Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid
July 16, 2003
Statement Of Senator Harry Reid on the House Appropriations Committee's budget for Yucca Mountain
Today the House Appropriations Committee passed a bill that includes a $765 million budget for Yucca Mountain. That amount is outrageous, and it's insulting to Nevadans and all Americans.
It is down-right hypocritical for the House Republican leadership to talk about fiscal restraint and then pass a Yucca Mountain budget that large. That's money that could be used to boost Homeland Security by funding our first responders, emergency personnel and law enforcement officials.
I am confident that Nevada's Representatives will fight this poor decision when the measure comes up for a full vote. In addition, I will work closely with my Republican counterpart in the Senate to substantially cut that number.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
July 16, 2003
Bechtel studies reports of flaws
Yucca contractor preparing for license application
By Mary Manning
<manning@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas SUN
A Department of Energy contractor is studying 22,000 documents linked to the high-level nuclear waste Yucca Mountain repository program in an effort to find the root of numerous flaws detected by reviewers.
Top Yucca contractor Bechtel SAIC is reviewing all scientific records before the DOE submits a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, expected in December 2004, officials said Tuesday.
Bechtel is addressing "numerous and varied problems," Nancy Williams, project manager for Bechtel SAIC in Las Vegas, said during a teleconference between Washington and Las Vegas, part of a quarterly review between DOE and Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
The company is trying to bring the scientific data on the project up to standards after several questions about the work, and a Department of Energy order to correct the work.
Bechtel has instituted a detailed checklist of technical, scientific and quality control issues for managers to follow on the first-of-a-kind repository project proposed for Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Williams said.
After training and audits are completed in August, the Quality Assurance process is expected to be in place by Sept. 30 to assure scientific information is top quality, she said.
The checklists for managers are the basis for consistency in the project and to deliver a comprehensive and detailed license application, Williams said.
When asked if Bechtel has a written plan to confirm its data, Williams said that the checklists served as a way for managers to ensure that the information is solid.
"Checklists are lessons learned, reflecting the struggles with past data problems," Williams said.
It will take up to 200 hours for a team of up to 10 experts to complete a review of repository risks, Williams said. That review is expected to be finished by December, she said.
For other information, reviews could be completed by March 2004.
The entire Bechtel review is expected to be ready by December 2004, Williams said.
In addition to gaps in the voluminous data gathered at the mountain in the past 20 years, the NRC had noted for years that the Yucca project could not qualify its scientific information under rigorous Yucca Quality Assurance reviews.
The Yucca Quality Assurance program is designed to preserve data that have been collected over years that support the department's conclusion that Yucca Mountain is a safe place to bury the nation's most radioactive waste.
The DOE filed a "corrective action" report after it issued a "stop-work" order on March 4 detailing the problems Bechtel has to fix in its procedures.
The stop-work order was focused on scientific review procedures and did not bring the project to a halt.
That stop-work order will not be lifted until there is a quality assurance process in place, Kerry Grooms of the DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management said on Tuesday.
R. Dennis Brown, DOE's quality assurance director who issued the stop-work order, said that it will take time for Bechtel to make sure its efforts are working.
"It could be months," he said.
The flaws listed in the corrective action report violated the Energy Department's Quality Assurance Requirement Document, which is required by federal law.
However, although the DOE is making progress in organizing and reviewing its information, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is looking for outcomes, field representative Robert Latta of Las Vegas said.
"I don't think any of those steps outlined accomplish that," Latta said.
After five years of discussion between the NRC and the DOE, Latta said there is still an issue for the Energy Department to address in assuring the information before asking for a license.
At the end of the meeting, the NRC and the DOE agreed that some progress had been made. Four of six sticking points had been settled, including audit schedules, evaluation of training, surveys and retesting software for computer models.
External independent reviews of the proposed quality assurance program and supporting information from the program were still under discussion.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 16, 2003
Yucca budget bills far apart
House, Senate measures differ by $340 million
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- A split is forming on Capitol Hill over new government spending for the Yucca Mountain Project.
The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday approved a record $765 million to pursue nuclear waste burial in Nevada as part of a fiscal 2004 energy bill.
But a competing bill to be unveiled in the Senate today carves deep cuts in the Energy Department's budget for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, officials said.
The Senate bill will set a $425 million Yucca Mountain spending level for next year, a 28 percent cut from what the Bush administration had requested and more along the lines of what Congress has been appropriating for nuclear waste disposal in recent years, aides to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.
The differing numbers set the stage for an annual budget battle between Reid, the chief Yucca Mountain opponent in Congress, and program supporters who say they are determined to speed progress on the repository that DOE wants to open in 2010.
Reid declined to discuss specifics of the bill until it is announced by the Senate energy and water subcommittee, where he is the ranking Democrat.
But he said, "This bill certainly won't be what the president wants or what the House is doing."
Reid criticized House Republican leaders who he said are energized to send nuclear waste to Nevada. By voice vote, the House Appropriations Committee sent an energy bill containing Yucca Mountain spending to be passed by the full House possibly next week.
"It's gluttonous and hypocritical for the Republicans to claim fiscal restraint while passing a budget like this," Reid said. "This money would be better used to fund education, emergency responders, so many other things."
Nevada Republicans sought to discount partisanship over Yucca Mountain.
"This bill was passed by voice vote in committee; not one solitary Democrat nor Republican voted against it," said Amy Spanbauer, spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. "This has always been and always will be 49 states against one."
Besides record funding, the House legislation contains several directives to the Energy Department.
The bill tells DOE to prepare plans to open a temporary above-ground repository at the Yucca site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas for waste storage while an underground repository is being built.
The bill sets aside $70 million for development of a Nevada railroad corridor to the repository and orders DOE to pick a route within 60 days that avoids the Las Vegas Valley. The bill specifies $3 million to start developing a waste transportation portal at Caliente.
In what some supporters have characterized as a "sweetener," the measure offers $30 million in impact aid to Nevada counties.
Yucca Mountain "is something we need to get on with," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the subcommittee that wrote the bill. "All we have is a hole in the ground right now. We should stop fooling with this."
Joe Davis, a spokesman for Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, said, "The House budget clearly reflects the will of the country that Yucca Mountain deserves full funding."
Meanwhile, Yucca officials said Tuesday that a quality assurance problem uncovered in the spring is close to being fixed.
In March, auditors found irregularities in how procedures were being updated in part of the repository program. The audit prompted a "stop work" order until the problems could be corrected.
Dennis Brown, quality assurance director for the Yucca program, told Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff members at an update meeting that the order is about ready to be lifted because managers established new controls and training for line workers.
"There's been a lot of attention by management to procedure compliance," said Mike Mason, a quality assurance manager for Yucca contractor Bechtel SAIC.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
July 15, 2003
LAS VEGAS — A congressional committee on Tuesday approved a record $765 million budget for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, with provisions aimed at accelerating completion of the project in the Nevada desert.
The bill to allocate money for national energy and water projects passed the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, committee chairman and chief author of the bill, said it could go to the full House next week.
“My top priority is Yucca Mountain,’ Hobson said. If approved, the bill would require the Energy Department to submit to Congress by the end of this year an updated schedule to open the repository by 2010.
Approval by the full House could bring a showdown with Senate negotiators, including Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in past years has succeeded in slashing the Yucca budget.
The Reid factor
Reid is a top Democrat on a Senate energy and water projects subcommittee due to consider the Yucca Mountain budget today. He said he thought he could negotiate to trim the $765 million budget in the House bill to less than the $591 million that President Bush has requested.
Hobson said there was strong bipartisan support in the House for the $765 million Yucca budget and the other Yucca provisions.
“The only people who don´t like it are from Nevada,’ he said.
The bill, which applies to the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, also prods Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to pick a rail corridor within 60 days of the bill´s enactment.
Yucca Mountain is at the western edge of the Nevada Test Site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The bill calls for the rail corridor to pass near Caliente, in rural Lincoln County. Hobson said avoiding Las Vegas will avoid political squabbles with Nevada officials.
The bill allocates $70 million for a Nevada rail spur and directs the Energy Department to submit to Congress by Dec. 31, 2004, a comprehensive transportation plan for 2010 to 2020.
Buying off Nevada´s concerns?
The measure for the first time offers $30 million to mitigate potential economic, social, health, safety and environmental impacts in Nevada counties and communities.
It also sets aside as much as $2.5 million for Nevada and $6.5 million for affected counties to use for Yucca oversight, but releases the money after Energy Department managers have reviewed state and local plans for the money.
The Energy Department would get another $4 million to develop a plan by the end of the year to ship waste to a temporary site in Nevada beginning in 2007, three years before the 2010 target for opening the repository.
President Clinton previously vetoed plans for an interim waste site.
But according to the bill, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, demonstrated the need for a single secure site to store the nation´s radioactive waste.
Nevada lawmakers have argued that leaving the waste at the 103 nuclear reactors around the nation is safer than shipping it to Nevada.
However, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., called it difficult to counter the Sept. 11 argument.
“Here again, it´s 49 states against Nevada,’ he said.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Business Press
July 16, 2003
Supreme Court invalidates two-thirds rule for taxes
By Ian Mylchreest
Staff Writer
The Nevada Supreme Court horrified some players and delighted others with its decision last week that allows the Legislature to pass taxes by a simple majority so that education will be funded as the state constitution requires.
The decision appears to break the impasse that has plagued the Legislature most of the year, but its exact significance has to be played out in some kind of legislative compromise on taxes to fund the budget.
State officials were clearly delighted to have won even more than they had hoped for in the 6-1 ruling. "I am pleased with the Court's decision and thank the Justices for their very quick and decisive action," said Gov. Kenny Guinn in a statement.
State Treasurer Brian Krolicki was jubilant. Speaking immediately after the decision was announced, he said it would break the logjam in the legislature. "Nevada has become a much less risky place to invest than it was an hour ago. Compromise is much more likely with a simple majority," he said. The initial feedback from analysts indicated that they had taken the decision as a very positive sign, he added.
The high court's interventionist action surprised the experts who had been anticipating an order simply telling the Legislature to get back to work. "It's very surprising," said UNLV political scientist Michael Bowers. "This is not traditionally an activist court. It's not a court that has staked out new constitutional ground."
Boyd Law School Professor Joan Howarth said it was hugely significant because the Court had put itself right into the middle of the political process. Despite the political controversy that is likely to surround the decision, Howarth said, the decision will be hard to change because state supreme courts are supreme in interpreting their own constitutions.
Bowers sees the struggle now moving to the Legislature where Democrats will have to decide whether they will fund the education budget quickly with a formula that the Senate will accept or take advantage of this one-time opportunity to push through a business tax with a simple majority.
Congressman Jim Gibbons who authored the two-thirds provision for tax increases when he was in the Legislature immediately issued a statement denouncing the Supreme Court's "invalidation of the will of the people." It had, he said, "willfully ignored the wishes of more than 70 percent of Nevadans."
The impasse on taxes in Carson City had led a few commentators to reach for circus metaphors to describe the state Legislature, and particularly, the Assembly Republicans who have been holding out against a business tax and demanding that the budget be cut.
John L. Smith accused them of "throwing pies in the faces of their colleagues in a circus that had more clowns than Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey." UNLV historian Hal Rothman denounced them on KNPR as smirking clowns who were "doing damage to the fabric of the state." Wall Street investment advisors and bond rating analysts would certainly take note of Nevada's lack of responsible government which, he declared, was not worthy of a self-respecting banana republic.
A number of experts and players say, though, that such a Chicken Little, sky-is-falling view of the tax tangle is unwarranted. Nevada Commission on Economic Development Executive Director Bob Shriver says his agency has not noticed any drop-off in inquiries from large corporations seeking to do business in Nevada.
"For large multinational corporations, the tax issue is relatively insignificant. They are looking much more at the cost of labor," he says. So far, the lower cost of labor gives Nevada a strong competitive advantage that will not he hurt by the delay in balancing the budget or the proposed tax increase. "It is probably an issue for smaller businesses, but the large ones are not really concerned."
Corporate relocation consultant John Boyd agreed. He heads The Boyd Company, which advises Fortune 500 companies on the best national and international sites for relocation or expansion. For his clients the issue is the cost of doing business and that makes labor costs the pivotal issue. "Eighty percent of business costs are labor, and the continued in-migration of workers gives Nevada a strong advantage." In other words, the continued growth of the population provides plenty of workers which keeps wages or labor costs both stable and lower than the national average.
Other costs such as real estate and taxes are also favorable and likely to remain favorable compared to our most immediate business competitor, California, according to Boyd.
He sees a cloud hanging over Nevada's business outlook, but it is not the delay in balancing the budget. Ohio, New Jersey, Kansas and California are a few of the states that have struggled to balance their budgets, and they will eventually be resolved.
Boyd thinks the real problem is the possibility of a business tax. The business taxes that are being discussed are not burdensome in themselves, he says, but large companies are wary of relocating to any state with a business tax regime.
"It's a slippery slope," he says. "The tax may not be large, but once it is in place there is always a possibility that it will be increased and that makes companies nervous. You will lose the historical advantage that you've had. It will put you at a disadvantage against states like New Mexico and Texas."
One of the most outspoken of the Assembly Republicans, Bob Beers, agrees. The issue, he says, is no longer about the size of the tax increase but the kind of tax we have. "The difference between the two sides is $1.1B and $1.25B. That's a 30 percent increase or a 33 percent increase in revenue," he says.
As Beers sees it the Assembly was holding out against a business tax because Nevadans would ultimately pay the business tax included in the package. "What is at issue," he says, "is whether we will maintain the traditional balance between taxes paid by visitors and taxes paid by residents, or whether we will make residents pay more."
The Assembly Republicans have strong support in the business community. "The Assembly Republicans are doing exactly the right thing," says Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business Executive Director Frank Tussing. He argues the tax impasse will make no difference because the fight against a business tax is much more important for a strong business investment climate.
'"We have a lot to thank Congressman Jim Gibbons for with the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes," he says, alluding to the amendment launched by then Assemblyman Gibbons to require any tax increase to receive a supermajority in both houses of the legislature. Tussing says the Assembly Republicans tried to cut the budget during the regular session but did not have the numbers. "They couldn't get a hearing until the tax issue came up which required the two-thirds," he says.
Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Director of Government Affairs Christina Dugan also backs the Republicans in fighting any kind of business tax. "It's unfortunate that business is taking a second look at Nevada because of the tax impasse, but a good business climate is very important." She regrets the negative publicity in publications like The Wall Street Journal which has compared Gov. Kenny Guinn to the beleaguered California Gov. Gray Davis.
Rothman has heard those arguments and is unrepentant. Our recent bond ratings have been strong, he says, but historically the state has paid a high price for raising capital. "That's how the mob got institutionalized," he says.
At the moment, he argues, we have 15 mainly rural legislators holding the whole process hostage and that hurts the state's image badly, making us look unstable and undependable. "If I'm a California businessman weighed down with taxes and thinking of moving elsewhere, Arizona or Idaho are looking pretty good right now," he says. Beyond that, Rothman fears the impasse has left Nevada open to bribes from Yucca Mountain. In fact, he sees the Nuclear Energy Institute's recent poll suggesting that three-fourths of Nevadans are ready to negotiate financial benefits in exchange for the repository as an early sign that the industry is trying to take advantage of the impasse.
Wells Fargo Economist Sung Won Sohn sees very little for Nevada to worry about. "I don't think there is any problem with the tax impasse at all," he says, "because the problems in other states are so much worse. Even if the percentage increase is large, what economists call the 'tax effort' will still remain low in Nevada because taxes are so low."
The low tax rate will continue to make Nevada very attractive to outside investors, he says, and the proof of that is the continued movement of people to the state. Sung says Nevada should be thankful we don't have the budget-balancing problems of traditionally high-tax states like California and Minnesota.
"In Minnesota they did it all with cuts, which is much more painful," he says.
---------------------------
Power Engineering International
July, 2003
Survey shows Nevada residents are resigned to use of Yucca Mountain
Other concerns still linger
July 14, 2003 -- A recent survey on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project shows that voters believe the region is increasingly on the wrong track but they are resigned to the idea that the project will go ahead as planned.
Voter/Consumer Research conducted a follow-up survey in Nevada to the original research fielded in April 2002.
The first survey captured opinion and sentiment before Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87, allowing the Department of Energy to take the next steps toward storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The follow-up survey shows trends following the decision.
The survey was fielded June 9, 2003 through June 15, 2003. Five hundred (500) registered voters in Nevada participated in the survey, with an additional oversample in Nye and Lincoln counties, for a total of over 680 surveys. Interviews were conducted via telephone and responses were weighted to represent the state. The margin of error for the study is ±3.8%.
Summary
Despite steady opposition/disapproval to building Yucca Mountain, voters are neither punishing their elected leaders for supporting nor are they rewarding elected leaders for opposing Yucca Mountain. The only leader to experience a major decline in favorable ratings from April 2002 is Governor Guinn who opposes Yucca Mountain.
• Thirty-two percent (32%) report Bush's decision will not affect their presidential vote in 2004.
• This support also translates to Senator Reid, who holds the upper hand in an election against Rep. Gibbons if the election were held today although his numbers are not compelling.
Interest in following the Yucca Mountain issue has declined from last year.
• Large majority of voters (88%) believe it will be built.
• Voters are more likely to show support if it can be proven scientifically safe than they were in 2002.
• Additionally, voters are more open to arguments that building can bring millions into Nevada.
• Other arguments for building are generally losing traction, with voters more or less accepting Yucca Mountain than agreeing to the rationale to build it.
Concerns remain the health and safety risks, including groundwater contamination.
• Transportation risks have declined as a concern.
Despite concerns, Nevada voters are against spending state funds to hire private lawyers to fight building Yucca Mountain.
Since the president's approval of the DOE's recommendation, Nevada voters increasingly believe things in Nevada are headed on the "wrong track." Forty-nine percent of poll participants felt things were headed in the wrong direction in Nevada, as compared with 37 percent who felt this way in 2002.
This parallels a trend in most other states in the region. Democrats, who were more likely to oppose the measure in 2002, are more likely to believe Nevada is on the wrong track, as are residents of Nye County. Despite this pessimism, voters still give favorable ratings to their elected leaders nearly identical to last year. While ratings for all politicians dropped somewhat from 2002, the only notable drop in favorable opinion was for Governor Kenny Guinn.
Democratic Senator Harry Reid experienced a slip in favoritism of just 2 percentage points over the past year, which leads him to be voters' first choice for the Senate over Republican Jim Gibbons. However, it does appear voters responded based on party lines, with a larger percentage of Republicans unsure of their vote at this time; 12% of Republicans were unsure compared with just 7% of Democrats. The majority of those unsure at this time are under the age of 45 (both males and females).
Interest in the Yucca Mountain issue appears to have tapered off. Education and the economy are more important to voters right now, with just one quarter following stories concerning Yucca Mountain "very closely". For comparison, over half (56%) track stories regarding the war on terrorism "very closely". Those continuing to pay close attention to the stories are Democrats and residents of Nye County.
The decline in interest may be attributed to the majority of voters believing Yucca Mountain will be built. Nearly nine out of every ten respondents (88%) said they believe it will be built. Furthermore, 44% of these said disposing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is "inevitable." This figure increases to 54% in Nye County.
The fact that President Bush has authorized construction at Yucca Mountain does nothing to temper opposition/disapproval, nor does it lessen the intensity. Fifty-four percent of Nevada voters were strongly opposed to building a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain last year and 54% strongly disapprove of the president's authorization.
Overall opposition grew by 5 points, although the entire increase took place among people who do not feel strongly. Despite this, nearly one-third (32%) said Bush's decision will not affect their vote in the 2004 election.
An interesting shift has occurred regarding the scientifically safe message. In 2003, 40% of Nevada voters said they would support continuing development if it is deemed "scientifically safe". This is an increase from 2002, when 33% of voters expressed continuing development if it was proven safe, indicating this is a convincing argument. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of those disapproving of the government authorization change their support if Yucca Mountain is proven to be safe.
Likewise, voters appear to be more receptive to the argument that building on Yucca Mountain can bring millions of dollars in special annual payments. Likelihood to support the project after hearing of the payments increased to 49% from 44% in 2002. Even more, Nevadans want their leaders to begin negotiating the type and amount of payments now, as stated by three-fourths of voters (76%).
The difference in the figures may reflect the sense that Yucca Mountain is inevitable. The highest priorities for use of the additional funds are funding for: education, state health care programs, and road construction.
Other arguments concerning the benefits Yucca Mountain can bring to the state are losing traction. While boosting education funding remains the most popular, a much larger percentage of respondents (22%) believe none of the following arguments are important:
• Boost education funding
• Deal with nuclear waste problem
• Boost the economy
• Create new jobs
• Reduce taxes
• Generate millions in revenue
Concerns about Yucca Mountain did not change a great deal. Also, as the poll found last year, the public is not focused on a single concern, but mentions a variety of concerns, health and safety prominent among them, followed by concern about groundwater contamination. The only significant change is that the concern about transportation risk appears to have subsided somewhat. (see the table below) The most acceptable route for shipping spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain is by either rail or truck through rural areas.
Voters do not approve of the state spending government funds to hire private lawyers to fight Yucca Mountain although by a smaller margin then might have been expected (52% against versus 48% support). When these expenditures are lined up with education cuts, respondents are against spending money to fight Yucca Mountain by a wider margin (61% against and 32% support).
---------------------------
Power Engineering International
July, 2003
Clouds Threaten Nuclear Parade
By John C. Zink, Ph.D., P.E.,
Contributing Editor
Many signs point to an imminent rebound for nuclear power in this country. Utility company decision-makers realize, however, that public opposition is not dead, just hibernating. For that reason, company CEOs are even more cautious in approaching new nuclear projects than traditional utility conservatism would dictate.
For the fifth consecutive year, U.S. nuclear power plants set records for reliability and total output in 2002. Nuclear production costs continue to be among the lowest in the business. Thanks to strong support from the White House, and cooperation from a majority in Congress, the high-level nuclear waste issue is now closer to resolution than ever. Four companies have indicated they will soon apply for construction permits for new nuclear plants. Energy legislation pending in Congress strongly supports nuclear power expansion. In short, there are many positive factors influencing the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Nuclear industry professionals performed stunningly in reaching last year's milestone performance. U.S. nuclear plants generated a record 780 billion kWh of electricity and operated at an average 91.2 percent capacity factor. According to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, for the sixth consecutive year more than half of U.S. plants did not have even one unplanned shutdown. In addition, plant engineers continued to upgrade plant hardware and uprate existing plant capacity levels. In spite of there being no new plant construction, the Energy Information Administration expects total nuclear capacity to increase through 2006.
Unfortunately, new safety and reliability concerns surfaced with the major corrosion problem at Davis-Besse, which has kept the plant out of service since March 2002. A more rigorous inspection regimen at similar Pressurized Water Reactors has turned up evidence that the South Texas Project may have a similar issue to deal with. If these corrosion problems are widespread, they could adversely affect the stunning reliability and economic statistics the nuclear industry has been building over the past several years.
With regard to new plant construction, there is also a downside to the positive news. The proposed National Energy Policy provides for financial assistance to those companies willing to exercise the new and untried regulatory process, but the legislation is stalled in Congress. Furthermore, as the country approaches the 2004 elections it becomes less likely that politicians will be willing to tackle such a politically contentious issue. The four participating companies have now made it clear that simply applying for – and receiving – a Construction Permit does not mean they are committed to actually begin new plant construction. Many feel the financial risks are still too great. According to press reports, Progress Energy CEO Bill Cavanaugh told the recent stockholders' meeting that he doesn't think new nuclear power plants will be built in the U.S. until companies receive environmental tax credits for nuclear plants' low emissions. This is what it will take to make companies confident that nuclear operating costs will be competitive with natural gas plants.
In spite of the remarkable technical and political progress the Department of Energy has made on the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository, that battle is not yet over. The state of Nevada continues to search for peripheral ways to render the project unworkable, from denying water rights to imposing onerous transportation restrictions. Hopefully, these subterfuges will not fatally wound the project. Nevertheless, they increase costs and create uncertainty. They postpone the day when the nuclear industry has a firm answer to the standard anti-nuclear objection that there is no way to dispose of nuclear waste.
The potential for vociferous opposition to all things nuclear stands behind the hesitancy on the part of utility executives and the lack of courage on the part of many politicians. Although the mass media have not given much exposure to anti-nuclear causes of-late, it wouldn't take much for nuclear controversies to again become lead stories on television and in newspapers. The anti-nuclear propaganda continues unabated just below the surface of the general public's consciousness level: there is no shortage of anti-nuclear Web sites, and nearly all environmental groups remain rabidly anti-nuclear. Industry executives recognize that it would take only one new nuclear power plant project to bring all of this opposition to the forefront.
Often, the opposition's claims read like something out of a bad 1950s science fiction movie. For example, the news report of a recent public hearing related to cleanup of a former fuel processing plant site in Oklahoma quotes one activist as saying, "When future generations are running around with three arms or three legs, it's too late U" Industry professionals may laugh at the ignorance displayed by comments such as these, but they leave a lasting impression on the "Joe Sixpacks" who make up the overwhelming majority of the American public.
There are hopeful signs. But the industry's battle to win over the American people continues. It must succeed if the recent positive developments are to mean anything, ultimately.
[Editor's Note: Nuclear Reactions will not be printed in August. John Zink is taking an overseas vacation.]
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------