Petition Tag - nuclear waste

1. Keep SD Nuclear Waste Free

DOE is using their 'consent based siting' process on Haakon County to conduct a feasibility borehole to determine if nuclear waste can be stored 5k (3.1 miles) below the surface. 'Consent based siting' is used for repositories and disposal sites. We do not want to open that door. DOE does not require consent from local governments for a research project and, yet, DOE requires RESPEC to solicit approval from the governor, our state representatives, our county commissioners, and our local town boards all without going to the people first!!! This project depends on the Haakon County Commissioners approval. We appreciate your support! Sign the petition and email your commissioners you do not support this project at Haakon.public.comment@gmail.com. **IMPORTANT NOTE: Put the county your are registered to vote in the "state, county" box!!!! We accept all SD signatures but need to sort by county! Realize the sponsors of the petition plan to print names and emails to give directly to commissioners so please be respectful in what you write.. If you're unsure of 'anonymous' really means, please read the FAQ page. If you'd rather sign a paper petition, please ask us. If you have been disrespectful, it does allow you to edit. Thank you.

2. Stop Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster NOW!

TOKYO | Mon Aug 5, 2013 1:38pm EDT

(Reuters) - Highly radioactive water seeping into the ocean from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is creating an "emergency" that the operator is struggling to contain, an official from the country's nuclear watchdog said on Monday.

This contaminated groundwater has breached an underground barrier, is rising toward the surface and is exceeding legal limits of radioactive discharge, Shinji Kinjo, head of a Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) task force, told Reuters.

Countermeasures planned by Tokyo Electric Power Co are only a temporary solution, he said.

Tepco's "sense of crisis is weak," Kinjo said. "This is why you can't just leave it up to Tepco alone" to grapple with the ongoing disaster.

"Right now, we have an emergency," he said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-japan-fukushima-panel-idUSBRE97408V20130805

3. Stop The Great Lakes Nuclear Dump

Ontario Power Generation (OPG), a multi-billion dollar power generation company, is seeking approval to build a nuclear waste dump (a Deep Geological Repository or DGR)
1 km from the shores of Lake Huron.

The Dump will extend underground to approximately 400 meters below the lake level. Some of this nuclear waste remains toxic and lethal for over 100,000 years.

On December 12, 2016, the Governor in Council, under subsection 54(4) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, extended the time limit for the issuance of the Decision Statement for the proposed DGR project by 243 days.

This dump puts at risk the fresh water of the GREAT LAKES, relied upon by 40 million people in two countries.

Any risk of buried nuclear waste entering the largest body of fresh water in the world is too great a risk to take, and need not be taken.

We can and must deliver an overwhelming wave of opposition to OPG's plan. Tell Minister McKenna and the Canadian federal government to stand up for the protection of the Great Lakes.

Tell your friends on Facebook, Twitter and email.

4. NO to Nuclear Waste stored at Lucas Heights

Please download and read our pamphlet, and send it to your family and friends - http://bit.ly/LpxQpw

In the 1990’s, the nuclear waste from Lucas Heights was sent to France for re-processing. Under contracts signed by the Australian Government in the 90’s, Australia is obliged to take back its waste, from France and the UK by the end of 2015. Approximately 13.2 cubic metres of intermediate nuclear waste will be stored in a $30 million purpose-built facility at Lucas Heights for a maximum of 5 years.

This decision of such importance has managed to fall under the radar and as far away from the public eye as possible.

According to David Sweeny of The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), “just
because the waste has been reprocessed, doesn’t mean it is safe.” He is quoted as saying that it is “a contaminated cocktail of various radioactive elements and isotopes and some of these last for many thousands of years and pose a very significant radiology hazard and human health hazard.”

Sydney residents do not feel safe with this radioactive waste being stored within close proximity to their homes. It appears to be a possible terrorist target or a national disaster waiting to happen.

Local residents are unaware as to what was planned for Lucas Heights and the majority have no idea what is going on. Once informed there response is "how do we go about stopping this and what can I do to help". This does not appear to be a well informed community in favor of Lucas Heights being used as a nuclear waste storage facility.

Another issue is how temporary is temporary? The Federal Government has had 30 years to decide where to store this radioactive waste and to date the best
they can come up with is a five year plan for it to be stored at Lucas Heights. ANSTO insists that the facility will only provide “interim” storage for the waste however this is extremely debatable.

It appears that the Federal Government is applying a quick fix solution to an extremely important national issue. To date they have been unable to establish the
location of where the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility will be, so who’s to say they will in 7 years time.

Why put it in a densely populated area like Lucas Heights which is within a 30 km radius of Sydney’s CBD, just because it is the easiest and cheapest solution for the interim. Why aren’t the Government seeking a viable long term solution now, they still have until the end of 2015. Australia is one of the world’s most geologically stable continents with many sparsely populated locations that would be perfect sites for the storage of radioactive waste.

The Australian Government has a responsibility to the next generation to find a viable solution now.

5. No nuclear waste dump at Muckaty

Legislation is due before the Australian Senate that would name a site in the Muckaty Land Trust, 120km north of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory, to be declared and assessed as a national radioactive waste management facility.

Many Traditional Owners strongly oppose this plan and are calling on people around Australia to help them bury the radioactive waste dump proposal.



More information, photos and audio can be found at www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com
www.dumpthedump.org.au

For information on why a Northern Territory waste dump is not needed for continuation if nuclear medicine see: http://vimeo.com/29971907

6. Stop the inquiry of a Nuclear Waste Facility in Wawa

Overflowing with rich wildlife, fresh scenic landscapes, and friendly residents, our town is a thing of beauty.

Despite the growing need for new sources of income, this town shouldn't surrender everything it represents in turn for something completely against what we strive for. Although economic recovery is needed in Wawa, a nuclear waste facility certainly should not be the answer.

We believe that no matter what economical impact this plan may contribute to our town, it is does not out way the risks involving storing these highly toxic materials.

We are a town known for its respect towards the environment, and by inquiring into nuclear waste, the municipal council is undermining our values.

7. Stop the transport of Nuclear Steam Generators from Bruce Power to Sweden

Bruce Power Inc. plans to transport 16 nuclear steam generators from the Nuclear Generating Station near Kincardine by land to Owen Sound harbour. Then these generators will be loaded on a cargo ship, held in Owen Sound harbour on the ship until the loading is complete.

From there they will be transported through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway and onto Studsvik Sweden. There the steel will be recycled and the nuclear waste shipped back to Canada for storage.

8. Stop transportation and storage to Yucca Mountain

This petition is to ban the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. The main reasons being that the choice to use Yucca Mt. as a storage unit was based on politics and not scientific evidence. The storage containments holding the chemicals are little researched and are uncertain to their holding capabilities. Therefore a possiblity of the nuclear waste corroding the canisters and leaking into rising groundwater underneath the mountain. This leading to contamination of our drinking water. Also the accidental case of a spill or accident is a possible action that should not be overlooked. This would result in contaminants in groundwater and pollution to our environment. This is just the beggining to the problems that may come from the continueing storage and transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. I would propose on site storage as close to the point of generation as possible to prevent catastrophe of terrorist attack and implement the goals of the long term plans. These storages next to the sites will give time for scientists to study and research further on various geological settings needed for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Possible suggestions are as follows: geological disposal on land, sub-seaded disposal, and upper mantle disposal. The main aim would be to obtain sufficient data in one or two decades to enable comparisons between these differences. These facts and ideas were based from Lisa Lidwedge of the Institue of Energy and Environmental Research. I strongly support these notions and I am very concerned with the disastorous effects that could come from this continueing process.