Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid
June 28, 2006
Reid Slashes Yucca Mountain Funding
Senate Budget for Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump Less Than Current Level
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has once again sliced the budget for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump to a level far below what proponents had hoped for.
Reid is the ranking member on the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, which today approved a bill that would provide $494 million for the Yucca Mountain project in fiscal year 2007 – slightly less than this year´s $500 million budget.
Reid, Nevada´s leading opponent of Yucca Mountain, has kept the project´s budget at the same level for three years now, without even increases to offset inflation. President Bush had asked for $50 million more for Yucca than the amount in the Senate bill, and the Department of Energy estimates it would need twice as much to keep the project on schedule.
“The Yucca Mountain nuke dump has been riddled with scientific, health, and safety problems from the beginning,’ said Reid. “I don´t believe the dump will ever open. I think anything spent on Yucca is a waste of money, so I´m pleased we were able to keep the funding levels low, although it´s a shame we´re throwing any good taxpayer money after bad.’
In addition, the $494 million budget for next year includes $10 million that would actually be used for a different project – a plan to create interim storage sites outside of Nevada.
The measure contains language instructing the Department of Energy to work with states that have nuclear reactors to identify the need for, and location of, interim storage sites within those states or regions. Nuclear waste could be stored at those sites for 25 years. The bill upholds the conditions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which specifies that no interim storage can be placed in Nevada. “My goal is on-site, dry cask storage of nuclear waste. While this bill does not fully accomplish that personal goal of mine, it is a significant step in the right direction,’ said Reid. “This measure will give us time to study the problem of nuclear waste and work towards a solution that is safe and viable. It´s a good bipartisan compromise.’
The FY ‘07 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill also requires a General Accounting Office audit of the Yucca Mountain budget money. The audit would ensure that all appropriated money is spent in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The full Committee is expected to approve the Senate bill Thursday.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 28, 2006
Senator offers plan to store nuclear waste
Proposal rests on temporary sites
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The government would store nuclear waste at temporary sites for as long as 25 years while it worked to overcome delays in the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada under a plan offered by the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., on Tuesday advanced a nuclear waste management plan he said would break a logjam in which thousands of tons of used nuclear fuel have accumulated at power plants. Plant operators have sued the Department of Energy for not taking the material away as promised.
"This provision is intended to provide a medium-term solution for spent nuclear fuel," said Domenici, a nuclear power advocate in Congress.
Domenici said the plan "will not impact Yucca Mountain," where the department has faced problems and delays. Nuclear waste would be consolidated at state or regional sites for 25 years or until a Yucca Mountain repository could be opened or waste-reprocessing technologies could be commercialized.
The sites would be on federal land or on property obtained from willing sellers, he said. Nevada and Utah would be exempted.
Domenici said a new target date for Yucca Mountain was 2018, "which may happen or may not happen." He did not explain how the date was reached.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., negotiated the measure with Domenici. Reid said he signed off on it after concluding it would be "Yucca-neutral."
He said it could buy time for the development of possible alternatives. "This measure will give us time to study the problem of nuclear waste and work towards a solution that is safe and viable," he said.
Reid has argued that to transport nuclear waste is unsafe, and he has introduced a bill to keep it stored at power plants. He suggested that much of the waste might not move far or at all if DOE can gain agreements with utilities.
More than 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is stored at plants in 39 states.
Under the plan, the government would take ownership of nuclear waste stored at eight decommissioned plants and keep it there.
The Department of Energy had no comment. A spokesman said officials received the bill Tuesday.
Frank "Skip" Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the nuclear industry was reviewing the interim storage provisions.
But Robert List, a former Nevada governor who represents NEI as a consultant in the state, said the interim storage plans "do not delay the Yucca Mountain project."
"Nevadans should not be deceived into believing that the temporary storage facilities, if built, would in any way slow down or stop the development of the Yucca Mountain facility," List said in a statement.
The proposal adds a layer of complication to problems of nuclear waste storage and will get a chilly reception from state leaders, said Charles Pray, a nuclear adviser to the governor of Maine and co-leader of a pro-Yucca Mountain task force, which consists of utility regulators and community groups.
"I would find it amazing to find any governor who would step forward and say they would be willing to provide a temporary repository for the next 25 years," Pray said.
Also, if the plan comes to votes in the House and Senate, lawmakers would be asked to keep nuclear waste within their states for decades, after they voted four years ago to move it to Yucca Mountain, he said.
---------------------------
KVBC
June 28, 2006
New target date for Yucca Mountain
The federal government has a new target date to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici says they're aiming for the year 2018 for the nuclear waste depository.
However, he added that may or may not happen. The senator detailed a nuclear waste management plan yesterday, which calls for nuclear waste to be consolidated at state and regional sites for 25 years.
The waste would be moved if Yucca Mountain opens or if the government comes up with another alternative. Nevada Senator Harry Reid has signed off on the bill, calling it Yucca-neutral.
---------------------------
Platts
June 27, 2006
Domenici drafts bill giving DOE interim nuclear storage authority
Washington (Platts)--27Jun2006
The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee has drafted a fiscal-year 2007 spending bill that will put the US on a path to consolidate commercial nuclear waste from 103 reactors at nearly 70 sites at an undetermined number of temporary federal storage facilities, officials said Tuesday.
The $30.7 billion energy spending bill would include $270 million for the administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It also would fund the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository at $494 million, including $10 million for development of "interim storage" facilities. That would equal FY 2006's Yucca spending measure.
Under the provision crafted by subcommittee chairman Pete Domenici, Republican-New Mexico, the facilities could be opened in 2011 and 2012 and be permitted for 25 years. The facilities would have to be built on federally owned land. It is due for a subcommittee vote Tuesday.
"This issue moves glacially," said Scott O'Malia, a subcommittee aide who briefed reporters on the proposal. "To move spent fuel for five years or seven years doesn't make sense, but it doesn't have to stay there for 25 years,"
For the first time, the bill would give the Energy Department authority to open interim storage facilities, which DOE officials say they have not had. In order to secure passage on the Senate floor, the measure would need 60 votes, since it amounts to legislating on a spending bill.
The interim storage provision would be unrelated to DOE's efforts to move nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. O'Malia said DOE has indicated it would submit a license application for the repository in 2008 and that it would open the Nevada site in 2018.
The proposal requires DOE to immediately take title of waste at eight retired nuclear plants if the site owner requests DOE to do so. But the waste could be left at those facilities indefinitely. For operational sites, DOE would also have to take title of the waste if the utility requests it. DOE would have to move the waste, but only if a place has been established where it can be put.
It also enables DOE to fulfill its obilgation to take title of the nation's commercial nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And it could clear the way for new nuclear facilites, proponents say.
Money for all the interim sites would be paid for out of the Nuclear Waste Fund. The FY 2007 money would go toward establishing an office within DOE to handle consolidation of spent fuel and preparation of a site.
O'Malia said it would be up to Energy Secretary to put the interim storage policy into action. It exempts Nevada and Utah from being used as federal interim storage sites.
O'Malia said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, supports the Domenici proposal.
--Daniel Whitten, daniel_whitten@platts.com
For similar news, take a trial to Platts Inside Energy at http://insideenergy.platts.com.
---------------------------
Nuclear Engineering
June 28, 2006
Senate appropriations subcommittee approves nuclear spend
The Senate appropriations energy and water subcommittee has approved a $30.7 billion spending bill for the Energy Department, $1.25 billion over the budget request, with new funding for the advancement of energy initiatives authorised by the National Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Of the total $24.7 billion is approved for the Department of Energy (DoE), a $650 million increase, $9.25 billion is for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of which $2.3 billion is to fund the President´s Advanced Energy Initiative including solar, biomass and nuclear energy, a roughly $380 million increase for energy supply and conservation activities.
Nuclear energy receives $711 million, up $151.5 million, including $27 million to restore funding for the university R&D programme; $88 million, a $34 million increase, for Nuclear Power 2010 to accelerate the new plan design licensing programme with the NRC. In addition, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant is to receive $40.0 million, and an additional $17 million to support R&D at Idaho National Lab for the high temperature gas reactor.
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is allocated $250 million, plus $36 million for facilities upgrades under the bill.
The bill addresses the accumulation of commercial spent nuclear fuel at existing US reactor sites by establishing a “medium term’ solution. This plan, part of the $494 million funding for nuclear waste disposal and Yucca Mountain, authorises the Energy Secretary to create a director of consolidation with the goal of finding a temporary, consolidated storage for spent fuel within a state or regional site within 270 days of enactment. The DoE would take title for the spent fuel and move it to another non-reactor site owned by the federal government, or purchased from a willing seller, authorised to accept spent nuclear fuel at a federally-owned facility for up to 25 years before it can be either recycled or stored at Yucca Mountain when it is licensed.
The bill also directs funding toward accelerating construction of a MOX facility in South Carolina.
---------------------------
Salt Lake Tribune
June 28, 2006
Panel rejects PFS nuclear storage
U.S. Senate: A subcommittee votes to allow facilties only in states with reactors
By Robert Gehrke
Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - A Senate panel dealt a blow to Private Fuel Storage's plan to build temporary nuclear storage in Utah on Tuesday, voting in favor of short-term storage, but specifically prohibiting storage at the PFS facility.
The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee included $10 million for the temporary storage facilities, but requires them to be federally run and located in states that have nuclear reactors.
The spent nuclear fuel would be kept there until a technology can be developed to extract the reusable parts of the fuel and dispose of the rest.
"Today's vote is good news for Utah. It eliminates the need for the PFS facility in Utah and endorses reprocessing efforts, which I have long supported," Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, a member of the committee, said in a statement. "I believe the proposal supported unanimously today makes great strides in our efforts to find a long-term solution to the nation's nuclear waste challenge."
The language adopted by the subcommittee gives the Energy Secretary the authority to consult with each state's governor to consolidate nuclear fuel in a federally owned site in the state. But it
specifically prohibits storing the waste in any state where a commercial, dry cask storage facility has been licensed.
Utah does not have a nuclear power reactor and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a license for PFS to operate a storage site on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
The provision also prohibits temporary storage in Nevada.
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the company has not had time to study the language carefully.
"It's encouraging that members of Congress are still wrestling with this whole spent fuel storage dilemma, and they are trying to come up with solutions," she said.
"The thing is that when they put such stipulations on funding, they are automatically pushing the solution out eight or 10 years because any other facility is going to take that long to get licensed."
---------------------------
OPB
June 28, 2006
Feds Could Open Hanford To Outside Waste
By Carol Cizauskas
RICHLAND, WA 2006-06-28 A federal bill could make it easier to ship nuclear waste to Hanford. That means the site in south-central Washington may become a temporary holding tank for other states' spent fuel. Correspondent Carol Cizauskas reports.
Yucca Mountain is the proposed repository for the nation's nuclear waste. In southern Nevada, it's yet to be licensed -- and could take another seven years before it even opens. Meanwhile, a Senate Energy subcommittee has decided it's time to allow storage of radioactive waste at other temporary sites in the country. This could include Hanford.
Craig Stevens works for the US Department of Energy.
Craig Stevens: "It is an interim storage bill which would allow utility companies that actually use nuclear reactors to put their waste somewhere other than the reactor site, and it would have a role for the Department of Energy in taking ownership of that spent nuclear fuel."
Currently the Energy Department doesn't have the authority to ship spent nuclear fuel to any interim site.
The bill was introduced in the Senate Energy and Water subcommittee. It moves on to the full House and Senate for consideration before going to the president for his signature.
---------------------------
Fort Pierce Tribune
June 28, 2006
FPL to store nuclear waste in St. Lucie Nuclear Plant's 'dry storage'
By Rebecca Panoff
rebecca.panoff@scripps.com
FORT PIERCE — Florida Power & Light Co. officials shared a plan to use "dry storage" to store nuclear waste at their St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on Hutchinson Island with St. Lucie County officials Tuesday.
FPL representatives told county commissioners about the company's plan to use the storage method, which seals spent uranium fuel in stainless-steel canisters that are eventually stored above-ground in concrete modules.
FPL currently stores used uranium fuel at the Hutchinson Island site using "wet storage" technology, which stores the uranium in stainless steel-lined concrete pools of water on site. The uranium must be stored for at least five years in wet storage before it can be moved to dry storage.
According to FPL, the dry storage is necessary while the company waits for room in the federal government's nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that site won't be ready to receive fuel until at least 2015.
The wet storage for Unit 1 at the St. Lucie site will be at capacity in 2008 and will be at capacity for Unit 2 in 2010. Site preparation for the dry storage should begin this year, with construction in 2007 and fuel transfer beginning in 2008.
Although the plant is in St. Lucie County, commissioners have no say in how FPL stores waste at the facility. According to FPL, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is responsible for overseeing and regulating nuclear power plants, is in charge of licensing the design and operation of dry storage at the plant.
In other action Tuesday, the county commission approved a cable TV franchise for Litestream Holdings LLC to service Sunset Lakes, a 506-home development in northern St. Lucie County. A representative from the company said it hopes to gradually expand and compete with existing cable companies to service new developments.
How nuclear dry storage works:
- Used uranium fuel is placed into a stainless-steel canister in the used fuel pool.
- The canister is moved to a separate building, where the lid is welded in place and water is drained from the canister.
- The canister, which is inside a "transfer cask" is transported to the dry storage site and loaded into a concrete storage module on a concrete pad. Source: Florida Power & Light Co. Web site
---------------------------
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
June 27, 2006
Washington, D.C. – Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman of Energy & Natural Resources and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, announced today that his subcommittee unanimously approved his $30.7 billion appropriations bill for the Energy Department, including language clarifying DOE´s responsibility for spent nuclear fuel and a $10 million appropriation for DOE´s administration of a program to site consolidation and preparation (CAP) facilities for the interim storage off spent nuclear fuel.
The FY07 appropriations bill also included a huge infusion of funding to advance energy initiatives authorized by the National Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Section 313 of the bill clarifies the Secretary of Energy´s jurisdiction over spent nuclear fuel, authorizes DOE to store commercial nuclear waste from the country´s 65 reactor sites and instructs the Energy Secretary, in consultation with states, to determine how many CAP sites will be needed and where they should be located. DOE can store commercial nuclear waste for as long as 25 years before it is recycled or stored at Yucca Mountain.
Domenici´s statement in interim storage: “These provisions are the logical next step to managing our spent nuclear fuel. We face mounting liability because we haven´t taken responsibility for this spent fuel before now as we should have done under existing law. I remain firmly committed to Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage solution, but the opening of Yucca is a long way off. In the meantime, we need to aggressively explore recycling options. I am impressed by the GNEP program and happy to more than fully fund this promising program. With the CAP sites, GNEP and Yucca, I think we now have in place the near-term, mid-term and long-term solutions for our spent nuclear fuel. I hope we can finally unclog this drain.’
A summary of Section 313 provisions can be found at the end of this release.
Domenici also provides roughly $380 million in the bill to support energy-related activities authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including $148 million for solar, a $65.5 million increase, which includes $18 million for a solar-hydrogen pilot plant; $213 million for biomass, a $63 million increase; the restoration of $22.5 million for geothermal research and development; $4 million to supposed advanced hydropower and $95.3 million for building technology split evenly to support energy conservation demonstration projects and to implement solid state lighting like high-efficiency LED lights.
Domenici statement regarding EPACT funding:
“The administration´s budget sought 54 percent of the funding for EPACT provisions that we requested when we passed the bill. I understand the Administration´s desire to fund the President´s Advanced Energy Initiative, which complements the energy bill. My goal has been to increase our commitment to EPACT while supporting the Advanced Energy Initiative. I have appropriated roughly $380 million above the Administration´s request for the implementation of EPACT.’
EPACT provisions and funding:
The Senate contains bill language to clarify authorities under Section 17 of EPACT necessary in order for the Department to execute federal loan guarantees which utilize private financing to cover the risk premium traditionally covered by the Department. This frees up scarce appropriated resources, but still provides the full faith and credit of the federal government. (Section 311)
Biomass
• The Committee fully funds authorized level of $213 M for bioenergy research under Section 931(c). This is an increase of $63.3 M above the request.
• $3 M is provided to implement Sec. 945 Regional Bioeconomy Development Grants.
• The Committee report directs the Department to study a reverse auction as a production incentive provided in Section 942. – Production Incentives for Cellulosic Biofuels.
Solar
• The budget request provides $148 M for solar energy, an increase of $65 M over FY´06 levels.
• Report provides $9 M from solar funding and $9 M from Nuclear Energy to support a solar-hydrogen pilot plant authorized in Section 812, 934, and 974 of EPACT.
Geothermal
• Consistent with the Section 931 (C) this bill restores funding of $22.5 M for continued geothermal R&D.
Hydropower
• Provides $4 M to support research goals of advanced hydropower as provided in Section 931 (D).
Building Technology
• Provides $5 M to support the implementation of Section 140, energy conservation demonstration activities.
• Provides $5 M to implement solid state lighting provisions in EPACT. To encourage R&D in high efficiency LED lights. (Section 912)
Weatherization
• An additional $40 M was provided to restore weatherization grants consistent with section Section 122
• Fully funds State Energy Plants (Section 124).
Nuclear Power
• $27 M is restored to support the University Research program as provide in Section 954.
• $88 M is provided for NP2010, an increase of $33.9 M consistent with Section 952.
• Next Generation Nuclear Plant is provided an additional $16.6 M consistent with subtitle C.
• $9 m is provided to support the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative as provided in Sections 812(a), 934, and 974. ($9 M is also in Solar)
• The bill fully funds GNEP as directed in Section 953.
Fossil Energy
• Clean Coal program is funded at $70 M, an increase of $65 M above the request. Consistent with Section 401
• Coal R&D research is provided at $435 M, up $104 M above the request.
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration +$12 M above the request consistent with Section 963.
• Provides +$10 M in natural gas technology for Methane Hydrates research authorized in Section 965 and 968.
• Provides +$20 M in oil shale and tar sands as directed in Section 965and 369 supporting oil shale and tar sands.
Water Technology
• $18 M was provided to develop water/energy conservation solution as provided in Section 979.
Weatherization Activities
• $204.5 million, including $200 million (a $40.4 million increase) to fund the weatherization grant program. It also provides $49.5 million to fund the State Energy Program.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER)
• $135 million, up $10 million, which includes: $45.5 million to fully fund high-temperature superconducting wire R&D; $10 million for Sandia and Idaho National Lab energy infrastructure security R&D.
SUMMARY OF SECTION 313 PROVISIONS:
Sec. 313. Consolidation and Preparation Facilities
• The Secretary is required to appoint a Director of Consolidation and Preparation (“CAP Director’).
• Within 180 days of enactment, the CAP Director is required to issue a report making recommendations to the Secretary regarding the siting of a facility for the consolidation and preparation of spent nuclear fuel (“CAP facility’) in each state containing a civilian nuclear power reactor.
• Within 270 days of enactment, the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of each State containing a civilian nuclear power reactor, shall designate a site for a CAP facility within that state.
• The Secretary may determine that it is in the National interest to designate a regional CAP facility. No regional CAP facility may be designated in a state in which a state-wide CAP facility has previously been designated.
• Any site owned by the Federal Government, and any site that can be purchased from a willing seller may be designated as a CAP facility site. Nevada, as the State that is the site of the permanent repository is ineligible, along with any State in which a commercial, away from reactor, dry cask storage facility is authorized. Lands within National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, or Wilderness areas are also ineligible.
• The Secretary shall submit a license application to the NRC no later than 30 days after the designation of a CAP facility site.
• The license for a CAP facility shall be for a term of 25 years, and shall be non-renewable.
• The Secretary must submit an environmental report with the license application to the NRC. The NRC is required to issue an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 prior to issuing a license. Judicial review of the EIS will be consolidated with the review of the NRC´s licensing decision.
• The NRC is required to grant or deny a license application for a CAP facility within 32 months.
• In addition, at the request of the owner of a shut-down reactor, the Secretary of Energy (the “Secretary’) is required to assume title to, and responsibility for, spent nuclear fuel at the site of the shut-down reactor.
• The provisions of this Act, along with the Secretary´s obligation to develop a permanent repository under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, provide sufficient and independent grounds for further findings by the NRC that spent nuclear fuel will be disposed of safely for purposes of licensing civilian nuclear power reactors.
• The Secretary may make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the siting, construction and operation of CAP facilities, and the costs associated with taking title to spent fuel at shut down reactors.
---------------------------
Guardian
June 27, 2006
Domenici Offers Nuclear Waste Place for Now
By H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The government would store nuclear waste for up to 25 years on federal land under a proposal offered Tuesday to deal with growing volumes of used reactor fuel at nuclear power plants.
The waste sites could be built to accommodate a region or individual state, said aides to Sen. Pete Domenici as they prepared to put the proposal up for a vote by a Senate subcommittee that he leads.
The proposal is aimed at addressing growing concern about the thousands of tons of used reactor fuel accumulating at power plants, waiting to be shipped to an oft-delayed central government repository in Nevada.
The proposed Yucca Mountain waste site - which would bury the used fuel deep beneath the Earth - has yet to receive a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is not expected to open - even if a license is approved - before 2018, Energy Department officials have told Domenici's staff.
Domenici, a New Mexico Republican and staunch supporter of nuclear energy, plans to include the interim storage proposal in a $30.7 billion spending bill for the Energy Department and various water projects.
A subcommittee vote on the measure was scheduled for later Tuesday.
The bill also would include nearly $500 million for the Yucca Mountain project and $270 million for a first installment on a Bush administration proposal for reprocessing nuclear fuel as part of an international program to boost use of nuclear energy.
The House has slashed the reprocessing funds to $120 million, about half of what the administration had sought for the fiscal year beginning in October.
Currently there are more than 50,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste in form of spent reactor fuel rods at nuclear power plants in 31 states. The government under contracts is obligated to take the waste off the utilities' hands, but has not done so because it has no place to put it, pending completion of the Yucca facility.
Domenici's proposal would give the Energy Department authority to build temporary storage facilities on federal land, or purchase private land for such a facility with a license to keep the waste for up to 25 years.
The Energy Department claims that currently it is barred from creating temporary waste storage facilities.
Some utilities already have filed lawsuits - and won favorable rulings in the courts - claiming the government owes them millions of dollars for failing to take the waste by a 1998 deadline.
Domenici's proposal is likely to be controversial because it would give the Energy Department authority to build a waste facility within a state even if a state or local authorities objected.
The department would only have to consult with a state's governor. It would require a license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission including compliance with various security, safety and environmental regulations.
Under the proposal, any federal land would be eligible except national parks, wilderness areas and wildlife refuges. Or, the government could purchase private land from any willing seller for the facility. A site may not be located in either Nevada, the site of the Yucca project, or Utah, where a private nuclear waste facility is being proposed on the Goshute Indian reservation.
Reactor waste now kept at closed power plants could be kept on site, but waste on any operating reactor sites must be moved, under terms of the proposal, after the government takes title.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
June 27, 2006
What will be Yucca's need?
Senate to study new recycling technology
By Launce Rake
<lrake@lasvegassun.com>
and Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun
The Senate is quietly working on a plan for recycling nuclear waste that would lead to a new generation of nuclear power plants and affect the future of Yucca Mountain. The question of how it would affect Yucca is subject to debate.
The Senate plan, expected to be unveiled today, closely follows the nuclear recycling initiative the Bush administration put forth last winter. The objective is to create a new method of reprocessing the waste from nuclear power plants.
Advocates of the plan say it would allow waste to be recycled many more times than is the case with existing reprocessing technology. The new method also would accomplish two other feats:
The final waste product would be less toxic than nuclear waste is now.
The new method would produce waste that is harder to convert into plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
Republican Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, the leading nuclear energy advocate in Congress, is expected to present the plan today at a Senate appropriations subcommittee meeting. That plan will include federal funding to try to develop the new technology.
Backers, including Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, say the program would revitalize the moribund nuclear-power-plant construction industry by removing a major question that has stalled it for decades - how to store nuclear waste that will remain toxic for tens of thousands of years.
Nuclear power is especially attractive at a time when scientists believe the Earth is warming because of the burning of fossil fuels, advocates say.
But as critics of the reprocessing plans note - and supporters concede - it depends on a pair of technologies - the recycling process and the "fast" nuclear reactors that could burn the new kind of fuel.
The recycling process has been tried only in a laboratory setting.
Critics charge that both technologies are unproven on a commercial scale. Developing them could cost tens of billions of dollars and take decades. Worse, the critics say, the plan would give a green light to building nuclear reactors with the potentially empty promise that highly toxic nuclear waste will be a thing of the past.
Just what this does to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository as the final resting place for nuclear waste is an open question.
Advocates of the Bush plan, known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, say it will reduce pressure on Yucca. About 60,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste has already been produced by the nuclear industry, and it is ultimately supposed to be transported to and stored beneath the mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
But with the new technology, much of that waste would be turned into fuel, and the remaining waste would be decay more quickly, so more waste could be stored in the mountain, Energy Department officials argue.
Opponents, however, say they have heard all of this before - and that recycling and reprocessing nuclear waste will lead to even more highly radioactive garbage dumped on Las Vegas' doorstep, potentially without the much-debated safeguards already in place for the proposed repository.
Yucca Mountain or another permanent dump site would still be needed, but the volume of nuclear waste would be reduced, advocates say.
Another issue is the money involved. Some in Congress see the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership as competing for funds and momentum that could be of use in developing Yucca. Although the House cut the president's $250 million request for GNEP in half, Domenici has vowed to restore the funding on the Senate side.
Some Yucca opponents would see that as a short-term victory, calling it a way to put Yucca on the "back burner." House Appropriations Committee members expressed that concern last month when they cut the administration's GNEP request.
If GNEP does undercut Yucca funding, "I suppose that's good news for us and Yucca Mountain. Let 'em have it," says Bob Loux, executive director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects, which opposes Yucca.
But other Yucca opponents see a long-term threat posed by GNEP because it would add to the stream of nuclear waste that ultimately would be deposited at Yucca Mountain.
"When you talk about the president's GNEP proposal, all roads lead back to Nevada," says David Cherry, spokesman for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "There has never been a discussion about process waste that didn't have waste going to Yucca Mountain."
Ivan Oerlich, an analyst with the advocacy group Federation of American Scientists, says the program just isn't needed: There are adequate supplies of uranium to fuel reactors worldwide. Also, producing recycled fuel costs much more than mining new uranium. Finally, Oerlich says, the new process still would produce large amounts of radioactive waste.
One of Southern Nevada's most prominent scientists and academics, former UNLV President Donald Baepler, sees much to like in the GNEP plan. Baepler is working to bring a reprocessing test plant to Nye County .
Baepler says 98 percent of spent nuclear fuel could still be burned in the fast reactors. Without recycling, the 98 percent that is usable, along with the 2 percent that isn't, would end up in storage, potentially in Yucca Mountain, he says.
"It actually is a very practical solution to what you do with all these spent fuel rods," says Baepler.
Baepler is working with scientists and nuclear engineers to establish a pilot plant. Their company, the Nevada Environmental Research and Monitoring Institute, is vying for a share of $20 million in federal funds that would be used to do preliminary analysis of four sites around the country. The sites ultimately would form the backbone of the GNEP program.
"The big commercial operation to handle the spent fuel rods" would be 20 years down the road, Baepler says. Nevada has many of the things the federal government will be looking for in such a site, Baepler notes.
Many of the same factors went into the selection of Yucca Mountain as a dump site: train and highway access, availability of a lot of electric power, a stable geology. "Nothing horribly complex," he says, adding that the plant would pump $1 billion to $2 billion into Southern Nevada.
"It's an economic asset, is what it is," Baepler says.
Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at lrake@lasvegassun.com. Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.
---------------------------
Albuquerque Tribune
Editorial: Let's not overlook nuke waste issue
While some in New Mexico's congressional delegation last week were criticizing the U.S. Department of Energy's plan to restructure its Environmental, Health and Safety Office, delegation members were applauding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The NRC approved a license for a European consortium's proposal to build a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment facility in Eunice - a project that will produce a economic boost for the town and southeastern New Mexico.
New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, an Albuquerque Republican, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, joined Rep. Steve Pearce, a Hobbs Republican, in hailing the announcement as an economic boon to the state. Domenici called it a "renaissance" for nuclear power.
But depending on which side of the nuclear fence you're on, the licensing is either a long-overdue milestone or - like DOE's plans to reorganize and, some say, de-emphasize its environmental office - a regressive, ill-advised step.
Depending on how New Mexico, its congressional delegation and the federal government handle the enrichment plant's waste issues, it could be both progressive and regressive.
Neither the state, the congressional delegation nor the federal government should allow the enrichment waste issue to fester, as it has for decades for the much larger nuclear power plant industry and its designated, but still deeply challenged, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository at the Nevada Test Site.
Not insignificantly, the same day the NRC issued its decision, there were news reports that the fix-Yucca Mountain bill - that's fix it once and for all - was stalled in Congress for this year.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was optimistic about getting the Eunice plant Friday, in spite of being locked out of the NRC decision. He said he expects New Mexico and Louisiana Energy Services, a subsidiary of Urenco (a consortium of joint European corporation and government ownership), will work out an agreement to protect New Mexicans' health and safety and the state's environment. The agreement would require hundreds of millions of dollars be set aside for waste disposal.
New Mexicans should not be satisfied with mere assurances, and both state and federal governments should be fully engaged in regulating this plant beyond the NRC's rather timid licensing attitude. The commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board actually ruled last month that uncertainties over waste costs were irrelevant.
Americans have been told repeatedly over the last couple of decades that nuclear power can be made safe and cost-effective and that the waste issue could be satisfactorily resolved. New Mexico, its citizens and its environment should not be the latest nuclear waste guinea pigs.
Nuclear power appears essential to the growing demand for energy in a world in which coal and fossil fuels might be egregiously heating up the world's climate and have limited future use. Enriched nuclear fuel will be needed to power the reactors that Domenici envisions in a resurrection of nuclear energy.
But that rebirth remains in question, when officials take a cavalier attitude toward one of the major issues that continues to give nuclear power a public black eye - satisfactory waste disposal.
Nuclear proponents, including cheerleaders in the state's congressional delegation, need to stop dodging that problem and solve it.
---------------------------
TMCnet
June 27, 2006
A Nuclear Power Plant May Be Next for New Mexico
By James Finch
Federal lawmakers patted themselves on the back, last Friday, in a joint bi-partisan news release issued by three New Mexico politicians: U.S. Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, and U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce. Their celebratory remarks were meant to remind voters why the politicians were in Washington to bring their state new jobs for at least some of New Mexicos voters. While the chorus of praise revolved around creating new jobs and bringing millions of dollars into the states economy, is there more behind this story, which has not yet been told?
For Senator Domenici, this was another major victory as the longest serving U.S. Senator in New Mexicos history. The Republican Senator heads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Domenici made his views on nuclear energy quite clear in his book A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). He began pursuing Louisiana Energy Services to move to New Mexico in February 2003, after it became apparent Hartsville, Tennessee didnt want uranium being enriched in their backyard.
And again, it was Domenici, whose last minute negotiations with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, led to the adoption of the Part 810 Waiver. The waiver allowed Louisiana Energy Services (LES) to contact foreign-owned Urenco Ltd about transferring high technology data (the gas centrifuge technology) to LES so the uranium enrichment technology could be utilized at the new facility. U.S. laws ordinarily prohibit such nuclear technology transfers, but Domenicis intervention brought the project to the NRC approval stage. LES had been on the drawing boards since 1989, having derived its name from the state of Louisiana. The LES partnership was initially formed with the intent of building its centrifuge enrichment plant in Homer, Louisiana.
Senator Domenicis impact upon the nuclear resurgence in the United States is evident to the entire industry and most politicians. He announced last year, In 1997, I predicted the resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States. For the last eight years, I have worked to help make that renaissance a reality. Is there, perhaps, one more achievement Senator Domenici would like to add on behalf of the nuclear industry, before giving up his Senate seat? In his book, A Brighter Tomorrow, Domenici bemoans and condemns nuclear fuel reprocessing. With the advent of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), Domenici may bring a nuclear power plant to New Mexico before he retires.
Domenicis Democratic counterpart, Senator Jeff Bingaman, is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee. We suspect Bingaman may play an integral role in helping Senator Domenici fulfill that dream. Ironically, Senator Bingaman, who last November was invited to a Santa Fe anti-nuclear environmentalist fundraiser, and which highlighted television mogul Ted Turner, was effusive in saying about the LES enrichment facility, This will be one of the largest construction projects our state has ever seen. And the economic impact in southeastern New Mexico will be tremendous. Does Bingaman appear to be playing both sides of the nuclear chessboard?
No, the former attorney, who reportedly once provided legal advice to uranium mining powerhouse, Kerr McGee, is deftly maneuvering between being a good Democrat and providing what he may honestly believe is best for his state. While Bingaman has curried favor among the environmentalists, in May of this year, he accepted, along with Domenici and others, the William S. Lee Award for Leadership at the Nuclear Energy Institutes (NEI) annual conference, saying, I share a belief that nuclear power can make a meaningful contribution to controlling the growth of greenhouse gases, while still allowing our economy to expand. It was his subsequent remark directed at the NEI, which leads us to believe he may be among the first to support additional nuclear growth in New Mexico. He told the NEI, I am hoping that you will do your part to use those tools that Congress has put in place to ensure that nuclear power achieves its potential as part of our future energy mix.
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
In March 2006, Senator Domenici pledged his support to President Bushs Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),
With GNEP, we begin to close the cycle on nuclear waste in ways that prevent proliferation and reduce both the volume and toxicity of waste. By recycling spent nuclear fuel, we can reuse the uranium, which is 96 percent of spent fuel, and separate the most toxic radioactive material to be burned in an advanced burner reactor. By reusing uranium fuel and burning the transuranic material in a new generation of modern reactors, we can reduce the amount of waste placed in Yucca Mountain by a factor of 100.
One of the key technologies in the GNEP program in is the Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR). Deriving its technology from fast reactors, which were used to make nuclear weapons, the concept of the ABR is to minimize the amount of nuclear waste, produced by the nuclear industrys power plants, to a tiny fraction of content. The concept behind the ABR is to burn the transuranic elements, such as plutonium and other long-living radioactive material. In this case, burning the radioactive waste is translated as: destroying the transuranics, by converting them into shorter-lived isotopes. When the transuranic elements are consumed by the ABR, a large amount of energy is released and then converted into electricity.
Instead of burying several football fields of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain (or elsewhere) for one million years, the toxic waste would be recycled as energy to be immediately used to power homes and industry. Part of the GNEP plan is to combine the current, or advanced, light water reactors with the ABR. As the light water nuclear reactors produce transuranics, the ABRs consume those highly radioactive elements. This leaves less nuclear waste for future disposal, and immediately provides energy.
The major issue in the western United States, about nuclear waste, is please dont put it in our backyard. Several western states have been approached, and even the Carlsbad area was once discussed. Through the ABR technology, it may be possible to minimize the amount of this waste to make it a less undesirable disposal problem. A look at local New Mexico politics may provide an insight as to where the two U.S. senators may be heading with regards to a nuclear power plant for New Mexico.
New Mexicos Enrichment Facility: Prelude to a Nuclear Power Plant?
If Federal lawmakers are happy about the proposed uranium enrichment facility, some of New Mexicos state politicians were still floating on clouds when we talked to them yesterday. New Mexico legislator John A. Heaton, the Democratic representative serving Carlsbad, waxed enthusiastic about the enrichment facility, Its the first step in converting this country to nuclear energy.
Mainly the four state senators and representatives, whom we interviewed, echoed each others praise about Urencos proposed enrichment facility. I could not be more pleased, Senator Carroll H. Leavell told us. It will have a major, very positive impact on the economy. At the peak of construction, as many as 1200 workers may be employed. Later, when the facility is operational, about 300 workers will remain. All four were pleasantly surprised that town hall hearings for the proposed facility were overwhelmingly positive, and the local citizens would be delighted to have this facility in built in southeastern New Mexico. Senator Leavell said with disgust, Most of the (anti-nuclear) protests have come from outside our area, places like San Francisco, DC and Santa Fe.
Senators Leavell and Gay G. Kernan, the state senator from Hobbs, were invited by Urenco Ltd. to tour an enrichment technology plant in Almelo, Netherlands and left impressed with the company, its honesty and especially the managements attitude of looking at both sides of the issues. Both state senators also observed the surrounding community failed to be negatively impacted by the enrichment facility.
Looking for deeper insights into what the future might hold, we asked all four about the possibility of a nuclear power plant in New Mexico. All four agreed it would be desirable. Additional comments by the four state politicians led us to believe there might be a second step, following Heatons remark about the enrichment facility being the first step.
Donald L. Whitaker, the Democratic legislator from Eunice, the closest town to the proposed enrichment facility, told us, I would like to see a nuclear reactor in New Mexico. Whitaker has toured a nuclear facility, and believes one would be great for the states economy. They employ about one thousand and bring high-paying jobs, he said. Representative Whitaker was not the lone voice among his fellow eastern New Mexican legislators.
Yes, we want a nuclear reactor in New Mexico, Representative Heaton said. Heaton is the legislatures Vice Chairman of the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials committee and a member of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee. He discussed the ABR technology and GNEP, explaining how this would solve the waste disposal problem of nuclear reactors and sway public opinion on nuclear energy.
Senator Leavell took a more cautious approach, explaining how nuclear reactors need tremendous amounts of water. I dont think New Mexico could have a nuclear reactor, not with the current technology. But, he still agreed it would be a good idea if new technologies were developed, which used less water.
Senator Gay Kernan told us, I dont know if I should be talking about this, but we are one of the candidates for the GNEP program. Having heard a rumor that General Atomics may propose building a nuclear power plant in eastern New Mexico, Senator Kernan confirmed such a plant may be on the drawing boards, and telling us West Texas is likely to be developed as an alternative energy corridor. She told us, It would stretch from Carlsbad, New Mexico to the Odessa-Midland, Texas area. Senator Kernan would also like New Mexico to have a nuclear plant, I dont have a problem with that.
The third politician, joining Senators Domenici and Bingaman, in praising the NRC approval of a draft license for LES and Urenco Ltd, was U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce. Comments, issued by his press secretary on Friday and praising the LES announcement, may foreshadow New Mexicos next step, Todays announcement marks a major milestone in our efforts to cement our states leadership role in the development of alternative energy. What greater leadership by a state than in introducing the new GNEP ABR technology in New Mexico? After all, the state of New Mexico remains the founding home to nuclear technology, where the worlds first atomic technology was designed at Los Alamos.
In a related development, David Watts, President of the University of Texas of the Permian Basin, recently met with Congressman Pearce about developing a helium-cooled nuclear reactor facility, which would be built underground in either Lea County, New Mexico or Andrews County, Texas. General Atomics of San Diego has funded the pre-conceptual design, which is underway and scheduled for completion in August. Waste Control Specialists has a low-level radioactive waste storage site in Andrews County. Realistically, a nuclear reactor in New Mexico is not out of the question. The legislators may get what they want. We believe Senator Domenici will ultimately set into motion the plans to bring New Mexico its first nuclear power plant. It would become his crowning achievement in helping the nuclear renaissance blossom in this country and in his state.
James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. To read the entire series, entitled, New Mexico Joins the Nuclear Renaissance, please visit http://www.stockinterview.com
---------------------------
DesMoinesRegister
June 27, 2006
Iowa View
Quit stalling on developing nuclear-waste repository
By Ken Kerns
Special to The Register
This decade has been the best in history for America's nuclear-power plants — and it may lead to a new wave of nuclear-plant construction that once seemed impossible to imagine.
Ten years ago, it was predicted that one-half of the nation's nuclear plants would shut down prematurely because of societal and competitive pressures. Who would think that 10 years later, nuclear-power plants would be extremely reliable and profitable? Nuclear-power plants are currently running at an average 90 percent capacity, and some plants are operating above 97 percent. By contrast, the most efficient coal-fired power plants operate at only 60 percent of capacity, and natural-gas plants at 35 percent. Production costs for nuclear power are now less than for coal and substantially less than for natural gas.
Today, electric utilities favor nuclear power, in large part because of the tremendous potential of low-cost nuclear plants using advanced designs. To meet growing demand for electricity at stable prices, utilities are pursuing licenses to build as many as 20 new nuclear plants over the next decade. Companies are identifying potential new nuclear-plant sites in a half-dozen states.
To proceed with the construction of new nuclear-power plants, action must be taken to speed construction of Nevada's Yucca Mountain repository for used nuclear fuel. The construction and opening of the repository is years behind schedule due to lack of congressional leadership.
Congress will determine the success or failure of the repository project - specifically on the question of budget reform. Congress needs to approve one of the most important spending measures before it: a bill that would ensure that hundreds of millions of dollars going into the Nuclear Waste Fund annually (more than $100 million from Iowa alone since 1982) are used for its intended purpose - construction of the repository. The funds are currently being diverted to pay for other federal programs, thus delaying progress in developing the repository. The decision is vital to our ability to expand the use of nuclear power and expand the use of this energy source, which promises to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
At the same time, the government must fulfill its statutory obligation to take title to the more than 55,000 metric tons of spent fuel that's being stored at nuclear-power plants. The spent fuel needs to be moved from the plant sites to ensure that waste issues do not stand in the way of continued operation of the U.S. nuclear-power-plant fleet, the renewal of reactor operating licenses and the construction of a new generation of nuclear-power plants.
Well beyond its economic significance, congressional action on nuclear waste will have huge symbolic importance for nuclear power and its role in the world. The technology of nuclear power has proven its value and its importance in helping solve the world's energy and environmental challenges.
We can't let it be sidelined by congressional indifference.
Ken Kerns of Ames is a health physicist and past president of the North Central Chapter of the Health Physics Society.
---------------------------
Northern Star
June 27, 2006
Nuclear waste not worth it
Caleb Medearis
Opinion Columnist
cmedearis@northernstar.info
In America, the search for clean and renewable energy sources has revived support for the once embattled nuclear power industry. As a former resident of a nuclear town, I am alarmed at this turnabout. Despite the decreasing costs of wind, water, and solar technologies, the Bush administration is employing deceptive rhetoric to promote nuclear power. If they succeed, the results could be very dire.
According to the Energy Information Administration, Illinois ranks first in nuclear capacity with six operating stations. Although no nuclear reactors have been built in the U.S. since the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant, Exelon Corporation submitted an Early Site Permit in September 2003 to construct a new reactor at the Clinton power station. This is in response to the Bush administration's call for the construction of approximately 1,300-1,900 nuclear power plants over the next twenty years.
The fact that this proposal is generating so little public opposition is truly alarming. The once steadfast distrust seems to be crumbling as new energy sources must be found to satiate America's obscene consumption levels.
In May, President Bush gave a speech at a Pennsylvania nuclear station where he declared nuclear power an "abundant, affordable, clean, and safe" source of energy. Unfortunately, every one of these professed advantages proves to be a lie. While the element of Uranium is abundant, it is spread throughout the world, thereby maintaining our energy dependence on foreign powers. Most reactors also use Uranium-235, which is less abundant than other isotopes. Nuclear proponents may point to breeder reactors which create more fuel than they use, but the unfortunate by-product of these reactors is radioactive Plutonium.
In the 1950s, the nuclear industry slogan was "too cheap to meter". However, a 1999 study released by the National Environmental Trust showed that nuclear power cost more per kilowatt hour than any other energy source except solar photo voltaic. This is despite the fact that the nuclear industry has received nearly two-thirds of federal energy research and development dollars since 1948 and they are continually protected from liability by the controversial Price-Anderson Act.
Nuclear power also is claimed to be a clean alternative to fight global warming. However, fossil fuels are used in the mining, milling, and enriching of Uranium as well during the construction of power stations. Furthermore, radiation emitted during normal operation is harmful at any level. And let's not forget those pesky Tritium leaks of which the Chicago Tribune reported there have been at least four in Illinois in the past decade, including in my hometown.
Perhaps the most ridiculous claim of all is that nuclear power is safe. Especially when considering the increased probability of nuclear proliferation, the long-term transport and storage problems created by nuclear waste, and the unceasing threat of another accident or a terrorist attack.
The truth is the few benefits of nuclear power hardly make up for the major problems associated with its usage. Energy security can only come from energy sources that are truly "abundant, affordable, clean, and safe."
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------