How did you manage to come up with this post? I would like to know.

Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.

That statement is factually correct in that there are allegations of fraud. That is a fact.

There was however, no fraud involved with the license submitted to the NRC. A congressional investigation and a 22 million dollar reworking of data contributed by two GIS hydrologists document that assertion.

The hydrologists in question wrote each other emails complaining of the onerous record keeping requirements involved in detailing when certain programs were installed on their computers.

They stated they would keep two sets of records, one to show inspectors and their real data logs. Since the Yucca Mountain Project has been meticulous about their science and engineering efforts, in their in house reviews of email records, these particular emails were discovered, the project exposed the e-mail’s existence and reworked the entire body of work these two scientists were involved in.

That is why people like Ms. McCabe can state truthfully that there are “proven allegations of fraud”. The facts show these were stupid emails between complaining coworkers; their data was never included in the license application submitted. When their data was compared with the reworked data it was almost exactly the same.

Another point: If the waste remains where it is, which is what the anti-Yucca forces propose, we have about 5 inches of concrete between the waste and exposure to the elements. This might be OK for the next 300 years. The half life of these materials is considerably longer than that. With the addition of the repository, we add about 1000 feet of volcanic tuff as an additional barrier over time. If we use engineered materials to create canisters to place the waste inside the mountain, we gain more time. If we place “drip shields” above the canisters, inside the mountain, we gain even more time still.

I point this out because opponents to this project like to ladle out bromides and straw men scenarios, but have neither the science, nor the expertise to dispute what has been meticulously documented in the license application submitted to the NRC. This is a serious problem that has been seriously documented by a team of world class scientists and engineers working to the highest levels of accountability. They should be lauded for their efforts to solve this pressing problem rather than vilified by a lazy press which repeats accusations as facts.

Alvin Heskett

Yes, it’s Gilinsky, and he served from 1975-1984. Former Commissioner Peter Bradford who server from 1977-1982 says the following:

“The nuclear power that we have invariably gotten from the Washington sausage machine demands licenses without an impartial licensing process, public acquiescence without public involvement, spent fuel without a waste repository, multi-billion dollar projects without analysis of alternatives, nearly separated plutonium (per the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) without adequate safeguards — in short, a renaissance without masterpieces.”

This doesn’t give me much faith in the regulation or development of any nuclear projects.

It shows how much power the oil and gas lobby once had that he could ever have been in that position. The drip shields that supposedly will someday be put over spent fuel rods would be useless in the early decades, when the stuff self-heats enough to keep itself dry. Bit of a deceitful omission on his part.

Of course, they would not really be needed, ever.