[ RadSafe ] Editorial: (Nuclear) Waste Matters

Tue Jun 6 13:40:53 CDT 2006

Brent,
  Twelve, expanded from just 2 applicants for NPReactors, was stated in either a WSJ article or Fox News just a couple of weeks ago. I don't remember the specific reference. Hopefully, someone here will have a better source, perhaps from the DOE, which should have it.
   Howard

Rogers Brent <Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au> wrote:
  Howard,

I must've missed the story that told of these 12 applicants. Could you
provide a source, please?

Thanks

Brent Rogers
Manager Radiation Operations Unit
NSW Environment Protection Authority
Department of Environment and Conservation
*+61 2 9995 5986
*+61 2 9995 6603
* PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232

-----Original Message-----
From: howard long [mailto:hflong at pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2006 10:28 AM
To: John Jacobus; RADSAFE
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Editorial: (Nuclear) Waste Matters

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 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
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/

This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information. 

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW).