Re: Is Yucca Mountain the only way?

["Fritz Strydom" <FStrydom@NACINTL.COM>]

Jerry,



I agree with most of what you said, except that due to physical or 

political reasons some plants can't continue to extend onsite storage 

indefinitely.  Some plants do not have the physical space onsite and 

others have political obstacles to siting and expanding dry storage 

facilities.



It makes sense to send the fuel to a central location.  Regardless of 

whether you intend to permanently dispose of the spent fuel or eventually 

reprocess it, it will eventually have to be transported to another site. 

Why not use Yucca Mountain as the central storage facility?



Fritz



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

Johannes "Fritz" Strydom

Deputy Manager, Consulting Products

NAC International

678-328-1258      Fax 678-328-1458

fstrydom@nacintl.com

http://www.1nuclearplace.com











"Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>

Sent by: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

04/25/2002 07:54 PM

Please respond to "Jerry Cohen"



 

        To:     "Vincent A King/KINGVA/CC01/INEEL/US" <KINGVA@INEL.GOV>, 

<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

        cc:     (bcc: Fritz Strydom/NAC_Intl)

        Fax to: 

        Subject:        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.







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

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/