nuclear waste

Update: Upcoming U.S. hearings: what would it take for YOU to CONSENT to Nuclear Waste? DOE wants to “know”

admin , , , , , ,

DOE should be met with torches and pitchforks, and run out of town.

UPDATE: DOE is requesting/requiring registration. Each of these meetings can be viewed on the web as they happen.

From the Department of Energy
http://www.energy.gov/ne/consent-based-siting

UPCOMING EVENTS

Our next public meeting will be held in Sacramento, California on April 26th at the Holiday Inn Capitol Plaza.

The remaining five public meetings will be in:

  • Denver, Colorado on May 24, 2016 at the Embassy Suites Denver – Stapleton.
  • Boston, Massachusetts on June 2, 2016 at the Hyatt Regency Boston.
  • Tempe, AZ n June 23, 2016 at the Marriott Phoenix Tempe at the Buttes.
  • Boise, ID on July 14, 2016 at Boise Centre.
  • Minneapolis, MN on July 21, 2016 at the Hilton Minneapolis.

We look forward to your participation!

Posted on Beyond Nuclear

March 17, 2016

Our friends and colleagues at NIRS put out the following action alert on March 10, 2016:

The US Dept. of Energy (DOE) is holding 8 Public Meetings and taking written comments on

“CONSENTING” to TAKE NUCLEAR 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 want to know what it will take to get people to “consent” or appear to consent to take nuclear waste.

DOE openly acknowledges this is “consent” to future nuclear waste production as part of the “integrated waste management system.” They say that the future of nuclear energy in this country depends on this.

Meetings will be held from noon or 1 PM to ~ 5PM

CHICAGO, IL           March 29, 2016           University of Chicago Conference Center

ATLANTA, GA          April 11, 2016             Georgia Institute of Technology Conference Center

[The following DATES were not included in NIRS’ action alert on March 10th; later that very same day, however, a DOE spokesman at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Regulatory Information Conference, during the “Spent Fuel – Perspectives on Interim Consolidated Storage” workshop session, confirmed the following dates, but still not the exact locations, other than the city and state.]

SACRAMENTO, CA   Late April, 2016           Exact location yet to be announced

DENVER, CO           Late May, 2016           Exact location yet to be announced

BOSTON, MA           Early June, 2016         Exact location yet to be announced

TEMPE, AZ              Late June, 2016          Exact location yet to be announced

BOISE, ID               Mid-July, 2016            Exact location yet to be announced

MINNEAPOLIS, MN       Late July, 2016       Exact location yet to be announced

DOE seeks our input on how to be FAIR, WHO to include, what RESOURCES it will take to induce participation.

They want to identify who adequately represents a community and will “consent” or claim to agree to take nuclear waste.

[Editor: This was done with Native American tribes. The U.S. government would find someone in the tribe willing to do what they wanted, and they would be appointed an “official” representative capable of making decisions for the whole tribe. Then the tribe would be sold out by the decisions made. This would also cause massive discord and enmity within the tribes, pitting member against member. Generally, these arrangements would concern natural resources and land.

Indigenous people typically regard land as held in common; dividing up land and portioning off land to individual families goes against their ways. By offering money to often desperately poor members, the U.S. government, and/or private companies could destroy the unity of the tribe and create so much internal tribal discord that opposition would be greatly diminished, and confiscate land and/or resources.]

They are not defining exactly what or how much nuclear waste we would be “consenting” or not consenting to accept.

They are 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 THOSE 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 stated at its Washington DC ‘kickoff’ meeting that there is complete federal preemption over transport of nuclear waste so that would not be part of the process.

There is NO Consideration of the rights of future generations who will inevitably be affected.

The nuclear industry is eager for volunteers or consenting communities to take the waste and for the US Department of Energy to take title to it.

Meetings will be in 8 US CITIES from MARCH TO JULY 2016.

Comment deadline is June 15, 2016; email to consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov.  Please include “Response to IPC” [which stands for “Invitation for Public Comment”] in the subject line.

DETAILS:

Federal Register Notice:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/23/2015-32346/invitation-for-public-comment-to-inform-the-design-of-a-consent-based-siting-process-for-nuclear

DOE website for more of their information and to REGISTER for MEETINGS: http://www.energy.gov/ne/consent-based-siting

Info coming soon at www.nirs.org at Stop Fukushima Freeways

More info: dianed@nirs.org; after March 21  maryo@nirs.org; For Chicago meeting neis@neis.org

(See Beyond Nuclear’s web post from January 2016, immediately following DOE’s Washington, D.C. “Kick-Off” meeting for its “Consent-Based Siting” public comment proceeding (which, by the way, included NO oral public comment opportunity! Supposedly, future public meetings listed above WILL include an oral public comment opportunity — that is the whole point! But we will see. Another disconnect that still has to be resolved is, public comment meetings are scheduled for AFTER the deadline for public comment — so DOE must extend the public comment deadline until at least all scheduled meetings are finished and done!)

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/radioactive-waste-whatsnew/2016/3/17/nirs-what-would-it-take-for-you-to-consent-to-nuclear-waste.html

20,000 drums of radioactive waste waiting in Idaho for disposal

admin , , , ,

From the Post Register

February 25, 2016

By LUKE RAMSETH
lramseth@postregister.com

Containers filled with radioactive waste continue to stack up in the desert west of Idaho Falls.

There are nearly 20,000 steel drums filled with the transuranic waste, waiting to find a permanent resting place. The waste is in a holding pattern as a New Mexico nuclear waste repository slowly recovers from a pair of 2014 accidents.

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M. is scheduled to reopen to limited operations in December, U.S. Department of Energy officials told the Idaho National Laboratory Site Citizens Advisory Board last week.

But DOE officials said there is still much uncertainty about when Idaho will be cleared to begin shipping out its growing stockpile of waste. That’s because even when the repository known as WIPP reopens, it’s still not expected to be back at full strength for several more years as additional repairs are made. In addition, other federal facilities around the country will be hoping to send their growing waste collections all at once, too, creating a bottleneck.

“I think it’s fair to say that once does WIPP does resume operations, it will be at a much slower pace than what we were accustomed to before the shutdown,” said Brad Bugger, a supervisor at DOE’s Idaho Operations Office.

That continued uncertainty about when the waste will leave Idaho has led to new concerns that the DOE will miss another state-mandated cleanup milestone in the 1995 Settlement Agreement. The agreement said the transuranic waste — which continues to be slowly uncovered and repackaged at the desert site — needs to be gone from the state by the end of 2018.

“It’s going to be a challenge,” to meet the deadline, said Susan Burke, INL coordinator for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. She added that continuing to process and package the waste into drums — even if it can’t yet be shipped outside Idaho — is still safer for the environment and human health than leaving it in place.

The waste includes tools, rags, clothing, sludge and dirt — anything contaminated with a transuranic element such as plutonium. Most of it came from the now-closed Rocky Flats Plant outside Denver, where nuclear weapon components were made.

Truckloads of waste, held in wooden and fiberglass boxes and metal drums, were shipped to the site in the 1970s and ’80s, where it was dumped and covered over with dirt. For years DOE cleanup contractors have been working to carefully clean up the mess that was left behind.

In a recent interview, Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said he is keeping an eye on the approaching 2018 deadline. DOE is already out of compliance with the Settlement Agreement due to liquid waste that was supposed to be treated by 2012. The department also is in violation of a Settlement Agreement requirement to ship a running average of 2,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste out of the state each year.

“I certainly believe we have time right now if the Department of Energy is willing — and we’re trying to engage them in conversation about that 2018 deadline — that we can find a way to resolve some of that,” Wasden said. “One of those (ways to resolve the problem) would be to have a prioritization of shipments to WIPP once it is open.”

Continue reading →

Georgia: Savannah River site may get Germany’s nuclear waste; comments due March 11

admin , , ,

More information on this proposal is available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOE_FRDOC_0001-3020

Comment deadline: March 11, 2016

It appears from the Federal Notice that there will be no scoping process public comment period if DOE decides to do an Environmental Impact Statement — see last paragraph highlighted below. That needs to be clarified and contested if so. To be on the safe side, issues that should be covered in the scope of the EIS should be raised in comments filed now.

Direct written comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA to

Tracy Williams
NEPA Compliance Officer
U.S. Department of Energy
P.O. Box B
Aiken, South Carolina 29802

Email comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA  to
GermanSpentNuclearFuelEA@leidos.com

Summary

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of its draft environmental assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-1977) evaluating the potential environmental impacts from a proposed action to receive, store, process and disposition spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the Federal Republic of Germany at DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS) (Draft German Spent Nuclear Fuel EA). (1) This SNF is composed of kernels containing thorium and U.S.-origin highly enriched uranium (HEU) embedded in small graphite spheres that were irradiated in research reactors used for experimental and/or demonstration purposes. DOE invites public comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA and is announcing a public meeting.

Dates

The 45-day public comment period extends from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register through March 11, 2016. DOE will consider all comments received via email by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time or postmarked by that date. Comments submitted after that date and time will be considered to the extent practicable.

Addresses

This Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA is available at the following sites:

http://energy.gov/nepa/office-nepa-policy-and-compliance

http://www.srs.gov/sro/germanheuproj.html

http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/envbul/nepa1.htm

To request a print copy of the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA please submit your request to Tracy Williams, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box B, Aiken, South Carolina 29802; or by telephone at (803) 952-8278.

DOE invites Federal agencies, state and local governments, Native American tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the general public to submit comments on DOE’s Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA. Please direct written comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA to Tracy Williams, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box B, Aiken, South Carolina 29802.

Comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA may also be submitted by email toGermanSpentNuclearFuelEA@leidos.com. DOE will give equal weight to written comments and oral comments received at the public meeting. Requests to be placed on the German Spent Nuclear Fuel EA mailing list should be directed to Tracy Williams at the postal or email addresses above.

For Further Information Contact

To request further information on SRS spent nuclear fuel disposition activities or background information on the proposed project, please contact Tracy Williams at the address as listed above.

For general information concerning DOE’s NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GG-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message toll-free, at (800) 472-2756; fax (202) 586-7031; or send an email to AskNEPA@hq.doe.gov.

This Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA is available on the DOE NEPA Web site athttp://nepa.energy.gov, and also at the SRS Web site at http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/envbul/nepa1.htm.

NEPA Process

All comments on the Draft Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA received during the public comment period will be considered and addressed in the Final Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA. DOE will address comments submitted after the close of the public comment period on the Draft EA to the extent practicable. Following the public comment period, and based on the EA and consideration of all comments received, DOE will either issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or announce its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). If DOE determines that a FONSI is appropriate, both the Final EA and FONSI will be made available to the public.

If DOE determines that an EIS is needed, either during preparation of the Final Spent Nuclear Fuel from Germany EA or after completing the EA, DOE would issue in the Federal Register a Notice to prepare an EIS. In that case, the June 2014 public comment process would serve as the scoping process that normally would follow a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 15, 2016.
Edgardo DeLeon,
Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Disposition.
[FR Doc. 2016-01371 Filed 1-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

– San Onofre: California Coastal Commission approves nuclear waste storage on the beach

admin , , , , , ,

This photo from San Onofre Safety shows where Southern California Edison wants to store nuclear waste. It’s circled in yellow.

Location of Holtec system. SCE

The company making the canisters has already been in trouble.

By the end of 2011 Holtec International had to close its office in Kiev as it had come under harsh criticism worldwide. It is widely believed that the company has lost licenses in some countries because of the poor quality of its containers resulting in radiation leaks.  Westinghouse and Holtec are members of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC).
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/04/us-ukraine-partnership-threatens-new.html

What could go wrong????? This is only located adjacent to millions of Californians and on the ocean.

From San Onofre Safety

Southern California Edison plans to make another bad decision by unsafely storing over 1600 metric tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Below is the proposed location for the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX thin “underground” spent fuel canister system at San Onofre. Half under ground, and close to the water table and about 100 feet from the ocean. Edison admits the Sea Wall hasn’t been maintained so can’t be counted on for protection. This plan doesn’t meet Coastal Act requirements, but Coastal Commission staff think there are no other options, but there are.

Holtec Side View

 Request Coastal Commission REVOKE Nuclear Storage Permit (handout)

Excerpt:

Request Coastal Commission REVOKE Nuclear Storage Permit

The California Coastal Commission granted a Coastal permit for the San Onofre Holtec nuclear waste storage facility with “Special Conditions” that are unlikely or impossible to meet.

Special Conditions require a storage system that can be inspected, repaired, maintained, monitored, and transported without cracks – but only after 20 years. The Coastal Commission recognizes the Holtec system does not currently meet these requirements, but have been convinced by Edison and others there are no other reasonable options and someday these problems will all be solved. However, there is insufficient evidence to support that and evidence to the contrary.

Reasons to revoke SoCal Edison Coastal Development Permit #9-15-0228

• Coastal requirements for nuclear waste storage should be met now, not deferred 20 years.

The Coastal Commission may not have the jurisdiction to choose casks, but can require their special conditions be met now. Thin (1/2” to 5/8” thick) stainless steel canisters can crack, cannot be inspected,

repaired, maintained or adequately monitored. Cracked canisters cannot be transported. The Coastal Commission should require a system that does not have these flaws and not accept promises of future solutions.

• Edison can meet Coastal requirements with thick casks. For example, Areva sells thick (over 10” thick) metal casks to the U.S. market, and to most of the rest of the world for storage and transport.

The Areva TN‐32 and TN‐40 are licensed by the NRC. The TN‐24 used at Fukushima survived the massive earthquake and tsunami. Spent fuel must cool in the pools for a few years, so choosing proven thick storage casks will not significantly delay removing fuel from pools.

• Canisters cannot be repaired. Holtec President says these canisters cannot be repaired.

• Partially cracked canisters cannot be transported. NRC Regulation 10 CFR § 71.85.

• Canisters may crack. The NRC states it takes about 16 years for a crack to go through the wall of thin stainless steel canisters and canisters are vulnerable to cracking from marine environments.

A similar component at the Koeberg nuclear plant failed in 17 years with numerous cracks. A Diablo Canyon canister has all the conditions for cracking in a 2‐year old canister.

• No funds are available to relocate this system. Once the system is installed, there are no funds to rebuild and move it to a different site, so it is not reasonable to expect it will be relocated (even onsite).

Edison’s $1.3 billion Spent Fuel Management Plan to the California Public Utilities Commission assumes nothing will go wrong and they will not need to pay to move the fuel on‐site or elsewhere.

Edison’ plan assumes the Dept. of Energy will start picking up the fuel in 2024, which Edison admitted to the CPUC is unlikely.

• Vaporware is not a solution. The Coastal Commission should not base decisions on “vaporware” – promises of solutions that do not exist with no guarantee they will exist in the future. Even State of California procurement rules do not allow procurement of “vaporware”.

• Edison plans to destroy the spent fuel pools. Pools are the only method to replace canisters.

The Commission should add a special condition to not destroy pools unless a better plan is in place.

• Existing 51 thin canisters may have cracks. Fuel loading into thin canisters began in 2003, so “special

conditions” for aging management and related issues should be addressed now.

Act now: Email Joseph.Street@coastal.ca.gov More info & references at SanOnofreSafety.org

Click to access revokecoastalpermit2015-11-5.pdf

• Letter to Vermont: “We also have a nuclear waste dump at San Onofre”

admin , , , , , ,

Regarding the problems with decommissioning the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site05/story.php?articleno=12446&page=1)
a reader from California wrote this letter:

The good folks in Vermont should be studying what we have been going through for several years after the decommissioning of San Onofre. Check out SanOnofreSafety.org.

We did a poll, and 92 percent favored naming it the Darrell Issa Nuclear Waste Dump.

We are supposed to be one of the six nuclear power plants in the country that the National Academy of Sciences wants to study for cancer streaks.

But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has held up the funding for the study.

Apparently, they are afraid of what it might reveal for residents who live within 31 miles.

What are you doing now that you have also become a nuclear waste dump?

Roger Johnson, San Clemente, Calif.

http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site05/story.php?articleno=12456&page=1#.VafAikJB-S1