Nevada Attorney Endorses Private Takeover of Yucca Mountain Project

Our Yucca Mountain point person, Steve Kraft, shot me a short note about this past Friday's Foundation for Nuclear Studies luncheon on the status of Yucca Mountain.

Mike Voegele spoke on behalf of the Yucca Mountain Project and Marty Malsch, an attorney representing Nevada, spoke against the project. It was pretty much a ho-hum affair, Steve told me, with little newsworthy said, except at the end.

In answer to questions, Voegele clarified what happened with those three USGS scientists who falsified quality assurance (QA) documents in the 1999 -- 2000 time frame. He pointed out that he personally reviewed the information in question and said that while QA documents were falsified, none of the science and none of the data were falsified. In fact, he a said that the most talked about matter -- the two data notebooks -- was a great case in point. The only difference between the books was that one met the QA requirements for format, etc., while the other did not. Both notebooks contained the same data. This is a far cry from what the media has been saying, where I have seen many references to falsified science -- which is not accurate.

Malsch countered with questioning how many chances would DOE get to make the QA correct. "How many strikes is out -- seven?" This lead to a question about privatizing the project. Malsh responded "While this is my opinion -- not Nevada's -- geologic disposal is OK as a concept." He went on to say that a successful geological repository program will require taking the program out of DOE and having the private sector take it over.

Interesting.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Used Fuel, Energy, Technology, Electricity, Yucca Mountain

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog