Compiled by leaders of groups from communities located in the shadows of U.S. nuclear weapons sites. The report card grades looks to the future and lays out an agenda for the next administration.
2008 Radioactive Report Card Grade Book
Press Release
| | |
|
|
| | | published Thursday, May 05, 2011 | 861 Views | |  |
April 30, 2011
By John Severance
From the Los Alamos Monitor
POJOAQUE - It was evident about halfway through the public comment session Thursday night that not too many people were in favor of the Department of Energy wanting to build a nuclear disposal facility in Los Alamos or anywhere in New Mexico.
In fact, one New Mexico resident had another alternative.
"Build an above grade vault on the Mall at Washington, D.C. and mandate that all waste be sent there," said Stuart Barger, who said he lives downwind from Los Alamos. "Make sure to use trucks and ship it there during a Congressional session."
The remarks drew laughs and applause from the majority of the crowd at the Cities of Gold conference room, but this was still serious business for all those in attendance.
"There are no nuclear plants in New Mexico," said Marian Naranjo, the founder of Honor our Pueblo Existence (HOPE). "So why is this our problem?"
Naranjo said her group would send an extensive comment to the DOE in the coming weeks.
Scott Kovac of Nuclear Watch New Mexico added, "The proposal includes seven different sites, four different methods. That is about 25 different options and none of them are good."
The DOE still is some time away from making a final decision.
In fact, Arnold Edelman of DOE said, "the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not identify a preferred alternative because DOE does not have a preference at this time. A preferred alternative will be included in the final EIS."
The plan is to develop the final EIS with the preferred alternative and then DOE will issue the final EIS in 2012. Then it will report to Congress and await approval. DOE will then issue a record of decision (ROD) and implement the selected alternative or alternatives.
"The Department is proposing to construct and operate a new facility or facilities, or use an existing facility for the disposal of Greater than Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) and DOE GTCC-like waste," Edelman said.
"The Draft GTCC EIS evaluates the potential impacts on human health and the environment that may result from the construction, operations and long-term management of a facility for the disposal of this waste."
Edelman said DOE is contemplating a number of disposal methods including a geological repository, an intermediate-depth borehole, an enhanced near-surface trench and an aboveground vault. Sites being considered include Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, areas around WIPP, the Hanford Site in Washington, the Nevada National Security Site, and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Another option being considered in the Draft GTCC EIS is no alternative or the status quo.
One alternative that some anti-nuclear activists support but not part of the Draft GTCC EIS is called "Hardened On-Site Storage" or HOSS.
GTCC waste and irradiated spent fuel would remain at commercial nuclear plants in long-term storage so that the materials can be monitored and are protected from aircraft crashes or terrorist attacks.
"While HOSS is not a permanent solution, it would be more protective of human health and the environment than any of DOE's current dumping practices. HOSS would be a safe way of storing wastes until a scientifically sound, publicly acceptable solution is found," Kovac said.
Other talking points for those opposed to the project include:
- WIPP's mission is limited by law to 175,564 cubic meters of transuranic waste from nuclear weapons. That's less than five million curies of radioactivity. GTCC waste would be 30 times more radioactive than planned for WIPP and would eliminate the ban on commercial waste.
- If some large amounts of commercial waste can come to WIPP, many people would think that the legal ban on high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel could also be eliminated. WIPP would then be the only geological disposal site and all highly radioactive waste would be transported through New Mexico for many decades and be buried here forever.
- LANL buries its low-level radioactive waste in unlined trenches, pits and shafts at Area G. The final determination by DOE and the New Mexico Environment Department of what happens to the hazardous and radioactive wastes at Area G has not yet been made and is a highly controversial issue. A decision to bury GTCC waste would predetermine that other waste also could be buried there, posing a threat to groundwater for generations to come.
No more public comments are scheduled for New Mexico as DOE had hearings in Carlsbad on Tuesday and Albuquerque on Wednesday.
The deadline for written comments to DOE is June 27.
Submit to Arnold Edelman, Document Manager, DOE GTCC EIS, Cloverleaf, Building., EM 43, 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC, 20585. Written comments also can be submitted at gtcceis.anl.gov. |
|
|
|
|