Wednesday
Jun122019
Press Advisory: At House Subcommittee Hearing on Nuclear Waste, Advocates Oppose Pending Legislation Which Would Trigger Shipments of Radioactive Waste Across the U.S.
MEDIA ALERT/INVITE TO COVER/INTERVIEW OPPORTUNITIES
At House Subcommittee Hearing on Nuclear Waste, Advocates Oppose Pending Legislation Which Would Trigger Shipments of Radioactive Waste Across the U.S.
WHAT? Tomorrow, June 13 at 10am the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a legislative hearing on nuclear waste issues entitled “Cleaning Up Communities: Ensuring Safe Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel.” It will hear testimony from Department of Energy officials, industry and NGO experts on three pending bills:
- · H.R. 2699 -- the “Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019”
- · H.R. 2995 -- the “Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 2019”
- · H.R. 3136 -- the “STORE Nuclear Fuel Act of 2019”
These bills would impact communities in [75%] of Congressional districts, including those with nuclear power reactors, those targeted for nuclear waste sites, and those along proposed waste transport routes. The bills could facilitate licensing of nuclear waste storage facilities, whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada or consolidated “interim” storage (CIS) sites in southeastern New Mexico and west Texas. They could also lead to thousands of shipments of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel via train, truck and barge to those sites.
But the problem, according to several citizens’ groups that today submitted letters for the hearing record opposing the bills, is that offsite nuclear waste transport and storage is unworkable and fraught with unacceptable risks of radioactive release. The approach is championed by the nuclear industry because it’s convenient and profitable for licensees, shifting liability to taxpayers before there is permanent disposal. But it won’t protect public health and safety, opponents say. It involves transport of intensely radioactive waste to inadequate facilities, inside transport casks loaded with hundreds of times the quantity of lethal isotopes released by the Hiroshima bomb. Since the proposed storage destinations cannot isolate the waste, even if we incur the perils of transporting it, we would be no closer to a workable, permanent solution.
Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, attending the hearing.
Geoff Fettus, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council. In testimony prepared for the June 13 hearing, he wrote, “Enacting [the legislation] on offer today would immediately precipitate a welter of controversy and litigation from the potential recipient states, which will result in no progress toward a solution and years more rancor.”
Paul Gunter, Director, Reactor Oversight Project, Beyond Nuclear, attending the hearing.
Tim Judson, Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service. In a submission today for the hearing record, he wrote, “We oppose HR 2699, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019, because it restarts licensing of the Yucca Mountain site which is fatally flawed… We oppose HR 2699 and HR 3136 because they legalize Consolidated “Interim” Storage… of irradiated nuclear fuel. The reason Congress deemed CIS…sites illegal is that they would likely become de-facto permanent without meeting conditions for permanent waste isolation.”
Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist, Beyond Nuclear. In a submission today for the hearing record, he wrote, “Our country needs to avoid radioactive waste wrecks, both figurative – of policy – as well as literal, on our roads, rails, and waterways. We need to just say no to unwise irradiated nuclear fuel transport, storage, and disposal schemes, that have more to do with offloading nuclear utilities’ liabilities onto the public, than on protecting health, safety, and the environment. Transporting high-level radioactive waste by truck, train, and barge, through 44 states and the District of Columbia…would take unnecessary risks, and violate consent-based and environmental justice principles.”
Dave Kraft, Director, Nuclear Energy and Information Service. In a submission today for the hearing record, he wrote, “At the recent May 2019 Congressional Briefing, “Decommissioning: A New Era in the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry; a Critical Need for Congressional Oversight,” former NRC Chair Greg Jaczko stated: ‘[CIS] is essentially de facto PERMANENT storage, because once fuel moves, it will be hard to move it somewhere else.’… An alternative proposal for the storage of HLRW has been called “HOSS” – ‘hardened, on-site storage.’ This technique has been employed successfully internationally, obviates the need for the redundant transportation of the HLRW while safely storing the wastes at reactor sites.”
Janet Tauro, New Jersey Board Chair of Clean Water Action. In a submission today for the hearing record, she wrote, “A permanent solution to nuclear waste storage has never been found and is unlikely to occur in the near future. We are left with choosing a least bad option. We agree with our colleagues…that Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) to higher ground away from rising seas and worsening storm surges should be seriously considered for coastal areas until a permanent repository is established. Moving the waste thousands of miles out West to a temporary facility from which it would have to be moved again doubles the risk of a catastrophic accident.”
Nancy Vann, President, Safe Energy Rights Group
WHEN & WHERE? The hearing on “Cleaning Up Communities: Ensuring Safe Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel” takes place Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 10:00am in Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building. It will also be livestreamed here. The sources listed above are available for interviews on request. To request interviews, copies of submissions for the hearing record, or other information, please contact: Stephen Kent, skent@kentcom.com 914-589-5988
June 12, 2019