Bellefonte means beautiful spring, unless the TVA and NU-Start have their way. If the reactor project is approved, there will be a Radioactive Waste Dump less than 5 miles from Scottsboro. A few facts provided by the NIRS, http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/radwaste.htm , more info on waste concerning Bellefonte from the NIRS:
As of June 30, 2008, no facility in the United States will be licensed and able to accept for disposal, Class B, C or Greater-Than-C radioactive waste from the Bellefonte nuclear and power reactors. The applicant (TVA/Nu-Start) fails to offer a viable plan for how to dispose of Class B, C and Greater than-C so-called "low-level" radioactive waste generated in the course of operations, closure and post closure of Bellefonte 3 & 4.
The statement of fact is that applicant, TVA, fails to address how NRC regulations for the disposal of so-called "low-level" radioactive waste will be met in the absence of a disposal facility (dump). This issue must be addressed in order for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant an operating license with credibility. If perpetual or extended on-site storage of these wastes is to be the "fall back," then this must be addressed in the COL application and is not. Since there is no off site part 61 licensed disposal available, extended on site storage becomes defacto on-site disposal. This could significantly increase the safety and security risks of the Bellefonte site. Therefore serious consideration must be given to licensing the site itself under 10 CFR Part 61 (licensed permanent radioactive waste disposal) or Alabama’s compatible agreement state regulations. It is imperative that the safety and security issues of extended on-site storage, defacto disposal, be addressed prior to generation of the waste because the "low-level" radioactive waste for which there is no disposal available is the hottest, most concentrated waste in the category.
As of June 30, 2008, no facility in the United States will be licensed and able to accept for disposal, Class B, C or Greater-Than-C radioactive waste from the Bellefonte nuclear and power reactors. The applicant (TVA/Nu-Start) fails to offer a viable plan for how to dispose of Class B, C and Greater than-C so-called "low-level" radioactive waste generated in the course of operations, closure and post closure of Bellefonte 3 & 4.
The statement of fact is that applicant, TVA, fails to address how NRC regulations for the disposal of so-called "low-level" radioactive waste will be met in the absence of a disposal facility (dump). This issue must be addressed in order for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant an operating license with credibility. If perpetual or extended on-site storage of these wastes is to be the "fall back," then this must be addressed in the COL application and is not. Since there is no off site part 61 licensed disposal available, extended on site storage becomes defacto on-site disposal. This could significantly increase the safety and security risks of the Bellefonte site. Therefore serious consideration must be given to licensing the site itself under 10 CFR Part 61 (licensed permanent radioactive waste disposal) or Alabama’s compatible agreement state regulations. It is imperative that the safety and security issues of extended on-site storage, defacto disposal, be addressed prior to generation of the waste because the "low-level" radioactive waste for which there is no disposal available is the hottest, most concentrated waste in the category.
Let's take a moment and ask ourselves. Is this really what we want to leave our children, grandchildren and future generations of Scottsboro citizens, a legacy of Radioactive Nuclear Waste?
7 comments:
Gary, I tried to post 3 responsible opposing views on nuclear power to yours last night, but I still don't see them here on your blog. If I don't see them soon I guess this site is no better than al.com and I know you know a little about that gossip laden site...
Sorry for the delay. Opposing views, I don't see your comment as an opposing view. Seems as if you are complaining about my facts and story as you don't like what you hear or read. Whether you can handle the facts is up to you.
What's with the doctored up '50s picture of the guys dumping (supposedly radioactive) trash into a ditch with the lunar landscape that you posted? If you're going to slam nuclear power at least do it in a manner that doesn't insult our intelligence...
There is a huge difference between a Radioactive Waste Dump and the Spent Fuel Pool where used uranium fuel rods will be stored. Sleep through a few classes at Baylor? I have 35 years in the nuclear industry and would love to educate you...
Yes, radioactive waste dump. You call it a name that will make you feel all warm and fuzzy. I prefer to call it a nuclear waste dump. The picture is from the National Archives, go complain to someone else about the picture. By the way not all nuclear wastes are stored in the "pool."
Concerning discussions, love to have one, but impossible with a nameless, faceless person named anonymous.
If you support the Bellefonte TVA proposal concerning the construction of a nuclear power generation facility why don't you just state your case. Currently you state few facts but are heavy on attempted flaming and that will only go so far with me.
National archives of what? It looks like a 1950's sci fi scene. Are you that desperate?
Wrong, your ignorance is showing. Post something mreaningful, even a sensible counter argument. Your flamming will end here.
Post a Comment