I’m really disappointed to see how the draft report refers and describes other projects, without considering the French one, which is one of the most advanced. Our process which was successful is totally ignored. Even the information given twice on our site is not reported, instead, older figures are given, in the appendix.
Regards
Gérald Ouzounian
Directeur
Direction internationale
+33146118196 / +33146118268
Basic assumptions that should be changed in the report are:
1. All nuclear power production should be phased out with all deliberate speed.
2. All nuclear weapons production and storage should be phased out with all deliberate speed.
3. All radioactive waste should continue to be managed and stored at current sites where it is generated until all power plants are decommissioned and policy decision has been made to phase out use of nuclear power. This is unfortunately necessary to motivate public and government to make and enforce the decision to end nuclear power for good.
4. The main lesson from Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters is that there is no solution to the risks of nuclear power and weapons, and they must simply be phased out, not just better managed.
Thank you for taking on this daunting and important work.
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011
Subject: BRC Draft Report to the Secretary of Energy
This BRC report draft makes the statement that there are no technologies that are able to be licensed and fielded in less then several decades that could have an influence on the fuel cycle, this is simply not true.
Heavy water reactor technology is an already fielded, licensed technology in many nations.Heavy water reactors can be modified to meet NRC requirements and can be co located on existing LWR sites to utilize LWR spent fuel using the DUPIC process.
Most importantly heavy water reactors co located onsite with existing LWR reactors and defense nuclear facilities constitute a DE FACTO interim regional storage policy that stores LWR spent fuel inside the heavy water reactor,in the heavy water reactor wet pools and back into dry cask storage. With the possible exception of the onsite DUPIC process this de facto regional interim storage pays for it self by generating electricity and collecting the spent fuel trust fund fee twice.
It would take about 50 heavy water reactors to consume the LWR and defense waste and a century or more to do so, but by then ( before then) we would have our next generation reactors and a geological depository.
TVA could build this fleet,indeed it could be a pathfinder for site co location with LWR reactors, and Hanford and Savannah river site cry out for de facto regional DUPIC process and power generation using spent fuel as fuel. The BRC ignores this BRIDGE to the next generation reactors, the BRC ignores this BRIDGE to a carbon reduced world, the BRC ignores this BRIDGE to continued economic life to existing licensed sites after the LWR's have been decommissioned, the BRC ignores this opportunity to collect energy sales and the spent fuel trust fund fee twice on spent fuel using an existing licensed reactor technology.
The commission should remedy this over site in this final report, indeed the BRC should recommend that any next generation reactor also be designed to be co located at existing sites and more importantly that these next generation reactors be able to use the spent fuel from the heavy water,LWR fleet with on site reprocessing, what might fit this bill? the molten salt reactor that uses spent fuel dissolved with fluorine gas might fit this criteria.
The BRC needs to get over its FETISH with national centrally located interim storage,reprocessing and geological burial sites,heavy water reactors followed by molten salt reactors just might be the Bridge that generates revenue and we can implement now with the NRC and EPA regulatory environment.The challenge is regional or even onsite reprocessing, but even if this is not feasible, building a fleet of heavy water reactors onsite with the existing fleet of LWR;s most certainly is our short term answer ( 50 to 70 years) while we wait for the answers to come for whats next.
Steven Torry Rappolee
Student St Clair Community College
Air Force IRR !
Nuclear Industry Comments on BRC Draft Recommendations
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011
Subject: Nuclear Industry Comments on BRC Draft Recommendations
"It is important that Americans have access to cost-efficient, U.S.-based energy resources like nuclear energy. The proper stewardship of our environment demands that we effectively manage the byproducts associated with the use of these resources. The Blue Ribbon Commission has rightly recognized that the national nuclear waste management system must be truly integrated and that the United States should remain at the forefront of technology developments and international efforts to responsibly manage nuclear materials.
"A number of recommendations in the report strike the nuclear energy industry as sensible, desirable and, given time, achievable. The industry is particularly gratified to see the recommendations calling for the establishment of one or more consolidated interim storage facilities for used nuclear fuel; development of a permanent underground repository for commercial used fuel and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs; creation of a new management organization that will assume the U.S. Department of Energy's role in managing this material; and legislation providing full access to nuclear waste fee revenues and the federal Nuclear Waste Fund. These should be among the nation's top energy policy priorities.
"The industry concurs with the Blue Ribbon Commission's assertion that the availability of consolidated interim storage will provide 'valuable flexibility' in the nuclear waste management system. While repository site selection is not within the scope of the BRC's work, the nuclear energy industry continues to believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of the Department of Energy's license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, repository should continue.
"The nuclear energy industry also sees merit in the commission's call for sustained public- and private-sector support for research and development of advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies that can help address the energy challenges facing future generations.
"The nuclear energy industry stands ready to work with the administration and Congress in shaping policies that will help implement these recommendations to advance the nation's economic, energy and environmental, as well as its national security imperatives."
Comments on Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Draft Report to the Secretary of Energy
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 10:34:42 AM
To: BRC
Subject: Comments on Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Draft Report to the Secretary of Energy
I write independently as a sociologist and environmental activist. I deplore the new report's recommendations. They amount to a sophisticated green-wash of an inherently dangerous policy and technology -- commercial nuclear energy. The commission is trying to remove the most obvious political obstacle to nuclear expansion - waste disposal problems, but is contributing to increased physical and social problems that are unavoidable with nuclear energy. The only real "comprehensive nuclear waste management system" is to turn the U.S. away from nuclear power permanently. Your pretense of public input into an undemocratic technology will unfortunately impress many people. Continued use of nuclear technology for energy and for weapons are connected to each other and are both driven by power and profit goals. As you imply in your own report, given the environmental, health, and security risks associated with nuclear, it brings with it a world of fear, illness, and concentrated power. Those are great for the global power elite, but not for most human beings.
Josh Klein
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future draft report
From: Meacham, Thomas[SMTP:TOM.MEACHAM@WKU.EDU]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:03:10 PM
To: BRC
Subject: Blue Ribbon Commission on America¹s Nuclear Future draft report
Thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future draft report.
I’m concerned about the strategy you recommend:
1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and
empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.
3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste
management.
4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated interim storage facilities.
6. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce
development.
7. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, nonproliferation,
and security concerns.
About #1, I am concerned that this is not just a NIMBY problem, but a health and safety issue. Radioactive waste is highly toxic in microscopic amounts, and “consent” only moves the problem to a different place. Unless there is a cost-effective way to render nuclear waste un-radioactive and non-toxic, or to reuse it indefinitely, we should rethink any “nuclear future” in this country. This is a problem that will only grow and get worse.
About #2, What is this organization’s goal? To talk about the problem? To “succeed” at what? Some shell game, keeping a growing problem away from the first world’s attention? Let me hear some solutions that are worthy of my confidence.
About #3, I am not in favor of “access to funds utility ratepayers are providing” a.k.a. “rate hikes” until there is a plan to safely get rid of this stuff in a timely, permanent fashion. Nor am I in favor of hiding the true costs of nuclear power, which we are now in the habit of passing on to third world countries and future generations.
About #4 & 5, Yucca Mountain illustrated that very few sites for “geologic disposal facilities” are completely cut off from Earth’s dynamic (and hydrologic) systems, and the amount of time radioactive waste takes to lose its toxicity makes it more vulnerable to normal periodic tectonic shifts. In short, you can’t bury a problem like this forever. Besides, how many areas around the globe are we going to render uninhabitable for the next hundred thousand years before we run out of uninhabitable places? We are talking about using nuclear energy indefinitely, or at least until we run out of uranium. If we are going to run out of fuel anyway, why not pursue now the solution we will have to pursue then?
About #6, to make nuclear energy a viable alternative, the most important innovations that need to take place are to greatly reduce the toxicity of fuel extraction and waste disposal. Mining uranium is a highly poisonous process, but you are only concerned with waste disposal, which is not at a level much more advanced than “throw it in the woods somewhere.” Until we can solve both these very important problems in a very safe and satisfactory way, not only for us but for future generations and future human civilizations, our best alternative is to abandon any “nuclear future” for the U.S. and create the infrastructure and support for sustainable energy alternatives.
In today’s economy, I can’t support another organization whose only goal is to justify the continuation of a growing problem. In the long run, nuclear power generation is only a temporary patch on the problem. Can we not put our resources behind a more permanent solution?
Sincerely,
Thomas Meacham
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future
Subject: Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future
Hello;
Thank you for asking the public to submit their thoughts.
After the disaster in Japan, which is continuing in regards to their nuclear plant, it is apparent that no one can predict unforeseen disasters, and nuclear plants are especially prone to them. I understand that it is being said that the new technology makes nuclear plants much safer, but it is impossible to prove that until there is a disaster, in which case it is too late.
It would be far better to spend that money on green energy technologies, which are safe and will jumpstart our economy. We need to look to the future, not continue to depend on technologies which have proven themselves to be dangerous for all life forms and the earth itself. It is time to be smart...there is a famous quote, "Insanity means doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome". It's time for the insanity to stop.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Susan Friedwald
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future draft report
From: John Albertini[SMTP:JOHNA@MAINESTREAM.US]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 2:37:09 PM
To: BRC
Subject: The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future draft report Auto forwarded by a Rule
I don't know what planet you people live on but nuclear power will NEVER BE SAFE!!!!
It can NEVER be made safe, period, end of discussion.
Have you no knowledge or understanding of physics or memory of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima?
Stop lying to the American people. Nuclear must be ended once and for all.
That is the only safe option.
Re: The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future draft report
Nuclear plants are not as safe as we have been led to believe. Former industry insiders are making that clear, as have recent events.
But nuclear power is on its way out anyway. There are much better alternatives. Investors aren't going to bother with nuclear.
Subject: Re: Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Draft Report to the Secretary of Energy
Dear BRC:
A Nuclear Future is a radioactive future. Please stop the nuclear madness. Let's get on with the business of clean energy production and move away from nuclear and fossil fuels ASAP.
RE: request
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:10 AM
To: mary.woollen@blueribboncommission.net
Subject: RE: request
Hello Mary,
I’m really disappointed to see how the draft report refers and describes other projects, without considering the French one, which is one of the most advanced. Our process which was successful is totally ignored. Even the information given twice on our site is not reported, instead, older figures are given, in the appendix.
Regards
Gérald Ouzounian
Directeur
Direction internationale
+33146118196 / +33146118268
www.andra.fr
www.dechets-radioactifs.com