December
15, 2000
Note
to readers-LEA and Susan Peterson Gateley, the author of this letter are
appalled that a high level radioactive waste dump can be put on the shores of
Lake Ontario with less regulatory and public oversight than a housing development.
We think this project should be subject to the same rigor via an up to date
Environmental Impact Statement as other lake shore projects.
Letter
to the editor Dec 13 2000 meeting Sheldon Hall Oswego NY by S.P. Gateley
Dear
Palladium Times,
In
the late 1980s , that's back when the Republicans were reinventing government I
believe, the Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Among its provisions
was a directive to develop a streamlined certification process to minimize the
need for site specific NRC approvals. In 1992 the NRC complied with rulings
that did just that reflecting I assume, the will of the people as expressed in
Congress.(It wasn't my will but oh well, you win some, you lose some).
As a result, public utilities can now expand
the storage of high level radioactive waste in "temporary" facilities
located next to their reactors without any additional consideration of economic
social or environmental impacts of such an action. Nor is there any opportunity
for public comment or meaningful input into this approval process. Kevin Kamp
of NIRS an anti nuclear watchdog group calls this a "meltdown of the
democratic process".
When
the Atomic Energy Act was passed back in the 1950s at the height of the cold
war, it took away local jurisdiction over nuclear safety issues. In exchange we
locals were supposed to have opportunity for meaningful input through a formal
hearing process in a court room setting. But with the passage of the Nuclear
Waste Policy act we lost that right
regarding spent fuel storage facilities I'm no lawyer, but that sure sounds
like a violation of the stated the
intent of the Atomic Energy Act. I want a recount.
.
Because
of changes in the regulatory and business climate of the nation since the
Nuclear Waste Policy act was passed we need our right for meaningful input
back. Well after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed, deregulation of
electricity production began to get underway around the country. In most states
it included a massive transfer of debt from nuclear plant owners to rate
payers, (so called stranded cost bailouts). This suddenly made nukes vastly
more profitable(See Barrons Nov 27 for more) and now many owners are seeking
license extensions. Some are even considering building new nuclear plants to
help combat global warming. I can only surmise as to the impact of recent
record tight supplies of natural gas on the energy production scene.
As
several people pointed out in the December 13 meeting it is no longer valid ( if it ever was) to assume dry cask storage
of nuclear waste on the generator's site is going to be temporary. The
centralized permanent repository idea
as exemplified by Yucca Mountain and Skull Valley appears to be a questionable solution for political and technical
reasons. One person questioned whether the projected centralized repository
capacity would even be adequate give the rush to extend licenses and the
possibility of new nukes coming on line. Others remarked on the failure (for
political, technical or whatever
reasons) of nuclear fuel reprocessing in the 1970's saying such an
outcome for the centralized repository was also possible.
The
world is now very different than it was when the Atomic Energy Act was passed and
when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was made law. Relying on 40 year old impact
statements to place facilities beside North America's major lakes, rivers and
on our coasts where they may reside for a century (or maybe a lot longer) and
be subject to sea level changes without even a comprehensive updating of the
site specific evaluations is a reckless and irresponsible act. The NWPA needs
to be amended to reflect the changed regulatory and business climate
surrounding our nation's nuclear industry. We need to restore the legal frame
work as was originally set forth in the Atomic Energy Act for third party
reviews of site evaluations and for meaningful public input to this process.
What Congress took away with the first NWPA can be restored. In view of the revival
of the nuclear industry it is imperative that we revisit this issue and revise
and update the Nuclear Waste Policy Act ASAP. Let's do it now!
PS
tell Hilliary I sent you.