Yucca Mountain News Clips
Saturday, October 15, 2005
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
October 15, 2005
D.C. paparazzi hungry at the Harry and Harriet show
By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com> and Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun
It was classic Washington-style pack journalism in pursuit of Harry and Harriet.
An anxious phalanx of dozens of photographers, reporters and videographers waited in a second-floor hallway in the Capitol on Oct. 3 for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers to emerge from their private meeting in Reid's office.
Twenty minutes slipped past their scheduled appearance, and the pack shifted restlessly.
Then the official heads-up from Reid spokesman Jim Manley silenced the group and all cameras pointed at a door to Reid's office.
A few seconds later there was movement. Several over-eager cameras clicked, raising chuckles all around.
A Capitol police officer had sauntered by.
"If it moves, shoot it," one photographer said, laughing.
The pack still had the story of the day, though, after Reid and Miers strode to the microphones.
A giant photo of Reid and Miers appeared on the front page of the next day's Washington Post.
MORE MIERS
Much discussion about Miers has been on how little is known about her and her beliefs. That will soon change as her nomination is taken up by the Senate -- and senators want to know as much as possible.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's 12-page questionnaire asks about her employment history, organization membership (including whether any discriminate or formerly discriminated on the basis of race, sex or religion), income and her views on the issue of "judicial activism."
Also requested: whether she has ever been fired or arrested or had tax problems or alcohol problems, and the date of her last health exam.
SUBTLETY, ANYONE?
There is no middle ground in the debate over the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Last week the Environmental Protection Agency wrapped up its public hearings on its proposed radiation standard for Yucca with a final session in Washington.
Yucca critics, such as the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and supporters, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute, made their official statements.
Among the adjectives used to describe the standard:
Immoral, unethical, dangerous.
Commendable, responsible, implementable.
You can guess who said what.
EXHIBITING SUPPORT
Polls continue to show a large majority of Nevadans oppose Yucca Mountain.
But the 900 journalists coming to town for the Society of Professional Journalists' convention starting Sunday may not get that message. Among the exhibitors: The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying arm and a leading supporter of the project.
WE MEAN CLOSED
In the real world, Monday's federal holiday -- Columbus Day -- meant closed banks and post offices.
But in Washington, a company town where the workforce is dominated by federal employees and the people who cater to them, much of the city closes for federal holidays.
Many restaurants and businesses shutter. Traffic is light and those who do trudge to work can easily get a seat on the Metro train even at rush hour. But they can't get a deli sandwich.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
October 15, 2005
Editorial: Blowing the whistle on the enemy
Administration seeks to unravel protection for government workers who reveal corruption
Las Vegas Sun
If the Bush administration gets its way, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling that makes it more difficult for government whistleblowers to file lawsuits claiming retaliation on the job.
"We live in a world where people are leaking things all the time," Justice Stephen Breyer said Wednesday during the high court's review of a lower court's ruling, adding that government employees should not receive blanket protection for speaking up.
Breyer's comments were among those made as justices reviewed a ruling that favored a Los Angeles County prosecutor who said he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to reveal that a sheriff's deputy lied in a search warrant affidavit. The Bush administration's lawyer maintained the prosecutor could have filed a civil service complaint, adding that government employees don't have free-speech rights when speaking within the scopes of their jobs.
It's not surprising that the Bush administration, which has worked exhaustively to cover its tracks and keep government discussions and decisions out of public view, would want to stem the flow of information that could unveil corrupt or questionable behavior. Leaks have happened anyway, resulting in laying open to scrutiny such issues as the sketchy reasons we are at war in Iraq, the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the internal cronyism that threatens to dismantle crucial federal departments and the role of insiders who illegally leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative.
Stephen M. Kohn of the National Whistleblower Center told the Associated Press that a ruling favoring the Bush administration's position would give whistleblowers who expose government corruption "less constitutional protection than Ku Klux Klan members who burn crosses on their front lawns."
Citizens have not only the right but also a responsibility to speak up when they witness waste, fraud and corruption on the part of government. Free speech is among our nation's founding principles. To not fully protect those with the courage to speak up -- no matter where they work -- would be disgraceful.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 14, 2005
DOE accused of seeking 'favors' in Yucca project
Lawyer for state says access to documents at issue
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- A new dispute flared Thursday over the handling of information for the Yucca Mountain repository plan.
Martin Malsch, an attorney for the state of Nevada, charged that the Department of Energy was seeking "special favors" to control access to several categories of nuclear waste documents.
Though not officially classified as secret, the documents are categorized to contain sensitive information about nuclear safeguards, military nuclear fuel and other data deemed for "official use only."
According to DOE estimates at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing on Thursday, the documents might total about 5,150 out of roughly 3 million the government plans to make available in advance of NRC repository licensing hearings. Most are U.S. Navy documents.
An NRC judicial panel normally would referee disputes over access to Yucca Mountain information, but Energy Department lawyers argued the agency has limited authority over the unclassified but sensitive documents.
"DOE's position is outrageous and unsupported," Malsch said. "DOE has been assuring the state that once it gets before the NRC, they would be treated like any other (license) applicant and now it is asking for special favors."
DOE attorney Jeffery Edwards said any concern was unwarranted.
"The case we are dealing with is not withholding information, all we are talking about is how to disseminate it," he said, adding DOE could control how the documents are viewed to prevent leaks.
Malsch said he was concerned about access to information about nuclear waste from Navy submarine reactors that is planned for burial at Yucca Mountain.
An attorney for the Navy said there was a U.S. citizenship requirement to review the information.
Malsch said that could shut out several of the state's consultants.
Michael Thorne, a state-hired expert on repository performance and safety, is British. The state also has hired five other British scientists to work on hydrology and repository computer modeling, according to Susan Lynch, technical administrator for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.
Malsch said Nevada might hire more consultants from overseas during the Yucca licensing process. Most U.S. experts have conflicts of interest by having worked for the government or the nuclear industry that favors the repository, he said.
Though there is a citizenship requirement, Navy attorney Frank Putzu said waivers also might be granted.
"This problem as a practical matter may go away," said NRC administrative Judge Thomas Moore.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
October 14, 2005
News from Around Nevada
New political party formed in Silver State
PVT
A new political party with the goal of energy self-reliance through expanded oil drilling and nuclear power plant construction has filed with the secretary of state's office. The American Energy Party, based in Carson City, filed papers on Sept. 30.
The chairman is Mike Oliver, a 77-year-old with expertise in energy matters. Proposed parties must collect 7,914 signatures by Aug. 11, 2006, to qualify as a party with a slate of candidates for the Nevada ballot.
"Either we're going to become energy independent or they (oil producing countries) are going to harass us to death," Oliver said. Collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot shouldn't be difficult, he said. "People are paying so much for gas, we should get a lot of signatures," Oliver said. Even if the party doesn't get enough signatures to qualify for the 2006 ballot, the party will serve as a source of information on how and why the country needs to end its dependence on foreign oil, he said.
Oliver, who wrote an article called "Drill or Die," said the country needs 500 new nuclear power plants to win energy independence from foreign countries. Oil revenues generated in other countries in some cases are being used to fund terrorism, he said.
U.S. National Park Service wins custody battle over long ago sunken bomber
After two years of litigation, the National Park Service has officially won its custody fight for a B-29 bomber that crashed and sank to the bottom of Lake Mead's Overton Arm in 1948.
Now the man who discovered the wreckage is calling on Park Service officials to do more to protect the aircraft before it is carted off or destroyed by unscrupulous divers. Already, parts have been plundered and damage done to the B-29, said Gregg Mikolasek, the one-time Henderson dive instructor who led the team that found the wreckage in 2001. "It's very discouraging," said Mikolasek, who returned to the aircraft during a dive permitted by the Park Service in May. "This wreck was pristine when we left it in 2002."
The Park Service has launched an investigation into the damage and who might have caused it, said Roxanne Dey, spokeswoman for Lake Mead National Recreation Area. "We will aggressively prosecute the people are responsible. It's a priority for us," she said.
ACLU files lawsuit in Taser death
ACLU attorneys filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit Oct. 6 on behalf of a Las Vegas man whose son died last year after police used a stun gun to subdue him. The lawsuit was filed against the Metropolitan Police Department and TASER International, the Arizona company that manufactured the stun gun, on behalf of Sanford Tucker.
The lawsuit claims police shot Tucker's son, Keith, four times with a stun gun after he "had been beaten into submission and then handcuffed." After a coroner's inquest into the death, six of seven jurors found the officers' actions "excusable." Keith Tucker's death is one of three related to the use of Tasers in Southern Nevada and the first to result in a lawsuit.
According to a statement issued Oct. 6 by representatives of the police department, Tasers continue "to be a viable option when it comes to use of force issues that our officers face. Metro has, and will continue to evaluate our Use of Force Policy as it relates to the technology and utilization of TASER as a use of force option." Steve Tuttle, TASER communications vice president, issued a statement calling Tasers "a more humane and safer alternative" than firearms, batons or chemical sprays. He said it was up to individual police agencies to train officers to use the device properly. "Or do citizens want to go back to the caveman days of using batons as clubs?" Tuttle said in the statement.
Few opponents show up for third Yucca Mountain hearing
For the second time in three public hearings, the Environmental Protection Agency's staff of eight outnumbered the speakers on Oct. 5 who testified on the agency's proposed radiation protection standard for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
Bill Vasconi, a longtime proponent of the project to dispose of 77,000 metric tons of spent fuel and highly radioactive waste in the mountain, 50 miles northwest of Las Vegas, capped off the seven who spoke before the EPA panel.
He said a lot more people are killed in vehicle accidents and by lightning than will die from "those things nuclear," including radiation allowed under the EPA's suggested two-tiered standard. Vasconi said afterward, "We can live with those."
His viewpoint was more in line with the two people who testified at the Oct. 3 hearing in Amargosa Valley than the contingent of 14 speakers mostly from the state, tribes and the environmental community who criticized the EPA's proposal Tuesday night at the Cashman Center.
New petition would mandate physical education in schools
A petition to amend the state constitution to mandate daily physical education in the public schools in grades kindergarten through 12 has been filed with the secretary of state's office.
The petition was filed Sept. 29 by R.R. Apache, president of the Nevada Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. "The state of physical education in Nevada is poor," he said. "There is no state mandate except at the high school level. And everything under the umbrella can be substituted to get out of the requirement." Apache, who is also a professor at UNLV, said the main thrust of the proposal is to help fight childhood obesity. "But we also believe physical education enhances academic performance, which is supported by research," he said.
The petition would require elementary students to spend 150 minutes a week in physical exercise while middle and high school students would be required to participate 250 minutes a week. To qualify for the 2006 ballot, supporters will have to gather 83,184 signatures of registered voters by June 20. The measure would have to be approved by voters twice, in 2006 and 2008, before it could take effect. Keith Rheault, state superintendent of public instruction, aid the state has physical education standards but no mandated minutes of instruction except at the high school level. There, two credits, or two full years of instruction, are required for graduation, he said.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
October 14, 2005
Inyo receives highway study grant
Postle will use Funding to Track Vehicle Traffic
By Robin Flinchum
Special to The PVT
California Highway 127 is a relatively quiet stretch of road. Winding through the California desert on its way to Death Valley and the Nevada state line, it passes near the tiny hamlet of Tecopa, directly through the small village of Shoshone, and past the Amargosa Opera House and Hotel at Death Valley Junction, where famous dancer Marta Becket supports an ever-growing number of stray cats, wild horses, peacocks and wandering ostriches.
The total number of inhabitants in all of these areas, even including the ostriches, is less than 500, but that doesn't mean they aren't impacted by the ever-growing number of trucks transporting hazardous materials through their neighborhoods, said Southern Inyo Fire Protection Chief Paul Postle. And that's why he applied for a California State Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness grant to study traffic patterns on the lonely stretch of highway that brings some of the most dangerous materials in existence through his jurisdiction.
Now, with a license from the state to spend $36,000, including $6,000 in matching funds supplied by the Southern Inyo Fire Protection District, Postle is now searching for a qualified consultant to design a thorough study of the traffic patterns on Highway 127. Dating from this September when the grant was awarded, the Southern Inyo District has one year to survey the numbers and kinds of vehicles traveling back and forth on the road.
"There will be several dates when someone will actually sit out by the highway and count," Postle said. "We need to know what's coming down that road so we can prepare appropriately for what might happen."
Along with tourists traveling to local attractions such as Death Valley National Park, the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, and the Amargosa Canyon hiking trails in Tecopa, Highway 127 is a popular route for trucks carrying nuclear waste - and they eventually make their way through Pahrump.
But the study is not focusing solely on radioactive waste transport, Postle said. "We also have jet fuel, propane, liquid oxygen and some highly explosive materials on that route."
The study will count all traffic coming through, Postle said, in order to better understand the ratio of passenger vehicles or other non-hazardous trucks to those carrying potentially problematic materials.
This is the first time the Southern Inyo District will implement a study of this nature independently, but Postle said he felt compelled to apply for the grant when Inyo County officials dropped a plan to apply for a similar grant.
"The Inyo County study would have included Highway 395 (in the northern part of Inyo County) and Highway 127," Postle said, "but then funding was awarded to CalTrans to do a study of Highway 395 and the Inyo County plan was dropped. So I applied for the purpose of picking up Highway 127."
Postle said he will build on data gathered in earlier studies and will share the results of this study with Inyo County officials in an effort to encourage cooperation in disaster preparedness with the county. He also said he hoped the results would be beneficial to affected neighboring communities in Nye and San Bernardino counties.
The second phase of the Hazardous Materials grant, Postle said, will be to implement the data gathered in the study. "The state's interest is in determining whether hazardous materials are having an impact in communities. I felt I had justification for this study because I have seen a variety of materials coming through and this information would be beneficial not only to local responders but to the county as a whole," he said.
Since the potential use of Highway 127 as a designated nuclear waste transport route is still a controversial political issue, Postle said the Southern Inyo study could contribute useful information to that debate. On a local level, his crews can use the data to plan tabletop exercises to help them identify the gaps in their own hazardous material response planning.
Meanwhile, every day dozens of trucks barrel along the small highway without a call box in sight and only spotty cell phone reception. Some are carrying much needed food and potable water, some are carrying shiny trinkets on their way to Wal-Mart, and some are carrying Chief Postle's worst disaster nightmares. At the end of the year, when this study is done, he'll have a better idea which is which, not to mention how often and how many.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
October 12, 2005
Bechtel, DOE dinged in audit
By Steve Tetreault
PVT Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - The Department of Energy paid incentive fees to Yucca Mountain management contractor Bechtel SAIC for work that was found to be late or unacceptable, government auditors said in a report Thursday.
The firm was awarded payments by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management "even though Bechtel delivered poor quality work and missed deadlines," according to the Energy Department inspector general.
The inspector general challenged $3.99 million out of $43.4 million in incentives for work performed on the proposed Nevada nuclear waste repository between February 2001 and September 2004.
"The total costs of inappropriate incentive fees cannot be determined," the audit report said.
The payments questioned by auditors included $2 million associated with work Bechtel performed on a key license application for the Yucca repository.
The findings are the latest blow on the nuclear waste project, which is years behind schedule and faces continued legal, political and technical challenges.
Nevada-based critics of the Yucca Mountain project seized on the audit.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., called on Bechtel SAIC to give back the challenged funds and for the Department of Energy to cease awarding "bonuses"
"I can't understand how DOE could not ask for the money back," Berkley said. "If a bank accidentally gave you money that is not in your account, you must return it. Same thing here, except Bechtel knew about it. This is a rip-off pure and simple."
The audit illustrates shoddy DOE management, Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., said in a joint statement.
"To pay out millions upon millions of dollars in bonuses for incomplete work, poor performance, and unacceptable products is the height of government waste and mismanagement," Rep. Jim Gibbons, D-Nev., said.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said similar activity in the private sector would be a firing offense, "no questions asked."
Paul Golan, the principal deputy director of the Yucca project, said he accepted the audit findings.
"I will use this report to develop a comprehensive corrective action plan that will provide clearer and more objective performance standards," he said in a letter responding to the audit.
A DOE spokesman declined to comment further.
Jason Bohne, a spokesman for Bechtel-SAIC in Las Vegas, said the audit was being reviewed.
"We stand by the work we have performed under the contract," Bohne said. "We take the report seriously and will review it carefully."
The incentives were written into the Bechtel-SAIC contract, which was valued at about $3.2 billion for five years.
Bechtel SAIC and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which operates the Yucca program, signed a "cost plus incentive fee," contract, an arrangement designed to reward companies for meeting goals and performing work to required quality levels.
The contractor also was offered an additional "super stretch incentive fee" if it would complete pre-license application technical documents ahead of schedule.
The contract contained opportunities for Bechtel to earn $50.9 million in "performance based incentives" in its early years.
Auditors concluded, though, that DOE managers failed to identify acceptable quality levels or specify how the contractor's performance would be measured.
There were also no procedures to adjust the fees when deadlines were missed, the report said.
The investigators challenged incentives that DOE paid in cases where Bechtel needed additional time to correct poor quality work and where work scope was reduced due to poor performance.
As an example, auditors said DOE paid most of a $17.7 million incentive fee for work on documents supporting the Yucca Mountain site recommendation in December 2001 even though Bechtel needed additional time to correct inconsistencies.
The extra work resulted in a 22-day delay, auditors said. DOE paid all but $125,786 of the incentive fee, they said, while stating the delay "was due to events beyond the contractor's control."
---------------------------
Deseret News
October 13, 2005
2 Utah legislators tour proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear site
If radioactive waste can be stored safely, why move it, they ask
By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News
An argument often advanced for sending spent nuclear fuel rods to the West for disposal or storage is a very good reason to keep them where they are, say two members of the state House of Representatives.
Rep. Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, speaker of the House, and Rep. Stephen H. Urquhart, R-St. George, majority whip, say officials maintain that the highly radioactive rods can be safely contained for a long time in dry casks.
"If that's the case, why not just cask them . . . and leave them where they're at?" Curtis asked.
Urquhart and Curtis on Tuesday toured Yucca Mountain, Nev., where the federal government intends to permanently dispose of 70,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, mostly generated by power plants throughout the country.
The two were in Nevada with other members of the High-Level Radioactive Waste Working Group, part of the National Conference of State Legislatures. According to the conference, attendees included state senators, representatives and delegates from 17 states.
The tour "reconfirmed to me that Utah should not be supporting Yucca Mountain" as a repository, Urquhart said in a telephone interview.
More than 90 percent of the radioactive material in spent fuel rods is theoretically reusable, he said, and in 50 years, science may have progressed to the point where this material can be safely reprocessed and reused.
According to a final environmental impact statement, trucks, rail or both may be used to move the material. If mostly trucks were used, about 53,000 shipments would travel on interstate highways over a 24-year period. If the choice is mostly rail, 9,000 to 10,000 rail cars would be sent to Yucca Mountain during the period.
Northern rail routes to the repository site would be through Elko, Carlin, Battle Mountain and Reno, Nev., according to the environmental statement.
Trucks would pass through Salt Lake City. "I-15, the closest interstate highway to the proposed repository, travels through Salt Lake City, Utah, to southern California, passing through Las Vegas," according to the statement.
Moving the nuclear waste is a huge concern to Urquhart. Things can go wrong while material is shipped, he noted, adding, "No one suggests that we only buckle our seat belts if we plan on getting in an accident. . . . Accidents can happen in transportation."
The Utahns said they were surprised how far the Yucca Mountain repository is from completion, after the expenditure of billions of dollars.
"Right now, it's just a big tunnel, a big hole, and I've seen tunnels before," Urquhart said. The tunnel is impressively long, maybe four or five miles. But little has been done to develop the project physically beyond that, other than "some little alcoves where they are conducting some experiments."
He said he understands that nuclear waste storage is an extremely complex problem, "and we do have to deal with it some way. They've put some serious science into this. But at the end of the day, I think the West is being stuck with it because of politics. I don't understand why Western politicians would be willing to play door mat to that."
E-mail: bau@desnews.com
---------------------------
New York Times
October 13, 2005
E.P.A. Hears Public Testimony on New Radiation Allowances
By Matthew L. Wald
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 - The Environmental Protection Agency worked Tuesday to get the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository back on track, taking testimony from the public about its proposal to allow distant generations to be exposed to higher doses of radiation.
At the same time, supporters and opponents of nuclear power continued maneuvering in an effort to delay the need for the repository, near Las Vegas, amid signs that a three-year-old consensus on what to do with the wastes might be fraying.
The E.P.A. is supposed to set the rules under which Yucca would be licensed, but in July 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the standards were invalid because they extended for only 10,000 years. In August of this year the E.P.A. proposed a standard of one million years, with the allowable radiation dose increasing about 23 times after the first 10,000 years.
Under the standard for the first 10,000 years, the most-exposed person would receive an annual dose of no more than 15 millirem, an amount equal to about one and a half chest X-rays. For the balance of a million years it would be 350 millirem, which is roughly equal to the total dose received by the average American annually, from natural radiation and artificial sources.
Elizabeth Cotsworth, director of the E.P.A.'s office of indoor air and radiation, said the million-year standard "represents 25,000 generations," far longer than any other federal regulation.
Lois Gibbs, founder of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, a nonprofit group, called the extended standard as "a death sentence," saying the standard that would apply after the first 10,000 years was so high that one in 36 people exposed at that level every year for a lifetime would contract cancer as a result.
The E.P.A. has not said when it expects to have a final rule. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is supposed to use that rule to judge an application from the Energy Department for a license for the project.
The Energy Department was supposed to apply for a license in 2004 but appears unlikely to do so before the spring of 2006. Faced with that delay and with the electric industry's interest in building new reactors, members of Congress are proposing other approaches.
At the insistence of Representative David L. Hobson, Republican of Ohio, the House version of the energy and water appropriations bill for the current fiscal year includes money for establishing above-ground storage casks at Energy Department sites around the country, and for research into "reprocessing," or scavenging useful materials from the wastes. Some physicists say the remaining radioactive wastes could be converted into shorter-lived types, which would simplify the disposal problem.
The chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, favors reprocessing, but the Senate version of the bill does not include any money for temporary storage or reprocessing.
---------------------------
Bangor Daily News
October 13, 2005
Viewpoints: Maine Yankee Lessons
With high fuel prices and fears about shortages of natural gas, coupled with concerns over greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants, nuclear power is again being discussed as a source of electricity. The Maine Yankee plant, where decommissioning was certified as complete by the federal government last week, can offer important lessons as the nuclear industry, for the first time in years, seriously considers building new reactors in the United States. One lesson is that the federal government must fulfill its commitment to open a repository for nuclear waste. A second is to be transparent to the public.
Opened in 1972, Maine Yankee was licensed to operate until 2008. In 1994, cracks were discovered in steam generator tubes in the Wiscasset plant. The facility was shut down for a year while the cracks were repaired. After more problems and an appearance on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's list of the worst-run power plants, the Maine Yankee board decided in 1997
to close the facility.
The decommissioning of the plant was given final approval by the NRC last week. That releases most of the land for redevelopment but not 12 acres where radioactive fuel rods are stored. The rods must be stored on-site because the federal government has yet to open a repository for nuclear waste although the country's electricity customers have paid billions of dollars for such a facility. A repository was supposed to be open by 1998. Plagued by legal challenges and technical problems, a storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which was picked by Congress in 2002 as the place to bury 77,000 tons of radioactive material, is projected to open in 2012.
In the meantime, the country's most radioactive nuclear waste will remain stored at sites in 39 states, including the waterfront parcel in Wiscasset, which would be better suited to development or a park rather than an off-limits waste dump.
With nuclear waste disposal moving at such a slow place, it may be time to reconsider a ban on reprocessing nuclear waste, something that is routinely done in Europe and Japan.
A second lesson from Maine Yankee
is that sharing as much information as possible with the public makes for better operations and less fear among nearby residents. Maine Yankee established a community advisory panel (CAP) before beginning its decommissioning.
The panel, which included local scientists, government and business representatives and an outspoken opponent of the plant, helped keep local residents informed. A major benefit of the CAP, according to a company hired to evaluate the Maine Yankee decommissioning process, was that senior plant managers routinely made presentations before the public and were expected to answer questions in a manner understandable to lay members of the public.
Having such a committee in place when a plant was operational would
go along way toward easing public fears about nuclear power.
The United States needs sources of electricity other than high-priced oil, limited natural gas and highly polluting coal. Solar and wind may help, but nuclear energy is the only existing source for large quantities of electricity. Waste and safety hurdles must be cleared before the nuclear power industry grows.
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid
October 6, 2005
Reid, Ensign - Statement on Yucca IG Report
Statement of Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign
On the Newest Example of Mismanagement on the Yucca Mountain Project
Washington D.C. -- Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and John Ensign (R-NV) said they were angry, but not surprised, by a new report showing mismanagement on the Yucca Mountain Project.
The Inspector General´s report found that the Department of Energy (DOE) repeatedly gave bonuses to Bechtel Corporation in spite of poor work performance. The report says DOE´s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management paid Bechtel $4 million in “incentive-based fees’ even though “Bechtel did not meet contract specifications.’
“Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. It´s just one more in a long string of examples of incompetence and sloppiness at Yucca Mountain,’ said Reid. “We´ve seen the DOE cut corners on vital scientific experiments, compromise safety, punish whistleblowers, and spend far beyond their budget. This is not sound science and it´s not sound business, but it is more proof that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump needs to be stopped.’
“This demonstrates once again that the DOE is forging ahead with Yucca Mountain despite unanswered safety concerns and huge cost overruns,’ Ensign said. “The government should never be in the business of paying top dollar for shoddy work, and Americans should be outraged by this continued arrogance and waste of their money.’
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 12, 2005
Advocates question radiation standards
EPA urged to withdraw Yucca proposal
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Environmental and health advocates on Tuesday urged the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw its proposed radiation standard for Yucca Mountain, saying it sets bad precedent and weakens safeguards.
"Hurricane Katrina taught us that unexpected catastrophic events are possible and that we need to pay more attention to public health, not less. The Bush administration and EPA should go back to the drawing board," said David Hamilton, Sierra Club global warming and energy director.
Hamilton's comments typified those of a dozen speakers at the fourth and final public hearing on the EPA's draft radiation exposure regulations for the proposed Nevada nuclear waste repository. Three hearings were held in Nevada last week.
Several others spoke favorably of the EPA effort.
David Wright, a member of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, said to the extent the agency attempted to set protections that would cover up to a million years, the proposal was "well-reasoned."
The radiation standard is a key measure that the Energy Department must show through computer modeling that it can meet in order to win a repository license for the site located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas
The EPA, responding to a 2004 federal court ruling that threw out an earlier radiation safety plan, has proposed a new two-part standard.
For the first 10,000 years of repository operations, DOE would need to show that a person living about 11 miles away would be exposed to no more than 15 millirem of radiation annually.
For comparison, EPA officials have said that a chest X-ray exposes a person to 10 millirem and a mammogram exposes a person to 30 millirem.
For the long term, beyond 10,000 years, when scientists are less certain of predicting climate, geology and societal conditions, EPA proposed an annual exposure limit of 350 millirem out to 1 million years.
"Our proposal, we believe, is protective and appropriate," said Elizabeth Cotsworth, director of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation.
She said she was unsure when EPA would issue its final decision after weighing public reaction.
Representatives of public interest groups testified the EPA plan was flawed.
Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said the EPA "for decades" had argued for radiation standards of 15 to 25 millirem, "and that doses above 100 millirem per year produce unacceptable levels of risk."
A Yucca standard of 350 millirem would risk more cancer deaths.
---------------------------
GamblingMagazine
October 12, 2005
Terrorism On Track?
Las Vegas and a handful of other "target cities" are sitting on a terrorist threat -- hazardous material shipments -- that could be a far more immediate risk than nuclear waste transports, a leading environmental consultant says. Fred Millar said Las Vegas, as an entertainment capital, should pursue a "hazmat" transport ban similar to one in Washington, D.C., which is in the middle of a ground-breaking legal fight to prohibit the shipping of certain materials within 2.2 miles of the U.S. Capitol.
"The point is to find out how you reduce the terrorist risk," said Millar, who consults for the District of Columbia on the issue. "Getting these materials out of town is a no-brainer."
Millar was in Las Vegas last week meeting with local officials to urge them to join the fight. Four other cities -- Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland and Chicago -- have introduced ordinances banning some hazardous waste shipments, but the District of Columbia is the first to pass one.
In Las Vegas, Union Pacific's rail line runs parallel to the Strip, about a half mile west, and the concern about rail cars with hazardous waste isn't new.
On Dec. 31, 2003, a Federal Railroad Administration inspector came to Nevada because of what was then a "credible terrorist threat" and found six unattended tank cars intended for chlorine gas 13 miles southwest of McCarran International Airport and four unattended tank cars at Union Pacific's Henderson rail yard north of Interstate 215 and west of Stephanie Street.
Las Vegas officials have fought to keep nuclear waste out of the valley -- the city has an ordinance and Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has pledged to stand in front of any truck carrying waste -- but Millar said hazardous material is as much a threat.
"My position to them is: You have city officials saying they are going to stop nuclear waste, but you won't stop chlorine?" said Millar, who was paid by the Clark County Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee to brief its government, university and citizen members.
Millar advised them to act now as a show of political mettle and to build credibility for potential future fights over nuclear waste shipments.
He is pushing the city to pass an ordinance modeled on the ordinances in the other cities that ban from certain urban areas four classes of hazardous shipments: toxic gases; toxic liquids and solids; and the highest classes of both explosives and flammables.
That would include chlorine, which is vital to half the nation's drinking water supply, nearly all of which is shipped by rail because it is safer than highways. Millar said the explosion of one chlorine tanker could kill thousands and create a deadly cloud that would stretch for miles.
Millar told city officials that Las Vegas was not "safe enough."
Goodman said he wasn't shrinking from any fight. He said he was interested in expanding the city ordinance that bars high-level nuclear waste from traveling through the city to include other forms of highly hazardous material.
The question is if such a law would be enforceable or even legal.
Las Vegas City Manager Doug Selby said an ordinance like the one Millar was pitching might be similar to one torpedoed about 20 years ago. He said he wants to investigate that and then bring the matter to the City Council.
In 1985 or 1986, the Council adopted an ordinance that required special city permits be obtained by those transporting hazardous materials through the city, said Val Steed, a chief deputy city attorney.
That ordinance was challenged in federal court by Union Pacific, and in 1989 a federal judge issued an injunction in the railroad company's favor, Steed said.
Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury said that while the commission is always looking for strategies to keep the public safe, local officials likely would have to prove there were viable alternative routes in order for any new ordinance to hold up in court.
Rail industry officials have argued that nearly two centuries ago the nation set out to construct railroads that linked cities -- and now critics are impossibly suggesting they go around them.
Rail officials say that re-routing shipments would create massive new costs and logistical problems. They also argue that it would increase safety risks by increasing handling and lengthening transportation times and distances.
Rail officials also are quick to note that local ordinances banning local shipments are not constitutional. The Constitution's commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce and local shipping restrictions are prohibited, rail officials argue.
The nation relies on its current safe, efficient shipments of hazmats like chlorine, Association of American Railroads spokesman Tom White said. Hazardous material shipping bans in the nation's most populous cities would effectively grind the nation to a halt, White said.
"The net result would be to make it impossible to ship these products," White said.
Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis said there has not been any recent study of the potential cost and logistical challenges that would be involved in either shipping material on alternate Western routes to avoid Las Vegas, or in constructing a bypass track around the city. Those costs likely would be paid by local or state governments, he said.
Millar acknowledges that it would not be easy to ship certain materials around Las Vegas. Still, rail companies routinely re-route certain materials for various reasons, he said.
Millar said there are at least three alternate rail routes and four major highway routes that would keep hazardous materials out of Las Vegas. That would route them near other cities, but not cities with such a high value to terrorists, he said.
"This is hardly a radical idea," he said.
---------------------------
New London Day
Waterford Watches Debate On Nuclear Storage
Senate mulls bill that could keep waste at Millstone
By Patricia Daddona
Day Staff Writer, Waterford
U.S. senators are considering legislation that would redirect attention over nuclear waste storage away from the government's long-planned site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a debate with implications for towns like Waterford, which is home to Millstone Power Station.
Yucca's chief opponent, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., have been discussing a bill that would require the Department of Energy to take charge of waste from nuclear reactors and store it at reactor sites for the foreseeable future.
Also being debated is whether the national ban on the recycling of spent fuel, a policy since the administration of President Jimmy Carter, should be lifted. When uranium, which is used to generate electricity in nuclear reactors, is recycled, it produces plutonium, which officials have feared could be used in weapons by terrorists.
The proposed national repository at Yucca Mountain missed its deadline for opening seven years ago, and there have been allegations that environmental research data for the project was falsified.
The Energy Department was supposed to apply for a license in 2004 but appears unlikely to do so before the spring of 2006. Faced with that delay and with the electric industry's interest in building new reactors, members of Congress are proposing other approaches.
If the Yucca Mountain project were abandoned and nuclear reactor owners were allowed to store waste on-site indefinitely, towns like Waterford would be up in arms, said First Selectman Paul B. Eccard.
More than three decades ago, Waterford agreed to construction of three reactors here because of the promise that one day, waste would be moved off site, Eccard said. Two plants are still operating and have been recommended for license renewal through the middle of the century.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, which owns Millstone, favors the recycling of fuel, spokesman Pete Hyde said. Not recycling the rods in fuel assemblies “is like throwing away or storing batteries that are half used,’ he said.
Recycling “makes a tremendous amount of sense because it reduces the toxicity and volume of the fuel,’ said Hyde. “We believe these issues can be addressed and that we can run a successful reprocessing program in this country. Fuel travels around this country all the time and reconstituted fuel is as safe as regular fuel.’
Recycling, Eccard agreed, would provide a way to move waste out of town and use up the remaining energy left in spent fuel rods, reducing the amount of fuel that had to be disposed of.
“It's part of the solution to the energy shortage we have as a country,’ he said. “And if we're going to have sustainable energy, we can't set aside huge portions of potential energy as waste.’
France, England, Japan and other countries have recycled nuclear fuel for years without compromising security, Eccard and Hyde said.
Dominion, DNC's parent company, is one of several reactor owners that have sued the federal government over delays at Yucca Mountain, and will continue to push the issue if the federal government continues to prohibit reprocessing, Hyde said.
Hyde would not say whether the company would, if permitted, recycle the fuel in Waterford or sell it to reprocessing plants in other parts of the country, but Eccard predicted that building a recycling plant at Millstone would be too controversial.
“The public would be against that because it would be changing a generating facility into a waste storage facility and Waterford never approved that,’ Eccard said.
The New York Times News Service contributed to this article.
---------------------------
PR Newswire
October 12, 2005
Nuclear Power Plant Neighbors Accept Potential for New Reactor Near Them by Margin of 3 to 1
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Eighty-three percent of Americans living in close proximity to nuclear power plants favor nuclear energy, and 76 percent are willing to see a new reactor built near them, according to a new public opinion survey of more than 1,100 adults across the United States.
The first-of-its-kind survey that questioned only residents within 10 miles of an operating nuclear power plant also found that 85 percent give the nearest nuclear power plant a "high" safety rating, and that 88 percent are confident that the company operating the power plant can do so safely. Electric company employees were excluded from the survey.
The telephone survey of 1,152 randomly selected plant neighbors -- 18 adults within 10 miles of each of the nation's 64 nuclear power plant sites -- was conducted in August by Bisconti Research Inc. with Quest Global Research Group. The survey, with a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points, was commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The survey marked the first time that nuclear power plant neighbors have been surveyed nationally for their attitudes about nuclear energy.
"The survey confirms what some utilities have seen in their own public opinion surveys and interactions in the community -- that is, that most nuclear power plant neighbors support their local plant," said Ann Bisconti, president of Bisconti Research. "NIMBY (not in my back yard) does not apply at existing plant sites because close neighbors have a positive view of nuclear energy, are familiar with the plant, and believe that the plant benefits the community."
Seventy-six percent of residents near nuclear plants said it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant, if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity. Twenty-two percent of respondents said it would not be acceptable, and two percent said they don't know.
The survey's findings come at a time when several energy companies, spurred in part by enactment in August of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, are taking steps to test the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new licensing processes for new plants.
The law includes limited incentives for new nuclear power plant construction and measures to protect companies against delay in the federal government's review of new reactor licenses.
"It's obvious that people living near nuclear plants have a high degree of familiarity and comfort with nuclear energy and would welcome the economic and environmental benefits of new nuclear plants," said Scott Peterson, NEI vice president for communications. "The poll's results show that support for new nuclear plants is strong among those residents who live near nuclear plants. This bodes well for the prospect of new plant construction, particularly for those companies considering adding new reactors at existing nuclear plant sites."
By a margin of 83 percent to 16 percent, plant neighbors said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States. And by a margin of 87 percent to 10 percent, they said they have a favorable impression of the nearby nuclear power plant and the way it has operated recently. Seventy-five percent said they believe that the majority of people in their community have a favorable impression of their local nuclear power plant.
When asked about the company that operates the nearest nuclear power plant, 83 percent agreed that, "this company is involved in the community as a good citizen," and 84 percent agreed that, "this company is doing a good job of protecting the environment."
Eighty-one percent of plant neighbors said they are "very well informed" or "somewhat well informed" about the nearest nuclear power plant. Seventy-one percent have lived in the area for more than 10 years; 86 percent have lived there for at least five years.
The results of the survey follow below and will be posted in the "News Room" section of the Nuclear Energy Institute web site at http://www.nei.org/.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's policy organization. This news release and additional information about nuclear energy are available on NEI's Internet site at http://www.nei.org/.
Questions for EPZ Survey: FINAL August 2005
All numbers shown are percentages.
Introduction
We would like your opinions in a national public opinion survey. We are asking questions of the general public across the U.S. and also in communities near nuclear power plants.
Screener Questions: RECORD IF TERMINATED IN X, A, AND B
X. NON-ENGLISH SPEAKER, UNABLE TO INTERVIEW -- RECORD
A. Are you, or is anyone in your household, an employee of an
electric company?
Yes TERMINATE -- RECORD
No 100
B. Are you a full-time resident of this area?
Yes100
No TERMINATE -- RECORD
C. How long have you lived in this area? (CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE)
Less than 1 year 2
1 year to 4+ years 12
5 to 10 years 15
More than 10 years 71
D. Is there a nuclear-powered electric generating plant in this area?
Yes100
No -- SKIP TO DEMOGRAPHICS Q 35
Not sure -- SKIP TO DEMOGRAPHICS Q 35
Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy and Branding Metrics
1) How important do you think nuclear energy will be in meeting this nation's electricity needs in the years ahead? Do you think nuclear energy will be very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not important at all? (CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)
IMPORTANT 89
NOT IMPORTANT 6
Very important 67
Somewhat important 22
Not too important3
Not important at all 3
(Don't know) 5
2) Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. How about ... (READ LIST. ROTATE. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't
AGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know
When their original
operating license
expires, we should
renew the license
of nuclear power
plants that continue
to meet federal
safety standards9067 23 3 6 1
We should keep the
option to build
more nuclear power
plants in the
future 8356 27 6 101
Electric utilities
should prepare now
so that new nuclear
power plants could be
built if needed in
the next decade 8152 29 7 102
We should definitely
build more nuclear
power plants in
the future7343 30 9 144
3) Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States? (CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)
FAVOR 83
OPPOSE 16
Strongly favor 53
Somewhat favor 30
Somewhat oppose 8
Strongly oppose 8
(Don't know) 1
Attitudes Toward Local Plant
4) Thinking of the nuclear power plant closest to where you live, would you describe your general impression of this plant and the way it has operated recently as very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?
FAVORABLE 87
UNFAVORABLE 10
Very favorable 60
Somewhat favorable 27
Somewhat unfavorable 7
Very unfavorable 3
(Don't know) 3
5) Do you think that the majority of people in your community have a favorable or unfavorable impression of this plant?
Favorable 75
Unfavorable 13
(Don't know) 11
6) As far as you know, what other types of electricity plants are within 10 miles of where you live -- for example, any coal, gas, hydropower, wind, or other types of electricity plants? (CHECK ALL TYPES MENTIONED)
None, don't know -- SKIP to Q8 62
Coal16
Gas 7
Hydropower10
Wind 3
Other2
7) IF ANY TYPE OF ELECTRICITY PLANT IS MENTIONED IN Q6, ASK: Would you describe your general impression of this other plant/these other plants and the way it has/they have operated recently as very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?
FAVORABLE 30
UNFAVORABLE3
Very favorable 16
Somewhat favorable 14
Somewhat unfavorable 2
Very unfavorable 1
(Don't know) 5
8) I am going to read to you six considerations for the way electricity is produced, and I'd like you to tell me which one is most important to you. Here are the six considerations ... (READ LIST SLOWLY. RANDOMIZE. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)
Clean air 30
Affordability 18
Reliability 19
Sustainability 8
Efficiency14
Energy security 8
(None) 1
(Don't know) 2
9) Do you associate nuclear energy a lot, a little, or not at all with ... (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH CONSIDERATION. RANDOMIZE. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)
Don't
A Lot A Little Not At All Know
a. Clean air 66 19 10 4
b. Affordability 50 30 11 9
c. Reliability 67 25 6 3
d. Sustainability59 26 7 8
e. Efficiency 68 21 6 4
f. Energy security 56 29 9 6
10) Thinking about the nuclear power plant that is nearest to where you live, how safe do you regard this plant? Please think of a scale from "1" to "7," where "1" means very unsafe and "7" means very safe. The safer you think it is, the higher the number you would give. (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)
HIGH SAFETY RATING (5-7) 85
MIDDLE (4) 6
LOW SAFETY RATING (1-3)8
(Don't know) 1
11) Now, I'd like to ask you about the company that operates the nuclear power plant nearest to you. Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about this company. (READ LIST. ROTATE. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't
AGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know
I am confident in
this company's
ability to
operate a nuclear
power plant safely. 88 61 27 6 4 2
This company is
involved in the
community as a
good citizen. 83 54 29 7 4 7
This company is
doing a good job of
protecting the
environment. 84 50 34 5 5 6
New Plant Questions
12) A company may ask the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve a site for a nuclear power plant before making a decision about whether to build a plant there. It takes years for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete their study of a site, so having early site approval means that the company could build a plant more quickly when needed. As part of planning for the future, would you approve or disapprove of conducting such a review for a new reactor at the nuclear power plant site nearest you?
Approve 75
Disapprove 23
(Don't know)2
13) If a new power plant were needed to supply electricity, would it be acceptable to you or not acceptable to you to add a new nuclear reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant? (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)
Acceptable 76
Not acceptable 22
(Don't know)2
14) I'll read some topics about nuclear energy. Please tell me if you have heard or read any information on the topic in the past year. Just say yes or no. (RANDOMIZE IN SETS. READ EACH TOPIC AND RECORD YES OR NO TO EACH.)
Yes No (Don't Know)
Set A
* Clean air benefits of nuclear energy ... 61 38 1
Set B
* Reliability of nuclear power plants 60 40 0
* Reliability of the nuclear power plant 65 35 0
or plants in your area
Set C
* Efficiency of nuclear power plants 62 38 0
Set D
* The need for nuclear energy70 30 0
* The need for the nuclear power plant 46 54 0
or plants in your area
* The need to build more nuclear power 63 37 0
plants in the U.S.
Set E
* Nuclear waste storage at the plant site44 55 1
* Development of a federal nuclear waste 54 45 1
disposal facility at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada
* Transportation of nuclear waste to 54 45 1
an isolated disposal facility at
Yucca Mountain in Nevada
15) Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, not too well informed, or not well informed at all about the nuclear power plant nearest to where you live?
Very well informed 30
Somewhat well informed 51
Not too well informed 12
Not well informed at all 7
16) Please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about nuclear waste management.
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't
AGREE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know
Nuclear waste
can be stored
safely at the
plant site until
it is moved to a
permanent disposal
facility.
72 31 41 10 11 6
The federal
government should
continue to develop
the Yucca Mountain
site for a national
disposal facility
for nuclear waste
as long as it meets
U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
regulations.
83 47 36 6 8 4
Security and Emergency Preparedness
17) How confident are you that nuclear power plants are sufficiently secure to withstand a terrorist attack? Are you very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident? (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE.)
CONFIDENT 68
NOT CONFIDENT 31
Very confident 25
Somewhat confident 43
Not too confident 18
Not at all confident 13
Don't know 1
18) Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, not too well informed, or not well informed at all about what is the first thing to do in case of an emergency at the nuclear power plant nearest to where you live?
Very well informed 42
Somewhat well informed38
Not too well informed 10
Not well informed at all 9
(Don't know) 1
19) Have you received any materials from the nuclear power plant with information about what to do in case of an emergency at that plant? Yes / No - - SKIP TO Q. 25
Yes 68
No 31
(Don't know) 2
20) Have you received any materials from any organization about what to do in case of an emergency involving natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, or floods?
Yes 32
No 66
(Don't know) 1
21) Do you feel very well informed, somewhat well informed, not too well informed, or not well informed at all about the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and what it does?
Very well informed 14
Somewhat well informed45
Not too well informed 25
Not well informed at all 16
Activities
22) Do any of your family members engage in recreational activities within sight of the nearest nuclear power plant?
Yes 48
No 51
23) To the best of your knowledge, is each of the following true or false? (READ LIST. ROTATE. CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)
(Don't
True False Know)
You are considered 27 721
an opinion leader in
your community
You consider yourself 59 401
an environmentalist
You have visited a 49 510
nuclear power plant
or an information
center at the plant
24) Those who visited a nuclear power plant or information center: Did your visit to the information center give you a more favorable impression of nuclear energy than you had before, a less favorable impression, or did it not make any difference?
More favorable 27
Less favorable 1
No difference 20
(Don't know) 1
Demographics
I need to ask a few quick demographic questions to be sure we have a representative sample.
25) Do you have children under age 12 living in your home?
Yes 23
No 77
(Don't know, no answer) 0
26) What was the highest level of school you completed?
Some grade school5
Graduated high school 29
Technical/vocational school 4
Some college 22
Graduated college 26
Graduate school 13
(Don't know, no answer)1
27) Is your age ...
18 to 20 2
21 to 34 12
35 to 44 19
45 to 54 22
55 to 64 23
65 or older 21
(Don't know, no answer)1
28) Are you currently registered to vote?
Yes 92
No (THANKS & END) 8
Don't know/refused (THANKS & END) 0
If yes: Are you registered as a ...
Republican31
Democrat 27
Independent 21
Other WRITE IN 2
(Don't know, no answer) 11
No answer 8
Thank you very much for giving us your opinions.
RECORD (DO NOT ASK)
Male43
Female 57
Website: http://www.nei.org/
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------