Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, November 16, 2006
---------------------------
Lahontan Valley News
November 16, 2006
Editorial: Fallon should weigh Yucca rail route
With a renewed interest in an alternative rail route to Yucca Mountain, local residents must now wrestle with the possibility of nuclear waste passing through Churchill County.
The U.S. Department of Energy is currently gathering feedback on the Mina rail corridor, a 280-mile route to transport nuclear waste by train from Wabuska, south of Silver Springs, to Yucca Mountain while passing near the towns of Hawthorne, Luning, Mina and Goldfield. Trains hauling nuclear waste could access that route from the north via rail lines near Hazen.
But before offering a snap judgment about the proposed route, we urge residents to research it to see any possible benefits or detriments it may bring to the community.
Even if the project isn't derailed and the Mina route is chosen, rail cars won't be hauling waste through Churchill County anytime soon.
According to the DOE, 2017 is the "best achievable schedule" for shipments of nuclear waste to begin arriving at Yucca Mountain, which assumes many of the funding and political hurdles to the project disappear. A big hurdle at this time appears to be Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who as incoming Senate majority leader has pledged to prevent the project from seeing fruition.
That date brings forth a number of questions: What will Churchill County look like in 2017? Would the line impact the proposed Matthews Ranch and Great Basin Industrial Park development planned for Hazen? Would the rail line construction bring jobs to the community, or would it just be one-time commerce? Will local personnel be trained and could they adequately handle an accident? Where will training and security resources come from?
We intend to ask these questions, and we hope that the answers will assist government and Fallonites in forming their opinions.
Wednesday's meeting at the Fallon Convention Center offered residents a chance to offer input on the Mina route. The comment period on the route lasts until Dec. 12. We urge residents to study the map and offer input by calling 1-800-967-3477 or visiting www.ocrwm.doe.gov on the Internet.
With at least 10 years until nuclear waste could possibly start passing through, a thoroughly researched endeavor will produce better results than shoot-from-the-hip responses.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 16, 2006
Reid pledges to 'do good things' for Nevada
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada said Wednesday that demands of his new job as Senate majority leader prompted him to give up other posts that were helpful to promote Nevada interests.
But, the Senate's top Democrat said his new responsibilities will not keep him from obtaining federal money for the state or from continuing his vigilance against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
"The question is, can I do good things for the state and the answer is yes," Reid said. "We will do better than we have ever done."
In an effort to show he will not forget his constituents as he moves into an expanded role as Senate manager and national party spokesman, Reid met with Nevada reporters a day after he was elected Senate majority leader.
Republicans engineered the defeat of Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota in 2004 in part by accusing him of losing touch with his state. Reid earlier this year beefed up his Nevada staff, seeking to avoid being defined by critics in the same way.
"I want everyone to understand I am the senator from Nevada," Reid said Wednesday.
At the meeting, Reid also shrugged off a report that convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff was implicating him in an ongoing corruption investigation. ABC News reported on its Web site that Abramoff has told prosecutors that Reid agreed to help him on Indian gaming matters, and that $30,000 in campaign contributions from his clients "were no accident and were in fact requested by Reid."
The network attributed the report to an unnamed source.
"As I understand, he (Abramoff) is on his way to jail," Reid said. "This is an old story. Some anonymous source is what this story is about."
Reid's office further issued a written response stating that information in the report had been discredited previously and that Reid's activities on Indian gaming have been legal and proper.
Reid said neither he nor members of his staff have been contacted by authorities investigating Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials.
On his promotion to majority leader, Reid moved to explain why he dropped off the Senate Appropriations Committee this week.
Reid had been on the committee since 1986. While there has been growing criticism of earmarked "pork barrel" spending, Reid without apology utilized the seat to steer millions of dollars in earmarked spending to the state while arranging budget cuts for Yucca Mountain.
Previously, Reid gave up seats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Aging Committee as he climbed Senate leadership.
"It is not fair to the institution or the country or certainly the state of Nevada for me to be on things that I don't have time to do a decent job on," Reid said.
But being majority leader "allows me sway," Reid said. "I control what we take up on the floor."
"I have a full-time person working on the environment committee and I have plenty of coverage on the appropriations committee," he said.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
November 16, 2006
Reid says he'll stand up for Nevada
Erica Werner
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- A day after he was elected Senate majority leader, Nevada Democratic U.S. Sen. Harry Reid promised that his home state will benefit from his new post.
"It's important that I have everyone understand that I'm a senator from Nevada," Reid said in his Senate office Wednesday.
"We'll do better than we've ever done in appropriations and other matters," he said.
Reid said he'd be well-placed to continue his opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump that the Bush administration wants to place in the desert northwest of Las Vegas.
"I control what we take up on the floor," he said.
Senate majority leader was a job he never wanted or thought he'd have, said the 66-year-old gold miner's son from tiny Searchlight. He was first elected to the Senate two decades ago.
"I'm really happy. I know I'm not a smiley kind of guy, but I'm happy," he said.
Reid, at one time an amateur boxer, discussed coming home after losing a fight. His father, a drinker who later committed suicide, asked him if he'd tried his hardest.
Reid answered "yes," but then realized he could have tried harder, and he made a vow.
"I said I'll never, ever be involved in anything unless I work as hard as I can, try as hard as I can," he said. It's a message he said he delivered to his Democratic caucus this week.
"'There are a lot of you out there who are much better looking than I am, smarter, more experienced. But there's nobody out there that will work harder or try harder than I,'" Reid recounted telling senators.
Reid has had to answer questions about his ethics, including how he accounted for a personal land deal. He also accepted donations from several of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's tribal clients and wrote letters favorable to them.
Reid's ethics questions have provided fodder for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the recruiting and fundraising committee for GOP senators. Nevada's other senator, Republican John Ensign, was picked Wednesday as NRSC chairman.
Reid and Ensign both said their opposing roles wouldn't affect their friendly relationship and cooperation on legislation benefiting Nevada.
"At least I'll have somebody to call now" in case of NRSC attacks, Reid said.
"He and I just like each other, and I think we set a good example here in the Senate," Reid said of their relationship, which developed after Reid narrowly defeated Ensign in 1998. Ensign was elected to the state's other Senate seat two years later.
"He's a Republican, I'm a Democrat, we work together on issues that are important to the state of Nevada. And I wish other people had the same nonaggression pact we have," Reid said.
"It's not a 'Brokeback Mountain' situation," he joked, referring to last year's film about two gay cowboy lovers.
Ensign was re-elected to a second Senate term last week while Reid's fifth term ends in 2010.
---------------------------
KVBC
November 16, 2006
A new timeline for Yucca Mountain
Energy officials say the Yucca Mountain Project has a new timeline which could have the nation's nuclear waste delivered to Nevada within 11 years. Yucca Mountain is about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
While the Department of Energy is pushing forward, some Nevada leaders believe the project will eventually go away. At least that's what they hope.
This debate over where to store the nation's nuclear waste has been going on for years. Many in Washington have concluded Yucca is the best place for it. But some say the safety risks are too great and they're hoping new leadership in the Senate, specifically, can help stop it.
The initial plan called for operations to begin in 1998, but budget shortfalls and regulatory obstacles set the project back. Now the Department of Energy is releasing a new timeline. If all goes as planned, a decision on construction of a rail line will happen by 2008. The rail would be completed by 2014
Construction of the repository itself would be completed by 2016 and Yucca would begin receiving waste by 2017.
This week in Las Vegas, public safety leaders from across the country met to discuss, among other things, the safety and security of Yucca Mountain shipments. "Our greatest concern here at the local level is the security of that transport vessel if it comes through our region," said Tim McAndrew of Las Vegas Emergency Management. "We believe at this point there's probably no amount of security that makes us comfortable."
And many believe even with planing and precaution, the project may still crumble, at least according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"The Yucca Mountain Project is a dying beast. By blocking funding for the project and any legislation that supports it, I plan on leveraging my position as the leader of the Senate to protect Nevada and make sure the dump is never built."
Senator Reid recently admitted there's no way he can stop the project altogether, but says he's going to do everything he can to slow it down as well as continue to explore other options.
The transportation rail line under consideration by energy officials would run 240 miles through Nevada and would cost approximately $1 billion to build.
---------------------------
VillageSoup Belfast
November 16, 2006
Governor opposes proposed interim nuclear waste storage plan
Beth Staples
AUGUSTA (Nov 16): Gov. John Baldacci joined an effort Thursday by the governors of New Jersey, Connecticut and other U.S. states to oppose a federal legislative initiative to establish interim nuclear waste storage sites across the country.
They said the provision, Section 313 in the current version of the U.S. Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, is a step backward in the long-standing federal policy to establish a permanent disposal facility.
“Leaving high-level nuclear waste in thirty-one states is not a viable option,” said Gov. Baldacci. “Temporary nuclear waste storage facilities pose significant safety and security issues in Maine and other states that have or have had commercial nuclear power plants. This proposal takes away a state’s ability to reject a storage site within its borders. Additionally, Maine ratepayers have been assessed payments for the federal Nuclear Waste Funds, and we expect the federal government to comply with its mandate to safely remove these dangerous materials; not to divert funds for the national repository for construction of interim facilities.”
In July, Gov. Baldacci wrote to Sen. Pete Dominici, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, to oppose any such plan to temporarily store high-level radioactive nuclear waster on site at current and decommission nuclear facilities.
Baldacci requested expedition completion of the nation’s permanent repository site at Yucca Mountain.
“In today’s world, the security concerns of Americans are not well served by having thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste left in facilities in 31 states, including Maine,” wrote Baldacci in July's correspondence. “Our best interests will be served by consolidating these materials in a facility selected for its remoteness and for its ability to be secured.”
In late September, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims found in favor of Yankee Atomic against the U.S. Department of Energy for the federal department’s failure to meet the statutory obligation to remove radioactive nuclear material from Maine Yankee and other facilities. In that decision, Yankee Atomic was awarded nearly $76 million in damages. The federal DOE is expected to appeal the decision.
“The current federal mandate is clear,” said Gov. Baldacci. “The federal government needs to hold to its agreement to move nuclear waste from Maine and other states to a permanent national facility. The interim storage facility provision in the current Senate appropriations bill runs counter to that goal.”
--Based in Belfast, Editor Beth Staples can be reached at 207-338-0484 or by e-mail at bstaples@villagesoup.com
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid
November 14, 2006
Press Release of Senator Reid:
Reid Elected as Senate Majority Leader
Washington, DC — One week after historic elections that made Democrats the majority in Congress, Nevada Senator Harry Reid was elected as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate. Reid released the following statement on his new position and renewed his commitment to putting Nevada’s priorities at the top of the list.
“Nevada comes first for me, it always has and it always will. As the leader of the Senate, I will make sure that Nevada’s priorities still come first by addressing important issues like immigration reform, growth, water, and the environment.
“I’ll also fight for energy independence so Nevada families can afford the gas they need to get to work. I’ll work to make health care more affordable, and strengthen Medicare so Nevadans never have to choose between a meal and their medicine. And more than ever, I’ll leverage my leadership position to keep Nevada from becoming the nation’s nuclear dumping ground.”
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 15, 2006
Yucca Mountain plan gets warm welcome at hearing
By Ed Vogel
Review-Journal
HAWTHORNE -- Businessman Rex Mills summed up the feelings of most of the people who showed up Tuesday to express their opinions on building a rail line to Yucca Mountain.
"If they put the railroad here, it will be great," Mills said. "It will give an incentive for companies nationwide to move into a lower taxed area. The waste is going into Yucca Mountain, whether we like it or not. It is 20 years in the making and how many billions of our tax dollars?"
So far, the Department of Energy has spent $9 billion on creating a repository to hold high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Mills and more than 50 others attended public hearings in Hawthorne on Tuesday and Monday night in Goldfield to talk about the proposal to build a 240-mile $1 billion north-south rail line to carry radioactive waste through Nevada.
Radioactive waste from power plants throughout the country would be hauled along Union Pacific's main east-west line that parallels Interstate 80 and then hauled south from near Fallon along a line that would pass near the U.S. Highway 95 communities of Silver Springs, Schurz, Hawthorne, Mina, Tonopah and Goldfield.
Many homes in those communities have been abandoned. Wrecked cars, burned mobile homes and trash line many of their streets. Their populations have dwindled as younger people fled for jobs in the cities.
"What we need are jobs," said Dollie Murillo as she stopped to pick up her mail at the Mina Post Office. "We need young couples having babies so we can get our school back."
Mina has about 100 residents, most of them senior citizens. Mina's 100-year-old school was closed five years ago when the student population dropped to eight. Children are bused 30 miles to school in Hawthorne.
Sixteen-year-old Thranh Orr of Hawthorne is "all for" the nuclear waste rail line. "There is really no place else to put it. This is about as deserted of a place as there is," Orr said.
Of 22 people interviewed Monday and Tuesday, only three said they opposed the Energy Department's alternative proposal to build a new north-south rail line to haul waste to Yucca Mountain. For 24 years about two trains a week would carry waste to the repository.
While residents may hope the rail line would bring prosperity to rural Nevada, the federal government is not anticipating sharing the track with private industry, according to Allen Benson, director of external affairs for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
That may be something for later negotiations, or an issue for residents to raise during public hearings, he said. Another hearing will be tonight in Fallon, followed by one in Reno on Nov. 27.
Tony Hughes, co-editor of the Mineral County Independent-News, said Hawthorne residents back the railroad plan because they believe the project will boost the economy. They also believe the government would not ship wastes across the county unless it could be done safely, he said.
Hughes said the federal government has used portions of the rail line for 70 years to bring ammunition to the depot at Hawthorne.
"Danger? I don't think they worry about it," he said. "They are used to it."
The existing rail line ends at the ammunition depot at Hawthorne. The Energy Department would move and rebuild portions of that line and run track south, mainly along railbeds where trains have not run for 50 years or longer.
A decision on whether to build the line won't come before 2008. The Energy Department says its preferred alternative is to build a rail line from Caliente around the Nevada Test and the Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range and then south near Highway 95 to Yucca Mountain. But the price tag of that line could top $2 billion.
---------------------------
Nevada Observer
November 15, 2006
DOE Adds Reno To Public Hearing List For Nuclear Rail Plan
No Other Cities Along Union Pacific Rails Included
by Johnny Gunn
Prodding from the Nevada State Agency for Nuclear Projects has forced the Department of Energy (DOE) to add Reno to its short list of cities where public hearings are being held regarding what they call the Mina Corridor. A transportation plan to bring high-level nuclear waste from power plants around the nation to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository has never been developed and the one to be discussed has been on the table before. While this current plan would cause high-level nuclear waste to travel through every city in northern and western Nevada, only Reno and Fallon are on the hearing's list. All the other hearings are in southern Nevada.
The plan according to DOE is for rail shipments of nuclear waste to travel on the main intercontinental Union Pacific rail lines across Nevada, coming from the east and the west. At a point east of Fernley the rails go south through Fallon, Schurz, and Hawthorne to a point south of Mina. The existing rail ends at that point but a rail bed, deteriorated by time and weather is still in evidence south to near Beatty. DOE plans to rebuild the rail line and the nuclear waste then will travel near Tonopah, Goldfield, Beatty, and eventually end up at Yucca Mountain.
It is not a new plan, but one that has been on the back burner for several years due to opposition from the Walker Lake Paiute tribe in Schurz. Their opposition to nuclear waste traveling through the reservation has been lifted and DOE is attempting to put the transportation plan back into effect. DOE has a meeting scheduled for Fallon this evening (11-15-06) at the Fallon Convention Center from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Reno meeting is scheduled for November 27 at Lawlor Events Center on the UNR campus from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Many communities in northern Nevada are not even aware that this new rail plan exists or that their voice is not considered loud enough to be included in the discussion. From Elko to Fernley there are few newspapers, fewer still radio stations, and DOE is taking advantage of this lack of communication to force the issue according to Bob Loux of the state nuclear projects office.
DOE has extended the period for public comment to December 12, but Loux says that is not enough. In a letter to Edward Sproat the Yucca Mountain DOE director, Loux says, "I ask that you withdraw the current notices and issue new Federal Register Notices that extend the announced comment periods to a minimum of 90 days." Loux also wants "scoping meetings to be held at all locations within the final 30-days of the comment period." DOE's response has been to include Reno in their itinerary of meetings, and to extend the comment deadline to December 12, far less than Nevada officials asked for.
Leaving the entire tier of northern Nevada communities in the dark about the rail plan is at the least a devious attempt to circumvent the public hearing process Loux believes. In the Sproat letter Loux says DOE should "Announce scoping meetings at the following locations, in addition to those announced: Reno, Elko, Battle Mountain, Winnemucca, Lovelock, Yerington (all in Nevada), and Salt Lake City, Utah, and Sacramento, California."
Loux says there are no maps available to describe the proposal, and a visit to the Yucca Mountain web site proves the point. Go to http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov and the map of Nevada is a simple highway map.
As has been reported several times, the transportation plans offered by DOE were written more than 20 years ago and do not reflect current activities such as terrorist actions that could take place. When the canisters to transport the waste were conceived and built, the idea of suicide bombers was not well known, but since that time as reflected in the daily press they exist worldwide. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says if a canister fails following an attack or derailment, an area of 40-square-miles will be contaminated with high-level nuclear waste, the most dangerous product on the face of the earth. This part of the transportation plan is not on the menu for DOE public hearings.
On November 10 a railroad train derailed on the Union Pacific tracks west of Reno, the same tracks that would carry the nuclear waste if the DOE plan is approved. Two men were killed and others injured in the wreck and thousands of gallons of flammable liquids burned for two days. That wreck should be a wake-up call to political leaders throughout northern Nevada to demand safety procedures far above what is called for today. One well placed shoulder fired missile at a train in Reno's subsurface railroad trench that runs through the heart of the biggest little city would create havoc for weeks if not months.
The concept of terrorists attacking one of these trains anywhere along their journeys is more than possible in today's current political unrest. The Yucca Mountain project began during the cold war when the U.S. Government decided it would be safer to hold high level nuclear waste at a single underground location. Many believed at the time the waste could be stolen by Russian forces and turned into nuclear weapons. Scientists and those involved in worldwide political intrigue now believe the concept of the terrorist creating chaos is more likely to happen.
Calls for keeping the waste at the energy plant sites are coming from all sides in congress and elsewhere, and the idea of reusing the waste is also on the table. DOE refuses to even consider the options. They are locked into a contract that is out of date and filled with 21st Century problems. Some believe the only answer is for Congress to either renegotiate the contract with the nuclear industry or simply end it, take the losses, and start from scratch.
The Nevada Observer attempted to get reaction from several public officials in northern Nevada concerning the proposed plan to transport the waste through various communities. Washoe County Manager Katie Singlaub said "We will have people in attendance (at the public hearing)." She went on to say, "We have several departments that may have an interest in the impacts of this project including Emergency Management, Sheriff's Office, District Health Department, and Public Works, among others." One problem voiced by a Reno official has to do with Homeland Security.
"Homeland Security issues may be involved in anything the city might be able to do," according to Steve Frady a spokesman for the Reno Fire Department and Reno Police Department. Reno Mayor Bob Cashell and Reno City Manager Duane McNeely did not return phone calls on the issue. Representatives from Elko and Winnemucca are expected to be in attendance on November 27 for DOE's Reno hearing. The meetings are open to the public and comments will be accepted.
---------------------------
KRNV
November 15, 2006
Senator Reid Voted In As Senate Majority Leader
The man who will be Senate Majority Leader next year says his top priority is to quickly confirm a replacement for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Harry Reid says the sooner Robert Gates is confirmed, "the sooner we can get rid of Rumsfeld." Reid's comments came after he was chosen by Senate Democrats to be their leader next year. He called it the "opportunity of a lifetime for me."
Reid was unopposed, as was Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, who was again elected as the number-two Democrat. New York Senator Charles Schumer was given the title of vice chairman of the Democratic caucus. It was a reward for overseeing the Democrats' takeover of the Senate. The Democrats also picked two women for senior posts.
Washington Senator Patty Murray will serve as conference secretary and Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow will be steering committee chair. Senate Republicans hold their leadership elections tomorrow.
---------------------------
KVBC
November 15, 2006
Public safety leaders meeting to discuss Yucca Mountain
For years now, the federal government has talked about making Nevada a dump for the nation's nuclear and radioactive waste. Public safety leaders from across the country are meeting in Las Vegas to talk about the safety and security concerns surrounding the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
The Department of Energy says the new projected start date for accepting nuclear waste shipments is now March of 2017. The Yucca Mountain repository was originally scheduled to begin operation back in 1998, but legal challenges, environmental concerns, and budget shortfalls are among the reasons for the major delay.
The proposed facility is approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Ninety percent of the waste proposed for disposal at the Yucca Mountain facility consists of spent nuclear fuel. The remaining 10 percent consists of high level radioactive waste, which is produced mainly from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
Some opponents of the proposed repository are concerned that nuclear waste will escape into the ground water and the air. Some are also concerned about the waste being shipped through more than 40 states.
For his part, newly announced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada says he'll use his new position to help further delay plans for Yucca Mountain while looking for alternate ways to store nuclear waste.
Wednesday's round table discussion brought together experts from Clark County, as well as others from Los Angeles and Broward County, Florida. The meeting was held at the Orleans Hotel and Casino from 2 to 5 PM.
The proposed Yucca Mountain facility is a geologic repository, meaning that it will store packaged waste deep below the earth's surface in an underground tunnel.
---------------------------
Orlando Sentinel
November 15, 2006
Other Views:
Nuclear power: Promise beyond polarized debate
Lynn E. Weaver
Special to the Sentinel
After sitting on the sidelines for more than two decades, nuclear power is back in the game. Because of the unpredictability of natural gas prices and the growing concern over burning any types of fossil fuels, which release global-warming gases, U.S. energy companies have announced that they are gearing up to build some 35 new nuclear plants around the country.
This means that along with nuclear power, the polarized debate is also back. And it isn't helping us prepare for the battle against global warming.
The problem is the legacy of hostility toward nuclear power, which dates back to the 1960s. An anti-nuclear movement used argument after argument to try to stop the growth of nuclear-power plants around the country. And most of those arguments have now been refuted by 30 years of excellent operation. But with the return of nuclear, many of those same critics are dusting off their harshest diatribes and trying to scare the public. To them, there is zero merit to nuclear power -- it is dangerous, it creates bombs, it spreads radiation, it represents a sinister government-industry complex and it produces waste that we don't know how to manage.
Unfortunately, nuclear proponents seem to believe that they have to respond to these charges with an equally extreme position. For many of them, there are no problems with nuclear power -- only great benefits. It produces power without any pollution or global-warming gases, it is the cheapest form of electricity available, it is 100 percent reliable, there are no health hazards, we have been managing the waste safely for nearly half a century. In other words, it is perfect.
This debate between extremes may be typical of our entire society today, with our widely polarized politics. But for policy-makers and even members of the public who are trying to make sense of our energy and environmental dilemmas, this debate is not helpful. What is needed is a rational view of nuclear power, with its pluses and minuses. And it's very unfortunate that there is hardly anyone we can look to for that.
Nuclear power does have very strong pluses. It can have a potentially large impact in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, because no carbon dioxide or other pollutants are emitted by nuclear plants. It has provided record amounts of electricity in the past 15 years, because of the improved performance of U.S. reactors. As a result, the production costs of nuclear-generated electricity, compared to other fuels, has dropped sharply, with nuclear power now marginally cheaper than coal and less than one-third the cost of natural gas. The cost of electricity from solar and wind systems has also dropped, but both require vast amounts of land in order to be competitive. Nuclear power's economic strength is a major factor in its revival.
But we must acknowledge that nuclear power also brings some sizable challenges. For example, construction costs for new nuclear plants, even with the use of standardized designs and licensing reforms that are designed to eliminate unnecessary delays, remain higher than those for fossil-fuel plants. And utilities still must store spent fuel at nuclear-plant sites, because the government has not taken possession of the spent fuel, as required by law, nor has it completed the licensing and construction of an underground waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The repository -- which would be the first of its kind in the world -- is not scheduled to open until 2017.
France faces some of the same issues, but it obtains 85 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, whereas nuclear power supplies only 20 percent of the electricity in this country. Great Britain, Canada, China, India and other industrialized countries are also moving ahead with construction of new nuclear plants.
The serious and increasing concern for our nation's energy security -- and the danger of global warming -- points to the need for coming to terms with the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power. Nuclear power needs to be an essential part of the energy mix.
Lynn E. Weaver is president emeritus of the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
---------------------------
Augusta Chronicle
November 15, 2006
SRS to add hundreds of jobs
Construction of factory to process plutonium to start in 2008
By Josh Gelinas
South Carolina Bureau Chief
The Department of Energy plans to get rid of 13 metric tons of orphaned plutonium destined for Savannah River Site with a multimillion-dollar factory that will be built there, an official announced Tuesday.
The factory will cost between $300 million and $500 million, and construction is supposed to start near the end of 2008, Allen Gunter, a nuclear materials director for the DOE, told members of the SRS Citizens Advisory Board during a meeting in Augusta.
Plutonium shipments to SRS have been a source of turmoil for South Carolina officials in recent years.
Former Gov. Jim Hodges sued the DOE in 2002 to block it from entering the state.
The Aiken County Council has an outstanding suit against the agency related to the issue.
In general, they've complained that the federal government didn't have clear plans to get the substance out of the state after it was shipped in.
"I think DOE is certainly aware of the local concerns," said Ernie Chaput, a former DOE manager at SRS. "This may be one effort on their part to address those concerns."
The DOE plans to a build a mixed-oxide, or MOX, factory that will turn 34 metric tons of plutonium being taken out of weapons into fuel for commercial power reactors. But until now there's been no path out of SRS for another 13 tons of the material that is too dirty to run through MOX.
"Between the two, we're able to dispose of all unusable plutonium," Mr. Gunter said.
The new factory will mix plutonium with glass and place it in steel canisters. The process is called "vitrification"
In addition to new construction, the process will utilize an existing facility at SRS already used to neutralize other highly radioactive substances, according to the preliminary designs Mr. Gunter presented.
The plutonium eventually will be shipped out of state, presumably to the Yucca Mountain burial site in Nevada.
Construction will create up to 300 jobs, and up to 500 more people will be needed to operate it, though many of those will be existing personnel, Mr. Gunter said.
What Mr. Gunter introduced Tuesday is not related to the Consolidated Plutonium Center that might be located at SRS. That facility, which was discussed last week in North Augusta during public hearings with federal defense officials, would produce new plutonium for existing weapons, in addition to research and development.
Still, Mr. Gunter said, "we kind of work together."
--Reach Josh Gelinas at (803) 648-1395, ext. 110, or josh.gelinas@augustachronicle.com.
---------------------------
Wake Weekly
November 9, 2006
Rolesville eyed as nuclear waste dump?
By LaToya Mack Sutton, Wake Weekly Staff Writer
Twenty years after it was first considered, the U.S. Department of Energy is looking at the Rolesville Pluton as a possible site to bury nuclear waste, Edgecombe Community College Professor Fayek Megeed said.
Megeed’s class visited Rolesville’s Main Street Park and the quarry last Friday to see the Rolesville Pluton and to spread the word.
“I want people to be aware about what’s going on,” Megeed said.
Gayle Fisher, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Defense, said Megeed’s information is not accurate.
“Rolesville may have been on some list long ago,” Fisher said. “Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the only site authorized for study for nuclear waste storage is Yucca Mountain, (Nev.).”
Fisher said that could change, but added nothing related to the Rolesville Pluton is coming up soon.
The Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 as a possible location for nuclear waste storage. In 2002, President George Bush signed a resolution allowing the Department of Energy to move forward with establishing a repository.
The Department of Energy is working on getting approval now to begin construction on the site.
In 1986, the Rolesville Pluton, which covers 142 square miles in northern Wake, southern Franklin and northwestern Johnston counties, was included on a list of 12 sites the U.S. Department of Energy considered for a second nuclear waste repository in the eastern United States.
After nearly five months of discussion, Department of Energy officials announced the project was delayed. But they said at the time the 12 sites considered could be reconsidered in the 1990s or later.
Megeed said Congress must make a decision on the sites as early as January. But Rolesville officials said they hadn’t heard anything about the possiblity of nuclear waste being stored in town until Megeed’s visit.
“I don’t see that happening; that’s what my reaction was,” Rolesville Town Manager Matt Livingston said.
Things have changed so much in Rolesville since 1986 that Livingston doesn’t think storing nuclear waste in town would be a feasible option. The town’s population has grown to more than 1,000 and is expected to reach 4,000 or 5,000 by the time all approved subdivisions are completed.
Livingston also said he thought the federal government would have contacted Rolesville officials if they were truly considering building a repository in town. But at least one professor feels differently.
Because of that, Livingston said he plans to follow up on the information.
Megeed said many people are not aware of what is going on, but he intends to make sure they know. He said he and his class will put together a web site about the issue when Congress makes a decision.
The eastern U.S. repository would have been 4,000 acres and would have cost $7-10 billion back in 1986.
---------------------------
St. Paul Pioneer Press
November 15, 2006
Plant's nuclear waste plan challenged
Two groups say agency ignored rules
By Dennis Lien
Pioneer Press
Two St. Paul-based environmental groups have challenged a regulatory agency's decision to allow highly radioactive nuclear waste to be stored outside the Monti-cello, Minn., nuclear power plant.
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on Tuesday to reconsider its decision in late September to allow that storage to begin as early as 2008. They contend the commission disregarded state rules when it approved a certificate of need for as many as 30 above-ground storage casks.
Beth Goodpaster, an MCEA lawyer, said the commission ignored several rules, including ones obligating Xcel Energy to indicate whether the storage system is temporary or permanent and how long waste would stay there. She also said it didn't consider that a projected federal repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev., as now designed, cannot accept any waste generated at Monticello after 2010.
"And Yucca Mountain is the only (repository) designed,'' Goodpaster said. "Those two facts contradict each other.''
After the commission issued its decision in late September, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed the operating license for the plant for an additional 20 years, from 2010 until 2030. Xcel has said the extra storage capacity is key to extending the life of the plant.
Commissioners likely will take up the groups' challenge within 60 days, according to energy unit manager Janet Gonzalez.
Because the commission's decision is stayed until June, the Minnesota Legislature still could interject itself into the debate. Goodpaster indicated it likely would be asked to do so if the commission rejects the reconsideration request.
"The final decision is not final until the Legislature decides whether to act, and then you have a final decision that is appealable,'' Goodpaster said.
--Dennis Lien can be reached at dlien@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5588.
---------------------------
Dayton Daily News
November 15, 2006
Editorial
Our View: Clean up Ohio's old nuclear mess before putting new production work at Piketon plant
Feds can't be trusted on new project
By Dayton Daily News
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant near Piketon could once again become a major staging ground for the most sensitive — and dangerous — kinds of atomic production work.
The plant was built in the 1950s to help fight the Cold War by enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. Now the sprawling facility is seen as a potential worldwide center for recycling spent nuclear fuel rods.
The details of this history and these prospects were spelled out this week in the Dayton Daily News' three-day series Ohio's nuclear legacy: troubled past, uncertain future.
Staff writers Tom Beyerlein and Lynn Hulsey reported how, when the federal government privatized the uranium-enrichment operation in 1998, it left behind a contaminated facility and chronically ill workers. Both situations were the result of lax management and a checkered safety history, followed by a multibillion-dollar clean-up program that's still in progress and that has been erratic at best.
Meanwhile, the federal system to provide health care and compensation to injured employees has been sluggish and arbitrary, with claims languishing as workers are dying — not just in
Piketon, but also at sister facilities such as the old Mound Laboratory in Miamisburg and elsewhere.
The implications of this are clear: The federal government has not shown itself to be competent to manage or regulate any expansion of the Piketon facility. Ohioans — and their representatives in Congress — should vigorously oppose any further use of the Pike-ton facility until the relevant federal agencies keep their promise to make the site safe and bring relief to injured workers.
Federal agencies and the nuclear-power industry have huge incentives to turn things around.
The accumulated waste from the world's atomic plants has reached crisis proportions. The problems that creates aren't limited to potentially devastating environmental damage. If not adequately contained and secured, the material can fuel nuclear-weapons proliferation.
President George W. Bush's State of the Union address this year put Ohio at the center of the controversy.
The president announced an "advanced energy initiative," which includes creating a "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." The partnership's mission includes recycling nuclear waste from around the world. The idea is to develop technologies for burning spent nuclear rods, not only for use as fuel, but so they ultimately can be disposed of without resorting to deep geological burial sites, such as the controversial Yucca Mountain project in Nevada.
Enter the Ohio entrepreneurs. Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative — a consortium with players from the private and public sectors — is pushing to use a former nuclear-production site for this purpose. Specifically, it made Piketon the subject of a secret proposal submitted to the Department of Energy in August.
The argument may be that the facility is large, remote, already contaminated and currently serving as a storage site for nearly 20,000 canisters containing atomic waste. What's more, USEC Inc., the last operator at the now-closed enrichment plant, is working toward regulatory approval of a new uranium-enrichment plant there, which could be operating as soon as 2011.
On paper, this may make the Piketon site appear to be a plausible candidate for a recycling project. In reality, the project carries huge additional environmental risks. The federal government simply can't be trusted to undertake any new initiative at Portsmouth without first cleaning up the old messes it created.
---------------------------
NewMatilda
November 15, 2006
Nuclear Debate: Part Two: The Problems
Julie Macken
Two weeks ago John Howard realised that global warming was a big problem — for his re-election prospects and his legacy.
This insight did not come with the release of the Stern Review, or through the mounting scientific evidence demonstrating global warming. It came through the results of internal Liberal Party polling. Specifically, the answer to question number 4 of their polling : ‘Would you change your vote as result of climate change?’ Twenty-two per cent said ‘yes,’ up from only 6 per cent in April.
Howard’s problems have been compounded by growing calls from within his own Party to ratify the Kyoto Protocol or risk a Private Member’s Bill calling for the same. That’s why he used the Business Council of Australia dinner on Monday night to announce a business/parliamentary taskforce to examine the possibility of carbon trading .
This announcement may placate his nervous Coalition colleagues, but it is Howard’s preoccupation with turning Australia into a one-stop-nuclear-shop that is alarming many in the community.
A broad outline of how this plan would work was revealed in last week’s New Matilda. It showed how Dr John White’s Australian Nuclear Fuel Leasing (ANFL) company could realise Howard’s nuclear ambitions.
But Howard’s solution may soon become Australia’s problem according to John Large an English nuclear engineer who runs UK company Large & Associates. He came to international attention a few years ago as the man responsible for the salvage of the stricken Russian submarine, Kursk.
As a specialist in the areas of nuclear technology, risk and hazard assessment, he knows his way around the safety implications of using nuclear energy. And, having done a series of assessments in the UK and France on the risk posed by the transportation of fuel rods by rail, he also knows how to recognise a potential disaster zone.
When I spoke to him last June, he was shocked to learn that Australia was seriously considering the nuclear fuel leasing option, saying in his clear, clipped English accent, ‘Do you people have any idea of what you are getting yourselves into? You are one of the last remaining countries on earth that doesn’t have a nuclear legacy hanging over you, and now you’re volunteering for one? Why on earth would you do that?’
He said the Australian community needed to know a couple of things before they signed up to such an agreement.
First, when it comes to shipping radioactive spent fuel rods back to Australia — as ANFL proposes to do — ‘At least 3 per cent of that spent fuel will be damaged and therefore more hazardous on the return journey. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) acknowledges that this is the most dangerous phase because moving fuel across great distances, while it is still hot, is dangerous for two reasons: accidents and terrorism.’
Secondly, he points to the issue of the nuclear caskets themselves. The spent fuel travels in caskets that, according to the safety standards set by the IAEA, must: be able to withstand being dropped from a height of nine metres (the equivalent of travelling at just 50 kilometres per hour); and be able to withstand a fire of 800 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes.
As Large points out: ‘A train carrying the caskets would be travelling faster than 50 kilometres per hour and tunnel fires and ship fires burn hotter than 800 degrees.’
David Pentz, one of the directors of ANFL, countered these concerns by arguing this was standard operating procedure in Switzerland already, ‘[The Swiss] only allow their hot rods to cool for 12 to 20 months before moving them by sea to the cooling ponds. If this was not feasible, the whole investment for the US, Yucca Mountain repository, would be entirely wasted.’
While conceding that Yucca Mountain was confronting serious opposition because of this very concern, Pentz said ANFL was so confident about the safety of their project that, ‘We will create a sinking fund worth about $50 to $60 million per year, so that when we hand the company over to the Australian Government to run — in about 30 or 40 years [as is envisaged in ANFL’S plans] — they will have sufficient funds to maintain safety standards in the waste repository.’
On the question of storage, Large said the facility ‘should be able to guarantee institutional management for 250 years. After that period of time processes begin to breakdown.’ He underscored the difficulty of institutional management over those time frames by asking what was going on in Woomera 250 years ago.
He then challenged the integrity of the caskets used to store the spent fuel, saying, ‘Over the first 1000 years the fuel decays and it produces hydrogen which creates cracks in the caskets. There is simply no way, over even a 100,000 year time scale, to stop the fuel leaking out.’
But the risks are not confined to either accidents or terrorism. The recent nuclear test conducted by North Korea demonstrates how seriously the region takes the threat of nuclear proliferation. If Australia was to move into the enrichment business, there is the very real possibility that our near neighbours would feel extremely uncomfortable about it — particularly now that it has been revealed previous Australian Governments have considered the use of nuclear weapons.
Recently, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute released a report examining the links between uranium exports, processing and nuclear weapons proliferation . The author of that report, Dr Andrew Davies, told me that so long as Australia does not engage in enrichment and/or reprocessing, our neighbours have little to be concerned about.
‘They would not be concerned, I think, about Australia taking back spent nuclear fuel rods for storage,’ he said. ‘But if, at a later date, Australia wanted to get into either enrichment or reprocessing, then I think they would be alarmed because that puts us in the position to develop nuclear weapons. That is simply a consequence of the technology overlap,’ he said. Adding, ‘How would Australia answer the question: “if it’s OK for you guys to develop an enrichment capability, why is it not alright for us?”’
This brings us to the new security treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia on Lombok on Monday night.
While there was much media speculation about the treaty being used to facilitate Australian and Indonesia co-operation on civilian nuclear power, Damien Kingsbury, Associate Professor in the School of International and Political Studies at Deakin University, says the treaty doesn’t amount to a lot in the nuclear department.
‘Implicit in the treaty is that one or both countries will have a nuclear industry at some stage,’ said Kingsbury. ‘And [the treaty] will certainly be used to reassure both countries that there is no intention of going down the nuclear weapons path. But apart from that it doesn’t have a lot to say about the matter.’
He also points out that Indonesia has said it is only interested in a nuclear power industry if it can be funded by private investors — and the silence has been deafening.
The real question is: given the enormous risks involved, the high cost of nuclear power generation — currently around a $120 per MWH — and the fact that alternate renewable fuel supplies could be utilised in a much shorter time frame than nuclear power, why would the Federal Government choose to force Australia down this path?
To answer that question, next week we will look at the real geo-political forces driving the Howard Government’s nuclear agenda.
--Julie Macken is a former journalist with the Australian Financial Review. She is now writing a series of books on Australian business, hope and the possibility of political change in Australia.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
November 14, 2006
Editorial: Regaining fragile ground
With Democrats in charge, there is hope for the future of our land, water and air
Environmentalists are hoping that the overwhelming wins by Democrats last week will result in a Congress that reverses the damage done by Republican-supported environmental policies.
Those who support habitat protection for endangered species, strict environmental reviews before development occurs and other conservation-driven policies were ecstatic when California Republican Rep. Richard Pombo was ousted by his Democratic opponent.
Pombo, a rancher, had worked to dismantle the habitat protections provided under the Endangered Species Act. He supported horse slaughter, commercial whaling, the trapping of animals in wildlife refuges and oil-drilling in such places as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
According to a Las Vegas Sun story Monday by reporter Launce Rake, Pombo, former House Resources Committee chairman, worked closely with Rep. Jim Gibbons, a Republican and former congressman who is now Nevada's governor-elect. The pair co-wrote a pamphlet two years ago that said the federal government exaggerated the toxic dangers of mercury, which is emitted from mining operations and coal-fired power plants.
But Pombo's defeat is not the only win. With Democrats in charge of both the House and Senate, support should unravel for the Bush administration's promotion of some of the most backward and damaging environmental policies in recent history.
Bush has promoted drastic budget cuts that have left the entire National Park System in near-total disrepair. The president and his formerly Republican Congress have so often failed to increase funding for the Bureau of Land Management that a report released earlier this year shows that the agency could not adequately manage the 262 million acres under its care. Bush also shifted the BLM's focus away from conservation and cultural resource protection and mandated an increase in drilling permits for natural gas and oil.
From ignoring the problems created by greenhouse-gas emissions and global warming to cutting funding for water conservation programs to continued support for building a high-level nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, Bush and the Republican-led Congress have been on the wrong side of every issue.
Their poorly conceived regulations and laws will be difficult to reverse, as logging, mining and other industrial interests aren't going away. They will fiercely fight any reversal of Bush's industry-friendly environmental policies. But Congress should be the protector of the nation's water, air, wildlife and natural resources. Those Democrats entering, or returning to, Congress must work diligently and quickly to reverse six years of disastrous environmental policy.
-------------------------
Lahontan Valley News
November 14, 2006
Meeting on newly proposed Yucca Mountain rail line set for Wednesday
Josh Johnson
jjohnson@lahontanvalleynews.com
A meeting designed to gather input on a proposed rail line that could send nuclear waste shipments through Churchill County to Yucca Mountain will be held Wednesday at the Fallon Convention Center from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
The event is one of six scoping meetings scheduled by the U.S. Department of Energy in Nevada. Other meetings have been or will be held in Amargosa Valley, Caliente, Goldfield, Hawthorne and Reno.
The meetings are open to the public and will include detailed information including the route. No presentation from the DOE will be made, and comments from the public can be submitted to a court reporter, according to a DOE press release. The results will be reviewed after the comment period ends Dec. 12.
The meetings are in response to the newly proposed Mina rail corridor, a 280-mile route to transport nuclear waste by train from Wabuska, south of Silver Springs, to Yucca Mountain while passing near the towns of Hawthorne, Luning, Mina and Goldfield. Existing track would be used from Wabuska to Hawthorne, while a new rail corridor would need to be constructed further to the south. Yucca Mountain is located in Nye County, northwest of Las Vegas and east of Beatty.
Nuclear waste could pass through northwestern Churchill County near Hazen if trains from the east traveling along a railway that parallels Interstate 80 are directed south toward Yucca Mountain, said Churchill County Commissioner Lynn Pearce, who monitors the Yucca Mountain project for the county board.
Pearce said the route has a good chance of succeeding because of its favorable cost compared to another route.
"It makes really good sense from an economic standpoint in a process were costs were ballooning out of control," he said of the project.
It also removes the issue of having nuclear waste pass near Clark County, he said.
The other rail route under consideration is the Caliente corridor, which would transport waste 319 miles from Caliente to the west, circling the Nevada Test Site before turning south toward Yucca Mountain. The route has an estimated cost of $2 billion.
If the Mina route was approved, Pearce said the county would seek adequate training for emergency personnel regarding nuclear waste in case an accident were to occur.
"My primary concerns are to make sure that there's money placed in training and outfitting first responders, fire crews and search and rescue," he said. "I just want to make sure our emergency people are trained."
The Mina route is again under consideration following a decision by the Walker River Paiute Tribal Council to withdraw its objection to an environmental impact statement through its reservation in May, according to information from DOE. The tribe informed the DOE in 1991 that it would not allow nuclear waste to be transported across its reservation, a decision that halted exploration of the Mina route until this year.
In a letter to the DOE dated May 4, Tribal Chairman Genia Williams states, "The Tribal Council reiterated its opposition to any nuclear waste passing through Schurz, whether by rail or truck. We understand that if rail shipments are not allowed, nuclear waste may still be shipped through the Reservation by truck. Our intent in allowing the EIS is to determine if shipments on the railroad would be less dangerous than shipments by truck through Schurz."
The letter also states if tracks were constructed that bypassed the town of Schurz, they might also be used to transport explosives to the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot.
Residents will have the chance to view detailed maps and documents concerning the route at the meeting, said Allen Benson, director of the Office for External Affairs of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, DOE. Representatives from the DOE will also be on hand to answer questions.
So far, comments about the proposed route have been mixed, Benson said.
"People are simply saying they like it or they don't like it," he said.
More information and e-mail comments on the route can be requested at www.ocrwm.doe.gov.
-------------------------
NASDAQ
November 13, 2006
US Sen Domenici Still Plans To Move Nuclear Bill In 2007
By Maya Jackson Randall
Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., is still planning to advance a bill next year that would aid the federal government's plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Last week's elections made way for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., to take over Domenici's seat as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Despite the seat change, Domenici said Monday in remarks to the American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting in New Mexico that he remains committed to the Yucca Mountain-related legislation he introduced in September and that he plans to reintroduce the proposal next year.
"In the Senate next year, I hope to tackle the final issue of what to do with our national backlog of spent nuclear fuel," Domenici said. "We must get Yucca Mountain back on track. We need Yucca Mountain.
"We must complete the necessary first steps that bring nuclear recycling back to our country," he added.
Those policies are needed as part of an overall goal to revive nuclear energy in the U.S., Domenici said.
He noted that the energy bill he largely crafted in 2005 included risk insurance for companies that build the first new wave of nuclear reactors in the country.
That provision and others have helped to stimulate the nuclear industry, Domenici said.
"In the 15 months since Senator Bingaman and I passed the Energy Bill we have seen 31 planned applications for new nuclear power plants," he said, noting that no nuclear power plant applications were submitted to the federal government during the 25 years before the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted.
However, Domenici noted that the job is far from done on nuclear waste policy.
--By Maya Jackson Randall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9263; Maya.Jackson- Randall@dowjones.com
-------------------------
Hampton Union
November 14, 2006
C-1O group wants hardened storage
By Susan Morse
smorse@seacoastonline.com
SEABROOK -- The current dry cask storage being built at FPL Energy Seabrook Station and other nuclear power plants nationwide leaves them vulnerable to a terrorist attack, according to a member of the board of directors of the C-10 Foundation, a nuclear watchdog group.
Chris Nord believes the new Democrat majority in Washington, D.C., will help in getting nuclear power plants to adopt Hardened On Site Storage (HOSS), a method that costs millions more than what is now standard.
"In this new Democratic Congress, I am certain we're going to see a movement to pass legislation to force the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to implement hardened on site storage and changing the basic design threat," he said.
Nord spoke at a required public hearing of the Nuclear Decommissioning Finance Committee in Seabrook last Thursday night.
The dry cask storage the NRC is permitting around the country only meets one of three significant criteria for mitigating a terrorist attack, Nord said.
"One criterion their system meets is it has air cooling," he said.
The dry storage is not hardened to withstand a missile attack, or a fully fueled airplane diving into it, he said. The third point is the spent fuel is contained in one place in a blockhouse arrangement, rather than being dispersed. The risk is of radioactive material being released, rather than of a nuclear explosion, he said.
"The chances of it going critical are small," he said. "It's a dirty bomb waiting to be set off."
The Nuclear Decommissioning Finance Committee administers funds toward decommissioning. Members had asked Seabrook Station for a brief overview of the plant's dry storage, currently being built.
"I made some points that I think were useful to the committee," Nord said, "and they seemed to be very willing to have me back to provide information at their next meeting."
The next meeting is expected to be held this winter.
Dry storage is being built on site at the nuclear power plant to hold spent fuel rods now stored in pools. Spent fuel will be stored on site because of lawsuits over opening a national facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
"This particular committee is interested only in economics," said Sandra Gavutis, executive director of C-10 in Newburyport, Mass. "Our job at C-10 is to convince the commissioning panel, the whole issue of spent fuel pool is economic. My concern is ... if there's any leakage, that whole area becomes a Superfund site."
Al Griffith, spokesman for Seabrook Station, said the plant has already chosen a dry storage plan.
"The bottom line is this," he said, "Seabrook Station's dry storage is a safe, proven technology, fully authorized, legal, approved and most importantly, it's perfectly safe."
About half of the nuclear power plants in the United States now use dry storage, Griffith said. He has heard of none using the HOSS method.
"C-10 can submit as many plans as it wants," he said, "the decision on dry storage has already been approved."
-------------------------
RenewableEnergyAccess
November 14, 2006
Environmental Footprints of Renewable Energy vs. Nuclear
Scott Sklar
In 2003, The Energy Department has asked permission to reserve use of 308,600 acres of public land across rural Nevada to develop a railroad corridor to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, located in Nye County, which has a land area of 11,560,960 acres. Nye County is larger than the total acreage of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Q: A senior nuclear power exec claimed at a recent seminar that the environmental footprint of a nuclear power station was 100 times smaller than an onshore windfarm. (no sizes given unfortunately). What are the comparable eco-footprints? -- Polly H., London, United Kingdom
A: According to wind energy expert Tom Gray (and Director of Communications and Outreach at the American Wind Energy Assocation), "My rule of thumb is 60 acres per megawatt (MW) for wind farms on land."
According to the Energy Information Administration, The Fort Calhoun 476 MW nuclear power plant, operational since August 9, 1973, is located on 660 acres near Omaha, Nebraska and has an easement for another 580 acres, the acreage being maintained in a natural state (see Fort Calhoun link below). So on the face of it, on the same 1200+ acres, nuclear gets 480 MW versus 20 MW for wind, or 40 times more. But the capacity factor for the nuclear plant hovers above 80% and wind is approximately 30%, so clearly the '100 times more' claim seems to be 'on the mark' if you chose to forget the nuclear fuel cycle.
We now have active farming onsite at large windfarms, and there is no reason to believe we could not also harvest crops between the large wind generators for biomass electric power, which could increase electrical output of the same acreage substantially.
But a nuclear power generation plant is not an independent entity like wind. A number of processes are needed to keep the generation plant operational, most of which take place elsewhere or at other times than the actual production of electricity. The total package is referred to as the 'process chain,' which consists of the following steps:
* mining, refining and transport of the raw materials and uranium fuels;
* construction and maintenance of the power station;
* conversion of fuel or uranium into electricity;
* dismantlement of the power station at the end of its life span;
* processing of the resulting waste during the life of the generation plant.
Mining uranium takes lots of land. Uranium is widely distributed in the earth's crust but only in minute quantities, with the exception of a few places where it has accumulated in concentrations rich enough to be economically mined as an ore. The main deposits of ore, in order of size, are in Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, South Africa, Namibia, Brazil, the Russian Federation, the USA, and Uzbekistan.
Storing nuclear wastes also takes lots of land. According to EPA, in 2000, the USA had approximately 600,000 cubic meters of different types of radioactive waste were generated, and approximately 700,000 cubic meters were in storage awaiting disposal. Radioactive wastes in the form of spent nuclear fuel (2,467 metric tons of heavy metal) and high-level waste "glass logs" (1,201 canisters of vitrified high-level waste) are in storage awaiting long-term disposal (see EPA link below).
In 2003, The Energy Department has asked permission to reserve use of 308,600 acres of public land across rural Nevada to develop a railroad corridor to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, located in Nye County, which has a land area of 11,560,960 acres. Nye County is larger than the total acreage of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware. Of this vast land area, only 822,711 acres (or just over seven percent of the total) is private land; the majority of the county's land is owned by the federal government.
In regard to nuclear, add potential land loss to human and technical error, harsh weather and earthquakes, and potentially, to terrorism -- and the land issue becomes the least of the differentiations between the technologies.
--Scott Sklar is President of The Stella Group in Washington, DC, a distributed energy marketing and policy firm. Scott, co-author of "A Consumer Guide to Solar Energy," uses solar technologies for heating and power at his home in Virginia.
-------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
November 12, 2006
Looking In On: City Hall
Las Vegas to launch outreach program opposing nuclear dump
By Mark Hansel
Las Vegas Sun
A Las Vegas committee on Yucca Mountain agreed Tuesday to launch a public outreach program that will expand on the city's opposition to the planned nuclear waste dump.
The program, which would require the approval of the City Council, has been placed on the agenda for Wednesday's council meeting.
Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Nye County, has been chosen by the federal government as the nation's repository for high-level nuclear waste.
City officials have expressed concerns that the city's proximity to the site, as well as the potential that shipments headed to the facility will travel through or near Las Vegas, pose a threat to residents.
Committee members said the program is necessary because of public apathy over the Yucca Mountain project, which is not slated to open until 2017. Officials fear it is not an immediate concern for most residents.
The city has a limited outreach program and Ward 2 Council Member Steve Wolfson, who led the meeting, said the goal should be to expand on those efforts.
The estimated cost of the program is $29,500.
-------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
November 12, 2006
Editorial: Opportunity now abounds for the Democratic Party
Tensions were high Tuesday and Wednesday when the results of U.S. Senate races in Virginia and Montana were too close to officially call. But after both Republican candidates in those states conceded their races Thursday, Democrats came away from the election having gained the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994.
Nevada's stake in the outcome was monumental. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who represented Southern Nevada for two terms in the House before being elected to the Senate in 1986, will now become the majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January.
In this position, Reid will be one of the four most influential and powerful elected officials in the country, sharing that distinction with the president, vice president and speaker of the House.
For Nevada, Reid's ascension means that Republican plans to defile the state with the nation's sole dump for high-level nuclear waste, at Yucca Mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, are in grave jeopardy. But as he blocks Nevada from this fate, he will also be serving the country, as plans to transport the waste to Yucca Mountain left a majority of states vulnerable to tragic accidents.
On the national level, Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic congresswoman from the San Francisco Bay Area who is poised to become the speaker of the House, will be in a position to influence a change in the Bush administration's tactics and strategy in Iraq.
They will also be in a position to revive Congress from its six-year slumber on issues affecting ordinary Americans. Since President Bush was elected in 2000, the domestic agenda of the Republican-controlled Congress has been fixated on tax cuts for the rich and pandering to special interest groups affiliated with far-right causes. Additionally during this time, Republicans in Congress have been known for their short workweeks and for their ethical and legal transgressions.
Reid and Pelosi have pledged to change the whole image of Congress. Both say ethics reform will be a priority and that Congress under their leadership will be newly energized. Their domestic agenda, they promise, will be a return to what most people expect from Congress - a dedication to passing legislation that will improve the lives of all Americans.
On Wednesday during a nationally televised speech, Bush acceded to the message that voters soundly delivered. Had Republicans retained control of Congress, his message would have been different. But with his administration and his party so badly repudiated at the ballot box, he was forced to pledge a nonpartisan approach during his remaining two years.
For their part, Reid and Pelosi pledge not to exact revenge on Republicans, who had arrogantly flouted their power. Instead, they promise to begin moving legislation in as cooperative a manner as possible on such issues as the minimum wage, energy, the environment, student-loan interest rates, health care, retirement security, ethics reform and the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for making the country safer.
It is a promise that we hope comes to pass. After six years of virtually no movement on legislation benefiting anyone except the rich and special interests, the Democrats have a golden opportunity to show a new kind of accomplishment-oriented leadership - sans the scandals that have so shamed Congress under Republican control.
At stake in the Democrats' performance is nothing less than regaining control of the White House. Owing much to Reid's influence, Nevada's Democratic presidential caucus will immediately follow Iowa's caucus in 2008, ahead of the New Hampshire primary. The home state of the Senate majority leader will be on full view nationally, early in the nation's process for selecting the Democratic presidential candidate. In past years, Nevada's caucus, held after the front-runner had largely been decided, garnered little notice.
The attention paid to Nevada in 2008, however, will bring overwhelming attention to Reid - and how well the Democrats performed during their first year back in control of Congress. The assessments could be crucial to boosting the Democrats' chance of putting their candidate in the White House.
Closer to home, Republicans had more success on Nov. 7. Jim Gibbons, a conservative Republican who has been representing Nevada in Congress for the past 10 years, will be moving to the Governor's Mansion in Carson City in January.
But again, Democrats will have an opportunity to show their effectiveness. The party controls the Assembly 27-15 and trails in the Nevada Senate by only 11-10. Gibbons is not used to compromise, as he was in the majority for his whole time in the House, and became used to partisan power politics. But the Assembly Democrats have an outstanding majority leader in Barbara Buckley of Las Vegas.
Under her leadership, we are confident that Democratic goals such as full-day kindergarten, increased salaries for teachers, greater access to health insurance and developing alternative energy industries can be realized.
The Nov. 7 election created a historic opportunity for Democrats at the national and state levels. The party has America's attention, and we are confident that its leadership will not let the opportunity pass.
-------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
November 12, 2006
Nevada to gain from people in high places
State stands to benefit from leadership posts in Congress
By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun
WASHINGTON - The Democratic sweep to power in Congress offers new openings on key domestic policy issues for Nevada.
The new Congress will be more friendly to efforts to beef up the 1872 Mining Law with pollution controls, study ways to legalize Internet gambling and, perhaps most important, stop a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
After a long era of Republican domination of Washington, interest groups are poised to bring Democratic issues that they hope the party will embrace as part of a domestic agenda. The party has turned away from the conservative-backed Republican policies toward a more moderate focus on middle-class issues.
That shift will see the Democrats trying to increase the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, lower the costs of Medicare prescription drugs and adopt college tuition tax credits.
President Bush, looking for common ground with Democrats, suggests working together on immigration reform and education policy - two issues crucial to the state, where the Hispanic population is growing and the school performance is dismal.
For Nevada, said professor John J. Pitney, a former Republican strategist now at Claremont McKenna College, "the Democratic agenda isn't for the high rollers , it's for the ladies playing the slots. That's middle-class America right there."
Nevada stands to gain from having a miner's son from Searchlight leading the Senate. Majority Leader-to-be Harry Reid's rise to power cloaks the state with a protective layer like nothing else, experts said. The state also benefits from Sen. John Ensign's expected new position as head of the Republican campaign arm in the Senate.
"For the next Congress, one of the watchwords will be, 'Don't mess with Nevada,' " Pitney said. "It'd be very difficult to do anything to Nevada that Harry Reid doesn't want done." That's good news for foes of the proposed Yucca Mountain dump, who have been fighting Bush's attempts to get the stalled nuclear waste repository back on track before he leaves office. It is nearly 20 years behind schedule.
The expected new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, has vowed to hold oversight hearings on the project - he's a supporter, but like many in Congress, he is frustrated by the delays. New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who will take over the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is not likely to provoke Reid by pushing pro-Yucca legislation. Reid told reporters the day after the election he would be working on his long-running proposal to store waste at the nuclear power plants.
Michelle Boyd, who handles energy policy at the watchdog group Public Citizen, sees an opening to argue her case that Yucca Mountain won't be accepting waste anytime soon. "I'm talking to everybody," she said.
The nuclear industry said it was looking forward to working with the new Congress.
For Nevada's No. 1 industry, the new Congress offers casinos another spin at Internet gambling. Gaming took a hit when the Republican-led Congress passed a ban on Internet gambling as part of its values agenda . Casinos have been considering whether to jump into the multibillion-dollar industry, and want a study to see whether online games could be regulated.
The new Congress, with Reid at the helm, offers an opening for gaming issues.
"Anytime you have people in leadership who understand your issues, it can't help but be a good thing," American Gaming Association President Frank Fahrenkopf said in a statement.
Mining reform advocates see in a Democratic-run Congress their first chance in years to beef up pollution controls over Nevada's other main industry. Reid backs mining, but activists hope the House gets behind legislation from Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the expected new chairman of the Resources Committee, to change the 1872 Mining Law.
Alan Septoff of the mining watchdog group Earthworks said that after the Bush administration's rollback of mining reforms, Democratic control of Congress means communities "don't have to worry about things getting worse." But as much as Nevada's clout soars with the elevation of Reid, its postelection position in the House is about "a wash," UNLV political science professor David Damore said. Voters sent one Democrat and two Republicans back to Congress, the same as before.
With just one Nevada Democrat in the House, Rep. Shelley Berkley, the state doesn't have the strength in numbers that could help capitalize on the majority position. While Berkley is likely to head a Veterans Affairs subcommittee, which would be important to Nevada's thousands of military veterans, she faces stiff competition for a coveted spot on the powerful Ways and Means Committee.
She will be on her own to drum up support for her top issue next session - her energy reform bill, which calls for decreasing the nation's reliance on nuclear power and increasing investment in renewable sources such as wind and solar.
UNR political science professor Eric Herzik said Democratic control poses challenges for Republican Rep. Jon Porter, but also offers him an opportunity to assert himself after being attacked as a lock-step Republican in the campaign. As his party loses the power it once wielded to keep members in line, Porter could find more breathing room to act on his own.
"Porter now has to decide, 'Do I continue to play by those rules and ... put my political career at risk, or do I say, Go for it?' " Herzik said.
Porter's spokesman said the congressman always votes his mind and will continue to do so in the new Congress. He hopes to win a seat on the Ways and Means Committee, which lost nearly half its Republican members in the election.
"Just because we're in the minority does not put a cap on the ability to raise stature, seniority and accomplishment," Porter spokesman Trevor Kolego said.
Nevada's new member of Congress, Republican Dean Heller, the secretary of state, hopes to follow his predecessor Jim Gibbons on the House Resources Committee, which handles mining issues important to his mostly rural district. He also may seek a seat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Nevada's Democrats and Republicans tend to work together on issues important to the state, and Heller expects that to continue, only now Republicans "will be leaning on them on those Nevada issues."
Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.
-------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
November 12, 2006
Experts: Reid's Senate rise to help fight against Yucca Mountain
By Martin Griffith
Associated Press
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Sen. Harry Reid's rise to power in the Democratic-controlled Congress will give a big boost to efforts to halt a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, experts agree.
The state also will benefit if Sen. John Ensign becomes head of the Republican campaign arm in the Senate as expected, they say.
Reid, Ensign and other top Nevada elected officials have been fighting the Bush administration's attempts to get the stalled nuclear waste repository back on track.
Bush wants to ship the nation's nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, about 110 miles north of Las Vegas.
Republican Jim Denton, a veteran campaign consultant from Henderson, said Reid's Senate leadership can't help but bolster the fight against Yucca Mountain.
"Absolutely, that's big for Nevada. Yucca Mountain will go nowhere because of him," Denton said.
"Reid is Senate majority leader. Ensign will move up. I don't know how Nevada could be in a better position from a national perspective, I just don't," Denton added.
Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of the Nevada environmental group Citizen Alert, said Reid - as Senate minority leader - has been effective in keeping budget requests low enough to slow the Department of Energy's plans at Yucca Mountain.
"As majority leader we are confident Sen. Reid can stop Yucca Mountain in its tracks," Johnson said. "We can't begin to tell you how positive this is for the final nail in the coffin for Yucca Mountain."
DOE spokesman Craig Stevens said Sunday the Bush administration was moving ahead with plans to submit by mid-2008 a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and open the repository, with a goal of opening it by 2017.
"It was voted on by both houses of Congress in 2002, and it's currently the law of the land that a repository be built at Yucca Mountain," Stevens said.
"It's the most studied piece of real estate in the world. The national experts agree it's a safe place for spent nuclear fuel," he said.
If the U.S. is to keep up with increased demands for electricity and maintain a healthy economy, Stevens added, it will need to develop nuclear energy.
"To develop it, we need space to store nuclear fuel and Yucca Mountain is that place," he said.
But John J. Pitney Jr., a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif., and a former Republican strategist, said the new Congress will be more friendly to Reid causes.
"For the next Congress, one of the watchwords will be, `Don't mess with Nevada,'" Pitney told the Las Vegas Sun. "It'd be very difficult to do anything to Nevada that Harry Reid doesn't want done."
Reid, after the election, pledged to push legislation requiring that nuclear waste be stored on-site where it's produced.
Johnson said her group would continue trying to drum up opposition to Yucca Mountain by stressing the dangers of transporting nuclear waste.
"There are still a lot of Democrats, now in the majority, that need to be convinced, so we will need to get our allies across this country mobilized to convince their senators and representatives that this is not only a foolhardy but a very dangerous proposition," Johnson said.
---------------------------
KRNV
November 13, 2006
Reid and Ensign Expected to Stop President Bush's Yucca Mountain Plan
It wasn't on the ballot but last week's elections may have a big impact on plans at Yucca Mountain.
Nevada Senator Harry Reid's rise to power in the now democratically controlled Congress, as well as Senator John Ensign's continued rise in the Republican Party is expected to help stop the President's plan to re-start Yucca Mountain.
Reid and Ensign have both been fighting the Bush administration's plan but their new positions could make their efforts a reality.
---------------------------
Lahontan Valley News
November 13, 2006
Now what?
By Glen McAdoo
Hallelujah, and congratulations to Nancy Pelosi, the first woman speaker of the House, and to Harry Reid, the fellow from Searchlight. Who woulda thunk it? Having a Senate majority leader from Nevada means a lot for this state.
Now what? It seems to me the Democrats have two choices: They can continue the divisive partisan politics that have been so prevalent in the Republican-led Congress and Senate, or they can choose a different path - a path of reconciliation and cooperation and progress. I hope they choose the latter. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have their way, the divisive politics of the Republican-led Congress will not be the way this Congress does business.
If you have seen a film by Robert Greenwald titled "Iraq For Sale," you will understand the importance of investigating the profiteering, at the expense of our troops, that is going on in Iraq. I hope that the hearings end there. I don't think Americans want to see the type of witch hunts that the Republicans carried out during the Clinton years, nor do I think they have the stomach for the type of hearings that some Democrats have suggested. Forget impeachment. He may deserve it, but it's not worth it. We know how we got into this war. We were deceived. We don't need hearings to tell us that. Stick those subpoenas where the sun doesn't shine. America wants a Congress where people work together to solve problems.
The Democrats should get on with passing their agenda. For starters, raise the minimum wage. Reduce the cost of prescription drugs paid for by the senior prescription drug program. Reduce the tax burden on the middle class and provide a college tuition tax credit. Take steps to reduce the national debt and balance the budget by repealing the ill advised Bush tax cuts for the very, very rich. Secure our ports and borders and pass the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Protect personal freedom and liberty. And for crying out loud, drain the swamp, as Nancy Pelosi says. The corruption must stop. All of these things seem reasonable and should garner by-partisan support. Don't hold you breath.
It won't be easy. Let's be perfectly honest - this election reflected a wave of discontent with the Republicans more than it was a vote for the Democrats. Let us not get cocky. That was Bush's mistake. One interesting thing happened during this election that illustrated that this was not a vote against all incumbents (throw the bums out); it was just a vote against Republican incumbents. Not a single Democrat running for re-election lost their race. Not a one! Actually, that's a shame as Congressman Jefferson, D-La., deserved to lose. Oh well. When he is convicted Nancy can throw him out.
Iraq will be difficult. We 're damned if we do and damned if we don't. President Bush has made a start by removing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Now he must go further. This is not just his country; it belongs to all of us, and it is clear that Americans want a change in Iraq and they want our men and women in service to come home as soon as possible. Congress can't make this happen. The president can.
Personally, I think we could be in Iraq another 100 years and not much would change. They don't like us and we will not win over their hearts and minds with firepower. Why should one more brave soldier die to protect people that will kill them at the drop of a hat? The Shiites in power are just using us to protect them while they cleanse Iraq of their opposition. Under their leadership, Iraq is destined to become another Iran. Why help them? Please, Mr. President, listen to the people. Get us out of Iraq as soon as practical in a manner which protects our troops, and let's focus our military might and financial resources on homeland security, capturing bin Laden and on stopping al Qaeda and the terrorists. We can't afford to let Afghanistan become another Iraq.
Several truths came out of this election. Sen. Kerry must stop telling jokes. Of course, he was talking about the president, his notes proved that, but that didn't matter to those who, for political purposes, tried to say he was deliberately insulting our troops. Actually, the insult was by those who thought the troops weren't smart enough to figure out that Kerry was talking about Bush and not them. Still, Kerry is not funny. He's botched every joke he's ever tried to tell and he botched the last election. That's not nearly as bad as Bush, who has botched the war, butchered the environment and bloated the budget.
Additional truths: "Macaca" is a bad word. Some evangelicals practice what they preach against. Karl Rove ain't so hot. Measuring drapes was a good idea. Harry Reid is in charge, so Yucca Mountain is dead. Rush Limbaugh is a disgrace to the human race (still). And finally, my landscape guy owes me $50.
Next week, no politics, I promise.
--Glen McAdoo can be reached at glynn@phonewave.net
---------------------------
Montgomery Advertiser
November 13, 2006
Southeast has nuclear future
By Dennis Sherrer
Associated Press
FLORENCE -- In the 1970s, utilities throughout the country rushed to build nuclear-powered generating plants, creating tens of thousands of jobs for construction workers, engineers and skilled laborers.
After a nuclear accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island generating plant in 1979, most utilities scaled back plans for new reactors. Instead of nuclear energy, utilities returned to using coal and natural gas to power new generating plants.
In 1996, when the Tennessee Valley Authority began producing electricity at its Watts Bar nuclear plant near Knoxville, Tenn., it marked the end of the nuke plant building boom. No new nuclear plants have been completed in the United States since.
A decade later, a new rush to build nuclear-powered generating plants looms on the horizon.
Dale Klein, director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, predicts the agency will experience a groundswell of applications for licenses to construct new nuclear plants as the nation's utilities scramble to produce enough electricity to meet the needs of the its ever-growing population.
"We do have 14 different entities that have expressed an interest in almost 30 new reactors, so it should be an interesting and exciting time over the next five years," Klein said.
About 90,000 people will be needed between 2007 and 2011 to build and operate those plants, Klein said.
Many of the new nuclear plants will be built in the Southeast. Klein said Southern Co. wants to expand its Vogtle nuclear plant near Waynesboro, Ga. Entergy plans to expand its Grand Gulf Station nuclear plant near Vicksburg, Miss.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is considering expanding its nuclear fleet, which includes Browns Ferry in Alabama and Watts Bar and Sequoyah in Tennessee.
Jack Bailey, TVA's vice president of nuclear generation development, said the federal utility is considering completing the Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar. Construction of the reactor was stopped in 1985 when TVA temporarily shut down its nuclear program over safety concerns.
A decision on the fate of Watts Bar Unit 2 is expected within the coming year.
TVA is also mulling a proposal to become part of a joint venture known as the NuStart Energy Development Con sortium, and build a new generation of nuclear plants near Scottsboro. The two-reactor plant would be built at the site of TVA's uncompleted Bellefonte nuclear plant where construction was halted in 1988 over cost concerns.
Bailey said a decision on the Bellefonte project could be made by 2009.
Construction could be completed by 2016.
Adding three nuclear reactors to its generation portfolio is only one of several possibilities TVA is considering for boosting its power output to keep pace with economic growth in the Tennessee Valley, Bailey said.
If TVA opts to complete Watts Bar Unit 2 and build a new nuclear plant at the Bellefonte site, it could create thousands of jobs for Shoals residents, said David Freeze, president of the Shoals Area Labor Council.
He said many Shoals residents worked at Watts Bar and Bellefonte during the initial construction projects.
"I rode from Rogersville every day to work at Bellefonte myself. A lot of people from the Shoals worked on that project," Freeze said.
Resurgence in nuclear plant construction anywhere in the country would create jobs for skilled crafts workers from the Shoals, he said. "We go to where the jobs are. It doesn't matter where they are."
Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, scoffs at the predictions of a nuclear power plant construction boom that will create thousands of new jobs.
"The economics just aren't there to build new reactors without huge subsidies from the federal government," he said.
The Washington-based organization advocates using rigorous scientific analysis, innovative thinking and community advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment.
Instead of a building boom, Lyman suspects the government might subsidize the construction of as many of six new nuclear plants in hopes of jump-starting the nuclear power industry.
"We might see a handful of new plants constructed over the next couple of decades."
Instead of touting new nuclear plants, Lyman said federal officials should focus their attention on finding a long-term solution for storing radioactive waste from existing reactors.
Many nuclear plants across the country, including Browns Ferry, have run out of storage space for radioactive wastes inside the plant and have begun storing them outside in concrete and steel containers.
Plans to create a national nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain continue to spark controversy. Klein expects the Department of Energy will submit an application to build the repository in 2008.
Even if the Nevada facility is allowed to open, it is not expected to solve the nation's nuclear waste disposal woes.
During a visit to Browns Ferry in 2005, then-NRC Director Nils J. Diaz said there is already more radioactive waste being stored at nuclear plants around the country than the repository could handle.
Klein does not see the lack of storage capacity at Yucca Mountain as a roadblock to building new reactors.
He said new technologies being used in other countries would allow the United States to build new nuclear plants even if the Yucca Mountain repository doesn't open.
Klein said some countries, including France and Japan, recycle used nuclear fuel from power plants.
He said the same technology could be used in the United States.
Lyman is concerned any plants built in the United States that recycle spent nuclear fuel rods will be little more than places to store radioactive wastes away from the reactor where they were created.
He said Department of Energy requirements for such plants require them to have the ability to store radioactive wastes for 50 to 100 years.
Lyman said it's irresponsible for the NRC to consider allowing new reactors to be built before a way to dispose of radioactive waste is developed.
---------------------------
Brattleboro Reformer
November 13, 2006
Haunted by a nuclear disaster
By Bob Audette
Special to the Reformer
PUTNEY -- Looking straight down on a globe at the North Pole, it's not hard to see that Chernobyl is a lot closer to Brattleboro than most people realize, a mere 4,200 miles, give or take.
It may still seem far to most, but the radiation that spewed from the ravaged reactor in April of 1986 reminded the world that distances don't really matter much when it comes to radioactive particles on the wind.
Jon Block, an environmental lawyer from Putney and an honorary member of the Concerned Scientists, spoke to a small crowd at the Putney Town Library Sunday about his trip to the disaster site last April.
Block said he was invited to visit the site by Nuclear Information and Resource Services, an organization that opposes nuclear power in all its forms and supports research into alternative energy sources.
Block, who said "I would never be in favor of them (nuclear power plants) because there is no place to put the waste," returned with haunting memories, photographs and words of caution.
Block described Pripyat, a city designed to service what was to be a complex of five nuclear reactors at Chernobyl, as a modern city left to suffer the ravages of time. When the accident happened, the 80,000 inhabitants of Pripyat, many of them scientists and engineers, were evacuated from the city, leaving empty the rows of apartment buildings, schools and public meeting places erected for their benefit.
After 20 years, said Block, the whole city has become a crumbling mess.
Block said he and his fellow visitors were allowed to get within about 1,000 feet of the reactor, where radiation monitors registered almost one millirem an hour, or three times the exposure level allowed by law for nuclear power workers. Block said they were allowed only 20 minutes at the site because of the radiation level.
"If you stayed longer, it's not like you would drop dead, but you would receive more radiation per minute than is considered healthy," he said.
One of the most troubling visits for him though, was a trip to the Hall of Memories in Kiev, honoring those who gave their lives stopping the fire, cleaning up the site and sealing up the reactor.
In the museum, said Block, are artifacts "of these people who sacrificed their lives to save millions of people who would have otherwise felt the effects. Visiting this museum in Kiev was one of the most moving experiences of my life."
He said many of the "liquidators," the firefighters who went in and stopped the fire that was spreading particles around the world, died shortly after they entered the site. Ironically, a memorial to the liquidators is in an area that is off-limits to the general public because of radioactivity.
Block said since the steam explosion which vented radioactive particles into the atmosphere 20 years ago, a number of studies have been performed, with a number of different conclusions. But, said Block, if you read all the reports, you will find a middle ground that is disturbing to people like him.
He said a number of those reports are available on CD at the Putney Library.
Block assured the crowd that nearby Vermont Yankee has a different reactor than was operating at Chernobyl. "You can't have the same accident," said Block. "But you can sure have an accident that would be just as devastating."
He added that "the presumption that you can make a fail-safe reactor is more dangerous than the reactor itself. It encourages a culture that is not at the highest level of safety consciousness."
If nuclear power were to replace much of the energy supplied by fossil fuels, said Block, it would mean producing enough nuclear waste to fill a Yucca Mountain every two years.
He said those concerned about the effects of nuclear power on the environment and on the human body can do a very simple thing to reduce reliance on it.
"The biggest source of change would be people conserving energy and doing what is necessary to not use so much of our resources," he said. "The most effective way to make a change is to cut down on the amount of energy being used."
Block said, though there is some dispute between studies whether the radiation caused a spike in thyroid cancer and lymphoma after the accident, there is no dispute that "there was a pronounced increase in a variety of cancers following this event and they are continuing in this population."
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
November 12, 2006
The best case against Yucca Mt. is in the Constitution, not science
Dan Mooney
Special to the Nevada Appeal
There are some illuminating parallels between the proposed high level nuclear waste depository at Yucca mountain and global warming. As compared to global warming, Yucca Mountain is much closer to home in mind, time and geography and, thus, perhaps, easier to follow. Both issues rely heavily upon computer modeling, or scientific voodoo, resulting in the abuse of science to promote interests beyond global warming or the safe storage of nuclear waste. Because even the most cautious layman may not be able to tell the difference between good and bad science, there is power in both. Those who act upon incompetent science without verification almost deserve what they get. The State of Nevada is no exception.
The abuse of science is most evident when the physical sciences are used like sorcery to influence political science. Frequently, important political decisions are made by citizen non-scientists, often public officials who trust scientific conclusions they don't understand and cannot verify only because the chosen conclusions most closely fit already established values and beliefs or are promoted by a political favorite or party.
For example, we all know that predicting the future is not possible. Yet the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Power industry pretends to do so with abandon by presenting their computer modeling inferences as fact. They use high and legitimate sounding techniques to influence and modify our belief that there are no future (long term) adverse consequences to the storage of high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Claiming that nuclear waste can be safely contained indefinitely is clearly an inference based upon bad science, not upon empirical evidence capable of being confirmed or verified. If there are no adverse consequences to the storage of high level nuclear waste, why not store it in those states in which it was generated? Simply put, contemporary physical science is not capable of solving the long term storage issue.
Their relentless ramming of nuclear waste down Yucca Mountain's throat is just another example of Eastern interests historically usurping Western resources using Nevada as their dumping ground. In their disingenuous claims of sound science, dishonest conclusions are used to justify actions against our interests ostensibly in the national interest but realistically in the interest of the nuclear power industry. President Bush is using the project to reward the eastern nuclear establishment.
On the other hand, aside from the transportation issue, our belief that it cannot be contained at Yucca Mountain and that it will seep into the environment or in some way infiltrate our bodies is an artifice with even less fact than the computer modeling done by the Department of Energy. Promulgated by Nevada leaders and spread by fearful Nevadans, this belief has also seeped deep into the Nevada psyche. My physicist friends who are not beholden to the nuclear power industry or the federal government privately tell me that, if competently supervised, man can contain the material for a good long time, at least as long as it takes to find methods to neutralize its potential for human harm.
Which side is eventually found to be correct depends upon which side can accurately predict the future. Of course neither side can, so, except by chance, neither side can be correct. Neither side has stored radioactive waste for 10,000, 5,000 or even 100 years. This simply means there is no empirical evidence one way or another. Thus, both sides are guilty of treating predictions based upon inference as fact. What we know is combined with what we don't know along with speculation and bias representing different interests.
Yet the more powerful party will probably win the argument - that is unless we change the subject to political science and the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
While considered a long shot, this is a states' rights issue, not a scientific one. If we want to roll around in radioactive waste, that should be our business. If we don't want to take a risk that the stuff will kill us and our children, that's also our business, not the business of federal government
The tenth amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted by the constitution to the federal government. Thus, one could question: "Does the United States have the authority to dump radioactive waste from other states into Nevada against our will?" Nevada is in a constitutional struggle with the federal government. We cannot be abused unless we allow it to happen.
Let's move toward an aggressive offensive constitutional strategy and forget the science of the matter.
--Dan Mooney is a 32 year resident of Carson City and frequent contributor to the Opinion page. His e-mail address is Nevada4@aol.com.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 11, 2006
Letters:
Powerful Harry
To the editor:
With the Democrats sweeping into the House and surprisingly the Senate, all Nevadans (even those up North) should be thanking their lucky stars. Having Harry Reid as Senate majority leader finally puts this state in a position to kill the ill-conceived Yucca Mountain Project once and for all.
Godspeed, Harry. Our future generations are counting on you.
Thomas Wozniak
Henderson
---------------------------
Ely Times
November 11, 2006
Reid jubilant with Majority Leader prospect
By Pete Fowler
Ely Times Reporter
Even before Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia conceded defeat to his Democratic rival Jim Webb on Thursday, Sen. Harry Reid was making plans for his party's takeover of the U.S. Senate after 12 years.
Reid held a telephone conference call Wednesday with Nevada reporters during which he said that Democrats would take control of the Senate and select him as their majority leader. He also said he wanted to work across party lines and reach out to Republicans in order to get things done.
Technically, control of the Senate hung in limbo Wednesday. Webb was leading with 49.56 percent of the votes compared to Allen's 49.24 Tuesday night.
“Frankly, it doesn't matter whether he (Allen) concedes or not,” Reid said. “He's not going to make up 8,000 votes. All of our experts have told us that's our race.”
Reid said he was happy with the outcome of the Nevada races, despite Republicans keeping their hold on many of the higher level state offices.
“Beginning this cycle, we had no Democrats in constitutional offices... I'm very happy with the state trending blue,” Reid said. “From the attorney general on down, we won every one of them.”
Reid said it has been his intention for a long time to stop the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility, and that he would stop any bills that would expand funding or change the law to help the project go through. However, he said there was no talk of actually transporting nuclear waste before 15 or 20 years from now and that people may be making the issue bigger than it is.
“I think that program's dead,” Reid said. “Right now, I don't think there's much to kill. The bureaucrats are still spending money up there, but there's never any talk about trying to transport nuclear waste.”
Nationally, Reid mentioned political “winds of change,” saying “the power is moving west” with Democratic victories in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, California.
“In Kansas, a woman who is a Democrat in a heavily Republican state was elected overwhelmingly, and along with that, 11 office holders switched parties to become Democrats,” Reid said.
Reid called for bipartisan cooperation, saying he wanted to reach out to Republicans in order to get things done.
“Elections have consequences,” Reid said. “I hope the president will understand, as will his
Republican colleagues here in the Congress, that to get anything done takes a bipartisan agreement. I don't expect the Republicans to compromise in any way any of their principles, but I do think that they should recognize that legislation is the art of compromise -- consensus building -- and we need some consensus built here in Washington to get some things done.”
Reid said he was in good mood Wednesday. He began the conference call with a joke, although he indicated that he may have only slept for about three hours or less due to election night excitement and an early morning phone call from President Bush. Reid painted a picture of himself as a serious senator, who keeps his nose to the grindstone and mostly just works in Washington.
“I'm kind of a social dud,” Reid said. “I hate to admit this. I'm not a socializer, so my life is working.”
---------------------------
Chemical & Engineering News
November 11, 2006
Democrats Will Alter Legislative Priorities
New committee chairs will shift debates in energy, environment
David Hanson, Jeffrey Johnson, Susan Morrissey
The new Democratic majorities in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives will bring many changes to Congress, but passing legislation on controversial issues will continue to be difficult. Although House speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says her party is going to try to work effectively with the Republicans, the House will still be contentious. And the Senate, with a one-vote advantage for the Democrats, could be deadlocked much of the time.
The initial impact will be a complete turnover in the chairmanships of all the House and Senate committees, bringing new legislative priorities. For example, the House Committee on Government Reform will be chaired by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who is expected to increase the government's oversight of FDA and attempt to lower drug prices in federal health programs.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) will lead the Energy & Commerce Committee. Dingell promises to begin oversight investigations, citing a need to examine the funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, the development of federal energy efficiency standards, as well as the secret meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush Administration and industry officials that laid the foundation for the Administration's energy plan.
The new chairman of the House Science Committee will likely be Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.). He is a key supporter of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative for increasing funding for physical science research and is expected look into issues such as outsourcing of technical jobs and alternative fuels.
In the Senate, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will lead the Environment & Public Works Committee, and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) will head the Homeland Security & Government Reform Committee.
Boxer's leadership is a significant change for the committee, and in a statement, she promised to address "pressing concerns," such as global warming. Present committee Chairman Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) is an outspoken skeptic of the existence of global warming.
Leadership of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee will shift from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R) to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D). Both are New Mexico senators and share many views, such as support for DOE's national labs and nuclear power.
The expected change of chairmanship of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee to Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) is not anticipated to bring a significant change in direction for the committee.
The day after the election, business groups, including the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers, were urging the lame-duck Congress to quickly pass legislation to increase offshore oil and gas drilling. Currently, different offshore drilling bills have cleared the House and Senate and must be reconciled and passed again by both bodies.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic Party leader of the Senate, also identified outer continental shelf (OCS) drilling legislation as one of several measures he wishes to see passed before the new Congress is sworn in. Pelosi staff members say she would support expanded OCS drilling if it was limited to the Gulf of Mexico. Pelosi has also indicated she supports expanding federal embryonic stem cell research by increasing the number of cell lines that can be studied with federal funding.
---------------------------
Atlanta Journal Constitution
November 11, 2006
Saturday Talk
By Joan O. King, Krista Brewer, Tom Ferguson
For the Journal-Constitution
---
Nuclear power
Responses to ''Nucleus for nuclear,'' Business, Nov. 4
South should stand up to bullying tactics
It is disturbing that the Southeast is being targeted for most of the new nuclear reactors. Why doesn't the rest of the country want these nuclear power plants? Maybe they know that nuclear is dangerous, costly to construct, vulnerable to terrorists and not a real answer to global warming.
More reactors in the Southeast will also mean more radioactive fuel and waste being transported on our public highways. Is this what we want? Is this what is best for our beautiful region?
We need to look closely and critically at plans for these new reactors and not allow them to be rammed down our collective throats.
Krista Brewer
Atlanta
---
Nuclear waste dumping ground in offing
I wonder how many people reading the "Nucleus for nuclear" headline realize that if Atlanta and the Southeast become the center of a nuclear revival, as The Atlanta Journal-Constitution suggests, the region will also become the center for the nation's nuclear waste.
For years the government has promised to take possession of nuclear and store it in a safe repository like Yucca Mountain. Now it appears that won't happen for years —- if ever —- so the government is writing legislation that would allow nuclear waste to be stored on site or close to the site of production.
We produce it, we keep the waste, and because the nasty stuff will be around for hundreds of thousands of years and will accumulate in ever-increasing amounts, the South will once again become the dumping ground for what the rest of the country doesn't want.
Joan O. King
Sautee
---
PR professionals try to pull off con game
When you hear well-paid public relations professionals promoting nuclear power, think Enron. Persuasive and slick can lead to disaster while those who do the slick promoting end up enriched and outta town, far from the aftermath.
If nuclear power were safe, as claimed by industry cheerleaders, wouldn't insurance companies be swooping in for the business? Yet they refuse to participate and put riders on homeowners' insurance indemnifying themselves from nuclear attack and accidents. So how does the industry get insurance? No problem. They just have Congress pass a law making the taxpayers (that's us) responsible.
How does that jibe with the religion of free enterprise, the magic of the market? From the point of view of the Enron attitude, we are targets of the PR professionals, not thinking citizens with legitimate concerns.
Tom Ferguson
Atlanta
---------------------------
Conservative Voice
November 11, 2006
Molybdenum Price to Remain Firm: $25/Lb
James Finch
This past summer we reviewed how molybdenum may be another way of investing in the long-term energy bull market. There is some common ground between uranium and molybdenum with regards to the nuclear renaissance and the providing of energy. For example, will there be sufficient and readily available molybdenum to help construct containers for the mammoth nuclear waste storage facility at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain?
Much like uranium, the cost of molybdenum isn’t considered significant compared to the overall benefit provided. Both are required for their respective uses and not readily substitutable. No futures markets exist to hedge either metal’s price change as one finds with copper or nickel. Uranium’s price might have to run to $200/pound before power plant operators would shelve their plans for nuclear energy. Similarly, the moly content in various alloys generally starts at 0.3 percent, which is negligible. So, how does molybdenum appear in terms of availability and price?
The molybdenum price could stay firm, through the end of this decade, because of tight roasting capacity and continued strong demand. In a fourth quarter global equity research report, recently issued by UBS Investment Research (London), analyst Daniel Brebner wrote, “We don’t believe that the Molybdenum market is well analysed, thus there is no reliable market consensus forecast.” Brebner cited “constraints on molybdenum roasting capacity,” as the main driver in providing price support for this silvery metal at current levels.
Echoing other analysts and insiders we interviewed, Brebner wrote, “The supply of molybdenum concentrates (molybdenum sulfide) is reasonably plentiful; however the capacity to roast molybdenum concentrates as final process is limited as expansions have significantly lagged mined output.” The analyst sees prices “well supported near current spot levels over the next couple of years.”
Two years ago, a bottleneck development in the roasting of molybdenum. According to William G. Cook, who is the North American representative for Derek Raphael & Company, presently the world’s largest molybdenum trader, “The roasting sector has not been able to keep pace with the rapid increase in moly demand.” He explained this was a concern, “Roasters are very expensive to build and are environmentally sensitive so this is an area to focus on in the future when evaluating the moly market.”
“The molybdenum industry does have the ability to produce more moly,” Michael Magyar told StockInterview, “but we can’t roast much more moly right now.” Magyar is the molybdenum commodity specialist for the United States Geological Survey (USGS), based in Reston, Virginia. He explained that increased molybdenum in steel demand could create another bottleneck at the roasters. Worse yet, he added, “No one is actively permitting for more roasting capacity in North America.”
This may help explain why some analysts are bullish on molybdenum. On Monday, Salman Partners Raymond Goldie wrote, “Molybdenum, like copper, nickel and zinc, is also enjoying prices which are remarkably high and remarkably sustained.” The Toronto-based senior mining analyst updated his long-term forecasts for molybdenum prices. But not all analysts are bullish on moly. Citigroup Global Commodities Analyst Alan Heap predicted molybdenum prices would head lower the next few years. In his half-yearly estimates, the Sydney, Australia-based analyst estimated molybdenum would average $15/pound through 2007.
Cook summed it up, “I don’t see much change (in the moly price) looking forward to 2007. I think the market will still be strong.” Magyar was blunter, “The price is not trending anywhere. It’s just drifting around $25/pound.”
Roasting Molybdenum
After molybdenum is mined, it goes through several more steps before being refined into Technical Molybdenum Oxide. Before the moly can be roasted, it must first be milled, dipped into a floatation cell and leached.
First the large chunks of ore are crushed into gravel. Next, the material is ground down into powder. Molybdenum is floated into aerated tanks to produce a molybdenum sulphide concentrate. Acid leaching may be required to dissolve copper and lead impurities remaining in the material.
And then the molybdenum sulphide is roasted in multi-level hearth furnaces at temperatures up to 650 degrees centigrade to become ‘roasted molybdenite concentrate.’ The roasting process gets rids of the sulphur. Large rakes are used to move around the concentrate to stir up the ‘exothermic’ process, against a current of heated air and gases blowing up from the bottom of the hearth. Literally, the sulphur burns itself off the molybdenite. The material starts at the top, falling down level after level, burning more sulphur off at each of about one dozen levels, until the roasted final product arrives at the bottom. The gases are scrubbed separately and converted to sulfuric acid, later sold in Chile’s domestic market.
Annually, MOLYMET produces about 46 million pounds of molybdenum concentrates, more than 10 percent of the world’s production. The Chilean company plans to add another 40 million pounds of roasting capacity in 2007 to accommodate the growing demand for molybdenum. “The new roasting capacity could accommodate new production of about 12 to 15 million pounds per year – about what we would expect if the moly market continu