Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, June 27, 2005
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
June 24, 2005
Columnist Jeff German: Hunt only one in GOP with guts
Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4067.
Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt has finally received that official White House snub we've been expecting in the mail.
Three months after she wrote President Bush asking him to abandon the stalled Yucca Mountain Project, Hunt has heard back from the White House.
The president, a White House aide wrote, has no desire to turn his back on the flawed multibillion-dollar project that aims to store the nation's dangerous high-level nuclear waste in our backyard.
"The fact remains that the U.S. needs a permanent geological nuclear waste repository, and the administration will continue to pursue that goal," said Ruben Barrales, a deputy assistant to the president.
This is hardly surprising.
Just this week the Republican president, whom many regard as being beholden to the wealthy nuclear industry lobby, was publicly pushing for more nuclear power plants that will create more deadly waste.
But don't worry, Barrales told Hunt, "President Bush is committed to the safety, protection and health of the citizens of Nevada as the development of the Yucca Mountain project is pursued."
We're supposed to trust the president, like many of us did on the campaign trail a few years ago, when he said he would base his Yucca Mountain recommendation on "sound science."
We really got snookered on that one.
If Hunt didn't see the disingenuous nature of the White House response at this point, she should have seen it when Barrales said he was forwarding her letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman "for his review and further consideration."
Barrales might as well have tossed the letter in the wastebasket, because that's what Bodman is likely to do with it.
In his brief tenure at the helm of the Energy Department, Bodman has become the administration's staunchest Yucca Mountain proponent.
He's the guy who turned a cold shoulder to Nevada congressional leaders during a meeting in Washington last month.
Despite the existence of government e-mails suggesting scientific evidence was rigged at Yucca Mountain, Bodman told the delegation members that he's pressing ahead with the effort to ram the nuclear waste dump down our throats.
Hunt, meanwhile, said she was disappointed in the White House response.
She wouldn't criticize the president, but she said he's getting bad advice from the people around him, including Bodman.
"I think Secretary Bodman's judgment on this issue is flawed," Hunt explained. "He needs to move up to the 21st Century."
Hunt, a Republican candidate for governor, said she's dumbfounded that the administration continues to pursue an "archaic" nuclear waste policy that dates back nearly 50 years.
Bob Loux, the state's chief Yucca Mountain watchdog, said he sees the White House response as more evidence that the president and his administration are in the "ultimate state of denial.
"You've got a project that's dead out there," he said, "and they're still under the illusion that it's going forward."
No one really expected that President Bush would actually listen to Hunt -- even in the face of Yucca Mountain's recent setbacks.
The president probably never even saw her letter.
But we do have something positive to take away from this experience.
We know there's at least one elected Republican in this state who isn't afraid to take this fight directly to the White House.
If only there were a few more.
---------------------------
Deseret News
June 27, 2005
Bush puts nuke cart before horse
Deseret Morning News editorial
After highly publicized crises at Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island in 1979, Americans were, for many years, in no mood to entertain the wide-scale proliferation of nuclear power plants.
Amid growing concerns about finite fossil fuel resources, crude oil prices that have topped $60 a barrel and the political implications of meeting the nation's energy needs, many Americans today concede that other options must be explored. President Bush says nuclear power needs to play a far bigger role in America's future. He has asked Congress to include incentives in the Energy Bill to jump start construction of nuclear power plants. Final passage of the bill could come early this week.
Bush and other advocates of nuclear power say technology has significantly reduced the risks of nuclear power generation. Nuclear power plants produce no emissions that could worsen global warming and they operate efficiently. However, they produce waste that remains lethally radioactive for centuries.
Before Bush takes the country down this road, his administration and Congress have to deal with the issue of nuclear waste storage. The best option — for now — is to store it where it is produced. Yucca Mountain's planned repository remains an option, but its storage capacity is finite. Over the long term, the wisest course may be recycling spent fuel rods. Even then, there is a waste issue.
Spent nuclear waste is, obviously, a big concern for Utahns, considering how a proposal to site an above-ground nuclear waste storage facility in Tooele County is winding its way through federal regulatory processes. Absent a legislative solution, the Private Fuel Storage proposal may very well become a reality.
PFS, a consortium of nuclear power concerns, aims to establish a temporary nuclear waste storage facility on lands owned by the Skull Valley band of the Goshute tribe. With Yucca Mountain mired in political and scientific quagmires, there is a growing concern that a "temporary" storage facility in Utah could readily become a permanent fixture. Any talk about creating yet more waste is an obvious concern for Utahns.
Nuclear power plants wouldn't replace traditional power plants overnight. They are costly to build and they present different security issues than coal- or gas-fired power plants.
Obviously, the United States needs to diversify its energy production portfolio. But the Bush administration must get a handle on the nuclear waste issue before moving ahead with expansion of this form of energy production.
---------------------------
Arizona Republic
June 27, 2005
Toxic or magic?
Nation needs a fresh look at nuclear power
The nuclear option is back. The real one.
Nuclear power has been on the back burner in U.S. energy policy for years, with no new plants in more than a quarter century. But global climate change and rising demands for energy are compelling reasons to reconsider our nuclear options.
Developing countries, with China in the lead, are showing an insatiable appetite for electricity. Meanwhile, the "greenhouse gases" emitted by traditional power generation are big contributors to global warming. advertisement
Conservation and alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind power, should be leading strategies to expand energy supplies.
But we shouldn't ignore what nuclear plants can accomplish: Producing large amounts of electricity with virtually no emission of greenhouse gases.
The nuclear debate in America is historically black and white. Supporters tend to dismiss any obstacles with the cheery optimism of the old Atoms for Peace program of the 1950s.
Opponents are still pointing to the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, without recognizing the strides in safety and technology.
America gets more electricity from nuclear power than most people realize: 20 percent of the total. The nation's largest plant is the Palo Verde facility outside the Valley. Using nuclear instead of fossil fuel is keeping tens of thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases out of our air in Arizona every year.
There apparently are no plans for the state to get another nuclear power plant. Certainly, siting and water would be major hurdles.
President Bush is eager to jump-start nuclear power - supporters note that it supplies 78 percent of electricity in France - and he underlined the issue by traveling to a nuclear generator in Maryland last week.
Certainly, public perceptions are a barrier to building more plants. But the obstacles go far beyond public relations.
One of the most vexing is how to store waste that remain highly radioactive for centuries.
In the United States, the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has failed to go forward. So U.S. plants are storing reactor waste for decades, a task they were never designed to do.
We need a solution for waste storage before adding nuclear facilities.
Cost is another stumbling block. Although nuclear plants have an advantage in fuel costs - especially with soaring prices for oil and natural gas - the construction costs are enormous.
Nuclear power proponents argue that we must supply a financial boost to start the next generation of nuclear power plants in the United States.
There's already a substantial stepstool. Under a program designed to encourage new investment in nuclear power plants, for instance, a consortium called NuStart Energy Development is set to tap $260 million in matching funds from the Department of Energy.
For too long, the words "nuclear power" have been either toxic or magic. Putting aside the rhetoric, there is real promise in nuclear power for meeting our energy needs and reducing global warming.
---------------------------
Delaware News Journal
June 27, 2005
Letter: Nuclear power presents too many long-term hazards
In his June 20 column, Harry Themal tried to tell us that nuclear power is still an option. The proposal to build another 50 nuclear reactors is the dream of this administration's secret energy policy which has yet to be passed by Congress They will not openly discuss the true economics of nuclear power: the cost of uranium enrichment, the enormous expense of the transportation and storage of radioactive waste for 250,000 years and the liability involved in a nuclear accident.
Each typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33 tons of radioactive waste per year. More than 80,000 tons of this waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 U.S. nuclear plants, awaiting transportation to a facility yet to be found.
After spending $5 billion on the Yucca Mountain site, its safety is now seriously questioned. Even if finally approved, the capacity for future waste is totally inadequate.
A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors are easy targets for international terrorists.
But the Achilles' heel of the nuclear industry is the Price Anderson Act. which must be renewed this year.
The exclusion clause in homeowners insurance policies, "not applicable in a nuclear power accident," was the incentive given to the industry almost 50 years ago, since no company in the world would insure it.
Several studies on the results of a serious accident by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were commissioned over the years. The last study in 1982 by the NRC and Sandia Laboratories lists Salem, N.J., consequences in case of a severe accident as follows:
•Early peak fatalities: Salem I, 100,000; Salem II, 200,000.
•Early injuries: Salem I 70,000; Salem II, 75,000.
Belgium, Germany, Spain and Sweden have decided to phase out their operating nuclear reactors. It is time we do the same.
Frieda Berryhill, Wilmington
---------------------------
Berkshire Eagle
June 27, 2005
Nuclear waste puzzle unsolved
By Christopher Marcisz
Berkshire Eagle Staff
ROWE -- Most of the structures at the former Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant have been torn down, and the closing is expected to be finished by the end of the year. But the site remains home to several tons of high-level nuclear waste, a costly legacy of the nuclear era.
At its meeting this month, the Yankee Rowe Citizen Advisory Board officially changed its mission from overseeing the demolition of the plant to monitoring the storage of the waste there until the federal government lives up to its contractual obligation to take the waste to a permanent waste dump.
Yankee Rowe was the third civilian reactor to open in the United States, and it generated electricity for New England from 1960 to 1992. It is now home to 16 "dry cask" storage units weighing about 1,700 tons and containing 533 fuel assemblies -- bundles of hollow steel rods that contain ceramic-coated pellets of highly refined uranium.
"It is certainly my feeling it is in the best interest of Yankee Rowe and lots of other people to have a permanent storage solution," said Anne Skinner, who represents Williamstown on the advisory board. "Right now, it doesn't represent a high risk in the sense that the casks are quite sturdy and well-patrolled. Nonetheless, you don't want it sitting there."
Community input
The board has met since 1998 to provide community input into the decommissioning process. Its Berkshire County members are Skinner, Anita Barker on behalf of Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, North Adams City Councilor Gailanne Cariddi, and Jana Hunkler Brule from the town of Florida.
The U.S. Department of Energy was supposed to take possession of the waste and remove it to a permanent storage facility -- at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However, the Yucca Mountain project has met numerous delays and will not be ready until 2012 at the earliest. Until then, most nuclear waste remains at the site where it was generated.
Yankee Rowe's parent company, Yankee Atomic, is owned by a consortium of New England utilities. The costs of dismantling the site, and the ongoing costs of maintaining and guarding the fuel, are borne by their electric utility customers.
Yankee Atomic is among the parties to a lawsuit against the federal government to recover some of the costs of storing the fuel after the government failed to meet its contractual obligation.
Yankee Atomic always keeps an eye on temporary waste storage solutions. In May, Congress came close to approving a plan for temporary storage. The House of Representatives' version of the federal budget included calls for the Energy Department to put together a plan for aboveground storage for reactor fuel at a handful of federal laboratory and weapon sites in South Carolina, Washington state and Idaho. The budget called for $10 million in funding, and the government was to begin accepting the fuel by October 2006.
However, the idea was defeated earlier this month in the Senate.
Alternatives also are being pursued by the utility owners themselves, including a consortium of private nuclear owners who are seeking to create a temporary dump at Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah. And although Yankee Atomic is not part of that plan, spokeswoman Kelley Smith said Yankee certainly would consider something like that.
Keeping the material around presents a major logistical challenge, and it is carefully monitored.
Officials in Vermont recently discovered that a 250-foot retaining wall along the West Branch of the Deerfield River, behind Readsboro General Store, was built with concrete blocks from Yankee Rowe and is slightly radioactive. The blocks, which are contaminated with the radioactive isotope tritium, were taken from the plant site by the store's owner, with the company's permission. State and federal health officials say the wall poses no health risk.
Tests by the Vermont Department of Health show that the wall is releasing 1 millirem of radioactivity a year above normal background levels of radioactivity, which is estimated at 360 millirems a year.
Smith said Yankee Atomic discovered and reported the removal. "It was a self-identified issue," she said. "We have stringent regulations we have to abide by, and it was clear this was licensed material, and we needed proper paperwork."
According to regulations, all material from the site is "licensed material," which must be stored or disposed of at a licensed site. Smith said they have filed a request for an exemption with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that the wall can remain in place. The investigation is expected to take several months.
And once a permanent site for the nuclear waste is decided on, the issue of transportation will become more pressing. Advisory board members said the topic has been discussed, but not in any great detail.
Meanwhile, the demolition process will continue through the summer with the demolition of pipes and other subsurface materials. Grading work and planting are expected to start later in the year.
According to plans, the company will continue to own the 1,800-acre site, but will lease much of it to the town for recreational use. However, a 90-acre patch will remain the interim home of the 16 spent nuclear fuel casks.
And although the amount of waste piles up at plants that are still running -- more than 54,000 tons in 31 states -- the question of what to do with it remains, even as the Bush administration supports research into a new generation of civilian nuclear power.
Administration officials have touted nuclear power's relative cleanness -- it has no emissions -- and the potential of using it as a possible source of hydrogen for emission-free vehicles.
On a visit to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Maryland last Wednesday, Bush pointed out that no new plants have been built in the United States since the 1970s, while in that time France has built 58 and China has built eight and plans on 40 more in the next 20 years.
"In the 21st century, our nation will need more electricity, more safe, clean, reliable electricity," Bush said. "It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again."
But Barker, who is on the Yankee Rowe board, said that without a solution to the waste problem, the idea is misguided.
"They only talk about how clean nuclear power is, but they don't talk about the end result," she said. "Until they have an end result, I don't think nuclear is the answer."
Material from the Associated Press was used in this article.
Christopher Marcisz can be reached at cmarcisz@berkshireeagle.com or at (413) 664-4995.
---------------------------
Taipei Times
Jun 27, 2005
Bloomberg: US and Europe weigh in on nuclear energy
GROWING CONSENSUS?: With an upsurge in world oil prices, leaders in the US and UK are pressing for more dependence on `clean and cheap' nuclear power. But a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste has not been resolved, and accidents are always possible
Nuclear power plants, shunned since the meltdown at Three Mile Island and the disaster at Chernobyl, may make a comeback in Europe and the US as companies and governments try to reduce record energy costs and pollution.
Finland is building the first nuclear plant in Europe approved since 1986, and France plans a new US$3.6 billion reactor.
NuStart LLC, a group of utilities including New Orleans-based Entergy Corp and Constellation Energy Group, last month said it expects to select two sites by October for the first US nuclear power stations in 30 years.
More than US$200 billion will be spent on nuclear power by 2030, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, an adviser to 26 of the world's largest energy users. A surge in oil to a record above US$59 a barrel and concern that the carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels leads to global warming are driving the revival.
US President George W. Bush in April said he wants to expedite the licensing of new reactors. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair may decide next year whether to replace the nation's aging nuclear plants. Even Ukraine, where the 1986 Chernobyl blast killed 31, the world's worst nuclear disaster to date, sees nuclear energy as a way to break a reliance on Russia for oil.
"Since Ukraine has uranium and zirconium fields, we should be concentrating on developing nuclear energy domestically," Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko said last week in Kiev.
Globally, there are 440 nuclear power plants, and 24 are under construction, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Any new power plants need government approvals, and in some countries, such as Switzerland, voter referendums can block such plans. In Taiwan, a US$7 billion reactor now being built and planned to start next year may not be switched on, should public concern about the project's safety persist, Minister of Economic Affairs Ho Mei-yueh (???) said on June 20.
Investors are betting on nuclear. Uranium prices have jumped 62 percent in the past year, partly driven by hedge fund purchases in a bet on growth in atomic energy, said Gerald Grandey, chief executive of Saskatoon, Canada-based Cameco Corp, the world's biggest uranium producer, in Vienna this week.
The price of uranium, used to fuel nuclear reactors, rose to US$29 per pound this month from US$17.90 a year ago, according to the Metal Bulletin's Uranium Nuexco Restricted Post Price.
`Dirty and Dangerous'
Companies that would benefit from a new round of construction include General Electric Co, Munich-based Siemens AG and Areva SA of France, which build the reactors, and Essen, Germany-based RWE AG and Dusseldorf-based E.ON AG, which operate nuclear plants that have to close under current plans.
In Western Europe and the US, approvals ground to a halt after the Chernobyl explosion in Ukraine sent radiation as far away as Sweden. Death rates among the more than half a million workers who participated in the cleanup operation soared, and thyroid cancer rates in Gomel, Belarus, increased 22-fold from 1986 through 1990.
The Three Mile Island meltdown in Middletown, Pennsylvania, in 1979 was the most serious US nuclear incident. The accident caused "negligible" harm to people and the environment but led to "fear and mistrust" of the industry and the government, according to a US Nuclear Regulatory Commission fact sheet.
Environmentalists including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth oppose nuclear energy for being "dirty and dangerous." Nuclear waste "has no solution" and will "threaten ourselves and future generations for millions of years into the future. It carries with it the inherent risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident, spreading radioactive contamination far and wide. It routinely discharges nuclear waste into the environment, threatening the health of those in the vicinity."
Greenpeace also says on its Web site that "money spent on subsidizing nuclear stations will suppress the emergence of new, clean renewable technologies."
Radioactive Waste
The single biggest issue is storage of nuclear waste, according to the International Energy Agency. Nuclear stations have to store the spent uranium and plutonium fuels under water for months because they are radioactive. Any spillage of the waste could lead to cancer if ingested by humans, according to Greenpeace. The US and the UK are still deliberating how to dispose of nuclear waste.
Asian countries including China, India, South Korea and Japan are leading the global nuclear construction program, using technology supplied by Areva and GE, as well as Westinghouse, a unit of British Nuclear Fuels, owned by the UK government.
The French reactor is being planned by Electricite de France, Europe's largest utility, and Enel SpA in Rome. The Finnish plant's investors include Espoo, Finland-based Fortum Oyj. Suez SA of France and E.ON are also considering joining EDF.
In the US, Bush called for more reactors.
"There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation," Bush said on June 22 at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, owned by Constellation Energy Group. "It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again."
The Tennessee Valley Authority, the largest public power company in the US, plans to restart its 1,200-megawatt Browns Ferry 1 reactor by 2007, 22 years after it was shut down, said Nils Diaz, chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The authority idled the reactor in northern Alabama in 1985 because its physical layout didn't match architectural drawings. Restarting Browns Ferry 1 will cost about US$1.8 billion. New plants may be built within six years, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, said in April.
Nuclear plants may contribute about 200 gigawatts of the 4,800 gigawatts of new capacity needed until 2030, according to the IEA. European countries will add more than 40 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2030, the IEA said.
Nuclear capacity will increase in Asia to 8 percent of the region's total in 10 years, from 5 percent now. China, the world's second-largest electricity consumer after the US, plans to add about 30 gigawatts of nuclear generation by 2030, while Russia could add another 22 gigawatts. Korea may add 17 gigawatts and Japan about 14 gigawatts, according to the IEA.
The new nuclear stations and an extended life of the present ones will offset the closure of aging plants to keep the share of nuclear energy in the global power capacity mix at 12 percent in a decade, according to estimates from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Germany, whose parliament voted to shut down its nuclear plants in 2001, may allow them to stay open longer. Christian Democratic opposition party leader Angela Merkel plans to keep nuclear energy alive should her party, which is leading in the polls, win the German election expected on Sept. 18.
Bury the Waste?
The European Union's Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, said Finland can become a model for how to handle nuclear waste, by taking years to gain public support to build the Olkiluoto site and bury the waste in the bedrock some 500 meters underground. The commissioner in May said he wants nuclear energy to maintain its 13 percent share of the region's energy mix.
The US may follow the Finnish model and bury the waste, storing it deep within Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a US$58 billion project mired in controversy.
The UK government has postponed a decision on new reactors until the Committee for Radioactive Waste Management finishes a report next year. The Committee received proposals on how to handle the waste, or the 1 percent of uranium and plutonium that can't be reused, which included firing it in a capsule into the sun.
In Europe, where laws as of this year penalize excessive production of carbon dioxide, utilities such as Madrid-based Endesa SA, Spain's largest power company, see nuclear energy as a way of avoiding the rising costs of carbon, gas and oil.
"We are convinced nuclear is the answer for emissions and security of supply," Rafael Miranda, the chief executive of Endesa, said during the conference in Vienna. Endesa in the first quarter had to more than double power production from fuel oil-fed plants in Spain and Portugal as a dry winter depleted water supplies at hydropower plants.
In the Netherlands, the government has decided to run its Borssele nuclear plant until the end of its economic life, scrapping plans to switch it off in 2004. In Switzerland, a moratorium on construction of new nuclear plants has expired.
Sweden shut its Barseback 2 nuclear station last month, despite opposition from power lobby groups, such as Swedenergy, which argued the country will have to burn more fossil fuels. About 80 percent of Swedes now favor nuclear generation, the Financial Times said on March 22, citing a poll.
"Nuclear doesn't emit carbon dioxide, so when you close it down you will have an increase in carbon dioxide," Lars Josefsson, chief executive of Stockholm-based Vattenfall AB, the Nordic region's biggest utility, said last week in Vienna. "The debate is coming" on new nuclear reactors.
Italy's industry minister, Claudio Scajola, called for a reconsideration of Italy's ban on nuclear plants on May 26 in an address to the business association Confindustria. Italian competitiveness is undergoing a crisis "without precedent," in part because of rising power costs, he said. Italy's electricity costs are the highest in Europe. Enel, the nation's largest utility, plans to invest in the reactor France will build and in new reactors in Slovakia.
"Personally I am much in favor, nuclear is an environmental and less expensive fuel," Enel Chief Executive Fulvio Conti said in an interview in Vienna recently. "Unfortunately we cannot build in Italy, there's the law."
A study by the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering last year showed that one unit of gas generation costs four cents per megawatt-hour, compared with 4.3 cents for a nuclear plant, 4.7 cents for a coal-fired plant and 6.7 cents at a wind park.
Total costs of producing nuclear power, including construction and decommissioning, are likely to be US$46 per megawatt-hour in 2010, less than the US$50.80 for a gas-fired station and the US$54.39 for a coal-fired plant, a study published in March by UBS AG said. The calculation assumes oil prices fall to US$32.50 a barrel, after 2007. If oil prices slid below US$28, nuclear wouldn't be competitive against gas, UBS said.
Also, nuclear power plants are heavily subsidized by governments and taxpayer money. The UK government in November 2002 agreed to give US$2.74 billion of aid to British Energy Group Plc, whose nuclear plants supply about one-fifth of the nation's power. The cash was earmarked for liabilities including nuclear cleanup.
Today, nuclear energy is opposed by 52 percent of Britons, according to a survey last month by ICM Research for the British Broadcasting Corp. Blair, who has made tackling climate change a priority while leading the Group of Eight nations this year, won't rule out a new round of nuclear construction.
A UK study released in December showed the nation will be "some way short" of a goal for a 20 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by the end of 2010 unless more programs are put in place, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in a strategy document.
Blair must decide by 2009 whether to replace the nation's eight nuclear power stations that will reach the end of their life within the next 30 years. Unless new stations are built, the share of electricity generated by nuclear power will drop to about 7 percent in 2020 from about a fifth now.
"Britain has had a significant amount of its energy from nuclear power in the past," Blair said in an interview during this year's election campaign. "It won't in the future unless a new generation of power stations is built."
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------