Re: S. 1287 and H.R. 45

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

We must work to defeat these bills. They have major anti-nuclear consequences. 

We do NOT want to put all the spent fuel on the road to a central location to
be the welcome target of "Mobile Chernobyl" activists in every community in
30+ states. 

We DO want the plants to be able to take control of their own destiny, not
continue to be subject to the ineptitude and whims of various presidential
administrations, vagaries of Congress, and DOE secretaries and bureaucrats.
(The privatized plants MUST be able to take control of their own destiny -
without the luxury of using state regulators to just extract more funds from
the ratepayers (us), that has only succeeded in making nuclear uneconomic and
leaving nuclear advocates out in the cold (while the 'utility advocates' have
done quite well :-).

We do NOT want to give DOE another $million for every $thousand worth of work. 

We can NOT depend on DOE to do the job (see their track record - no
responsible executive would put more of their own money down such a rathole),
therefore every responsible plant is building on-site storage anyway. We DO
want the DOE waste funds to fund those on-site storage facilities (DOE is
directly responsible for failing to take it on schedule). On-site storage is
implemented by the responsible power facilities to meet cost- and
schedule-effective facility needs, not some DOE bureaucracy to again schedule
fuel transport, and again fail.

DOE should be able/directed to provide alternative storage (which it can do at
any of hundreds of well-characterized surplus sites), but only if it can meet
the cost/schedule needs of the plants.

If (cost-effective) central storage is desired, that MUST be a PRIVATE
decision to be made by the plants, who will take the risks on their own
objective basis. Legislation could best address undue barriers to such private
storage alternatives.

We ABSOLUTELY do NOT want NEI to continue to lie to the public that spent fuel
in on-site storage is dangerous and must be moved for public safety!

AND MOSTLY: We will NOT accept that we will bury spent fuel. If we support
nuclear energy (instead of electric utilities and DOE contractors), we MUST
plan to recycle spent fuel, when justified. Deciding on a central location
now, is unnecessary (and irresponsible). IF there is eventually no need for
our children and grandchildren to use nuclear energy, then we can handle the
spent fuel at reduced radiation and more responsible disposal standards.
Better we should STOP YUCCA MOUNTAIN! Do nothing until responsible rad
standards can be implemented (a generation if necessary). Maintain a
low-moderate level of research that can address only critical issues re
repository performance, reduce extreme packaging, etc.

There's more but the snow's getting deep. :-)

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

Zack Clayton wrote:
> 
> Here is the other piece of the pie that was thrown at us earlier today.  Anyone feel free to copy it and send it along to your representatives, addressed accordingly.
> 
> I am writing in support of S.1287 and H.R.45  I feel that it is in our best interest for these bills to pass and urge you to support them and over ride any threatened veto.
> 
> It is also important to support the NRC as the regulatory agency and standard setting body with expertise for radioactive material, either as waste or product.  At the Yucca Mountain waste repository (its not a dump) and for other commerce issues.  The USEPA has demonstrated a total lack of understanding in the area of radiation and has consistently failed to use defensible limits on radiation,  rather bending to the will of whichever outraged interest group holds their ear at the time.
> 
> The issue of ground water at Yucca mountain is a red herring played by radical organizations with an agenda of hate and fear.  What little water is found in Yucca Mountain is isolated in perched aquifers and fractures or joints in the rock and would not be resting in contact with the spent fuel as if it were a bathtub.
> 
> The proposed repository will isolate  the spent fuel from all but the most organized recovery efforts and away from fringe terrorist groups with malicious intent.  This protects all the citizens of the United States far better than the piecemeal  storage now in use.
> 
> 10,000 years compliance is more than enough to protect against radiation hazards.  The spent fuel remaining after this time will be radioactive, but the primary danger would be from heavy metal poisoning, assuming someone managed to break into the repository in 10,000 years and they insisted on eating the material.  Remember, the GOOD thing about radiation is it is a decay process, radioactive material by definition decreases over time.  Chemicals and metallic toxins do not.
> 
> These bills will help protect the millions Americans living near current spent fuel storage.  Although there has never been an accident, with over 104 reactors in the United States needing a place to store their fuel it will be safer to move it to a central repository safely isolated and guarded against accident.
> 
> There should be little or no risk to the population along the transportation routes as the shipping of radioactive material in interstate commerce uses only the drivers with the best driving records and the industry as a whole has very high safety standards.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
> 
> Zack Clayton
> Ohio EPA - DERR
> email:  zack.clayton@epa.state.oh.us
> voice:  614-644-3066
> fax:        614-460-8249
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html