“What is usually referred to as nuclear waste is used nuclear fuel in the shape of rods about 12 feet long. For four and a half years, the uranium atoms that comprise the fuel rods are split apart to give off the heat that turns water into steam to spin turbines to make electricity. After that, nuclear plant workers move the used fuel rods into pools of water to cool.”
Congress wants to ‘bury’ Nevada in nuclear waste?
Section 437 of the bill attempts to block judicial review of all agency decisions regarding the environmental review of a proposed water transfer project in California known as the “delta tunnels project,” or “California WaterFix.”
The bill is cited in article.
The floating plant, the first of its kind in the world, will then be loaded with nuclear fuel before being towed to the Arctic port of Pevek in the summer of 2019, where it will be put into service.
FOR FOUR IN TEN PEOPLE, SEVERE WATER STRESS IS ALREADY A DAILY REALITY, AND DEMAND IS SPIRALLING.
Where water is scarce, energy (oil, gas, hydropower) can become more costly, crops can fail and food processing may be disrupted.
The EPA thinks the best choice is alternative 4. The plan calls for about 70% of the waste would be removed from the site by digging down 16 feet deep. Then a permanent cap would be placed on the area. It would cost about $246 million and take 5-years to implement.
Many residents said a partial removal is only a partial solution and when over 1,000 residents were asked during the meeting who would like alternative 4 not one person raised their hand.
5 years to fully implement at an estimated cost of $236,000,000. The EPA has identified this preferred
alternative over 7 others that were evaluated in the RIA/FFS — including no action, two cap-in-place
alternatives, and five excavation alternatives — each of which is described in greater detail below. The EPA
believes that this preferred alternative is protective and represents the best balance of the criteria prescribed
by the CERCLA, as amended, and the NCP.
The EPA is issuing this proposal as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 117 of CERCLA
and 40 C.F.R. 300.435(c)(2) of the NCP. This proposal is intended to inform the community of the EPA’s
preferred alternative and to solicit public comments relating to the remedial alternatives evaluated, including
the preferred alternative. The final decision to amend the ROD will be made after consideration of the
comments received and any new information raised during the public comment period. Therefore, the public
is encouraged to review and provide comment on all remedial alternatives.
The Administrative Record file, including the RIA/FFS reports, is available on the EPA’s website at https://
semspub.epa.gov/src/collections/07/AR/MOD079900932. The EPA encourages members of the public to
review these documents to obtain facts about the Site and the activities that have been conducted as part of
the Superfund process.
The West Lake Landfill Superfund
Site is an approximately 200-acre,
inactive solid waste disposal
facility located in Bridgeton,
Missouri (Figure 1). T
39,000 tons of (potentially
contaminated) surface soil
8,700 tons of
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), as successor to
the AEC, performed and/or
commissioned multiple site