[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is Yucca Mountain the only way?
I think that I am about as pro-nuclear as anyone, but would certainly
not be heartbroken if the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) was abandoned! It's
not that nuclear waste is too dangerous to be dealt with as planned by YMP.
Quite the opposite-- I have no doubt that YMP could and would be conducted
safely. However, the risks of managing nuclear waste have been hyped beyond
all reality by anti-nuke forces as well as by various groups within the
scientific community looking to make $$$ out of the problem. Public fears
have been shamelessly exploited and inflamed in the process. This process
has made YMP egregiously expensive. Why not make the anti-nukes and citizens
of Nevada happy and drop the whole thing? Why throw good money after bad?
Of course we would still have to deal with the accumulated nucwaste and
that yet to be produced. No big urgency- we can extend onsite storage
capacity for a while until we can get our act together and resolve handle
the problem in the safest and most economic manner possible. That way would,
IMHO, be fuel reprocessing and oceanic disposal of the resultant waste. The
main obstacle would likely be public opposition to "polluting the ocean".
For what it is worth, it can be scientifically shown that the effects of
such pollution would be trivial. Nonetheless, stiff opposition to ocean
disposal would certainly occur, but then again, look at how well the public
seems to be embracing YMP. When all else fails, perhaps logic and reason may
yet prevail.
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent A King/KINGVA/CC01/INEEL/US <KINGVA@INEL.GOV>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Yucca Mountain Testimony
>
> Excellent information, Dr. Gawarecki - thanks for the links.
>
> The comments by the president of Public Citizen raised a question in my
> mind: what, in all honesty, do the opponents to Yucca Mountain want to
> accomplish?
>
> Their stated goal is to "stop" the project. (If they did, I wonder if they
> applaud the DOE for acting wisely or criticize it for wasting all that
> money spent on it so far? Hmmm.)
>
> Let's say everyone saw the wisdom of their position and said "Fine, you
> were right all along. No more work, no more money spent, no Yucca
Mountain
> site."
>
> Then what?
>
> Well, eventually, nuclear plants would have to find someplace for spent
> fuel or stop producing it. ("Good! says Public Citizen; we want to stop
> them, too." We'll ignore for now what will happen when we lose 20 percent
> of our electricity. )
>
> So where do they want the spent fuel that exists now? Transportation is
> out - far too dangerous they say, besides there's nowhere to transport it.
> I guess it stays where it is. Oh, but isn't this the same spent fuel
> that's far too dangerous to keep at these terrorist-vulnerable sites
> (according to the same groups)? If that's also true, then what?
>
> Where do you want it, Ma'am?
>
> So, my question to Public-Citizen-Unplug-Salem-No-Nukes-ad-infinitum is
> this: If not Yucca Mountain, what storage site or other disposition do YOU
> suggest for spent fuel that will satisfy you as safe enough, since the
> other alternatives do not? (Having been to the area, I'm trying to imagine
> a site more remote or with better geological characteristics than Yucca
> Mountain, and not coming up with much, but I'm sure you know since you so
> clearly state that this answer is wrong.)
>
> Spent fuel exists, and it isn't going to disappear by magic (although it
> eventually does by radioactive decay). And apparently you think it is an
> unacceptable risk to us all, although those who work most closely with it
> have done so for a long time without injury or undue anxiety.
>
> We're all waiting for the right answer - what is it?
>
> (Norm, if he's still monitoring, can feel free to pass this question on to
> whomever he wants and relay their response back to the rest of us. But I
> wouldn't hold my breath.)
>
> Vincent King,
> Idaho Falls
>
>
>
>
>
> Susan L Gawarecki
> <loc@icx.net> To: RADSAFE
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent by: cc:
> owner-radsafe@list.vand Fax to:
> erbilt.edu Subject: Yucca
Mountain Testimony
>
>
> 04/19/2002 02:44 PM
> Please respond to Susan
> L Gawarecki
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yesterday the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on
> Energy and Air Quality held a hearing to Review the President's
> Recommendation to Develop a Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain,
> Nevada. Below please find the prepared testimony available for
> witnesses speaking before the Committee.
>
> Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Abraham859pr
int.htm
>
>
> Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (R-NV)
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Berkley927pr
int.htm
>
>
> NRC Commissioner Greta Joy Dicus
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Dicus858prin
t.htm
>
>
> Jeffrey Holmstead, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Holmstead860
print.htm
>
>
> Jared Cohon, Chairman, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Cohon862prin
t.htm
>
>
> Gary Jones, Director, GAO Natural Resources and Environment Team
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Jones865prin
t.htm
>
>
> Laura Chappelle, Chairwoman, Michigan Public Service Commission
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Chappelle925
print.htm
>
>
> Joe Colvin, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Colvin861pri
nt.htm
>
>
> Jim Dushaw, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Dushaw864pri
nt.htm
>
>
> Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen
>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing505/Claybrook857
print.htm
>
>
> Thanks to Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) for the above announcement
> and links. ECA is the membership organization of local governments that
> are adjacent to or impacted by Department of Energy activities. To add
> your name to its list serve, please e-mail server@energyca.org. For
> more information on ECA, visit the ECA Web Site at
> http://www.energyca.org.
> --
> .....................................................
> Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director
> Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee
> We've moved! Please note our new address:
> 102 Robertsville Road, Suite B, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
> .....................................................
> ************************************************************************
> 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.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
************************************************************************
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.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/