Yucca Mountain News Clips
Sunday, June 19, 2005
---------------------------

Provo Daily Herald
June 19, 2005

Nuke storage proposal may not include Utah

N.S. Nokkentved DAILY HERALD

The future of nuclear waste disposal in this country may well be at long-term temporary storage sites -- sites were the waste could be stored for decades in concrete casks above ground and later retrieved for processing or disposal.

But whether that future includes Utah remains uncertain.

The federal government's proposed disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, looks increasingly tenuous. The site would hold 63,000 tons of still highly radioactive spent fuel piling up at commercial reactors around the country.

And even if it were to open in 2012 as some optimistic federal officials say, it would not have room for all the radioactive waste that will accumulate by the time it's full. The question of what would happen to that waste echoes unanswered from the halls of Congress to the deserts of Utah and Nevada.

Officials recognize the limited capacity of Yucca and are considering a proposal to send waste to long-term temporary storage sites. The U.S. Senate this week pooh-poohed the House proposal, but long-term storage has long been considered a viable component of radioactive waste management.

"There is certainly a need to look at other alternatives," said Michael Waldron, a spokesman for the federal Energy Department, charged with developing Yucca Mountain. Opening the permanent disposal facility remains the department's goal, he said.

"Clearly the utilities are interested in finding a site," said Denise Chancellor, a Utah deputy attorney general. She and other state officials just don't want that site to be in Utah.

Still, the country appears to be moving away from disposal and in the direction of long-term storage, at least for the immediate future.

Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Dave Hobson, R-Ohio, introduced legislation that directs the Energy Department to begin moving commercial spent fuel to centralized interim storage at one or more department sites within 2006.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has proposed legislation that would keep waste at or near the reactors where it is produced.

And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing board approved a private proposal for spent fuel storage on the Goshute Tribe's Skull Valley Indian Reservation, about 52 miles west of American Fork.

A Minnesota-based consortium of private utilities has proposed to establish a temporary storage site for 44,000 tons of spent fuel from commercial power reactors. The company, known as Private Fuel Storage, has a 50-year lease on 820 acres of the Skull Valley Reservation.

Utah officials have long opposed the proposed storage site, fearing it would take the place of a federal waste storage site.

"We've always held that because of its size and location in the northwest corner of the reservation, that it's vulnerable to becoming a de facto long-term storage site," Chancellor said.

Federal officials say the move to temporary storage would not replace efforts to open Yucca Mountain and would not include the Utah site. But the Skull Valley proposal would certainly take some of the pressure off the Energy Department.

The department is taking seriously the government's obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to take ownership of commercial spent fuel. But the Utah proposal is a private venture, and the department has no involvement in it, Waldron said.

In May, Hobson assured Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, that his intent was not for the department to consider any site on private or tribal land as a site for federal long-term storage.

The idea is not new -- neither is it widely popular.

In the Senate this week, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a staunch supporter of the nuclear industry who favors reprocessing the waste, called Hobson's plan inadequate. And Sen. Reid, an unflagging opponent of efforts to establish a permanent disposal site in Nevada, called it half-baked.

Other critics say it's the wrong direction and that the country and the nuclear industry are better off doing nothing, or nearly nothing. Long-term storage at reactor sites -- for several decades if necessary -- would give the country time to come up with a solution based on science rather than politics.

The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act considered the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel in concrete casks at above-ground facilities a safe and reliable option. The act's 1987 amendments directed the department to find willing entities to serve as host to long-term temporary storage sites.

Local and state governments balked. Only Indian tribes expressed interest. It was under this program that the Skull Valley Goshutes learned about spent fuel storage and the financial boost it could give tribal members.

Congress cut off funding in 1994, driving the Goshutes into the open arms of the folks at Private Fuel Storage. They signed a contract in the waning days of 1996. The company filed it license application in 1997. A final decision on the license still is in the hands of the NRC.

---------------------------

Kansas City Star
June 19, 2005

Energy Source Is Gaining Advocates

Nuclear power splits with its past

WASHINGTON — Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Yucca Mountain.

For 25 years, the nuclear industry, already saddled with prohibitive costs and radioactive waste, struggled in the face of the worst fears about nuclear power.

But the atom is rebounding.

The Senate is debating energy legislation that includes tax incentives, loan guarantees and federal liability protection for new reactors. The Senate bill also would authorize $1.3 billion for cutting-edge nuclear-hydrogen projects.

An industry beset with high reactor construction costs and expensive disposal of nuclear waste is inching toward competitiveness as a cleaner, though still distrusted, alternative to coal as the electricity source of the future.

No less a skeptic than Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, whose state is home to the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste repository, last week touted the pro-nuke provisions before Congress.

“You´re going to see a movement toward nuclear power,’ said Reid, the Senate minority leader. “If it´s done right, we believe it will protect the environment.’

Even a handful of environmentalists — a group that long viewed fission with suspicion — say they could tolerate new nuclear power because it does not cause global warming, the top environmental problem to many.

“Climate change is such a serious issue … that we have to examine all low-carbon and especially zero-carbon solutions,’ said Judi Greenwald of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an environmentalist think tank.

However, Wall Street, which has to finance new multibillion-dollar reactors, has not joined the nuclear chorus. Bankers and investors want to see something built first, creating a chicken-and-egg scenario, said one top economist who studies nuclear-power finance.

“There´s a lot of focus on Congress and what Congress wants to do and the subsidies,’ said Geoff Rothwell, an economist at Stanford University who has advised the Energy Department on nuclear power economics. “But it all depends on Wall Street and whether or not Wall Street wants to be involved in financing nuclear power. At this point, they´re not interested.’

Or as Jason Grumet, executive director of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, said: “The interest in nuclear power is necessary, but not sufficient to rejuvenate the industry.’

Still, “the momentum gained in the past six or eight months is palpable,’ said Mike Wallace, president of Constellation Generation, which has 34 power plants, including five nuclear ones. The industry´s spending in new nuclear planning “is at a level we haven´t seen in 25 years,’ he said.

Wallace acknowledged that Wall Street is not willing to risk financing nuclear projects that could be caught up in regulatory delays. That is why federal aid is needed to build the first three or four plants to demonstrate nuclear´s new feasibility, he said.

Nuclear is climbing out of a deep hole.

The partial meltdown of a reactor in 1979 at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania resulted in tighter government regulations but transformed the public´s abstract apprehension into real fear. The 1986 accident in Chernobyl, U.S.S.R., which killed 30 persons, forced massive evacuations and left a legacy of thyroid cancer among its survivors, turned fear of nuclear plant disasters into horror.

Over the past two decades, however, reactor technology has improved, global warming has emerged as the most profound environmental worry, and the energy industry has realized that coal, which accounts for 52 percent of electricity production in the United States, would require expensive technology to reduce pollution.

“It really doesn´t make a lot of sense to be building just conventional coal plants if that commits us to 30, 40 years of high emissions or, alternatively, to very high costs of fixing that,’ said M. Granger Morgan, head of the Engineering and Public Policy Department at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

That is not to say that Congress is backing away from coal. The House´s version of energy legislation, which already passed, would authorize $200 million annually over five years to develop “clean coal’ technologies. The Senate bill has a similar provision.

The House bill provides $8.1 billion over 11 years in energy-related tax cuts for producers and consumers. The Senate bill would double that amount and sets a goal of reducing U.S. demand for oil by 1 million barrels a day. Overall, the Senate bill would cost nearly $36 billion over the next five years. Final legislation will face its toughest test when the House and Senate reconcile their bills.

This week, senators will vote on a key amendment by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. They aim to reduce greenhouse gases by placing strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

A similar amendment failed in 2003, but McCain and Lieberman have sweetened the pot by adding subsidies for clean fuels, especially for nuclear power.

“Nuclear has to be part of any equation that would significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,’ McCain said. “I´m all for wind, solar, tide, biomass, all those things, but they don´t have — at least in this stage of development — that significant an impact on our energy needs.’

First glance

¦ After a quarter century of public distrust, nuclear power is gaining favor among lawmakers and environmentalists as a cleaner source of electricity.

¦ Wall Street, however, remains reluctant to finance new multibillion-dollar reactors.

---------------------------

Virginian Pilot
June 19, 2005

Power primer explains the factors that could brighten your future

By Carolyn Shapiro
The Virginian-Pilot

Eva Hardy remembers working for the city of Portsmouth in the 1970s, when federal officials would check to make sure the city hit its target for cutting gasoline use.

But much disagreement continues over which energy sources should receive the most attention as well as the largest share of government assistance.

Some policy makers want to push for new nuclear power generation. Others favor clean coal technology.

Bush has touted development of hydrogen fuel cells and biodiesel to offset use of gasoline while environmental and consumer groups argue for more conservation measures. Although most agree on the need to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, much controversy remains over the expansion of domestic oil and gas drilling off the East Coast and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which the House bill has proposed.

Even environmentalists are split: Is wind power the greenest answer to the nation´s reliance on fossil fuels, or is it a potential source of destruction of valuable scenery and wildlife?

Consumers want low-priced power but also demand adequate energy to fuel their vehicles, run their computers and heat their homes.

Every proposed solution carries costs that Americans will have to pay – either through utility bills and taxes or by giving up their air quality and landscape.

As the debate unfolds, here´s what you might need to know:

COAL

Coal provided about half of the nation´s power in 2003 and is expected to do so for the next 20 years, according to the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Energy.

Dominion Resources operates six plants that burn coal, generating about 41 percent of electricity for customers of its subsidiary, Dominion Virginia Power.

For years, the federal government has tried to control and reduce the environmental damage caused by coal plant emissions. The president´s attention has focused on two major areas, “clean coal’ technology and revision of Clean Air Act standards, allowing energy producers to continue to capitalize on a fossil fuel that´s one of the nation´s most abundant and inexpensive resources.

“America has an inexhaustible reservoir of coal,’ U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican and supporter of clean coal initiatives, said in an interview.

The Senate´s energy bill includes an annual $200 million toward research to develop clean coal technology.

The industry´s favored clean coal system converts coal into gas that is burned for electricity.

But clean coal plants are expensive to build.

With an unproven technology, potential glitches and repairs cannot easily be factored into costs, leaving power companies unsure whether they can make money from them.

Dominion Generation, the power plant division of Dominion Resources, is part of an industry consortium researching construction of a new plant in Southwest Virginia that could incorporate some type of clean coal technology.

By state law, the plant would have to use coal mined from that region.

Dominion has lumped most of its current coal activity into upgrading existing plants to meet emissions requirements under the federal Clean Air Act. The proposed Clear Skies Act of 2005, which failed to get out of a Senate committee earlier this year, would initiate further cuts in industry discharges of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury – considered the primary contributors to smog and acid rain.

The legislation faced criticism for failing to put controls on coal plants´ carbon dioxide emissions, considered by many scientists to be a primary contributor to greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

Some environmental and conservation groups argue that any new energy policy must include carbon dioxide reductions and that taxpayer money should not support development of power that continues to rely on fossil fuels.

“How can you have an energy bill that doesn´t address global warming? We need to reduce greenhouse gases,’ said Rob Perks, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental organization that focuses on energy issues.

“Clean coal is like safe cigarettes. We just don´t think this is where we should be putting our efforts at this time.’

CONSERVATION

The Senate energy bill includes a string of conservation measures aimed at lowering fuel prices and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. It requires energy efficiency standards for federal buildings and agencies; asks for funding for programs that encourage consumers to buy energy-efficient products; and directs the president to save 1 billion barrels of oil per day by 2015, though it doesn´t suggest how.

Many environmental and consumer groups say the measures don´t go far enough and fail to specify plans for getting them accomplished.

“It´s a very ambitious to-do list,’ said Joe Loper, vice president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a coalition that includes legislators, manufacturers, consumer advocates and energy industry groups.

The alliance and other groups have applauded the bill´s inclusion of new energy standards for various appliances, from ceiling fans to commercial ice makers. Those are guidelines – worked out between manufacturers and activists for years – that can accomplish real energy savings, Loper said.

Overall, he and others call the bills weak on cutting gasoline use. The Senate proposal suggests a smattering of programs, such as more research into hydrogen and fuel cell technology and steps to encourage bicycle riding.

The alliance and other groups favor stricter standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, the federal guidelines for passenger vehicle mileage. Technology is available to build light trucks, including minivans and sport utility vehicles, with much better gas mileage – changes that some U.S. auto makers have resisted, Loper said.

“We can make cars go farther on a gallon of gas,’ said Perks, of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We can make SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas.’

NATURAL GAS

Natural gas is supposed to be the U.S. electricity industry´s answer to coal. Gas-fired plants run significantly cleaner than coal plants and cost less to build and operate.

The trouble is that those benefits have boosted demand for natural gas to fuel most power plants built in recent years. As usage climbs, so do prices, and that has hit consumers´ heating bills.

Natural gas companies, including Hampton Roads providers Virginia Natural Gas and Columbia Gas of Virginia, generally support any action to enhance fuel supplies and lower prices, which would keep the product they sell competitive. They have thrown lobbying efforts behind legislation that would lift a moratorium on offshore drilling along the Atlantic Coast and would ease the siting process for new liquid natural gas import terminals, which bring in gas supplies from overseas by tanker.

The prospect of offshore drilling has raised the hackles of environmental groups as well as tourist communities along the East Coast, including Virginia Beach. The Senate has tempered a proposal that would have given states a share of revenue from gas pulled from the Atlantic. The bill now includes only a directive to complete an inventory of potential gas deposits along the outer continental shelf, and that provision faces a stiff challenge.

The Virginia General Assembly has asked the state Secretary of Commerce and Trade to study the possibility of exploring for natural gas off the 112-mile Virginia coastline and to suggest legislation that the state should consider if the federal moratorium on drilling is lifted.

NUCLEAR POWER

As the 1979 accident at the Pennsylvania nuclear plant Three Mile Island fades from public memory, Bush has extended a friendly hand toward nuclear power.

Supporters cite several benefits of nuclear plants: They are relatively inexpensive to run and are efficient, producing electricity typically close to 90 percent of maximum capacity; they emit virtually no air pollutants; and the only significant environmental concern is for nearby waterways used to cool the reactors.

Nuclear plants generate about 20 percent of the nation´s electricity and 34 percent of Dominion Virginia Power´s consumer load.

But the construction of new nuclear power plants remains expensive, and the uncertain landscape for getting a license to build a plant makes it a risk most companies are hesitant to accept.

Long delays during construction of the current generation of nuclear plants in the ´60s, ´70s and ´80s ran up costs and left company shareholders and utility ratepayers to cover them.

With deregulation of the industry progressing in Virginia, it´s unclear how a company would cover the costs of a new plant and whether it would pass those costs on to customers.

Nonetheless, Dominion Generation continues to solidify its future in nuclear power.

It has begun initial steps, seeking an early site permit, to have the option for 20 years to build two more reactors at North Anna Power Station, northwest of Richmond. The company has formed an industry consortium to test the new plant licensing and design process in hopes of identifying challenges – from the public, environmental agencies or regulators – that could surface down the road.

Under an existing federal program, the Department of Energy would cover half of the permitting and testing costs, said Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for Dominion. The company and other nuclear operators are watching to see if Congress proposes any other subsidies or incentives that would offset their investments in new plants.

The Senate bill proposes to extend Price-Anderson Act protection, government insurance that covers nuclear plant owners against liabilities, through 2025. The program dates to 1957 and cushions companies financially in case of an accident or major disaster, “which the industry believes would be essential to future construction,’ said David Christian, senior vice president of nuclear operations and chief nuclear officer for Dominion.

Meanwhile, the company has secured a longer life for its existing nuclear plants. In 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed operating licenses of Surry Power Station, in Surry County, and North Anna for another 20 years.

Even if costs and liabilities were addressed, major questions remain about the security of nuclear plants, the availability of engineers to run them in the future and the disposal of used uranium.

The government has chosen Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a national disposal site for nuclear waste, but the project still needs final approval and faces a number of concerns.

RENEWABLE RESOURCES

In the discussion of renewable energy in the U.S., wind has blown its way to the forefront, taking more attention than other environmentally friendly options such as solar power and biomass, which is derived from wood, waste or alcohol fuels. The most recent federal energy statistics show that biomass represented 71 percent of renewable electricity other than hydroelectric power, compared with about 13 percent coming from wind. All renewables accounted for just 2 percent of the total U.S. power supply.

Winergy LLC, an upstart wind producer based in New York, has shifted plans for a windmill operation off the Eastern Shore to a new site 13 miles off Virginia Beach, where it would build 50 turbines, said Dennis Quaranta, the company´s chief executive officer. Resistance to the Eastern Shore location, stemming from concerns about migratory birds and other environmental issues, has forced the company to start over in Virginia with a new permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers´ district office in Norfolk, which would set up public hearings on the proposal and coordinate other agency approvals.

Another proposal, for a windmill operation in the Highland County hills near the Shenandoah Valley, has met with opposition from residents concerned about loss of the scenery that drives tourism in that region, according to media reports.

Some states other than Virginia have adopted a “renewable portfolio standard’ requiring a certain percentage of generated power to come from renewable sources. A similar federal standard would help all renewable producers, Quaranta said. The Senate voted last week to add to its bill a requirement that 10 percent of the U.S. electricity supply come from renewable sources by 2020.

Wind producers face a big fight in the Senate, where Warner and fellow Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee have proposed legislation to restrict development of offshore windmills.

The senators and other critics contend that the potential capacity of wind power is too little to make enough of a dent in the nation´s demand to justify significant government subsidies. Taxpayers are better off supporting initiatives to resume drilling for oil and gas off the East Coast and to develop clean coal technologies, Warner said.

Dominion Generation, which supplies the majority of electricity used in Hampton Roads, has taken little interest in wind so far and is watching to see if any renewables grow into an economically viable option. The company owns a small waste-to-energy plant in Mecklenburg County.

In general, renewable energy costs more to produce , making it attractive in the marketplace only to those willing to spend more for greener alternatives. Last year, Congress renewed the production tax credit, now 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour generated through 2005, for plants using renewables.

Windmill companies have said this incentive is crucial for them to offset the higher costs of building and running their turbines. This is a particular challenge for renewables in Virginia, where cheap coal has kept rates relatively low for years, Quaranta said.

“If it´s another penny per kilowatt hour,’ he said, “nobody wants to do that.’

Reach Carolyn Shapiro at (757) 446-2270 or carolyn.shapiro@pilotonline.com.

---sidebar---

Who´s weighing in on the energy debate?

The current energy debate has brought out a plethora of special interests, ranging from environmental protectors to industry champions. Some of them have joined groups with names that might belie their true position on the issue. Here is a list of some groups, their members and the position they advocate:

Alliance to Save Energy: A coalition of business, government, environmental and consumer leaders and groups. It promotes energy efficiency and policies that minimize costs to consumers and lessen greenhouse gas emissions. www.ase.org.

American Council for Capital Formation: An organization that advocates tax and environmental policies to promote economic growth, job creation and the international competitiveness of the U.S. industry. It supports increasing supplies of affordable natural gas, coal and nuclear power, and avoiding extreme regulatory controls of power plant emissions. It also opposes mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. www.accf.org.

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices: A group with primary funding from the U.S. coal-based electricity industry. It focuses on ensuring America´s continued access to affordable, reliable energy from coal. www.balancedenergy.org.

Campaign for America´s Future: A coalition of labor, environmental and consumer groups pushing for U.S. independence from foreign oil, with primary support from several labor unions and worker organizations. It advocates more federal investment in clean and renewable energy alternatives and less money toward traditional oil and gas technologies. www.ourfuture.org.

Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy: A group of multiple industry and manufacturers associations. It advocates the use of a diverse mix of domestic energy resources, with an emphasis on coal as affordable and reliable. It opposes legislation that would impose carbon dioxide emissions caps or mandate a national “renewable portfolio standard’ requiring a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources. www.careenergy.com.

Consumers Alliance for Affordable Natural Gas: A group of chemical companies, manufacturers and industry associations that rely on natural gas. It advocates increasing natural gas supplies and permitting offshore drilling for gas, and developing clean coal technologies. www.affordablenaturalgas.org.

United for Jobs: A project of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and National Association of Neighborhoods. The three organizations joined together to fight environmental policies that they see as a threat to the energy industry and its workers. The group opposes policies that would restrict the use of fossil fuels in power plants, including attempts to cut mercury and carbon dioxide emissions, and opposes an increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for passenger vehicle mileage. www.united4jobs.com.

– Carolyn Shapiro

---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------