Cali, California, corruption, dangers of nuclear, democracy, earthquake, earthquakes, environment, fires, flooding, major hazards, nuclear, nuclear disaster, nuclear energy, nuclear industry, nuclear power, nuclear waste, Priority waste removal, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, SONGS, US NRC
Any priority in removal of spent nuclear fuel (nuclear waste) should be based on multiple factors, including flood and fires, and not earthquakes alone. Many California members of Congress are currently trying to rig the system and make sure that California nuclear waste gets ahead in line, when, and if, an interim or permanent nuclear dump is opened, by specifying that earthquake prone areas, with closed reactors and high population, get priority removal. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2995/cosponsors. Instead of this bill, there should be investigation of which sites are most at risk. Earthquakes and nearby population shouldn’t be the only criteria. Flooding and/or fire may be more serious issues for protecting the nuclear waste. This should be a technical decision and not a political one. If the California nuclear waste were properly repackaged and housed correctly, it might survive a major earthquake.
The system of US Congressional Committees appears to be destroying the country. Its impacts are unfair and perverse.
Info from Nuclear waste “hearing”:
“Date: Thursday, June 13, 2019 – 10:00am
Subcommittees: Environment & Climate Change (116th Congress)
The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change of the Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a legislative hearing on Thursday, June 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, “Cleaning Up Communities: Ensuring Safe Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel.” Memorandum from Chairman Pallone to the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/ECC%20Briefing%20Memo%20Leg%20Hearing%202019.06.13-Nuclear%20Waste.pdf
* H R. 2699, the “Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/H.R.%202699.pdf
* H.R. 2995, the “Spent Prioritization Act of 2019” https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/H.R.%202995_Levin_2019.05.23_ih.pdf
* H.R. 3136, the “STORE Nuclear Fuel Act of 2019” https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/H.R.%203136_Matsui_2019.06.05_ih.pdf
HR 2699 is apparently similar to the Shimkus and Senate bill. Problems with Shimkus and Senate bill explained here: https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/spent-nuclear-fuel-managementrecommendations2019-05-12.pdf
THEY DON’T MAKE COMPARISON EASY AT ALL! EXCERPT FROM CURRENT LAW REGARDING BENEFITS FOLLOWED BY EXCERPT FROM PROPOSED LAW. Emphasis added. By replacing “shall”, with “may”, they appear to make giving the benefits optional:
“42 U.S. Code § 10173
* U.S. Code
(1)The Secretary may enter into a benefits agreement with the State of Nevada concerning a repository or with a State or an Indian tribe concerning a monitored retrievable storage facility for the acceptance of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel in that State or on the reservation of that tribe, as appropriate.
(2)The State or Indian tribe may enter into such an agreement only if the State Attorney General or the appropriate governing authority of the Indian tribe or the Secretary of the Interior, in the absence of an appropriate governing authority, as appropriate, certifies to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the laws of the State or Indian tribe provide adequate authority for that entity to enter into the benefits agreement.
(3) Any benefits agreement with a State under this section shall be negotiated in consultation with affected units of local government in such State.
(4)Benefits and payments under this part may be made available only in accordance with a benefits agreement under this section.
A benefits agreement entered into under subsection (a) may be amended only by the mutual consent of the parties to the agreement and terminated only in accordance with section 10173c of this title.
(c)Agreement with Nevada
The Secretary shall offer to enter into a benefits agreement with the Governor of Nevada. Any benefits agreement with a State under this subsection shall be negotiated in consultation with any affected units of local government in such State.
(d) Monitored retrievable storage
The Secretary shall offer to enter into a benefits agreement relating to a monitored retrievable storage facility with the governing body of the Indian tribe on whose reservation the site for such facility is located, or, if the site is not located on a reservation, with the Governor of the State in which the site is located and in consultation with affected units of local government in such State.
Only one benefits agreement for a repository and only one benefits agreement for a monitored retrievable storage facility may be in effect at any one time.
Decisions of the Secretary under this section are not subject to judicial review.
(Pub. L. 97–425, title I, § 170, as added Pub. L. 100–202, § 101(d) [title III, § 300], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, § 5031, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–237.)
Excerpt from Proposed law:
“TITLE IV—BENEFITS TO HOST 1
SEC. 401. CONSENT. 3
Section 170 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 4
(42 U.S.C. 10173) is amended— 5
(1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘shall offer” 6
and inserting ‘‘may offer”; 7
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘shall” and 8
inserting ‘‘may”; 9
(3) in subsection (e)— 10
(A) by inserting a comma after ‘‘reposi- 11
tory”; and 12
(B) by inserting ‘‘per State,” after ‘‘facil- 13
ity”; and 14
(4) by adding at the end the following new sub- 15
‘‘(g) CONSENT.—The acceptance or use of any of the 17
benefits provided under a benefits agreement under this 18
section by the State of Nevada shall not be considered to 19
be an expression of consent, express or implied, to the 20
siting of a repository in such State.”. 21
SEC. 402. CONTENT OF AGREEMENTS. 22
(a) BENEFITS SCHEDULE.—The table in section 23
171(a)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 24
U.S.C. 10173a(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows: 25 … Read the bill here: https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/H.R.%202699.pdf