Skip to main content

Coalition to Senator Inhofe: Just Say No to "Take Title"

By Eric McErlain
Earlier today, my colleague, Lisa Stiles-Shell, who also serves as the Director of the Alliance for Sound Nuclear Policy, sent a letter to U.S. Senator James Inhofe urging him to oppose the Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005:
This bill purports to “solve” the used nuclear fuel storage and management problem but it fails on all points. In effect, passage of this bill would reverse national policy, enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 2002, which mandates that DOE move fuel off site at the earliest opportunity to a deep geologic repository.

While there is consensus that our nation must develop advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies to reduce the volume of high level waste and optimize the nuclear fuel cycle, such technologies do not obviate the need for a repository. Therefore, such a research and development program must not delay progress on the Yucca Mountain.

If enacted, this bill would ensure that used fuel remains on plant sites in 31 states indefinitely and leave resolution of the issue to future generations.

Furthermore, this bill:

Would not demonstrate progress in used fuel management that responsible environmental stewardship necessitates. As such, it would jeopardize nuclear industry plans to build new power plants that would maintain or increase nuclear energy’s contribution to carbon emission reduction.

Would allow money from the Nuclear Waste Fund to be used for continued storage on site, thereby ensuring that ratepayers will go on paying twice for the storage of used nuclear fuel.

Ignores the need to dispose of defense used nuclear fuel and other defense waste

Would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of nuclear energy by mandating the premature movement of used fuel from fuel pools to dry cask storage.

The sponsors of S. 2099 claim their bill would make existing fuel storage pools safer, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission describes used fuel pools as "robust structures constructed of very thick reinforced concrete walls with stainless steel liners." Fuel storage safety is thoroughly regulated at the Nation's nuclear plants. Clearly, the bill's objective is not to ensure fuel storage safety, which is not in doubt, but to make certain that the electricity ratepayer-financed long term fuel storage solution, the Yucca Mountain central repository, will never open. Passage of this bill would represent an unacceptable abdication of responsibility by the federal government and we urge you to oppose this legislation.
For Lisa's previous posts on the proposal, click here and here.

Technorati tags: , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more