[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:(2) UCS on spent fuel security
1. Thank you for clarifying that Nevada is a
State in the Union (USA) but not a subsidized
territory like Guam or should I say Puerto Rico
as well.
1.1 I appreciate a Political Geography lessen.
2. According to your information there is no H20
problem in the Southwest of USA, just a paradise
with fountains and golf courses.
Quote: " There is a multitude of artificial
lakes, fed by groundwater, in Las Vegas, not to
speak of watered golf courses, sprinkler systems,
fountains, etc."
2.1 I had a different impression by reading about
tension situation around Colorado river water
(Arizona, Nevada, Southern California and Mexico
- an sovereign country, not a territory, just in
case if someone may think that I misrepresented
the Republic of Mexico as a State of USA).
3. It sounds like you are not just giving us the
explanations to the problem but almost JUSTIFYING
it.
Let me, share my impression of this subject.
3.1 I found the state of progress (regress would
be more accurate definition) of Spent Fuel =
Yucca Mountain absolutely UNACCEPTABLE.
3.2 You do not have to be a "rocket scientist" or
a "concern scientist" to see that "old days
nuclear" practices to move thing around are
UNACCEPTABLE.
This isn't joke for the sake of logic!
3.3 I am sure, you and many other could give me
hundreds and thousands "explanations" and
"justifications"
why there is no permanent reactor fuel storage
and disposal/reprocessing facility.
It does not matter!
3.4 All these explanations are just excuses for
things NOT DONE (period)
3.5 I can see that WE have in the United States
sort of culture "to give excuses and
explanations" for things which are very damn
important but for millions reasons are not DONE.
3.6 Question:
Let me ask you, For all people who were
responsible to do their JOBs and if they could
not do them for all those reasons, couldn't they
at least SEE where all that will come,
eventually?
And they sow it coming, what they were thinking
about?
Fountains and golf courses in Las Vegas???
4. Present days picture.
The picture:
4.1 All that reactor spent fuel is staying on the
Nuclear Power Plants yards = Nuclear Power Plants
were not DESIGNED to have reactor fuel endlessly
accumulating on-site for the EXTENDED life time
of the power plant and in some cases it is still
on-site after closure of the operations.
4.2 This situation is a worldwide, except may be
England and France, Germany was "on the wagon"
until its recent government came in.
May be the yesterday's "important regional"
elections will start changing back the spent fuel
situation over there.
Who knows?
Back to the topic =>
5. Topic.
What is my point?
5.1 The point is, practices of 70's, 80's and 90'
are not acceptable ANYMORE. They ALWAYS were
unacceptable but people who was working in the
nuclear industry in the past were sort of
"nuclear romantics", "physicists and poets" per
say".
5.2 Let me inform you all: "The romance and
childhood of the nuclear energy is indeed in the
past"
5.3 We need to look these "conventional" things
from the point of view of any other industry and
not from the "spoiled children" of the Cold War's
secrecy = irresponsibility and the federal
unlimited funds and monumental perks.
5.4 Now, the time is wake up and smell the coffee
Stop giving us explanations => excuses =>
justifications.
5.5 We y'all know that things were in the past
pretty much screw up and it is a SUPRIZE to me
that we did not have more of the accidents.
I guess young people usually have more of the
stupid luck. ;-)
So was the nuclear industry in the past.....
5.6 I do not want to have here some kind of
personal vendetta/or attack on some one who was
working on the Yucca Mountain project and
responsible for that whole mess.
I am not here to put the blames.
I do not care about personalities in the past
tense.
First of all.
Blame is not gonna help to solve the problem.
Second of all.
Everybody pretty much has his/her own conciseness
to answer to ;-(
6. I am not the judge.
6.1 But I am going "to shut up and listen" either
how all your explanations, rolling to
justifications for the SFM "Spent Fuel Mess"
6.2 You can call those scientists of UCS
"confuse" or any other "funny" name but one thing
is truth, if what they say is painful to us. We
better to listen to them.
6.3 I can assure you, we (NLA) NEED to LISTEN and
ASK ourselves why is it bothering US so much?
6.4 May be there is something we have done and
doing wrong?
Capice?
7. General observation.
Usually, it is the most painful thing what will
get us thru.
As I heard long time ago:
"If it is no gonna kill you then it will make you
stronger! ;-)
Let's make this day "the Day of Listening to
Critics of Our Great Egos!
Have a good day, everybody!
Emil.
P.S.
About the State of Utah, (with the Capitol in
Salt Lake City, the Host of Year 2002 Winter
Olympic Games, Nicest Mountain Ski Resorts in the
World), Private Fuel Storage (PFS)facility.
I had an impression that PFS is not moving
perfectly smooth, they need our help but not
sarcastic remarks.
Nevertheless,
PFS is doing much better than a huge USDOE's
Yucca Mountain project.
I think that a Private Fuel Storage facility is a
future REALITY. Contrary to DOE's Yucca Mountain
the Territory of the State of Nevada, GHOST Town.
--- RuthWeiner@aol.com wrote:
Let me clarify some of the misconceptions in
> this post. First of all, it is
> not the "State of Nevada territory", it is
> Nevada, which is a state, which is
> part of the U. S. A, which has 50 states.
> Nevada is not a "trust territory"
> like Guam.
>
> The Nevada Nuclear Waste Office would object
> likely just as much to private
> fuel storage (look at the fate of the proposed
> private project in Utah).
>
> Withholding the water permit appears to be more
> a political gambit than a
> concern about water supply. There is a
> multitude of artificial lakes, fed by
> groundwater, in Las Vegas, not to speak of
> watered golf courses, sprinkler
> systems, fountains, etc.
>
> The Yucca Mountain Project has indeed brought
> money into Nevada in two ways:
> creation of jobs and money to "oversee" the
> Yucca Mountain project -- this
> latter is guaranteed by the 1982 Nuclear Waste
> Policy Act. Since the site
> itself is on land that has been Federal land
> for more than 50 years -- since
> long before the 1982 Act -- it never brought in
> tax revenues. Moreover, the
> US government pays the states in "payments in
> lieu of taxes" when a Federal
> activity pre-empts some local revenue
> producing activity. For example, if
> you live in military housing and pay no
> property tax, the Federal government
> pays the city in place of your property tax.
>
> Finally: when there were three potential
> repository sites, all three states
> involved objected, because the 1982 Act
> essentially provides money for state
> oversight when requested by the state. There
> was such vociferous objection
> to even investigating a granite repository that
> the investigation was
> dropped. No state is likely to behave any
> differently from Nevada..
>
> Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
> ruthweiner@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/21/01 3:25:59 AM Mountain
> Daylight Time,
> kerrembaev@YAHOO.COM writes:
>
>
> > NOTICE: Unless the present US government 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.....
> >
>
> Let me clarify some of the misconceptions in
> this post. First of all, it is
> not the "State of Nevada territory", it is
> Nevada, which is a state, which is
> part of the U. S. A, which has 50 states.
> Nevada is not a "trust territory"
> like Guam.
>
> The Nevada Nuclear Waste Office would object
> likely just as much to private
> fuel storage (look at the fate of the proposed
> private project in Utah).
>
> Withholding the water permit appears to be more
> a political gambit than a
> concern about water supply. There is a
> multitude of artificial lakes, fed by
> groundwater, in Las Vegas, not to speak of
> watered golf courses, sprinkler
> systems, fountains, etc.
>
> The Yucca Mountain Project has indeed brought
> money into Nevada in two ways:
> creation of jobs and money to "oversee" the
> Yucca Mountain project -- this
> latter is guaranteed by the 1982 Nuclear Waste
> Policy Act. Since the site
> itself is on land that has been Federal land
> for more than 50 years -- since
> long before the 1982 Act -- it never brought in
> tax revenues. Moreover, the
> US government pays the states in "payments in
> lieu of taxes" when a Federal
> activity pre-empts some local revenue
> producing activity. For example, if
> you live in military housing and pay no
> property tax, the Federal government
> pays the city in place of your property tax.
>
> Finally: when there were three potential
> repository sites, all three states
> involved objected, because the 1982 Act
> essentially provides money for state
> oversight when requested by the state. There
> was such vociferous objection
> to even investigating a granite repository that
> the investigation was
> dropped. No state is likely to behave any
> differently from Nevada..
>
> Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
> ruthweiner@aol.com
>
__________________________________________________
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.