Yucca Mountain News Clips - Sunday, May 07, 2006

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Sunday, May 07, 2006
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 07, 2006

FROM OUR READERS: Yucca Mountain a wreck

Authorities can't ignore inquiries that detail recklessness, irresponsibility

By BOB LOUX

Special to The Review-Journal

Two separate, independent federal investigations, both reported on April 25, paint a devastating picture of the untrustworthiness of the U.S. Department of Energy's scientific case for putting a nuclear waste repository inside Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The results confirm much of what Nevada has been saying for years. Basically, the Energy Department is now in a deep morass from which, as a practical matter, it's not likely ever to extricate itself.

The first report came from the Energy Department's inspector general's office. It performed a criminal investigation into whether U.S. Geological Survey scientists working on the Yucca Mountain Project had falsified research data, as indicated in a series of e-mails that came to light in March 2005. The scientists' results on how much water would get to the nuclear waste packages were central to the Energy Department's scientific case for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license, which the department needs to move forward with the dump. Of course, water facilitates corrosion and then transports leaking radioactive material to the human environment.

The inspector general characterized the actions as ones "which have been described by observers as irresponsible and reckless." When the U.S. attorney declined to prosecute anyone in connection with the e-mails, the inspector general took the highly unusual step of writing a public memorandum to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, outlining the project's severe failings "that were pertinent to the core allegations."

The second report, which overlaps in content with the first, was the Government Accountability Office's April 25 congressional testimony on the Energy Department's chronic and continuing quality assurance failures. Quality assurance is checking that work has been done properly and that the results are correct.

As GAO put it, "DOE has had a long history of quality assurance problems at the Yucca Mountain Project." It is a history of repeated failures and one new managerial fix after another, without getting to the underlying problems. Despite public protestations and promises by the Energy Department's top brass, the repeated failures indicate a deep-seated organizational unwillingness to conform to the discipline of quality assurance.

The Energy Department and its contractors apparently haven't thought doing things right was very important because they expect to bully their way through, as they have in the past. In fact, GAO questions whether the Energy Department has the managerial capacity to overcome this state of affairs and to cope with the enormous effort it would involve. Among other things, the Energy Department has yet to review 14 million e-mails to check the extent to which the quality assurance failures that allowed the U.S. Geological Survey falsifications to fester have infected other parts of the Yucca Mountain Project.

That the e-mails were not an isolated problem seems to have been accepted even by Secretary Bodman, who said on April 12 that the culture of the Yucca Mountain organization was "reflected in" the e-mail affair.

To say this is to admit clearly that the public cannot have confidence in the scientific underpinnings of the entire project.

--Bob Loux is the executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects.

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

Lompoc Record
May 07, 2006

Project begins to house Diablo's spent fuel

By April Charlton
Staff Writer

High on the hillside above the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, the crackle of electricity surging through huge electrical transmission towers competes with the sounds of jackhammers breaking up the earth.

The jackhammers are tearing up the hard-packed dirt to make way for a 4-acre project, which, once complete, will be the new home for Diablo's spent fuel rods.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which owns and operates Diablo Canyon, broke ground on its dry-cask storage project in October. Completion is expected by early 2007.

Once the work is complete, PG&E will begin transferring spent plutonium fuel rods from inside the plant, where they are stored in pools of water, out and up the hillside to dry casks.

The first loading campaign is scheduled for about November 2007, according to Sharon Gavin, PG&E spokeswoman. Eight casks will be loaded during the initialcampaign. It takes about a week to load one cask.

PG&E embarked on the dry-cask storage project so that it can keep producing electricity at Diablo, which is quickly running out of room in its spent-fuel storage pools.

Without additional space to store its spent fuel, Diablo would eventually have to stop producing electricity. Ten percent of the energy generated in California comes from Diablo, while 20 percent of the state's electricity is nuclear.

The electric company had the option of reracking the pools or constructing a storage facility until the federal government approves a site where all nuclear power plants can send their spent fuel.

Yucca Mountain - a proposed repository in Nevada - has an uncertain future, and it's not known when, or if at all, the facility will open.

PG&E chose the dry-cask storage option because company officials believe it's the safest way to store the spent plutonium, which still emits radiation long after the rods are no longer useful for generating electricity.

“We've been tasked with storing and keeping the spent fuel secure until the feds come up with a plan; this is a whole-industry thing,’ said Rich Hagler, PG&E dry-cask project engineer. “They haven't shown up to get the fuel; we'd much rather they come get it.’

During the loading campaign, a transfer cask will be taken into the plant and submerged into one of Diablo's two 40-foot-deep storage pools, where spent fuel assemblies will be transferred to the cask.

The transfer cask will then be lowered into a steel cask, which does all the work of keeping the radiation inside, that will be welded shut and put on a conveyor beltlike device that moves it out of the plant and up the hillside.

The casks will then be bolted onto a large concrete pad - built into the Earth's surface and more than 8 feet thick - where they'll remain indefinitely.

“You always have to be conscious of seismic activity out here because we don't know (when an earthquake could happen),’ Hagler said about bolting the casks to the pads. The bolts will be 7 feet long.

He added, “The pad is important to safety because it's holding the casks.’

The entire project will consist of seven concrete pads that will be loaded from back to front on the pad, starting with two pads.

A pad can hold 20 casks, which measure 9 feet across and stand 18 feet to 20 feet high, while a cask can hold up to 32 spent fuel assemblies.

Hagler said the plan is to initially only load the first two pads with spent fuel, which should take two to three years to complete.

The entire site will eventually be fenced for security purposes.

April Charlton can be reached at 489-4206, Ext. 5016, or acharlton@lompocrecord.com.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 05, 2006

Criminal charges won't be filed in Yucca e-mail scandal

Prosecutors: Evidence of criminal acts lacking

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Investigators failed to turn up conclusive evidence of criminal actions in Yucca Mountain e-mails that implied quality assurance documents might have been falsified, according to a report released Thursday.

But the e-mails suggested management shortcomings on the nuclear waste project allowed for a "poor attitude" to fester among a hydrologist and his supervisor who were tied to many of the messages, the report stated.

A 40-page document issued by the Interior Department inspector general sheds light on the motivations of U.S. Geological Survey employees whose e-mails triggered upheaval within the Yucca program when they were disclosed in March 2005. The report was a redacted version of material forwarded to federal prosecutors in Nevada in December following an investigation by the Interior Department and the Department of Energy.

Daniel Bogden, U.S. Attorney in Nevada, declined to pursue criminal charges. Officials said prosecutors concluded the activity failed to reach a criminal level.

"The investigation revealed the substance of several questionable e-mails, and the related conduct discussed, either did not occur or could not be substantiated," inspectors said in a summary of their work.

Investigators said they parsed 19 e-mails that were originally disclosed, plus another seven that were uncovered later. They interviewed authors and recipients, and discussed the messages with experts who were brought in by the Department of Energy to assess their impact on repository science.

DOE's review concluded the work was technically sound but was not suitable to be used in a formal repository license application and is being replaced.

Most of the e-mails were written between 1998 and 2000 by Joseph Hevesi, a USGS research hydrologist working at the Yucca site, and were addressed to Alan Flint, his supervisor in Sacramento, Calif.

Investigators said Hevesi and Flint "had limited managerial oversight" from DOE and USGS officials as they developed a computer model of how water might infiltrate Yucca Mountain toward the repository level, where nuclear waste would be stored.

Excerpts from the e-mails rocked the Yucca program when they were made public. In one message discussing a research exercise, the author, later identified as Hevesi, wrote, "Wait till they figure out that nothing I've provided them is QA," referring to quality assurance. "If they really want the stuff they'll have to pay to do it right."

Based on their questioning of Hevesi, investigators said that e-mail and others conveyed his frustration with quality assurance rules that require meticulous documentation.

Testifying last summer before a congressional subcommittee, Hevesi said his e-mails were poorly worded and "water cooler talk" and he did not falsify information.

In their report Thursday, inspectors said Hevesi's frustration was fueled by Flint's "lack of supervisory oversight."

An official with Sandia National Laboratories who did a technical review of the e-mails told inspectors they "provided insight into Hevesi's and Alan Flint's poor attitude and demeanor," the report stated.

"According to the (Sandia) official, Alan Flint and Hevesi isolated themselves from the rest of the project and made it known they did not want to work with anyone else except each other," the auditors said.

Flint and Hevesi remain employed at the agency, but are no longer involved in Yucca work.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., expects to seek more details about the probe, spokeswoman Sharyn Stein said.

"The summary released today does not show the kind of thorough investigation we had hoped for," Stein said.

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., chairman of a House subcommittee investigating the e-mails, said the report sheds light on "a culture of mismanagement at DOE" no matter the lack of criminal prosecution.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said, "What it really confirms is that the quality assurance program at Yucca Mountain is totally ineffective. But until we learn more about why no criminal charges have been filed as a result of this e-mail scandal, the story remains incomplete."

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

Las Vegas City Life
May 05, 2006

Mountain of trouble

On the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, Las Vegan Peggy Maze Johnson travels to Kiev to share Nevada's story

By Matt O'Brien

On the 20th anniversary of the apocalyptic nuclear disaster, scientists and politicians and environmentalists from around the world gathered for Chernobyl + 20: Remembrance for the Future. The conference, held April 23-25 in Kiev, Ukraine, covered three important issues: the consequences of Chernobyl; the problems posed by nuclear power; and possible alternatives.

The goal of the conference was to examine Chernobyl's health, social and economic consequences and to draw attention to the promise and need of sustainable energy.

Las Vegan Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, attended the conference. CityLife sat down with Johnson shortly after she returned from Kiev.

CityLife: What compelled you to attend the conference?

Peggy Maze Johnson: I received an invitation from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service to put my name in for a grant to attend the conference. They wanted to make sure that people from around the world were represented -- and especially those representing issues that have global significance. So I put my name in and was one of the people they accepted.

I was really excited, because I thought I needed to bring our issue [Yucca Mountain] forward. And everybody there knew about Yucca Mountain. Everybody. It was gratifying in a sense. It was frustrating in another sense, in that everybody has to know about it.

CL: How big of an issue was Yucca Mountain at the conference?

PMJ: It was the focus of one whole workshop, "Nuclear Wastes and Nuclear Reprocessing" on Monday. [Speaker] Kevin Kamps asked me if I would back him up and talk about Yucca Mountain from the perspective of a Nevadan. It was a very big issue.

CL: What did people know about Yucca?

PMJ: Everybody knew a lot about it. And some of the people at the conference are facing the same problem we are, so they looked to us to see how we have stopped this and how we have kept it from opening. They kind of looked to us as a resource for how they can stop nuclear waste from coming to where they live.

CL: What was the one point you tried to get across to attendees about Yucca Mountain?

PMJ: The one point I made was that our Department of Energy was coming to a road near them. When I was in [Washington] D.C. recently, there was a group of Russians there that had been working on the whole problem with Chernobyl and nuclear waste and the health effects of radiation. One of the gentlemen from Russia was talking about the fact that our Department of Energy had been in Russia talking about how safe Yucca Mountain was and how they would be able to store nuclear waste in his hometown, no problem. So this man asked me, "Why are you fighting it? The Department of Energy said it is safe." I asked him if their lips were moving. I told him that one of the things we've found is that the Department of Energy is not to be trusted and they are incompetent. Those are two things you have to remember whenever the Department of Energy is talking.

CL: Was anything said about Divine Strake, scheduled for early June at the Nevada Test Site?

PMJ: On the last day of the conference, the whole afternoon was devoted to networking. The first part of the session we broke down into our own country caucuses, so we could talk about how we could be unified within our own countries. Then we took the top three issues from each caucus into the bigger session, and one of the things we talked about was Divine Strake and the fact that we see it as a precursor to nuclear bombs. This is a model for nuclear bunker-busters. Our concern is, even though the government is denying it, that this is one of tests they're using before bombing Iran.

CL: What was the most surprising thing about the conference?

PMJ: The fact that everybody knew about Yucca Mountain. I talk to people in other parts of this country that don't know anything about Yucca. And if they know about it, they don't see it as having an impact on them -- until we start talking about transportation, the fact that their homeowner's insurance doesn't cover problems related to nuclear waste and that it's coming to a road near them. Then, all of a sudden, it has some significance to them.

But the people in Kiev knew what was going on. They got it. Of course, they're anti-nuke activists, so I guess that shouldn't be surprising. But it was to me, because I've been trying to tell people here about it for years.

CL: What lessons can we learn from the Chernobyl disaster?

PMJ: That we are dealing with the most dangerous substance known to humankind. And that, so far, we have not been able to contain it. When he was here in 2004, John Kerry said that we need an un-Manhattan Project. We need to bring together the greatest minds in world to figure out how to harness this stuff. We haven't figured that out yet.

We cannot build more nuclear power plants and create more nuclear waste until we figure out how to control it.

To join Citizen Alert's fight against the Yucca Mountain waste dump, call 796-5662 or visit www.citizenalert.org.

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

Los Angeles Times
May 05, 2006

Letters:

The heavy burden of storing nuclear waste

Re "An Alert Unlike Any Other," Column One, May 3

This article about a nuclear waste vault in New Mexico mentions "a similar repository in Nevada at Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas." It also says: "Eventually it will store highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants as well as high-level waste from the weapons program."

There is no similarity between the dry salt formations in New Mexico and the highly porous fractured rock of Yucca Mountain, which is essentially a sieve. As a consequence, water would seep into the Yucca Mountain tunnels, corroding the waste packages and carrying the radioactive waste to the human environment.

The Times should have been more cautious in repeating Energy Department propaganda. Because the Yucca Mountain site's poor geology is so difficult to defend, the Energy Department has delayed over and over again submitting a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and facing a hearing, because it knows Nevada has assembled a first-rate scientific team. It is extremely doubtful the repository will ever open.

Robert Loux
Executive Director
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects
Carson City

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

Los Angeles Times
May 05, 2006

Letters:

If placing our burdensome national debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren is immoral, what do we make of the fact that our lethal nuclear waste will threaten Earth's inhabitants for 250,000 years? It is beyond grotesque, and it's the reason my license plate has read "BAN NUX" for the last 24 years.

Susan Hanger
Topanga

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

Los Angeles Times
May 05, 2006

Letters:

I'm puzzled by all of the effort going into storing nuclear waste forever. Why do scientists think we will be permanently stumped over how to make nuclear waste harmless? And why aren't we reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel and using it again like most countries do?

If reused, we have enough uranium and plutonium to last 1,000 years, and we wouldn't need to violently seize oil and gas from other countries. But then the military-industrial complex would lose some profits, and the oil industry would lose an excuse to loot our wallets.

Come to think of it, maybe I'm not puzzled anymore.

Art Hoffmann
Santa Ana

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

Los Angeles Times
May 05, 2006

Letters:

With regard to devising warnings for a future human race about our deadly, embarrassing garbage buried in New Mexico, will part of the elaborate signage include an apology?

Stephen Jerrom
Los Angeles

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

Las Vegas SUN
May 05, 2006

Bomb testing valley's patience Action growing over huge explosion

Public meetings to address concerns on health, environment

By Launce Rake
<lrake@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun

A swelling chorus of community concern in Southern Nevada and Utah has prompted planning for town hall-style meetings about a huge explosion scheduled by the Defense Department at the Nevada Test Site.

Defense Threat Reduction Agency officials said Thursday they would schedule the meetings to provide information on the blast and answer questions. The move was in response to requests from Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The action comes as Nevada's government is asking for additional environmental information before it will grant a permit for the explosion and as a Nevada activist, already a party to a federal lawsuit to stop the blast, threatens another lawsuit against the state government.

The Defense Department plans to detonate a 700-ton mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil - a much greater amount of the same mix that decimated Oklahoma City's federal building in 1995 - at the Test Site on June 2. Agency Director James Tegnelia's comment that the blast would "send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas" ignited a firestorm of controversy.

Times and places for the meetings have not been determined. Energy Department spokesman Darwin Morgan said his agency, which manages the Test Site, will participate but is leaving the scheduling to the Defense Department.

David Rigby, Defense Threat Reduction Agency spokesman, said his agency has been in contact with congressional staff members about town hall meetings before the test, known as Divine Strake.

"It is the agency's intention to participate in these meetings to be held in Nevada, as well as Utah, to address public concerns regarding the potential consequences of the Divine Strake experiment," he said. Environmentalists and "downwinders" - who blame federal above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada in the 1950s and early '60s for health problems, including cancer - have sued to stop the test.

Federal officials, who in budget documents a year ago referred to the test as a step toward a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon, now say the test could be used to develop either a conventional or nuclear bunker buster for use against underground structures.

Some congressmen from Utah and Nevada have expressed concerns about the environmental impact and the possibility that the test could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, have asked for clarification on both points, as has Hatch, who also asked for meetings so that people could directly question federal officials.

Sharyn Stein, a Reid spokeswoman, said the Senate minority leader welcomes the town hall meetings. Last month, Reid asked the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to do a better job of explaining the test to the public. "Sen. Reid wants to make sure that Nevadans have all the information they need," she said.

Hatch, in a statement, also welcomed the meetings, which he said would be akin to taking earlier congressional briefings to the public.

"I'm grateful that DTRA has agreed to my request for briefings," he said.

"It's vital for the people of Southern Utah and Nevada to have full knowledge of what will take place should this test go forward."

Berkley spokesman David Cherry echoed the comments: "Why shouldn't we give the ability to the public to comment and ask questions?"

He noted that his boss is still awaiting a response to a letter earlier this week that asked for more information on both the environmental and weapons-development issues.

To find answers to the outstanding questions, "continued pressure from all sides is still important," Cherry said.

Some of those who have worked against the planned test are not satisfied. Patricia Axelrod, a Reno peace activist, said she filed a 30-day, intent-to-sue notice against Nevada if the test, as planned, goes forward.

"It is an unsafe venture," Axelrod said. "I want to stop the test. The nature of the test is so very dangerous, the consequences so dire, I don't believe it is appropriate to conduct this test in proximity to people, animals, places, things."

Test Site managers have said there would be no negative environmental impact from the test, that dust from the blast would not be radioactive and would not drift off-site, and that Las Vegas residents would not be able to feel, hear or see the blast.

In Las Vegas, Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, an environmental advocacy group, said she still wants a full federal environmental impact study completed before the test can go forward. Such a study usually takes at least two years.

Johnson, who has railed for years against the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, said town hall meetings are only as good as the information presented: "It depends on whether they will tell us the truth. They have to put in writing in a legal way that this is not going to have any impacts."

Johnson said she would urge people to attend a local meeting, but it may not change the course of the federal government.

"We could get 20,000 people to sign a petition against it," she said, "and they're still going to do what they're going to do."

Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at lrake@lasvegassun.com.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
May 5, 2006

Heads In The Poof Dirt

Amargosa ripe for exploitation

County Commission Opens The Door for Land Developers to Circumvent Subdivision Laws

By Mark Waite
Special to The PVT

TONOPAH - A motion by Nye County Commissioner Patricia Cox to impose a moratorium on subsequent and contiguous parcel map applications for areas in Nye County outside of the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission died for lack of a second Tuesday.

Commission Chairwoman Candice Trummell, who said she doesn't second motions as chairwoman, said hopefully the Amargosa Valley Town Board would take action after a recent spate of parcel map filings.

Commissioner Joni Eastley said she supported a moratorium on parceling, but only if the Amargosa Valley board doesn't address the issue.

"I can't think that there's a more important issue to residents of Amargosa Valley than the ordinance on subsequent parceling," said Eastley, representing Nye County Commission District II, which includes Amargosa Valley.

Commissioners talked about possibly funding a master plan for Amargosa Valley. A master plan was approved for Pahrump Valley two years ago.

Cox, who isn't running for re-election this year, said the intent of the parceling moratorium was to prevent a recurrence of Pahrump Valley in the boom days of the 1970s when Preferred Equities Corporation parceled up lots without providing necessary improvements. The Pahrump Regional Planning District has been bound by a subsequent parceling moratorium since 1996, but the rest of Nye County doesn't have a planning district.

"It's totally irresponsible we're allowing this to occur," Cox said by videoconference from Pahrump. "If we don't put something in place we're going to have tons of applications and 20 years from now people are going to blame us for letting this happen."

A moratorium would require residents to sign subdivision agreements, which would require approval by the Nevada Division of Water Resources, Nye County Interim County Manager Ron Williams explained. The applicants would have to provide water rights, he said.

The proposed resolution states the county must develop a comprehensive approach to regulating the division of land so those landowners participate in the cost of schools, police, fire protection, emergency services, recreational opportunities, sanitary sewage, drainage, utilities, rights of way dedication and other facilities.

The draft resolution states the parcel map process is being used to circumvent subdivision regulations - which is exactly why Pahrump is so far behind the growth curve.

The submission of parcel map applications one after another, or covering properties that are contiguous, if it's obvious the intent is to create more than four parcels and avoid subdivision requirements, would've required the filing of a subdivision application under the moratorium. Any division of land resulting in for or fewer lots is considered parceling under state law. Any division of land that creates five or more lots falls under state subdivision laws.

Williams described how a landowner could at first subdivide a 160-acre lot into say eight 20-acre parcels, then come back in a few months and subdivide those eight lots into smaller parcels, then keep subdividing down to acre and a quarter lots forming an entire subdivision piecemeal - without paved roads, water and sewer and other standards.

Cox pushed for a 90-day moratorium until a resolution could be drafted in order to prevent a rush of parcel map applications at the last minute.

Harley Kulkin predicted "a tremendous influx" of parcel map applications if developers fear a pending moratorium. "We've got to stop catering to people that only want to profit," he said.

Cox said by allowing the parceling, the county was creating more lots without available water. The Amargosa Valley is in an overdraft position, which means there is more water rights than water available. Pahrump Valley and Smoky Valley are also considered overdraft basins, Williams said.

Opposition obviously came from the real estate sector.

"You're entering into a slippery slope both politically and economically," said John Buchanan of Pahrump, representing Tri-State Realty. "Allowing parceling in reasonable numbers you're going to increase your tax base."

Marlene Rogoff of Las Vegas asked for an exemption for Beatty residents using city water.

Fred White from Amargosa Valley asked why Nye County wanted to put a moratorium on the entire county when Pahrump has the most heavily parceled land. While lots are divided up into an acre and a half in Amargosa Valley, White said in Pahrump lots are parceled down to a third of an acre. Again, however, subsequent parceling has been prohibited in Pahrump for the last decade.

Shelley Kadrmas, Amargosa Valley town secretary, said, "We're trying very hard to set a new area plan for the valley.

"We have not approved any maps less than one and a quarter acres," she said, adding that's enough land to have a well and septic system.

Sandy Shaw of Tonopah angrily stated the moratorium would be detrimental to Nye County. She said the moratorium would also decrease property values.

"Right now Pahrump is being subsidized by property taxes from northern Nye County," she said. "What you're talking about is a taking." This is incorrect. Property taxes are distributed back to the town of origin.

Dirk Pearson, also of Tonopah, said, "this ordinance is gross overkill. It's totally unnecessary in the northern part of the county"

Pearson said property taxes on a 40-acre site may only amount to $15 per year, which when its parceled into eight lots would generate $5,000 in taxes, or $10,000 when houses are built on all eight lots.

While some water basins are over-appropriated, Pearson said, "Monitor Valley is not a designated basin. It has lots of water. If Nye County residents do not use that water Las Vegas is going to come and take it."

"We're being treated as colonials. You have an imperial power in Pahrump," he said, adding it'd be another argument to secede from southern Nye County and join Esmeralda County.

Jan Cameron of Amargosa Valley said, "We have a right to divide our land in accordance with state law.

"It is inappropriate for the county to tell us we don't have the right to develop our own rules and regulations," she said.

Bob Coache, chief engineer for the Nevada Division of Water Resources, said parcels subdivided into one acre and a quarter lots require the relinquishment of water rights of 2.02 acre-feet per lot. An acre-foot of water is 325,851 gallons; water managers commonly say it's enough to provide water for four people per year.

Coache said the amount of water recharge into the aquifer of Amargosa Valley is very low. The patented water rights of the valley total more than 24,000 acre-feet, he said. "You're over appropriated one and a half to two and a half times."

The water rights on paper don't include 400 or so existing wells and lots already subdivided in Amargosa Valley, Coache said.

Nye County Commissioner Gary Hollis told Coache the Nevada Bureau of Water Resources should tell the Legislature they have a problem with parceling. Coache said the policy of permitting wells in over appropriated water basins has already come up before committees in the state Legislature.

"I don't understand how a person can have 240 acres to supplement their retirement and here we come up with this law on parceling and they can't do anything," Hollis said.

"I'm not the one who sold water rights but I'm the one who's trying to preserve the rights for the future by preserving the water supply," Cox said.

People dividing up parcels should pay the bonds, then when homes are built they can pay for the improvements, like roads, she said.

"I don't want to go in and tell you how to design your community," Cox told Amargosa Valley residents. But speaking of some developers, she said, "they're making the money and they're running. That's how I see it."

Hollis, describing himself as "a Ronald Reagan-type person," said the people should be consulted. "People in places like Amargosa Valley have the right answers, we just don't ask the right questions."

Eastley asked whether residents in places like Ione, Railroad Valley and Ralston Valley would be affected. Cox said a moratorium would have to apply to the entire county where there aren't planning commissions, which is everywhere outside of Pahrump Valley. Trummell questioned whether the county was being forced to create a countywide planning commission; Williams said county lobbyists already asked State Sen. Mike McGinness, R-Fallon about that possibility.

Trummell said the county needs to spend money for an Amargosa Valley master plan. Commissioner Roberta "Midge" Carver suggested money for the plan could come out of Yucca Mountain money, since Amargosa Valley is going to house workers at the repository.

Cox's motion was amended to only approve the moratorium in water basins that are over-appropriated, but it still failed to get a second.

Commissioners considered five parcel map applications at Tuesdays meeting, three for Amargosa Valley and two for Crystal. Cox cast the sole vote against the applications.

Ultimate Industries was granted a request to divide an 80-acre tract on Spring Meadows Road, 1.5 miles from State Highway 373 in Amargosa Valley into four 20-acre parcels.

Charles and Judith Sedgwick were granted approval to subdivide two 40-acre parcels into four 20-acre parcels on T and T Road in Amargosa Valley. The Sedgwicks were also granted approval to divide two more 40-acre parcels into four 20-acre parcels.

Representatives of the White Family Trust were granted permission to subdivide a 30-acre lot into three 10-acre parcels on White Boulevard in Crystal. Lee White convinced commissioners to strike a condition requiring the graveling of half the width of the road on his 30-acre frontage, arguing the rest of the road is dirt.

Oz Wichman, Nye County engineering technician, pushed for retaining the requirement. He requested a pre-construction meeting with the contractors.

"As people develop these properties we get only one shot at getting improvements done," Wichman said.

Williams said owners of property larger than 40 acres only have to "blade and grade," or merely plow the brush for a dirt road. White said if he had to gravel the road it would deteriorate quickly.

"We're asking a citizen to go out and put gravel on a county road," Commissioner Hollis said. But Commissioner Trummell said residents in Pahrump might be required to chipseal a county maintained road as a condition of subdividing land.

After Eastley's motion to approve the map subject to graveling half the road width failed, Hollis adopted White's recommendation to make the motion to approve the application without the road improvements. It passed 3-1.

Commissioners tabled action until June 6 on a request by James and Renate White to divide a 70-acre plot into a 40-acre parcel and three 10-acre parcels on White Boulevard and Laurel Drive in Crystal after Commissioner Trummell suggested a meeting with the Valley Electric Cooperative board over a requirement the Whites move power poles on road rights-of-way. James White said the power poles are as old as the 40-year life span in which VEA normally replaces the poles.

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

Washington File
May 05, 2006

U.S. Public More Friendly Toward Nuclear Power Despite Risks

Clean-air, energy benefits seen as outweighing safety concerns

By Andrzej Zwaniecki
Washington File Staff Writer

This is the fourth in a series of articles on nuclear energy.

Washington -- Growing concerns about global warming and more favorable public views of nuclear energy are bolstering U.S. efforts to revitalize nuclear power as a reliable source of large-scale and clean electricity.

Various public opinion polls conducted over the last several years indicate that 60 percent to 70 percent of Americans favor nuclear power. Among those living near nuclear plants the share is even higher.

“Even more significant is the widening gap between those who strongly favor and strongly oppose nuclear energy,’ according to a May 2005 report by Bisconti Research Inc. “Those who strongly favor (32 percent) nuclear energy outnumber those who are strongly opposed (10 percent) by a three-to-one margin.’

Concerns about meeting rising energy demands and worries about the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that contribute to global warming have been weakening the once-formidable sway of nuclear energy opponents, according to officials and experts. For example, public resistance to renewal of licenses for 16 existing reactors in seven states, expected by many market observers a few years ago, has never materialized.

Coal-fired plants are a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Nuclear plants emit no pollution.

A number of prominent environmentalists, such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore and former Rocky Mountain Institute director Peter Schwartz, have broken ranks with their colleagues and embraced nuclear energy as the best solution to global warming.

Even though U.S. and Asian publics seem primed to move forward with nuclear, continued public opposition in some other parts of the world continues to hamper expansion of nuclear energy, says Luis Echávarri, the head of the Nuclear Energy Agency in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

"Addressing social concerns about nuclear energy remains an important goal for the industry stakeholders and governmental bodies," he told a 2005 international conference.

So far no major environmental organization has embraced nuclear energy without reservations.

NUCLEAR VERSUS RENEWABLES

The Rocky Mountain Institute and some other environmental groups claim that the U.S. government has skewed competition among different forms of clean-electricity by lavishing hefty subsidies on nuclear power.

Institute Director Amory Lovins has argued that conservation, use of renewable sources and cogeneration can together curb the growth of greenhouse emissions faster and at a lower cost than nuclear power. Cogeneration is electricity production combined with utilization of waste heat.

U.S. officials and the industry say, however, that renewables and cogeneration are not substitutes for nuclear power.

Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an energy industry group, says attributes of nuclear power make it suitable for providing a large-scale, steady and dependable energy supply all year round.

"You cannot run the subway system in New York City or chemical plants on renewable energy," he said in a March 23 interview.

NUCLEAR SAFETY AND SECURITY

Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense say that, in principle, they are not opposed to nuclear energy and will support it as part of the clean energy portfolio if the industry and the government address major uncertainties, including weapons proliferation and safety.

These risks are being addressed, officials and the industry say.

For example, half of the nuclear fuel used by the U.S. nuclear power industry comes from Soviet nuclear warheads dismantled as a result of strategic arms treaties, Andrew Paterson, an Energy Department policy analyst, says.

"If this does not reduce the proliferation risk, then I don't know what does," he said in an April 20 interview.

The industry says its safety record speaks for itself. No one has ever died as a result of an accident at a U.S. nuclear plant, and new reactors will be even safer, according to the NEI.

Most experts believe that a Chernobyl-type accident could have never happened in the United States because U.S. plant construction and operational procedures as safer than those use at Chernobyl.

Even Thomas Cochran of the NRDC acknowledged in a March 23 interview that safety of the U.S. nuclear industry has improved "somewhat" since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.

More recently, some experts and groups have expressed concern about potential terrorists attacks on nuclear plants.

Patrick Moore, now the head of an environmental consulting firm, said the thick concrete containment structure protects the reactor well.

"Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode," he recently told The Washington Post.

WASTE STORAGE AND EXPANSION

Neither the industry nor environmentalists are happy with the progress of a governmental plan for permanent storage for U.S. nuclear waste and spent fuel that has been beset by delays and tied up in litigation since it was launched in the 1980s.

The Yucca Mountain underground repository in Nevada was initially scheduled to open in 1998. But the project has not proceeded '"at the pace that we in the industry would like to see," Kerekes said.

Some experts and at least one industry executive, John Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon, have expressed fear that a lack of safe permanent storage may complicate the industry's expansion in the future.

In April, the Bush administration sent to Congress a legislative proposal that it said would speed the process of opening the Yucca Mountain facility by removing a number of legal and regulatory barriers.

See also “Nuclear Gaining Favor as Clean Energy Source for World,’ “U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Sees Expansion in Near Future,’ and "Experts Debate Economic Viability of New Nuclear Power Plants."

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

BYU Newsnet
May 05, 2006

LDS Church issues nuclear waste statement

By Robb Hicken

The LDS Church has taken a stand against the disposal or storage of nuclear waste west of Salt Lake City.

In a press release attributed to the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, church officials took a stand against the storage of nuclear waste in Utah´s Skull Valley area.

“It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste,’ the statement issued Thursday afternoon read.

Debate over the concentration of waste or spent nuclear material arose after there was concern about the Yucca Mountain repository near Las Vegas was questioned. Since 1997, Private Fuel Storage officials are looking to dump as much as 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods on land owned by the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians in Tooele County. The tribe, which has struggled with unemployment and poverty, has seen this venture as a relief. An agreement, estimated at as much as $240 million, has been in the works to lease reservation land for the storage of nuclear waste above ground.

Church authorities called on the federal government to use technological and creative power to develop alternative means to dispose of the waste.

“The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety and environmental concerns,’ the release stated.

Earlier this month, Salt Lake City officials joined with other city, county and government leaders in Utah to oppose Private Fuel Storage's proposal

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman signed a declaration last week opposing the storage plan and encouraged Utah residents to speak out before the Bureau of Land Management, which is conducting a study of the proposed waste site and storage plan.

BLM officials will be gathering comment on the proposal through May 8. The bureau oversees the approval process that would allow access across public lands, which would be required for transportation of the spent nuclear fuel to the storage site.

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

Salt Lake Tribune
May 05, 2006

LDS joins N-storage foes

Church's rare public-policy statement appears to go beyond Utah, may target Nevada site as well

By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune

One of the Rocky Mountain West's most influential forces added its voice Thursday to the campaign to block trainloads of radioactive waste from coming to Utah.

But it remains unclear if even the powerful word of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can truly help stop those trains.

In a rare statement on public policy, church President Gordon B. Hinckley and his two counselors said moving and storing high-level nuclear waste creates 'substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns." The statement went Thursday to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management as an official comment on a right-of-way request.

"It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste,' the statement continues. 'We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste.'

In the fall, the LDS Church announced through a spokesman its objections to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to license the proposed nuclear waste storage on the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Tooele County. The site would be a kind of parking lot big enough to hold nearly all the reactor waste ever produced by the nation's 103 nuclear power plants.

But the Thursday statement comes directly from the church's First Presidency and it is broader, apparently covering the federal government's plan to bury reactor waste forever at Yucca Mountain, Nev. And it specifically endorses alternative technologies, echoing what has become a mantra among political leaders who, along with Salt Lake City-based nuclear services company EnergySolutions, have been touting nuclear fuel reprocessing lately as an answer to the nation's waste problems.

Not since the statement opposing the MX nuclear missile deployment in Utah 25 years ago has the First Presidency spoken out so directly and forcefully on a public policy issue not involving

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

Tooele Transcript-Bulletin
May 05, 2006

Nuke Waste in Skull Valley is Grade-A Nonsense

Written by Orrin Hatch

Time is running out for Utahns to help stop the plan to store high-level nuclear waste in Skull Valley. We only have through May 8 to make our voices heard and convince the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that transporting waste to Skull Valley is not in the public's interest.

Some power companies from the East want to dump their nuclear waste & above ground and in open air & at one of the most dangerous places in the nation. This site lies just miles from 80 percent of Utah's population, close to our Salt Lake International Airport, and directly below the flight path of 7,000 F-16s armed with live ordnance.

This reckless plan is just grade-A nonsense, and we're not going to stand for it.

And we don't have to.

The Bureau of Land Management has the power to deny the PFS access to the one road they need to transport half the nation's waste to its "temporary" storage in Utah. I put "temporary" in quotes for a reason & there's nothing temporary about this plan. It will take over 20 years just to transport all the waste here, and another 20 years to move it to Yucca Mountain, if they move it at all. Have no doubt about it, this waste will be in Skull Valley for a very long time.

PFS is dead if the BLM denies that right of way. It's that simple.

But before the BLM decides whether to allow PFS access to that road, it wants to hear from you. At my request, BLM re-opened the comment period to hear the concerns so many of us in Utah have about the Skull Valley site. I encourage all of you to visit my website, http://hatch.senate.gov to learn more about why this plan is not in the public's interest.

We have just over a week to flood the BLM with letters. We have a solid case, and we need to make it & repeatedly and resoundingly. Comments should be directed to the BLM through Pam Schuller at pam_schuller@blm.gov by fax at (801) 977-4397.

PFS can't go forward without BLM's approval.

Let's make sure BLM has the public record it needs to deny this thing from happening once and for all.

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

Tooele Transcript-Bulletin
May 05, 2006

Tooele joins fray against PFS plan

Written by Mark Watson

Tooele City joined a growing list of Utah government entities, businesses, organizations and individuals sending comments to the Bureau of Land Management opposing the storage of spent nuclear fuel in Skull Valley.

Tooele City Council adopted a resolution Wednesday outlining its reasons for opposing the plan. The resolution will be sent to the BLM Salt Lake Field Office. The BLM is accepting comments through Monday on plans to store spent nuclear fuel in Utah's west desert.

The latest strategy Private Fuel Storage (PFS) opponents are using is to attack the company's proposed plan to build an intermodal transfer station which would temporarily store spent nuclear fuel within yards of Interstate 80 as it waits to be loaded onto heavy-haul trailers and transported along the Skull Valley road to the storage site on the Goshute Skull Valley Reservation.

Tooele's resolution states that spent nuclear fuel on public roads is wholly impractical and that operation and storage of spent nuclear fuel at the proposed intermodal transfer facility presents an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the citizens of Tooele County.

In written comments from Utah Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett to the BLM they state that PFS plans to construct a short-line track to move rail cars with spent nuclear fuel from Rowley Junction to the intermodal transfer facility. The transfer operation will occur in a prefabricated metal building which poses extreme risks.

The senators calculate that PFS's operation would continue for a minimum of 40 years.

"Hauling 100 to 200 casks per year it would likely take 20 years for PFS to haul the planned 4,000 casks to the PFS storage facility and then another 20 years to move the SNF casks back for reshipment to reactor sites for repacking and then, in turn, shipment to Yucca Mountain," reads the senators' statement to the BLM.

Hatch and Bennett list a myriad of objections to PFS's plan. They contend one of the most important reasons to kill the proposal is because the nuclear site would be situated under flight paths of Air Force jets. The facility also would present a target for terrorists.

"The risk of stray ordinances and F-16 crashes add an unacceptable risk to the plan," the senators said.

Private Fuel Storage spokesperson Sue Martin said she encourages people to send comments to the BLM. "We also encourage people to become more educated about the proposal," she said. She said her company responds to concerns about security, transportation and the air-crash issue on its Web site at www.privatefuelstorage.com.

The company estimates that the chance of a plane crashing into the site is roughly equal to the chance per year that any given person living in the U.S. will be killed by being struck by lightning.

Already, PFS has received a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John D. Parkyn, CEO of PFS, indicates that his company has already answered questions raised regarding the safety of the operation.

"After a very rigorous process, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the NRC Commissioners found that the facility complies with the federal regulations designed to protect public health and safety, and a license was granted," Parkyn said.

EnergySolutions recently announced that the latest technology they have acquired from Britain makes the PFS plan obsolete. The Salt Lake City-based company is working toward operating a plant to recycle spent nuclear waste. Opponents to that process say it is costly and produces plutonium which is suitable for nuclear weapons.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, concerned about the possibility of nuclear proliferation, banned commercial reprocessing of spent fuel for private companies.

In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the US Department of Energy to start taking utilities' spent fuel by Jan. 31, 1998. It directed DOE to begin studying sites for permanent repositories and established a schedule for that process. In 1987, Yucca Mountain, Nev. was selected as a permanent storage facility. A delay in the construction of the Yucca site prompted the need for an interim storage facility.

Now, a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has refocused the plan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

The comment period extends through Monday. Send feedback via E-mail to: pam_schuller@blm.gov or mail to Bureau of Land Management, Attention Pam Schuller, Salt Lake Field Office, 2370 S. 2300 West, SLC, UT 84119. Pam Schuller may be reached in person at 1-801-977-4356.

e-mail:mwatson@tooeletranscript.com

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

North County Times
May 05, 2006

Nukes may be necessary

North County Times - Editorial

Our view: Waste storage a real problem, but global warming threat from fossil-fuel waste may be greater

The California Energy Commission doesn't want any new nuclear plants to be built in this state, citing concerns that the nation hasn't figured out how to handle nuclear waste. But waiting for such a solution may be a luxury we can no longer afford.

The commission may not have noticed, but we also haven't figured out how to handle most of the waste generated by burning fossil fuels. The threat of global climate change accelerated by carbon emissions might make nuclear power an increasingly necessary option. This is no time to take it off the table.

Last week, the commission completed its first review of the pros and cons of nuclear power in 30 years. It recommended that California continue a moratorium on building new nuclear plants that has been in place since 1976. The review was prompted by the Bush administration's renewed interest in nuclear power. The federal energy bill signed by President Bush last August called for six new nuclear plants to meet the nation's rising energy needs, and Bush recently offered to help India build nuclear power plants in an effort to reduce that growing superpower's demand for diminishing oil supplies.

The commission's main concern was the lack of progress on solutions for safe storage of nuclear waste. The federal repository planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada seems as far as ever from being ready to receive waste shipments, though Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman is the latest federal champion trying to ram it through Congress.

With no place to send nuclear waste, plants like the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in the northwest corner of San Diego County have been piling it up on site. That's a dangerous situation getting worse, and the more than 1,000 metric tons of spent fuel stored there represent a significant risk in the event of terrorist attack, earthquake or tsunami.

It's past time for Southern California Edison, the owner of the San Onofre plant, to thoroughly study how the reactors would fare in a worst-case scenario natural disaster, as Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is doing for its Diablo Canyon plant.

So far, we're with the Energy Commission. But even allowing for the risks presented by nuclear waste, there still may be enough reason for California to think anew about nuclear power.

That reason lies in the gathering storm of evidence implicating carbon emissions in the global warming that a growing chorus of scientists have been forecasting. The vast majority of our power comes from burning oil and natural gas, and both processes appear to contribute to the buildup of carbon in our atmosphere. That buildup, in turn, may be heating up our planet at a pace never before experienced in human history, perhaps Earth's history.

Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and the earth's internal heat, are not nearly equipped to substitute for the fossil-fuel demand of the United States or the world in general. Of existing technologies, only nuclear power has that energy-generating potential. It's ugly, but it's fact. That's why many former opponents of nuclear power, the "No Nukes" crowd, are reconsidering their opposition in light of the growing consensus on human-induced climate change brought on by fossil fuels.

Also promising is the McCain-Lieberman bill circulating on Capitol Hill that would couple limits on carbon emissions with investments in cleaner nuclear technology.

There are many things Californians, Americans and people everywhere can and must do to reduce our growing energy demand. There are also important investments to be made in renewable-energy technology.

But nuclear power may prove to be part of the solution. It's too early to tell. It's also too early to rule out, because of worries about waste storage, the existing technology most capable of replacing oil and natural gas.

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

Decatur Daily
May 05, 2006

NRC renews Browns Ferry unit licenses

By Holly Hollman
Daily Staff Writer
hhollman@decaturdaily.com · 340-2445

ATHENS — Ken Brune could only describe Thursday as historic.

Brune witnessed Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials sign the license renewals for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant´s three units.

“When I started working here over 30 years ago, I didn´t foresee I´d be involved in making such history,’ said Brune, who is program manager for license renewal at Browns Ferry.

The license renewal means Browns Ferry can operate Unit 1 until 2033, Unit 2 until 2034 and Unit 3 until 2036, and be capable of providing electricity for nearly 2 million homes.

The units began operation in the 1970s, but TVA voluntarily shut down Unit 1 in March 1985 because of managerial and technical problems.

TVA expects Unit 1 to go online in May 2007. About 2,500 contract workers are working on the $1.8 billion restart.

When it goes online, TVA will add 140 employees to operate the unit. Units 2 and 3 employ 950 workers.

NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz said his agency will “be looking over their shoulders’ as Browns Ferry continues work on Unit 1 and operating the other two units.

He said the public will continue demanding reasonably priced and reliable power, which means the utility industry will look at adding more nuclear power plants. A 1992 change in regulations will let the utility industry more easily construct those plants, Diaz said.

Before 1992, the licensing process had two steps, applying for a construction license and, after a public hearing, applying for an operating license.

Now, after a public hearing, the NRC issues the construction and operating licenses simultaneously, Diaz said.

As for handling spent fuel produced by these plants, Diaz said, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository project in Nevada is “in a state of definition.’ Diaz expects a submission for NRC approval in 2008.

As for ensuring the safety of transporting spent fuel to a depository, Diaz said, Congress will have to discuss how the Department of Transportation and NRC will oversee that.

“We´ll do what Congress tells us to do,’ Diaz said.

He said the storage casks conform to strict standards so that if one falls, it won´t break, and it will withstand an attack.

Diaz said he is confident that nuclear plants are “safe and secure as they should be.’

“The NRC is going to do a darn good job as long as the industry does a darn good job,’ Diaz said.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 04, 2006

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman: Senators reserve judgment on nominee

Ensign, Reid not yet commenting on Klein

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Nevada senators are keeping their powder dry on Dale Klein, a Bush administration official with a Yucca Mountain past who has been nominated for chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said Wednesday he will place a hold on Klein's nomination until he can meet with the nominee.

"The NRC has such a huge part in the licensing of Yucca Mountain, to have somebody nominated as chairman that was so involved in pro-Yucca activities is very concerning," Ensign said.

"I am going to give him a fair interview and see how it goes," Ensign said.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not commented publicly on Klein and spoke through an aide on Wednesday.

"Senator Reid is reviewing Mr. Klein's record," spokeswoman Sharyn Stein said. "He plans to meet with him. He wants to discuss his views and determine whether he will be able to be an impartial arbiter on Yucca Mountain."

Klein, a nuclear waste expert who was an associate dean in the College of Engineering at the University of Texas, participated in the "Nevada Initiative," an advertising and public outreach campaign funded by the American Nuclear Energy Council that began in October 1991.

Klein appeared in a series of TV spots produced by ANEC, a forerunner of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's major trade association and lobbying arm.

Repository critics maintain Klein as a result cannot be impartial when the NRC weighs a license for Yucca Mountain. Bush nominated Klein for a five-year term on the five-member commission, a term that could coincide with the commission's handling of a repository application.

Klein's defenders said he participated as a science expert and not an advocate in the commercials, at one point stating that Yucca Mountain "is not a done deal."

He presently works at the Pentagon where he is assistant to the secretary of defense for nuclear, biological and chemical programs. A Defense Department spokeswoman said Klein was in meetings and could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

White House spokesman Peter Watkins said Bush believes Klein "is well qualified for this position. The president looks forward to working with the Senate to see that he gets confirmed."

Trish Conrad, a Nuclear Energy Institute spokeswoman, characterized Klein's television appearances as "educational and informational."

The institute released transcripts of 60-second TV spots in which Klein was interviewed by Ron Vitto, a former Las Vegas sportscaster who served as narrator in the commercials.

Speaking on safety issues, Klein said spent nuclear fuel "just sits there" in a repository. "It doesn't move; it's not active; it's really sort of boring," according to a transcript.

Klein said the public "should fear the transportation of toxic waste much greater than they should fear the transportation of spent nuclear fuel." He said the waste shipping container "has undergone rigorous design," and nuclear fuel is shipped in pellet form that "cannot explode, period."

Klein was asked if Yucca Mountain was "a done deal," according to a transcript.

"It is not a done deal," Klein said. "There is enough oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the state oversight, a lot of independent scientists, and if it is not technically suitable it will not be selected and that's just the end of the discussion."

Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said Klein's comments appeared noncontroversial on the commercials but it remained that he got paid from an industry "promotion" of Yucca Mountain.

"That is probably not a role in the background of someone who is going to be the chairman of the board that will independently determine if Yucca Mountain is safe.

"The fact of the matter is Yucca Mountain is not safe and it has been selected," said Loux, who added the state planned to post video of at least one of Klein's commercials to its Web site.

Reid is taking a low-key approach on Klein in part because he is trying to win re-nomination for another NRC commissioner, Gregory Jaczko, according to Senate sources. Jaczko worked for Reid until he was placed on the commission in 2004.

Ensign said he planned to ask if Klein would recuse himself in Yucca Mountain matters.

"I want to explore that, although I am not sure he should be there (at the NRC) in the first place," Ensign said.

The "Nevada Initiative" sought to build public support for Yucca Mountain. But opinion polls showed its message was not taking hold, according to an account of the campaign in a 1995 article in PR Watch.

The campaign, planned to run three years and to cost $8.7 million, was abandoned short of its run after its commercials were mocked on Las Vegas radio and television, and after "highly embarrassing" internal strategy documents were leaked to the public, according to PR Watch.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 04, 2006

Survey suggests opposition

Review-Journal

A survey of 600 Southern Nevada residents conducted in February by a Clark County consultant found that 71 percent would vote against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project if they had a chance to, according to a statement Wednesday from county planners.

More than two-thirds of the respondents thought that if the project goes forward and a repository for deadly spent fuel is built 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, it would have a negative effect on their quality of life.

The statement quotes Irene Navis, a county planning manager, as saying, "The timing of this survey is important because Congress is currently considering a bill that could accelerate the licensing process for Yucca Mountain."

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

MIT Press
May 04, 2006

Uncertainty Underground

Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste

Edited by Allison M. Macfarlane and Rodney C. Ewing

Despite approval by Congress and the Bush administration and over seven billion dollars already spent, the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site for disposal of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is not yet in operation. The reasons for the delay lie not only in citizen and activist opposition to the project but also in the numerous scientific and technical issues that remain unresolved. Although many scientists favor geologic disposal of high-level nuclear waste, there are substantial unknowns in projecting the performance of a site over the tens to hundreds of thousands of years that may be required by Environmental Protection Agency standards. Uncertainty Underground is the first effort to review the uncertainties in the analysis of the long-term performance of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The book does not pass judgment on the suitability of the site but provides reliable science-based information to support open debate and inquiry into its safety.

Experts from the geosciences, industry, and government review different aspects of the repository system, focusing on the uncertainties inherent in each. After an overview of the historical and regulatory context, the contributors investigate external factors (including climate change and volcanic activity) that could affect repository performance and then turn to topics concerning the repository itself. These include hydrologic issues, the geological conditions with which the nuclear waste in the repository would interact, and the predicted behavior of the different kinds of waste and waste package materials. Uncertainty Underground succeeds in making these important technical issues understandable to a wide audience, including policymakers and the general public.

Allison M. Macfarlane is a Research Associate at MIT's Program in Science, Technology, and Society.

Rodney C. Ewing is Donald R. Peacor Professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Michigan, where he also holds appointments in the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences and the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Emeritus Regents' Professor at the University of New Mexico.

Endorsements

"If you want to understand the full range of technical issues related to Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste--from rainwater flow through the mountain to corrosion of nuclear waste containers and the consequent movement of radioactive material to Nevada's Amargosa Valley--this is the place to start. The book's strength is that it also makes clear that essential scientific questions about this matter remain unanswered."

--Victor Gilinsky, energy consultant

"Macfarlane and Ewing have compiled a well-chosen set of articles by technical experts describing the technology and regulatory process for developing the Yucca Mountain repository. The authors present arguments that Yucca Mountain has not been and may never be shown to be an appropriate repository for high-level radioactive waste. Opponents of the project should read this book for support; supporters, to understand the obstacles to be overcome."

--John F. Ahearne, former chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

"The energy honeymoon is rapidly ending as hydrogen-rich fossil fuels are depleted and combustion-driven global climate impacts accelerate. The path to major successor sources offers few attractive options, which is why nuclear waste issues must be resolved. Uncertainty Underground offers comprehensive, authoritative, and understandable essays on this critical issue. If we mean to be our own governors we must become more literate about handling the ashes of the 'Faustian bargain.' That's why this book is a treasure."

--John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (1993-1998)

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

Scripps Howard News Service
May 04, 2006

Nevada test site back in public spotlight

By Launce Rake
Las Vegas Sun

Almost 60 years after the nation reveled at the sight of mushroom clouds boiling high above the Nevada desert, another blast _ tiny by comparison _ is again thrusting the Nevada Test Site into the public spotlight.

Some things at the site, 60 miles northwest of Las Vegas, haven't changed in those six decades. A visitor can still see the parallel wooden benches perched 10 miles above Frenchman's Flat, where politicians, military brass and scientists watched the above-ground flash and mushroom clouds from the first atomic bomb tests.

The land is still home to miles of scrub creosote and Joshua trees. The desert mountains, dry lake beds and valleys appear impervious to human activity.

Yet there have been changes at the site. Many changes.

"The one thing that has evolved over time is that the Test Site has become the world's, certainly the free world's, largest outdoor laboratory," said Troy Wade, chairman of the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation. The size and isolation of the Test Site means that there is "zero risk to the public" for most activities, Wade said.

"Over the past few years, particularly since 9/11, other agencies with other interests have become partners with the Test Site. One of the big users at the Test Site right now is the Department of Homeland Security."

Yet despite the recent changes, work at the site is still far below the level of the glory years. Just 4,000 employees work there now, fewer than one-third as many as in the early 1970s. The last test of a nuclear device occurred 14 years ago.

The test scheduled for June 2 will be of a 700-ton conventional bomb. The research could aid in development of so-called bunker-buster weapons, including small-scale nuclear devices, according to the federal official overseeing the test, Doug Bruder, director of counter-weapons of mass destruction technology for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

For Las Vegas, all this talk about the bombs in the desert is familiar. The city has always had a tight relationship with the often secret and highly secure area.

The site, which includes the village of Mercury, was born out of the federal government's search for a place within the continental United States to detonate the most powerful explosives built by man.

After rejecting coastal North Carolina and other possible sites, authorities settled on a sweeping, desolate region of the southern Great Basin, with few neighbors and no large cities nearby.

President Harry Truman in December 1950 gave the order to create the Nevada Test Site, placing it under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Within a year, the government exploded a dozen atomic bombs at the site. While the U.S. military and Energy Department _ the Atomic Energy Commission's direct descendant _ no longer detonate nuclear weapons, nuclear research does continue.

"The Test Site always has been and will for the foreseeable future be focused on the national security mission," said Kevin Rohrer, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. A central part of that security mission, he said, is maintaining and ensuring the reliability of nuclear weapons through "subcritical nuclear experiments."

"Subcritical" means that it doesn't reach the chain reaction that results in a nuclear explosion.

"We do not do nuclear testing," Kathy Carlson, manager of the Test Site, said, referring to above or below ground atomic bomb blasts. But, she said, "We are doing very small experiments, called subcritical experiments, with small amounts of material to really understand how materials react."

The experiments include testing how plutonium and uranium _ the essential material for nuclear weapons _ respond to a variety of environments and events. Much of the work associated with the safety and security of the bombs is done at the Test Site's Device Assembly Facility.

Rohrer noted that the government does not assemble warheads at the facility, although it "could potentially perform that function." Assembly of nuclear weapons is done at a plant outside Amarillo, Texas.

The Test Site also is home to research that doesn't involve radioactive materials. A growing amount of work involves other kinds of defense-related programs funded by the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others. Energy Department officials say they can't discuss all of the agencies that contract for work within the Test Site.

Carlson, however, did say that her agency now trains about 50,000 men and woman yearly on and off the Test Site to handle various emergencies, including chemical, biological and nuclear crises. The Test Site's isolation and tight security offers advantages for specialized training, she said.

It is against that backdrop that the test detonation of 700 tons of conventional explosives June 2 has sparked protest. Nevada officials have threatened to delay the blast and an environmental group has sued over air quality concerns.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., suggested those concerns are based on the federal government's credibility with Nevada's citizens.

"The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has yet to satisfy the state of Nevada's demand for more information about this test, and it must not go forward until this obligation is satisfied," she said in a statement last week. "As a Nevadan that lived through the nuclear testing era, I have a healthy skepticism for federal officials who say there is nothing to worry about when it comes to protecting public safety or the environment."

Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a nonprofit group working on Test-Site and environmental issues in Nevada, said people have good reason to not trust the federal government.

"We are very skeptical of the activities on the Test Site," she said.

Johnson noted that a half-century ago, the federal government sold the bomb tests as an economic boon for Las Vegas and central Nevada. Today, the government is using similar arguments to push forward with plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

"At some point, we have to say, 'Wait a minute. This is nuts. We cannot keep doing this,' " Johnson said. She worries that present-day activities, including the June 2 blast, could still have environmental impacts on the region.

Wade, of the Test Site historical foundation, said the Test Site's national defense mission carries with it some risk. Wade said some of his colleagues have died from diseases that may be related to their work at the site, where he has worked for most of his life.

"I have not personally been affected, but I have had friends who have," Wade said. "If you go to the museum, you will hear me say on one of the little film clips that as a nation, we put people at risk _ on site and off site. As a country, we had no choice.

"We did everything we could to minimize the risk, but we were taking risks."

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

Salt Lake Tribune
May 04, 2006

LDS joins N-storage foes

Church's rare public-policy statement appears to go beyond Utah, may target Nevada site as well

By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune

One of the Rocky Mountain West's most influential forces added its voice Thursday to the campaign to block trainloads of radioactive waste from coming to Utah.

But it remains unclear if even the powerful word of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can truly help stop those trains.

Not since the statement opposing the MX nuclear missile deployment in Utah 25 years ago has the First Presidency spoken out so directly and forcefully on a public policy issue not involving the church's usual moral targets, such as gay rights or gambling.

The church's May 6, 1981, statement on MX is widely credited with killing the missile plan.

Richard Davis, a political science professor at church-owned Brigham Young University, could only remember the First Presidency speaking out on three other public policy issues, all in the 1960s: communism, reapportionment and the John Birch Society.

'They've been very protective of Utah as a home for LDS people,' said Davis, recalling the MX statement. 'And I think they realize they have an enormous power to affect the community, the home base for the LDS community. I think they would probably see this as being a good citizen, good for the neighborhood.'

Davis also wondered if the statement would be read aloud from Utah pulpits this weekend. 'They will probably prompt church members to take action by taking action.'

The three sentences on high-level waste shipping and disposal came just days before the BLM's MondayMay 8 deadline for commenting on a crucial application for the storage site. Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a consortium of nuclear utilities, must have the permit for a train-to-truck transfer station alongside I-80 at Rowley Junction in Tooele County.

More than 2,000 Utahns already have sent in comments. The Alliance for Unity, a leadership group based in downtown Salt Lake City, and the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce have joined the state delegationUtahns in Congress in rallying Utahns to provide their input.

But PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin questioned whether the First Presidency statement would have much practical impact. The BLM, she noted, can only consider technical issues, such as whether it meets the bureau regulations and whether granting the license would go against the public interest.

'If this [three sentences] is all the statement is, it doesn't begin to address the criteria or the issues the BLM raised,' she said. 'And it's really no different that anybody else saying, 'we don't want it here.'Ê''

Martin said reprocessing is not a feasible solution for the nation's nuclear waste problem and probably will not be for at least a decade. Meanwhile, after an 8-year review, the PFS site has been deemed safe.

'We are what we are,' she added. 'We are not trying to play any kind of political game.'

Political leaders who have been fighting the federal government's nuclear waste plans and advocating reprocessing welcomed the LDS Church statement.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and the nation's highest-ranking Mormon in Congress, heard about the statement late Thursday. 'He says he did not lobby the church but he was very pleased to see the statement,' said the senator's spokeswoman, Sharyn Stein.

Michael Lee, counsel to Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., said: 'Every little bit helps. 'The church is speaking for a lot of people in Utah and out of Utah, in the [Mormon] church and out of the church.'

Greg Hopkins, senior vice president for communications at EnergySolutions, said his company had not lobbied church leaders either.

But, he said, 'We are aligned with the Church's statement.'

fahys@sltrib.com

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

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
May 04, 2006

Church Urges Alternatives for Nuclear Waste

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today asked the federal government to look for alternative options for the disposal of nuclear waste.

In light of the ongoing discussion of the possible storage of nuclear waste in Utah´s Skull Valley area, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement:

--“The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns.

--“It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste.

--“We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste.’

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

Tri-City Herald
May 03, 2006

Hanford landfill moves forward

By Annette Cary
Herald staff writer

Hanford has a new landfill for radioactive waste, the last major landfill planned for the remaining cleanup of the nuclear reservation.

Construction is complete on the first two waste disposal cells of the Integrated Disposal Facility, which eventually could be expanded to cover 26 acres.

Now it's a 42-foot-deep hole in central Hanford that is 1,500 feet long and 765 feet wide. It will be used to hold 200,000 cubic yards of waste.

Its cost was estimated at $36 million, but it was completed for about $25 million, partly because of good bid competition for the earth work, said Greg Parsons, CH2M Hill Hanford Group project manager.

What may look like a hole in the ground is an engineered facility to prevent contamination of ground water with radioactive waste that will be buried there. At its bottom is a 7-foot-thick liner system.

It includes a system to collect rain or snow melt and pump it in a nearby tank above ground. That's backed up with two leak detection systems.

One alerts operators if moisture penetrates a layer of plastic below the pumping system and the other should detect liquid if it hits the soil beneath the 7-foot liner system.

Around its top is a "shine berm," a 7-foot-tall wall of dirt to shield workers from radiation. Cranes will be used to put waste in the facility.

When it closes, it will be topped with a soil cap designed to keep water out.

"It's a state-of-the-art-built facility," said Suzanne Dahl, tank waste disposal project manager for the Washington state Department of Ecology, which regulates Hanford.

Work on the landfill began after a construction subcontract was awarded by CH2M Hill nearly two years ago.

Now there's no definite start date for when the facility will accept its first waste, "but the state very much believes it is a needed facility," Dahl said.

It was built to permanently store the least radioactive of the glassified waste now waiting in Hanford's underground tanks to be treated and to help allow Hanford to stop its old practice of burying some low-level radioactive waste in unlined trenches.

Two projects to vitrify, or turn tank waste to glass, have fallen behind schedule. The Department of Energy has stopped construction on the bulk vitrification pilot plant until it has more technical and cost information. The pilot plant was expected to produce the first of 50 blocks of low-activity radioactive waste as early as last December.

In addition, the soonest the Waste Treatment Plant, the main plant to glassify waste, could be producing low-activity glass is 2011. That assumes operations to treat low-activity waste start at the plant years before treatment of high-level waste. Only the low-activity glass will remain at Hanford. High-level glass is to be sent to a national repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev.

There has been concern DOE could plan to eventually use the Integrated Disposal Facility for radioactive waste imported to Hanford. However, no waste can be imported unless DOE wins a federal lawsuit allowing it to bring waste to Hanford for permanent disposal without first cleaning up waste already at Hanford.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
May 03, 2006

Yucca e-mails: No blood, no foul

By Phillip Gomez
PVT

Last week occasioned the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine, formerly the USSR - the worst nuclear accident in history.

The accident began with tests conducted on reactor No. 4, in which numerous safety procedures were disregarded. A nuclear chain reaction in the reactor's core got out of control, creating explosions and blowing off the reactor's 1,000-ton steel and concrete lid that formed the containment structure.

The Chernobyl disaster killed only two people initially and about 30 people in the first few months after the disaster. As a result of the high radiation levels emitted into the surrounding 19-mile radius, 135,000 people had to be evacuated. Conservative estimates say that eventually some 9,000 people died from the radioactive fallout and the development of thyroid gland disease.

Coincidentally, a new report out last month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office points out glaring deficiencies in the federal Department of Energy's "quality assurance" program for Yucca Mountain.

The GAO is the federal office concerned with the receipt and payment of public funds. Quality assurance, or QA, is the term for the design of the "failsafe" system of controls built into the repository's engineering.

Enviro.BLR.com, an environmental compliance newsletter, recently reported DOE adopting "management tools" that, according to the GAO, "'did not target existing management concerns and did not track progress with significant and recurring problems.'"

In its April 12 report the newsletter said, "GAO also raised doubts regarding DOE's assurances about the technical soundness of (water) infiltration modeling performed by the U.S. Geological Survey."

Quality Assurance was a hot topic in March 2005 and again in November when the USGS came under fire for not following proper scientific guidelines related to the QA of the data it had obtained.

DOE said then that it would spend $1 million and more than a year to investigate the QA problems raised by the contents of the e-mail correspondence.

But in the year since the e-mail revelations little has been resolved, let alone improved with regard to DOE's QA program.

GAO said in its report that clarifying the contents of 14 million USGS e-mails was extremely difficult because of their sheer volume. Another difficulty was that many of the writers of the e-mails had left the project and were unavailable to provide context as to the e-mails' interpretation.

Other QA questions raised, according to the newsletter's synopsis of the GAO report, are:

€ The absence of an adequate management process to ensure that broad plans and regulatory requirements affecting the project are tracked and incorporated into specific engineering details.

€ Disorganization resulting from continual turnover at key management positions.

€ The directorate for the QA project has been occupied by three individuals since 1999 and is currently occupied by an acting director. According to some Yucca critics, when quality assurance troubles erupt, DOE appoints a new QA director "to get QA out of the spotlight."

The earliest date DOE has given for when the repository could accept waste is 2010.

The e-mail controversy has been dismissed by some as "water-cooler talk." But concerns about document falsification were raised in the U.S. Congress, and the issue has continued to plague Yucca Mountain and its project managers.

One flippant USGS e-mail concerned rainfall on Yucca Mountain leaching into the interior where the waste would be stored. "Our best guess," the message said of its reported numbers. "Screw 'em. It's a lovely, 85 (degrees), sunny, warm breeze. It's nice to be disconnected and not caring whether it's QA or not. If you can't give them QA, that's fine."

GAO has reportedly said DOE managers agreed with the watchdog agency's new findings and its recommendations to improve quality assurance at Yucca Mountain.

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

Platts
May 03, 2006

EPA hopes to issue final Yucca rule by end 2006

Washington (Platts)--2May2006

The Environmental Protection Agency hopes to issue a final Yucca Mountain standard by the end of calendar year 2006, the director of EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, said May 1. Speaking at an international high-level waste conference in Las Vegas, Elizabeth Cotsworth said the agency is trying to determine what changes, if any, are needed in its proposed 1-million-year radiation protection standard for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. If changes are made, a new proposed rule would have to be issued for public comment, she said. EPA received roughly 2,550 public comments, about 2,350 of which were the result of mass mailings, on the proposed 1-million-year standard that amount to about 3,000 pages of comments and 1,000 pages of attachments, she said. The agency, she said, is compiling the comments in a document to accompany the final standard.

Salt Lake Tribune
May 03, 2006

Nuclear experts push for waste re-use plan

By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - The heads of the nation's energy laboratories made a case Tuesday for finding a way to re-use nuclear-reactor fuel, saying it could extend the life of the Yucca Mountain, Nev., repository through the end of the century and help prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons.

It is a massive undertaking that will take support from Congress, the energy industry and the best minds in science, said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell.

The heads of the nine national labs briefed congressional staff on the administration's proposal, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, then met with reporters and later spoke with Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's staff.

"We must start now so that 10 years from now the United States has options that it can now only dream of," said Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M. "This initiative provides options for our energy future."

EnergySolutions, formerly known as Envirocare, has expressed its interest in hosting a nuclear-waste reprocessing plant and has been running ads on Utah TV stations promoting recycling as a solution to the nuclear-waste dilemma. It has stressed that it does not want to do such work in Utah, where it is based.

The trouble with reprocessing has been that it is costly - many times more expensive than mining and enriching new reactor fuel - and that current practices produce plutonium suitable for nuclear weaponry.

"This is an unworkable, wishful-thinking plan that has been attempted and abandoned in the past and is now being repackaged," said Leonor Tomero of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

The goal, said Robert Rosner, director of the Argonne National Laboratory, is "environmentally benign nuclear energy" in the coming century.

Retired Vice Admiral John Grossenbacher, director of the Idaho National Laboratory, said there is no way to know what the cost of the program will be until decisions are made on its scope.

The Bush administration has requested $250 million in next year's budget, and Domenici said he intends to include it in the Energy Department's bill.

The program is aimed at providing foreign nations with working, small-scale reactors that they can use, then return to the United States where the spent fuel can be reprocessed and re-used, with the most dangerous material extracted and buried at Yucca Mountain.

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

Los Angeles Times
May 03, 2006

Column One

An Alert Unlike Any Other

A nuclear waste vault in New Mexico will long outlive our society. Experts are working on elaborate ways to warn future civilizations.

By Charles Piller
Times Staff Writer

CARLSBAD, N.M. — Roger Nelson has a simple and unequivocal message for the people of the year 12006: Don't dig here.

As chief scientist of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Nelson oversees a cavernous salt mine that is the first geological lockbox for the "fiendishly toxic" detritus of nuclear weapons production: chemical sludge, lab gear and filters laced with tons of radioactive plutonium.

Nearly half a mile underground, workers push waste drums into crystalline labyrinths that seem as remote as the moon. A faint salty haze glows in powdery beams from miners' headlamps and settles on the lips like a desert kiss. Computer projections predict that within 1,000 years the ceilings and walls will collapse in a crushing embrace that seals the plutonium in place.

But plutonium remains deadly for 250 times that long — an unsettling reminder that some of today's hazards will outlast the civilizations that created them. The "forever problem," unique to the modern technological age, has made crafting the user manual for this toxic tomb the final daunting task in an already monumental project. The result is a gargantuan system that borrows elements equally from Stonehenge and "Star Trek."

Communicating danger may seem relatively straightforward, but countless human efforts to bridge the ages have failed as societies fall, languages die and words once poetic or portentous become the indecipherable marks of a long-forgotten scribbler.

To future generations, warnings about Nelson's dump may seem as impenetrable as the 600-year-old "Canterbury Tales" are for all but a few scholars today.

"No culture has ever tried, self-consciously and scientifically, to design a symbol that would last 10,000 years and still be intelligible," said David B. Givens, an anthropologist who helped plan the nuclear-site warnings. "And even if we succeed, would the message be believed?"

The Energy Department predicted such a problem when it began planning for the $9-billion waste dump, dubbed WIPP, in 1974 and for a similar repository in Nevada at Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas. That site has not yet been opened. Eventually it will store highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants as well as high-level waste from the weapons program.

Trying to communicate across 500 generations posed an unprecedented challenge of linguistics, semiotics and materials science, so the government first asked scientists, futurists and historians to envision what the far-distant future might be like.

Their report combines dry analysis and projections worthy of sci-fi disaster films, including massive climate change and feminist corporations that disbelieve WIPP warnings because they were written by men. Civilization is so interdependent and fragile, one panelist grimly noted, "that any massive global catastrophe might lead to reversion to at least a preindustrial era." Greed or desperation could give rise to legends that WIPP holds buried treasure — apparently confirmed by surface warnings to keep out.

In a sense, they're right. Oil and gas deposits lie thousands of feet below the plant. In 100 or 5,000 years, an energy-poor government, company or gasoline-addicted tribe in a ruined society, like those depicted in the film "The Road Warrior," could adopt a "drill first, ask questions later" policy — piercing the repository and pulling death to the surface.

Others predicted the invention of self-guided robotic "mole miners" that would penetrate the site from the side or below. In a scenario set in the year 11991, robotic slaves are infected with a computer virus that compels them to override their safety programming as they compulsively drill and construct mine shafts.

Opportunities for WIPP to fail, the experts agreed, are limited only by the imagination.

The government formed a separate panel of scientists, linguists and artists to create a warning scheme to counter the pessimistic projections. That group immediately rejected digital or paper records — only a solution cast in stone could hope to solve a problem for the ages.

If Egyptian pyramids have lasted more than 5,000 years, today's monuments should fare better — if built from prosaic materials, such as ultra-hard concrete. Scavengers stripped the pyramids bare for their once-shimmering marble skins.

The trefoil symbol for radioactive material might seem a natural alternative to text, but experts doubt that it will be understood by future societies any better than today's English. Consider the swastika, first used on pottery by European tribes in 4000 BC. It was adopted by ancient Troy and later became a holy icon of Hinduism. When the Nazis claimed it, the symbol became widely reviled.

The panelists also considered the plaque on the 1972 Pioneer space probe, now headed for deep space. It pictures a nude man and woman, a schematic drawing of the craft escaping our solar system and a basic interstellar map. They soon rejected it as a model, said Jon Lomberg, an artist who designed the plaque with the late astronomer Carl Sagan.

"You'd think it would be easier to communicate with humans" than extraterrestrials, he said. "But the [Pioneer] spacecraft will never land, so it's only going to be found by some highly developed technological culture. All we can guess about the future inhabitants of the area near WIPP is that they are human — unless they are cyborgs…. Once you have people with augmented brains or genetically engineered minds with enhanced perceptions, you can't be sure how human they will be."

There are at least two universally understood pictographic forms. The human stick figure has survived nearly unchanged from Stone Age cave drawings to the doors of modern public restrooms. And the sequential panel, or comic strip, was developed independently by ancient Egyptians, American Indians and medieval Japanese.

They also are far from foolproof. The South Africa Chamber of Mines learned this when it used a simple picture sequence to train illiterate miners to clear rocks from mine tracks. Instead of improving, the rock problem worsened.

"Miners were indeed reading the message, but from right to left," said Lomberg, a former WIPP advisor. "They obligingly dumped their rocks on the tracks."

Nelson considers such concerns far-fetched, citing 30,000-year-old cave drawings.

"I understand those cave drawings and I don't speak Neanderthal…. He's killing a bison, 'bison — food!' I can do pictographs just as well," he said. "I can convey an absolute sense of danger."

Yet the same Stone Age caves contain markings and handprints whose meaning remains obscure.

"The scribbles, we have no idea what they are…. The handprints — is that the artist's signature?" Lomberg said. "We don't know. Of course the big difference is that these were not intended as messages to the future — so far as we can tell."

With so many ways to fail, WIPP's planners opted for the classic American approach: Think big and leave no stone unturned. The plan will take more than a century to implement.

To grasp the scale of the warnings, start with the Great Pyramid in Egypt, built from more than 6.5 million tons of stone covering 13 acres. Multiply that mass by five, and you have the first warning layer: a 98-foot-wide, 33-foot-tall, 2-mile-long berm surrounding the site. That's just to get the attention of anyone who happens by.

"Size equates with importance. The bigger the animal the more that animal is to be reckoned with," Givens said.

Powerful magnets and radar reflectors would be buried inside the berm so that remote sensors could recognize the site as purposefully and elaborately designed.

It would be surrounded by 48 granite or concrete markers, 32 outside the berm and 16 inside, each 25 feet high and weighing 105 tons, engraved with warnings in English, Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese, Arabic and Navajo, with room for future discoverers to add warnings in contemporary languages. Pictures would denote buried hazards and human faces of horror and revulsion.

The same symbols would be printed on metal, plastic and ceramic disks with abrasion-resistant coatings, 9 inches in diameter, that would be buried just below the surface.

Three information rooms would archive detailed drawings of WIPP's chambers and the physics of its hazards on stone tablets. They would also provide a world map showing all other known waste repositories and a star chart to calculate the year the site was sealed.

One such room would stand in the center of the site. Another would be buried inside the berm, its only entrance a 2-foot hole to inhibit theft of the tablets, sealed with a 1,600-pound stone plug. The third room would be off site — perhaps inside the nearby Carlsbad Caverns.

The final thing WIPP needs is a kind of Rosetta stone, a pictorial dictionary to aid in translation.

The markers will take decades to build and test, to help ensure they stand the test of time. But there's no hurry. WIPP won't be full until 2033. It would then be guarded by the Energy Department for 100 years until it is abandoned; no one who designed the markers would be alive to see them succeed for even a single day.

Inspired by so long a view, one of the site's expert panels, in an epigraph to its report, quoted Rabbi Tarfon, a Jewish sage who lived 1,900 years ago:

"You are not obliged to finish the task, nor are you released from undertaking it."

Once the vault is locked, some of WIPP's advisors want the site left unmarked because any warnings would draw only more attention, they say. Warnings, they argue, would be misunderstood or dismissed, the same way ancient grave robbers ignored curses inscribed on the tombs of Egyptian pharaohs to seize the riches inside.

Leave it bare, they contend, and the site will melt unseen into the harsh New Mexico desert.

"Any monument would become a tourist attraction," said Gregory Benford, a UC Irvine physicist and former WIPP advisor. "People come; they need hotels. Hotels need water. They drill for water and break into the vault. 'No marker' is a strategy, but people regard it as immoral."

Such views reflect WIPP's one certainty: No one knows what will happen far in the future.

"I have to assume that the divine creator is going to take care of most of this stuff," said Steve Casey, the WIPP engineer charged with overseeing construction of the warning system. "No matter what confounded thing we come up with, all it takes is one catastrophic event and it's gone."

That so much time and effort are spent even thinking about how to warn future generations reflects a significant shift in nuclear attitudes. The past still can be glimpsed a short drive from WIPP at a site where an atomic warhead was detonated 1,151 feet underground in 1961.

Two corroded plaques glued to a 4-foot concrete slab commemorate the test, dubbed Project Gnome. The monument has been nudged several yards over the decades by cattle that use it as a rubbing post. Spent rifle shells crunch underfoot; the pockmarked shrine is favored by locals for target practice.

A third plaque was pried off, perhaps as a souvenir. According to earlier visitors, it read, in plain English, "This site will remain dangerous for 24,000 years."

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

Pulse of the Twin Cities
May 03, 2006

Commentary: Nuclear power can´t rescue the world from climate change

by Michelle Boyd

Global warming is an undeniable and urgent problem, and support for taking federal action is increasing. Now, a debate is raging about the proper course of action; what will produce the greatest gains in the shortest time? The nuclear industry is attempting to hijack the issue to revive a dying technology, crowding out renewable energy in the process. However, nuclear power cannot rescue us from climate change.

The vast majority of public interest and environmental groups are adamantly oppose nuclear power. Over 300 national, state and local organizations have endorsed a statement clearly outlining their reasons for continuing to oppose to nuclear power as a solution to global warming. Not a single environmental group is advocating for more nuclear plants.

How Many Reactors Would it Take?

According to reports from MIT and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, between 1,000 and 2,000 new nuclear plants would have to be built around the world by mid-century just to achieve a noticeable reduction in the expected increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Given the long construction time and tremendous expense of nuclear plants, building this many reactors is simply unfeasible. Climate change is a pressing problem, and the world needs to reduce carbon emissions sooner rather than later.

Adding so many new reactors would mean generating five times more high-level nuclear waste than now, requiring a waste dump the size of Yucca Mountain somewhere on earth every three to four years. More nuclear plants would also require more uranium mining and enrichment, both of which are polluting and could put a strain on finite uranium supplies, further driving up prices.

The reason such a huge number of reactors would be required to have only a modest effect on carbon dioxide emissions is because electricity generation isn´t the only activity that produces greenhouse gases. In fact, according to a report by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “The CO2 released worldwide through electricity production accounts for only 9 percent of total annual human greenhouse gas emissions,’ or about a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions. The remainder of greenhouse emissions comes from a variety of human activities, including transportation and deforestation, while methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and nitrous oxide also contribute substantially to the greenhouse effect. Uranium enrichment produces 93 percent of the CFC emissions annually in the U.S.

Real Solutions Are Waiting On the Shelf

Cleaner, cheaper solutions to climate change are already available. Most importantly, we have the potential to be much more efficient with our electricity use. That doesn´t mean being forced to do without; it simply means going further with each kilowatt of electricity.

Electric efficiency is not only the cheapest and easiest way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions; it will actually save consumers money. Americans spend nearly $200 billion annually on electricity. But Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that “the thousand or so best electricity-saving innovations now on the market, if fully used throughout the United States, would displace over half of all the electricity the country now uses. Our best estimate is that they´d save at least 75 percent of all electricity more cheaply than just operating existing thermal power stations [such as coal or nuclear], while providing the same or better services.’ Clearly, there´s room for improvement.

The primary argument made for the necessity of increased energy consumption is to fuel economic growth. At current economic growth rates of approximately 3.4 percent, it will take 20 years for the economy—and presumably electricity usage along with it—to double in size. Lovins´ data suggest we could achieve that growth without ever building a new power plant except to replace those that are shut down. In fact, since the Arab oil embargo of 1973, about 80 percent of our increased energy demand has been met with savings, not new generation.

The promise of renewable energy options continues to improve as well; modern-day wind turbines are already less expensive than nuclear power and, as the technology continues to improve, costs are dropping even lower. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that for the foreseeable future, nuclear power will continue to be more expensive than wind.

The limitations of renewable electricity sources like wind, solar and tidal power are being overcome in ingenious ways. For example, the wind isn´t always blowing and the sun isn´t always shining, so it´s hard to run your house or community on one of those technologies alone without either a mechanism for storing the energy or having a backup generator running on fossil fuels. But a recent study of England´s electricity needs by Oxford University researcher Graham Sinden found that a combination of wind, solar, wave, tidal and domestic combined heat/power significantly cut down on variability and the need for backup. According to Sinden, as reported in the Guardian, “By mixing between sites and mixing technologies, you can markedly reduce the variability of electricity supplied by renewables. And if you plan the right mix, renewable and intermittent technologies can even be made to match real-time electricity demand patterns. This reduces the need for backup, and makes renewables a serious alternative to conventional power sources.’

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

People & the Planet
May 03, 2006

Nuclear future is a trillion dollar dream

Many politicians and even a few environmentalists have begun advocating nuclear power as a remedy for climate change. And in an effort to ride the coattails of a far more popular set of energy alternatives, political leaders including US President George W. Bush are now referring to nuclear power as "a renewable source of energy".

But in Brave Nuclear World, part one of a two-part series, in the current issue of World Watch magazine, contributor Karen Charman questions whether this latest effort to bring nuclear power back to life will be any more successful than the other five nuclear "revivals" that have been predicted since the industry first collapsed a quarter-century ago.

Analyses have shown that some 700 new large nuclear reactors - producing about twice the total power of the world's currently operating reactors - would be needed to achieve just one-seventh the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions required to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at 500 parts per million.

Yet over the past two years, construction has begun on just three new reactors, while seven operating plants were permanently closed during the same period.

Building 700 nuclear reactors would cost at least $1.7 trillion dollars, says Karen Charman, and would require construction of a new disposal site the size of Nevada's controversial Yucca Mountain depository "somewhere in the world every three to four years."

If that money were instead spent on energy efficiency measures and renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by a far greater amount.

Source: May-June 2006 issue of World Watch published by the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute.

link:
WorldWatch
http://www.worldwatch.org/press/prerelease/193-nuclear-power-pt1.pdf
Brave Nuclear World?

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