|
|
| The Nuclear Waste Debate Senators Murkowski and Bryan March 28, 1997 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Why Nevada? Aren't communities who produce nuclear waste responsible? Does the nation need an interim site? Why can't the waste stay at the nuclear plant? Are you concerned about possible protests? How safe is it to transport waste across the country? How long should they plan on storing waste safely? SENATOR BRYAN: How would this bill impact the Nevada population? Additional Viewer Comments...
Return to the @the Capitol Homepage.
Scrutinize the work of several major Congressional committees in online forums with the chairs and ranking members.
Begin an ongoing dialogue with twelve new members of Congress.
Follow the first year in Congress of Freshmen Reps. Kay Granger (R-TX) and Jay Johnson (D-WI)
Additional Comments: Reinard Knutsen of Las Vegas, Nevada:
Thank you for having this important forum available for people to comment on.
The nuclear industry wants to begin moving 15,600 to 40,000 (50 years worth not 15) shipments of nuclear waste (in incompletely tested casks) from 112 reactor sites through 43 states passing a couple of miles within over 1/3 of our countries population. The Department of Energy did a study in 1986 that announced that there would be 70 - 310 accidents during the shipment of nuclear waste to Nevada. The worst case scenario outlined in the study could contaminate a 42 square mile area, require at least 460 days to clean up and cost over $620 million. Each cask would contain as much radioactivity as 200 Hiroshima bombs. The tax payers will be responsible for any accidents. There is no effective first response to a radioactive accident.
Putting the nuclear waste in Nevada will not solve the nuclear waste problem. The only effective step that we can take at this time is to stop the production of nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is obsolete and dangerous. We have no safe way of dealing with the waste. We do have the technology to safely store the waste on-site for 50 -100 years. The only reason that the industry wants to move it is so that they have room to create more nuclear waste.
N. Kazanas of Chattanooga, TNWe need to support Sen. Murkowski's bill S.104 to permit the storage of in deep geological disposal. Further delay is not necessary. Savings to rate payers will be large and future growth and jobs will be assured. We have been studying this since the 1950's and the conclusion is always the same. The savings to utilities will be in excess of $800 million and an additional $6.4 billion dollars in operating costs. Nuclear plants are part of our mix of power for the future and we need to support them.
Brian Costner of Columbia, SCWhat is the rush? In well maintained, dry cask storage, spent nuclear fuel does not pose a significant risk to employees at nuclear plants or surrounding neighbors. Moreover, removing some of the spent fuel to a central storage facility or repository normally would not substantially reduce the overall risks posed by a nuclear power plant (an exception might be in a case where there is a significant storage problem at a particular facility, but such cases can be handled on an as needed basis and probably resolved by just moving the SNF to another reactor site owned by the same utility or in the same state).
Centralized storage does not solve any problem - it simply relocates the SNF from the places it was generated (reactor sites). Continued on-site storage at least has the advantages of keeping the generators of the waste responsible for its care (a sound principle in waste management and environmental protection generally). Additionally, while in storage some of the heat and radiation from the SNF will lessen through natural means. So, if scientists, policy makers, and the public one day agree on the need for and an appropriate location to consolidate SNF storage or build a repository, then many of the design requirements for the storage/repository facility will be different. That is, with the SNF cooler and less radioactive, for example, less total space would likely be needed.
Alberto Bianchetti of Oswego NYSingle site is safest, most practical
It's understandable that a area would be reluctant to take any waste product in this hypersensitive environment. But, there are a few points worth making: Nuclear plants are running out of on-site storage space because the feds haven't delivered on past promises. Nuclear remains the cleanest large scale supplier of electricity in the world. By dedicated resources to the Yucca Mtn site and not building more temporary on-site capacity, electricity rates -and thus the economy and jobs- will benefit.
Robert Barber of New Haven, CTI would like to register my opposition to S. 104. Geologists have demonstrated that saltwater periodically migrates into the proposed site, making it unsuitable for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. My father is an atomic veteran who participated in a series of 14 atmospheric tests at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s. I watched him and other veterans struggle for years to get compensation for injuries which were sustained as a result of our nuclear weapons testing program. I do not trust government assurances of the safety of this site.
Michael I. Wagner-Diggs of Newport News, VAIn favor of passing S.104
I strongly urge the senators, and congress, to pass S.104 for the creation of the interim facility for the storage of spent nuclear waste. American taxpayers have been paying into the depository fund for years, now amassing several billion dollars, with nothing to show for their money. The nuclear industry provides clean, reliable, and safe electric energy in support of the baseload demands across america. Without the disposal facility, and hopefully a permanent one in the future, this vital resource of electric power is placed in jeopardy. I urge the congress to stand behind this measure and be prepared to override the possibility of a presidential veto. This would be "THE RIGHT THING TO DO." The unfounded fears of a nuclear disaster from transporting spent nuclear fuel to this Nevada site is a mere scare tactic to prevent the inevitable. Today, many shipments of government (U.S. Navy) and foreign spent waste is transported overland without incident. Let's quit talking about what we are going to do, let's put our promises into action by establishing this interim depository. The only thing we have to loose is 20% of the nations electricity supply!
The PBS NewsHour is Funded in part by: Additional Foundation and Corporate Sponsors
Program
Support
From:
Copyright © 1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
