Representatives from environmental organizations from San Diego to Massachusetts filed comments today on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s new regulations for re-licensing nuclear power plants. A common theme fro all those who live in the shadow of aging nuclear plants was a lack of trust and a The NRC regulation proposal out for comment is yet another example of an oversight agency refusing to address the real impacts of continued operation of nuclear plants designed and built in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
For example, the NRC continues to pretend that: The only issues to address are aging components, Existing nuclear power plants do not need to meet criteria of new nuclear plants; Security issues have not changed since existing nuclear plants were licensed – most over 20 years ago; A solution to permanent safe storage of high-level radioactive waste exists; Anyone at the NRC involved in decision-making on relicensing will be in position of responsibility for the duration of license renewals; Degradation of waters offshore of nuclear power plants is not a problem; A new pool of trained nuclear workers is in place or will be place to replace the current aging workforce; License renewals do not change the original land use intent of the facilities by breaching their tech spec designs and converting them into LLRW and HLRW storage facilities; Safe and secure transport exists to remove radioactive waste from nuclear power plant sites to "somewhere" else. The conclusion by all who filed comments was that site-specific hearings are not necessary for all of the above concerns.
The NRC has stated that "all comments should include supporting justification in enough detail for the NRC staff to evaluate the need for changes in the guidance, as well as references to the operating experience, industry standards, or other relevant reference materials that provide a sound technical basis for such changes." However, the public who live with the NRC’s criteria for license renewals are increasing prevented from knowledge of "operating experience, industry standards and relevant reference materials that would provide a sound technical basis for changes" states Rochelle Becker, Executive Director of the statewide Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. "This leaves the reactor communities at a great disadvantage and belies the NRC’s statement that it is "especially interested in stakeholder comments."
"Nuclear power plants across our county do not have cookie-cutter designs for components. Some are subject to saltwater and salt air intrusion, some experience tornadoes or other geologic activity and/or weather conditions that can impact how components age. Aging of components can be related to weather, geologic conditions, maintenance, personnel errors, quality of design of components and other factors. These aging issues cannot be considered generic, yet the NRC ignores the site- specific conditions of aging in favor of expediting license renewals for nuclear utility owners."
The comments conclude that "Until regulations for re-licensing are in place to assure that aging reactors and all conditions that impact aging are addressed and resultant impacts of continued operation are considered NO license renewals should be approved."
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |