Yucca Mountain News Clips - Thursday, December 14, 2006

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, December 14, 2006
---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
December 14, 2006

County to send complaint letter to Energy Department

Regarding Yucca route issue.

Patrick Abanathy

A letter expressing the County’s dissatisfaction with the U.S. Department of Energy on Lyon’s exclusion from recent nuclear waste transport scoping sessions has been directed of County Emergency Management Coordinator Jeff Page.

Since legal obstacles are being reexamined for the Mina Corridor, which was originally proposed some years ago for transport of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain (near Las Vegas), several public scoping sessions have taken place in impacted areas. These include: Amargosa Valley, Caliente, Goldfield, Hawthorne, Fallon and Reno. Although the track runs through Fernley, Silver Springs and Wabuska, sessions were not held in Lyon County. Page noted one official at the Reno session was not aware the track runs through Lyon.

If Yucca Mountain and this corridor reach fruition, it would see nearly 77,000 tons of nuclear waste materials from the nation’s nuclear reactor pass along these tracks. From Lyon, it would head toward Schurz on its way through several other areas in its route to Yucca Mountain.

The Lyon County Board of Commissioners directed Page to write the letter last Thursday. Page explained he is not necessarily dissatisfied with the method by which nuclear waste would be transported to Yucca Mountain in as much as he is with DOE’s failure to host a session in Lyon County. The closest one was held in Fallon, which is still a nearly 30 mile drive from Fernley and Silver Springs.

Lyon County Manager Donna Kristaponis said, when she learned of the Nov. 27 and final session in Reno, she decided to send Page. Reporting on the session, Page said the format was balanced, as it included information both for and against the route; however, he said the session pertained more to the Mina Corridor from Hazen to Schurz (more than 30 miles east of Reno) rather than as a way to voice concern of waste transport through Reno’s train trench. To him, he said this aspect made the idea to host a Reno session somewhat “pointless.”

County Commissioner Bob Milz said he had received an email about two months ago pertaining to the issue; however, Kristaponis added information presented in this correspondence was too vague to make an informed decision. Also, until the information appeared in local papers, Kristaponis said she had not been aware of DOE’s Dec. 12 deadline for public comment.

Lyon Commissioner LeRoy Goodman noted state park land is also impacted via the proposed route, thereby making the State another ally in expression dissatisfaction.

If his route is selected and put into use (as early as 2017 by current projections) Page said he is also hoping DOE will provide emergency response training for local personnel.

Bob Loux, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects executive director, previously said, even a small hole in one of the containers contaminate 42 square miles and cost billions of dollars for cleanup. Extent would depend on several variables including type of accident and wind direction.

Originally, the Caliente Corridor was being considered southeast of Lyon, which includes construction of new track. The Mina route was considered more than 15 years ago; however, the Walker River Paiute Tribe, which owns track from Wabuska to Schurz would not allow nuclear waste transportation on their land.

In May of this year, the Tribe did not give the green light; however, it did give permission to include the corridor in an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which would allow a more informed decision on the matter. As a result, this corridor is back under the microscope and is being considered over portions of the Caliente Corridor as it would be cheaper to use existing tracks.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
December 14, 2006

Emergency Management plan aims to coordinate City, County during crisis

Patrick Abanathy

In a time of crisis, it is invaluable for all impacted to speak the same language when it comes to necessary steps in dealing with the fallout. This was the central theme of a presentation to the City of Yerington Monday from Lyon County Emergency Management Coordinator Jeff Page.

He presented an overall plan to the City Council Monday night, which includes the idea of a cooperative agreement between the City and County for emergency occasions. If a situation arises, such as a flood, the City would be able to ask the County of resources and vice versa. The role of Emergency Management is simply coordination of all aspects of prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation capabilities.

Page said Lyon County Emergency Management has a duty to oversee different emergency programs and activities while state and federal agencies normally do not assist on local levels. With this, Page noted emergency management would come in and take over local incidents. Their goal is simply coordination, which is much easier when all governmental entities have the same information and access to resources.

Page said he hopes to find a similar ground with the City of Fernley. A similar presentation, which included a lengthy handout to the Council, has already gone forward in Fernley; however, the difference is: Yerington already has an emergency management plan in place whereas Fernley is in the beginning stages of draft. Page said he has reviewed nearly 90 percent of Yerington’s plan, which is in fairly good shape.

Page discussed several aspects of emergency response, which need to be addressed before an event occurs. For example, he noted Lyon needs a mass fatality plan, as it can currently handle only 15 fatalities at a time. The same goes for the possible future transport of nuclear waste through Lyon on its way to Yucca Mountain. In case of incident, it is imperative for first responders to have knowledge of what to do. Page noted the Department of Energy has funding available to train first responders on such incidents.

Also, Page said he is currently working with Lyon County Utilities Director Mike Workman to create list of all chemicals associated with Lyon’s industries and plants to make sure responders are aware of possible dangers in case of fire. The idea is to create a clearinghouse between the four fire chiefs to help put this information in place and at hand.

Other aspects include a need to plan for mass evacuation of Nevada and Lyon County as well as mass evacuation from surrounding states into Nevada and Lyon County.

The City did not take official action on the presentation.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
December 13, 2006

County votes to send complaint letter to DOE

Regarding Yucca route issue.

Patrick Abanathy

Lyon County Manager Donna Kristaponis said, when she learned of the Nov. 27 and final session in Reno, she decided to send Page. Reporting on the session, Page said the format was balanced, as it included information both for and against the route; however, he said the session pertained more to the Mina Corridor itself rather than as a way to voice concern of waste transport through Reno’s train trench. To him, he said this aspect made the idea to host a Reno session somewhat “pointless.”

Lyon Commissioner LeRoy Goodman noted state park land is also impacted via the proposed route, thereby making the State another ally in expression dissatisfaction.

If his route is selected and put into use (as early as 2017 by current projections) Page said he is also hoping DOE will provide emergency response training for local personnel.

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

Guardian
December 13, 2006

New Publishing Rules Restrict Scientists

By John Heilprin
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, the latest agency subjected to controls on research that might go against official policy.

New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff.

``This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way,'' Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications, said Wednesday. ``I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow.''

Some agency scientists, who until now have felt free from any political interference, worry that the objectivity of their work could be compromised.

``I feel as though we've got someone looking over our shoulder at every damn thing we do. And to me that's a very scary thing. I worry that it borders on censorship,'' said Jim Estes, an internationally recognized marine biologist in the USGS field station at Santa Cruz, Calif.

``The explanation was that this was intended to ensure the highest possible quality research,'' said Estes, a researcher at the agency for more than 30 years. ``But to me it feels like they're doing this to keep us under their thumbs. It seems like they're afraid of science. Our findings could be embarrassing to the administration.''

The new requirements state that the USGS's communications office must be ``alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.''

The agency's director, Mark Myers, and its communications office also must be told - prior to any submission for publication - ``of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.''

Patrick Leahy, USGS's head of geology and its acting director until September, said Wednesday that the new procedures would improve scientists' accountability and ``harmonize'' the review process. He said they are intended to maintain scientists' neutrality.

``Our scientific staff is second to none,'' he said. ``This notion of scientific gotcha is something we do not want to participate in. That does not mean to avoid contentious issues.''

The changes amount to an overhaul of commonly accepted procedures for all scientists, not just those in government, based on anonymous peer reviews. In that process, scientists critique each other's findings to determine whether they deserve to be published.

From now on, USGS supervisors will demand to see the comments of outside peer reviewers' as well any exchanges between the scientists who are seeking to publish their findings and the reviewers.

The Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration before it, has been criticized over scientific integrity issues. In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.

Earlier this year, a USGS scientist poked holes in research that the Interior Department was using in an effort to remove from the endangered species list a tiny jumping mouse that inhabits grasslands coveted by developers in Colorado and Wyoming.

Federal criminal investigators are looking into allegations that USGS employees falsified documents between 1998 and 2000 on the the movement of water through the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada. The USGS had validated the Energy Department's conclusions that water seepage was relatively slow, so radiation would be less likely to escape.

At the Environmental Protection Agency, scientists and advocacy groups alike are worried about closing libraries that contain tens of thousands of agency documents and research studies. ``It now appears that EPA officials are dismantling what it likely one of our country's comprehensive and accessible collections of environmental materials,'' four Democrats who are in line to head House committees wrote EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson two weeks ago.

Democrats about to take control of Congress have investigations into reports by The New York Times and other news organizations that the Bush administration tried to censor government scientists researching global warming at NASA and the Commerce Department.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
December 13, 2006

Japanese trip highlights transport of nuclear fuel

By Christina Eichelkraut
PVT

Bob Gamble, Nye County's on-site representative to the Department of Energy, and Dave Richards, Pahrump town manager, recently presented the findings of their fact-finding tour of Japan to the Nuclear Waste and Environmental Advisory Board.

Gamble and Richards were in Japan from Oct. 22 through Oct. 28, when they toured nuclear facilities to learn more about the safe transportation of nuclear materials.

Nuclear waste from 35 states could be transported through Nye County on the way to Yucca Mountain where it would be stored.

The trip, which was coordinated by the United States Transportation Council (USTC), was the second in a series of trips abroad which focus on studying the safe transport of nuclear material.

The first USTC tour was in Europe last year and included tours of the Hague, the Netherlands, and Cherbourg, France nuclear facilities.

Much of the trip Gamble and Richards made focused on examining the transportation infrastructure that is in place in Japan.

Richards was not present at the meeting, but Gamble led the board through an in-depth Power Point presentation displaying the sites that they visited.

Gamble pointed out at the beginning of the meeting that spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear material have been moved around the world without incident for decades by rail, sea and land.

He said the trip was "fascinating" and was particularly impressed with "the way the Japanese have dealt with the problem. They're very practical. They've worked with the community."

He also pointed out that in Japan, "Different utilities work together in a collegial environment."

The first stop for Gamble and Richards was Tokyo, where they participated in the Japan Atomic Industry Forum.

The forum covered nuclear energy policy in Japan, which Gamble described as "forward looking," in showing how nuclear energy in Japan was based largely on a huge increase in energy consumption, cheaper costs in comparison to alternative energy sources, and a way for Japan to have some energy self-sufficiency.

Also discussed at the forum was the fact that Japan reprocesses spent nuclear fuel, which can lead to a reduction in the amount of waste created from three to four times. With a significant reduction in the amount of nuclear waste being created, the storage capacity of Yucca Mountain could be increased.

Gamble and Richards also toured the Ogawara Port Transport Facility, where spent fuel is received at the port via specially designed ships. The material is then crane-lifted onto trucks that bring the material inland along dedicated roads.

In Nye County, however, nuclear materials being shipped to Yucca Mountain would be moved only by rail.

This is because the transport of nuclear materials on two-lane highways is forbidden by the Nye County Commission Protection Plan, which was adopted in 2002.

The benefits to the local community of having a transport facility were also discussed. Thirty percent of the jobs at the Ogawara facility were held by the local population, and a $1 million in taxes were paid to the prefecture.

An additional $7 million is spent on sub-contracting local companies for transport and security.

As board member Greg Doyle pointed out at the beginning of the meeting, "To me the bottom line is economic development. If we can't benefit economically, why bother?"

Gamble was also particularly impressed with the Rokkasho nuclear facility that he and Richards toured.

It is an integrated facility which can dispose of, reprocess, and store nuclear fuel and waste.

Richards and Gamble also looked at canister and cask fabrication at the Ariake works, where they saw drop tests that were conducted on the canisters that hold nuclear material for storage and transportation and the design improvements that resulted from the tests.

The final day of the trip was culture day, where Richards and Gamble toured Kyoto.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
December 13, 2006

DOE working toward solving 'chronic' Yucca design problems

By The Associated Press

LAS VEGAS -- The Energy Department is making a new push to fix how design mistakes are identified and corrected at the proposed Yucca Mountain national nuclear waste dump, a top project official said.

Paul Golan, principal deputy director for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said senior Yucca Mountain managers were involved in addressing what he characterized as "a chronic problem."

Auditors have criticized the Energy Department for mistakes discovered in design documents and other work for the planned repository for 77,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor fuel and radioactive waste.

Nevada officials who oppose the project say quality assurance problems should disqualify the site from receiving waste now stored around the country.

At a meeting of Energy Department officials and Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffers in Pahrump, Golan outlined a new campaign for Yucca managers to screen and set priorities for reported errors, identify their causes and develop "effective corrective actions."

DOE plans to hire consultants next year to evaluate whether the reforms are working, he said.

Susan Lynch, nuclear waste technical administrator for Nevada, expressed skepticism that the corrective measures would be effective.

"They assume if they fix one specific problem, then everything will be OK, but they don't look at it globally to make sure the fix will prevent reoccurrence," Lynch said.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
December 13, 2006

Yucca boosted by incoming chairman of energy panel

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The incoming chairman of the Senate Energy Committee said Friday that Yucca Mountain remains the best option for nuclear waste disposal and voiced skepticism about the alternative plan backed by Nevada's congressional delegation.

The proposed nuclear waste dump "is the best of the options available to us at the current time assuming that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines that it's an appropriate site," Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico said in an interview with the Associated Press.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Nevada's other federal lawmakers want to store nuclear waste at the reactor sites around the country where some 50,000 tons of the stuff now sits.

"I don't think that's politically viable. I don't believe that will become law," Bingaman said.

When Democrats take over Congress from the GOP in January, Bingaman will replace Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., as head of the committee with oversight of the proposed nuclear waste dump the Energy Department is trying to build.

Domenici has been one of Yucca Mountain's strongest congressional supporters, introducing legislation the Bush administration has said is needed to move the troubled project forward.

Reid, who will become Senate Majority Leader, has said he would not allow any pro-Yucca bills to reach the Senate floor. Bingaman said he hasn't discussed with Reid what will happen with future legislation.

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 13, 2006

Looking In On: Washington

By Lisa Mascaro

An academic consortium that has studied nuclear waste clean up at the nation's weapons lab complex for a decade is setting its sights on Yucca Mountain.

Researchers at Vanderbilt University will lead the effort to find safe ways to manage waste from the nation's civilian nuclear reactors.

The Energy Department is funding the consortium with a five-year, $6 million contract. The consortium includes researchers from Rutgers University, New York University, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Howard University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Arizona and Oregon State University.

Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.

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

Midland Reporter-Telegram
December 13, 2006

Business group warns of looming energy shortage

Mella McEwen
Oil Editor
Midland Reporter-Telegram

This spring's rolling blackouts that hit the Dallas area were, says Bill Hammond, "the canary in the cage" warning of an energy shortage looming in the Lone Star State.

Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, visited Midland-Odessa Monday to present the association's efforts to promote fuel diversity as key to meeting the state's future energy demands. He said his tour of the state was primarily to support plans to build 19 new coal-fired power plants, including one near Denver City in Mitchell County, to provide over 13,000 megawatts of new power capacity. He noted opponents of the plants have already been busy getting their message out to the public and he felt a positive message was needed.

Unless officials take action immediately, he warned, the state will face an energy shortfall as early as 2008, citing a national study by the North American Electric Reliability Council that positions Texas as the region most at risk for power grid failures without new generation.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas maintains a 12.5 percent reserve margin in case a power plant goes down or a truck hits a transmission tower, Hammond said, but by 2008 reserve margins will fall below that 12.5 percent safety level.

"Unless immediate action is taken we won't have reliable, affordable energy," he said. "We at the TAB like to say 'no juice, no jobs.'"

The proposed 19 new coal-fired power generation plants are also good news, he said, because they are diversifying away from the state's predominant source of power generation, natural gas. The state, he said, has become over-reliant on natural gas and that is one reason Texans are paying such high power costs. He attributes the 50 percent increase in the state's electricity prices since 2001 to dependence on natural gas.

Hammond said his association also supports the expansion of or building of new nuclear power plants, but noted such projects, which are heavily protested, could take as long as 10 years to build where as the new coal-fired plants could be online in as soon as two or two-and-a-half years.

To opponents of the coal plants who say they would pollute the air, Hammond said the new facilities would use the latest technology available and cut emissions 20 percent while saving $1.7 billion in energy costs.

If permits for the power plants are denied, he said, it would be detrimental "because the new plants use the latest technology available they would be cleaner than the old plants. If we don't build new plants, the old plants that have been mothballed will have to be brought back online and they're not as clean."

He also responded to opponents' assertion that more conservation is needed, saying "they don't realize the incredible amount of conservation done over the last 30 years. Without conservation, demand would be 72 percent higher than it is today."

That additional power is needed to meet growing demand, Hammond said, citing forecasts from Economist M. Ray Perryman and others that there will be 6 million more Texans by 2015, driving electricity demand up 20 percent and 43 percent by 2025.

"It is essential for further economic development for those 19 new plants to be built and built as soon as possible," he said. "A person coming home from work wants to be able to walk into his house and turn on the lights. A businessman opening up in the morning wants to have power."

Other alternative sources like wind and solar power are also needed, he said, but they are only able to provide a small percentage of the state's power needs.

Long-term action to meet the state's energy needs include funding and operating Yucca Mountain to house spent rods from the nation's nuclear power plants, expand the nation's nuclear power generation and "implement a sort of 'Marshall Plan' of federal funding for research into new, non-carbon energy sources, "something we're not aware of today, like hydrogen," Hammond said.

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

Gainesville Sun
December 13, 2006

Utility eyes Levy site for nuclear plant

By Nathan Crabbe and Karen Voyles

Progress Energy Florida has chosen timberlands in southern Levy County as its preferred location to build up to two nuclear reactors.

CEO Jeff Lyash announced Tuesday the company would buy the 3,000-acre site next year as it pursued those plans. He cautioned that the company is not certain it will build a reactor, and it would take a decade or more before the reactor would be operational.

Rainier Co., a timber company, now owns the property, which is eight miles north of Progress' existing nuclear plant near Crystal River. Lyash said some plant employees live in Levy County and the company has a good relationship with community members, though he acknowledged there would likely be opposition.

"I think with a project of this scope and scale, we expect people to have some questions and concerns and possibly some opposition," he said.

The company is initially moving forward with plans for just the first reactor, leaving open the possibility of the second at some point in the future. The reactor would cost $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion to build and produce at least 1,100 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power 700,000 homes.

Some environmental advocates say the investment would be better spent on renewable energy, which doesn't produce dangerous waste. But Levy County Commission Chairwoman Nancy Bell was among county residents enthusiastic about the economic potential of the plant.

"I am a leftover '60s flower child and my first reaction when I heard about this was to pick up a sign and march, but I did due diligence and now I am excited for the county," Bell said.

"I think we can have something like this and not lose the rural character we have in Levy County and still have a power plant that provides a lot of jobs," she said.

Lyash said more than 2,000 workers could be needed for construction and more than 500 permanent workers to operate the plant. University of Florida engineering students would likely be sought for many of those jobs, said Alireza Haghighat, chairman of nuclear and radiological engineering at UF.

"Progress Energy will need a significant number of people to get involved in the whole process to build such a plant," he said.

North Carolina-based Progress Energy serves 1.6 million customers in 35 counties in Florida, including parts of Alachua, Gilchrist and Levy counties. The plant would be the first in the state since 1983.

Lyash said other utilities could be partners in the plant, as was the case with Crystal River. Gainesville Regional Utilities helped pay for the Crystal River reactor and gets 11-13 megawatts of power from the plant, or about 4 percent of the energy in its system.

GRU would consider also investing in the new plant, said Chip Allen, the utility's assistant general manager of energy supply.

"GRU's position is we're always interested in looking at generating options," he said.

Rob Brinkman, chairman of the local Sierra Club group, said he would oppose any involvement by GRU in the new plant. The investment in nuclear power would be better spent on renewable energy such as harnessing the power of wind and the ocean's current, he said.

"To me, nuclear is a dead end," he said.

Progress officials said the plant is the only one of the 31 being proposed nationwide that would be constructed on undeveloped green space. The plant would mean building over 30 acres of the 3,000-acre wooded property.

The site gives the company flexibility in designing the plant, said project manager Garry Miller.

"You can start with a clean slate," he said.

Officials said the reactor would be located seven miles from the Gulf of Mexico, providing increased safety from hurricanes. The site is two miles north of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, which would be connected by pipeline to provide the water crucial in the nuclear cooling process.

The plant wouldn't interfere with the use of lands around the defunct canal project as recreational areas, Lyash said.

The nearest community to the proposed site is Inglis, a town of about 1,900 residents less than two miles south. Town clerk Sally McCranie said her father-in-law was killed in a construction accident in the 1960s during preparations to build the Crystal River plant.

"There will definitely be people who will fight this - there are a lot of people concerned about having two plants so close together," McCranie said.

Lyash said the company had concerns about concentrating its energy generation in such close proximity, but they were outweighed by the benefits of being in a familiar community.

The proposal would be part of the first wave of new nuclear plants proposed in the U.S. in decades. Since the Three Mile Island nuclear plant suffered a partial meltdown in 1979, no new nuclear plants have been constructed in the country.

Lyash said the nuclear industry's good safety record since the incident and the lack of emissions in nuclear-power generation have built support for the industry's expansion. While the production and transportation of nuclear fuel can create greenhouses gases, the generation of nuclear power creates only steam as an emission.

"I think the time, the performance of the industry and the recognition of the environmental benefits of this energy source have brought us to where we are today," Lyash said.

But some environmental advocates say they're concerned about safety, terrorist threats and continued problems with storing nuclear waste.

The U.S. Department of Energy has long proposed storing waste in Nevada's remote Yucca Mountain, but the project has been entangled in political battles. Lyash said he hopes those battles end, but in the meantime the company will store waste on site.

It makes little sense to invest in more nuclear plants until the storage issue is resolved, said Holly Binns, field director for the Tallahassee-based nonprofit Environment Florida. She said the issue is particularly important given the state law allowing utilities to pass construction costs to customers before the plant is completed.

"We're talking about investing billions of dollars of their customers' money to construct a power plant that's going to create more dangerous radioactive waste," she said.

Safety is another concern, but Levy County is already familiar with the issue. The rural county's proximity to the Crystal River plant has meant its is under a federal mandate to test its emergency workers annually, ranging from rookie volunteer firefighters through county commissioners.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission grades the county every other year during a weeklong exercise involving a mock incident test. In April, federal officials tested how Levy County would respond if there was a need to decontaminate people and assist in an evacuation.

At the end of the week, federal examiners told county officials they had done an "excellent" job in preparing and performing their responses. Levy County Director of Emergency Management Mark Johnson said emergency workers have done well in the test because safety training for a wide range of emergencies is a regular and routine activity countywide.

Among those likely to feel the first economic impacts if the plant is built are those who can provide basic services to construction crews, including food and housing.

But Roy Fantelli, who owns a nearby RV park, predicts legal battles will await Progress Energy.

"Anybody can stop anything as long as they have enough money to keep paying the lawyers," he said.

Nathan Crabbe can be reached at 352-338-3176 or crabben@gvillesun.com.

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

Orlando Sentinel
December 13, 2006

Florida could get new nuke facility

The plant in Levy County would be the 6th in Florida. It would be the first nationwide to win approval in decades.

Kevin Spear and Jack Snyder

Riding fears of global warming, uncertainty over energy supply and fading memories of past disasters, the state's second-largest utility on Tuesday announced plans for the first nuclear plant in Florida in more than a quarter-century.

The plant, planned about 75 miles north of Tampa Bay in rural Levy County, could start as soon as 2016, have 500 workers, electrify at least 700,000 homes and cost a minimum of $2.5 billion, officials said. A final decision by the utility to proceed could be a year or more away.

"I think that as folks take a step back and objectively look at the record and the statistics of the safety and dependability of nuclear power in this country, it's a striking performance record -- striking in a very favorable way," Progress Energy Florida President Jeff Lyash said.

The nation has 103 nuclear plants at 64 sites in 31 states. In Florida, there are five plants: one in Citrus County, two south of Miami and two near Fort Pierce, where the state's newest reactor began generating electricity in 1983.

Nationwide, however, no utility has obtained federal approval to build a new plant since the late 1970s, a decadeslong lull brought on by astronomic costs of nuclear power in past years and by meltdowns at Three Mile Island, Pa., in 1979 and Chernobyl, Russia, in 1986.

Questions about waste

In addition, the nation has struggled with how to safely dispose of a mountain of lethal radioactive waste stored temporarily in pools and containers at existing plants. Debate over a proposal to bury waste permanently inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain remains far from settled.

Still, environmentalists and industry experts say public qualms over harnessing nuclear power have faded considerably in recent years, overshadowed by worries about global warming triggered in large part by air pollution from power plants that burn coal and natural gas.

Many environmentalists far prefer electricity generated by solar and wind energy. Better yet, they say, is to promote more efficient use of electricity.

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council nuclear-energy program in Washington, said Florida has done relatively little to improve efficiency.

"They are a little backwards, I would say, in electricity planning."

Nuclear power, though, has attracted its share of supporters.

"It has the huge advantage of not contributing to global warming," said Sanford Berg, a researcher and former director of the University of Florida Public Utility Research Center at Gainesville.

Essentially, nuclear fuel performs the same job as coal. It heats water into steam that turns a generator, yet discharges virtually no air pollution.

Serving 1.6 million customers in 35 Florida counties, Progress Energy Florida relies on a mix of fuels -- 42 percent coal, 23 percent natural gas, 19 percent oil and 16 percent nuclear.

The mix is roughly the same for all electric plants combined in Florida, with the consumption of cleaner-burning natural gas growing rapidly in recent years. One of the biggest sources of natural gas is the Gulf of Mexico, where pressure for offshore drilling nearer to Florida shores has been increasing. Just last week, Congress approved drilling in an 8.3 million-acre section of the Gulf.

Progress Energy's announcement comes amid a wave of growing interest in the Southeast for nuclear power as a substitute for coal, oil and natural gas.

Utilities from Texas to North Carolina have revealed plans for building at least a dozen plants, though all have stopped short of pledging a total commitment for construction. Industry watchers say Southeastern states generally have regulations that make it less risky for a utility to recoup investment in a nuclear plant.

Progress Energy is banking on public awareness of several factors -- that electricity demand will spike with the state's rapid growth and that the industry's performance has improved steadily in the past decade.

The complex would rise from a 3,000-acre tract of pine plantation about 8 miles north of Progress Energy's 29-year-old Crystal River nuclear plant. Unlike that storm-vulnerable reactor at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico, the new plant would be about 7 miles inland and 45 feet above sea level.

At issue is whether to install a second reactor, which could nearly double the cost and bring a twofold increase in power output.

Local support expected

Levy County residents, long accustomed to emergency drills for a nuclear accident, aren't expected to oppose a new plant, said four-term Commissioner Lilly Rooks.

"This is something Levy County will be interested in," Rooks said. "Forty-six percent of Levy County has jobs outside of Levy County. If you don't have jobs, people are going to leave."

Much of the backing for a new nuclear plant likely will come from outsiders, as well.

Mark McCain, spokesman for the Orlando-based Florida Power Agency, a coalition of 30 municipal utilities in the state, said increasing the ability to crank out electricity and a greater diversity of plant types is a must to meet growth demands and yet have stable costs.

"We share Progress Energy's desire for diversity in energy sources," McCain said.

Both the federal government and the state have recently enacted incentives to encourage more nuclear power.

Federal authorities and industry experts spent the past several years streamlining regulations for plant design and construction. In addition, Congress in recent years agreed to provide billions of dollars in subsidies to the first handful of plants built.

Florida initiatives include permitting utilities to start recovering pre-construction costs, including borrowing costs, by assessing rate payers even before the plant is in operation. Progress Energy's Lyash said the Florida Public Service Commission has not yet developed rules on passing the costs on to customers.

Still, opposition to the utility's plans could be widespread.

Holly Binns, field director for Tallahassee-based Environment Florida, a nonprofit environmental-activist group, said the organization argued against pre-construction billing of customers.

"That's unprecedented," she said. "People will be paying before there's any benefit."

Binns said it's too early to say whether the group would formally oppose the plant.

"It's definitely a strong possibility," she said.

Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance For Clean Energy, said despite boasts by the nuclear industry for improving safety, reliability and cost, the fundamental worries have remained mostly unchanged since the first plant started decades ago. Only the level of fear has changed.

"You have a lot of people who have not had any experience with the down side of nuclear-power plants," he said. "They are extremely costly and extremely risky."

Kevin Spear can be reached at 407-420-5062 or kspear@orlandosentinel.com. Jack Snyder can be reached at 407-420-5094 or jsnyder@orlandosentinel.com.

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

Albuquerque Tribune
December 12, 2006

Domenici looks ahead to new issues, battles

James W. Brosnan

WASHINGTON — Barring the unforeseen, Sen. Pete Domenici will never chair the Senate Energy Committee again, but the Albuquerque Republican is already preparing to resume some old battles in the new Democrat-controlled Senate.

Early next year, Domenici and Sen. Ted Kennedy expect to unveil a new legislative approach to mental health to ensure it is given the same health insurance coverage as physical ailments.

"We're going to surprise people with a new approach to getting this done," said Domenici, who had a daughter who was diagnosed with a mental illness.

After a year that saw Congress complete action on only two of the 13 appropriations bills, Domenici told The Tribune he also is talking to other senators about reforming the oft-delayed and pork-ridden congressional spending process.

"It's the only thing that will address the malignancy in the appropriations process," Domenici said.

And the 74-year-old Domenici is still planning a re-election campaign in 2008 despite all hoping to the contrary by younger politicians in New Mexico.

"I'm working as hard as I can on everything I've got. I don't know what else I can do (to convince them)," said Domenici.

His four-year tenure as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee ended Saturday with the adjournment of Congress and passage of a catch-all tax bill that expands drilling areas for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico to within 125 miles of Florida's western shore and by 8.3 million acres.

It was a difficult bill that took negotiations not only with Florida but lawmakers from Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas who wanted a cut of the off-shore royalties as well as House Republicans who wanted to push for drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts as well.

In the end, the bill was the same as what Domenici crafted in the Senate.

Had Republicans held onto control of the Senate in the Nov. 7 election, Domenici would have been limited by Republican caucus rules to serving only another two years as committee chairman. Ironically, the rules allow Domenici to be the lead minority member on the committee as long as the Democrats hold power.

Other Energy Committee bills passed in the lame-duck session included measures to protect the 102,000 acres of the Valle Vidal in New Mexico from oil and gas drilling, a national drought preparedness program, and a loan guarantee program for rural communities to expand their water systems.

But it was the 2005 energy bill that Domenici regards as the hallmark of his work.

"Looking at the history of the committee the passing of the Energy Policy Act was the major, major achievement," Domenici said.

The measure authorized tax breaks and new government programs for investments in new transmission lines, wind and solar power, nuclear power and coal, oil, ethanol and natural gas production.

Domenici said the bill passed only because he decided to work in a bipartisan fashion with Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, and other Democrats on the committee, a model that Domenici intends to follow now that Bingaman is chairman.

The energy bill has its critics, including House Democratic leaders who want to repeal some of the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. Domenici said most of those breaks originated in the House and they should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Environmental groups handed Domenici his biggest defeat when they successfully backed filibusters to block Domenici's push for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

"We're certainly glad the committee changed hands," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters.

She said Domenici has put too much of an emphasis on the "failed energy policies of the past," including more drilling and exploration.

"The contrary is true," Domenici responded. "We have spent an awful lot of time ignoring opportunities to acquire new production of both gas and oil and alternatives."

He said ANWR is an example of how filibusters are now routinely used on even "minor" issues.

Domenici also was unable to lock down Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nation's repository for nuclear waste.

The new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, is in a powerful position to block Yucca's use.

Domenici said he will continue to work with the Bush administration on safe alternatives to disposing of nuclear waste.

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

MarketWatch
December 12, 2006

Progress Energy says new nuclear reactor would cost up to $3.5 bln

By Christine Buurma

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- If Progress Energy Inc. (PGN) proceeds with plans to build a new nuclear power plant in Florida, it would expect to spend $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion on the plant's first unit, with the second unit costing slightly less, a company executive said Tuesday.

Among the "next generation" of nuclear power plants under development, Progress Energy's proposed facility would be the first to be built on an undeveloped site. Each of the plant's two units would generate between 1,100 MW and 1,600 MW of electricity, Progress Energy Florida Chief Executive Jeff Lyash said Tuesday.

Progress would finance the project with a mixture of equity and debt. The company would be open to selling stakes in the plant to local municipalities or electric cooperatives, Lyash said.

The company plans to select a vendor for the plant's reactor within the next few weeks, he said.

Although Progress has not yet decided whether it will actually build the plant, it could submit a combined operating and construction license for the project to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, Lyash said. He added that the company hadn't yet decided whether the plant would include a single reactor, or two reactors.

"This is an important step in ensuring that nuclear power remains a viable option as we meet the growing energy needs of our customers," he said.

Florida saw an influx of 400,000 new residents in 2005 and ranks third in U.S. energy consumption, Lyash noted.

Progress plans to build the plant in Levy County in northwestern Florida. The site is ideal for a nuclear plant because it is located inland from the Gulf of Mexico and above the flood plain for a Category 5 hurricane, Lyash said. Local residents, who include workers at Progress' Crystal River 3 nuclear plant in neighboring Citrus County, are expected to support the project, he said.

Several U.S. energy companies, including Entergy Corp. (ETR) and Dominion Resources Inc. (D), have announced plans to build new nuclear generation amid rising electricity demand and high natural gas prices. As of September, the NRC had received notices of companies' intentions to file 19 combined operating licenses for new plants, for a total of 28 new reactors.

The plants would be the first to be built in the U.S. since 1986.

Progress is optimistic that development of new nuclear generation will not be delayed by political wrangling over a proposed storage facility for the nation's nuclear waste, Lyash said. The nation's designated nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert was supposed to open in 1998, but ran into regulatory problems and has yet to be approved by the NRC.

"Our company's firm belief is that the U.S. government has an obligation to finish the waste storage and repository facility that was embarked upon decades ago and paid for by the nuclear power industry and our customers," Lyash said.

Progress Energy Florida said in October 2005 that it was considering building a new nuclear plant in Florida. The utility serves about 1.6 million electric customers in the state.

-Contact: 201-938-5400

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

NEI
December 12, 2006

Debate Brings Heat to Wisconsin...

...And man can they use it. It was so astonishingly cold that my eyelashes froze. But I digress...

As Eric posted below, I was in Wisconsin last week for a debate about the potential for new nuclear power plants in the state. The event was organized by University of Wisconsin-Madison students in Dr. Richard Shaten’s course, “Energy, Society, and the Environment.” Nuclear engineering student Megan Sharrow extended the invitation to me.

I’m pleased to see a university encouraging and providing opportunities for its students to think critically and to thoughtfully consider both sides of issues that affect their community, state, and nation (is anyone from Rutgers reading?).

Wisconsin currently has a law that prohibits its Public Service Commission (PSC) from approving the construction of a new nuclear plant unless 1) there is a facility with adequate capacity for the disposal of all high-level nuclear waste generated by power plants in Wisconsin, and 2) the PSC finds that the proposed plant, in comparison with feasible alternatives, is economically advantageous to ratepayers.

Meeting the second requirement means that the PSC must:

1) Determine that there is a reliable and adequate nuclear fuel supply;

2) Consider the costs for constructing, operating, and decommissioning nuclear power plants and for disposing of nuclear waste;

3) Consider any other factor having an impact on the economics of nuclear power plants.

Early this year, bills were introduced to eliminate these special rules so that new nuclear power plants would be subject to the same approval requirements applicable to the construction of other generation sources. The Wisconsin legislature also created a special committee to investigate the issue.

Representing the opposition to repealing the statute was Alfred Meyer, executive director of the Wisconsin chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility(PSR). I was surprised to learn that Meyer is NOT a physician of any kind. This is not an insult to him, he is obviously a well-educated man, but you may recall that Helen Caldicott founded PSR (though I could find no mention of her at their website). Every time I’ve heard Caldicott speak she has mentioned the “26,000 doctors around the world” that have joined PSR because they believe nuclear power plants harm people’s health. So, after discovering that such a prominent local member is not a doctor I researched the organization’s websites. I found that one needs only to be a “concerned citizen” to join. Furthermore, the group’s primary missions are

Security: for the prevention of nuclear war, against the development and use of nuclear weapons, and for a reduction in the role of armed force in US foreign and security policy;

Environment and Health: to slow, stop and reverse global warming and toxic degradation of the environment.

I had to search quite a bit to find evidence of their opposition to commercial nuclear power. Small points, to be sure, but further examples of Caldicott misrepresenting the facts.

In my opening statement I said that nuclear energy can help meet society's demand for clean, safe, reliable and affordable electricity and that my primary goal is:

to encourage citizens to evaluate each energy technology with the same objective criteria.

In other words, we mustn’t legislate special requirements for nuclear unless we hold all energy technologies to the same high standards of health and environmental protection and economic benefit. In addition, all technologies should be evaluated for their contribution to energy diversification and stable power supply.

In his statement, Meyer objected to calling the current law a “moratorium” (a word I never used) on nuclear, and said that it is a sensible measure to consider nuclear power’s unique dangers. He strongly favors conservation as a policy to eliminate the need for nuclear power.

In my opening statement and in my answers to questions I made it clear that I support efforts towards conservation and energy efficiency, but that those can only slow the rate of increasing demand, they will not reduce our demand. I also support the development of renewable sources, but repeated that they must be evaluated with the same criteria as nuclear. Among the issues that I asked the audience to consider were:

The effect intermittent sources have on grid stability. I used the recent story from Alberta’s Electric System Operator as an example.

The cost and feasibility of renewables providing a significant portion of our electricity when even the American Wind Energy Association states that under the most aggressive growth scenario wind could provide only 6% of the nation’s electricity by 2020.

The disposal of toxic wastes from the production and use of solar panels—waste that never decays (And is Wisconsin too far north for solar, anyway?)

The effect on cost and energy security of becoming too dependent on natural gas to generate electricity.

And I repeatedly said that I am not opposed to any of these energy technologies but that if we evaluate each choice fairly we will find that

Nuclear, coal, natural gas, and renewables must be thoughtfully deployed to protect our health, the environment, our economy and the security of Wisconsin and our nation.

The arguments opposing nuclear were the standard ones that I am accustomed to countering: waste, proliferation, economics, security, etc.. It seems that people still think a terrorist can walk into a plant, throw a used fuel assembly on their shoulder, walk out with it, and with a little duct tape and other items from their neighborhood Home Depot, make a nuclear bomb. I carefully explained why commercial power plants are not a proliferation risk but Meyer and others continued to blur the issues. Finally, I strenuously objected to Meyer tying commercial power to weapons and in response to one of his catastrophic scenarios I said, “I fail to see how terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon by ship to San Francisco and detonating it has anything to do with commercial nuclear power plants in Wisconsin.”

There were some strange questions from the audience. One fellow didn’t believe that a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant wouldn’t destroy all the safety barriers and cause widespread death and destruction. He brought up aircraft attacks, assaults on used fuel casks, etc. For each of his points I explained how the health and safety of the public is protected. He finally asked, “So even if terrorists dropped a nuclear bomb at a plant, you’re saying that wouldn’t be a problem?” I responded, “If a nuclear bomb explodes at a commercial facility, the power plant is the least of your concerns.”

Overall I was pleased with the outcome of the debate, thought it is difficult to explain complex issues in 2-minute rebuttals. Thanks again to the organizers and the participants.

2 Comments:

Robert Merkel said...

I think the confusion regarding the proliferation risks posed by nuclear plants arises through the following syllogism:

1) given access to HEU, your average home handyperson could build a working nuclear weapon (well, I exaggerate a little, but not that much by all reports).

2) nuclear power plants could be used to create fissile material that could be turned into a bomb.

3) therefore, the fissile material created in the normal commercial operation of nuclear power plants can be turned into a nuclear weapon by your average home handyperson.

Of course, this isn't true. Illustrating the flaw in this argument explicitly might help next time this point comes up.

Joffan said...

The other mistake is a common logic error: a true implication statement does not imply that its contrary is also true.

In this case:

All states that wish to develop nuclear weapons build nuclear reactors

- this is true, at least so far historically.

However:

All states that build nuclear reactors wish to develop nuclear weapons

- this is not true.

Convincing people that they have made a simple mistake of deduction is surprising difficult, and often impossible if they have acted on or publicly committed to their mistaken conclusion.

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

Asbury Park Press
December 12, 2006

Incoming Senate leader's agenda has issues GOP must support

By Diana Marrero

Incoming U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has a tough job ahead of him. The Democratic leader's negotiating and diplomacy skills will be tested as he tries to push his party's agenda on a slim 51-49 Senate majority. He will have to reach a compromise with Republican leaders to pass any significant legislation.

Reid discussed his top priorities for the Senate in a wide-ranging interview with Gannett News Service:

Question. What will be the toughest part about being the Senate majority leader?

Answer. The toughest part about being the Democratic leader when we were in the minority or the majority is trying to point the country in the right direction and have the support of your troops. It's like leading people into battle. You want to make sure your troops support you.

Q. How do you ensure that you actually accomplish the goals you and other party leaders have set out for the country?

A. We're going to pick issues Republicans will have to support us on, starting with ethics reform. We're going to talk about stem cell research. We're going to talk about allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices.

We're, of course, interested in the minimum wage, which hasn't been raised in more than 10 years. We're interested in giving tax incentives to individuals and companies that invest in alternative energy — solar, wind and geothermal.

Q. Are you worried that Democrats won't be able to deliver the dramatic results Americans might be expecting when it comes to the Iraq war and other issues?

A. I think they should have those expectations and we're going to do our very best in spite of the hole (Republicans) have dug for us. We're going to do our very best to do everything we can to move the ball down the court and hopefully have the president help us.

Q. You've said you're not interested in trying to decrease funding for Iraq for now, but is there anything Democrats can do through the budget process to shift priorities in Iraq?

A. The war is breaking us. And we're going to have extensive hearings to find out what is going on over there.

Q. What specific, feasible measures can lawmakers pass next year to help the middle class?

A. We're going to pass Medicare negotiations, which certainly helps the middle class. Minimum wage helps all people, which is something we need to do. One thing we're going to push very hard on is tax incentives for alternative energy production. That's certainly directed right at the middle class. And then, one thing we need to do is a tuition tax credit for college.

Q. The agenda that was promoted by Democrats called "Six for '06" did not mention immigration reform. Why?

A. I have the opportunity as the majority leader to come forward with 10 bills at the beginning of the session. One of those will be an immigration bill.

Immigration is something that's not easy. But it's necessary. We have to address the problems we have in America. First of all, the border, our security. Second, we have to have a guest worker program that's meaningful and works. Thirdly, we have to give people who are here living in the shadows the opportunity to come out of the shadows and be on the pathway to legalization. And finally, we need to do something to make sure that the employer sanctions work.

Q. You have long crusaded against a proposal for a national nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. What specific steps are you planning to take to kill the plans for storage at Yucca Mountain?

A. I'm not sure there's a spear we can put right through its heart. I think Yucca Mountain is on a stretcher, bleeding a lot. Basically it's gone, it's just a question of when.

Q. Some political observers say you do better behind the scenes than in front of cameras. Is this true? Why?

A. I'm just who I am. I can't change. My 50 senators accepted me. They know who I am. They know the good and the bad of me. These kinds of stories people write stick with you whether they're true or not.

Diana Marrero is a reporter with the Gannett News Service, Washington.

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

New York Times
December 12, 2006

Buffalo: State Sues Over Nuclear Waste Site

By Timothy Williams

In a lawsuit filed yesterday against the federal government, the state is seeking payment for the cleanup of a former nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in western New York, state officials said. The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court, asks the court to order the federal Department of Energy to pay for the disposal of what was originally 600,000 gallons of highly radioactive nuclear waste, said David Munro, an assistant attorney general. State officials estimate that the cost of disposing of the material at a planned federal waste depository will be $228 million. That does not include the additional cost to clean up the site, at West Valley in Cattaraugus County. In a statement yesterday, the Energy Department said it was committed to fulfilling its legal responsibilities regarding the site.

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