Court order takes objective look at spent fuel saftey -NRC answer more study
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/nuclear-plants-waste/index....
"The government's main watchdog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, believes that current storage plans are safe and achievable. But a federal court said that the NRC didn't detail what the environmental consequences would be if the agency is wrong."
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Press-Update.html?form_id=8&item_i...
On June 8th, the Court threw out the NRC rule that permitted licensing and re-licensing of nuclear reactors based on the supposition that (a) the NRC will find a way to dispose of spent reactor fuel to be generated by reactors at some time in the future when it becomes “necessary” and (b) in the mean time, spent fuel can be stored safely at reactor sites.
The Court noted that, after decades of failure to site a repository, including twenty years of working on the now-abandoned Yucca Mountain repository, the NRC “has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository.” Therefore it is possible that spent fuel will be stored at reactor sites “on a permanent basis.” Under the circumstances, the NRC must examine the environmental consequences of failing to establish a repository when one is needed.
The Court also rejected NRC’s decision minimizing the risks of leaks or fires from spent fuel stored in reactor pools during future storage, because the NRC had not demonstrated that these future impacts would be insignificant. The Court found that past experience with pool leaks was not an adequate predictor of future experience. It also concluded that the NRC had not shown that catastrophic fires in spent fuel pools were so unlikely that their risks could be ignored.
Foregone conclusion
Foregone conclusion
Both presidential candidates have announced they are FOR nuclear power, coal, solar, wind, natural gas, oil, ethanol, hydroelectric, geothermal … (ALL of the above). Thus, EVERY energy industry has been verbally reassured by the candidates. Both candidates have accused their opponent of LYING about this support.
One would HOPE, in VAIN, for a CANDID public policy energy/power debate. However, any such REASONABLE expectations will most certainly be DASHED upon the shores of reality.
Nuclear Power - Dangerous Liars
Ethanol - Stupid to burn food (inefficiently)
Wind/Solar Voltaic - Useless
Useful: coal, oil, natural gas, geothermal, hydro-electric & Solar-Thermal
Useful: Nega-Watt (Energy Efficiency)
We can look forward to more lunacy, for the indeterminate future.
IMHO
Massive 'Dirty Bombs'
MORE Nuclear Safety Myths
No WAY, are USA, existing (or pending new construction) above-ground nuclear power plants physically hardened against aerial attack. Phalanx, laser and tactical missile defense systems could provide some, limited degree of nuclear power plant protection, from aerial attack, for above ground nuclear power plants. However, no such aerial defense systems have reportedly been installed, within the USA.
No WAY has ANY credible provision for cleanup, following a nuclear power plant disaster, been set up. Two (2) water filtration systems have been constructed in Japan to re-circulate the massive quantities of contaminated reactor coolant water. There are ZERO such recirculation filtration systems constructed in the USA. Thus, USA citizens can expect MASSIVE quantities of contaminated water releases, WHEN (not IF) the next USA nuclear power plant disaster occurs.
Mythological radionuclide protection is insufficient for the USA …
In My Humble Opinion
Breach of Faith
Zero Preparation for CERTAIN disaster
Team Obama announced that the USA Strategic (anti-radiation) Drug Stockpile was running on EMPTY.
There is NO Prussian Blue OR Potassium Chloride available to the USA public in the event of a nuclear disaster.
Zero anti-radiation pills were available to USA tourists, ex-pats, military and/or military dependents in Japan, following the Fukushima Daiichi multiple meltdowns, explosions and nuclear fallout releases. British Subjects were issued anti-radiation medications.
Zero anti-radiation drugs were available for distribution along the Missouri River floodzone last year for the USA citizen populations near the flood-threatened nuclear reactors.
There is NO pretense of nuclear power safety in the USA. This is a Breach of Faith with the DOWNWIND populations.
This is another Myth of 'nuclear safety'.
Due Diligence - NOT!!!
Who, What, Where, When, How, Why?
Any DILIGENT, controlling LEGAL authority would enquire doggedly into the particulars of the MISSING USA strategic (anti-radiation) drug Stockpile.
Any reasonably competent journalist would seek the same answers.
What WAS the disposition of the USA Strategic (anti-radiation) Drug Stockpile (SDS)?
What entry in the Congressional Record authorized dismantling the SDS?
What federal department proposed, studied, authorized, and executed ... same?
What inventory entries attended the removal of the drugs?
Whose SIGNATURES are above the line on the transfer documents?
Apparently the SDS anti radiation drug stockpile just VANISHED into the mists of time.
The drugs were maintained for about 50 years and then one fateful day, were GONE without a TRACE?
...
So much for diligent controlling legal authorities and enquiring reporters.
Not a gawdam WHISPER or even a whimper!
LIES, Propaganda & Disparagement
The pattern is clear.
In the event of a nuclear disaster; Lies, Disinformation and PsyOps are the order of the day. This course of action is MUCH cheaper than evacuation, decontamination, anti-radition drug therapy and regional cleanup.
Psychobabble, not medical treatment:
How can we make you FEEL better about yourself?
We are sorry that you FEEL that way.
Perhaps your cancer symptoms are as a result of your FEELINGS.
Perhaps counseling, committment and ECT will help with your bad FEELINGS.
----------------
Yeah, that's it, thank you Nurse Ratched, the radionuclide VICTIMS feel much better now. Pat Paulson's anti-poverty program was a joke. The nuclear power industry anti-radiation 'therapy' proposal is ... NOT funny, but IS good for profits.
AND to the NRC ... 'Vielen Dank im Voraus für Ihre Antwort, Herr Kommissar'.
Vielen Dank
Stare decisis = It has already been decided..
This decision will be very easy for the NRC to have reversed.
The way Congress wrote the laws for regulation of nuclear power plants; namely the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, for the now defunct AEC, and its successor agency the NRC created in by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974; Congress intended that the Courts can review the procedures used by the NRC, but the Courts can not substitute their judgment for the NRC and its technical staff in matters of policy and technical decisions.
This Congressional mandate has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court in the decisions:
Baltimore Gas and Electric v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 US 87 (1983):
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/462/87.html
Vermont Yankee v. Natural Resources Defense Council 435 US 519 (1978):
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/435/519.html
The NRC has concluded that for the purposes of licensing and NEPA environmental impact statements, that the environmental impact of spent fuel and its storage is ZERO, since at some point determined by Congress and the NRC, nuclear waste will be properly disposed of.
The US Supreme Court held in Baltimore that determination was well within the powers vested by Congress in the NRC, and the Supreme Court stated unanimously:
It is not the task of this Court to determine what decision it would have reached if it had been the NRC. The Court's only task is to determine whether the NRC had considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Under this standard, the zero-release assumption, within the context of Table S-3 as a whole, was not arbitrary or capricious.
In Vermont Yankee, also decided without dissent, the US Supreme Court chided the lower Court:
2. The Court of Appeals in these cases has seriously misread or misapplied such statutory and decisional law cautioning reviewing courts against engrafting their own notions of proper procedures upon agencies entrusted with substantive functions by Congress, and moreover as to the Court of Appeals' decision with respect to agency action taken after full adjudicatory hearings, it improperly intruded into the agency's decision-making process.
The Supreme Court stated that when Congress has authorized the creation of a specialized regulatory agency in order to regulate a highly technical activity such as nuclear power or aviation; then the Courts are not to substitute their judgment for that of the agency and/or its technical staff.
The DC Court has done just that. It didn't limit itself to a review of the NRC's procedures. The DC Court substituted its judgment for that of the NRC on a highly technical matter - something both Congress and the US Supreme Court have forbidden the lower courts to do. Other Courts have previously disobeyed the US Supreme Court's mandate and their decisions have been swiftly reversed.
A bit of commentary on the matter from the Harvard Environmental Law Review:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.jo...
The Baltimore Gas decision is significant since Justice O'Connor, writing for a unanimous Court, seized the opportunity to caution lower federal courts from becoming overly involved in the technical determinations of expert agencies.
This is a clear case of "stare decisis" which means that "it has already been decided". The problem is that lower court didn't heed the decision. In such cases, that lower court decision is easily reversed and remanded.
It's telling that the NRC told its staff to keep working on the cases while the NRC follows the lower court's ruling for the time being. However, in just a few weeks, the NRC lawyers will be in front of a US Supreme Court Justice and having this decision summarily reversed and overturned.
The Fix Is In, Agreed
Agreed, that the DANGEROUS PATH of the NRC will remain unchecked.
The federal court system is merely 'dangling hope', false hope, before the American citizenry. The federal courts do not, in most circumstances, base their decisions on the Constitution of the United States. Nor does SCOTUS presently appear to promote the rule of law.
This lawless pattern has become quite clear in recent federal court decisions.
The 3 branches of the federal government are in open insurrection. Both candidates for POTUS have agreed on a pro-nuclear direction. The 'money' has spoken. The 'people' and the 'Constitution' are now insignificant.
SCOTUS will back the NRC, regardless of consequences.
GE Rules
General Electric has ruled the USA for DECADES and has received direct bailouts from the federal government since the Great Depression, including the TARP frauds from Bush/Obama.
Nuclear power generation is a key component of the GE business model.
No other considerations, bear any weight whatsoever.
GE Rules