[ RadSafe ] Proposed NRC Regulation open for comment

[Dan W McCarn]

Let that read:

I don't believe that the NRC has EVER found fault with the licensing
process, either technically or procedurally...

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: Dan W McCarn [mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 00:16
To: 'radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu'
Cc: 'Doug Huffman'; 'Carol.Gallagher at nrc.gov'
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Proposed NRC Regulation open for comment

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
>