Re: Ward Valley "fill-the-blanks"

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Well,

>  *    "House Rejects Nevada Nuclear-Waste Site In Surprise Move"
>      SACRAMENTO BEE, 5/20/95 (p. A1)
>      Dale Vargas
> 
> The House voted last Thursday to abandon Yucca Mountain, NV as
> the nation's permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel and
> other high-level nuclear wastes.  In approving the House budget
> resolution, lawmakers decided to eliminate funding for Yucca Mtn.
> by 1997, "leaving utilities wondering" about the fate of wastes
> "piling up at nuclear plants throughout the country."  Under the
> budget bill, a blueprint for balancing the budget by 2002,
> "relatively small amounts" of money would go toward locating a
> new, permanent repository site and converting Department of
> Energy land somewhere into an interim disposal site.  The DOE has
> already invested $1.4 billion in the Yucca Mountain site.  DOE
> officials opposed the House move.  Dan Dreyfus, chief of DOE's
> nuclear waste efforts:  "I don't see that just moving this stuff
> from one place to another without any notion of what you're going
> to do with it ultimately represents a solution."  The Senate
> balanced-budget proposal does not include a specific plan for the
> Yucca Mtn. site.

Now that's doing something for real about a serious candidate as the greatest
gov't boondoggle and waste of the wealth of the American people of them all! 

Unfortunately, the public debate about why DOE should be stopped has not
occurred and leaves a need to begin to get at the fact that opening Yucca
Mountain will release more radioactivity than leaving the spent fuel on the
surface forever (can even backfill around the canisters when heat loss allows
for more earthquake/meteor protection), not to mention simplifying recovery of 
the fuel values when (not if) we need them. 

Another "fill-the-blanks" opportunity!

>      SEE ALSO:  "S.C. Site Looked At For Nuke-Waste Dump", LAS
> VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 5/17/95, p. A4, Tony Batt, which reports
> that the federally owned Savannah River nuclear-weapons complex
> in South Carolina last week joined the sites outside Nevada that
> "may be considered by the Senate for the temporary storage of
> nuclear waste."  In an interview, Senate Energy and Natural
> Resources Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-AK) mentioned the
> site as a possible repository.  Murkowski also "repeated his
> belief" that the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state
> is a possible site, but he "emphasized" he is not ruling out
> Yucca Mtn.

How long does it take to build a concrete pad??  At what cost?  (Bill Rasin of 
NEI confirmed the  $$  >$200M  for a $650M/yr DOE budget is to "keep the
scientists happy drilling holes to show something is going on at Yucca Mt.")
How many massive excess concrete buildings/strucures (at well-characterized
sites) does DOE (DOD?) have in its inventory?  (And we don't need to put all
the spent fuel in one place.)  

>  *    "NARUC Disappointed With DOE's Nuclear Waste Interpretation"
>      NARUC BULLETIN, 5/15/95 (p. 7)
>      Staff Report
> 
> The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has
> issued a statement criticizing a decision by the Department of
> Energy that the agency is not legally bound to accept nuclear
> waste from commercial reactors by January 31, 1998.  Under the
> Nuclear Waste Act of 1992, NARUC says DOE is bound "to begin
> accepting such waste by no later than the statutory deadline."
> But in the DOE's "Final Interpretation of Nuclear Waste
> Acceptance Issues" released on April 28, the agency said it has
> "no conditional or contractual obligation" to accept the waste or
> build an interim storage facility.  NARUC Commissioner Emmit
> George:  "This decision adds to the burden of electric utility
> ratepayers of this nation who have contributed over $10 billion
> into the Nuclear Waste Fund to fund waste disposal by the DOE."
> George said he hopes the DOE's waste storage policy will spur
> "more aggressive" Congressional action.  "This issue is better
> resolved by public policy makers, rather than by the judiciary,"
> he said.
>      SEE ALSO:  Related news abstract above.

Anybody want to do the "fill-the-blanks" that we did in the late '70s that
shows that opening and handling waste from Hanford tanks and digging a hole to 
bury it will release more radioactivity to the environment than leaving it all 
where it is forever, with minimal short-term management? (which can be debated 
as to whether that's <100 or ~300 years.) 

Based on Congress' performance since 1976, what's the objective foundation to
believe that the Judiciary would do worse? 

>  *    "S.C. Loses 2nd Try To Penalize NC; Vote Over Barnwell
>      Landfill May Prompt SC to Leave Compact"
>      CHARLOTTE YNC" OBSERVER, 5/18/95 (p. 4C)
>      Tom Saladino
> 
> For the second time this month, the Southeast Compact Commission
> on Thursday refused to pass sanctions against North Carolina for
> its failure to create a low-level nuclear waste repository.
> Under the terms of the compact, North Carolina was slated to open
> a landfill to replace one in Barnwell, SC by January 1993.  The
> confederation extended the deadline to 1996, but North Carolina
> state officials have yet to finally approve the creation of a
> dump outside Raleigh.  The sanctions were backed by South
> Carolina, which wants to close Barnwell within the next few
> years.  After the 10-6 vote, South Carolina officials said they
> may withdraw from the compact.  Compact representatives from
> Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia voted with South Carolina to
> impose the sanctions.  Georgia and North Carolina opposed the
> plan, "and members from Alabama and Florida split their votes."
> North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt (R):  "We remain committed to
> fulfilling our end of the compact by licensing a site here, but
> we will not do so at the expense of public health or the
> environment."
 
Can somebody "fill-the-blanks" for poor Gov. Hunt? Does anybody think the
releases will be greater than drilling a water well? (How 'bout a municipal
well?) 

All kidding aside, the need to do some real work to prepare a base of
objective data and take that to the administration, the Congress, and the
courts (instead of paying millions for PR about how we can spend billions to
protect the public from this most heinous risk!) 

And this doesn't even count the issue of the fallacy of the linear
dose-response model!!? 

Regards, Jim