"Gang of 4" U.S. Senators off to the races: Mobile Chernobyl/Parking Lot Dump bill introduced

The Mobile Chernobyl mock nuke waste cask, a full size replica of a truck shipping container, shown in front of the State Capitol in Jefferson City, MO during a cross-country educational tourThe so-called "Gang of 4" U.S. Senators -- Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), as well as Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water Development Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ranking Member Lamar Alexander (R-TN) -- have introduced the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013.

The Gang of 4 has issued a press release, a one page summary of the bill, a section by section summary, and the 71 page bill.

The bill's introduction follows a month-long public comment period on an earlier "Discussion Draft," which reportedly garnered 2,500 comments, including from Beyond Nuclear, scores of environmental and public interest groups, and thousands of concerned citizens. However, despite so much public engagement, initial analysis of the newly introduced legislation reveals objectionable provisions have been retained, despite large numbers of comments in opposition. Also, newly proposed provisions raise additional objections.

The bill would rush unprecedented numbers of high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) shipments onto the roads, rails, and waterways, in a race for "priority" or "emergency" centralized interim storage by 2021. Such a rush into large-scale transportation increases the safety and security risks of severe "Mobile Chernobyl" accidents or "Dirty Bomb on Wheels" attacks.

The bill risks "interim" storage sites becoming de facto permanent parking lot dumps, by stating a preference for co-location of pilot interim storage alongside large-scale nonpriority interim storage, and even the permanent repository. The waiver of any connection or "linkage" between development of centralized interim storage and progress toward opening a repository only increases the risk that stored wastes will simply be allowed to remain in surface facilities indefinitely into the future.

The bill seems to undermine "consent-based approach" principles, by allowing site suitability characterization and even final suitability determination activities to proceed, without requiring consent or cooperation from the targeted state, Native American tribe, or local municipality.

No restrictions on how much waste could go into the first centralized interim storage site, and the elimination of an upper limit for how much waste could be stored in the country's first deep geologic repository, runs the risk that a single nuclear sacrfice area could be targeted for the entire country.

Please contact your two U.S. Senators, as well as your U.S. Representative, and urge they block such Mobile Chernobyl and de facto permanent parking lot dump risks. Urge they instead pass a law requiring Hardened On-Site Storage. You can phone your Members of Congress via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

More detailed analysis of the bill's provisions follows.

Off to the Races: Parking Lot Dumps

The most immediate risk included in this bill is a "pilot" centralized interim storage site for "priority" and "emergency" irradiated nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) opening by 2021. This would launch unprecedented numbers of HLRW trucks, trains, and barges onto the country's roads, rails, and waterways in less than a decade.

If enacted, the bill would pull the trigger on a starter's pistol. In fact, the newly created agency of the Nuclear Waste Administrator -- likely only partially set up yet -- would be mandated to issue Requests for Proposals for this pilot facility a mere 180 days after enactment of the legislation.

"Parking" space at the pilot facility would be reserved for "priority" irradiated nuclear fuel, that is, from permanently closed atomic reactors, or "emergency" wastes that can be shown at heightened risk, as from natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding, etc.

This scheme was retained in the bill, despite the fact that community groups living in the shadows of even permanently closed reactors have, for over a decade, urged implementation of Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) as their highest priority, not shipment off-site. Those community groups have been joined by over 200 environmental and public interest groups across the country, representing all 50 states, in calling for HOSS as the top priority for HLRW management. 

The Gang of 4 Senators, as well as the Department of Energy (DOE), have attempted to justify rushing stored wastes away from closed reactors in order to free up the land for "un-restricted re-use," despite the lingering radioactive contamination even after the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certifies decommissioning as "complete."

Risk that "interim" would become de facto permanent

The risk that such a "priority" parking lot dump would become de facto permanent is increased by the stated preference in the bill that the pilot facility be co-located with the nonpriority (that is, all other HLRW in the country) storage site, to be opened by 2025, as well as co-located with the geologic repository (that is, the permanent dumpsite), to be opened by 2048.

The plan also seems geared to make certain companies in the nuclear industry a lot of money, referring to "non-Federal sector partners" as being in charge of opening and running the pilot storage facility.

Whatever happened to consent?!

Alarmingly, the bill's Section 305, "Storage Facilities," appears to violate the "consent-based" approach President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission for America's Nuclear Future called for. Site characterization and final site suitability determination activities could be undertaken, and completed, even without the consent or cooperation of the municipality, state, and/or Native American reservation being targeted. Even though the bill calls for the consent of the targeted community before storage site development proceeds, the lack of required consent for site characterization and suitability determination activities would build a lot of momentum towards "getting to yes." That is, consent would only be required for the final stage of interim storage site development, but would not be required in the earlier stages setting the stage for final decisions. This would undermine a comprehensively consensual approach.

This is documented in the one page summary, where it states "obtain state and local (and tribal if on an Indian reservation) cooperation to study sites, with cooperation agreements optional for storage sites." (emphasis added)

The Devilish details of the rush job into centralized interim storage

The Section by Section summary lays out how this race would proceed:

"Section 305 – Storage Facilities

Requires the new nuclear waste agency to establish a Storage Facility Program, beginning with a pilot program for storage of priority waste which is defined in Sec. 103 as spent fuel from nuclear power plants that have been shut down and spent fuel that justifies emergency delivery.  The Administrator is required to —

• issue a request for proposals, including general review guidelines, for cooperative agreements to demonstrate storage of priority waste not later than 180 days after enactment; 
• review each proposal;
• select at least one site for characterization after holding hearings in the vicinity of each site and at least one other location in the state of each site;
• notify Congress;
• may enter into a cooperative agreement for state and local consent prior to site characterization; (emphasis in original)
• make a final determination on the suitability of sites characterized;
• obtain state and local (and tribal if on an Indian reservation) consent to site a repository;  
• select one or more suitable sites for storage facilities;
• not less than 30 days before selecting a site, provide a program plan to Congress; and
• submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

Given the choice of words,

• obtain state and local (and tribal if on an Indian reservation) consent to site a repository;  
• select one or more suitable sites for storage facilities;

it seems that the Gang of 4 U.S. Senators has retained more comprehensive consensual principles only for repositories (permanent dumpsites), but significantly less so for centralized interim storage sites.

Disconnect between centralized interim storage and permanent disposal

Regarding "linkage" between "interim" storage sites and permanent dumpsites, the bill would do away with any connection for the first 10 years of transfer to parking lot dumps. As stated in the Section-by-Section Summary:

"There are two significant changes in the introduced version of the bill compared to the discussion draft. The first is the provision linking construction and siting of a consolidated storage facility to progress on a repository. The draft did not include a volume limit on consolidated storage, but required the Administrator to cease shipments of nuclear waste to the storage facility if progress is not being made on the repository. The introduced bill removes the requirement to cease shipments in the event of no progress on the repository. Instead, for 10 years after the enactment of the Act, the Administrator may site storage facilities and ship fuel as long as funds have been obligated toward the siting and/or construction of a repository. After 10 years, the Administrator may not site an additional storage facility unless one or more repository sites have been selected for evaluation."

Section 305 adds: "The Administrator must ensure that efforts on a storage facility for nonpriority waste are paralleled by efforts on a repository. In the 10 years following enactment of the Act, the Administrator may not issue additional requests for proposals or select sites for characterization for additional nonpriority storage facilities unless the Administrator has obligated funds to meet the requirements of Section 306. After 10 years, the Administrator may only develop additional storage facilities if one or more repository sites have been selected for evaluation."

Whereas the Bingaman bill of 2012 would have dis-connected permanent disposal from centralized interim storage for the first 10,000 tons of "priority" or "emergency" irradiated nuclear fuel, the current proposal would allow unlimited tonnages of transfer for a decade.

A single nuclear sacrfice area for the entire country?!

Another alarming provision in the current bill is Section 509 – Repeal of Volume Limitation, which states:

"Eliminates 70,000 metric ton cap on the first repository (which was designed to ensure that more than one repository would be needed), but authorizes the new agency to build additional repositories if additional capacity is needed."

The 70,000 ton cap at the now-cancelled Yucca Mountain dump, included in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983, as Amended, was a safeguard against a single state being targeted for all of the country's HLRW. It appears that now, a single municipality, state, or even Native American reservation could be singled out as THE "nuclear sacrifice area" for the entire country.

The Gang of 4's "preference" for "co-location" of pilot "priority" and "emergency" centralized interim storage by 2021, "nonpriority" centralized interim storage by 2025, and even the permanent dumpsite by 2048, makes this risk of a single nuclear sacrifice area for the entire country all the more likely.

NRC Nuke Waste Con Game EIS draft documents published

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Nuclear Waste Confidence Directorate has sent out the following email, with links to various draft environmental impact statement (EIS) documents:

[From: WCOutreach Resource [mailto:WCOutreach.Resource@nrc.gov] 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 4:20 PM
To: WCOutreach Resource

Subject: Waste Confidence Commission review draft documents now available

Greetings,

This e-mail provides direct web links to three important documents related to our Waste Confidence environmental review and rulemaking.  These documents are staff-developed documents for the Commission’s review.  The Commission could approve, modify, or disapprove these documents, and because these documents have not yet been approved by the Commission, they are not ready for public comment.  However, in accordance with Commission procedures, the NRC is releasing these documents to the public.  The NRC hopes that awareness of these early drafts will help interested members of the public become familiar with the staff’s proposed approach to the Waste Confidence draft generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) and proposed rule.  

• The first document is a Commission paper, SECY-13-0061, that informs the Commission of the NRC staff’s progress and recommends publishing the proposed rule and draft GEIS for public comment:  http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1314/ML13143A371.pdf  (ADAMS Accession No. ML13143A371).      

• The second document is a Commission review draft of the Federal Register notice (FRN) for the proposed rule:  http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1314/ML13143A374.pdf  (ADAMS Accession No. ML13143A374).  The FRN contains the proposed rule text and a “Statement of Considerations,” or preamble, that explains the rule, the conclusions in the draft GEIS that support the rule, and the changes in format that the NRC is recommending as part of this rulemaking.      

• The final document is a Commission review draft of the draft generic environmental impact statement, or GEIS, on the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel:   http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1315/ML13150A347.pdf  (ADAMS Accession No. ML13150A347). The draft GEIS analyzes three basic timeframes: development of a repository 60 years after a reactor closes, 100 years beyond the 60-year period, and never having a repository.  This environmental analysis also includes a more detailed analysis of spent fuel pool leaks and fires.  The draft GEIS provides the regulatory basis for the proposed rule, and is a major component of the format changes that align the Waste Confidence rulemaking with the NRC’s other rulemaking activities.  For example, there is no longer a separate “Waste Confidence Decision” or policy statement.  Instead, the rule draws several conclusions based on information in the draft GEIS.  These differences are explained in detail in the Statement of Considerations.  The draft GEIS relies on many technical reference documents.  All are publicly available, and the Waste Confidence webpage provides an organized reference list with web links to many of these documents.

If the Commission approves these documents, they will be published for public comment for 75 days.  We believe this publication may occur in late August or early September, but that timeframe is contingent on Commission approval.  When they are published, the 75-day official public comment period will begin.  You will receive another WCOutreach@nrc.gov e-mail providing direct web links to the official documents for comment, and clear direction on how and when you can submit your comments on the documents.

During the comment period, we will hold 10 public meetings around the country to present the proposed rule and draft GEIS and receive your comments.  Two of these meetings will be at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md. The rest will be in New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, southern California, central California, Minnesota, Ohio, and North Carolina.  Details will be announced closer to the meeting dates through another WCOutreach@nrc.gov e-mail, and will be posted on the NRC’s public meetings webpage and the Public Involvement in Waste Confidence webpage.

If you know of anyone that would like to be on our WCOutreach@nrc.gov e-mail distribution list, please tell them to send us an e-mail asking to be subscribed.  Conversely, if you would like to be removed from this e-mail distribution list, simply reply to this e-mail with the word “UNSUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.

Thank you, and if you have any questions regarding these documents or upcoming Waste Confidence events, please call Sarah Lopas at (301) 287-0675 or e-mail her at Sarah.Lopas@nrc.gov.

Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Waste Confidence Directorate]

Mindy Goldstein of the Turner Environmental Law Clinic at Emory University made available notes from the last monthly update conference call held by the NRC Waste Confidence Directorate.

THE NEXT MONTHLY UPDATE CALL of the NRC Waste Confidence Directorate will be Wednesday, August 14 from 1:30-2:30 pm [Eastern].

Meanwhile, in a related move, NRC has put out a press release, "NRC Seeks Public Comment on Spent Fuel Pool Study." Incredibly, NRC's draft "Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor" has found that there is little to no risk of a catastrophic pool fire due to drain down, even after a very strong earthquake. Beyond Nuclear begs to differ, and plans to submit comments to that effect by the arbritrarily short 30-day deadline.

Update on NRC's "Nuke Waste Con Game": 10 public hearings in 9 cities this autumn

Beyond Nuclear has chosen the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) infamous "Nuke Waste Con Game" as one of its very first "Indictments" against the rouge agency.

NRC is poised to make publicly available what it is calling its Waste Confidence Decision Rulemaking Package next week, likely on June 24th. It will include a number of major draft environmental impact statement documents, as well as 100 technical reference reports, comprising thousands of pages.

The Waste Confidence Decision Rulemaking Package will not be officially published in the Federal Register until late summer or early autumn, however. When it is, NRC will allow a mere 75 days for public comment on its Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement regarding its "confidence" that high-level radioactive wastes can be stored safely, on-site at reactors, in indoor storage pools and outdoor dry casks, for not only 60 or 160 years, but indefinitely into the future. The end result of such a "Confidence Decision," or Con Game, would be to bless the generation of unlimited amounts of high-level radioactive waste into the indefinite future, just as the agency has blessed the generation of tens of thousands of metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel since the Nuclear Waste Confidence Decision was first promulgated, appropriately enough (in an Orwellian sense, anyway!), in 1984.

As spelled out below: NRC's public comment meetings, this autumn, will be held in the following cities:  Boston, New York City, Denver, Minneapolis, San Clemente, San Luis Obispo, Toledo, and Charlotte.  The regional meetings must be attended in-person.  Two meetings from NRC headquarters (in Rockville) will also be conducted.  These will be available for viewing online and you can participate through a telephone call-in number. 

Mindy Goldstein, Director of the Turner Environmental Law Clinic at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia, took the following concise and helpful notes from today's NRC "Waste Confidence Directorate" monthly update conference call. She served as one of a team of attorneys who won a major legal victory in federal appeals court against NRC's Nuke Waste Con Game in June, 2012. The victory included the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ordering NRC to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement regarding the risks of storing high-level radioactive waste on-site at reactors not for decades, nor even centuries, but perhaps forever, if a deep geologic repository is never opened.

[Notes from today's NRC] Waste Confidence Directorate Call

June 19, 2013

1:30-2:30

*Sometime next week (probably on June 24), the NRC will send out a Waste Confidence Decision Rulemaking Package.  The package will be published on ADAMS and email notice will be given through WC Outreach.

*The package is not the formal Federal Register notice of rulemaking for official comment.  Rather, it is a DRAFT package to help the public get familiar with the content of the proposed rule and accompanying draft generic environmental impact statement (Draft GEIS) before the formal notice and comment period begins.  All documents in the package are subject to revision before final publication.

Content of the Waste Confidence Decision Rulemaking Package

1.       SECY Paper (also called the Commission Review Draft) from the NRC Staff to the Commission, presenting its recommendations and conclusions regarding the rulemaking.

2.       Draft Federal Register Notice with the Proposed Rule (100 pages).

3.       Proposed Draft GEIS (600 pages). The Draft GEIS is based on NUREG 1748.  It will contain 10 chapters and 8 appendices.  Timeframes analyzed in the Draft GEIS (for both on and offsite storage) are 60 years, 160 years, and indefinite.  Electronic versions of all the technical documents (there are over 100) on which the GEIS relies will be made available through a direct link on the Waste Confidence Decision website (in addition to ADAMS).

The NRC expects the formal Federal Register notice to be published late summer or early fall.  At that time, the public will be given 75 days to comment.  There will be ten public meetings held during the comment period as well.  Comments can be submitted in writing or through spoken comments at the meetings.

Meetings will be held in the following cities:  Boston, New York City, Denver, Minneapolis, San Clemente, San Obispo, Toledo, and Charlotte.  The regional meetings must be attended in-person.  Two meetings from NRC headquarters (in Rockville) will also be conducted.  These will be available for viewing online and you can participate through a telephone call-in number. 

THE NEXT CALL [the monthly NRC Waste Confidence Directorate monthly update]:  Wednesday, August 14 from 1:30-2:30 [Eastern].

ONLINE CHAT:  July 23 at 2:30 – which can be accessed from nrc.gov.

Radiation Expert Exposes Danger to Ohioans from Fracking Waste

Dr. Marvin Resnikoff of RWMADr. Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates has authored a report, Hydraulic Fracturing Radiological Concerns for Ohio, on behalf of the FreshWater Accountability Project Ohio. FWAPOH also put out a press release, "Radiation Expert Exposes Danger to Ohioans from Fracking Waste," which calls for better public protections from the State of Ohio and the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District [MWCD]. 

Resnikoff points out that much of the highly-radioactive solids such as rocks and soils pulled up during drilling, and contaminated muds and sands are cheaply disposed of in municipal landfills in Ohio, irrespective of actual radioactivity content, for 1/100th of the cost of disposal of comparable low-level radioactive waste from nuclear weapons and nuclear power generation in the nation's three facilities for that purpose. In Ohio, he stated, "It is evident that environmental concerns are trumped by the economics beneficial to the unconventional shale drilling industry." Similarly, Dr. Resnikoff identified evidence that the Patriot water treatment facility in Warren, Ohio, which delivers pretreated water to the Warren public water treatment plant, is likely sending radium-laden water into the Mahoning River watershed. "On a daily basis, Patriot does not test for gamma emitting radionuclides and for radium-226," he observed. 

"Dr. Resnikoff's work illustrates that Ohioans, from common citizens to truck drivers to landfill workers, are daily being exposed to radiation exposure or poisoning because the Governor, General Assembly and even a large conservancy district, the MWCD, are sacrificing public protections to prop up frackers' profitability," asserted Terry Lodge, attorney for SEOSOW. "Under the guise of 'austerity,' the state government is destroying protective regulations for everyone, while creating a business environment where those who threaten public health and the environment pay little to nothing. And even huge corporate welfare breaks aren't saving this dirty, low-productivity con game."

Lodge also serves as the attorney for environmental coalitions, including Beyond Nuclear, opposing the proposed new Fermi 3 atomic reactor in southeast MI, as well as the 20-year license extension, and the proposed steam generator replacement, at Davis-Besse in northwest OH.

Fracking was exempted from such federal laws as the Safe Drinking Water Act by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the same law which automatically subsidized nuclear power to the tune of $13 billion, while additionally leading to the approval of $22.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantees thus far.

On May 22nd, Beyond Nuclear joined with 67 other groups to chastise Environmental Defense Fund for joining into a greenwashing alliance with the fracking industry.

NEIS: "SoCal Edison Pulls the Plug on Two Nuke Reactors -- Could Have Serious Implications for Illinois"

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release                                                   Contact:  Dave Kraft, 773-342-7650, neis@neis.org

June 7, 2013                                                                            630-506-2864 cell

SoCal Edison Pulls the Plug on Two Nuke Reactors – Could Have Serious Implications for Illinois

CHICAGO—The old crumbling nukes continue their non-radioactive decay, it seems, as Southern California Edison (SCE) today announced its decision to permanently close the damaged San Onofre twin nuclear reactors (SONGs).

The two reactors had been idled for over a year after serious steam tube generator leaks forced a shutdown of the facility.  SCE had wanted to restart the reactors at 70% power, hoping it could operate while finishing repairs.  The NRC denied approval of this plan.

“It seems to be a clear case of utility "overreach," in the sense that SCE gambled on NRC allowing them to continue flying with cracked wings --  like NRC IS doing at Palisades, in Michigan -- and lost,” says David Kraft, director of the Illinois nuclear watchdog organization Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS). “I guess this problem was just too egregious for even the NRC's usually accommodating tastes.”

Earlier this week two former NRC Commissioners and the former Prime Minister of Japan participated in a press event in San Diego, where they publicly stated what a hazard SONGs (and other reactors) have become.  This certainly didn't help SONGs’ PR case.

This closure could, unfortunately have serious negative consequences for Illinois moving forward.

Congress is currently drafting legislation that could call for the “temporary” warehousing of the high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) in the form of spent reactor fuel from closed reactors like SONGs, Kewaunee (WI), Crystal River (FL) and Zion (IL) – all closed nuclear reactors.

“If Sen. Wyden's Energy Committee drafts their legislation to include language calling for "centralized interim storage" (CIS) facilities being built, the reactors that get closed are the first priority to move waste; and, Illinois is a prime candidate to host such a facility,” Kraft points out. 

A 2012 study by Oak Ridge National Laboratory¹ states:

“…the consolidated ISFSI [spent fuel storage] site in Illinois is the single optimized site for an ISFSI solution when only [spent nuclear fuel] at orphaned reactors is considered relative to siting a consolidated ISFSI.”

“The CIS sites would allegedly be "temporary," but we've been covering the HLRW issue for 31 years now.  The Federal Government's notion of ‘temporary’ is laughable. Illinois could become the nation’s de facto permanent HLRW dump for decades,” Kraft says.

NEIS has been trying for weeks to get face to face meetings with Senators Durbin, Kirk and Governor Quinn to discuss this impending catastrophe, but without success. An Illinois CIS facility could get well over 6,200 additional tons of HLRW, above and beyond the 8,600 tons it already stores at Illinois reactors run by Exelon, according to the Oak Ridge report.

“Since 2002 NEIS and hundreds of other environmental and safe energy organizations have suggested a method called “hardened onsite storage” (HOSS) as a means of storing HLRW relatively safely at reactor sites until the federal government constructs a permanent disposal facility.  We have been ignored.  It’s time that Illinois’ politicians start paying attention, before the trucks start rolling in,” Kraft warns.

                                                                        --30--

¹ The Oak Ridge NL report, titled "Application of Spatial Data Modeling Systems, Geographical Information Systems (GIS), and Transportation Routing Optimization Methods for Evaluating Integrated Deployment of Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installations and Advanced Nuclear Plants" (http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub37008.pdf)