Skip to main content

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

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

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…