[ RadSafe ] Proposed NRC Regulation open for comment

[Jeff Terry]

Always a good day when you get a Robert Service mention at RadSafe.

Maybe, Yucca Mountain will rise again, like Sam McGee:

http://www.arcticwebsite.com/ServiceCremation.html

That said I am more a fan of reprocessing than burying leftover fuel  
in the ground.
I would prefer to see reprocessing plants built over restarting the  
Yucca Mountain project.

Jeff


On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:16 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote:

> Hi Doug & Bill:
>
> Remembering the "The Songs of a Sourdough", the wonderful poem by  
> Robert
> Service, "The Shooting of Dan McGrew", I can only say, "I'm not so  
> wise as
> the lawyer guys, but strictly between us two - ", I have been around  
> the
> block once or twice!
>
> http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=174349
>
> I think the petition is actually from a pro-nuclear engineer who  
> believes
> that confrontation is the best solution for Yucca Mountain,  
> especially in
> light of the mixed statements of the Obama Administration to build  
> new power
> plants but to stop funding a waste repository.
>
> Had this been a privately financed facility, the government could  
> not simply
> turn-off funding.  Kane is challenging the NRC to step forward on  
> this one
> issue which has caused the administration to break the agreements  
> made by
> several previous administrations.  As I understand it, the US  
> Government is
> legally bound to provide a nuclear waste repository expeditiously  
> based on
> agreements made at least 2 decades ago.
>
> I don't believe that the NRC had never found fault with the licensing
> process, either technically or procedurally.  So either it re- 
> commences with
> licensing or shuts down everything.  I hope that this challenge will  
> go from
> the NRC to a district court, then to an appeals court, and finally the
> Supreme Court.  Then it will be decided, hopefully finding the current
> decision by the Obama Administration flawed based on the previous
> agreements. Perhaps the Supreme Court will hear the case based on  
> its merits
> as is.  That is if the issue is litigated outside the NRC.
>
> Similar challenges by the opposition to NRC licensing for an interim  
> waste
> facility in Utah two or so years ago and uranium mining license (URI/ 
> HRI)
> quite recently have gone from district court and decided in favor of  
> the NRC
> license in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, one step away from the  
> Supreme
> Court.
>
> Having been involved twice in regulatory hearings with the NRC on the
> uranium mining license for URI/HRI, I am anxious to see if the  
> Supreme Court
> will hear the case, and support the NRC licensing procedure  
> promptly.  I am
> fairly certain that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision will  
> be again
> appealed to the Supreme Court since it was a split decision.  I am  
> afraid
> that if the courts do not accept NRC licensing primacy (except for the
> Agreement States), then we will all be in a state of turmoil.
>
> Quoting from the petition,
>
> "    The petitioner notes that on September 15, 2008 (73 FR 53284),  
> the NRC
> accepted an application for construction of a mined geologic  
> repository for
> spent nuclear fuel (Yucca Mountain) from the U.S. Department of  
> Energy (DOE)
> for docketing and began a technical review of the application.  The
> petitioner also notes that on February 1, 2010, the current  
> administration
> proposed that the funding for the Yucca Mountain repository be  
> discontinued
> for what the petitioner believes are political reasons. The petitioner
> states that the proposed update of the NRC's Waste Confidence  
> Decision and
> proposed rule that the NRC published on October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59547),
> specifically Finding 2 (73 FR 59561), indicates that the NRC found
> reasonable assurance that a mined geologic repository for permanent  
> disposal
> of spent nuclear fuel would be available within 50-60 years beyond the
> licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised  
> or
> renewed license) of any reactor."
>
> "    The petitioner has concluded that the current administration's  
> proposed
> decision to no longer fund Yucca Mountain now places the possibility  
> of
> construction and licensing of a permanent repository for spent  
> nuclear fuel
> from U.S. nuclear power facilities and licensees in jeopardy."
>
> I tend to agree!  I hope that the NRC and eventually the courts step- 
> up to
> this challenge quickly!
>
> Best,
>
> Dan ii
>
> Dear Carol:  Can you please provide updates on the status of this NRC
> docket! NRC-2010-0088
>
> --
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 2867 A Fuego Sagrado
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> +1-505-310-3922 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Huffman
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 09:41
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Proposed NRC Regulation open for comment
>
> Kane may be telling the blackguard to "fish or cut bait", to embrace
> nuclear power or declare himself the green-blackguard.
>
> On 4/5/2010 09:38, Bill Rowan wrote:
>> NRC has just published a petition for rulemaking open for public  
>> comment
> at
>> WWW.Regulations.Gov identified by searching NRC-2010-0088.
>>
>>
>>
>> Petitioner Dan Kane requests: the petitioner requests that the  
>> provisions
>> that govern temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of  
>> reactor
>> operation be revoked, that licensing of new nuclear power plants  
>> cease,
> and
>> that existing operating nuclear power  plants be phased out. The
> petitioner
>> believes these suggestions are necessary until the NRC can be  
>> assured of
> the
>> technical and economic certainties of a waste disposition decision  
>> and
>> associated political certainties in light of the current  
>> administration's
>> proposed defunding of the Yucca Mountain Repository for permanent  
>> disposal
>> and storage of spent nuclear fuel.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just passing the information along for those that want to weigh-in.
>>
>> Bill Rowan
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other  
> settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu