January 2, 2015

 

Michigan is a state that is geographically special; it is surrounded by the largest amount of fresh water in the world. It is our good fortune and responsibility as stewards of this Earth whether an individuals, company, or government to protect our God given resources. Michigan has the opportunity to be a clean-powered example if we are honest about energy revitalization and set our priorities straight. Everyone relies on clean air, water, and land to live a healthy life. Toxic energies such as nuclear threaten these essentials of life. DTE is currently pursuing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license to build a new nuclear reactor in Monroe, MI. Fermi 3, the proposed nuclear reactor, is experimental, unnecessary, expensive, and dangerous.

​

This type of design, an “Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor” (ESBWR), is untried anywhere in the world. And it should stay that way. Nuclear energy has a sordid past and, therefore, cannot claim any safety guarantees. The widely known catastrophes of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are a constant reminder of that fact. Not to mention, the countless near-miss meltdowns, spills, and leaks that don’t make international headlines. Locally, the first Fermi, which was also an experimental design, melted down in 1966 and was the subject of a song and book, both dubbed “We Almost Lost Detroit.” As if Michigan doesn’t have enough issues to deal with, DTE would like to build this new reactor next to an existing one. Fermi 2 is the world’s largest GE Mark I reactor, the same defective design as those that exploded at Fukushima Daiichi. It has more high-level radioactive waste stored on-site, currently 643 tons, than all the reactors that exploded at Fukushima. An untried design does not harbor confidence because previous reactors have failed. Plus, if the US succeeds in building this ESBWR, India will likely follow suit, resulting in more dangerous energy in our world (Gordon et al.). “GE-Hitachi . . . has been engaged in commercial discussions with Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) since it signed a [memorandum of understanding] MoU in 2009” (Gordon et al.). Fermi 3 was first petitioned to the federal government by DTE back in 2008. Given the history of nuclear energy, the world does not need any more disasters-to-be. In fact, we should be shutting down existing facilities and replacing them with renewable power.

​

The argument for Fermi 3 could be concluded with one fact alone; Michigan does not need the energy. In 2006, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) estimated Michigan’s energy demand would increase by 1.3% per year through 2025 (9). Guess what happened in reality? Our energy demand declined due to a massive economic crash. DTE themselves reported that Michigan’s electric demand is declining and has shut down existing coal plants as an outcome. An engineer and researcher from Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 took the time to understand the real demand. Myatt concluded, “By the end of 2011, the MPSC had overestimated Michigan’s electrical needs by 14,614 GWh.” Myatt compares this enormous over-calculation to an annual energy consumption of over 1.25 million households. Regarding Fermi 3, DTE spokesperson, Guy Cerullo, has said “we are leaving that option open long-term.” So, why would DTE build a new reactor if we didn’t need the energy? There are a few reasons. No matter if Fermi 3 becomes operational, DTE can still make money on the construction process by charging ratepayers up front with a Construction Work In Progress (CWIP). Besides this, Fermi 3 could become a merchant reactor, where electricity would be sold out-of-state because MI doesn’t need the energy. Also, this would further the untested design in other parts of the world, i.e. India. The federal government has set aside loan guarantees up to 6.8 billion for the electric utility that has a different reactor design than any that has been built previously. A morally repugnant venture, Michigan citizens should not be made to pay with their dollars and lives for a reactor that will never provide them with energy.

​

The massive government subsidies – our taxpayer and ratepayer money – used for failed technology could instead be turned into renewable energy. Fermi 3 is simply too expensive, most recently projected to cost 20 billion dollars (P. Gunter et al.). That dollar amount does not include the cost of overruns that always occur with nuclear. Just looking at Fermi 2, when construction was finished it was near 2,000% over budget (K. Gunter 8). Besides, if the government can spend that much money for one reactor why couldn’t they invest in cheaper and cleaner sources like solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, etc.? For example, Germany is a leader for renewables in the world only because their government supports solar and wind-generated power with subsidies. Detroit is undergoing an emanative transformation, currently being filled with life and new businesses. Fermi 3 would be a financial setback to Monroe, Detroit, and surrounding cities. Frankly, asking the average Michigan citizen to pay for an outrageously expensive reactor with rate increases is extremely selfish of DTE and our government, especially because DTE is not spending a dime. Nuclear energy is the most expensive type of toxic waste producing energy.

​

Along with an outrageous price tag, nuclear energy is a synonym for environmental damage. Damage to our ozone layer comes from the enrichment process of uranium, the fuel for reactors, which must be mined from the Earth. Uranium is then turned into plutonium, a man-made element. This process is extremely destructive to the ozone layer because it produces chlorofluorocarbons, also known as CFCs, which are also something that does not occur in nature. The US Department of Energy names CFCs as the most potent greenhouse gas, “17,700 times more powerful than CO2.”  They continue, “Concern over CFC emissions has been primarily due to their role in destroying ozone and creating the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic.” It is a myth that nuclear energy is clean and an answer to climate change. Another potent greenhouse gas comes off the cooling towers of nuclear sites in the form of water vapor, which may seem benign, yet has the same heat trapping effect as chemical fumes. NASA states, “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.”

​

Besides water vapor, nuclear facilities release constant radiation into our environment and produce permanent toxic waste. Interveners against DTE’s decision to build Fermi 3 had this to say about the effects and storage of such waste:

The FEIS [Final Environmental Impact Statement] violates NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] by failing to address the environmental impacts of the ‘low-level’ radioactive waste that it will generate in the absence of reliable licensed permanent disposal facilities or capability to isolate the radioactive waste from the environment for greater than 10 years. (Detroit Edison 4)

​

The Interveners worry that DTE has not accounted for a storage facility to house the deadly radioactive material since this pollution will remain for many generations to come. The industry likes to call this toxic radioactive waste “spent fuel.” Once released, the highly-toxic-stuff-that-mutates-your-cells-and-gives-you-cancer remains dangerous to life for up to hundreds of thousands of years (WHO 98). This is the case of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. From 1945-1998 thousands of nuclear test explosions around the world released subsequent toxic radiation (Bergkvist and Ferm). There is no way to take it back or clean it up; these toxic particles just keep accumulating over time. The World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that Chernobyl resulted in varying health problems including thyroid diseases; leukemia in utero, children, and adults; breast cancer; malignant cancers; eye diseases such as cataractogenesis; cardiovascular diseases; cytogenic (cellular and chromosomal) defects; immune system effects; reproductive malfunctions; mental, psychological and central nervous system disruptions; and death by radiation.

​

“No amount of radiation is safe. Every dose is an overdose.”
-Nobel Laureate George Wald

​

Nobel Laureate George Wald said in 1953, “No amount of radiation is safe. Every dose is an overdose.” This is an ambiguous and sneaky type of pollution because it is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It has an unfair advantage because, as they say, ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ Nuclear energy is dangerous because of the disease and death it causes from its by-product, radioactive waste. Living downwind from a nuclear reactor, puts people in a situation where they are constantly being exposed to “low-level” releases of radiation. This is the situation for neighbors of Fermi 2 in Monroe, MI. Cancer death rates for Monroe County residents in 1979-1988 were 21.2% below the US average (Mangano 2). From 1989-2005, when Fermi 2 became fully operational, the rates rose to 45.5% above the US average (Mangano 2). The most alarming and tragic fact about these studies is that the information gathered was for a population under 21 years of age. Dr. Janette Sherman, author and professor at Western Michigan University, has spent her profession determining environmental causes of cancer. She confirms Mangano’s research, “Radioactive isotopes such as iodine 131, cesium 137 and strontium 90 are passed on to people through cow’s milk. They come out of the stack [cooling towers] and fall on the ground. They permeate the water and are eaten in food. Children are particularly vulnerable to this radiation” (Melzer). Since Chernobyl melted down in 1986, it has been estimated that over 1 million people have perished as a consequence. Unfortunately, it has been said that Fukushima is 2.5 to 3 times more deadly than Chernobyl.

​

Bad intentions from the beginning will follow through to the end. This can be said about the nuclear industry because, originally, it was created to make bombs. The public was then swayed to think this could also be used for energy – a safe, clean, and “too cheap to meter” energy. All of these claims have proven to be false. Still, some may say that nuclear is the answer to global warming, because the reactors themselves supposedly do not emit greenhouse gases. Yet, they are not taking into account the enrichment process needed for the fuel or the massive amounts of water vapor from cooling towers. Some industry representatives say nuclear is safe because there are many safety measures built into the construction. Yet, time after time there are major accidents at nuclear sites. Some of the worst meltdowns in history, such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, didn’t occur from extreme weather, but from human beings making mistakes. Sound familiar? We all make mistakes; it’s a part of human nature. Also, aging facilities make them susceptible to malfunctions and unplanned shutdowns. For example, Fermi 2 had three unplanned shutdowns in 2012 due to critical problems with the reactor. Some may say that cancer can be caused by anything and doesn’t have a direct correlation to a nuclear site. Well, there is hard scientific evidence that before a reactor is built in a populated area, the cancer mortality rates are low. Then, after the reactor has been operating, the cancer mortality rates rise. Anywhere you find a nuclear reactor site in a populated town or city; you will find an increase of cancer. Dr. Sherman states, “cancer among young people should be viewed as an indicator for radiation problems associated with nuclear plants” (Melzer.)

​

The average age of US nuclear reactors is over 33 years. These facilities are ticking time bombs and it’s only a matter of years before we have a catastrophic meltdown in the United States if they are not phased out. Even former chairman of the NRC, Gregory B. Jaczko, said “All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology” (Wald A16). He supports a complete phase-out instead of restoring old reactors.

​

Fermi 3 should not exist. Corporations with billions to throw away will make all the decisions if we sit by idly. Though, what is more important, dollar bills or our Great Lakes, air we breathe, soil we grow food with, wildlife habitats that promote an ecologic balance, endangered species, and our families’, friends’ and neighbors’ health? Interveners have already kept this monster at bay for over five years. It’s the people’s turn. It is our right to demand the type of future we want for Michigan. As proud Detroiters, let’s stand up and use our lovely voices to raise public awareness and petition our politicians for a clean-powered future. Insisting that no more nuclear reactors be built and shutting down decrepit facilities is essential to a healthy future for all.

​

​

Works Cited

​

Bergkvist, Nils-Olov, and Ragnhild Ferm. “Nuclear Explosions 1945-1998.” Stockholm: Defence Research Establishment; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2000. Print.

 

Detroit Edison Co. v. Interveners. Docket No. 52-033. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 19. Feb. 2013: 1-73. BeyondNuclear.org. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

Gordon, Jeremy, et al. “Plans Advance for US Reactors in India.” World-Nuclear-News.org. World Nuclear Association. 14 June 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

Gunter, Keith. “A Gamble We Can’t Afford: Alliance to Halt Fermi-3 Opposes a Proposed Third Nuclear Plant in SE Michigan.” Flash. 2012: 1-12. Peace Action Michigan. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. 

 

Gunter, Paul, et al. “Fermi 3 Proposed New Reactor Price Tag Skyrockets to $20 Billion.” BeyondNuclear.org. Nuclear Policy Research Institute. 21 Feb. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

Mangano, Joseph J. “Rising Local Cancer Rate Suggests Link With Fermi Reactor.” Radiation and Public Health Project. 14 Jan. 2009: 1-3. Radiation.org. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

Melzer, Earth Jane. “Cancer Questions Grow Around Fermi Nuclear Plant.” Michigan

Messenger. 17 Feb. 2009. Radiation.org. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

​

Michigan. Public Service Commission. Michigan’s 21st Century Electric Energy Plan. Comp. J. Peter Lark. 31 Jan. 2007: 1-48. Michigan.gov. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

Myatt, Arthur. “Michigan Does Not Need Fermi 3.” ATHF3.org. Beyond Nuclear. N.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

Patch, David. “DTE has Until Next Week to Rebut Nuclear Objections.” Toledo Blade. The Toledo Times. 7 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

United States. Dept. of Energy. Ask a Scientist? ARM.gov. N.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

---. NASA. Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change. Comp. Kathryn Hansen. N.d. NASA.gov. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

---. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC Accepts Application for New Reactor at Fermi Site. No. 08-216. 25 Nov. 2008. NRC.gov. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

Wald, Matthew L. “Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed.” New York Times. 8 Apr. 2013: A16. NYTimes.com. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

WHO. Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes. Eds. Bennett, Burton, Michael Repacholi, and Zhanat Carr. 2006: 1-160. WHO.int. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.