Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
---------------------------
KVBC
December 14, 2005
New nuclear waste legislation
Keeping nuclear waste out of southern Nevada is the goal of new legislation introduced Wednesday by Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign. They want the government to take responsibility for possessing, maintaining and monitoring nuclear waste.
They claim the new legislation would eliminate the need for creating a single repository such as Yucca Mountain. It would also, according to the senators, ensure that nuclear waste can be safely stored onsite as well as increase safety at all nuclear power plants by providing extra funding for additional security to protect against terrorists.
The senators hope by introducing this new legislation, more attention will be drawn to the Yucca Mountain Project and drum up more support to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada.
---------------------------
Nuclear Engineering
December 14, 2005
EXcel investment blow to Skull Valley
Midwestern utility group Xcel Energy has reportedly announced that it is to hold any further investment in spent fuel storage at Skull Valley in Utah.
The decision comes as a huge blow for PFS which has already seen Southern Co drop out of the project after suspending its investments back in 2002. Now only the Dairyland Power Cooperative, with less than 12 %, will continue to fund the project, a move which some observers suggest effectively signals the end of the controversial development.
Xcel holds a 33% stake in the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) group which is developing the project, making it the single largest investor, and had originally expressed an interest in the project as it was facing a waste storage shortage for its Minnesota nuclear plants, where a state law prevented the creation of sufficient additional storage space.
With the national waste repository at Yucca Mountain not ready in time, Xcel was forced to pursue alternatives.
However, in 2003 saw the state law overturned and with the current Administration expected to roll out legislation dealing with interim waste storage that could see action as early as next year, the key argument in favour of Skull Valley appears to be evaporating.
By maintaining a stake in the project, however, Xcel can monitor congressional developments while allowing the project to be resumed if a waste management solution should fail to appear.
---------------------------
Deseret News
December 14, 2005
3rd investor abandons PFS project for nuclear waste
News is another nail in effort's coffin, Hatch says
By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Florida Power and Light Co. will no longer help Private Fuel Storage move forward, it announced Tuesday, marking the third financial hit for the proposed nuclear waste storage site in less than a week.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the financial shake-up last week was the "first nail in the coffin for PFS" and called Tuesday's announcement "another strong nail." He said 57 percent of the PFS consortium's investments are now on hold, and he believes the remaining companies will not be able to move to the construction phase.
"It would be a tremendous costly burden for them to do this on their own," Hatch said.
But PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said not to read too much into the companies' decisions. The site was always going to be done in phases, and there are a lot of other companies out there who have storage needs that could sign on in the future to move the project to its next stage, she said.
"The future of the project is not in the hands of these eight," she said "We always knew they were either going to sign on as customers or not."
She said like any big project, the market will ultimately decide when the right time would be for PFS to be built.
Hatch approached three of Private Fuel Storage's eight investing companies in an effort to persuade them that storing 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Tooele County would be a bad idea. So far, all three have changed their status, according to Hatch's staff. He is pursuing others, but his office would not say which.
Florida Power and Light, like Xcel Energy and Southern Co., used the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain project as their main catalyst for the change. The Energy Department intends to store 77,000 tons of used nuclear fuel at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Congress approved the site in 2002, although it still faces numerous challenges, so it may be several years before it opens — if it opens at all.
The government agreed to take used nuclear fuel from companies by 1998 but failed to do so. Utilities needing another option for a place to store their increasing inventory of nuclear waste spurred the formation of Private Fuel Storage more than a decade ago.
"To provide further support to PFS at this point would require us to conclude either that the federal government will not fulfill its absolute obligation under law to receive and store used nuclear fuel or that it is appropriate for (Florida Power and Light) to assume responsibility for storing used fuel at away-from-reactor sites," wrote Lew Hay, chairman of the utility's holding company, FPL Group, in a letter expected at Hatch's office today.
"Neither of these conclusions comports with our view of the law or of our proper role as an owner and operator of nuclear power plants," Hay wrote. "Therefore, after carefully evaluating our goals, (Florida Power and Light) has concluded that at this time PFS is no longer in our strategic interest and that for the foreseeable future we will put no further effort into developing that project."
The Florida utility was one of six investors that promised Hatch and Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett three years ago it would not support PFS beyond the licensing phase.
The July 8, 2002, letter said, "We will pledge to both of you that our companies will commit no funds to construction of the PFS facility past the licensing phase so long as the Yucca Mountain project is approved by Congress and repository development proceeds in a timely fashion."
Southern Co., one of the six that signed the letter, said last Wednesday that it would no longer support PFS. Xcel Energy, which did not agree to the first letter, said it "will hold in abeyance future investments" into the construction phase of PFS as long as "there is apparent and continuing progress" toward a federal interim storage site, reprocessing or permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Xcel holds the largest portion of the consortium at about 37 percent.
Genoa Fuel Tech, a subsidiary of Dairyland Power Cooperative, is the only original investor left that has not made any changes to its plans. It has a non-operating nuclear power plant along the Mississippi River that it wants to decommission, but it has no place to put the waste.
Charles San Crainte, vice president of generation at Dairyland Power Cooperative, said the company has needed a storage solution since 1987 and right now it "judges PFS to be a better decision for us." He said over the 11 years the site has been in play, the storage needs of those involved have changed, but his company still has an immediate need for a storage option.
"We wouldn't be in the position to fund that independently," San Crainte said.
But Southern California Edison is in the opposite situation. Spokesman Ray Golden said the company has not made any financial contributions to PFS since 1999. It originally joined because it did not have dry storage for nuclear waste on site, but now it does, so the need for PFS is not as great.
"We have no immediate plan to store at PFS," he said, adding that a decision on whether to move forward with investments in construction would have to be made at that point.
Todd Schneider, spokesman for First Energy, based in Akron, Ohio, said the company's commitment through the licensing phase is still valid, and it would look at PFS's potential and Yucca's progress before making any other decisions. The project has not technically moved into the construction phase yet.
Another investor, Entergy Nuclear, said it still stands behind the position it took in the July 8 letter, manager of nuclear communications Carl Crawford said. Entergy inherited interest in the project when it bought a nuclear power plant in New York. Crawford said the company is still with the project at this point.
Managers at American Electric Power were not available Tuesday, so the public affairs office could not comment on its latest status with PFS.
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com
---------------------------
KUTV
December 14, 2005
Third Utility Abandons Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump
SALT LAKE CITY A third utility in the Private Fuel Storage consortium has announced it will withhold future support of the nuclear waste storage site proposed for western Utah.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the announcement Tuesday by Florida Power & Light means 57 percent of the PFS investments are now on hold, and he believes the remaining companies will not be able to move to the construction phase.
"It would be a tremendous costly burden for them to do this on their own,'' Hatch told the Deseret Morning News.
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the repository proposed for the Goshutes' reservation in Skull Valley always was going to be done in phases, and there are a lot of other companies with storage needs that could sign on in the future to move the project to its next stage.
"The future of the project is not in the hands of these eight (utilities making up PFS),'' she said "We always knew they were either going to sign on as customers or not.''
She said like any big project, the market will ultimately decide when the right time would be for PFS to be built.
Florida Power & Light said it would not help pay to build the site as long as progress is being made toward solving the nuclear waste problem.
"After carefully evaluating our goals, FPL has concluded that at this time PFS is no longer in our strategic interest and that for the foreseeable future we will put no further effort into developing that project,'' said Lew Hay, CEO and president for the FPL Group in a letter to Hatch that was released by his office.
Last week, Southern Co. announced it was dropping out of PFS entirely and XCel Energy reaffirmed that it no longer needed the storage space and said it would not provide any money for construction.
Some other PFS partners told The Salt Lake Tribune in September, after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted a license to the site, that licensing had taken too long and they no longer needed the storage space.
In a 2002 letter, six of the partners, including Southern and FPL, said they would not pay for construction as long as progress is being made on a permanent site in Yucca Mountain, Nev.
Southern California Edison spokesman Ray Golden said the company has not made any financial contributions to PFS since 1999. It originally joined because it did not have dry storage for nuclear waste on site, but now it does, so the need for PFS is not as great.
"We have no immediate plan to store at PFS,'' he told the News, adding that a decision on whether to move forward with investments in construction would have to be made at that point.
Todd Schneider, spokesman for First Energy, based in Akron, Ohio, said the company's commitment through the licensing phase is still valid, and it would look at PFS's potential and Yucca's progress before making any other decisions.
Diane Park, a spokeswoman for Entergy Nuclear, told The Associated Press last week that her company is an active PFS partner and has not decided what its future relationship with PFS will be.
Consortium member Genoa Fuel Tech, a subsidiary of Dairyland Power Cooperative, has a non-operating nuclear power plant along the Mississippi River that it wants to decommission, but it has no place to put the waste.
Charles San Crainte, Dairyland Power vice president of generation, told the News that it "judges PFS to be a better decision for us.'' He said over the 11 years the site has been in play, the storage needs of those involved have changed, but his company still has an immediate need for a storage option.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review Journal
December 13, 2005
BLM seeks more public comment on nuclear site
By Jennifer Talhelm
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- A federal Bureau of Land Management official said Monday that Sen. Orrin Hatch's assessment that Private Fuel Storage was falling apart played a role in his decision to seek new public comments about the company's plans to build a temporary nuclear waste storage facility in Utah's Skull Valley.
Private Fuel Storage, a coalition of eight utilities, plans to use the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation as a temporary way station for nuclear waste pending work at Yucca Mountain, the site of a proposed nuclear waste dump 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The BLM must sign off on rights of way to access the Skull Valley site.
Hatch, R-Utah, who wants to kill the proposed storage facility, had argued that seven of the eight utilities had agreed to suspend their funding for the project, calling into question the company's future.
"The viability of the PFS proposal is now seriously threatened," he wrote Interior Secretary Gale Norton last week. The Interior Department oversees the BLM.
But the company may be more stable than Hatch suggested. Officials from two of the utilities that Hatch said had dropped out told The Associated Press last week that they are still funding PFS and have no immediate plans to stop. Two others have not responded to requests for comment. Three have said they decided to suspend their funding, largely because the storage facility no longer meets their needs.
A Hatch representative said last week that the senator's staff must have misinterpreted the companies' intentions.
In an interview Monday, Jim Hughes, BLM deputy director for programs and policy, said "a small portion" of his decision to reopen the comment period for proposed rights of way was based on Hatch's description of PFS's financial stability.
But he said the comment period will be a chance for the utilities, as well as the public, to make a case for why the proposal should be blocked or go forward.
People will have 90 days to comment.
---------------------------
Salt Lake Tribune
December 14, 2005
Florida utility won't help build PFS site
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - A third partner in a plan by Private Fuel Storage to store nuclear waste in Utah notified Sen. Orrin Hatch on Tuesday that it will join two other companies in withholding future support for the repository.
Florida Power & Light, reiterating a 2002 commitment, said it would not help pay to build the site as long as progress is being made toward solving the nuclear waste problem.
“After carefully evaluating our goals, FPL has concluded that at this time PFS is no longer in our strategic interest and that for the foreseeable future we will put no further effort into developing that project,’ said Lew Hay, CEO and president for the FPL Group in a letter to Hatch that was released by his office.
The Florida company's move could show a continue erosion of the PFS partnership. Last week, Southern Co. announced it was dropping out of PFS entirely and XCel Energy reaffirmed that it no longer needed the storage space and said it would not provide any money for construction.
Hatch said last week that the desertions indicated that PFS coalition was crumbling and that it was “the first nail in the coffin’ for the plan.
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the plan was for the project to be developed in stages, and it is not a major setback if utilities that helped in licensing no longer want to be customers.
“We do have to have enough customers in order to make the project viable and start construction but there are other nuclear utilities out there in addition to the eight that are members’ of PFS, Martin said.
Other PFS partners told The Tribune in September, after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted a license to the site, that licensing had taken too long and they no longer needed the storage space.
In a 2002 letter, six of the partners, including Southern and FPL, said they would not pay for construction as long as progress is being made on a permanent site in Yucca Mountain, Nev.
However, two of those companies that Hatch said have committed to stop backing PFS told The Associated Press this week they have no such plans.
---------------------------
Augusta Chronicle
December 14, 2005
Nuke waste site frustrates states
Vicky Eckenrode
Morris News Service
ATLANTA - Electricity users in Georgia and South Carolina continue to pour millions of dollars into a federal plan to permanently store nuclear waste, but state regulators say they are frustrated at lagging efforts to get the waste moved to a central spot in Nevada.
"We've paid a great deal of money into the fund, and we want Congress to act," Georgia Public Service Commissioner Stan Wise said. "There's a great deal of politics being played."
Mr. Wise joined other state and advocacy officials this week to meet with top Department of Energy officials in Washington, D.C., to discuss the federal government's plans for Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste burial site northwest of Las Vegas, and whether those plans have stalled.
Progress has been hampered by environmental opposition, an investigation over the legitimacy of science data and, most recently, a cut in federal funding and increased attention into recycling the waste instead.
Meanwhile, nuclear waste intended to one day be shipped to Nevada continues to stockpile at nuclear power plants around the country with electric customers in 41 states that use the power still making payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund.
In South Carolina, customers have paid more than $873 million into the fund since the federal government began collecting the money.
Georgians have contributed more than $839 million to the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Georgia's two nuclear power plant sites - in Waynesboro and Baxley - also have racked up more than $80 million in costs because of storing spent nuclear fuel at their sites.
"We're continuing to pay what they're storing on site today. We're paying for the deposit that we're making to the nuclear waste fund, and ultimately we'll pay as taxpayers once again," Mr. Wise said. "So, it's a triple whammy."
Though Energy Department officials have not backed off plans to develop Yucca Mountain, which had the latest opening deadline of 2012, recent moves have watchers wondering if the project's future is faltering.
Budget cuts dropped federal funding for Yucca Mountain to $450 million next year, a decrease of more than $100 million from what it had been receiving.
"I think what that shows is that the people realize that the program is really in big trouble," said Michele Boyd, legislative director for the energy program of Public Citizen, an advocacy group opposed to the storage site. "There have been a few shifts (in Congressional support), but it's almost a stalemate to a certain extent because the program is so mired and hasn't gone anywhere."
David Wright, a member of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, said it is encouraging that Yucca Mountain continues to receive financial support despite hiccups in the timetable.
"They're getting what they need to keep moving forward, but I think at some point they need to ramp up," he said.
Mr. Wright also planned to make Monday's trip to talk with DOE's Deputy Secretary Clay Sell and Undersecretary David Garman but did not because of flight problems.
Mr. Wise said discussion and funding for reprocessing nuclear waste has picked up significantly during the past year at the federal level.
But he added that even if the technology is established to recycle the material, it could take years to develop and still not get rid of all the waste.
"I think reprocessing is a great step," Mr. Wise said. "But it's not going to replace the need for a waste repository. It's not a panacea."
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
December 13, 2005
Yucca work raising eyebrows
Regent's potential aid to Lincoln County may affect his future
By Launce Rake
<lrake@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun
The chairman of the Nevada Board of Regents -- a Las Vegas attorney who was on Gov. Kenny Guinn's short list to replace former Attorney General Brian Sandoval -- may soon assist Lincoln County in efforts related to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
Bret Whipple, a Lincoln County native who practices criminal defense law in Las Vegas, said he is considering providing legal assistance to Lincoln County's Yucca Mountain Oversight Program and the associated Joint City-County Impact Alleviation Committee.
Whipple said his major purpose would be to help Lincoln County avoid some of the legal problems that have plagued the county's spending of federally provided oversight funds.
Whipple is part of a family of ranchers with deep roots in Lincoln County, which has a population of about 4,500.
"I love Lincoln County and Nevada, and I think it's important that they're protected as much as possible," he said.
Whipple has asked the Nevada Ethics Board for an opinion on whether there would be any potential conflicts because of his regent position. The contract and pay for Whipple also would have to be settled before he would begin the job.
But the mere potential of Whipple working for Lincoln County already has raised eyebrows for several reasons. One is that some observers believe the county leadership supports the Energy Department's effort to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in Nevada and build a railroad through the state to bring in the waste.
Most of the state's elected leadership strongly opposes the proposed repository. Doing work that even indirectly supports the repository could be a handicap for someone considering running for higher office in the future, as Whipple is thought to be.
Another unusual facet of Whipple's potential Lincoln County work is that his father, Kent Whipple, died from lung cancer in 1978, a victim of radioactive fallout from above-ground atomic bomb testing five decades ago, family members believe. The Whipple family was among those who sued the U.S. government in 1982 for compensation for exposure to radioactive fallout.
The suit failed, but legislative remedies provided financial compensation for "downwinders" and the Whipple family received $70,000 about a decade ago, Bret Whipple said.
"I would just say, shame on you, Mr. Whipple," said Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a Nevada group working to stop placement of the dump. "Looking at your family history, how could you? What are you thinking?"
Johnson said the majority of the Lincoln County Commission is "part of that little cabal to fight the state in the state's fight against Yucca Mountain. They are totally going against the wishes of the people of the state."
But Whipple said the work he is considering for Lincoln County does not mean he wants the Yucca Mountain repository.
He said his work would stem from problems that Lincoln County has had following Energy Department audits of money provided to the county, resulting in the federal government withholding hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years. The county has appealed the Energy Department's withholding of funds.
Whipple, who is a certified public accountant as well as a lawyer, said he could apply both areas of expertise in the job.
"I look at it as protecting them, assisting Lincoln County to ensure that they don't have those kinds of problems," Whipple said. "I'd be working with the district attorney in Lincoln County to provide legal oversight in terms of how those funds are spent."
Lincoln County Commissioner Hal Keaton, the most outspoken commissioner against the dump, said people should not assume that Whipple is on the other side.
"That (oversight) committee has been in trouble with the finances for three years, maybe more," Keaton said. "They (county commissioners) need someone who can give them some good advice and not this shoot-from-the-hip stuff. That's not a good way to do things."
Whipple's Lincoln County roots, Keaton said, would be another plus for the county government.
"He's a Lincoln County boy," Keaton said. "I thought, who better to approach to fill that spot?"
Working to help avoid pitfalls in spending federal Yucca Mountain funds does not mean Whipple supports the dump, Keaton said.
"I don't believe this indicates he endorses Yucca Mountain," he said. "It was me who started it by asking for him. This money is going to come to the county. We need to manage it properly. We haven't been doing that."
Lea Rasura, Lincoln County's coordinator of the oversight program and the joint county-city impact group, agreed. She said that her county commission has never formally endorsed the repository.
"There is a mission statement," she said. "That mission statement clearly says (the county will) minimize and clearly understand negative impacts and risks and maximize potential benefits. If this (the dump) happens, we have to protect our citizens, our livelihoods, our neighbors and families. Safety is the first issue.
"All we're trying to do is take a proactive role in the decision-making process."
Commissioner Tommy Rowe said the commission's stance on the Yucca proposal is misunderstood, adding that he hopes that misunderstanding does not extend to Whipple as well.
"We, at least myself and my constituents, we don't support Yucca Mountain, but we feel we're going to get it anyway, and we want the benefits if we are going to get it," Rowe said.
He said Whipple would work with Lincoln County's legal representation in Washington to help bring federal dollars to the county.
But Johnson does not buy the argument that Whipple is simply serving his hometown and county. Working for Lincoln County's legal team would put him on the other side of the Yucca argument, she said.
In the end, welcoming federal mitigation dollars is the same for Lincoln County as welcoming the dump, she said.
"If he's in that position, then I don't think he's an ally," she said. "He's enabling them."
Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at lrake@lasvegassun.com.
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
December 9, 2005
The high cost of a bad idea
Nevada Appeal editorial board
The late Everett Dirksen is credited with saying "A billion here and a billion there, and soon you're talking about real money."
Because Dirksen died in 1969, he couldn't have been talking about Yucca Mountain. But the Republican senator from Illinois knew then how large government had become - a behemoth that normal folks could no longer comprehend.
The plan to store radioactive waste inside a mountain in south-central Nevada would be the nation's largest single public-works project at $58 billion, a number we simply can't wrap our minds around.
Perhaps it would help Carson City residents to think of their new hospital and realize that, for the cost of Yucca Mountain, the government could build approximately 439 more hospitals just like it. Every county in Nevada could have 25 new hospitals.
Much of the money that will build Yucca Mountain isn't tax dollars, although taxpayers are funding its research at $460 million a year. Electricity customers served by the nuclear-power industry pay for it every month on their bills. The money collects in a fund to fulfill Congress' promise to solve the problem of where to store the radioactive waste.
A number people can easily comprehend is two - as in double. That's what's happened to the estimate for a railroad across some of Nevada's roughest mountain terrain to carry nuclear waste. It's gone from $1 billion to $2 billion without a shovel of dirt being turned.
It was also Everett Dirksen who said "There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come." To which we would add: There is nothing so wasteful as an idea whose time has passed.
---------------------------
E&Etv
December 13, 2005
(transcript) Nuclear Power: NEI's Peterson addresses plans for new nuclear power in U.S. and abroad
Brian Stempeck: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Brian Stempeck. Joining us today is Scott Peterson. He's the vice president of communications at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Scott thanks a lot for being here today.
Scott Peterson: Good morning. Thank you.
Brian Stempeck: Right now, as we speak, the climate change meetings are ongoing in Montreal and you have a contingent up there. How's NEI working to pitch nuclear as a solution to global warming?
Scott Peterson: Well, we really think that there's no more important time right now for the world and the United States to consider a nuclear energy as part of the solution to reducing carbon and improving our air quality. And at the same time, meeting the incredible appetite that the world is going to have for electricity. Over the next 20 years come in the U.S. alone, we're going to have a 45 to 50 percent growth in electricity demand. And we must meet that growth in a way that takes advantage of the diversity of resources that we have in the electricity sector, but also in a way that reduces emissions. So we think nuclear energy is a vital part of that strategy, not only for the U.S., but for the world.
Brian Stempeck: Now there's been a very mixed reaction when it comes to how the Europeans in particular are reacting to nuclear power. Basically you have countries like Germany, which has said they want to face out their current reactors, not build any new ones. On the other side of spectrum you have France with plenty of reactors. And you have the U.K. which is saying that it wants to build new nuclear plants. How do you reconcile those differences? Does it seem like this is going to be a solution for all countries or just a handful of countries?
Scott Peterson: I think what meetings like the Montreal conference is doing is prompting nations to consider their options. We see the French, the U.K. and the Fins looking at building new reactors. The Germans, at the same time, have a phase out that's government mandated, but they're not phasing out reactors very quickly. And they're actually looking at perhaps keeping those reactors online for the future. That was part of the government coalition that was looking at it as part of the last elections. So I think generally what you have globally right now is this resurgence of nuclear energy as not only a clean electricity source, but as the clean air policy mechanism. We're seeing that particularly in the United States, not only with the Bush administration and the role nuclear energy plays in the voluntary program the administration has set up, but also the bipartisan support in Congress that we've seen this year ranging from the energy policy act that was passed in August and provisions to jumpstart new plant construction here in the U.S. And even in the environmental community, which is now really focusing on supporting nuclear energy or at least giving nuclear energy a second look.
Brian Stempeck: Well get to some of the things that Congress is doing a minute, but for now I want to focus on one thing that actually happened in Germany. I think was last month where we saw a number of German protesters block nuclear waste shipments coming out of France. It seems like the waste question is just as thorny there as it is United States. How is that being resolved over in Europe? And then talk about how that relates what's happening in the United States.
Scott Peterson: Sure, there are different ways that nations approach taking care of the byproduct of nuclear energy and that's used nuclear fuel. The French reprocess in terms of - they recycle the fuel. So they use the uranium over and over again until it's basically spent. And then they take that remaining byproduct and they dispose of it in a disposal facility. That is not yet built. What the Germans are doing is going to underground disposal in a specially engineered facility. That's their solution. And that's our solution in the U.S. right now. The Department of Energy has the responsibility to dispose of all of the fuel from our 103 reactors in the U.S. That's a policy that the Congress mandated in 1982. And consumers in the U.S. who use electricity from nuclear power plants have contributed $24 billion since 1983 to pay for that program. Unfortunately DOE is about seven years behind right now. They are looking at a repository site in Nevada, in the desert. It looks like a good site right now based on about $6 billion worth of science, which is a tremendous scientific and engineering project. Unfortunately they're a bit behind in preparing that facility. But what the resurgence of nuclear energy is doing, even in the U.S., is prompting a re-examination of what we should be doing with used nuclear fuel. Right now we only use about 5 percent of the energy content in that fuel. So now Congress and the industry is looking at perhaps doing what the French do and that's recycling the fuel, getting the most energy content out of that fuel before, at the end of the day, we send it to Yucca Mountain and the repository there.
Brian Stempeck: I was going to ask about that. Are you still optimistic that Yucca Mountain is the best solution right now? It seems like, as you said, DOE is way behind, there are a number of barriers that have yet to be addressed. Can you give us a timeline in terms of when you're expecting Yucca Mountain to go into operation? I mean originally it was 2010. That doesn't seem like it's going to happen.
Scott Peterson: Well if you just look at the science that's behind that site designation, there have been thousands of world-class scientists that have been studying that site for years and years. So we're very confident in the scientific pedigree of that site if you will, that it's the right place to build a repository underground, about 1,000 feet underground, where all of this fuel will be secure for the long term. What we're in really is a political battle right now to move that process along. DOE is preparing a license application that it will have to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission just the way the industry submits licenses for nuclear power plants. They're moving along in that process, but they're taking the time to do it right and file a quality application. And we support that process. So while they're not meeting their commitment as they were supposed to a 1998 we think that it's more important to provide a quality application to the NRC. We would like that process, obviously, to move as fast as possible. We would expect the DOE would file a license application somewhere late next year or early 2007.
Brian Stempeck: As the process kind of drags on, is it time to look at different alternatives? I mean you mentioned what's happening in France and Germany with some of the nuclear reprocessing. Is that something it's time to put a little bit more interest in?
Scott Peterson: Well we're already seen that up in the Senate right now with Pete Domenici looking at recycling as an alternative to near-term waste management, and again, recycling the fuel to get the maximum energy content out of that. But even with recycling or other fuel treatments solutions you need a repository at the end of that process. So Yucca Mountain is still a viable project. It's still an important project. So that at the end of the day when we're finished using all of the intense energy in that fuel we have a place to put it that's scientifically safe, it's safe for the environment and it's safe for the people of Nevada.
Brian Stempeck: Now we saw Senator Domenici, he was a major proponent of nuclear power during the last energy bill that we saw pass last summer. Along with those incentives that were included in the bill how close are you to seeing a company in the United States build a new nuclear plant? It's a question everybody wants to ask. There's a number of coalitions working on this. How far out do you think we are?
Scott Peterson: There's a tremendous amount of work going on in the industry right now to really explore the new licensing process that's in place at the nuclear regulatory commission to make sure it's disciplined. That we can license plants in a time certain. There are about 10 companies right now looking at that process with the idea of testing it and then beginning construction of new plants if that process tests out well. That construction could begin somewhere in the 2007, 2008 timeframe, take four to five years to build a new generation of reactors that's safer than today's reactors. Because they rely on advance technologies, as in other industries, that improve over time. Today's reactors are safer than they've ever been. They are the most efficient power plants on the grid today operating at about 90 percent efficiency. So we've really gotten the most we can in terms of energy production out of today's units. What we want to do is build the next generation of reactors, take advantage of new safety and engineering features and begin a new generation that's going to not only meet that 40 to 55 percent electricity demand, but also provide clean air energy for consumers.
Brian Stempeck: Now we saw Congress include a bunch of tax incentives in the last energy bill. What else are you looking to see them do as the months go on and you see these coalitions moving on these new plants?
Scott Peterson: Well I think incentives are important to jumpstart companies looking at that. And that's certainly been the case since the energy bill passed in August. There have been about 4 or 5 companies that have come forward and said, "Yeah, we want to look at building new reactors." Because they're looking long term, 10 years down the path to meet the consumer needs electricity. And we've built natural gas plants largely for the last 10 years and very little other kind of generation. So these companies are looking at new large scale generation. Whether it's coal or nuclear, the incentives are important. Getting some resolution to what we're going to do with the used fuel is certainly important from a public standpoint and from a policy standpoint. So we support the efforts that are going forward there. We also think it's important that as the international community, and even as United States looks at clean air policy, that those policies recognize the role that nuclear energy plays already in reducing carbon and reducing other emissions. The general public thinks that. About 79 percent of the public thinks that nuclear energy ought to be recognized in environmental and energy policy on both the state and federal level. We did some research with the public in May and we got that very high figure back from them. So there's starting to be a high recognition, even among now the public, that nuclear energy has a role to play not only in energy, production but in clean air policy.
Brian Stempeck: Now what about when it comes to Wall Street and some of the investors? That's another major question is, beyond just addressing the regulatory concerns and the nuclear waste question, it's going to take investors if this is an economically viable proposition. Has that been done yet? I mean I know it's not quite at that point yet. That's usually little bit further down the line when you start building these plants, but what's been done to convince Wall Street that this is a realistic case?
Scott Peterson: Well the investment community has been very close in terms of following the trends that have been going on in our industry. Six years ago I think a lot of the investment community would have said we're starting to see a scale back of nuclear energy, what are we going to do with fuel when our plant's closing? That is totally shifted. We've got a 180-degree turn around in Wall Street's view of nuclear energy today mostly because companies are operating plants well. And with the investment incentives coming out of the Congress, with new plants announcing that they're looking at projects there is this wave of enthusiasm that's now back at Wall Street for new nuclear power plants. What we have to do, as an industry, is prove to them that we can build new plants in a time certain. Get it through the licensing process in a disciplined way and also build these on schedule and on cost. And that's going to be our challenge as we bring the first new plants online.
Brian Stempeck: This year we also saw something basically in the McCain-Lieberman bill, climate change bill, the first time we saw nuclear incentives included in that bill as well, which really kind of split the environmental community. As NEI, I know you're working also, the nuclear industry is coming out with a major new PR campaign that's coming out the next few months. What's the message you're trying to get out in terms of convincing the general public and convincing environmental groups that nuclear power is something that they should sign on for?
Scott Peterson: Well we really want to make them aware that there is one electricity source that provides clean air, that efficient and that provides reliable electricity in large volumes. The only source that does that today is nuclear energy. So when you're looking at a diverse electricity portfolio that's important for our nation for energy security purposes, to insulate us against fuel shocks in any one part of the sector, we really have to have nuclear energy as one of the keystones of that energy policy. It is today producing 20 percent of our electricity, second only to coal. But we really want to drive awareness that when you look at that triangle of benefits, clean, reliable and affordable, that we want to drive policy to make sure that nuclear energy grows and maintains at least the market share we have today in the electricity sector. I'm very happy to say that there is growing public awareness of the clean air benefits of nuclear energy. And the public takes the clean air benefits of electricity production very seriously. It's the top attribute they have to the way electricity is produced. So we see a growing recognition, over the last two to three years of the public's understanding of the clean air benefits of nuclear energy. We're seeing that on the Hill also. We just want to drive that to a much higher level.
Brian Stempeck: All right Scott. We're out of time. Thanks a lot for being on the show today.
Scott Peterson: Thanks you very much.
Brian Stempeck: I'm Brian Stempeck. This is OnPoint. Thanks for watching.
---------------------------
Electric Light & Power Magazine
November, 2005
Support Leaking Away for Yucca Mountain
Nancy Spring
Managing Editor
Right now, it´s just a big tunnel, a big hole, and I´ve seen tunnels before,’ said a member of the Utah House of Representatives upon touring the Yucca Mountain project in October. “Utah should not be supporting Yucca Mountain as a repository.’
It´s not surprising that support for the $85 billion repository is shrinking but it was almost inevitable when sites in other states came under consideration, such as the proposed Skull Valley interim storage facility on the Goshute Indian reservation in Utah.
U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), previously a Yucca Mountain supporter, suddenly saw the light. “As it now becomes clear, scientifically, legally, and practically, Yucca Mountain is not going to become a single repository for nuclear waste, we need to start thinking about new strategies and new places to deal with this.’
The Yucca Mountain project has dragged on for almost 30 years. The U.S. Department of Energy started studying the idea in 1978. In 1982, a target date of 1998 was set for DOE to takeover the waste. In 2004, DOE said it anticipated opening the Yucca Mountain repository in 2010. But in April of this year, a federal judge wrote that this “does not appear to be credible.’
The judge, who was considering the validity of DOE´s contracts with nuclear utilities, found that “there is no evidence in the record that the government had reason to believe in 1983, 1989 or at present that Yucca Mountain will ever be licensed to store spent nuclear fuel.’
Last year, in a ruling on Nevada´s Yucca Mountain Lawsuits, the Court of Appeals found that the EPA´s 10,000-year safety standard on radiation containment at the site was arbitrary and inconsistent with the congressionally-mandated recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. The EPA responded by setting new standards that “will protect public health for a million years,’ claimed Jeffrey Holmstead, EPA assistant administrator for Air and Radiation.
Why not two million years? Once again, one has to question the credibility of such a statement.
The most recent end-around at Yucca Mountain is a proposal to improve the design so as to simplify fuel handling. It calls for operating Yucca Mountain as a “clean’ or non-contaminated facility. Nuclear waste bound for Yucca Mountain would be sealed in canisters that could be put directly into the ground, eliminating the need to repackage the radioactive material at Yucca Mountain, the Energy Department said in October.
Handling facilities originally planned at the desert site could be eliminated.
“Something like what DOE proposed ... would mean a major reassessment of the proposed project,’ Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., said in a joint statement. “We certainly appreciate the likely decades-long delay this announcement means. But this proposal is just words and a made-up scenario with no substance or fact.’
Nuclear power is obviously an important part of our generation mix. Indeed, it may become more important if we begin to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, as we discuss in this month´s Industry Report on operating rankings. Treating the waste in place seems to be a better option than spending more money and time on another redesign euphemistically called “clean.’
We are, as the old adage says, beating a dead horse. Putting an end to this project would be the prudent thing to do.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
December 12, 2005
UNLV aids military research
Scientists in collaborative effort
By Christina Littlefield
<clittle@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun
UNLV researchers are helping the Army be all it can be.
The Center for Materials and Structures, one of three research centers approved by the Board of Regents last week, is researching how to improve everything from guided missiles to military vehicles by strengthening them to make them safer and to protect the electronics inside.
It's a collaborative effort that brings together researchers from the university's mechanical, electrical and civil engineering departments as well as those in physics and chemistry, said Brendan O'Toole, the center's director.
By formally organizing as a center, O'Toole believes, the researchers will be able to leverage their current resources to pursue more grant money and additional federal partnerships with entitites such as the Defense Department, Energy Department, Army Research Laboratory and the National Science Foundation.
The center is expected to bring in $3.2 million in grants this year, covering all of its expenses except professors' salaries.
UNLV's EMITION center -- the Energy-Material Interaction Testing Institute of Nevada -- and the Center for Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, similarly bring together a wide range of scientists and students from the university to work on research projects.
The nearly 60 such centers at the university specializing in research or community outreach are part of UNLV's strategy to become a top-level research institution, said Paul Ferguson, vice president for research and graduate studies.
Research centers bring the university added prestige by developing expertise in specific areas, Ferguson said. They also attract other scientists to UNLV and help develop technology that can be patented and marketed commercially, diversifying Nevada's economy.
The EMITION center, for instance, is looking at how pulsed power -- the ability to direct a mass of energy to a specific location over one-billionth of a second -- might help with everything from reducing air pollution to killing cancer cells. The sensors developed for use in the center's pulse power machines are being patented for possible use in the electronic and medical industry, center director Robert Schill said.
"As a unit, we're hoping that we will be able to bring more people and resources under a single umbrella with many branches and shoots to help other areas," said Schill, an electrical and computer engineering professor.
The atmospheric center is working with researchers and UNR and the Desert Research Institute to examine changes in climate using computer simulations to study lightning and cloud dynamics, said director Dieudonne Phanord. An applied mathematics professor and associate provost, Phanord is working on setting up a network of lightning sensors that will collect climate data and help power companies better pinpoint lightning damage.
The $30,000 sensor on top of UNLV's classroom building complex can track lightning 6,000 miles away, Phanord said. With a sensor already in Africa, he hopes to work with other universities to place sensors in Brazil, Puerto Rico, Alabama and Connecticut to create an international network that would coordinate with the Zeus Network already in place in Athens and throughout Europe.
The UNLV sensor and the massive computers needed to simulate climate activity were paid for with statewide NASA EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) money and donations from the Sun Corp. EPSCoR money was also instrumental in getting the Materials and Structures center and the EMITION center off the ground.
The Materials and Structures lab has two powerful air guns to simulate what damage a missile impact might do to an army vehicle, and a special machine that can test how alloys endure under extreme heats.
The latter research is needed to develop containers that can withstand the heat necessary for power plants to recycle nuclear fuel, O'Toole said. In the past, the center also has studied containers being considered for nuclear storage at Yucca Mountain.
The center also is looking at developing new types of foam that can better absorb energy for military use and that could be used for insulation. And it is examining a new tooling system that would allow soldiers in the field to quickly make a replacement part for, say, a damaged helicopter, O'Toole said.
The system uses a glass, sand-like substance that when mixed with water and a special binder, mirrors wet sand, O'Toole said. By using a vaccum to suck out the water, researchers can quickly make a mold of any tool or part needed to make a repair.
While it's much more efficient than having to machine a metal part by hand, researchers are still working on how to make the material stronger, O'Toole said.
Christina Littlefield may be reached at 259-8813 or at clittle@ lasvegassun.com.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
December 12, 2005
Support for Utah nuke site wanes
By Benjamin Grove
<grove@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau
For weeks speculation has swirled around the comprehensive new national nuclear waste policy being drafted by the Energy Department, and for now, kept under wraps.
But nuclear power companies seem to know all about it -- enough at least, to know that they won't be needing that proposed temporary nuclear waste dump site in Utah, after all.
Seven nuclear companies have been investing in the Utah site for years, saying they need a place to dump their waste until the long-delayed, permanent repository at Yucca Mountain is built.
But last week, two of the seven utilities unexpectedly withdrew their support for the Utah site. Southern Co. pulled out entirely; Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, a one-third partner in the project, froze any future investment.
Why the sudden change of heart? The two companies have had extensive meetings with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who opposes the Utah dump, it was revealed in a letter from Xcel to Hatch last week. But it's not clear what Hatch -- or perhaps, the Energy Department -- has been telling the company to convince it to drop its support for the Utah site.
In the letter to Hatch, Xcel President Richard Kelly said the company was "encouraged" by the Energy Department's new plan to use a new waste container system that "will simplify the design of Yucca and should accelerate the process for acceptance and removal of used fuel from Minnesota."
The letter also embraces the Energy Department's secretive new plan, calling it legislation that would promote a "new initiative to begin moving waste early in the next decade."
"We are also pleased to note that Congress seems well disposed to quickly consider such legislation upon introduction," Kelly wrote.
Support in Congress? For a plan that hasn't been made public yet? That's not a surprise, Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency Director Bob Loux said. The department won't unveil its plan until it is sure it has solid support in the House and Senate, Loux said.
The Xcel letter concludes with the company's promise to Hatch to maintain its investment freeze in the Utah site as long as there is progress on the other waste initiatives under discussion, including waste recycling and, notably, "federally sponsored interim storage."
In other words, people in high places have given reasonable assurance to Xcel that the company doesn't need to pay for the Goshute site because the government is pursuing a temporary federal dump site.
Where? At Yucca? Or some other site or sites?
The Energy Department won't say -- not publicly at least.
Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@lasvegassun.com.
---------------------------
LewRockwell.com
December 12, 2005
Googling World Energy Reserves
by Bill Walker
A lot of concerned people emailed me to say that we MUST be running out of energy, because so many authoritative-looking people say so on TV. Here´s the result of ten minutes of Googling (it will take longer if you beer-Google) on "World Energy Reserves":
Conventional fossil fuels (from British Petroleum, "reserves available at existing economic and operational conditions," i.e. not oil shales or other more expensive petroleum ores):
Oil: 161.9 billion tonnes (annual use 3.8 billion tonnes)
Natural Gas: 179.5 trillion cubic meters (annual use 2.7 trillion cubic meters)
Coal: 909 billion tonnes (annual use 2.8 billion tonnes)
Nuclear fission (from DOE estimates):
Uranium: ~11.5 million tonnes
Thorium: ~34.5 million tonnes
One metric ton (tonne) of uranium completely fissioned equals approximately 2 million tonnes of oil. So our 46 million tonnes of currently available nuclear fuel is roughly equal to 92 trillion tonnes of oil, or 24,000 years of world oil usage. (Or perhaps “hydrogen usage’, or “beamed-energy usage’ would be more accurate; while nuclear energy could be used to make gasoline out of coal or oil shale, if we do it for a thousand years we shall find ourselves running low on oxygen!)
These are just the reserves available with our current technology at our current prices (actually, with 1970s technology… the US hasn´t started construction of any reactors since 1978). It does assume that we actually recycle the nuclear fuel efficiently, instead of continuing Jimmy Carter´s policy of forcing the power companies to declare the uranium and plutonium in fuel rods to be "waste." Currently, US nuclear power plants are forced to operate at 0.5 % fuel efficiency, and do not breed more fuel out of thorium. Then the enforced inefficiency (and potential danger, from piles of unrecycled fuel) is used to justify the 12-billion-dollar boondoggle called Yucca Mountain.
It is just possible that nuclear power might get a teensy bit cheaper as time went on if some of the plants were allowed to be 150% efficient 21st-century fast-neutron breeders instead of 0.5% efficient 1970s relics. It is also possible that electric power might be cheaper if it were produced by competing free-market companies instead of government-granted monopolies. Of course this would lead to the inherent problems of unrestricted capitalism. For instance, if there had been competing electric companies in New Orleans during Katrina, it would have caused terrible inequalities. Not everyone´s power would have gone off and stayed off for months (in fact no one´s power would have stayed off for months, because they would have switched companies). The same would be true in wartime or other emergency; the inefficient duplications of capitalism would mean that not all power would be knocked out in a city at the same time. Unthinkable, of course (though in the early days of electric power, there were no monopolies, and users often owned the wires and bought power from competing power plants…).
Fusion: ah, now the concerned emails start flowing in earnest. "We don´t know how to use fusion, and it´s impossible for mere humans to invent a way." Wrong. There is already an operational fusion reactor powering the global economy, and it produces 28 trillion times more raw energy than all man-made energy sources combined. So even if some future "UN NRC" forever bans the helium-3 + deuterium reactor, we can still expand our energy use by a factor of 28 trillion, and maintain it for the next five billion years or so.
Yes, it would be incredibly inefficient compared to artificial fusion reactors, but using 1960s nuclear rocket technology we could surround the Sun with orbiting solar collectors by the time we run out of uranium on the Earth (there´s the small problem of finding enough silicon for the solar cells, but the fusion reactors can make it out of Jupiter´s hydrogen… oh, right, we´re pretending that fusion can´t be done. We would have to settle for a few million times the present world energy output if we restrict ourselves to using the asteroid belt and minor planets. But only if the "Leif Erickson gene" is lost and we never leave this particular natural fusion reactor to visit others…).
Even today a few percent of the world´s electric power comes from the sun´s fusion energy, at such sites as Three Gorges Dam and European windmill farms. And much as I love to tease solar cell enthusiasts (especially at night), solar cells get better almost as fast as computers. They´ll be ready for prime time by the time we have to use the monoliths to make the silicon out of Jupiter…
There are already thousands of cost-effective, mass-produced man-made fusion reactors as well; they are fueled by lithium deuteride. Unfortunately, they are all owned by governments (or perhaps government-funded "terrorist groups"), and they are sitting on top of missiles or in bombers, waiting to slaughter millions of people apiece at the whim of various politicians. But these fusion reactors (popularly know as "H-bombs") are not intrinsically evil. While they are not suited to steady production of electric power, they can be used for many valuable, even life-saving industrial purposes.
One of the essential requirements for successful environmental stewardship is to keep the ecology from being blown up by asteroid impacts. The existing 25-megaton city-killers would be quite suitable for deflecting extinction asteroids. They would also be useful for forcing asteroids and comets to hit the CO2 polar caps of Mars and induce Global Warming there. If all the CO2 polar caps on Mars were sublimated, the little planet would have an atmosphere half as thick as Earth´s. That´s plenty good for green plants (which will quickly convert much of the CO2 to oxygen, of course), so you Luddites who don´t think that anyone can invent a fusion reactor will have somewhere to build your log cabins and plow behind your genetically-altered Mars Mules. (The Earth will long have been 99% powered by He-3 fusion reactors, so you´ll have to move to maintain your belief system.)
But enough "no-technological-progress-ever" nonsense. The fact is that the world is full of young engineers, and new energy sources are being constructed all the time. The Russians are using new fuel designs to beat their nuclear swords into economic plowshares (and breed fuel out of abundant thorium at the same time). The Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Japanese, etc. etc. are all into improved nuclear power technologies. Almost the only nations not likely to build new-technology nuclear plants on a large scale are the US foreign-aid dictatorships in Africa, and the US itself. Even oil-rich Iran is moving into nuclear energy as fast as it can.
The US political class can (and does) make energy vastly more expensive for Americans. They can invade oil-producing nations like Iraq and shut down their oil industry. They can (and have) prevent Americans from building any new oil refineries or nuclear reactors for decades. But they can´t alter the geology of the Earth, or the laws of physics, and they can´t stop people in rogue states that really do have WMDs from doing anything they damn well please.
A quick look at the world´s nuclear research programs shows that there are many nations that have breeder reactor technology in commercial prototypes already… and several of these countries are fresh out of socialist economic nonexistence. A few more years of even the most tainted capitalism, and they´ll have nuclear reactors that are at least 60-70% fuel-efficient, compared with our 0.5% "Jimmy Carter Specials." The nations that want energy will get energy, whether the US political class approves or not.
This all assumes, too, that no one ever invents any new energy sources. This assumes that we know everything about Physics, mining technology, transportation systems, nuclear reactor design, etc. After all, we´ve had nuclear power for… less than a human lifetime. Surely we know everything by now, right?
The truth is that Googling can´t find most "World Energy Reserves." Energy reserves are created by human minds out of the raw materials of nature. Most of these reserves will be the creations of the minds of people that aren´t even born yet. All we can do on Google is find out the rock-bottom LOWER limit for our energy reserves. The lower limit is enough to build interstellar civilizations and go on to find the "World Energy Reserves" of the Milky Way. I wonder where the real upper limit is?
Bill Walker [send him mail] works in HIV and gene therapy research in Rochester, Minnesota.
---------------------------
Provo Daily Herald
December 11, 2005
In our view: Why not a Goshute casino?
The Daily Herald
As the wrangling between Utah, the federal government and Private Fuel Storage continues, one group is conspicuously absent from the table: The Skull Valley Goshutes.
Tribal Chairman Leon D. Bear says he is being kept in the dark about the latest round of fighting to block nuclear waste from being stored on his reservation.
He said Utah is going behind his back to meet with the U.S. Department of the Interior to try to block the waste shipments.
It's no wonder. Bear is no friend of the environment, and his agreement to store poison waste has met with objections among many members of his own tribe. So far, however, he has successfully fended off attempts to override his authority.
The Goshutes entered into an agreement with PFS, a consortium of nuclear power producers, to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel rods on Goshute land until the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain becomes operational. Utah has engaged in a pitched legal battle to keep the waste out of the state.
Bear said Gov. Huntsman has not personally met with him or other tribal leaders, although former Chief of Staff Jason Chaffetz did meet with him to discuss other ways for the Goshutes to build their tribal economy that do not involve radioactive waste. The federal government and Utah have made some offers to help the Goshutes in return for cancellation of the tribe's lease to PFS. The Bureau of Indian Affairs offered the Goshutes additional land, hunting and fishing rights and scholarships to state-sponsored universities.
Former Gov. Olene S. Walker met with Goshutes during her tenure to discuss the matter, as did representatives of Gov. Mike Leavitt. But proponents of waste storage within the tribe say the offers do not come near the $100 million PFS is offering.
The Goshutes entered into the agreement with PFS to bring the tribe economic prosperity. Skull Valley's remote location in unattractive for most commercial enterprises. As one of the poorest tribes in the area, the prospect of jobs at PFS and money pouring into tribal coffers was too powerful to refuse.
While Utah has plenty of good reasons for wanting the nuclear waste to stay where it is, none of them will really matter unless the Goshutes can be given something else to build up their tribe. If Utah and the Indians can work together to find a way to build up the tribe's fortunes, the state would gain a powerful ally. It wouldn't matter so much whether court decisions were lost or whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided against Utah. If the Goshutes can say no, the deal would be dead.
A solution will require some imagination. This is one area where Gov. Huntsman's experience as a trade representative could come in handy. Surely he has contacts among venture capitalists and companies that could be brought to bear. But it's a long shot in a big desert.
It may be time to consider Indian gaming, assuming the Goshutes want it. It's about the only thing that comes to mind that could generate revenues comparable to or greater than nuclear waste storage.
Fears that casinos would become widespread seem misplaced. We see no reason casinos could not be contained -- as a narrowly tailored quid pro quo -- to Skull Valley alone and not spread to all of Utah's Indian tribes.
Indian casinos have proved themselves profitable for the tribes that operate them across the country, and tourists would flood to Skull Valley, which is much nearer Salt Lake City than Wendover, Nev. A large chunk of the Wendover economy would likely shift to the Goshute reservation and boost revenues dramatically for Utah.
Examples of casino containment are not hard to find. New Jersey, for example, has limited casinos in its state to Atlantic City for more than 20 years and no other city there has complained about not getting a piece of the action.
The risks to Utahns posed by a remote casino seem small compared to the possibility of a nuclear waste accident or terrorist attack as casks of high-level radioactive materials are being shipped through Provo or Salt Lake City. Large numbers of people already travel regularly from Salt Lake City to Wendover. An unscientific poll conducted by the Herald showed that a significant majority, given the choice between nuclear waste and Indian gaming, would support gaming.
Whatever the merits of this suggestion, one thing is clear: If Utah is going to keep nuclear waste out, it must work with the Goshutes as partners and help them find a realistic path to prosperity.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744