ML20301A220
| ML20301A220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 10/23/2020 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 85FR27447 | |
| Download: ML20301A220 (8) | |
Text
From: Kevin Kamps <kevin@beyondnuclear.org>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 1:26 PM To: WCS_CISFEIS Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Beyond Nuclear's 19th set of public comments, re:
Docket ID NRC-2016-0231, and report number NUREG-2239, NRC's ISP/WCS CISF DEIS, re: Risk of De Facto Permanent, Surface Storage, Parking Lot Dump
Dear NRC Staff,
We submit these comments on behalf of our members and supporters, not only in New Mexico and Texas, near the targeted ISP/WCS CISF site, but across both of these states, and the rest of the country, along road, rail, and waterway routes that would be used for high risk, highly radioactive waste shipments to ISP/WCS's CISF, as well as to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, on Western Shoshone land -- wrongly and illegally assumed by ISP/WCS, as well as by NRC, to someday (or some decade, or some century) become a permanent disposal repository. This unnecessarily repeated, multiple legged, cross-continental transport of highly radioactive waste, is another significant aspect of the EJ (Environmental Justice) burden associated with this ISP/WCS CISF scheme.
The following subject matter has gotten little to no attention in NRC's ISP/WCS CISF DEIS, a far cry from NEPA's legally binding "hard look" requirement:
Risk of De Facto Permanent, Surface Storage, Parking Lot Dump What if ISP/WCS's so-called consolidated interim storage facility (CISF for short, supposed to operate for only 40 years, which is already a long time -- not "interim" or "temporary" -- in most peoples books!) becomes much longer term, or even de facto permanent?
What if future replacements for todays U.S. Representative from extreme West Texas/Andrews County (currently the 11th U.S. congressional district of TX), and adjacent, U.S. congressional districts in NM and TX, decide enough is enough, and the high-level radioactive wastes need to leave, after having been there for decades, or even centuries? Those one or two or at most a handful of future U.S. Representatives from Southeastern NM, and nearby extreme West TX, would then face the daunting challenge of overcoming the inertia, or even active opposition, of the other 430+ Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who might be just fine with the high-level radioactive wastes staying at ISP/WCS's CISF forevermore (its not in their congressional district, after all!) - which is how long they will remain hazardous by the way.
Likewise, even if the entire U.S. Senate delegations of NM and TX urged the irradiated nuclear fuel, at long last, leave the NM/TX borderlands at ISP/WCS's CISF, they would likely be outvoted in the U.S. Senate by a 96 to 4 vote.
In 2008, under court order, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged that commercial irradiated nuclear fuel remains hazardous for a million years into the future. This is actually an underestimate. Take Iodine-129, as but one example. Its half-life is 15.7 million
years. It will remain hazardous for at least ten half-lives, or 157 million years. To be safer/more conservative, the hazardous persistence should be considered for 20 half-lives, or in the case of I-219, 314 million years. I-129 is in high-level radioactive waste, including commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, too.
A 2013 U.S. Senate bill - forerunner to current versions of the legislation in Congress - added to the risks of consolidated "interim" storage facilities becoming de facto permanent, surface storage, parking lot dumps, by stating a preference for co-location of pilot consolidated interim storage facilities for "priority" irradiated nuclear fuel, alongside full-scale, lesser priority consolidated interim storage facilities, and even the permanent repository (that is, burial dump).
Also, the waiver of, or doing away with, any connection or "linkage" between development of centralized or consolidated interim storage facilities, and progress toward opening a repository, only increases the risk that supposedly "temporarily" (interim) stored highly radioactive wastes will simply be allowed to remain in centralized, or consolidated, so-called interim, surface storage facilities, indefinitely into the future. In other words, they could become de facto permanent, surface storage, parking lot dumps.
U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, warned against this de-linkage in 2012. In fact, the requirement for a permanent disposal repository being opened and operating was, and still is, essential and foundational in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, the benchmark law on commercial irradiated nuclear fuel management for the past four decades. This was, and still is, a safeguard against consolidated interim storage facilities from becoming de facto permanent surface disposal sites, or parking lot dumps.
Note that the linkage requires an operating repository, not just a nearly licensed one, nor just a proposed one by someone, for someday, somewhere, some way. Remarkably, current DOE projections for the opening of the country's first permanent burial dump are not until the year 2048, 28 years from now, although they still dont know who will make it happen, where, nor how! There is every possibility that even this 2048 repository opening date is overly optimistic.
And it must be remembered that by spring 2010, this country already needed a second repository, even though it is very far from having it's first one yet. The George W. Bush administration DOE, in late 2008, published its Report on the Need for a Second Repository, that officially acknowledged that the Yucca Mountain dump's legal capacity limit of 63,000 metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel would already be surpassed by the quantity of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel generated in this country, as early as spring 2010. The commercial irradiated nuclear fuel generated since 2010 is excess to Yucca's capacity limit, and will require a second repository somewhere else. By the terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, this second repository must be in the eastern U.S., to fulfill the principle of regional equity. After all, 90% of reactors and the irradiated nuclear fuel they have generated, are located in the eastern half of the country. 75% are located east of the Mississippi River.
But since the mid-1980s, the only targeted sites for the first repository have been in the West --
Deaf Smith County, Texas; Hanford, Washington; and Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Since 1987's
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (much more commonly known as the "Screw Nevada" Act), the sole target has been Western Shoshone land, at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
But of course, the Yucca Mountain dump will never open, for a long list of reasons. Please see my "Stringent Criteria" list, also submitted as comments in this proceeding, for the reasons why the Yucca dump never will, and never should, open.
So in that sense, our country currently needs two permanent repositories, even though we don't even have the first one yet. It is dubious even the first repository will be open by 2048, let alone two repositories will be opened by that date. Thus, the idea that ISP/WCS's CISF is "temporary" or "interim" is very dubious. It will be very long-term storage, and perhaps even de facto permanent, risking becoming a surface storage parking lot dump. Actually, when surface "storage" becomes de facto permanent, that would make it surface disposal.
2048 will be 106 years after Enrico Fermi generated the first cupful of high-level radioactive waste of the Atomic Age, in his Chicago Pile-1 at the University of Chicago squash court under the Stagg Field football stadium, on Dec. 2, 1942 as part of the Manhattan Project race for the atomic bomb. 2048 is 91 years after the first civilian, or commercial, irradiated nuclear fuel was generated, at the Shippingport atomic reactor, northwest of Pittsburgh, in the Beaver Valley of PA, very near the OH state line. Such already long-term storage, and such remarkable delays in high-level radioactive waste management and disposal, are another red flag, cautionary tale, and warning about ISP/WCSs consolidated interim storage facility, so-called, instead becoming a very long-term, indefinite, or even de facto permanent, surface storage, parking lot dump.
A major red flag, warning that "interim storage" at ISP/WCS could easily instead become permanent surface disposal, was raised on March 26, 2019. On that day, President Trump's first Energy Secretary, former Texas governor Rick Perry (who served as Energy Secretary from till),
stated in congressional testimony that not only did he, but also the people of Andrews County, Texas, welcomed permanent storage (disposal) at the ISP/CISF. Of course, the large-scale opposition to ISP/WCS's CISF scheme, as manifested during NRC's environmental scoping phase in years past, and now in the DEIS phase -- including many comments made, importantly, by Andrews County residents themselves -- has clearly shown that the public do not want it. In fact, "WE DON'T WANT IT!" placards emblazoned with radiation hazard symbols have become an iconic symbol of the resistance movement in West TX and beyond.
But Rick Perry wants it. And why wouldn't he? The former owner of WCS, Harold Simmons, was the major campaign contributor to Rick Perry, during several runs for TX governor, and even a couple runs for president. WCS's largesse in Rick Perry's direction is documented in this article I wrote on Jan. 9, 2017 in Counterpunch, entitled "Radioactive Waste is Good for You, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Rick Perry as Energy Secretary."
To document Rick Perry's March 26, 2019 embrace of permanent storage (surface disposal) at ISP/WCS's CISF, I have reproduced my Beyond Nuclear website post from that day, here below:
{Energy Secretary Rick Perry says he, and Andrews County, Texas, are fine with "interim storage" becoming permanent!
Beyond Nuclear, and its many allies opposed to CISFs (consolidated interim storage facilities) for highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel, have warned for many years, that "temporary" could easily become de facto permanent surface storage, if they are ever opened, as at Waste Control Specialists, in Andrews County, west Texas, and/or Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, in southeast New Mexico.
But now Trump's U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry -- the former governor of Texas -- has come right out and admitted it. In response to U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) at a U.S. House appropriations subcommittee hearing on March 26, 2019, Perry said he, as well as the host county targeted -- Andrews, in west Texas -- are fine with so-called "consolidated interim storage" at Waste Control Specialists, LLC turning into de facto permanent surface storage.
Watch the YouTube video, from the 23 minute 30 second mark, to the 29 minute 30 second mark, here.
(See below for a transcript of the exchange, typed up by Michael Keegan of Don't Waste Michigan.)
Energy Secretary Perry seems unaware of the 40,000+ public comments -- a record-breaking number on the subject matter of high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) -- submitted to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) late last year, opposed to the CISF targeted at WCS (recently renamed ISP, short for Interim Storage Partners). A fair number of those comments came from residents of Andrews County itself -- and significantly, Hispanic residents of Andrews County.
Energy Secretary Perry likewise seems unaware of his own agency's warning in the past, that high-level radioactive waste, abandoned at the surface of the Earth, will leak catastrophically over a long enough period of time -- guaranteed -- and hence the need for safe, sound, deep geological disposal.
(But then again, at a presidential campaign debate, Perry began to say he would abolish the DOE, only he could not remember the agency's name! "Whoops," he gulped. But when Trump tapped him to be his Energy Secretary, Perry was only too happy to oblige, any such thoughts of agency abolition forgotten. It can be argued, though, that Perry is doing a "heckuva job" (to borrow a George W. Bushism, from his administration's deadly Hurricane Katrina fiasco) at running the agency into the ground, which may be just as "good" as abolishing it outright?!
It should also be noted that the founder of the WCS "low-level" radioactive waste dump, Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, nicknamed "The King of Superfund Sites," was also Rick Perry's biggest single campaign contributor, in Perry's successful runs for TX governor, as well as his failed runs for president. Perry has been a big supporter of CISFs, in TX and NM, ever since.)
The Department of Energy issued its warning in the context of the proposed national dump-site at Yucca Mountain, on Western Shoshone Indian land in Nevada. That is, DOE was trying to panic the public, that if they didn't support the DOE's and nuclear power industry's coveted Yucca dump, right away, then catastrophe would unfold over time, as at nuclear power plant sites near them.
However, what DOE has never been willing to admit is that Yucca itself is scientifically unsuitable (and lacks consent-based siting; and violates the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863, the highest law of the land, equal in stature to the U.S. Constitution itself; and is an EJ violation, as the Western Shoshone and Nevadans downwind and downstream of nuclear weapons testing have already suffered severe exposure to radioactive fallout), and would leak massively into the environment over time, defeating the purpose of deep geological disposal!
Because Yucca is unacceptable as a dump-site (for all of the reasons listed above, and many more), it cannot be looked to as a place to off-load the burden of CISFs. Energy Secretary Perry is right -- once high-level radioactive waste is parked at the surface in Texas (and/or New Mexico for that matter), it will never leave again. It will become de facto permanent storage, at the surface. In that sense, a forever parking lot dump, a disposal dump. Just what DOE itself warned would leak hazardous radioactivity, catastrophically into the environment, over a long enough period of time.
It is high time for the American people to just say no to the Yucca dump, as well as CISFs in TX and NM. Contact your U.S. Rep. and both your U.S. Senators, and tell them that! After all, the HLRWs would have to travel through most states, many major cities, and the vast majority of U.S. congressional districts (by train, truck, and/or barge, at very high risk) to get to NM, NV, and/or TX -- likely including your town, or one near you!
House Committee on Appropriations March 26, 2019.
Unofficial Transcript - Keyed in by Michael J. Keegan At 23:30 minutes
[Mr. Simpson Ranking Member]
Thank you and to follow on that you were constrained in this budget requests by the law which is the caps and so consequently given in this year's not last year's funding. I have no idea what this year's level of budget will be. I understand the restraints on our 302 B on this commit but I am going to be trying to put this budget together, which are the caps which is what you have to do.
Let me start out by saying I am pleased that the department has continued to request funds to reopen Yucca Mountain - the licensing process anyway. We need to, we need to move forward with a permanent repository without further delay. Could you tell us a little about what the costs of delaying, Yucca Mountain being delayed, about the tax dollars being spent as well as the negative impacts such as... How willing are communities going to be accepting interim storage
if there is not a permanent repository and no prospects of a permanent repository and they could become a de facto permanent repository.
Will communities be willing to accept wastes for Yucca Mountain or the wastes from the sites that should be going to Yucca Mountain. (emphasis added)
[Secretary Department of Energy Rick Perry:]
Thank you, we worked closely during my tenure with your office on this issue. I remind the members, I remind the public that this is the law and I held up my hand and committed to upholding the law, the laws of this Country, when I took this role.
So understanding that this is the law, and our budget asks for those line items that will allow us to maintain that we are required to conduct by Congress, and also for the regulatory commission to the NRC their funding that is what this budget request is for. Um there is also request in there for Interim storage. So, because if we don't do this in some form or fashion, and we've got 38 permanent repositories and it is in every one of your states, I don't know if it is everyone's district or not, it certainly is in everyone's... Madam Chair, I made a little map, and that's the 39 states it's deposited. I think that this is where high level waste is now deposited, that is the question for us as citizens, and you as our elected officials. Is this going to be our solution? I certainly hope that is not the case.
We are going to be open to any of the ideas to the scientists that we have at our agencies at our labs may find, we will work with Congress any way we can to find a solution. We've been worked with WIPP out in NM to come up with some additional volumes, and the state agreed to that this last year so we can take more int that site .
There is also a site in West Texas in Andrews County that is also legitimate site , obviously Yucca continues to be (cut off by Simpson)
[Congressman Simpson]: Let me ask you even the site in Texas do you think that they'd be willing to accept permanent storage? (emphasis added)
[Rick Perry]: I am going to leave that up to current governor to answer for you directly. The previous governor was very supportive of it being a permanent site, there was a clear effort to make ... and the people of Andrews the citizens of Andrew County very very supportive. We had a low level nuclear committee when I was the governor. Again I don't know. (emphasis added)
I am not going to speak for the current governor or legislators but for 14 years prior to those individuals coming on there. So you know, my point is we've got to find a solution, 39 states as final repositories is not a, is not an appropriate solution to this.
Thank you.
Oh and you asked me, I'm sorry you asked me specifically the costs.
The cost is $2 million dollars a day, $2 million dollars is the cost of keeping the process in 38 states, is the cost per day to keep in 38 states, the cost has been $8 billion since 2010.
At 29:30 [Congressman Marcy Kaptur]: - Thank you Mr. Simpson now on to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz...}
Please address and rectify your woefully inadequate "hard look" under NEPA, re: this health-, safety-, and environmentally-significant, as well as legally-binding, subject matter above.
And please acknowledge your receipt of these comments, and confirm their inclusion as official public comments in the record of this docket.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Kay Drey, President, Board of Directors, Beyond Nuclear and Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist, Beyond Nuclear Kevin Kamps Radioactive Waste Specialist Beyond Nuclear 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182 Takoma Park, Maryland 20912 Cell: (240) 462-3216 kevin@beyondnuclear.org www.beyondnuclear.org Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic.
Federal Register Notice: 85FR27447 Comment Number: 7465 Mail Envelope Properties (CAFNCop6MHjxSkLXdqQ34-KOkyrYZe24RF+57yaWKwtERVdjF3g)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Beyond Nuclear's 19th set of public comments, re: Docket ID NRC-2016-0231, and report number NUREG-2239, NRC's ISP/WCS CISF DEIS, re: Risk of De Facto Permanent, Surface Storage, Parking Lot Dump Sent Date: 10/23/2020 1:26:23 PM Received Date: 10/23/2020 1:26:45 PM From: Kevin Kamps Created By: kevin@beyondnuclear.org Recipients:
Post Office: mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 19930 10/23/2020 1:26:45 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: