|Stop the Nuclear Waste Con!|
The NRC Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement is unacceptable. Much of it appears to be based on unsubstantiated hope.
WHAT: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting to receive comments on the Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement Report and Proposed Rule.
WHEN: MONDAY, November 18, 2013
5 p.m. CDSO Press Conference
5 – 7 p.m. Overpass Light Brigade — We need Volunteers to hold Lighted Letters!
6 – 7 p.m. NRC Open House (Q&A with NRC Staff)
7 – 10 p.m. NRC Public Comment Meeting
WHERE: Sheraton Carlsbad Resort and Spa, 5480 Grand Pacific Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008
Background: As described by the NRC Chairman, Alison Macfarlane, in a recent speech, “in June 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the NRC’s 2010 Waste Confidence rule. In the court’s opinion, the Commission’s conclusion that a high-level waste repository would be available ‘when necessary’ lacked an appropriate discussion of the environmental consequences of failing to achieve that objective. The ruling also expressed concern about potential spent fuel pool leaks and fires. In the time since the court issued its decision … NRC staff has been working to revise the Waste Confidence rule and develop a generic environmental impact statement. From the beginning, the Commission made it clear that public involvement must be an essential part of this process. Starting last month, the NRC has been holding a series of public meetings around the country to get important input for our final products.” 1
The public meeting in Carlsbad on November 18, 2013, is one of 12 being held by the NRC around the country to take comment on the Draft ”Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement” Report,2 including a second California public meeting in San Luis Obispo on November 20th. See complete schedule at http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel- storage/wcd/pub-involve.html#schedule
Stop the Nuclear Waste Con: “The NRC Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) is unacceptable. Much of it appears to be based on unsubstantiated hope and it ignores the unsolved problems of high burnup fuel. The NRC won’t approve short-term storage or transport of high burnup used nuclear fuel because they have no confidence it is safe,” states Donna Gilmore of SanOnofreSafety.org. The Waste Confidence GEIS needs to address:
√ HIGH BURNUP FUEL – Too hot to handle
No short-term storage or transportation solutions for high burnup fuel waste.3
• The NRC and DOE are concerned with the instability of high burnup nuclear waste in both storage and transport, yet the NRC continues approving this dangerous fuel for reactors.
> The NRC won’t approve high burnup dry cask storage over 20 years because they have NO CONFIDENCE it can be stored longer without releasing radiation into the environment, even though it must be stored for thousands of years.
The NRC won’t approve transportation4 of high burnup used fuel because they have NO CONFIDENCE it can be transported without releasing radiation into the environment.
San Onofre’s high burnup used fuel is so hot and radioactive, it requires up to a MINIMUM 20 YEARS cooling in the crowded spent fuel pools, instead of the minimum 5 years for lower burnup fuel.
√ Generic Environmental Impact Statement – NOT acceptable for California
California didn’t “sign up” for permanent (100+ years) nuclear waste dumps.
California nuclear waste sits in the world’s earthquake “ring of fire”, the same as
Fukushima, the most active and dangerous earthquake zone in the world. California’s nuclear waste is surrounded by known active earthquake faults and the USGS says no one has ever predicted a major earthquake.
California’s nuclear waste sits along an eroding coastline, in tsunami zones, and is exposed to a highly humid and corrosive coastal environment. NRC’s NUREG/CR-7030 states atmospheric corrosion of sea salt can lead to stress corrosion cracking within 32 and 128 weeks in austenitic [corrosion resistant] stainless steel canisters.5
It would be impossible to evacuate the millions of people living near California’s waste. Of the 34 million people in California, over 8.5 million reside within 50 miles of San Onofre.
A radiological disaster impacts the nation’s and world’s security, economy and food supply.
California is the eight ranking economy in the world, virtually tied with Italy and the Russian Federation, and larger than Canada, Australia and Spain.6
More than 40 percent of containerized imports enter the country through California ports, and nearly 30 percent of the country’s exports depart through them.7
California produces nearly half of the U.S. grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. California remained the number one state in cash farm receipts in 2011, with its $43.5 billion in revenue representing 11.6 percent of the U.S. total. U. S. consumers regularly purchase several crops produced solely in California.8
San Onofre is located adjacent to the primary vehicle transportation artery between Los Angeles and San Diego (I-5), and one of the largest military installations (and targets) on the West Coast (Camp Pendleton).
√ We oppose NRC’s proposed rule that future licensing can be based on the assumption spent fuel can be safely stored above ground virtually forever.
In the proposed NRC rule9 that accompanies the draft GEIS, the NRC proposes to incorporate into every reactor license the Draft GEIS’ conclusion that spent fuel can be safely stored above ground indefinitely.
This proposal would in effect forbid any further public discussion, in individual reactor licensing actions, of the serious question of whether generation of additional spent fuel is justifiable in light of the absence of any means of safe disposal.
The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre includes Citizens Oversight, Inc., Peace Resource Center of San Diego, San Clemente Green, SanOnofreSafety.org, and Women Occupy San Diego. For more information on nuclear waste, go to SanOnofreSafety.org.
3 Sources for high burnup information at http://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/
5 Atmospheric Stress Corrosion Cracking Susceptibility of Welded and Unwelded 304, 304L, and 316L Austenitic Stainless Steels Commonly Used for Dry Cask Storage Containers Exposed to Marine Environments (NUREG/CR-7030) http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1031/ML103120081.pdf
6 http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2013-CA-Economy-Rankings-2012.pdf, http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm 7 Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 11/10/13 http://www.pmsaship.com/default.aspx?ID=8
8 California Agricultural Statistics USDA October 31, 2012
Coalition to Decommission San Onofre (CDSO) and Sierra Club Angeles Chapter
Media Contacts: Donna Gilmore, SanOnofreSafety.org 949-204-7794 email@example.com / Martha Sullivan, Women Occupy San Diego, 858-945-6273 firstname.lastname@example.org / Glenn Pascall, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, 949-248-3183 email@example.com / Gary Headrick, San Clemente Green, 949-218-4051 firstname.lastname@example.org
- New York Attorney General slams NRC nuclear waste environmental assessment
- Nation’s nuclear waste a deepening concern
- If You’ve Got Nuclear Waste, This Is the Week to Dump It
- * A Big Win Against Nuclear Waste in Charlotte
- N.C. nuclear waste storage at plants is debated
- Experts: San Onofre’s nuclear waste isn’t going anywhere
PLEASE Turn off a light for Fukushima USA / San Onofre
Continue reading →