Yucca Mountain News Clips - Sunday, September 18, 2005

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Sunday, September 18, 2005
---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
September 17, 2005

Columnist Jeff German: Quality time for DOE? Not likely

WEEKEND EDITION
Sept. 17-18, 2005
Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4067.

Quality HAS never been associated with the Energy Department's oversight of Yucca Mountain.

Safety standards for storing deadly nuclear waste there were tossed out by a federal court, research allegedly was rigged by government scientists and the project was recommended to Congress before all of the geological studies were completed.

So when a top Energy Department official told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week that, after more than two decades of mismanaging the project, it had decided to focus on the quality of its work at this 11th hour, the news was met with skepticism in Nevada.

Paul Golan, the acting chief of the multibillion-dollar Yucca Mountain project, 90 miles from Las Vegas, said the Energy Department no longer had a timetable to submit its long-overdue license application to the commission.

"It's going to be ready when its done," Golan said. "A quality organization does things right the first time."

Peggy Maze Johnson, the executive director of Citizen Alert, an anti-Yucca Mountain group, was almost speechless when told of Golan's remarks.

"It just takes your breath away," she said. "Do they think we're that stupid?

"You can't take something that is so flawed and turn it into a quality product. It's absolutely an impossible task."

Bob Loux, the state's top Yucca Mountain watchdog, likened Golan's words to putting a fresh coat of paint on a house that's crumbling and falling apart.

"They've got a scientifically bad site, and none of this polishing up changes any of that," he said. "It's a bad site and it will always be a bad site."

The fact is the Energy Department has been more concerned over the years about the politics of Yucca Mountain than the quality of the project.

No one believes the federal agency has even the slightest chance of suddenly turning into a "quality organization."

For the last 22 years, the Energy Department has been manipulating the project's scientific data to appease the influential nuclear power industry, which is running out of room to store radioactive waste at its plants across the country.

During this time, according to Loux, Yucca Mountain has had 13 different directors.

Loux sees Golan's words as yet another attempt to cater to the nuclear power industry, which has been left with the sinking feeling that the project is on the verge of collapsing.

"They're desperately trying to demonstrate that there's some credibility here when everyone knows there isn't and never has been," Loux said.

With setback after setback in recent years, the Energy Department has been forced to delay its scheduled opening of Yucca Mountain.

The project was supposed to begin accepting waste in 2010. Then the date was pushed back to 2012, and now some Energy Department officials have been saying the project won't be ready to open until 2017.

The department's massive application, which is expected to include more than three million documents, also was supposed to have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2002. But now we're told there is no timetable. The application may be submitted sometime next year.

A "quality organization" would stop the lies and give us the straight story about the incompetence taking place at Yucca Mountain.

It would shut down a project that is not meant to be and find another solution to storing nuclear waste -- far away from Nevada.

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

St. George Daily Spectrum
September 18, 2005

Utah is no place for nuke waste

That, in essence, is what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided last week when it voted to approve a license to Private Fuel Storage to store nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation. The plan is to store the waste in Utah until Yucca Mountain is ready to accept the radioactive material.

Just when that will be is still up in the air. Of course, for those of us living downwind from Yucca Mountain, the underground storage facility within the nation's Nuclear Test Site is not a better option.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is understandably upset by the decision and vowed this week to "stand in the middle of the railroad track" if that is what it takes to keep the nuclear waste out of Utah. It's a bold statement, but one that should be supported by all Utahns.

We also have on our side, interestingly enough, a wilderness issue via a bill supported five years ago by then-Rep. Jim Hansen that could block the building of the rail spur needed to make the plan viable. But that hurdle isn't certain to block the proposal.

Opponents are being led by Utah's congressional delegation, who argue that the storage facility would be dangerously close to areas in which fighter jets from Hill Air Force base fly on training missions. Those jets sometimes use live ordnance as part of their training. That scares many people who fear that a jet crash or errant missile could hit the casks and allow radioactive material to escape containment.

Proponents of the plan - including PFS, the private company seeking to create the facility - counter that the plan has been scrutinized over and over again for about eight years. They point out that tests on the casks show that they can withstand an incredible amount of punishment and should be safe for use, even above ground on the Goshutes Reservation.

If that is the case, then why not keep the nuclear waste where it is until either Yucca Mountain or another permanent facility is ready? Why move it from those locations at all?

The answer is a federal law that requires the federal government to provide a long-term storage facility. Congress approved it back in the 1980s. But because the federal government dragged its feet, there is nowhere to store the waste.

That makes Utah a target.

Contact Rep. Jim Matheson. Contact Sens. Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett. Contact Gov. Huntsman. Let them know that you stand behind them in their fight to keep nuclear waste out of Utah.

Our beautiful state shouldn't be the dumping ground for others.

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

Salt Lake Tribune
September 18, 2005

No glow of friendship between Hatch, Reid

Nuclear: The Utahn says opposing Yucca plan will harm the state's fight against waste

By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - They're nuclear neighbors with a radioactive rift.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada are both committed to keeping nuclear waste from being dumped in their state. But Hatch remains unwilling to join forces with his colleague, fearing it might actually hurt Utah's cause.

Reid argues the nuclear waste should be stored at the reactors that produce it until technology is available to recycle the material. That course would make proposed waste sites in Yucca Mountain, Nev., or on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah unnecessary.

But Hatch says it could be counterproductive to join that cause.

"Some have said I should join with Senator Reid in a West-wide movement against Yucca Mountain," Hatch said in a recent interview. But, aside from the Nevada delegation, he said Western members support burying the waste at Yucca Mountain.

"We've made a lot of headway with the White House, the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, in Congress," he said. "If we join Senator Reid at this time in an anti-Yucca Mountain stance, that would alienate some of those who are best positioned to help us."

Ideally, Hatch has said it would be best to leave the nuclear waste where it is, rather than shipping 44,000 tons of it to Utah, as Private Fuel Storage, a group of electric utilities, proposes. He offered an amendment to the Senate Energy Bill, which he later withdrew, that would have required storage at the reactor sites, and he also supports finding ways to recycle and reuse the waste.

But his refusal to buck the Bush administration and oppose Yucca Mountain is drawing criticism from some.

"I think it is extremely foolish and shortsighted for Senator Hatch to pursue the path he's been going down," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "The only way we're going to stop nuclear waste from coming to Utah or Nevada is for both states to work together toward one common goal and that is keeping the waste where it is and finding alternate disposal technology."

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson have embraced Reid's proposal, and last week Utah Republican Congressman Rob Bishop voiced his support for Reid's plan for the first time after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to approve a license for the Private Fuel Storage site.

"I've been critical of Senator Reid in the past for not necessarily helping us with this particular issue. But at the same time, you have to give him credit. When he talked about storage on site and recycling, that really is the long-term solution for everyone," Bishop said. "It probably is time to see if I can be helpful in moving his ideas forward. He may have been ahead of the time when he said it."

Utah Republican Rep. Chris Cannon also is warming to the idea, said his chief of staff, Joe Hunter. He does not support ditching Yucca Mountain, Hunter said, "but he's certainly there when it comes to finding better things to do with this stuff than shipping it out West. He is much closer to Senator Reid's position than most of the delegation was a year ago."

Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, says the approach he and Hatch are taking remains the best strategy for keeping the waste out of Utah, since the alternatives are politically unrealistic.

"As we seek resolution to the challenge of storage of the nation's nuclear waste, I remain in favor of storing it on site at the facilities where it is produced," Bennett said in a statement. "But because that option does not appear to be legally or politically viable, I believe the administration's policy to store the waste in a facility 2,000 feet below ground in the Nevada desert remains the best alternative. Should a politically viable alternative emerge, I will be willing to consider it."

Reid laid out his on-site storage plan earlier this year, but has not introduced legislation to implement the idea. Berkley introduced legislation in the House in February to require on-site storage and shift the money allocated to preparing the Yucca Mountain site into reprocessing technology, but its prospects for passage are slim.

Republican state Rep. Steve Urquhart of St. George decided to challenge Hatch for the party's nomination based mainly on the incumbent's nuclear-waste stance.

Urquhart says it is flawed logic for Hatch to continue to support Yucca Mountain, because it also means supporting the notion that the nuclear waste should be moved. If the waste is shipped, Urquhart says, it won't go to Yucca Mountain, which is years behind schedule and mired in a legal and regulatory morass. It will come to Skull Valley.

"The argument should be it shouldn't move. It should stay where it is until we come up with a permanent solution," said Urquhart. "[Hatch should] admit that [he's] wrong. Admit that [he] should've got behind keeping it on site and not change. I think he's willing to gamble with the state's fortune just for his own election."

There has been tension between Reid and the Utah Republicans since Hatch and Bennett voted in 2002 to back the Bush administration's plan to permanently store the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Since then, Reid has been accused by the Utahns of spitefully scuttling legislative attempts to try to block the Skull Valley project.

"Senator Reid is a good friend of mine," Hatch said, "but he has shown that he doesn't have Utah's best interests in mind."

The recent morning the NRC approved the Private Fuel Storage license, however, Reid was among the first to issue a statement, saying it would be just as dangerous to ship the waste to Utah as it would be to send it to Nevada. He again called for the waste to stay where it is.

Given his choices, Berkley says, Hatch is kidding himself if he thinks he can count on the White House to stop the Private Fuel Storage plan.

"He's inhaling the nuke waste fumes, I'm afraid," she said. "The only way he's going to protect the health and safety of his own constituents is stand with the Nevada delegation and the people of the state of Nevada. And Utah and Nevada will be much stronger working together." of the nation's nuclear waste, I remain in favor of storing it on site at the facilities where it is produced," Bennett said in a statement. "But because that option does not appear to be legally or politically viable, I believe the administration's policy to store the waste in a facility 2,000 feet below ground in the Nevada desert remains the best alternative. Should a politically viable alternative emerge, I will be willing to consider it."

Republican state Rep. Steve Urquhart of St. George decided to challenge Hatch for the party's nomination based mainly on the incumbent's nuclear-waste stance.

"Senator Reid is a good friend of mine," Hatch said, "but he has shown that he doesn't have Utah's best interests in mind."

Given his choices, Berkley says, Hatch is kidding himself if he thinks he can count on the White House to stop the Private Fuel Storage plan.

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

Standard-Examiner
September 18, 2005

Wasatch Rambler: Nuclear or Legacy? Depends on whose ox is being gored

By Charles Trentelman
Wasatch Rambler

I'm reading this funny story about nuclear waste the federal government wants to bring to Utah and the furious fighting by local officials to stop it. Gov. Jon Huntsman even pledged to stand on the train tracks, if he must.

It's funny because I'm thinking, "Are these guys members of the Sierra Club or just weirdo malcontents?"

One has to wonder.

The Sierra Club and other weirdo malcontents, you recall, are fighting the Legacy Highway through Davis County.

They've been criticized, vilified and generally accused of being obstructionists for having the temerity to find mistakes the state made, irresponsibly file legal actions and then take the case to activist judges who had the unmitigated gall to rule in their favor.

Where did these troublemakers get such ideas?

Why, from our leaders. Gov. Huntsman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, former Rep. Jim Hansen and Rep. Rob Bishop are showing real talent at using the same tactics in this nuclear waste thing.

Take Huntsman and those railroad tracks.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson has been pilloried for publicly protesting Legacy and the war in Iraq. Critics say opinions are one thing, but to raise a fuss? To act out in public? How unseemly!

Isn't a governor who ignores the courts and blocks trains rather unseemly?

Look at Hatch who, a few weeks ago, was asked if people in Utah who disagree with him ever change his mind. He said "Nope!" He decides, and the rest of us are free to disagree.

Now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has made its decision and invites Sen. Hatch to disagree. Hatch wants the NRC to change its mind. How dare it say, "Nope!"

I love this: Hansen started a bill, now carried by his successor, Bishop, to stop nuclear waste from coming to Utah by having parts of Utah's West Desert declared a wilderness.

Amazing. These guys' campaign chests are fattened by developer, construction and industrial donations from all over the nation. They curse those darn enviromeddlers over Legacy.

Then they become enviromeddlers themselves when someone wants to dump radioactive waste in their backyard.

What about Davis County? It says outsiders like Rocky have no business stopping Legacy, but are outsiders not trampling the right of the Goshutes, an independent nation, to have waste if they want it?

Please let me be clear: I don't want that stuff here.

If salt caverns at Yucca Mountain are unsafe, tin cans in the desert are insane, and don't give me that "temporary facility" bumpf.

There's nothing temporary about the government's attitude toward Utahns. In the 1950s, the Atomic Energy Commission called us a "low-use segment of the population," exploded A-bombs downwind, let us get sick and die, then lied to us about it. Fifty years later, they're still dumping A-waste on us.

This is our state, these are our lives. Our representatives should fight for us. That's why we hire them.

But it is funny.

With one hand, they use every tactic at their disposal to fight for us. With the other, they vilify us if we use those same tactics to fight them.

I think it's hilarious, and if politicians were capable of irony, they'd laugh, too.

Wasatch Rambler is the opinion of Charles Trentelman. You can reach him at 625-4232 or via e-mail at ctrentelman@standard.net.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 17, 2005

Study shows safety of casks for nuclear waste, NRC says

Agency aims to ease concerns about shipments to Yucca Mountain

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a draft study Thursday it claims demonstrates the durability of casks likely to be used to carry nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.

In 2002, NRC analysts concluded a dual purpose welded cask designed for railroad transport of radioactive spent fuel would survive an intense fire similar to one in the Howard Street tunnel in downtown Baltimore in 2001.

Expanding on that study, the NRC subjected two additional cask types to Baltimore-fire conditions calculated through computer modeling. One was a truck cask, while the other was a rail container. Each type is sealed with bolts instead of welds.

"In all three types of casks, there would not be any release of spent fuel," Earl Easton, senior NRC transportation adviser, said in a briefing on the expanded report.

The study concluded that, for two of the models, it might be possible for a small amount of contaminated metallic residue to flake from spent fuel assemblies, but not enough to be of concern.

Critics of the Yucca Mountain program have focused on the Baltimore fire, charging that it demonstrates the risk facing the government as it plans large-scale shipping of highly radioactive materials to a Nevada repository.

A freight train carrying hazardous liquids, paper products and pulp board derailed in the tunnel. A tank car containing 28,600 gallons of liquid tripropylene ignited, causing a severe fire and forcing a downtown evacuation.

The state of Nevada has commissioned studies that conclude that radioactive particles would have been released into the surrounding neighborhoods if the trapped cars had been carrying canisters of nuclear waste.

Easton said Thursday the NRC believes those studies used outdated assumptions.

Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant for Nevada, said state-hired experts will review and critique the latest NRC study.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 17, 2005

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: New chief vows quality

DOE officials leave schedule unsettled

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Energy Department officials Thursday declined to set new schedule goals for Yucca Mountain, with a new project leader saying the focus will be on quality and safety on the nuclear waste project.

"The schedule is very important, but doing it right is even more important," said Paul Golan, acting director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Golan was assigned to the repository program in April by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Golan, a former Navy officer, said he planned to instill an "accountability culture" that has been the hallmark of the Navy's nuclear propulsion program.

"The 'trust and verify' process is something we are going to put into the culture here," Golan said at a meeting between Yucca Mountain managers and staff members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"A quality organization does things right the first time and holds people accountable for doing things right the first time," he said.

Yucca Mountain missed its original 1998 scheduled opening, and a revised target of 2010 was abandoned earlier this year.

The project won the endorsement of President Bush and Congress in 2002 but has been buffeted by missteps, legal and technical obstacles, and budget shortfalls. This year, five managers have quit, retired, been reassigned or had their appointments expire.

Deputy Director John Arthur declined to say when DOE might be ready to take the next big step at Yucca Mountain, which would be to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"We're not really setting a revised date for submittal" he said.

Bodman told the Senate in January that the department would have a license application ready to file by the end of the year.

But since then, the disclosure in March of e-mails written by federal hydrologists has raised questions about the validity of water infiltration studies and is forcing the department into a major research reconstruction.

Also this spring, teams of engineers warned that the department needed to redesign fuel-handling warehouses at the Yucca site to account for radioactive spent fuel that might arrive in damaged assemblies.

The developments will occupy the department in the months ahead, Arthur said, with revising calculations to determine whether Yucca Mountain could meet new radiation safety standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

"An amount of critical work is still under way," Arthur said.

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

Las Vegas SUN
September 16, 2005

Editorial: Questions on oversight

Las Vegas Sun

The U.S. Energy Department wants to cut by 89 percent what it pays to another government agency to conduct independent scientific research on the department's Yucca Mountain project. The cuts, affecting the U.S. Geological Survey, would effectively end that agency's oversight of the project. If granted a license to operate, Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would store 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. The department's action is raising questions from Nevada's congressional delegation, especially since both agencies are at the center of a controversy as to whether some USGS scientists may have falsified data regarding how water moves through the mountain. The allegations that scientific work had been altered have been the focus of a congressional probe by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., since April.

USGS officials have told aides to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that no clear reason for the cuts was offered by the Energy Department. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the cuts give the Energy Department a means to get rid of employees "who may know exactly what corners were cut and what findings were doctored." She also added that cutting the USGS funding is the latest sign that the Bush administration isn't interested "in answering lingering questions about the shoddy science and lack of quality assurance that has been well documented." And Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., in a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, asks whether the research conducted by the USGS will now be done by the Energy Department or an outside agency.

The only thing clear about the Yucca Mountain project is that it should have been shut down years ago. In this latest mess, the Energy Department -- and Bodman specifically -- needs to give straight answers about why the USGS oversight of the Yucca Mountain Project may be ending.

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

Deseret News
September 17, 2005

Utahns irked by N.Y. Times editorial

Backing of Goshute dump spurs state leaders' anger

By Jerry Spangler
Deseret Morning News

Read the New York Times editorial "The Nuclear Waste Site in Utah."

WASHINGTON — A New York Times editorial endorsing the storage of spent nuclear fuel on Skull Valley's Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah has prompted the expected outrage and contempt among Utah political leaders.

But what is more worrisome, some say, is the Friday opinion piece suggests Utah would be the appropriate place to store nuclear waste even if a permanent site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., does not proceed as planned.

"This seems like just another example of Easterners thinking they know what's best for us in the West and trying to tell us what to do with our lands," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

"It was clearly written by someone who has probably never been to our west desert and obviously doesn't understand the military implications of this proposal," he added. "To put a nuclear waste facility in the direct flight path of jets entering the most valuable test and training range our military has just doesn't make sense. The Times should have been able to recognize that."

In its editorial, the Times concluded, "We remain hopeful that Yucca can qualify as a permanent disposal site. But if Yucca fails to pass muster with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation will need a centralized surface site to fill the gap until a safe burial location can be found. The Indian reservation in Utah can fill that purpose."

Their rationale? Because it "becomes awkward and costly to guard and maintain the storage casks after the reactors themselves have been retired from service," the editorial says. And, the piece added, "it seems desirable to have a backup site" should Yucca Mountain not be approved.

The editorial makes a passing reference the "small, poor Indian tribe" but makes no mention that Native Americans elsewhere are almost unanimously opposed to the proposal, with some groups even going so far as to call it environmental racism.

"The editorial speaks for itself, and we are not going to discuss it," said Toby Usnik, spokesperson for the New York Times.

Does the editorial endorse environmental racism and Eastern elitism? "I can't comment on that," Usnik said.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, said he appreciated "the folks occupying the ivory tower of the New York Times for their input on what's best for us. I love it when intellectuals in New York decide that the best nuclear waste policy is to get it out of their back yards and ship it to Utah, which they probably still consider to be the frontier."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it was apparent to him the Times never really took the time to look into the matter, dismissing in the editorial local concerns over the safety of the site as "overblown."

"I wonder if the New York Times would be interested to know that the NRC's Atomic Licensing Board initially rejected the site as unsafe," he said. Private Fuel Storage, the consortium of nuclear utilities promoting the Skull Valley site, "was only able to turn that decision around after two of the three judges on the board had been replaced. I would hope that before the Times writes another piece on Skull Valley that they at least read (the) judge's withering dissent."

Cannon chastised the Times over its erroneous contention that PFS's proposal to store 44,000 tones of spent nuclear fuel in above-ground canisters on Skull Valley tribal lands in Tooele County, is a "private corporate" decision.

"This is about public policy and doing what is right and safe for Utahns and everyone in the United States," he said. "It makes absolutely no sense to transport this material across the country at great risk only to ship it to another site if Yucca Mountain was to fail for whatever reason."

Those feelings have been echoed by activists across the nation since the NRC ruled last week that PFS should be granted a license to store the waste. Closer to Utah, Jason Groenewold with Healthy Environmental Alliance of Utah (HEAL) said he was surprised the Times was willing to take a position without fully understanding the issues at stake.

"Clearly they do not understand that there is a very real risk that a jet could crash into the site, that the possibilities of terrorist attacks were not even really considered during the deliberations by the NRC, and that the financial assurances were never disclosed to the public," he said.

The problem he sees is that a lot of people read the editorial position of the Times, and for many it could be their first introduction to the issue without knowing the full details.

"They may think, 'Oh, yeah, what's the big deal?' because the Times failed to mention what the fundamental problems are, which relate to the risk of transportation, the possibility of sabotage or terrorist attack, and that a major accident could take place where no emergency response plan would be created to deal with it."

For some, the editorial was as predictable as a Jason Blair feature story.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. called the editorial "stultifyingly stupid," but added that it is "not uncharacteristic for the New York Times' view of the world to end at the Hudson River."

Added Mary Jane Collipriest, spokeswoman for Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, "Sen. Bennett doesn't put much stock in the opinions of the New York Times. Today's editorial demonstrates why that's a good practice."

E-mail: spang@desnews.com

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

Montrose Daily Press
September 16, 2005

Uranium rush hits West End

James Shea
Daily Press Writer

Last month, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act, revamping the nation's energy policy for the first time in more than a decade. Given the nation's dependence on foreign oil, many politicians and experts are looking for alternate energy sources.

"Nuclear power is another of America's most important sources of electricity," Bush said when he signed the bill. "Of all our nation's energy sources, only nuclear power plants can generate massive amounts of electricity without emitting an ounce of air pollution or greenhouse gases. And thanks to the advances in science and technology, nuclear plants are far safer than ever before. Yet America has not ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s."

In the middle of the 20th century, Montrose County and the Uncompahgre Plateau were major sources of uranium, the fuel used to generate nuclear power. Overnight, towns such as Uravan and Nucla, capitalizing on the nuclear theme, sprang into existence.

The era was part of long line of boom and bust cycles in Colorado mining. By the 1980s, the uranium boom had become a bust. The price of uranium sank, and with it the hopes and dreams of hundreds of miners disappeared.

Over the last year, due to the increased price of uranium, a new chapter has begun on the plateau. Once-idle mines are now busy with activity, returning hope to the industry.

Drive for nuclear energy

In the United States, 20 percent of the electricity is created from nuclear power while in France, nearly 80 percent of electricity is generated from nuclear power.

"Nuclear energy is an extremely important source of electricity," said Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association.

Sanderson said the United States must diversify its power generation, and like the president, he advocates nuclear energy as an energy source.

Until recently, nuclear power was not considered a reliable source of energy, partly because of perceived safety concerns. In 1979, an accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant nearly released radiation, but a catastrophe was averted. Residents of the Ukraine were not so lucky. In 1986, a faulty design at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and untrained personnel caused the release of radiation, resulting in the death of more than 40 people.

The perception about nuclear power has changed. Many countries in Asia and around the world have begun massive nuclear plant construction projects. China has nine nuclear reactors and plans to construct 18 additional plants. India has 14 nuclear power plants and wants to build 24 more.

"We have a slow rate of growth for nuclear power in our forecast," said Ron Hagen, an energy specialist in nuclear energy with the U. S. Department of Energy.

This drive toward nuclear power in the United States and around the world has caused uranium prices to increase dramatically. In 2001, the metal was trading at $9 per pound and now hovers near $30.

Hagen said nuclear power plants until recently have depended on a large stockpile of uranium, including converting nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union and pillaging tailings from old uranium mines.

"It's an industry that depends on 50 percent inventory," Hagen said.

Sanderson said the worldwide demand for uranium is about 170 million pounds annually but only 100 to 103 million pounds are produced, heavily depleting the stockpiles.

"I don't think there is a question that there is a shortage," he said.

Looking at old sources

Hagen said Canada and Australia have been the major suppliers of uranium for years, because the mined ore is more pure than that on the Western Slope of Colorado, making it less expensive to produce.

Recently, because of the increased price of uranium, the Cotter Corporation has opened several mines on the Uncompahgre Plateau, and thousands of mining claims have been filed over the last year in the region.

Michael Tucker, the lease management program manager at the Department of Energy, said one mine opened in 2003, two mines opened in 2004, and the company began mining one more this year with plans to open two more by the end of the year.

"The price has been depressed for ten years and the industry has been living on stockpiles," Tucker said.

He said the federal government is considering opening up several old uranium mines next summer.

"There is significant demand for uranium properties," said Ed Cotter, project manager of the uranium-leasing program with the Steller Corporation. (Cotter is not affiliated with the Cotter Corporation.)

Historically, uranium mining on federal lands was done through the Uranium Leasing Program. After World War II, the government withdrew federal lands from public holdings, ensuring the country an adequate supply of uranium.

Until 1968, the government regulated the price of uranium. After that year, the metal was sold on the open market. The push for nuclear power and the nuclear weapons program in the United States pushed the price as high as $40 a pound.

In 1974, companies were given 20-year leases for the Uranium Leasing Program. During that period, 1.7 million tons of ore were mined, yielding 6.5 million pounds of uranium. But when the leases came up, most companies opted not to renew, given the lack of economic incentives.

With the increased demand for uranium, the government restarted the leasing program in 2004. Today, the DOE administers 13 active leases in San Miguel and Montrose counties and has considered adding 25 inactive lease tracts.

Cotter said the DOE is doing an environmental assessment on the proposed lease sights.

"We are going to look at the environmental impact of expanding the program," said Tucker.

In August, the agency conducted public meetings in Naturita and other towns on the Western Slope as part of the environmental assessment.

"We would like input from the public on the issues that citizens think the Department of Energy should consider in preparing the environmental assessment for the Uranium Leasing Program," Tucker said.

He said the agency could let the current lease run out, maintain the current lease in the future or increase the number of leases. If the leases are made available, the agency will conduct a bidding process where the highest bidder is awarded the lease.

Tucker said the environmental assessment would be finalized in February. This would make the lease tracks available by next spring.

Sanderson said expanded uranium mining is good for the mining industry in Colorado and was pleased to see the renewed activity.

"We are engaged in uranium production for the first time in years," he said.

Hagen, however, is not convinced that the Western Slope will return to its dominant position in the industry. He said there would be some growth in the area, but the cost of production is too high. The ore from mines on the Western Slope are less than 1 percent uranium. This is compared with high-production mines that can be as high as 20 percent.

"(Is the Western Slope) going to be major player - probably not," he said.

Nuclear safety issue

Many media outlets have proclaimed nuclear power as the winner of the Energy Policy Act, because it offers tax incentives to build new power plants. However, some energy analysts are not convinced that nuclear energy is market competitive.

"There are plenty of problems with nuclear power," Hagen said.

He said nuclear power plants have huge capital costs. This can make private financing of new power facilities difficult, according to a report by the Rocky Mountain Institute, a non-partisan group that studies energy policy.

Hagen said federal government studies estimates the cost of nuclear power at $1,900 a kilowatt hour (kwh) but the industry has the cost at $1,200 kwh. He said industry studies often exclude the capital costs in the calculations.

Hagen said because a nuclear power plant has not been built in the United States in 20 years, the construction costs have not been determined.

"Nobody knows what it will cost," he said.

The Rocky Mountain Institute report said wind and other renewable energy could more quickly address the nation's energy problems. It stated that Spain and Germany added 10 times as much energy output in 2004 with wind power as the entire world with nuclear power.

"We think a sound energy policy should let all energy technologies compete," said Nathan Glasgow, special aid to the CEO at the Rocky Mountain Institute.

The other problem with nuclear power is waste. Large volumes of radioactive waste are created during the enrichment of uranium. Also, after uranium fuel cells have been drained of energy they remain highly radioactive.

"The problem of waste is the one that has not been solved," Glasgow said.

The government has proposed storing the fuel cells at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the facility is mired in lawsuits and controversy. A temporary site has been suggested in Utah on an Indian Reservation but the earliest the site can be ready is 2007.

For now, spent fuel from nuclear power plants is being stored at the nation's 100 nuclear power plants.

Hagen added that safety with nuclear power is always a concern. He sited the problems at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio as an example. Because of faulty construction, pipes within the plant where found to be corrosive. The problem was eventually discovered but not before it created a stir with the public and within the industry.

"It is a sign that you have to be careful," Hagen said.

Sanderson said nuclear power is a viable and safe form of power in the United States and around the world. He said nuclear power creates zero emissions and plants are becoming increasingly efficient.

"They (nuclear power plants) are, contrary to popular belief, extremely safe," he said.

Contact James Shea via e-mail at jamess@montrosepress.com

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

Rutland Herald
September 17, 2005

PSB chairman withdraws self from Entergy hearings

By Susan Smallheer
Herald Staff

MONTPELIER — The chairman of the Public Service Board has removed himself from the start of next week's hearings on Entergy Nuclear's plans to store high-level radioactive waste in a new facility on the grounds of Vermont Yankee.

In a letter made public Friday, Chairman James Volz said he would not participate in the upcoming hearings on Entergy's radioactive waste facility, saying that there was the appearance of a conflict of interest with his prior job.

Volz replaced Michael Dworkin as chairman of the regulatory board this winter. A lawyer, he had been the head of public advocacy with the Department of Public Service, which had lobbied in favor of the new radioactive waste facility before the 2005 Legislature.

"I have decided not to sit on this case," Volz wrote in a memorandum dated Thursday. Volz said that public perception, and the fact that it had been a relatively short period of time between the hearings and his former job, led him to step aside.

The first public hearing on the project is slated for Tuesday evening in Brattleboro, with a site visit for the board at Vermont Yankee earlier in the day. Technical hearings on the facility are expected in October.

"I reach this decision not because the law requires it nor because I find any basis on which to question my impartiality," he added.

"I am concerned that my involvement may create a public perception that will significantly distract from a meaningful debate on the merits of the proposal before the board, due to a combination of two factors: first, this is an issue on which many Vermonters have strong opinions; and second, there was a very close proximity in time between my employment at the department and the commencement of this proceeding," he wrote to the parties involved in the case.

Volz had some criticisms for the New England Coalition, saying that the group "had not demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis for questioning my impartiality."

Volz' decision to remove himself from the controversial plan came after he raised the issue himself in July, while saying he didn't think he had a conflict but invited other groups' comments.

Entergy Nuclear is running out of storage space in its deep-water spent fuel pool: close to 33 years of nuclear fuel are in the pool. The company wants to transfer the oldest and coolest fuel to giant concrete and steel canisters a short distance from the reactor until the federal high-level radioactive waste facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., is built.

Without the extra storage space, Vermont Yankee would have to shut down in either 2007 or 2008.

The antinuclear group, New England Coalition of Brattleboro urged Volz to step away from the case, saying that his former job and the Douglas administration's support of the waste plan raised questions whether Volz had an unbiased and independent view of the project.

"We said that Chairman Volz should not even entertain the appearance of a conflict of interest," said Raymond G. Shadis, senior technical advisor for the New England Coalition. "He has obviously agreed that is the case."

"We're not challenging Mr. Volz' credibility or his integrity; there may be some question of his memory. More important than that, the Department of Public Service has perennially gone to bat for Vermont Yankee and Entergy," Shadis added.

But Shadis said that Volz' other comments about the coalition's filing urging Volz to step aside were improper for the chairman of a quasijudicial board.

"That is just plain improper for him to turn around and snipe at NEC," Shadis said in a telephone interview from his home in Maine.

Susan Hudson, clerk of the Public Service Board, said that the two other members of the board would hear the case and be present to hear the public's concerns next Tuesday.

"Entergy staff and engineers are working to provide all the clarifying information that the NRC needs to complete their safety evaluation in a timely manner," said Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee.

The two remaining board members are veterans of various Entergy and Vermont Yankee cases that have come before the board in recent years: David Coen of Vergennes and John Burke of Castleton. She said that each member of the board had equal standing.

The PSB hearing starts Tuesday at 7 p.m. at Brattleboro Union High School.

Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.

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