[NV Greens] Action Alert! Nuke Waste Dump Approval a Poor Decision

[Barb Ewing]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Brendan Hoffman
To: CMEP at LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:24 PM
Subject: [CMEP] Action Alert! Nuke Waste Dump Approval a Poor Decision


***please forward widely***

This email contains three items: a press release and two action
alerts.

=====================================

* * * P R E S S   R E L E A S E * * *

PUBLIC CITIZEN
NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE (NIRS)

For Immediate Release:
Feb. 24, 2005

Contact: Michele Boyd, PC (202) 454-5134
Kevin Kamps, NIRS (202) 328-0002

Despite Unanswered Questions, Nuclear Agency’s Licensing Board
Approves Nuclear Waste Dump in Utah

WASHINGTON, D.C. –  A ruling today by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s (NRC) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in favor
of a proposed nuclear waste dump in Utah is a poor decision, said Public
Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS).

The board issued a split decision to reject an appeal by the state of
Utah, meaning that the commercial, above-ground, “temporary”
repository is closer to gaining final approval. The NRC usually follows
the board’s advice.

If the NRC gives final approval, it will come despite opposition from
some members of the Skull Valley band of Goshutes and a lack of a
long-term nuclear waste management strategy for the United States. The
waste will have to be shipped mainly from the eastern United States in
nuclear waste casks that have not been subjected to adequate physical
testing and have been the subject of allegations of a slew of quality
assurance violations that threaten their integrity. Further, there has
been inadequate preparation and training of first responders for a
large-scale movement of dangerous high-level waste from around the
country.

The licensing board handed down a scrubbed version of the decision with
“a general summary” for public consumption — 30 pages shorter than
the full version — due to ongoing concerns about terrorism.

“This sanitized version shows that NRC’s addiction to secrecy
continues to stymie appropriate public involvement,” said Wenonah
Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s energy program.  “The final
insult from the licensing board comes in its unwillingness to release
even its rationale for deciding in favor of Private Fuel Storage (PFS),
due to the fact that some of the information therein is categorized as
‘safeguards.’

“The idea that shipping tens of thousands of tons of high-level
nuclear waste to Utah for a pit stop before transporting it further to a
hypothetical permanent repository will improve the safety and security
of the waste is ludicrous,” said Hauter.  “It’s ironic that the
ASLB rejected Utah’s appeal by saying there wasn’t any chance of an
accidental plane crash into this proposed facility, yet the board then
cloaked its decision in secrecy for fear of an intentional attack.”

There’s no guarantee that this dump will be as temporary as PFS
maintains.  The proposed permanent home for the waste, the Yucca
Mountain site in Nevada, is mired in lawsuits, and the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) has yet to even submit a license application for the
Yucca dump to be constructed and put into operation.

“If Yucca never actually opens—a distinct possibility—PFS will
either become a de facto permanent repository or the waste will have to
be shipped back to its place of origin, only to be shipped yet again
once a final solution is implemented,” said Kevin Kamps, a nuclear
waste specialist with NIRS.  “Nearly 20 years of pushing for this site
have focused on Native American lands and there remain numerous
unresolved environmental justice concerns involving the Goshute
community.”

The multiple shipments may be made even if Yucca does open, because
current contracts between the utilities and the DOE stipulate that waste
sent to Yucca must be newly packed – a condition that won’t be met
if the waste is stored for decades at PFS first.  Before approval of a
license for PFS is granted, the DOE needs to resolve the conflict over
whether it can take the waste directly.

###

=====================================

!!! A C T I O N    A L E R T !!!

Contact NRC Right Away: Stop PFS! No Unnecessary, Unsafe Transport and
Storage of Nuclear Waste!


A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Board has now recommended
approval of Private Fuel Storage (PFS). PFS, a limited liability company
(LLC) formed from eight commercial nuclear utilities, is seeking to
establish an "interim" storage site for high-level radioactive waste on
the tiny Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah.

The issue will likely be appealed to the NRC Commissioners. Contact
them today and urge them to reject this unnecessary dump that would
endanger public health and safety! Call them at the following numbers
and urge them to reject PFS's license application, or send them an email
(the sample letter is below).

Background information on PFS is available at:

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_waste/pfs/
and
http://www.nirs.org/ejustice/nativelands/pfsbg.htm

Thanks for your help!

==========================================

NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, 301.415.1759
NRC Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr., 301.415.1800
NRC Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrified, 301.415.1855
NRC Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko, 301.415.1820
NRC Commissioner Peter B. Lyons, 301.415.8421

==========================================

SAMPLE LETTER TO NRC COMMISSIONERS

Click here to email the sample letter.  You can also mail (address
below), fax (to 301.415.1101), email (SECY at nrc.gov) your own letter.

February 24, 2005

Nils Diaz, Chairman
Edward McGaffigan, Jeffrey Merrifield, Gregory Jaczko, Peter Lyons,
Commissioners
c/o Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Commissioners Diaz, McGaffigan, Merrifield, Jaczko, and Lyons,

I urge you not to approve the license application by Private Fuel
Storage, LLC (PFS) to open an "interim storage site" for irradiated
nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation in Utah.
The proposal is neither safe nor necessary.

First off, the PFS facility is not an appropriate site for storing
high-level nuclear waste. The storage casks will be aboveground, exposed
to the elements, and in an area adjacent to Hill Airforce Base and the
Utah Test and Training Range, which has an increased risk of plane
crashes. There will also not be a waste repacking facility on-site. If
storage casks fail for any reason – human error during shipping or
handling, natural disaster, accident, act of sabotage, or gradual
corrosion – it will be difficult to address the problem and keep
radioactive waste from leaking into the soil, water, and air.

There are also the allegations raised by ComEd/Exelon whistleblower
Oscar Shirani. Citing numerous major quality assurance violations in the
manufacture of the storage/transport containers proposed for use at PFS,
he questions their structural integrity. Such problems would not only
raise the risk of irradiated fuel degradation and increased container
vulnerability during storage at Skull Valley, but also of potentially
catastrophic radioactivity release during transport due to a severe
accident or terrorist attack.

As it is, PFS would mean the increased transportation and handling of
high-level waste. As the frequency and distance of nuclear waste
transport increases, so does the risk of accidents. For this reason, the
transportation of nuclear waste should be absolutely minimized, and
extensive cask testing and planning should be done before the transport
of waste begins. PFS, however, will increase transportation, not
minimize it, and will rush the process, using casks with only minimal
testing and planning.

The "interim" nature of the project is also questionable. Assurances
have been given by PFS (and NRC staff in the proposal's Environmental
Impact Statement) that irradiated fuel would remain at Skull Valley for
no more than 40 years before transfer to Nevada for permanent burial.
Last October, however, U.S. Energy Dept. Yucca Mountain Project
transport director Gary Lanthrum was quoted in the Salt Lake press as
saying that the Yucca Mountain Project would simply not accept
irradiated nuclear fuel from PFS, as that would violate the terms of
DOE's Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, which
requires DOE to accept only uncanistered fuel directly from nuclear
utilities at reactor sites. Since PFS would not meet these requirements,
if the site opens, it could very well lead to de facto permanent
"disposal" of 4,000 casks of high-level radioactive waste in Skull
Valley. Adding to this concern, while Yucca Mountain plays a key role in
the acceptability of PFS, the approval and opening of Yucca is not
certain. The proposed geologic repository in Nevada has many issues, and
there are serious unresolved questions about its ability to contain
waste.

Moreover, in addition to all these concerns, PFS is simply not
necessary. While supporters of PFS have argued that irradiated fuel must
be moved away from reactors as soon as possible and consolidated in one
place, these assertions are misleading. The fuel does not have to be
moved immediately, and as long as we continue to produce it, the waste
will continue to be kept at every operating reactor around the country.
Irradiated fuel just removed from a reactor, for instance, is required
to cool and decay on-site for five to ten years before it can be
transported. Concern about on-site storage at reactors is justified, but
moving some waste to a private "temporary" storage facility like PFS
will not make us safer. In fact, it will just increase the risk the
waste poses to the public.

Finally, on its face, the storage or disposal of highly radioactive
waste on a tiny, poverty-stricken Native American community that did not
even benefit from the nuclear generated electricity also raises
significant environmental justice concerns. The crisis at Skull Valley
only exacerbates such concerns. There is a long-running dispute over the
legitimacy of the tribal leadership that supports PFS. In fact, disputed
Tribal Chairman Leon Bear, the primary proponent for PFS, has been
indicted on federal charges of embezzlement of tribal funds as well as
tax evasion. Tribal members who oppose PFS claim they have been severely
intimidated and harassed, and allege irregularities such as bribery and
extortion have been used to secure support within the tribe for PFS.
These are very shaky foundations upon which to build dry cask storage
for 44,000 tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, nearly 80% of
what currently exists in the U.S.

Please deny PFS's license request. The Skull Valley Goshute Reservation
is neither a safe nor just solution!

Sincerely,

[Name, Address]

=====================================

!!! A C T I O N   A L E R T !!!

Oppose New Reactors in Virginia!

The deadline to submit comments on the environmental review of Dominion
Resources' application to site two new reactors at the North Anna power
station site in central Virginia expires Tuesday, March 1.  Help us
maintain the momentum from a fantastic public meeting held last week in
Louisa by sending in your comments today!  We can provide you with
sample comments (below), but the best comments are those written in your
own voice.  For ideas on some of the problems with Dominion's
application and the idea of building new nuclear plants in general,
check out our fact sheet:

http://tinyurl.com/6uybl

You can send your comments via email to NorthAnna_ESP at nrc.gov or write
them out by hand and mail a hard copy to:

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch
Division of Administrative Services
Office of Administration
Mailstop T-6D59
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Either way, get them in by Tuesday, March 1!  Sample comments:

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to OPPOSE granting an Early Site Permit (ESP) to Dominion
Resources to build two new reactors at the North Anna nuclear plant in
Mineral, VA. The draft Environmental Impact Statement states that
construction activities permissible under the ESP may stir up heavy
metals and other contaminants in the lake sediment, while details about
mitigation measures are murky. Further, other effects on the lake, such
as temperature increases and reduced water levels, are not fully
analyzed. Finally, questions about the adequacy of current security
regulations and performance are ignored, as are issues of waste
generation and its safe, permanent isolation.

Too many questions remain unanswered and too many problems remain
unsolved for the NRC to grant an ESP.

Sincerely,

[Name and Address]

For more information on the prospect of new reactors in Virginia, visit
www.citizen.org/cmep/northanna.

**********
If you would like to be removed from the CMEP ListServ, send an email to
listserv at listserver.citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe CMEP" in the
message.

Questions about the CMEP ListServ can be directed to
CMEP-request at LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG.

To learn more about this and other Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program campaigns, visit our website at
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/

-Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/nvgreen/attachments/20050224/840ed969/attachment.html