Re: Nuclear waste needs a home . . . someplace

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@cpcug.org>]

> because the anti nuclear people have raised the red herring of "There's no
place to put the waste,"

Al:

 We had proved we can store waste for 40 years with no problem, and it was
hard to make anyone believe that a problem existed, until NEI raised it as a
safety issue in full page ads.  That's done, and moot at this point. But
even dedicated anti-nukes like Cochran of the NRDC were quoted in the
Washington Post, page 1, saying "There is clearly no safety problem
associated with keeping waste at the plants."

If I thought that YM would be accepted as a solution, I'd feel better about
it.  But I don't see it any more acceptable to anyone than having it stored
at the plants.  I recognize that some plants have a problem with this, and
they may have to move it.  But there are many places where spent fuel can be
kept, particularly if it's above ground where it can be seen and monitored
by anyone.  Another nuclear plant, or any of several DOE sites would serve
this temporary function.

But even the people responsible for meeting the YM specs have stated
publicly they are doubtful they can prove they've done it.  Does anyone
think that will get better as the heat builds up?  We've got to settle that
issue, and it's a lot easier to settle than building a facility to meet the
current specs, as the last 20 years have proven.

TR

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html