PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release Contact: David Kraft, Nuclear Energy Information Service
Monday July 24, 2017 (773)342-7650 (w); neis@neis.org
“HASTE” LIKELY TO MAKE MORE (RAD-)WASTE, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP CONTENDS
H.R.3053, the “Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017” could double the amount of high-level radioactive waste into/through Illinois, group asserts
CHICAGO-- Legislation coming before the U.S. House this week has the potential to nearly double the amount of high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) coming into and through Illinois; and could even result in Illinois hosting a so-called “temporary” HLRW storage dump, a local safe-energy, anti-nuclear group warns.
The legislation, H.R.3053, the “Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017” sponsored by Rep. John Shimkus (R.-IL15) calls for construction of expensive and unnecessary “centralized interim storage” (CIS) facilities to be constructed throughout the nation; and the re-opening of the proposed flawed Yucca Mt., Nevada, site to serve as the nation’s HLRW disposal site.
“This is definitely a situation where haste and political expediency is threatening to override the true national interest of responsibly resolving the nation’s radioactive waste problem,” maintains David Kraft, director of Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) in Chicago.
The Shimkus bill calls for funding to build allegedly temporary away-from-reactor storage sites around the nation to take HLRW in the form of spent reactor fuel from closed and operating nuclear reactor sites, to await permanent disposal in the future. The bill further calls for resuming funding and construction at the flawed Yucca Mt. Nevada site, which was designated by Congress and President Bush in 2002 to become the nation’s permanent deep-geologic disposal facility.
Neither of these proposals are supported by a thorough and unbiased examination of the facts, both scientific and political, NEIS maintains.
“Rep. Shimkus’ plan serves only the narrow interests of the dying nuclear power industry to ‘unconstipate’ itself,” Kraft says. “The nation needs an environmental responsible HLRW plan and final disposal facility. We need a viable, safe HLRW ‘RE-pository, not a self-serving nuclear industry SUP-pository,” Kraft asserts.
CIS: EXPENSIVE, UNNECESSARY, RISK AND CONTAMINATION ENHANCING:
NEIS points out that plans to construct allegedly temporary CIS facilities around the country:
· Contradict repeated NRC statements that , “spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation of that reactor,” either in the spent fuel pools or in “dry casks,” a conclusion indicating that there is no urgent or compelling environmental reason to build CIS facilities or a repository at the flawed Yucca Mt. site;
· Add yet another huge expense to the cost of radioactive waste storage and disposal, since multiple sites are envisioned;
· Would require shipping the HLRW twice instead of once (first to the CIS, then later to the disposal facility), increasing transportation accident risks and opportunities for accidents and attacks;
· Would unnecessarily contaminate yet more sites that would eventually have to undergo expensive decontamination and clean up when ultimately closed.
“Recall – we do not have Starship Enterprise transporter technology,” Kraft observes. “While it is tempting to urge quick removal of HLRW away from reactors, the reality is that prematurely placing thousands of tons of high-level radioactive wastes on our crumbling roads and rails, and possibly our fresh waterways without first preparing and greatly improving that infrastructure would be more dangerous and irresponsible, says Kraft.
“If these wastes represent such an alleged hazard sitting still at reactor sites, they certainly represent an even greater hazard at 40-60 mph on our roads and rails, as the recent March 15th derailment of rail cars carrying molten sulfur in Lake Forest, IL, and the June 30th oil-train spill in Plainfield, IL amply demonstrate. Further, a March 9, 2017 report by The American Society of Civil Engineers gives Illinois “D” and “D-“ ratings for its roads and transit lines, respectively – and that’s higher than the national average!” Kraft points out.
What is also never mentioned is that a 2012 Oak Ridge National Laboratory study suggests that Illinois would be an “optimal” site for the first proposed CIS facility, dedicated to HLRW from closed reactor sites.
“Perhaps Rep. Shimkus would like to volunteer a location in the 15th Illinois Congressional district for this honor,” Kraft wonders.
YUCCA MT. – GEOLOGICALLY FLAWED, POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT: A REAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Just as controversial as CIS is the call to revive the flawed site at Yucca Mt., Nevada, to serve as the first national HLRW disposal repository. More than one will be required, given the amount of HLRW already produced and that is expected in the future.
“Rep. Shimkus ‘commanding’ Yucca Mt. to perform as a safe permanent repository for HLRW is as responsible and effective as the legendary King Canute of Denmark ‘commanding’ the waves of the ocean to recede,” Kraft says. “Saying it so doesn’t make it so. Yucca Mt. has been shown often to be unsuitable for the safe and permanent disposal of HLRW, and was ‘commanded’ by politics in 1987 and now, not certified by sound unbiased science, to work,” Kraft asserts.
VIABLE ALTERNATIVES EXIST, HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, AND POLITICALLY REJECTED:
Viable onsite storage and remote permanent disposal options have been repeatedly proposed by environmental and safe-energy groups since 2002, but have been routinely ignored by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and rejected by the nuclear industry as too expensive.
Safe-energy groups around the country have long advocated for “hardened on-site storage” (HOSS) of HLRW spent fuel at reactor sites, if the NRC’s claims of a 100-year safe storage window is truthful. HOSS has been successfully used in other nations such as Germany. The time can then be used to develop a truly science-driven site search for a permanent disposal repository, without the need to contaminate more sites by building expensive, unnecessary CIS facilities.
These proposals have been repeatedly rebuffed by the federal NRC, and by the nuclear industry, which does not want to spend the extra money HOSS would entail. HOSS would roughly double the cost of HLRW storage. For example, storing the 1,000+ tons of HLRW at the Zion nuclear power station currently costs about ~$65 million. Using HOSS, the cost could be ~$130 million.
Among Yucca Mt.’s numerous flaws are:
· Yucca Mt.’s failure of two of four international IAEA siting criteria for the safe isolation of HLRW, according to Alison Macfarlane, a trained geologist and former Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a presentation about Yucca Mt. at the 2008 Deane Conference at Lake Forest College;
· Finding chlorine-36 — produced during nuclear weapons tests — inside the mountain. Nuclear tests have only occurred the past 60 years. A pathway exists for Cl-36 to enter, suggesting a pathway also exists for water to enter the mountain, and for radioactive materials to escape;
· DOE’s “lowering the bar” on siting criteria twice during site characterization, so the site would not be automatically disqualified as it should have been;
· The price of re-opening the site being estimated to exceed $1 billion to start the process, and $3 billion per year annually after that;
· The firm objections from the State of Nevada, which opposes the site, and which has identified over 200 complaints to the current DOE application, which would all have to be litigated;
· Due to its proximity to Nellis AFB and the 2.9-million-acre Nevada Test and Training Range, objections from the USAF Secretary Heather Wilson who states, “If Yucca Mountain becomes a storage area it needs to operate without impacting the ability of the country to defend itself…There is no route [to Yucca Mt.] across the range that would not impact testing and training.”
“So, now we know that the value of Lake Michigan, the drinking water supply for 16 million people, is less than $130 million. It’s been said that a cynic – and apparently an Exelon utility exec – seems to know the price of everything, and the value of nothing,” Kraft quipped.
“An old saying asks the important question: ‘If you don’t have the time and resources to do it right the first time, when are you going to find the time and resources to do it over again?’ With HLRW, we will not have the option of a do-over; we have to ‘get it right’ the first time, or suffer potentially horrific environmental and security consequences.
“The Shimkus Bill, H.R.3053 is political haste making more rad-waste, and it should be rejected,” Kraft asserts.
--30--
Additional source materials and citations available upon request.
NEIS was founded in 1981 to provide the public with credible information on nuclear power, waste, and radiation hazards; and information about the viable energy alternatives to nuclear power. NEIS staff have served previously on the IL Dept. of Nuclear Safety's Citizen Advisory Group on Low-Level Radioactive Waste; and as invited presenters to both President Obama's 2011 Blue Ribbon Commission on the Future of Nuclear Power; and in 2016 at the U.S. DOE's scoping process for the Consent Based Siting of Radioactive Wastes in Chicago, IL.
For more information visit the NEIS website at: http://www.neis.org
--
David A. Kraft, Director
NEIS
3411 W. Diversey #13
Chicago, IL 60647
SKYPE address: davekhamburg
No more Chornobyls! No more Fukushimas!
Invest in a nuclear-free world -- today!
Update on July 27, 2017 by
admin
Update on July 27, 2017 by
admin
Mary Olson of NIRS Southeast has circulated the NEIS press release above, and urged:
Hey folks, please consider making this specific to YOUR STATE / city.
Please consider doing social media with it / sending to press you have contacts for.
Any little thing to stop a vote this week! CALL if you have not: 202-225-3121.
Ask for staffer who works on nuclear waste. Tell them where you live and that you oppose HR—3053. DO it now!
