[ RadSafe ] Editorial: (Nuclear) Waste Matters

[howard long]

I do. There is a rebirth of freedom, as in the now 12 applicants for nuclear power reactors. Vote tomorrow for the party that has brought it.
   
  Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Dr. Long, 
I suggest that you contact your government
representatives if you think that reprocessing should
be considered. This is an old issue that has been
discussed many times on this e-mail list and others.

--- howard long wrote:

> 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 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________