and experience. Moreover, EnergySolutions committed to DHEC and State officials to keep the same management team and personnel at the Barnwell Facility.

ALLEGATION: “Waste is packaged in unsealed containers and dumped into unlined, open pits which often collect rainwater.

THE FACTS: Only dry solid waste forms are acceptable for disposal at Barnwell. The waste forms arrive in containers that meet US Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements. As a minimum, DOT requires closed containers to prevent leaks. After inspection by Facility personnel and DHEC, the incoming disposal containers meeting DOT and State license requirements are placed in concrete vaults, which provide stability for the packages in the trenches. The engineered trenches are constructed by excavating the sandy loam and replacing it with compacted clay. Trench bottoms are sloped to improve drainage. The empty vaults are precisely placed and stacked in the disposal trenches using cranes. The disposal packages are then placed with cranes into the concrete vaults. Concrete lids are then placed on the vaults, and sandy soils are used as backfill to fill void spaces between the vaults. Temporary clay caps are placed on the filled portions of trenches. When a trench is completed, a permanent, multi-layer cap with a synthetic liner is placed over the trench to prevent infiltration of water.

ALLEGATION: “There is already a documented underground plume of radioactive trillium flowing over one-half mile towards Mary’s Branch Creek, a tributary of the Savannah River.”

THE FACTS: There is no such thing as “trillium.” The correct word is tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The maximum tritium concentration measured at the point of compliance (Mary’s Branch Creek) was calculated to be only about 20% of the limit set by DHEC. The measurement was calculated to be 5.7 millirems per year. To put this in context, the average American is exposed to about 360 mrem per year from all sources of background radiation, including consumers’ products, rocks and soil. Tritium was first detected in groundwater monitoring wells in the late 1970’s. The primary source of the tritium is low level radioactive waste from older trenches constructed when technology was not as advanced as it is today, and regulations were not as strict. Steps have been taken that have effectively addressed the tritium issue, including the installation of a permanent multi-layer cap over the older portion of the Facility which prevents any water from getting into that area. Chem-Nuclear has also conducted extensive studies that have been reviewed and accepted by DHEC and a panel of independent experts assembled by DHEC. These studies demonstrate that the Facility meets and will continue to meet all DHEC regulatory standards. The tritium issue and other issues were raised by the Sierra Club in its appeal of DHEC’s latest renewal of Chem-Nuclear’s license, and the Administrative Law Court affirmed DHEC’s decision to renew the license.

ALLEGATION: “Thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soil have been excavated from an adjacent church property.”

THE FACTS: The situation was as follows. In 1999, stormwater from a disposal trench was pumped out of the trench onto another portion of the Facility. The water contained some tritium, and it seeped through soil and groundwater onto the neighboring property of St. Paul’s Church. The contamination was detected through the Facility’s environmental monitoring program. Upon detection and confirmation of the contamination, Chem-Nuclear promptly notified DHEC. Chem-Nuclear performed an evaluation to determine the source of the contamination. It stopped discharging any stormwater collected in the trenches to the surface of the land and began testing all trench water for tritium. Chem-Nuclear notified the church and met with church members to explain what had happened. It then remediated the contamination according to DHEC-approved plans by removing the contaminated soil and replacing it with uncontaminated soil. This event did not result in a violation citation from DHEC and did not result in any measurable personnel exposures.

ALLEGATION: “Several scenarios exist for the company to continue scaled back operations after 2008.”

THE FACTS: While Chem-Nuclear will remain in compliance with DHEC requirements regardless of the operational scenario, it is obviously more difficult to retain experienced, well-trained personnel if the Facility is only open on a very limited basis. Chem-Nuclear is required by law to file reports with the South Carolina Public Service Commission (“PSC”) on operating scenarios at low volumes. Chem-Nuclear and its utility customers, however, support a continuation of current operations at the Barnwell Facility, accepting some limited amount of out-of-Compact waste, because this scenario ensures one centralized location for disposal of LLRW with an experienced, dedicated staff operating and monitoring the Facility on a continuous basis.

ALLEGATION: “The Compact guarantees that the company will be reimbursed for reasonable costs plus a guaranteed 29% profit.”

THE FACTS: Putting aside the fact that Chem-Nuclear will clearly make less money operating at low volumes, the real issue is who will pay the shortfall if revenues do not cover the cost of operating the Facility: the taxpayers, South Carolina generators and their customers and ratepayers, or out-of-compact generators. Allowing disposal of some limited amount of out-of-Compact LLRW will spread these costs to more generators and maintain the very favorable disposal rates currently enjoyed by in-compact generators, along with the rebates for South Carolina generators. It will protect the Long-Term Care Fund and revenues going to Barnwell County.

The allegation that Chem-Nuclear makes a “29% guaranteed profit” is untrue. The Atlantic Compact Act allows Chem-Nuclear to recover allowable costs, as determined by the PSC, plus an operating margin on some, but not all, allowable costs. There are many reasonable and customary business expenses that are not allowable costs under the Act. Thus, this is not the same as a guaranteed 29% profit. Moreover, the State makes far more from operation of the Barnwell Facility than does Chem-Nuclear. For example, for FY 2005-2006, the State received approximately $12.6 million in revenues, while Chem-Nuclear’s after-tax income was about $1.5 million.

ALLEGATION: “Barnwell County has been treated fairly because it received $10.5 million for economic development.”

RESPONSE: The most passionate supporters of the Barnwell Facility are the citizens and political establishment of Barnwell County. They understand that as the host county, they are providing a safe and necessary public service. While Barnwell County has benefited from economic development projects funded within that County, this money will not replace the ongoing funding the County receives from operations at the Barnwell Facility, which comprises about 16% to 18% of the County’s total budget. In fiscal year 2005/2006, for example, Barnwell received almost $3 million as a result of Facility operations — $2 million from waste disposal receipts and almost $1 million in business license and property taxes. In addition, Barnwell County benefits from the well-paying jobs at the Barnwell Facility (average salary is over $49,000) and other indirect economic benefits such as related businesses locating in the County.