Nuclear Waste Confidence Policy
Focus: PG&E's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Introduction
Truth is essential for responsible decisions and actions for safety from nuclear accidents.
Believing is not knowing.
Obfuscation (covering up) of the truth is not a responsible action.
The Problem of Long-term Storage of Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel
The expectation that a location to safely store spent nuclear reactor fuel has resulted in the construction of over 100 nuclear power plants at various geographic locations within the U.S. This expectation did not consider the possibility that tons of spent reactor fuel would be stored at the nuclear power plant locations indefinitely and that no permanent repository would be found.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Summary Nuclear Waste Policy Act) made the federal government responsible to find a permanent geological repository and begin transferring waste from nuclear power plants to that repository by 1998. However, no permanent repository has been found, and tons of spent reactor fuel increases and remains onsite the nuclear power plants.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) continues to have "confidence" that the waste disposal problem of storage will be solved sometime in the future. (Waste/Spent Fuel Storage) In other words, the NRC "believes" that a location to store spent reactor fuel will be found and that in the meantime, the spent fuel can be stored safely at all nuclear reactor power plants. These two beliefs have resulted in the irresponsible actions of building nuclear power plants and of storing tons of highly radioactive spent reactor fuel onsite in pools and in dry casks while waiting for a permanent site to be found.
Moreover, the NRC declared that it could continue to give 20-year license extensions to aging nuclear reactors without an objective, scientific study of safety, storage and disposal of thousands of tons of radioactive waste.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. rejected the NRC Waste Confidence Rule. On June 8, 2012. In response, the NRC stopped all licensing activities that rely on the Waste Confidence rule and developed a Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) — one for all 100 currently operating nuclear reactors. (See NRC Waste / Spent Fuel Storage)
The NRC wants the public to believe that storing nuclear waste onsite at all of the 100 nuclear reactors in the U.S. is a safe procedure. The NRC has been holding public meetings in 12 cities to allow citizens to speak to the environmental review. The NRC expects the final GEIS to be produced by September 2014.
Nuclear Waste Storage at PG&E's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
Perhaps the most problematic geographic setting for the storage of nuclear waste is onsite PG&E's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP), which sits near 13 earthquake faults.
Mike Baird's photo above captures the pristine setting of DCNPP. The plant sits on Chumash Native American Sacred Ground overlooking the Pacific Ocean along California's central coast between two National Marine Sanctuaries. Safety for the people and the marine environments of Monterey County, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa Barbara County is essential.
The Union of Concerned Scientists' report, "Seismic Shift, Diablo Canyon Literally and Figuratively on Shaky Ground," (See UCS Seismic Shift) by Dave Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project, finds that the NRC is not holding DCNPP to the same standards required of every other nuclear facility to address potential earthquake hazards. Read more here.
Also, Matt Fountain's report, "Calculational Garbage — Did the NRC allow PG&E to dodge Diablo Canyon Seismic Licensing Requirements" (See Calculational-Garbage) in the June 27, 2013 "New Times" gives a detailed discussion of the seismic fault management of analysis by different methods.
PG&E has removed the word "nuclear" from the power plant's name (Diablo Canyon Power Plant-DCPP). (See My Home: System Works)
Does PG&E want the public to forget the two nuclear reactors and 27 years of stored nuclear waste onsite? Diablo's reactors are licensed until 2024 and 2025, and PG&E is requesting license renewals for an additional 20 years — 60 years total. Besides being a nuclear power plant, DCNPP is also a toxic waste dump for nuclear reactor waste that must be stored and guarded for up to 250,000 years.
In our April 2011 article we describe how radioactive spent reactor fuel is stored at DCNPP and our concerns of the safety of indefinite storage, especially with the multiple earthquake faults.
Ralph Bishop authored a book that gives an easy photo-documented geological tour of the area around the Diablo facility. The photographs speak louder than PG&E's reluctance to open the door to reality. Also included are photos of cut and polished pieces of bedrock that illuminate the crushing effects of our local geology.
Note: The term "terrane" is a geological term for a tectonostratigraphic terrane, which is a fragment of crustal material formed on, or broken off from, one tectonic plate and accreted or "sutured" to crust lying on another plate. Read more here.
Mr. Bishop observes, "Although the epicenters of many earthquakes take place on or near main trending faults, the terranes crushed between them are always impacted by the vertical thrust fault that separate them and often creates a higher degree of jeopardy and damage. Undiscovered or 'blind' thrust faults that riddle the bedrock can also rupture independent of main trending faults at any given time."
Bishop's presentation is a highly suggested read within the context of the "scientific" conclusions reached by PG&E and the NRC during the seismic portion of the public licensing hearings. Suddenly one day at the hearing the conclusion was presented in 'testimony' that both the gigantic size of the Diablo structure and the 'fact' that it was constructed upon 'solid' bedrock made the proposed facility stronger than originally 'thought'. Thus, Diablo was deemed able to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. Read more here.
Bishop's overview not only discusses a lack of solid bedrock, but more than adequately illustrates with photographs that the local geology is soft sedimentary rock, not hard igneous deep-rooted bedrock. And, the sedimentary rock is highly fractured and contorted with varying degrees of angles between horizontal and vertical. This also points to the unreliability of the safety of the pools holding highly radioactive used fuel rods and the integrity of the safety of the dry containment structures holding used fuel rods as currently designed.
The San Luis Obispo, California Tribune's editorial on November 20, 2013, Spent Fuel at Diablo, states that the question of what to do with spent fuel from Diablo Canyon and other nuclear power plants should have been settled years ago, and it has been 15 years since the federal government was supposed to begin storing the nuclear waste in a permanent storage facility. Further, that the storing of spent reactor fuel at DCNPP was never anticipated when the plant was first licensed, and PG&E has "dealt with the water storage dilemma by packing Diablo's two spent fuel pools more densely. PG&E has only moved some of the fuel into dry casks.
The Editorial states the Tribune's support of moving the fuel as soon as is possible into dry casks for safer storage, especially since the location is in an active earthquake zone, "making it even more critical that spent fuel is stored as safely as possible."
Public Comments on Waste Confidence
More information can be found on the NRC Waste Confidence website.
The public has until December 20, 2013 to submit written comments to the NRC on its spent fuel rule. The NRC website for Public Involvement in Waste Confidence states that you can submit written comments through these methods: E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov, citing Docket ID No. NRC–2012–0246 or submit comments online at: Regulations.gov using Docket ID No. NRC–2012–0246
Mail comments to: |
|
Secretary
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff |
|
|
|
Fax comments to: |
|
Secretary
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
301-415-1101, citing Docket ID No. NRC–2012–024 |
NRC meeting on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 in San Luis Obispo, CA
Over 200 people attended the NRC meeting on November 20, 2013 in San Luis Obispo. Over 100 stated their concerns to the NRC regarding the NRC's Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and proposed Waste Confidence Rule. The GEIS is an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel after the closure of nuclear plants. The Waste Confidence Rule states that the NRC has confidence that it will solve the problem of nuclear waste storage "in time" and will continue allowing more radioactive waste to be stored at all nuclear power plants.
As reported by David Sneed in the November 21, 2013 Tribune.
"Plant owner PG&E urges the federal government to take possession of spent fuel from plants as soon as possible for storage in a centralized location, Strickland said. Until then, PG&E believes it can safely store the spent fuel on-site. Many experts believe that dry casks, which are large steel-and-concrete canisters, are the safer method for storing fuel."
Many speakers urged the NRC to require that utilities reduce the density of fuel rods stored in the pools as a safety precaution. "Starting tomorrow, why don't you increase the pace of moving the fuel from the pools to the casks?" asked John Geesman, attorney for the San Luis Obispo-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
Fred Collins of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council said his ancestors had lived at the Diablo Canyon site for tens of thousands of years. He considers the fuel repository a violation of the land and environment. "We, as native peoples, do not give permission for waste to be stored on site," he said. Jane Swanson, spokeswoman for the anti-nuclear group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, said the waste storage rule does not provide solutions for a problem that will threaten the county for many years. "They only perpetuate the unjustified assumption that spent fuel can be stored for a quarter of a million years at reactor sites with no serious impact on the environment," she said.
Further information can be found in the press release from San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Synopsis - Waste Confidence) Many, including San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam Hill, urged the NRC to order PG&E to transfer the radioactive wastes into dry casks storage on an accelerated schedule, rather than leaving the rods in densely packed spent fuel pools
Also, Fukushima was brought up many times as a warning and an illustration of the dangers posed by nuclear technology. It was pointed out that the entire Pacific Ocean, and indeed the west coast of the United States, is seriously threatened by the radiation from Japan. Several also pointed out that right up until the minute before the earthquake and tsunami hit Fukushima, the plant operators were fully confident that their plants were safe.
Jane Swanson, a spokesperson for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, pointed out that in determining the risks of a spent fuel pool accident, the NRC relied on an outdated 1994 study of plants east of the Rocky Mountains. And then, in an unsupported leap of faith, it claims that the risks and consequences of an accident are the same for the west coast plants, despite their very unique geology.
Sherry Lewis of Mothers for Peace took PG&E to task for using the terms "used" and "spent" fuel to imply that the energy in the fuel rods was all consumed. On the contrary, she explained, the fuel has to be removed from the reactor core because the fission process has made it much more radioactive and unstable as elements not found in nature are created.
The bottom line of most of the speakers was that the NRC should be in the business of protecting public safety, rather than protecting the profits of the industry it is supposed to regulate. The new proposed GEIS and Rule were strongly rejected by the public speakers.
Trusting the NRC
On November 21, 2013, The Environment and Public Works Committee held its eighth oversight hearing on the NRC since the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown in Japan in March 2011.
"The consequences of the terrible events in Fukushima, Japan have spurred us to rethink how to ensure safety at the 100 nuclear reactors currently operating in the United States," stated Senator Barbara Boxer, November 21, 2013 to the Oversight Hearing: NRC's Implementation of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations and other Actions to Enhance and Maintain Nuclear Safety" (FuseAction = Majority)
Regarding the safety of DCNPP, Senator Barbara Boxer states. "Serious questions have been raised regarding whether this facility meets NRC's license requirements, given the wealth of new information regarding seismic hazards at this site."
Senator Boxer states her concern of receiving correct information from the NRC, "Without notifying the EPW Committee and – I believe acting outside of the NRC's authority – the Commission issued a new policy with substantial hurdles and delays that could even be used to withhold information entirely from the Chairs and Ranking Members of the oversight committees."
The following video shows several presentations beginning with Senator Barbara Boxer to the EEPW Committee hearing: NRC oversight/Diablo Canyon and followed by David Weisman, Outreach Coordinator for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility to the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors and to the NRC and others. Video credit is to the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
Conclusion
Now is the time for the NRC to face the unfounded belief that nuclear reactor waste can be safely stored indefinitely at 100 nuclear power plants. The NRC needs to protect the public and the environment, even if that means closing the nuclear power plants until the federal government locates adequately safe geological sites for the long-term storage of nuclear reactor waste. It is time to make responsible decisions and actions based on fact, not belief.
Photos by Carol Georgi except where noted. Whale photo at top of page by Mike Baird - Visit Mike's Flickr pages.
|
