Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 2

Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 2

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,952|Likes:
Published by senateenergy
On April 25, 2013, Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski released a draft bill to create a sustainable, participatory process for managing nuclear waste. The senators are seeking comments and suggestions on the draft bill, as well as on the alternative language for siting an interim storage facility proposed by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. In addition, the senators have posed eight questions on which they request comments.
On April 25, 2013, Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski released a draft bill to create a sustainable, participatory process for managing nuclear waste. The senators are seeking comments and suggestions on the draft bill, as well as on the alternative language for siting an interim storage facility proposed by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. In addition, the senators have posed eight questions on which they request comments.

More info:

Published by: senateenergy on Jun 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/26/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both thediscussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only todelay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporaryand unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or communityshould or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than thenarrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such athoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, tophase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste thatexists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.Sincerely,Martha IzzoKinney CreekEvergreen, CO 80439From: Ray Spinka <fspinka@yahoo.com>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:14 AMTo: feedback, nwaste (Energy)Subject:Scrap Consolidated Interim Storage ProposalThank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems atall, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved atsome point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to drycontainers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanentlocation for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both thediscussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only todelay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary
 
and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or communityshould or would accept such an outcome - yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than thenarrow interests of the nuclear power industry - which would be the only beneficiary of such athoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, tophase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste thatexists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.Thank you for your consideration.Ray SpinkaCardigan26298 Cardigan PlaceRedllands, CA 92374From: George Yanney <gy234@webtv.net>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:51 AMTo: feedback, nwaste (Energy)Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) ScrapConsolidated Interim Storage ProposalThank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems atall, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved atsome point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to drycontainers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanentlocation for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both thediscussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only todelay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporaryand unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or communityshould or would accept such an outcome - yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.
 
I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than thenarrow interests of the nuclear power industry - which would be the only beneficiary of such athoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, tophase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste thatexists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.Thank you for your consideration.George Yanney916 S. Freedom Ave.Alliance, OH 44601From: Kate Daniel <writerkate@earthlink.net>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:46 AMTo: feedback, nwaste (Energy)Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptableThank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems atall, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved atsome point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to drycontainers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanentlocation for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both thediscussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only todelay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporaryand unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or communityshould or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than thenarrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such athoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, tophase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste thatexists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.