Yucca Mountain News Clips
Sunday, July 31, 2005
---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
July 31, 2005

Yucca Mountain license application facing new delay

By Erica Werner
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department likely will not submit its license application to build Yucca Mountain until March 2006 at the earliest, several months later than the most recent target date, according to an updated project timeline.

The Energy department plans to update a Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing board on the timeline this week. An Energy Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to interfere with the licensing process, disclosed the timeline to The Associated Press.

Under Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, the Energy Department cannot submit its license application to build the nuclear waste dump until it publicly releases background documents for the application. DOE must certify, six months before submitting the license application, that all relevant documents have been disclosed through a Web-based Licensing Support Network that can be viewed by the public at http://www.lsnnet.gov .

Under the updated timeline, the certification would not happen until September or later, the official said. That would make March 2006 the earliest date DOE could submit its license application.

DOE had hoped to submit the license application last December, and it certified in June 2004 that it had made the background documents available as required. That certification was rejected as inadequate by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission board.

After that setback, DOE said it would aim for this December. That date has now slipped as well.

The Energy Department official said no new date has been set. The official emphasized that the department's priority is to ensure that this time, the certification passes muster. To that end, a two-step process has been established that will involve review of the certification by a department manager and an outside team.

The official said the Energy Department has completed 85 percent to 90 percent of the work of entering the millions of relevant documents into the Licensing Support Network.

Yucca Mountain, planned for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been beset by a series of problems, including an appeals court's rejection last year of the government's proposed radiation safety standard for the dump. This spring, internal e-mails became known suggesting government workers on the dump had falsified data.

The Environmental Protection Agency is still developing a new radiation standard, and the contents of the e-mails are under review, though DOE has concluded preliminarily that the scientific basis for the project remains sound.

Yucca Mountain is meant to hold 77,000 tons of nuclear waste for 10,000 years and beyond.

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

San Diego Union Tribune
July 31, 2005

Nuclear power poised for comeback

Rising oil prices, fears about global warming play role

By Dana Wilkie
Copley News Service

WASHINGTON – Nestled in the energy bill that Congress approved last week is perhaps the most tangible evidence yet that nuclear power, long shunned by many as a dangerous energy source, is on the verge of a comeback.

The broad energy plan includes billions of federal dollars to jump-start production of nuclear reactors. The incentives, from tax breaks to loan guarantees, come at a time when soaring oil prices and increasing public concern about global warming have forced even some leading environmentalists to rethink their opposition to nuclear power as a cleaner, cheaper alternative to traditional fossil fuels.

"Nuclear (power), in combination with renewables, is the only source of electrical energy that can replace coal and gas to a significant degree," said Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, now chairman of Greenspirit Strategies of Canada, which helps companies develop environmentally friendly policies.

Should the government incentives prove enticing, the nation's utilities are poised to order their first reactors since the 1970s.

"We need a lot more electricity in this country in the decades ahead," said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group for nuclear utilities. "Nuclear (power) is not by itself the answer, but it's part of that diversity of (sources) that will fill the gap."

But the federal incentives spell trouble to watchdogs. They fear that the bill doesn't do enough to promote other alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, and that more reactors will mean more potential targets for terrorists and more nuclear waste piling up at power plants.

"Safety issues, waste, security – these issues still haunt the industry, and they still haven't solved them," said Michael Mariotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog that opposes atomic energy.

There are 103 operating reactors in the nation, including two in California at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo. But all were ordered before the 1979 partial reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island, Pa., and the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, both of which led to widespread fears about nuclear power and a hiatus in reactor construction.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, reactors have become a key security concern. Critics have raised the specter of an attack that could release radiation and pose catastrophic risks to those living nearby. Reactor designers are incorporating features that would, among other things, automatically cool a reactor in the event of an attack, said Mark Wells, director of the Government Accountability Office, during testimony before Congress in March.

The United States is facing a power crunch, without enough supply to meet projected demand. The Department of Energy predicts that in the coming two decades, the nation will need to produce an extra 350,000 to 400,000 megawatts of energy to keep pace with demand.

The country's reactors are capable of producing 98,000 megawatts of electricity, about 20 percent of U.S. power needs. Reactors generate electricity by using radioactive material to boil water into steam to drive turbines.

The nuclear power incentives in the bill passed by Congress mirror President Bush's 2001 energy blueprint. The bill includes $1.6 billion for research and development of nuclear power, $1.3 billion for a nuclear plant at the federal Idaho National Laboratory to generate hydrogen fuel, and $2 billion in federal insurance to cover construction delays caused by court challenges or anything else outside normal business risks.

The bill also promises up to $5.7 billion in tax credits for the first six reactors to be built and unlimited loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of those reactors.

"The list of incentives is cradle to grave," said Michele Boyd, legislative director for the energy program at Public Citizen, another nuclear watchdog. "If this isn't enough to build new reactors, there's nothing more the government can do other than build them itself."

A host of developments – political, environmental and economic – have fostered renewed interest in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels, most surprisingly among leading environmentalists who previously opposed it. Moore, once a dogged foe of nuclear power, now considers global warming a greater threat than nuclear waste or reactor meltdowns.

"Climate change has . . . shifted my perspective," Moore said in an e-mail message. His views on nuclear energy mirror those of other notable environmentalists, including Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, and James Lovelock, who posited the Gaia theory of Earth as a giant self-regulating super-organism, and now sees nuclear energy as key to the planet's health.

Nuclear reactors release some carbon dioxide, but only a fraction of the amount produced by burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal or gas, which many experts have blamed for global warming.

Political concerns also are a factor. Nations have to compete – and pay top dollar – for a dwindling supply of oil and gas resources that tend to lie in politically unstable nations. The uranium that fuels nuclear reactors can be mined in stable countries such as Canada and Australia.

Finally, nuclear fuel is relatively cheap to produce, and its price does not fluctuate, as does the price of natural gas. Nuclear power costs 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 5.87 cents for natural gas and 1.92 cents for coal. A kilowatt-hour is enough to power 1,000 homes for an hour.

The shifting winds on nuclear power are evident worldwide. There are 25 reactors under construction in 10 countries, and 112 more are planned or proposed. China is aggressively expanding its nuclear energy program and has opened six reactors since 2002. Finland is set to build a large nuclear power station this year. France, which depends on nuclear reactors for almost 80 percent of its electricity, announced this summer that it would help Libya plan a nuclear energy program.

Although orders for new reactors in the United States are not expected until later this decade, the industry says it must take the regulatory and financial steps necessary to pave the way for new construction.

Industry experts say this generation's nuclear reactors are safer than ever, and that a Chernobyl-like accident is technically impossible. Mariotte, of the watchdog Nuclear Information and Resource Service, acknowledged that "on paper, they do have safer designs." But he said that's to be expected "considering the reactors we're using today were designed 50 years ago."

Frank von Hippel, a nuclear power expert at Princeton University, noted that "some safety improvements were made following Three Mile Island." But he also said that "Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation at the moment is about as unaggressive as one could imagine."

Where to put reactor waste remains problematic. Most utilities are running out of space to store spent fuel at their plants, and a congressionally approved dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain faces so many legal, political and technical challenges that it probably won't be open until at least 2012.

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

York Daily Record
July 31, 2005

Senate passes energy bill

The legislation creates incentives for creation of nuclear power plants.

By Stephen Nery
Medill News Service

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed the energy bill Friday, ending years of pressure from the White House and providing valuable incentives for the creation of new nuclear power plants as part of the $12.3 billion legislation.

The legislation provides billions in tax breaks for new energy, creates incentives for efficiency and establishes industry guidelines. Energy bills have passed the House for four straight years only to stall in the Senate.

No nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island scare in 1979. Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the industry could not guarantee there would be no repeats of the incident, but security and knowledge-sharing have improved since then — which was not a complete failure in itself.

“We have a defense-in-depth design which was proved at Three Mile Island,’ he said. “You had human error, but the facility functioned like it was designed to.’

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides up to $1 billion over eight years to each of the first six new power plants built. It also provides hundreds of millions of dollars in potential delay costs for future plants, as well as an insurance pool in case of emergency.

Industry experts do not expect a rush to build. Kerekes said construction would start in 2012 at the earliest. Investors want to see headway made in the creation of a national geological depository for nuclear waste before committing to new plants.

Progress has been made in examining such a site in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but it still isn´t being used as a waste depository 27 years later.

Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for Exelon Nuclear Operations, which runs Three Mile Island, said the 103 reactors in the country will likely only last for another 40 years.

Plants are granted a 40-year operating license upon creation, with the option to renew for a 20-year term. After that, it is unknown how well the plants will continue to operate.

“The U.S. is one of the only major industrial nations that doesn´t have a nuclear power program going,’ Nesbit said.

BACKGROUND

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also provides tax breaks for construction of cleaner-burning coal facilities, oil and natural gas production and wind and other renewable energy sources.

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

Baltimore Sun
July 31, 2005

Plans for increased nuclear power sparking a demand for uranium

China, India leading push for new plants

By Nancy Lofholm
The Denver Post

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. - In western Colorado and eastern Utah, where salt wash deposits and sandstone hold uranium ore, there's a scramble on for mining claims, a demand for processing facilities and a clamor for miners.

The latest race for uranium yellowcake, spurred by plans for increased nuclear power across the globe, follows years when claim activity was nearly nil.

The 435 nuclear reactors in the world, including 104 in the United States, need 180 million pounds of uranium annually, but only 100 million pounds have been produced in recent years. China and India are leading a worldwide push for more nuclear power with ambitious plans for new power plants. President Bush wants to increase the 20 percent of U.S. power produced in nuclear plants.

With that growing demand, if no new supplies were mined, domestic uranium would run out in three years.

"No doubt about it, the world needs more uranium," said Tom Pool, chairman of International Nuclear Inc. in Golden, Colo.

More than 8,500 mining-claim permits have been filed in eight uranium-rich Colorado and Utah counties this year, according to records compiled by The Denver Post.

To meet the demand for even more claims to catch up to this nuclear need, the Department of Energy is preparing, for the first time since 1974, to put 13,600 acres of uranium-laced western Colorado lands up for bid next year.

Interest is focused on the Uravan mineral belt, a swath of western Colorado desert that holds a unique combination of the steel-hardener vanadium mingled with uranium.

Those rushing to file new claims or activate old ones include Canadian companies, which control some of the richest uranium deposits in the world, domestic mining companies and families in western Colorado that have been chasing uranium and vanadium payoffs for generations.

"I see this boom not being a spike like in the early '90s. And I see it being more sustained than it was in the '70s and '80s," said Ed Cotter, the contract project manager for uranium leasing for the Department of Energy.

Despite the jostling to grab the 75 million pounds of uranium and 282,000 pounds of vanadium estimated to remain on the Colorado Plateau, this boom is not expected to be another willy-nilly and dangerous race to get as much uranium and vanadium out of the ground as quickly as possible.

"Companies are planning in a much more effective way for the future. They're making sure when you ramp up production, you ramp up carefully," said Stuart Sanderson, director of the Colorado Mining Association.

A number of factors - increased permitting requirements and a lack of manpower and equipment - won't allow a rush to uranium production.

Environmental and safety regulations have also moved into a new era - with some projects needing approval from a dozen agencies - since the last real uranium boom in the 1970s. And each mine start-up brings expensive bonding requirements to make sure cleanup is accomplished.

"It has to be done right this time," said Richard Dorman, vice president of exploration for Universal Uranium Ltd. of Winnemucca, Nev. Dorman has worked through three uranium boom periods.

The new regulations and growth pressure explain why only four mines are operating in remote canyons in the west end of Colorado's Montrose County nearly two years after uranium and vanadium prices began to surge. Uranium brings about $30 a pound and vanadium, about $19. That's up from $7 and $2 in 2001.

Cotter Corp. owns the mines operating in Colorado and is the country's only licensed mill taking newly mined ore. Cotter plans to open four more mines in Montrose and San Miguel counties by year's end. Three other mining companies with claims near the Colorado towns of Uravan and Gateway are inking agreements with Cotter to have ore processed at its Canon City mill.

Permitting and exploratory work is being done at dozens of other mines, but full-scale production is on hold while the Universal Uranium Corp. mill near Blanding, Utah, decides if it will accept new ore this fall.

Uranium mining projects planned around corporate boardrooms as well as rural kitchen tables are expected to move into high gear when more milling opportunities open up.

The Shumway family, which has been mining off and on in Utah for three generations, is anxious to get a fourth generation into it.

"Our kids are excited. They want to learn how to mine," said Deryl Shumway, who, with his brother Mitch, is preparing to reopen some of their leased parcels near Blanding.

The Shumways can rely on a network of relatives for employees, but companies are struggling to find miners.

The uranium industry has been mostly dormant since the 1980s, so nearly a generation of miners has been lost. Cotter has been luring miners from Nevada and Montana. A recent Cotter safety training class included a fireman, a truck driver and a mechanic. Some employees have been drawn from farms where the profits don't equal the average $70,000 to $80,000 annual wage that miners earn.

As the nuclear industry heats up, it hasn't drawn a loud outcry from environmental groups, some say because the oil and gas boom pressing into more populated areas is drawing all the attention.

Jim Martin, executive director of Western Resource Advocates, said the potential for a resurgence in the nuclear industry needs a thoughtful response from environmentalists as well as a more controlled and responsible start-up by the industry. "At the moment we're agnostic on nuclear. We spend most of our time worrying about global warming," he said.

One of the overriding problems that remains to be dealt with since the last boom is where to put the waste. Colorado is riddled with 20,000 abandoned mines with potentially hazardous materials. Also, the spent fuel from nuclear reactors still needs a home. Plans to build an underground repository for such waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain are stymied. No other new repositories are planned.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
July 29, 2005

Yucca advocates visit Nye County

By Phillip Gomez
PVT

The year 2005 is not an election year, but you would never know it in Southern Nevada.

With the House of Representatives passing a massive energy bill on Thursday, the nuclear energy industry and its advocates are rallying to make sure that nuclear reactor plant production is a major part of the nation's energy strategy for the next century. A new generation of nuclear power plants will need a secure, well-funded site for radioactive waste disposal; and for a new national task force working to that end, the targeted waste site is Nevada's Yucca Mountain right here in Nye County.

Five members of the Yucca Mountain Task Force, a lobbying group representing the nuclear industry and state regulatory authorities, visited Nye County officials and toured the Yucca Mountain Repository. They also came by the Pahrump Valley Times to promote Yucca Mountain and funding for waste shipping initiatives.

The task force is working with Nye County commissioners to form a coalition to advocate for full Yucca Mountain funding in Congress.

"It's been studied, and studied and studied," said LeRoy Koppendrayer, a task force member and chair of the public utilities commission of Minnesota. "It's time to move forward."

Although recently reported that the U.S. Energy Department would submit its application for licensure to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the end of July, David Blee, executive director of the U.S. Transport Council, said it would not be submitted until September at the earliest, and possibly not until after next year. The application will then be studied for three or four years before the NRC makes a decision on Yucca Mountain's safety design, Blee said.

If given pre-approval, the repository could begin construction by 2010 at the earliest, he said. It could begin accepting nuclear waste by 2012.

"That's an ambitious schedule," warned David Swanson, interim director of Nye County's nuclear waste repository project office.

The National Transportation Project through the Caliente corridor could begin construction early, by 2007, Swanson said, after completion of an environmental impact statement on the railroad. All of that presumes that Congress approves the railroad.

But events may be working in favor of Yucca's success. Some 61 civil suits have been lodged against the Department of Energy for failure to retrieve waste from nuclear plants as earlier agreed upon, said Charles Pray, co-chairman of the task force. The high-level waste is generated in 39 states, by both private energy providers and the military. No such waste is generated in Nevada.

As for the court ruling last year questioning the Energy Department's radiation standard, Blee said, "It's not a showstopper." The Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to make a ruling in

September, he said.

The e-mail controversy last spring also doesn't deter the task force. They're optimistic about the repository and gladdened about its site crew's knowledge and enthusiasm.

As for Yucca Mountain itself, "It's a resource," said David A. Wright, co-chairman of the group. "It's not waste," he said in reference to the anticipated future reuse of the radioactive waste material.

"We're very impressed with the (political) leadership out here," said Wright. "They're incredible. There's lots of similarity with (South Carolina's) Savannah River plant."

The task force met with Nye County commissioners Candice Trummell and Gary Hollis.

"We often feel the naysayers get the most attention," said Swanson, "but when we get people who are willing to help and bring some logic and reason to the process, that makes me very happy."

The task force intends to provide "a fresh voice to the critical importance of expeditious implementation of the Yucca Mountain program, given its vital economic, energy and national security considerations. - as well as the importance of progress on Yucca Mountain to new nuclear energy plant operation," according to task force members.

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 29, 2005

Porter's committee still waiting for some Yucca documents

By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jon Porter's subcommittee is still waiting for some of the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump documents it requested through a subpoena earlier this month, despite Energy Department assurances that it would comply with the subpoena.

The department delivered 1,652 pages requested by the subpoena for the subcommittee's investigation into possible falsified information at Yucca but did not send over the draft of the license application for the nuclear dump and some other items, according to Porter's office.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman would not comment on when the department would send the draft after a press conference on the energy bill this week.

He said that his department is "going to comply with the terms of the subpoena."

But Porter, R.-Nev., said the department already is not in compliance. The subpoena specified that certain documents, including the draft of the license application, needed to be delivered by 4 p.m. last Friday.

Porter's staff of investigators this week have been reviewing the documents that were delivered, trying to piece together what led U.S. Geological Survey employees to send e-mails to each other complaining about budget problems and how they would "fudge" some work.

The department announced in March that it had discovered the e-mails, which may have compromised research on the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Porter heads the House Federal Workforce and Agency Organization subcommittee, which is investigating the matter.

Porter said he has been working with the committee counsel on the legal options. He can pursue a resolution citing Bodman for contempt of Congress for not delivering all the documents in time. He has not chosen to do so yet, but his spokesman T.J. Crawford said the option is definitely there.

According to a 2003 Congressional Research Service report on congressional subpoena and contempt power, "individuals who refuse to testify or produce papers are subject to criminal contempt, leading to fines and imprisonment."

The House Government Reform Committee would have to vote on resolution because Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., issued the subpoena. If approved, the whole House would have to vote on it as well.

If approved by the House, a U.S. Attorney may call in a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict and prosecute.

Holding a person in contempt of Congress is not common, but has been done before.

Former Environmental Protection Agency Anne Gorsuch is the highest ranking offical to be held in contempt, based on the report.

In 1982, the House voted to hold her in contempt for refusing to turn over 64 documents dealing with what was then a new Superfund clean-up program. Gorsuch was acting under instructions from President Reagan's Justice Department to withhold the documents. Reagan said the documents contained strategy and legal information.

He feared, similar to some of the Energy Department's concerns over Porter's documents, that what is shared with Congress might be made public, so they should not be shared at all, according to the Congressional Research Service report.

The Justice Department refused to prosecute and the District Court dimissed the case, according to the Congressional Research Service. Gorsuch later resigned as a result of the controversy.

That same Congressional investigation into the Superfund put another EPA official, Rita Lavelle, in prison. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, voted unanimously to hold her in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoena. The House voted 413 to zero to hold her in contempt, according to the Congressional Research Service. She was sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years' probation and a $10,000 fine in 1984.

The Energy Department is also no stranger to contempt charges. In 1980, a House Government Operations subcommittee wanted certain department documents on President Carter's fee on imported oil and gasoline.

After issuing a subpoena, Energy Secretary Charles W. Duncan sent 28 documents to the subcommittee but did not produce some because they involved "deliberative materials underlying a major Presidential decision," according to the report.

The subcommittee then subpoenaed Duncan but he told members he declined to turn over the documents and did not bring them with him to the hearing. Duncan said the committee chairman and the ranking minority member could view the documents but the ranking member objected saying the department should trust the whole committee, not just two members.

The subcommittee held him in contempt for not complying with the subpoena, but less than a month later the subcommittee received all the documents it had requested. A day before the documents arrived, a federal court struck down Carter's fee.

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 29, 2005

Senate nears vote on energy bill

By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Senate is debating a final version of the energy bill this morning and is likely to vote on it later today.

The House passed the final version Thursday, with Nevada's lawmaker sticking to the positions they did on the original bill passed earlier this year.

Republican Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter voted for it, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley voted against it.

The final bill includes geothermal provisions submitted by Gibbons, who voted for the bill.

The bill simplifies the leasing process for geothermal production and modifies federal royalty requirements to make royalty payments more predictable and less bureaucratic, according to Gibbons' office. It will also increase the state and local government royalty share and make payments quicker. Counties can also get a 25 percent share of the royalty payments for the first time.

The bill also extends a tax credit for geothermal energy production through Dec. 31, 2007, which will encourage new geothermal production, according to Gibbons' office.

"Geothermal energy diversifies our nation's energy portfolio with a renewable resource and its development will create new jobs throughout the West," Gibbons said. "Unless geothermal power derived from public land is more competitive with other power sources, little of Nevada's geothermal potential will ever be developed."

There are nine geothermal plants located on federal land in Nevada that could benefit from this bill, according to Gibbons' office.

Porter said the bill's program will help decrease the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Berkley continued her opposition to the bill by voting against the final version.

"After four years, is this the best that we can do for Nevada and the rest of America?" Berkley said.

She supported the renewable components of the bill, but it was not enough to override her objections to numerous provisions that encourage new nuclear power plants, which she says will just create more waste to be stored at Yucca Mountain.

"Rather than a Marshall Plan for American energy independence, this legislation reads like a thank-you note to gas, oil and nuclear industry donors whose checks have financed the campaigns of George Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress," Berkley said. "Then again, what else can we expect from a plan developed in secret meetings led by Vice President Dick Cheney and dominated by big oil and nuclear interests?"

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

Washington Post
July 28, 2005

Editorial: Energy Deficient

Here's the nicest thing that we can say about the comprehensive energy bill that the House and Senate are due to take up, and will probably pass, before they leave town at the end of this week: It could have been a lot worse. Unlike the energy bill that the Senate filibustered in 2003, and in contrast to some earlier versions, this genuinely bipartisan bill contains fewer egregious pro-pollution measures and less pork. It will jump-start the commercial use of new clean coal, ethanol and biomass fuel technologies; promote energy efficiency standards; encourage investment in the electricity sector; and reinforce electricity reliability at last. It is less expensive than previous bills: The $11 billion net cost of the tax package plus the $2 billion direct spending comes to a relatively modest (for an energy bill) $13 billion over 10 years, with further costs depending on future appropriations.

Nevertheless, this is a bill that leaves most of the hard questions for later. Aside from a few tax breaks for purchasers of fuel-efficient cars, it makes no significant attempt to reduce the enormous automobile fuel demand that makes this country so dependent on imported oil. While it provides incentives for the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants, it doesn't deal with the unresolved long-term problem of nuclear waste. It leaves out the whole question of mandatory controls on the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, thereby costing both an opportunity to raise revenue and create a market mechanism that might have accelerated the development of cleaner, more efficient technologies. It also perpetuates distortions in the energy market, providing needless subsidies for oil drilling offshore and on federal lands, and for marginal oil wells. And, by the way, don't believe the spin: This bill will not lower fuel prices anytime soon.

Given how long Congress labored over this legislation, and how much negotiation was required to get it to this stage, it's hard not to be disappointed by a bill that in effect preserves the status quo. It's also hard not to wonder whether the era of comprehensive, 1,700-page energy bills designed to appeal to multiple constituencies has passed. Clearly, some of the missing pieces -- especially climate change and automotive fuel efficiency -- will have to be dealt with separately in the future.

But it's also true that some of the less controversial pieces of this bill, such as the electricity reliability provisions and the efficiency standards for appliances, could have been passed years ago. Now that this process is over, congressional leaders should step back, focus on the nation's most urgent long-term energy needs and get to work on more carefully targeted legislation.

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

Cincinnati Post
July 29, 2005

A disappointing effort

When members of Congress come home for their summer recess, don't be surprised if they start touting the new energy bill.

Don't be fooled either.

The bill, at least six years in the making, does have a number of good features. Any legislation this large and this expensive ought to have some good features. But this one fails its most important obligation: to significantly reduce the nation's energy consumption and its reliance on imported oil.

Rather than enacting tough fuel-efficiency standards or making an all-out effort to promote conservation, Congress contented itself with nibbling around the edges. The bill has a process for looking at tweaking the fuel-efficiency standards. It has modest incentives for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. But there's nothing in it that says Congress has any genuine intention of weaning America off its addiction to gas-guzzling SUVs or reducing our reliance on oil from the Middle East.

Consider the bill's tax incentives. The oil and natural gas industries are in line for $2.6 billion worth of new tax breaks, even though prices are at all-time highs and the big energy companies are raking in more money than ever before. Ordinary Americans who buy energy-efficient cars or take steps to reduce energy use in their homes were allocated half that amount, $1.3 billion.

Judging from the reports we've seen to date out of Washington, this bill will not, as some of its architects assert, transform the way America produces and uses energy. It is, essentially, more of the same.

That said, there are promising features in it. Among them:

A $1.8 billion clean-coal technology program. States, the federal government and the industry have been funding clean-coal research for more than 20 years now. But with the spike in oil and natural gas prices, it appears the time might be ripe for the refinement and deployment of some of the more promising technologies. Notable among these are systems that would enable power plants to run on gas that's made from coal, in a process that improves operating efficiency and vastly reduces emissions. This has big implications for Kentucky, southern Ohio and West Virginia which have large deposits of high-sulfur coal.

A mandate for doubling the production of corn-based ethanol from current levels by 2012. While this would be a boon to corn states such as Ohio, and while it's prudent to nurture development of renewable fuels, it bears noting that many experts believe the production of ethanol consumes more energy than it delivers.

A variety of incentives to promote the resurrection of America's nuclear industry. This could affect Greater Cincinnati down the line in view of Cinergy's pending merger with Duke Energy, which operates several nuclear plants in the Carolinas. Duke has expertise that Cinergy lacks, and it's not too far-fetched to contemplate the day when a combined company might opt to rely on new nuclear capacity to replace the output from old, dirty coal-fired plants. But until the federal government opens the long-promised Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository or otherwise takes tangible action to provide storage for spent fuel rods, it's unlikely any new plants will be built even with the provisions in this bill.

Tighter rules and standards governing the electrical transmission grid. This is a welcome, but belated, response to the massive brownouts two years ago that started near Cleveland and shut down power plants in Canada and throughout the American Northeast.

Tougher efficiency requirements for air conditioners, refrigerators and the like, and the extension of Daylight Savings Time by a month in an effort to cut energy consumption.

We're also happy to report that the energy bill includes the voluntary incentives proposed by Ohio Sen. George Voinovich and others to encourage the installation of pollution control equipment on older diesel engines. It won't do much to improve energy efficiency, but it will help clean the air.

In the same vein, this bill is notable for something it doesn't include: authorization for oil exploration in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. (Including this would have likely killed the entire energy bill. Supporters of drilling in the refuge, however, say they intend to come back and insert the language in a budget bill which under Congress' rules is not subject to a filibuster.)

All told this bill, disappointing as it is, represents progress by a Congress that has been stymied for far too long on energy policy. And some provisions hold promise. But we sure hope that when members of Congress come home and discuss the bill, they'll realize that their constituents are far ahead of them - and want much stronger legislation to promote energy independence.

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

Philidelphia Inquirer
July 29, 2005

Energy bill stokes nuclear power

Tax breaks and other incentives are offered.

By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - After years on the defensive, the nuclear-power industry has come out a big winner in the energy bill passed yesterday by the House.

The measure, which passed, 275-156, and is expected to win Senate approval today, includes hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, loan guarantees, and government-provided insurance for operators and builders of nuclear plants.

The incentives reflect a consensus among Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration that the nation needs more nuclear plants to meet a growing demand for power.

"It is going to help; there is no question that these provisions provide investment stimulus," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade association representing the nation's 103 operating nuclear plants.

Its advocates once promoted nuclear power as a source of inexpensive, nonpolluting energy.

But interest in it collapsed after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant spread low-level radiation over much of Southeastern Pennsylvania, and cost overruns at other plants forced sharp increases in electric rates.

The catastrophic 1986 explosion of the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine - the worst nuclear accident in history - and a series of safety lapses at U.S. reactors added to public anxieties.

No new nuclear plants have been ordered since the 1970s, reflecting intense public skepticism about the safety and costs of nuclear power.

President Bush and other officials in his administration have regularly cited the potential advantages of nuclear power. Notably, Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 recommended that the government take steps to encourage construction of plants and increase the output of existing ones.

Although cost overruns for a time had dampened enthusiasm for nuclear power, the task force said improved efficiency had made the cost of such power competitive with other sources.

The bill passed by the House yesterday would provide tax credits of up to $125 million per company on the energy produced by the first six plants to be built after the legislation becomes law.

It would also provide government-funded insurance for plant operators against financial losses from delays in obtaining federal government approval to build and operate the plants.

Those provisions, along with streamlined application procedures before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, could prove a boost for the industry, Kerekes said.

But it is far from clear that the industry is on the verge of revival.

The issue of long-term disposal of nuclear waste - the spent nuclear fuel currently stored on site at plants around the country - remains unresolved.

Although Congress has endorsed Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a disposal site, a facility there is still years from opening, if it ever does.

Moreover, environmental groups remain deeply opposed to nuclear power, and promise to put up a fight.

Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, contended that nuclear power remained more expensive than other sources. He also said it was not needed because energy companies were building enough plants to meet the nation's energy demand without them.

Of the subsidies in the bill, he said: "It's a huge waste of taxpayer money."

Contact staff writer Chris Mondics at 202-383-6024 or cmondics@krwashington.com.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 28, 2005

Yucca Mountain Project management defended

DOE official says delays are allowing time to `improve' program

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- A Department of Energy official on Wednesday defended DOE management at Yucca Mountain, saying recent senior staff departures were to be expected and that long delays are allowing time to "tweak and improve" the nuclear waste program.

Eric Knox, associate director for the Yucca project, blamed outside forces for holdups. The Energy Department last fall postponed a self-imposed deadline of December to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission following judicial rulings last summer that set back the repository effort.

A new timeline has not been set. Knox maintained delays are giving DOE "extra time" to scrutinize its license application.

"It's kind of like having a college exam coming up and all of a sudden the professor gets sick or the building catches on fire and you have to reschedule it for a week or two weeks or a month later," Knox said. "You have extra time to prepare for the exam. That's how I look at what we are doing right now.

"We are going back and improving quality and enhancing quality, not to say it was bad before," Knox said.

But Knox said the extra scrutiny is adding pressure for Yucca managers to "have it right" when they do submit a repository license application.

"One thing we cannot afford is to submit a license application and then two, three years down the process, it is rejected," Knox said.

Knox delivered the assessment to a conference organized by the Nuclear Energy Institute trade association.

In his presentation Knox downplayed the departure of senior managers from the Yucca project this year, including director Margaret Chu, deputy director Ted Garrish, quality assurance manager Denny Brown and licensing manager Joseph Ziegler.

"The staff changes mean that people have lives and they have other things they need to do and want to do," he said.

Knox is a former Yucca Mountain official who returned to the project in April from another DOE assignment. Paul Golan, a deputy assistant secretary overseeing environmental cleanup at DOE sites, was named in April to replace Garrish. Last week, Golan was named acting director of the Yucca project.

Bob Loux, a Nevada official who coordinates the state's opposition to Yucca Mountain, said the Energy Department was trying to cast a positive light on flaws that hamper the project.

"They can't maintain a schedule because they are not in control of events any longer," said Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "Of course they are not schedule-driven because it is out of their hands."

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 28, 2005

Survey: 62 percent have unfavorable view of Yucca

Some worried about drop in home values

By Stephen Curran
<stephen.curran@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun

The proposed high-level nuclear waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas could provide some unwanted relief for would-be homeowners stifled by rising housing costs, a Clark County-sponsored survey found.

Worried that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain would send land and property values in Southern Nevada plummeting, almost half -- 43 percent -- of 600 people surveyed last month said the project would send what had been skyrocketing home prices into a slump.

Irene Navis, planning manager for the county's nuclear waste division, said residents believed that shipping the more than 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste would be akin to building a massive, environmentally hazardous landfill and manufacturing facility near their homes.

In the survey, more than 62 percent of respondents said the proposed nuclear waste dump would have a negative impact on the quality of life in Clark County, according to a summary of the statistics, which are expected to be presented to the County Commission next week.

The answers, she said, indicated that residents did not support negotiating for benefits from the Energy Department, although residents were not directly asked if they supported such a plan.

Leaders in the rural counties where most of the 319-mile rail line would travel have openly negotiated for a financial windfall from the project, saying it could help repair schools and other public facilities in the struggling areas.

"Based on how people answered, negotiating for benefits was not a priority," Navis told the Commission on Nuclear Waste on Monday.

A separate study of fewer than 70 people in rural Nevada is under way to "begin the process of developing and providing a list of impacts and needed mitigation."

Contractors performing the study on behalf of the Central Nevada Community Protection Working Group have said some rural respondents are concerned about losing property that in many cases has been in large families for generations.

The Lincoln and Nye county commissions have also signed formal resolutions supporting the process and launching efforts to negotiate for money they hope will revive those areas' lagging economies.

Hal Bloch, president of the Summerlin North Homeowners Association, the largest such group in the county, said the board rarely addresses matters of a statewide or national significance, instead focusing on the "nuts and bolts" of running the master-planned community.

Bloch said, while the homeowners association has not taken an official stance on the project, it was too early to say whether it would have an adverse effect on property values in the affluent community.

"I'm sure there are people who feel that way, but I wouldn't say it's a groundswell among the homeowners," he said. "I have heard some people who might be more excitable than the average person saying there might be an adverse effect."

In the mid-1990s the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, which represents more than 750 contractors, developers and real estate brokers, approved a resolution against the massive repository, saying it posed a "grave safety concern for the community."

Monica Caruso, a spokeswoman for the group, said property values might not be directly tied to the nuclear waste dump but that speculation among would-be newcomers could cause demand on previously hot properties to drop.

"Will it remain a viable, growing community if we have nuclear garbage stored in our attic?" she said. "... I think it's certainly reasonable to postulate that demand would likely decline among homeowners who would not be interested in living near nuclear waste."

Caruso added that such concerns are mostly "academic" as the safety risks of living so close to nuclear waste outweigh the economic threats.

But while most Las Vegas business and government leaders remain steadfastly opposed to Yucca Mountain, anti-Yucca activism appears to have lost traction among average citizens, Caruso said.

"I don't know if there's the emotion and passion among the average person that you see among the business and civic leaders," she said. "For the average person just living their life, I'm not sure they're that concerned."

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 28, 2005

Letter: More practical alternative fuels must be priority

On July 22 Frank Perna responded to my letter, in part, as follows: "In his letter, Rychtarik said, 'Regardless of Nevada's stand on Yucca Mountain, the nuclear waste storage site will probably come to pass.' I believe such statements are defeatist and a resignation to the Bush administration's apparent policy of allowing political expediency to determine whether Yucca Mountain opens instead of the president's promise of sound science."

The problem here is that one must deal with reality, and the reality is politics and pragmatics, not defeatism. Perna also talks about safety issues only in the context of nuclear but says nothing about safety and other problems associated with 6 billion people on our planet burning fossil fuels. Nuclear waste is already here to stay. If you have 80,000 tons of waste, will 160,000 tons make that much of a difference?

The manner by which this waste is stored on-site in America today is far less safe than in some place like Yucca Mountain. Local nuclear waste storage was not designed for the long term. There is hopeful science, but no "sound science" when it comes to storing nuclear waste for thousands of years.

What is more important than the fight over Yucca is taking the politics out of the funding for alternative fuels research and allocating far more funds to many more scientists than the current administration proposes. Rather than fund NASA to put a man on Mars, how about we put one in a safe alternative-fuel vehicle here on Earth first?

Richard Rychtarik

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