I've always been amazed at the circular reasoning on waste disposal. No matter what solution anyone comes up with, people like Kamps will fight it. And then those sorts of people have the stupidity to say that we have a disposal "dilemma". I'd call it a delusion.
Anyways, he chooses to refer to Yucca Mountain as a "dump"....of course. Though it is a multi-billion dollar, highly engineered facility:
EPA regulations would have allowed for a cancer incidence rate of 1 in 4????? Say what???
Kamps should read Chapter 2 of this free Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. The EPA considered an individual risk standard to someone in the most critical group. The risks discussed are on the order of 1 in a million additional lifetime risk.
He regurgitates the AP 1000 design flaws concocted by Arnie Gundersen. Those "flaws" and other issues were addressed by the NRC here. In particular, Gundersen was complaining about the potential for corrosion of the steel containment vessel. Of course, there is a potential for this as there is with older reactor designs. That isn't really new. And the industry takes steps to address the potential (coatings, inspections, etc.). The AP 1000 vessel is actually thicker than older designs. Here's a good description of the plant design.
No comments:
Post a Comment