Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, June 17, 2005
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
June 17, 2005
Senate panel approves $577 million for Yucca
Unlike House bill, measure doesn't include funds for temporary storage
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Senate Appropriations Committee approved more than $330 million in Nevada projects along with the Yucca Mountain budget Thursday.
The committee approved $577 million for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. This is the same amount the project has to work with this year, but $74 million less than the administration's request for fiscal year 2006.
Notably absent from the Senate version of the bill is any money set aside for a temporary storage site for nuclear waste because of Yucca's continued delay. The House bill fully funds the Yucca project with $651 million and added $10 million specifically for an unnamed interim storage site.
"Whatever we did, they didn't do," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who heads the House committee that writes the energy spending bill. "This will just be something we have to discuss in a rational fashion at some point."
Once the bill is approved on the Senate floor, selected House and Senate negotiators will meet to work out differences between the bill.
Earlier this week Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, called Hobson's interim storage proposal "half-baked." Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who heads the subcommittee, also opposes the idea, and said he does not want it in this year's bill.
Hobson, however, said everything is still open for discussion.
"I want something done," Hobson said. "We will sit down and, hopefully, rationally discuss various matters."
The bill also includes $12.5 million for Nevada to use for Yucca program oversight, with $3.5 million going to the state, $8.5 million going to the counties and an additional $500,000 for Nye County. State and county officials use the money for watchdog programs and research to evaluate how the repository would affect Nevada and its counties. The bill also rejects the administration's proposal to give oversight money to local governments every 21 months, versus annually.
Also included in the bill:
•••$20 million for Security Force and Special Response Team upgrades at the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada Test Site, a $100 million underground bunker used for nuclear weapons programs.
•••At least 17 projects or partnerships with UNLV, including $7 million for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, $6 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, $4 million to study the solar production of hydrogen and $4 million to study hydrogen fuel cells.
•••$48,375,000 for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation project in Nevada, including $2,775,000 for the Lake Mead/Las Vegas Wash program and $3,432,000 for Southern Nevada water recycling.
•••$67,276,500 for Army Corps of Engineer projects in Nevada, including $5 million for the Urban Floodwater Initiative and $18 million for Tropicana-Flamingo flood control project.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
June 17, 2005
Experts say recycling won't eliminate need for repository
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Opponents of Yucca Mountain should not pin their hopes on nuclear waste recycling being an alternative to the dump, judging from experts' testimony to a congressional subcommittee Thursday.
They testified that there is no rush for the Energy Department to begin recycling nuclear waste.
And even if a renewed push results in the department picking a method to recycle waste, recycling the waste may reduce the amount of used fuel but it will not reduce the need for a geologic repository such as nuclear dump set for Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the experts told the members of Congress.
Recycling would work like this: Once nuclear fuel rods can no longer be used inside a reactor, they could be sent to a reprocessing plant so the uranium and plutonium could be separated and removed. A small amount of leftover "fission products" or high-level radioactive waste that remain would still need to go to a permanent storage site, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Former President Jimmy Carter banned nuclear fuel reprocessing in 1977 based on concerns the plutonium could be stolen and used in nuclear weapons. Former President Ronald Reagan lifted the ban in the 1981, but the reprocessing of commercial spent nuclear fuel was not economically viable at that time because new power plants were being built or even ordered.
The government opted instead for storage of used nuclear fuel in the crust in the Earth and has solely been pursing the proposed facility at Yucca Mountain since 1987.
But because of delays on the Yucca project, which is now not scheduled to open until 2012 or 2015, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, included an additional $5.5 million for the administration's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative in the House version of the 2006 energy and water spending bill. The initiative is a study of how to recycle fuel without creating dangerous by-products said Robert Shane Johnson, acting director of the Energy Department's Nuclear Energy office.
"In the longer term future, these technologies, in combination with advanced nuclear reactor technologies hold the promise of deferring, perhaps indefinitely, the need for a second repository, while reducing the inventory of civilian plutonium,"said Johnson, at a House Science Committee's Energy Subcommittee hearing Thursday.
Hobson, who heads the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, wants the department to select an advanced reprocessing technology and start a competitive process to select one or more sites to develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities by the end of 2007.
But Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate in the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, called a near-term decision to go back to reprocessing "a serious mistake" because it would increase the cost of nuclear waste management, still pose proliferation, safety and terrorism risks and only provide limited relief from future volumes of spent fuel.
"Reprocessing by itself does not make any of the nuclear waste go away," Bunn said. "Whatever course we choose, we will still need a nuclear waste repository such as Yucca Mountain."
Hobson's main reason for promoting a new look at reprocessing it to avoid getting to "Yucca Mountain 2" as long as possible. Under law, once Yucca opens it can only hold 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. Congress would have to change the law to allow it to hold more, which the department says it can, or the country will need a second repository. Hobson believes getting on a better reprocessing track will reduce the amount of waste that will go into Yucca.
Although Bunn pointed out the size of the repository is not determined by the volume of waste, but its temperature. Recycled plutonium is hotter than regular waste and would need a larger repository.
"It is a good thing there is no rush, as we simply do not have the information that would be needed to make a decision on reprocessing in 2007," Bunn said.
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
June 17, 2005
Generations of on-site storage remain even if Yucca opens
by Barry Smith
Editor
A recent article by Los Angeles Times reporter Ralph Vartabedian does a good job of describing the enormity of the problem facing the nation's nuclear-power industry without Yucca Mountain.
And, from a Nevadan's point of view, the enormity of the problem even with a waste repository at Yucca.
There are roughly 50,000 tons of nuclear waste spread around the country - dangerous, deadly stuff that is in some measure vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Yucca Mountain is being designed to hold 77,000 tons of waste. By the time it could be ready to accept waste - 2012 at the earliest - there could be about 60,000 tons of waste waiting in more than 30 states, according to Vartabedian, as power plants generate about 2,000 more tons a year.
Do the math. On-site storage is going to be a reality for the next few generations.
On the day Yucca Mountain opens, Vartabedian quotes an Energy Department official, it will be too small to handle all the waste.
"There is no Plan B," he writes. "Under federal law, the department can pursue only Yucca Mountain."
In my mind, I guess, I saw these trains and trucks from all over the country converging on Yucca Mountain with the nation's nuclear waste. I knew it would take a long time, but I'd never really considered how long.
Yucca Mountain is designed to process 3,000 tons a year, Vartabedian reports. So if nuclear power plants keep generating about 2,000 tons a year, the best they can do at Yucca is catch up by 1,000 tons a year.
With the backlog, that means roughly 60 years. And by then, Yucca Mountain is long since full.
To some, that means Yucca Mountain needs to push forward just as soon as possible. The delays have just made the problem worse.
To me, that means the plan to store the nation's waste in one place in the Nevada desert needs to be scrapped. And the sooner the better.
Vartabedian is right when he says there is no Plan B. That's just one of the consequences of the political scam which targeted Nevada. Congress made a promise to solve the nuclear industry's waste problem - and has been collecting the money from ratepayers for decades - and decided to build one basket that won't hold all the eggs.
The logic of the solution seems clear to me, at least for the next 100 years: Keep the waste on site.
The casks being designed for Yucca Mountain will work anywhere. The isolated spot in the desert north of Las Vegas was selected because it would act as a "geological barrier," but the research done there the last 10 years shows that's not the case. The act of groundwater eroding the casks, and the possibilities of earthquakes, means Yucca Mountain is no more suitable a site than a whole lot of other places.
The other argument often used to justify Yucca Mountain is that having the nuclear waste in a central location makes it easier to guard, less vulnerable to terrorists.
But as we can see from the information above, while there would be a whole lot of radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, there would also be a whole lot of nuclear waste still scattered across the countryside. The nuclear-energy plants are still going to need security.
However, by building a central processing and storage site - in a state that produces no nuclear energy, I might add - the federal government creates the need to move all that radioactive waste across the country, thousands of miles, every day. Seems to be we haven't lessened the security risk; we've increased it dramatically.
No, I don't want to see nuclear waste shipped to Nevada. No more than the states producing nuclear waste want to keep it.
"I want the waste off the shores of Lake Michigan," Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., told Vartabedian. Upton's district includes two nuclear plants built on the lake's eastern boundary. "Ultimately, there is a safety problem."
Yes, there is a huge problem. It grows every day. But Yucca Mountain isn't the answer. Until Congress recognizes that fact, it's no closer to a solution.
--Barry Smith is editor of the Nevada Appeal. Contact him at bsmith@nevadaappeal.com or 881-1221.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review Journal
June 17, 2005
Progress made in science of recycling nuclear fuel
But experts warn lawmakers not to make decisions on reprocessing technology too soon
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- An Energy Department official said Thursday that new technologies could revive commercial nuclear waste reprocessing in 10 or 20 years, but other experts warned Congress not to embrace the concept too quickly.
Reprocessing is far from cost-effective and the most readily available technologies carry nuclear security risks without corresponding benefits, a researcher from Harvard University and a physicist from New Mexico said at a House science subcommittee hearing.
"Take the time to get the science right," said Roger Hagengruber, a former senior vice president at Sandia National Laboratory who now teaches at the University of New Mexico.
A dozen lawmakers took active part in the hearing, reflecting a growing interest in nuclear fuel recycling as the nuclear industry seeks to build more power plants while the government continues to struggle over management of radioactive waste.
Experts agreed that a repository being developed at Yucca Mountain still would be necessary to hold nuclear waste. But reprocessing could wring more energy out of nuclear fuel rods, reduce volumes of fuel waste and its radioactive toxicity, extending the life of the Nevada site, they said.
Congress has set a 77,000 ton limit for Yucca Mountain, meaning the repository could be filled almost by the time it is opened, they said. More than 40,000 tons already is being stored at plant sites, in pools and hard shell casks.
"I'm supportive of Yucca Mountain, but I don't want us to get to Yucca Two any sooner than we have to," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, a proponent of fuel reprocessing.
President Carter in 1977 declared a moratorium on nuclear fuel reprocessing to limit weapons-grade plutonium, a reprocessing byproduct. President Reagan reversed course, but U.S. efforts remained dormant.
On Thursday, Robert Shane Johnson, acting director for nuclear science and technology, told the House subcommittee the Energy Department has made "significant progress" in the past several years in researching new fuel treatment technologies.
Johnson said an advanced uranium extraction process could reduce nuclear waste mass and chemically separate the components of spent fuel in a way that reduces the risk of creating weapons-grade materials that pose proliferation risks.
Another technology, pyroprocessing, looks promising to handle fuel from new generations of nuclear reactors, Johnson said.
But challenges loom in moving the technologies out of the laboratory, Johnson said. Retrofitting existing nuclear facilities might not work. Experiments to design new reprocessing plants could begin in about nine years, with commercial operations in about 20 years, he said.
Phillip Finck, deputy associate director of the Argonne National Laboratory, agreed reprocessing holds promise.
But Hagengruber and a second scientist warned Congress against getting excited too soon.
Hagengruber recommended another 10 years of research would allow the government to "make a more enduring and prudent decision. A decision on reprocessing shouldn't outpace the science."
Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate at Harvard, said nuclear waste could be safely kept at reactor sites in dry casks for decades while all options are weighed. Even nuclear waste sent to Yucca Mountain will be retrievable for 50 to 100 years.
"During that time, technology will develop," Bunn said. "There is no need to make this decision in 2007 or in fact anytime in the next few decades."
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
June 16, 2005
Environmentalists give Nevada lawmakers mixed reviews
Kathleen Hennessey
Associated Press
Environmentalists call the 2005 Legislature´s record on wildlife and conservation issues a mixed bag — praising water planning and energy initiatives, and bemoaning restrictions on land deals that could curb preservation efforts.
A bill giving Nevadans substantial tax incentives to use renewable energy and build “greener’ buildings was a “wonderful step,’ said Tina Nappe, chairwoman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club. Nappe and others also praised a handful of water management initiatives as a sign the state is serious about long-term water planning.
But lawmakers received low marks for a new law restricting local governments from using eminent domain powers to preserve open space. The issue sparked a debate when state Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, amended the bill to apply retroactively, jeopardizing the preservation of a 1,000-acres ranch south of Reno.
Environmental groups and local activists fought to remove the provision, but the final bill contained strict criteria for governments wanting to seize land for preservation.
“What it will prevent is using the powers of eminent domain to protect something like the Ballardini Ranch in the future,’ said Kaitlin Backlund, political director for the Nevada Conservation League.
Backlund also took issue with a new policy on all-terrain vehicles. Her group and others have been pushing state lawmakers to create a registration system for ATVs, which they say tear up fragile landscape when used recklessly.
Nevada is one of the few Western states that doesn´t require ATVs to be registered. In a late-session compromise, lawmakers passed AB400 asking owners to display a sticker on the off-road vehicles proving they´ve paid sales tax.
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville, said the bill is step toward tracking ATV users and will help recapture millions of dollars in lost sales tax revenue.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, R-Reno, called the bill toothless, noting that there´s no enforcement authority to oversee the program. She blamed the governor, who vowed not to raise taxes or fees, for a weak compromise.
Environmental activists said lawmakers took incremental steps toward water planning and conservation.
Leslie´s water planning bill, which would have required the state engineer to have a conservation plan for each county, died in committee. But it was replaced by a study exploring the effects of pumping water from rural counties to Las Vegas. SB62 also created a $1 million fund for rural counties wanting to hire experts to weigh in on the issue.
“It evens the playing field a little bit,’ she said. “It´s still not even, but in sparsely populated counties, they just can´t compete with the Southern Nevada Water Authority or private water companies.’
Lawmakers approved funding for additional employees in the state water engineer´s office and backed a bill from state Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, that moves the now defunct division of water planning into that office.
Nappe said she hopes the move marks the beginning of a renewed focus on long-term water management.
“There´s was no budget allocated with the division, but we´ll be watching,’ she said.
On the state´s most high-profile environmental issue, the Legislature made small cutbacks to a Yucca Mountain legal defense fund. But lawmakers insist they remain united with the governor in opposing the proposed nuclear waste dump, and a resolution voicing opposition passed easily through both houses.
---------------------------
ArriveNet
June 17, 2005
Proposed Alternative to Yucca Mountain Project
Before Chernobyl, Soviet scientific officials were optimistic about the safety of building a reactor in Moscow"s Red Square. We now know the results of that tragic mistake. Despite this, the U.S. administration continues to support the claim that the ...
(PRWEB) June 16, 2005 -- As a former Ukrainian nuclear physicist, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, I have developed a process (patent pending) to safely convert about 95% of the nuclear waste into a usable fuel source. The process, involving a subcritical power module and a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle, would also eliminate the possibility of fuel meltdown and nuclear reactor explosions (please see some details at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401010).
Such a power module might be developed in 10 years at a cost of less than 15 billion dollars. This is minuscule compared with the cost of maintaining the safety and security of nuclear waste storage facilities for 10,000 years. A compact subcritical module, which is not radioactive when it is launched, could also serve as a vital component in NASA's deep space missions.
Public support is essential for us. You can help in two ways: first, by making your research facilities available for concept modeling or feasibility studies, and second, by contacting your representatives, so that these ideas may find a way to the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission headquarters.
Teacher Technology Center
Anatoly Blanovsky
323-650-7739
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------