[ RadSafe ] Editorial: (Nuclear) Waste Matters

Sat Jun 3 14:20:29 CDT 2006

Yes, Jaro. This explains why only the most government-controlled option is discussed by the "government appointed Committee -". On-site storage and reprocessing managed more by the utilities than DOE, since it would not involving interstate commerce, could eliminate thousands of federal jobs averaging $103 K/y vs $57 K/y for private equal work.

  Cynically, Howard Long

Jaro <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca> wrote:
  Howard,

Does the following answer your question ?

Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Tuesday, May 16, 2006
US NEWS:
--MOVEMENT OF SPENT FUEL IN THE US COULD BE FURTHER DELAYED, according to
Senator Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who chairs the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. Domenici indicated during a status hearing on
DOE's
repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada that it was unrealistic to
proceed
with a status-quo repository project and later factor in spent fuel
reprocessing
waste and recycling activities associated with DOE's new fuel-cycle
initiative,
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
It ought to be pretty clear to everyone that spent fuel rods won't be put
into Yucca Mountain, Domenici said in an
apparent reference to GNEP, which is aimed, in part, at closing the nuclear
fuel cycle in the US and abroad.
Recycling will determine what kind of repository the US needs, he added.
"It's a mess," Domenici said, of the Yucca Mountain program as reporters
approached him after the hearing. He said that he believes any legislation
on Yucca Mountain would have to include language on spent fuel recycling.
Draft legislation DOE sent to Congress last month did not include language
on spent fuel reprocessing.

--DOE MUST MAKE "VISIBLE AND MEASURABLE PROGRESS" IN IMPLEMENTING a national
spent fuel management program, Nuclear Energy Institute President and Chief
Executive Officer Frank "Skip" Bowman said today in written testimony NEI
submitted to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He added
that
DOE must address several issues to provide stability, clarity, and
predictability to its spent fuel policy. According to Bowman, industry
priorities for the program include: DOE should move spent fuel to a secure
federal facility as soon as possible; Congress should codify its confidence
that
utility spent fuel can be safely managed; Congress should lift the 70,000
metric
ton cap now placed on the disposal capacity of the planned repository at
Yucca
Mountain, Nevada; DOE should be given direct access to annual waste fee
receipts, now estimated at $750 million; and federal licensing for a
repository should be streamlined.

--YEARS OF "REVOLVING-DOOR DOE OFFICIALS" AND UNFILLED PROMISES to improve
management and control costs associated with the vitrification plant being
built at DOE's Hanford site in Washington state have led members of the
House
Appropriations Committee to the point where they no longer have confidence
in
DOE, the Government Accountability Project asserted today. The watchdog
group
pointed to a House Appropriations subcommittee's push last week to make the
nuclear safety oversight of the facility NRC's responsibility. The full
House
Appropriations Committee will take up the subcommittee recommendation
Wednesday
when it marks up the energy funding bill for fiscal 2007. The subcommittee
bill
would cut DOE spending on the vit plant to $90 million and would order DOE
to
halt construction of the facility until design work is 90% complete.
======================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of howard long
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 7:52 PM
To: John Jacobus; radsafe; know_nukes at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Editorial: (Nuclear) Waste Matters

Advanced on-site storage awaiting reprocessing "waste" of present reactors
is ignored by the below authors.

Why?

Howard Long

John Jacobus wrote:
>From PhysicsWeb at
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/6/1

Waste matters
Editorial: June 2006

Plans for a waste repository are needed before new
nuclear power stations are built

Nuclear power is "back on the agenda with a vengeance"
said UK prime minister Tony Blair in a forthright
speech last month. His statements were surprising
given that he made them ahead of his own government's
review of energy, which is not due to be announced
until the end of this month. That review is expected
to recommend the construction of a new generation of
nuclear power stations in the UK; Blair's comments are
a strong indication that will indeed be the case.

The energy review comes hot on the heels of a report
by the government-appointed Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management, which was asked to examine what to
do with the country's current and future nuclear
waste. Unfortunately, after three years of
deliberation, the committee has concluded what should
have been blindingly obvious from the start - namely
that nuclear waste should be buried in a deep
underground repository (see pp8-9; print version
only). It does have sensible things to say about the
importance of consulting the public over nuclear
waste, but it falls short on technical
recommendations.

Having wasted much valuable time debating - and then
dismissing - exotic solutions such as firing the waste
into space, the committee has given no clear view on
what kind of repository should be built or even what
kind of geology would be most suitable for such a
site. These decisions still need to be made, which
will only delay construction of a repository still
further. Blair's apparent enthusiasm for nuclear power
is to be welcomed, but a clear long-term plan on what
to do with the waste needs to be in place before the
construction of any new stations begins.

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/354 - Release Date: 6/1/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/354 - Release Date: 6/1/2006

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/