And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 10:38:56 EST
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
>Mailing-List: list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [DOEWatch] U.S.: Nevada desert is promising site for nuke waste
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Source:
>http://cnn.com/US/9812/18/environment.nuclear.reut/
>==========================================================
>U.S.: Nevada desert is promising site for nuke waste 
>
>December 18, 1998 CNN
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of
>Energy said Friday that Yucca Mountain in the Nevada
>desert was a "promising" site for becoming the nation's
>permanent nuclear waste repository, pending more
>research on its safety. 
>
>By calling it "promising," the agency rejected pleas from
>environmental groups to disqualify Yucca Mountain.
>Those groups have cited research showing that
>groundwater could be contaminated by radioactive waste
>during the thousands of years the nuclear fuel would
>remain highly radioactive. 
>
>DOE released its first detailed analysis on the potential
>waste site in a long-awaited viability assessment. The
>agency said that if it were eventually approved, the site
>would cost some $19 billion to build and monitor. 
>
>"DOE believes that Yucca Mountain remains a promising
>site for a geologic repository and that work should
>proceed to support a decision in 2001 on whether to
>recommend the site to the president for development as a
>repository," the DOE said. 
>
>For the site to be recommended, the agency said it must
>still demonstrate that a repository can be designed and
>built at Yucca Mountain that would protect the public and
>the environment. 
>
>The waste site would become the home for some 70,000
>metric tons of spent radioactive fuel rods from nuclear
>power plants, and additional waste from production of
>nuclear weapons. 
>
>Currently, around 38,000 tons of spent fuel is being stored
>at more than 70 commercial nuclear power plants across
>the country, pending the resolution of a dispute over when
>the federal government must remove the waste for storage.
>
>DOE said uncertainties remained about key natural
>processes in the Yucca Mountain region, and over
>preliminary design plans. To address the outstanding
>questions, the agency said environmental impact
>assessments would be conducted in the next two years
>before the final recommendation in 2001. 
>
>The report said the advantages of making Yucca Mountain
>the repository site included: 
>
>-Location. The mountain lies 100 miles northwest of Las
>Vegas on unpopulated land owned by the federal
>government and adjacent to the Nevada Test Site, the
>longtime home for more than 900 nuclear weapons tests; 
>
>-Lack of water. DOE said water is the main way
>radioactive elements are transported from a repository,
>and noted that Yucca Mountain is in a desert, with an
>average rainfall of 7 inches; 
>
>-Groundwater. The nearest groundwater is isolated in a
>closed basis and does not flow into any any rivers that

>reach the ocean. 
>
>The DOE said the natural geology and the preliminary
>repository design can keep water away from the waste for
>thousands of years. Using mathematical models, the
>agency said that for 10,000 years after the repository is
>closed in around the year 2045, people living near Yucca
>Mountain are expected to receive little or no increase in
>radiation exposure. 
>
>The maximum radiation exposure was expected to occur
>after 300,000 years, the report said. 
>
>DOE said the preparation of environmental impact
>statements in 1999 and 2000 would cost around $1.1
>billion, and if approved, the construction and placement
>of waste would cost around another $18.7 billion in
>constant 1998 dollars. 
>
>The first waste would be emplaced in 2010 and the last
>waste in 2033, and the site closed 10 years after the last
>waste is laid to rest. DOE said the total cost to complete
>the program, including transportation of waste and storage
>would cost around $36.6 billion. The number does not
>include the $5.9 billion that has spent on the program thus
>far. 
>==========================================================
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
> 

<<<<=-=-=FREE LEONARD PELTIER=-=-=>>>> 
If you think you are too small to make a difference;
try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito....
African Proverb
<<<<=-=http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ =-=>>>> 
PASS THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW....
Please Check it before you send it:

http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blhoax.htm

Reply via email to