The June 11 letter to the editor by Susan Corbett on the subject of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Material Repository was full of inaccuracies.
She said it would be very dangerous to transport nuclear waste to the repository from the current temporary storage sites. What she obviously does not know is that nuclear materials, waste and newly prepared fuel systems, are on the roads and rail lines in this country every day of the year, and have been for over fifty years. How many accidents have been reported with spent nuclear fuel? None!
She also proposed that the material be permanently stored at the current temporary sites. That material is currently stored at 139 sites in 29 states. How could anyone think this is a safe and appropriate method of storing this deadly material? Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, other natural disasters and terrorist activities in any one of the 139 locations over the next several hundred years could possibly cause some of these materials to be exposed to ground water or the atmosphere and cause the loss of life. The cost of security alone to monitor all the sites would be prohibitive.
Our nation's utility companies and their customers (you and I) have been paying for this storage facility for twenty-five years. We and the utilities deserve to have that material stored in Yucca Mountain, which is a safe site. Those that cry about it do not understand the design and construction methods that will be used to contain spent nuclear materials. It will be stored much more safely than any current storage system throughout the country.
Dr. Worlfe's analysis in the paper on June 15 was spot-on. If the Graniteville wreck has been with nuclear materials, no would have been injured because of the design of the containers for those materials. The criticism of Yucca Mountain is unfounded, and it should be built for the safety of our children and grandchildren and generations to come.
John Oakland
Aiken
Comments
If spent fuel stored at reactor sites is subject to the attacks of terrorists why would trains or trucks transporting spent fuel be exempt from terrorist attacks. It seems to me that security at reactor sites which occupy fixed positons would be easier to protect from terrorist attacks than vehicles moving large distances including over mountain passes. Nuclear reactors are provided with security 24 hours per day and this same security could protect spent fuel stored at reactor sites.
The opposition to the Yucca Moutain storage facility has nothing to do with safety. It is about the opposition to nuckear power in general.
Creek water drinking, walnut eating enviromentalist are costing this country billions of dollars with their idiot lawsuits. They made a comment concerning Yucca Mtn that they weren't sure what would happen with the nuclear waste in 250,000 years. Who give a rip in 250,000 yrs.
Susan Corbett and her anti-nuclear buddies need to stop traffic on Bobby Jones or I-285 in Atlanta and explain the danger of driving and how many adults and children die on our highways each day. No one has died from a nuclear accident in the United States since the discovery of nuclear energy. France gets almost 75% of their energy from nuclear fission. What could be a source of cheap energy has been made expensive by irrational and unjustified fears. Utility customers have been charged over $11B in disposal fees to build Yucca Mountain. Nevada has reneged now that nuclear material can actually be stored there. Technology developed at the Savannah River Site would probably allow local storage of waste in multi-layer stainless steel containers which could be buried hundreds of feet below the surface. The Environmental Impact Statements have been done for all nuclear facilities at great cost. If we had to do an EIS to build a house, then we would all live in multi-million dollar homes - if we could afford it. Such is the legacy of the anti-nukes.
It makes more sense to place the wastes inside of a well guarded mountain in a specially designed facility in a desert than to keep it all over the country sitting in barrels that will leak soon enough. Billions were spent over decades studying the Yucca Mtn solution. Scientists carefully chose the site and now it is abandoned due to Harry Reid. That bit of political perfidy towards the country will be realized as the monumental mistake it is one day.
"If spent fuel stored at reactor sites is subject to the attacks of terrorists why would trains or trucks transporting spent fuel be exempt from terrorist attacks." It's about TIME. Storing fuel for YEARS v/s transporting it for days gives terrorists MUCH more time to attack.
This whole discussion is really stupid. Is Yucca the right place for nuclear wast. YES. Is it dangerous to transport this material. Almost ZERO chance of accident or theft. Is is more probable that we will have leaks, theft, or other accidents if we leave it spread around in storage at various sites with various levels of security and supervision than if we consolidate it at a safe, dedicated, professionally managed storage facility. YES.
But the beautiful blue glow from the fuel storage pools is such sight to behold! No matter that they are mostly way past capacity! Let's just stick our head under the covers and keep saying....there is no boogie man.......there is no boogie man! Funny how Harry Reid didn't seem to oppose Yucca when the money was streaming in????
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
