[ RadSafe ] Proposed NRC Regulation open for comment
Dan W McCarn
hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Fri Apr 9 10:33:47 CDT 2010
Dear Jeff:
As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the fact that Yucca Mountain became
the only option early on and there was no viable reprocessing option
essentially created a condition in which the single repository became
extremely vulnerable to political manipulation. Especially given that the
lead on the licensing was the DOE/Labs and not privately funded.
That being said, Yucca Mountain is essentially a "retrievable storage"
facility for the first 100 years or so of operation, so that waste can be
accumulated there and a reprocessing option developed 20-40 years in the
future. The final waste form then could easily be licensed for disposal.
Based on the 10th Circuit Court decision, the total time for licensing of a
private mining facility based on the URI/HRI experience is now approaching
20 years. I suspect that a reprocessing facility will take at least 20
years to license, possibly 40. Who has the money for that?
Again, quoting from the greatest mining poem of the last couple of
centuries, from "The Spell of the Yukon" by Robert Service -
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=175983
I cannot help but think for the Yucca Mountain project:
They're making my money diminish;
I'm sick of the taste of champagne.
Thank God! when I'm skinned to a finish
I'll pike to the Yukon again.
I'll fight-and you bet it's no sham-fight;
It's hell!-but I've been there before;
And it's better than this by a damsite-
So me for the Yukon once more.
Dan ii
--
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: Jeff Terry [mailto:terryj at iit.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 07:30
To: Dan W McCarn
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; 'Doug Huffman'; Carol.Gallagher at nrc.gov
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Proposed NRC Regulation open for comment
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
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list