Re: UCS on spent fuel security

[Kerimbaev <kerrembaev@YAHOO.COM>]

Norman, Concern Scientists and Unplug the Salem

Team,



1.1 I see on Radsafe, once in a while, your

postings with sometimes clear, sometimes covered

attacks on the Salem Plant, NJ.



1.2 Atlantic City, NJ and Las Vegas, NV have

problems... 

but you are not offering to unplug those

cities.....



1.3 We y'all know that Salem, NJ as ANY other

place on Earth has its own problems. 



1.4 You guys are bringing them up. Recently, it

was Steam Generators.



1.4.1 Now, it is Spent Fuel Pools.....



1.5 And it is okay, critics, generally, is a

healthy thing.





2. Facts:

 

2.1 "Fresh" reactor fuel is, practically, safe

contrary to the spent fuel.



You wrote:



> What should the NRC do about spent fuel 

security?

> Easy. Existing federal regulations (10 CFR 

73.55) require plant owners to provide adequate 

>security to protect spent fuel-whether stored in

pools 

>or casks-from radiological sabotage. All the NRC



>needs to do is simply enforce regulations

already 

on the books. No more studies are required, no 

>more rulemaking is needed, no more evaluations

are 

>necessary, and no more delays are warranted.

> Spent Fuel Security



My opinion:



NRC can do nothing!



Question:



Are you people really thinking that it is just

matter enforcing the regulation???





2.2 Suggestion:





2.2.1 If you want to help out with the Spent Fuel

Problem, send your lobbying groups to Washington,

DC to move things around the Yucca Mountain

project mess and to solve the Nationwide Spent

Fuel Problem at once.



Why? 



2.3 Because, just bringing up facts is not going

to solve the problem. It could even sometimes

makes things worse....if there is no follow up

fix. 

Again NRC is not a problem!

NRC CAN not solve this inter-agency, inter-state

nationwide very complicated technilogical and

most of all a buraucratic problem.



2.4 If you think that by "unplugging" the Salem

or another plant, the surrounding plant areas

will be safer then you are very mistaken.



2.5 Psychologically, Yes,

A CLOSED Nuclear Power Plant is SAFER than a

WORKING. 



2.6 Paradoxically, in reality it is not truth.



2.7 In reality, a WORKING Nuclear Power Plant is

SAFER than a CLOSED but not decommissioned one

(with the spent fuel on site). 



Why?



Because, 



3.1 The Radiation Monitoring, Security and

Maintenance on working plants always will be

better then on not working.



Why?



Because,



3.1.1 First of all. 

Working Nuclear Power Plants have more money =>

more people and more reasons to look for Security

and Safety. They want to keep plant running so

they pay for its safety and security.



Contrary to that for the Closed Plant,



3.1.2 A Closed Plant will be interested only in

"how to conduct the least expensive

decommissioning". =>

less money to spend from the decommissioning fund

=> less security and safety while plant is closed

and spent fuel is on-site.



3.2 Second of all,



3.2.1 There is no place on Earth to move and to

store the spent fuel other then keep the Spent

Fuel in the On-Site Pools and Casks.



So, what do I offer?



4. Offers:





4.1 Right now, we need to keep active and keep

running as many Nuclear Power Plants as we

possible can.



4.2 Find a comprising and a fast solution for the

spent fuel storage because the government is very

unlikely able to solve this problem in a

conventional way. 





4.2.1 I see again and again that the Private

Fuel Storage and Disposal option is the only REAL

option.



4.2.2 Government structure is too big and too

slow for that task....and basically it is going

to nowhere (period)



NOTICE: Unless the present US goverment WILL

issue a National Security Emergency Order to

start storing the Spent Reactor Fuel on the Yucca

Mountain Site, State of Nevada territory, for the

current USA National Security reasons.

(In my opinion, it should)



Nevertheless, in the main time.



4.2.3 Private Storage Company could and would

obtain on-time and all the necessary permits,

including "recently notorious Yucca Mountain

Nevada Water Permit". 

Do they really want to thirst out Yucca Mountain

-Nevada Dessert Nuclear Fuel Storage

Facility??.... 



4.2.3.1.  May be the Storage and Disposal

Facility should not be in Nevada => too much of

local thisrt for the money and for that dragging

project politics.



4.2.3.2  Put the National Storage Facility in

another suitable and more reasonable State and

provide the State with the State tax incentives

as a private enterprise will be. 

Or to have more then one site and to make sites

compete with each other for the storage and

future disposal/recycling-? money.



4.2.3.3 Now the State of Nevada nor local county

government have no much of the financial

incentives to have the facility in the state

borders.....



Why?



4.2.3.4 Because the Yucca Mountain Facility

unlike famous Las Vegas casinos is a federal

property => no taxes for the Municipal and the

State budgets.



Monies talk, aspecially, they do talk in Las

Vegas.

Right now, money are not talking for solving the

Spent Fuel Problem.....



After all,



I am glad that UCS brought up the problem but

they should take it further => offer a REAL

solution





Regards,



Emil.









Norman Cohen <ncohen12@HOME.COM> wrote:



> Hi Radsafers:



  Below is a text version of the Union of 

Concerned Scientists new report on spent fuel

security. 

If anyone wants the more readable (and with 

pictures & illustartions) Word file, please email

me 

at mailto:ncohen12@home.com

and I'll send it to you.



> peace,



Norm



>

>

>   

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Spent Fuel Security

>

> Much of the discussion since the September 11th



attacks on the World Trade Center and the 

Pentagon has focused on the resistance of reactor



containment structures to aircraft strikes. The

Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs to analyze this



issue so that its answer is known rather than 

debated.

>

> More importantly, the NRC must address the 

vulnerability of spent fuel storage at all US

nuclear 

power plants now. Spent fuel pools contain more 

highly radioactive fuel than the reactor cores. 

And the spent fuel pools at all US nuclear plants



are located outside the reactor containment 

structure. When the spent fuel pools fill up,

spent 

fuel is stored in concrete casks outside the

plant. 

Thus, spent fuel is a softer target that could 

yield graver consequences than an aircraft

crashing 

through the reactor containment structure.

>

> What is the spent fuel pool?

> The spent fuel pool is a 45-feet deep concrete 

pit that stores highly radioactive fuel 

assemblies after their removal from the reactor

core. 

..................

............

(snip).................



- --

Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG 

Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221;















__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.

http://personals.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.