Get Nevada GlowingEssay Preview: Get Nevada GlowingReport this essay“Two minutes” says Teal Krech as he replies to a question posed to him bye an interested intern from within his cubicle at the “Village Voice” headquarters. The question he was answering was “How long can a human being survive unshielded radiation exposure from a broken fuel rod?” Teal achieved this research from the DoE (Department of Energy) who to this point “has no set plan for the transportation of the spent nuclear fuel rods through our major cities and states on their way to ultimate storage in the bowels of Yucca Mountain”(Krech 2002). Yucca Mountain, located approximately 100 miles Northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, is the site that President George Bush has endorsed for serious consideration as the location in which to store the nations nuclear waste. This nuclear waste, currently stored at 131 reactor sites around the nation, originates from nuclear fuel rods used for nuclear power generation, and national defense and weapons programs.
Since 1978 the Department of Energy has been studying Yucca Mountain. They have been trying to determine whether it would be suitable for the long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive wastes. In that time period and billions of American dollars spent of scientific research on everything from the potential seepage into groundwater to microbial growth within the Alcoves already trenched into the mountains core. Yucca Mountain has been determined the safest place in North America for such a site. The Department of transportation has sank nearly three decades of research and money into the site and have just this year began developing a concise transportation plan for the movement of this nuclear waste throughout our country to the Yucca Mountain site, says Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis.
> >>>
http://www.newsday.com/news/article-15309946.html
Environmental groups are demanding that the DOE make Yucca a safe place to build radioactive waste.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a letter to the President and Secretary of the DOE by representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), United States Geological Survey (USGS), International Union of Concerned Scientists (IUCN), the University of California, Berkeley (UNB), California Society of Mining and Mining Geologists (CSMGM), and the American Chamber of Commerce-American Energy and Commerce Institute.
Citing the EIS, the petition says, “If you, your company, or your employees could use an atomic weapon to create a safer and more sustainable future, you could make the necessary investments to ensure that your employees and your communities are not subject to the risks of storing, transporting, or using the heavy fuels that will destroy the American manufacturing jobs and energy we rely on.”
If you are already an employee and a contractor making a nuclear company contract or have been paid by your employer to do so, you must now become an employee, and all you need is to be ready to sign and certify. A new federal regulation proposed last month by Attorney General Eric Holder was designed to prevent this type of misconduct. The legislation is headed to Obama, who will probably not even bring up the issue until after next week’s congressional recess, according to the NRDC.
The EPA Administrator is responsible for regulating nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain National Laboratory. It controls the radioactive material, including waste that contains radioactive waste, and is expected to start sending out new materials to the site this summer and next year. But the EPA is going to have to keep on enforcing the rules to make sure any radiation is safe, as well.
In late May, a federal advisory committee appointed to hear the case took the lead on the matter by working together with the California Society of Mining and Mining Geologists (CSMGM) to write a resolution of opposition to the California regulation.
The group wants the EPA to start implementing its “safe haven” policies, which “remain outdated and unenforceable, in an attempt to ensure that any existing reactors that do not meet DOE standards will be forced to meet at least federal standards in the event of problems associated with them.”
The group also wants the agency to take steps to encourage the federal governments to make sure they are complying strictly with federal safety regulations. Those policies can include the right to keep and bear arms, to require the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and to prohibit all disposal of radioactive material.
It also said, “The EPA’s continued inaction on Yucca’s safety at Yucca Mountain is a disgrace and a betrayal of our American values.”
Some of the most vocal opponents are the groups which oppose the proposed regulations:
-The Environmental Defense Foundation (EDF), which has sued over two years under the Obama administration for illegally building and operating Yucca Mountain, was sued for alleged failure to comply with its “safe haven.” It is suing the DOE for failing to disclose any data showing the site was deemed unsafe since it was constructed in 1968, when the United States abandoned the use of atomic bombs.
-In March, the National Association of Atomic Energy Laboratories,
> >>>
http://www.newsday.com/news/article-15309946.html
Environmental groups are demanding that the DOE make Yucca a safe place to build radioactive waste.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a letter to the President and Secretary of the DOE by representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), United States Geological Survey (USGS), International Union of Concerned Scientists (IUCN), the University of California, Berkeley (UNB), California Society of Mining and Mining Geologists (CSMGM), and the American Chamber of Commerce-American Energy and Commerce Institute.
Citing the EIS, the petition says, “If you, your company, or your employees could use an atomic weapon to create a safer and more sustainable future, you could make the necessary investments to ensure that your employees and your communities are not subject to the risks of storing, transporting, or using the heavy fuels that will destroy the American manufacturing jobs and energy we rely on.”
If you are already an employee and a contractor making a nuclear company contract or have been paid by your employer to do so, you must now become an employee, and all you need is to be ready to sign and certify. A new federal regulation proposed last month by Attorney General Eric Holder was designed to prevent this type of misconduct. The legislation is headed to Obama, who will probably not even bring up the issue until after next week’s congressional recess, according to the NRDC.
The EPA Administrator is responsible for regulating nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain National Laboratory. It controls the radioactive material, including waste that contains radioactive waste, and is expected to start sending out new materials to the site this summer and next year. But the EPA is going to have to keep on enforcing the rules to make sure any radiation is safe, as well.
In late May, a federal advisory committee appointed to hear the case took the lead on the matter by working together with the California Society of Mining and Mining Geologists (CSMGM) to write a resolution of opposition to the California regulation.
The group wants the EPA to start implementing its “safe haven” policies, which “remain outdated and unenforceable, in an attempt to ensure that any existing reactors that do not meet DOE standards will be forced to meet at least federal standards in the event of problems associated with them.”
The group also wants the agency to take steps to encourage the federal governments to make sure they are complying strictly with federal safety regulations. Those policies can include the right to keep and bear arms, to require the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and to prohibit all disposal of radioactive material.
It also said, “The EPA’s continued inaction on Yucca’s safety at Yucca Mountain is a disgrace and a betrayal of our American values.”
Some of the most vocal opponents are the groups which oppose the proposed regulations:
-The Environmental Defense Foundation (EDF), which has sued over two years under the Obama administration for illegally building and operating Yucca Mountain, was sued for alleged failure to comply with its “safe haven.” It is suing the DOE for failing to disclose any data showing the site was deemed unsafe since it was constructed in 1968, when the United States abandoned the use of atomic bombs.
-In March, the National Association of Atomic Energy Laboratories,
> >>>
http://www.newsday.com/news/article-15309946.html
Environmental groups are demanding that the DOE make Yucca a safe place to build radioactive waste.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a letter to the President and Secretary of the DOE by representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), United States Geological Survey (USGS), International Union of Concerned Scientists (IUCN), the University of California, Berkeley (UNB), California Society of Mining and Mining Geologists (CSMGM), and the American Chamber of Commerce-American Energy and Commerce Institute.
Citing the EIS, the petition says, “If you, your company, or your employees could use an atomic weapon to create a safer and more sustainable future, you could make the necessary investments to ensure that your employees and your communities are not subject to the risks of storing, transporting, or using the heavy fuels that will destroy the American manufacturing jobs and energy we rely on.”
If you are already an employee and a contractor making a nuclear company contract or have been paid by your employer to do so, you must now become an employee, and all you need is to be ready to sign and certify. A new federal regulation proposed last month by Attorney General Eric Holder was designed to prevent this type of misconduct. The legislation is headed to Obama, who will probably not even bring up the issue until after next week’s congressional recess, according to the NRDC.
The EPA Administrator is responsible for regulating nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain National Laboratory. It controls the radioactive material, including waste that contains radioactive waste, and is expected to start sending out new materials to the site this summer and next year. But the EPA is going to have to keep on enforcing the rules to make sure any radiation is safe, as well.
In late May, a federal advisory committee appointed to hear the case took the lead on the matter by working together with the California Society of Mining and Mining Geologists (CSMGM) to write a resolution of opposition to the California regulation.
The group wants the EPA to start implementing its “safe haven” policies, which “remain outdated and unenforceable, in an attempt to ensure that any existing reactors that do not meet DOE standards will be forced to meet at least federal standards in the event of problems associated with them.”
The group also wants the agency to take steps to encourage the federal governments to make sure they are complying strictly with federal safety regulations. Those policies can include the right to keep and bear arms, to require the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and to prohibit all disposal of radioactive material.
It also said, “The EPA’s continued inaction on Yucca’s safety at Yucca Mountain is a disgrace and a betrayal of our American values.”
Some of the most vocal opponents are the groups which oppose the proposed regulations:
-The Environmental Defense Foundation (EDF), which has sued over two years under the Obama administration for illegally building and operating Yucca Mountain, was sued for alleged failure to comply with its “safe haven.” It is suing the DOE for failing to disclose any data showing the site was deemed unsafe since it was constructed in 1968, when the United States abandoned the use of atomic bombs.
-In March, the National Association of Atomic Energy Laboratories,
“With the licensing procedures expected to take 3 years” (Abraham 2002) and that license only granted through the construction period of the site, at which point and time the Department of Energy will have to reapply for licensing before they can begin to receive wastes, the project is at least 8 years away from completion. I personally think that eight years allows plenty of time for further development of transportation methods and protocols that will guarantee the safe movement and containment of this waste through our major cities. The Department of Energy will probably come up with special containers that will be specifically designed to withstand even the most violent of turnovers and impacts, just like they have done for the transportation of gaseous cyanide and chlorine which are transported bye truck and rail every day. Both of which would cause catastrophic levels of deaths if the containers integrity were to be compromised and its contents allowed to escape.
Nuclear power generation is responsible for almost 20% of our nations power usage. (Abraham 2002), and since the Regan administration we have been steadily increasing the number of nuclear power generating reactors across the country. We as a nation are dependent
on electrical power for everyday life, so we shouldnt expect to see the number of nuclear power plants decrease in any scope of the near future. We need methods of disposal for the wasted (spent) fuel rods that we currently have on hand in the amount of 40,000 metric tons. (Abraham 2002)
In 1978 before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act went into effect the nation looked into many different proposed methods of nuclear waste disposal, some of these methods include; rocketing the waste into outer space aiming for it to exit the solar system or to impact the sun. This method seemingly has potential for rocket failure resulting in the release of radioactive material throughout our atmosphere or potentially across our nations skies killing millions in its wake.
The second method explored was forcefully injecting the waste onto the edge of the earths tectonic plates as to allow the waste to enter the earths mantle. Several other methods involved Antarctica, such as allowing the nuclear waste to sink all the way to the Antarctics bedrock (approximately 2 miles) melting its way down using the spent materials own heat to do the melting and leaving it there, another method included the storage of the waste on the surface of the arctic and covering it with ice.
There have been proposals for reactors that consume nuclear waste and transmute it to other, less-harmful nuclear waste. In particular, the Integral Fast Reactor was a proposed nuclear reactor with a nuclear fuel cycle that produced no transuranic waste; in fact, it could consume transuranic waste. It proceeded as far as large-scale tests but was then cancelled by the US Government. (Wickipedia 2004)
All in all the general consensus bye the American congress and senate was that the underground storage at Yucca Mountain was the most economical and safe at this current age and time. A consensus ringing so loud as the government has set aside 576,000,000 U.S. tax dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund for fiscal year 2005 which will bring the Nuclear Waste Fund to nearly 15 Billion Dollars. “The purpose of the NWF was to pay the full cost of disposal of nuclear