Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel
|Date||March 22, 2022|
|Comment / Suggestion:|
I am writing to inquire whether the DCDEP participated in the Department of Energy’s request for information re: “Using Consent-Based siting Process to Identify Federal Interim Storage Facilities’ and associated questions.”
I mention this because the subject has been raised at DCDEP meetings, and the questions regarding when the DOE will accept the high level radioactive waste does affect the schedule and cost of the decommissioning process.
The overall issue is found at the DCDEP website:
Prospects for Completion
This leaves all nuclear power plants in the US without any designated long-term federal disposal site. As a result, most nuclear power plants, including DCPP, must store their spent nuclear fuel, indefinitely, on site in dry cask storage systems made of steel and concrete casks. The prospects for completion of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository or any other such permanent repository in the near future are low and there is currently no approved funding for further development. However, there was a Bill in the last Congress (the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendment Act of 2017) that directs the DOE to develop a federal Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) to be used until the development, construction and operation of a permanent federal nuclear waste repository is developed. That bill (HR 3053), passed the House of Representatives by 370 – 72, but Senator Heller (R- NV) prevented it from coming to a vote in the Senate. Senator Heller has since lost his seat. A similar Bill could be introduced in the current Congress.
It has come to my attention that at least one other decommissioning advisory board, that of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, had taken it upon themselves to provide public comment on this topic, and placed their letter on their website. I am attaching it. Had participating in this public comment opportunity been discussed by the DCDEP? Where the members made aware of it, collectively or individually? It would seem that comments from communities immediately impacted by decommissioning would have a significant voice in the process as they will be the first to be left with the waste (long before the majority of the reactor sites that have received 20 year license renewals from the NRC).
I am attaching the Vermont letter. Although the deadline has passed, the DOE website does indicate that subsequent comments can be sent, they are not guaranteeing that late arrivals will be reflected in their final report. Thus, an opportunity remains should the DCDEP wish to engage.
I will also post this to the public comment section of the DCDEP website.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this to yours and the committees attention.
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
|Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)||Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility|
|Support Information / Attachments|
|Link to Web Page or Online File||a4nr.org|
|Uploaded File 1||VT-NDCAP_Approved_Advisory_Opinion_2022-02-28_DOE_RFI_Consent-Based_Siting_Response_Letterhead_0.pdf|