The DOE proposal is about the “future” of nuclear energy. DOE wants to continue promoting nuclear power plants, continue creating nuclear weapons, continue churning out nuclear waste. Without disposal, there is no future. We can collectively refuse.
Sane people want to know: how can there be “disposal” for something that lasts millions or billions of years?
From Nuclear Information and Resource Service
July 27, 2016
What would it take for you to consent to accept nuclear waste in your region? The Department of Energy (DOE) wants to know.
DOE has held 9 public meetings across the country this year, and is now taking written comments, on the concept of public “consent” to accept high-level radioactive waste.
After decades of trying to force-feed the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump down the throats of Nevadans and the Western Shoshone Nation, the DOE and nuclear proponents now want to know what it will take to get people to “consent,” or at least appear to consent, to take nuclear waste in their communities.
DOE acknowledges this is also “consent” to future nuclear waste production as part of setting up an “integrated waste management system.” The federal agency says that the future of nuclear energy in this country depends on this.
DOE seeks public input on how to be FAIR, WHO to include in the consent process, and what RESOURCES it will take to induce community participation in the nation’s radioactive waste program.
- DOE wants to identify who adequately represents a community and will consent to take nuclear waste on its behalf.
- DOE is not defining exactly what or how much nuclear waste we would be “consenting” or not consenting to accept.
- And DOE is not asking how a community can refuse or express permanent “non-consent,” although you can let them know that if you choose to.
Although they have reports, diagrams of storage containers and systems, ideas and plans for the tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste in this country, they claim to want to negotiate with communities who would “consent” to take it forever or supposedly temporarily.
No consideration of the rights or consent of communities along transport routes is being made or requested. Although one of the greatest dangers to the most people, environments and ecosystems is the movement of tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste on roads, rails and waterways, DOE has stated that there is complete federal preemption over transport of nuclear waste, so states and communities along the transport routes would have no voice, no matter how much waste DOE plans to move through them.
DOE is giving no consideration of the rights of future generations who will inevitably be affected.
DOE and the nuclear industry are eager for volunteering or consenting communities to take the waste and for the DOE to take title to it–absolving the industry of responsibility for managing the waste it creates before there is even a proven solution for its long-term management.
Thanks for all you do!
Mary Olson – Southeast Office Director
Diane D’Arrigo – Radioactive Waste Project Director
For More Information
Submit a Public Comment! We encourage everyone to submit your own thoughts on these issues to DOE. Comment deadline is July 31, 2016. Please send an email to email@example.com. Please include “Response to IPC” in the subject line.
NIRS on the web: http://www.nirs.org
GreenWorld: (NIRS’ blog chronicling nuclear issues and the transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system) http://www.safeenergy.org
NIRS on Facebook:
NIRS on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/nirsnet