tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post8772077491256440545..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Steven Chu and The SenatorsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-58374234922822000072010-01-27T18:09:03.802-05:002010-01-27T18:09:03.802-05:00A footnote to my Yucca Mountain comment above:
Af...A footnote to my Yucca Mountain comment above:<br /><br />After watching the somewhat disappointing NRC adjudicatory proceedings over the last couple of days, I think it fair to give a “shout out” to NEI counsel for defending their contention that the conservatisms in the Yucca Mountain safety case could potentially result in increased occupational doses to workers at offsite nuclear facilities.<br /><br />NEI’s lawyers may not get a favorable ruling based on the regulations and such, but it was an important point to make: workers at nuclear power plants and other offsite facilities deserve to be treated as any other members of the public, and anything that might potentially increase their exposure (e.g., requiring nuclear facilities to insert control rods into fuel assemblies before packaging them for shipment to Yucca Mountain, on the basis of allowing the repository to implement its criticality safeguards during the postclosure phase) ought to be given serious consideration in the proceedings.<br /><br />Attempts were made to suggest that NEI (and by extensions the members it represents) was simply arguing against the imposition of additional waste handling costs on nuclear facilities, but NEI attorney David Repka (sp?) time and again invoked the ALARA principle and the ideal of minimizing occupational doses.<br /><br />I couldn’t guess what the final ruling will be, and I don’t know to what degree the contention was offered as a practical argument as opposed to an ethical/hypothetical argument, but it was refreshing to hear someone advocating from the perspective of worker safety and occupational doses at offsite nuclear facilities, a subject that doesn’t seem to get much coverage in these particular NRC proceedings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-62909183078531956022010-01-25T11:58:14.127-05:002010-01-25T11:58:14.127-05:00So much for the administration restoring science t...So much for the administration restoring science to its proper place.<br /><br />For that matter, so much for closing Gitmo in one year, televising Health Care Reform discussions on C-SPAN, posting bills on the web for five days before voting, and ending earmarks (Louisana Purchase?)<br /><br />I'll be hoiping for change in November, 2010...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-73041858662478726192010-01-25T10:30:28.259-05:002010-01-25T10:30:28.259-05:00For those of us on the outside looking in, it is c...For those of us on the outside looking in, it is clear that this whole "Blue-Ribbon Commission" on nuclear waste policy is nothing more than political Kabuki Theater. Obama trashed Yucca Mountain for purely political reasons (payoff to special-interest environmental groups) and this "Commission" is nothing more than an exercise in Stall Ball. The fact that a year after the fact it hasn't even been constituted is ample evidence of that. If it ever is empaneled after such foot-dragging, I have a feeling it's only product will be vaporware, and it's only purpose will be kicking the can down the road yet again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-85232063130760603482010-01-22T14:37:22.302-05:002010-01-22T14:37:22.302-05:00As an avowed supporter of the Yucca Mountain Proje...As an avowed supporter of the Yucca Mountain Project, I wouldn’t expect anyone to be surprised at my disappointment (once again) over Secretary Chu’s remarks on the nuclear waste disposal issue.<br /><br />Nevertheless, disappointed I was. Especially noteworthy was Chu’s halting response to Senator Corker’s question about the long-promised Blue-Ribbon Commission on nuclear waste policy. The response was framed by two telling statements: Chu’s admission that he “is not a politician,” and his expression of hope (somewhat wistful) that he will leave D.C. with his reputation as a scientist intact.<br /><br />To my mind, these statements, together with Chu’s body language and delivery, signal the very possibility Corker quickly raised: the possibility that external political influence is introducing a kind of “cognitive dissonance” into a process that Chu would have carried out under scientific principles.<br /><br />Many of us, for example, have probably read reports in trade publications like The Energy Daily, alleging that prospective Blue-Ribbon Commission chair Lee Hamilton (of the 9/11 commission) has lost his initial enthusiasm for the chairmanship of this panel, ostensibly because he fears its conclusions will be compromised in advance by arbitrary, purely political constraints built into the Commission’s charter. I’m thinking here (obviously) of the alleged exclusion in advance of any consideration of the Yucca Mountain Project, which would be roughly tantamount to instructing the 9/11 commission not to analyze the role played by the intelligence community.<br /><br />An overstatement, perhaps, but we should remember that the chairmen of the 9/11 commission concluded that they had been “set up to fail,” mainly through de facto resistance from federal agencies. The book co-authored by co-chairs Kean and Hamilton (Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission) should strongly suggest two things in the context of the proposed Blue-Ribbon Commission on nuclear waste policy: First, that Hamilton is well-versed on the shortcomings of such panels; and second, that his increasing reluctance to serve on this particular panel speaks volumes about whatever integrity it might eventually claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com