[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy -- no nuke waste problem, just doesn't exist ....



> >
> >> On 8 Apr 1996, Eric Riley wrote:
> >> > What's wrong with using nuclear energy?
> >


> >On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, David Beorn responded with unbelievable bullshit :

> >Absolutely nothing - as a matter of fact, those who are REALLY serious 
> >about cleaning up the environment WITHOUT going back to living in caves
> >should consider it because it's the ONLY truly non-polluting power.
> >The power plant I worked at has stored ALL of the spent fuel on-site in
> >the containment building and therefore there has been NO need for waste
> >disposal of this type.


Later, Dennis M. O'Regan wrote:
> 
> Taht being said, I agree that nuclear is environmentally benign if
> managed properly. However, huge amounts of waste ARE accumulating at
> the roughly 100 U.S. reactors in service today. Seems the gov't can't
> get off its ass to either reprocess the fuel or store it at a high
> level repository such as Yucca mountain.

And I would point out that why do you assume that the Guv'ment should
handle the waste from private industry ?  Seems that if Nook Energy is
a viable alternative, the industry should be able to pay for it/handle
it as part of their business practice.

I happen to agree w/ the part about "if managed properly," but when the
greed mongers start diving into the equation, the safety and responsibiliy
factors disappear in a PR smoke and backroom legislation purchased to slew
nuclear sludge into *someone*else's*bedroom*.

That being said, Mr. Beorn, I have a nuclear waste dump that I'd like you
live on.  Property values are REAL cheap, and since "it's the ONLY truly
non-polluting power" you have no worries.

Stupid ignorant fuck.

Since :
> >The power plant I worked at has stored ALL of the spent fuel on-site in
> >the containment building and therefore there has been NO need for waste
> >disposal of this type.

I wonder why this is necessary at all, because there is "NO need for waste
disposal."  I am at a complete loss to understand why the industry just spent
several billion dollars to force this court case, since they can store
everything on site and have no need for the tax payers to wipe their shit-covered
ass for them ...

===============================
Court says U.S. government must accept used nuclear fuel by 1998

Copyright (c) 1996 Nando.net, Copyright (c) 1996 The Associated Press 

WASHINGTON (Jul 24, 1996 01:53 a.m. EDT) -- The government must begin accepting tons of used fuel from the 
nuclear industry by 1998 even though a permanent storage site will not be ready by then, a federal appeals 
court ruled Tuesday.

Although the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did not specify how the Energy 
Department should meet the deadline, the department's options essentially are limited to developing and 
operating a temporary storage site before the permanent one is constructed.

A three-judge panel relied on a "common sense" interpretation of the word "dispose" as it appears in a 1982 
law requiring the Energy Department to dispose of the nuclear industry's spent fuel as of Jan. 31, 1998.

"There is no indication in the statute that Congress intended the words to be used in any but their common 
sense," the court said.

Although the law required completion of the permanent storage site by 1998, the Energy Department still is 
conducting feasibility studies for an underground site in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las 
Vegas. The department does not expect to open the site until at least 2010.

Some utilities have moved spent fuel into dry casks, a process they say is expensive and forces their 
customers to pay twice for fuel storage. Since the 1982 law was enacted, utilities have been required to pay 
into a federal fund for development of a centralized disposal facility.

State agencies and utility companies that brought the lawsuit praised the ruling.

"It is high time that the DOE end their charade and begin the real work needed to address this problem," 
Michigan Attorney General Frank J. Kelley said. "The American public deserves action by the DOE, not further 
court battles."

The government could ask the judicial panel to reconsider, or it could appeal the case to the full appeals 
court or to the Supreme Court. The Energy Department had no immediate response.

The Energy Department argued that because the law defines "disposal" and makes references to "a repository," 
the 1998 deadline is conditional upon completion of an available storage facility. But the law did not define 
"dispose of," and the court favored a common, unconditional meaning.

Legislation is pending in Congress to establish a temporary storage facility near Yucca Mountain, but the 
effort is vigorously opposed by Nevada's two senators, who blocked the measure earlier this month.

Jay Silberg, the lead attorney for the utilities and the state agencies, said the court's ruling "makes the 
need for legislation even stronger" because the legislation makes statutory changes that would help the Energy 
Department proceed with building a temporary facility.

===================================================================
Nope.  No waste problem at all.  Never was one, never will be one.

The tax payers will solve it.



Follow-Ups: References: