Nuclear Reactor Pool Fire/Huge Risks in U.S. According to Unpublicized NRC Study

[Altair_IV]

10. The nuclear power companies are the ones that *want* to go to dry casks..

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:16 PM - Edit history (2)

The nuclear power companies are just trying to defer costs by leaving them in the pools.

It's not the nuclear power companies that are the ones against moving the waste from the pools to dry casks; it's the antinuclear movement.

The tactic is clear; the amount of spent fuel storage space in the pools is finite, they were only meant to be a cool-down facility and not a long term storage facility. If the antinuclear movement can prevent the nuclear power company from offloading fuel from the spent fuel pool to dry cask storage, then eventually the spent fuel pool will be full. When that happens, the nuclear power company can't transfer any fuel from the reactor to the pool because the pool is full. If the nuclear power company can't unload spent fuel from the reactor, they can't put any fresh fuel in, and the reactor will have to remain shutdown.

The spent fuel pool is a *choke* point; if the pool fills, then the nuclear power company can *not* operate the reactor; and that is exactly what the antinuclear movement is attempting to exploit.

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and their local antinuclear group, the Mothers for Peace have recently been battling in the Courts over exactly this issue. The Mothers for Peace are the ones that want to block the use of dry casks at Diablo because they want the fuel pools to fill up and shutdown the reactors:

http://mothersforpeace.org/collections/radioactive-waste

http://mothersforpeace.org/collections/security-terrorism

The Mothers for Peace disputed the finding of the NRC that there was vanishingly small risk of a successful terrorist attack against the Diablo Canyon dry cask storage facility. In making that finding, the NRC relied on classified information. Mothers for Peace sought access to the classified information that the NRC used to determine that the risk was minimal. The Mothers for Peace said that all the information has to be in the environmental impact statement.

The NRC countered by pointing out that when Congress wrote the NEPA - the National Environmental Policy Act which mandates impact statements, Congress was aware that the impact statements might contain sensitive or restricted information. In that regard, the NEPA Act itself states that the release of sensitive information is to be done in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA contains 9 exclusions under which release of information under FOIA can be denied. The first exclusion is that classified information is excluded from disclosure under FOIA:

http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-exemptions.pdf

In a stinging defeat for the antinuclear Mothers for Peace; the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the NRC:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/02/15/08-75058.pdf

The NRC's refusal to grant SLOMFP a closed hearing and access to sensitive information was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. Neither NEPA nor the AEA requires such a hearing, and the NRC did not abuse its discretion by concluding that holding one would present unacceptable security risks. Furthermore, in its SEA, the NRC considered the relevant factors and reasonably concluded that an EIS is not necessary.

PETITON DENIED

Further analysis courtesy of "The Recorder" at:

http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202482140812/San-Luis-Obispo-Mothers-for-Peace-v.-Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission;-United-States-of-America?slreturn=20140124151028

With the obstructionist intervention by the Mothers for Peace disposed of by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; PGECorp, the owner of Diablo Canyon is free to transfer fuel from the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pool to dry cask storage; and that operation has been underway for the last few years.

Altair_IV