Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, January 5, 2007
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 05, 2007
Mourners honor DOE manager
Yucca Mountain official, 53, died of cancer
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- A funeral was held Wednesday in Las Vegas for John Arthur, a senior Department of Energy manager in the Yucca Mountain program who died over the holidays.
Arthur, 53, died of cancer on Dec. 26. About 100 DOE colleagues and officials from Clark, Lincoln, Esmeralda and Nye counties were among attendees at his funeral at St. Joseph Husband of Mary, Catholic Church on West Sahara Avenue.
"John was a great leader in the Yucca program over the years, and his contributions, his smile and his infectious optimism will stay with us always," said Ward Sproat, director of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, who delivered a eulogy at the service.
Arthur was a New Jersey native who made a 27-year career in Energy Department nuclear and environmental restoration programs.
As a manager in the Albuquerque Operations Office from 1995 to 2001, Arthur handled DOE waste and cleanup projects in Florida, Missouri, Texas, Colorado and New Mexico.
Arthur joined the Yucca Mountain Project in 2002 as a deputy director of the Office of Repository Development, which made him chief of operations in Nevada.
In a May reorganization, Arthur became director of site operations, overseeing health and safety programs at the proposed nuclear waste repository.
Brian O'Connell, nuclear waste director for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said Arthur spoke several times to group members and was "candid" about the Yucca program, which has faced delays and criticism.
"He told us the status of the program, where he thought it was going, the obstacles it faced and how he was trying to overcome them," O'Connell said. "He tried to maintain a positive focus over the activities, and he was very professional."
Though Clark County officials oppose the project, "we grew to respect his honesty, integrity, pleasant demeanor, and above all, to appreciate his consideration for our position," county planning official Irene Navis said in a posting to Arthur's online obituary.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
January 04, 2007
The man who defies description
The unpolished but shrewd Reid becomes a quiet insider amid some unflattering portrayals
By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun
Washington
Harry Reid is dour, unpolished, a walking contradiction with an "Eeyore exterior." Or he is "shrewd and very effective," with a "spine of steel," a brawling political insider who started life as a rural Nevada outsider.
Those are among the descriptions of Reid as reported by the national media in the two months since the Nevada Democrat was elected majority leader of the U.S. Senate, a post he ascends to today as the 110th Congress convenes in Washington.
Reid was a stranger to most Americans before November, despite serving for two years as leader of the Senate's minority party. Postelection polls found that two-thirds of Americans had never heard of him.
But once his party seized control of Congress, Reid's power and profile grew exponentially. He now controls the operation of the Senate and, as the nation's highest elected legislator, he is leader of the loyal opposition to the Republican-controlled executive branch.
Accordingly, the nation's major newspapers and broadcast outlets have busied themselves describing Reid, generally starting with a dose of disillusionment. The press seems a little disappointed that Reid is not a glittery Vegas guy, UCLA political science professor Barbara Sinclair said.
In other words, she quipped, he's no Oscar Goodman. Indeed, Reid "could almost be from Kansas."
The stories on Reid have followed a familiar narrative: The miner's son from Searchlight, who hitchhiked his way to high school and whose hardscrabble childhood helped shape his personal and political beliefs.
There have been plenty of boxer analogies: "An infighter with a sharp jab," a New York Times headline said.
The Washington Post described Reid's reputation as a "brawler who moves with the alacrity he acquired in his days as an amateur boxer."
Time magazine reported his "Eeyore exterior" and nabbed this quintessential quote when Reid was asked whether Democrats were going to win the Senate on Election Night, as Republican seats were falling one by one: "Oh, no, no, no. You have to understand, I'm not a guy that is ever very optimistic."
There have been musings about the curious head-scratchers inherent in Reid: a Mormon representing Sin City. A Democrat who is against abortion.
And the controversies that dogged Reid before the election have followed him since - from a Nevada land deal that, once reported by the Associated Press, led him to amend his financial disclosure forms, to his acceptance of free ringside seats to Las Vegas boxing events.
Washington Post columnist David Broder questioned whether Reid could handle his new role, given his "less than commanding" public presence and his sharp partisan comments - he called President Bush "a liar" over Yucca Mountain and "a loser" for his policies in general.
"The risk for Democrats is that Reid may not be up to the challenge," Broder wrote a week after the election.
More recently, the blogosphere erupted when Reid told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos he would be willing to send more troops to Iraq as part of a strategy toward troop withdrawal. The net-roots worried that their hero had missed the point of the November election.
Reid also came under fire from the Post's editorial writers for his unorthodox plan to kick off the new session with a closed-door meeting of all 100 senators, which Reid sees as a way to set a bipartisan tone outside of the glare of the media. The Post suggested that a better start would be to conduct the Senate's business in public.
Yet despite the occasionally unflattering portrayals, the coverage so far seems to reflect accurately the quiet insider Reid has become, and "that helps him," Sinclair said.
The last thing Reid needs now, as he tries to lead with a slender 51-49 majority in the Senate, is the kind of overblown expectations the media give their darlings, like their current crush on potential presidential contender Barack Obama, Sinclair said. "Nobody could live up to that."
Reid's counterpart, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, is stealing the show as the first woman speaker of the House. The less swooning over Reid, the better, Sinclair said, so he is not set up "for a big fall."
One element of Reid the media have not captured is the fun he is having.
Reid, completely out of character, has been smiling.
"I'm really happy," Reid told Nevada reporters the week after the election. "I know I'm not a smiley kind of guy ¦ This has been so much fun the last week."
He is aware of his image as it has emerged over the weeks and told his fellow Democrats as much.
"I said there are a lot of you out there that are better-looking than I am, smarter, more experienced, but there's nobody out there who will work harder and try harder than I."
Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.
WHAT THE MEDIA ARE SAYING ABOUT HARRY
"Reid is low-key, deferential and somewhat sheepish, qualities that make it easy to misread or underestimate him."
— Mark Leibovich, The New York Times
"Reid may be the only Senate majority leader who can say he learned to swim at a brothel."
— William M. Welch, USA Today
"The consummate pessimist in a political world full of sunny optimism."
— Jonathan Weisman, The Washington Post
---------------------------
Platts
January 03, 2007
New Nevada governor allies in fight against Yucca repository
New York (Platts)--3Jan2007
Nevada's new governor was welcomed by incoming US senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada this week as an ally in the fight against DOE's planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Former congressman James Gibbons, a Republican, was sworn in as Nevada's 28th governor January 1.
Reid, a Democrat, worked with Gibbons on several Nevada issues, including opposing the Yucca Mountain project, during the 10 years Gibbons was in the US House of Representatives. Reid said in a statement that he looks forward to working with "Governor Gibbons to make Nevada an even better place to live" by addressing challenges that include "putting an end to the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain."
Dean Heller, Nevada's former Republican secretary of state, replaces Gibbons as the congressman for the state's second congressional district.
---------------------------
LA City Beat
January 04, 2007
Turning Green Into Gold
The Top 10 Los Angeles Environmental stories of 2006
~ By Dean Kuipers ~
President George W. Bush’s reign as the Worst Environmental President of All Time was certain to bring on a backlash, and sure enough, 2006 was the year former Vice President Al Gore invented environmentalism. Instant karma’s gonna get you! Los Angeles leapt into the fray with a collective sigh of relief, grateful to think about something – anything – other than Iraq, and gave itself over to what is probably only the leading edge of a green wave. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the TreePeople began planting 300,000 new trees, surfers protested the construction of offshore liquefied natural gas terminals, and the recent Democratic sweep of Congress may just have killed the decades-old proposal to truck nuke waste across the Southland to Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. On the downside, smog and traffic got worse, and not one California ZIP code made Forbes’s Top 20 list of greenest U.S. cities, but 2006 was one of L.A.’s greenest years in memory.
1. “Governator” Action Hero For Real
President Bush has not only refused to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, but he’s the only person in America who skipped Al Gore’s polar bear movie, so Brentwood resident Arnold Schwarzenegger just went ahead and took action for him, even signing a pact with British Prime Minister Tony Blair – a foreign head of state – to join a European carbon-trading plan. In September, the governor signed Assembly Bill 32, the nation’s first truly meaningful cap on greenhouse gas emissions by utilities, refineries, and manufacturing plants (the state already has the nation’s most aggressive automobile emissions caps, which automakers are battling savagely in court), acknowledging that California is the 12th biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world. A companion Senate bill, SB 1368, also requires that electricity purchased outside the state meet these same criteria.
2. My Hummer Runs on Paparazzi Flash
Hot on the heels of Chris Paine’s film Who Killed the Electric Car? and pushed by California’s zero-emissions auto goals, L.A.’s obsession with all manner of alternatively fueled vehicles came roaring back as the hottest fad since Trader Joe’s Two-Buck Chuck. Biodiesel – peanut or soy oil, sometimes mixed with gasoline – became available at pumps on the Westside and Silver Lake. Santa Monica became the newest stop on the hydrogen highway, with the installation of a hydrogen fueling station powered completely by renewables. And L.A.’s first Alternative Car and Transportation Expo (concomitant with the L.A. Auto Show) showed that the race is on for the fastest, sportiest, design-iest hybrids, from Electrum Spyder electric sports cars that do 0-60 mph in four seconds to ethanol and natural-gas powered trucks to soon-to-market plug-in electric/gas hybrids from major auto manufacturers. Schwarzenegger’s hydrogen Hummer is about to have a lot of competition. A green technology boom reminiscent of the ’90s dot-com rush will now determine which fuel(s) will win out.
3. Ask the Dust
On the day in 1913 when L.A. water engineer William Mulholland delivered water from the far-north Owens River to the parched San Fernando Valley, he was quoted as saying, “There it is! Take it!” And on December 6 of this year, when L.A. Department of Water and Power board president David Nahai helped turned the gate and let a tiny bit of that water back into a 63-mile stretch of the lower Owens, which has been dry ever since, he quipped, “There it is. Take it back.” Environmentalists have been fighting to have the lower Owens restored since 1970, when the L.A. DWP opened a second barrel on their pipeline and began pumping groundwater into it, literally sucking dry a region from Lone Pine to Bishop. In 2012 or so we’ll go fishing there. Chinatown is going to need an update.
4. Brentwood A-Glow-Go
Armed with his trusty Geiger counter, CityBeat reporter Michael Collins discovered that remains of an old UCLA-Veterans Administration dump contained radioactive debris from Atomic Age tests – and that this debris was just under the surface of a popular Brentwood dog park and the athletic fields of an adjacent school. Collins’s reporting raised serious questions about the VA’s contention that the dump had been declared “safe” decades ago and, as of December, the whole area is now being tested. See the progress at EnviroReporter.com.
5. Eminent Restraint
After a narrow 2005 Supreme Court ruling that said it was OK for cities to grab private homes and property in order to turn them over to tax-base-raising developers, reforming “eminent domain” became a national obsession. But Californians got wise and defeated last fall’s Proposition 90, which contained fine print that would have turned many administrative rulings into government “takings” for which owners must be reimbursed – including environmental regulations and zoning changes. Oregon found out the hard way, with its Measure 37, which contained similar language, and has regretted it ever since.
6. Rocketdyne Melts Down For Real!
2006 was the year that the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley – the defense industry test site more commonly known as Rocketdyne – was officially declared dirty by L.A.’s two mainstream newspapers. After the toxic legacy of two nuclear reactor meltdowns and decades of rocket engine tests elicited years of stories about cancer clusters and community rage over EPA foot-dragging over the monstrous cleanup needed there, carried in CityBeat and other local papers, a new study found that toxins are, indeed, migrating downhill into the local communities and watersheds, eliciting a first-ever above-the-fold headline in the L.A Times: “Study Says Lab Meltdown Caused Cancer.” About time.
7. Million Solar Roofs
SB1, California’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative, was signed into law in 2006 and will facilitate the construction of a million solar-powered homes and businesses in California over the next 10 years, allowing citizens to actually sell power back to the grid. This no-brainer will create thousands of jobs as companies now race to create new solar applications and ways to install them (see “green technology boom” above), but it was held up for years by unions trying to make sure a lot of those jobs went to brotherhood electricians. Shameful.
8. Renewables Become Affordables
The encouraging news in 2005 was that Southern California Edison, the nation’s second-largest utility, determined that electricity generated by new Stirling Energy Systems solar dishes was competitive with that from other sources like coal or natural gas, and so bought 500 megawatts’ worth – enough to power 325,000 to 552,500 homes. San Diego Gas & Electric was right on its heels. Now SCE has taken another leap and bought the rights in December to 1,500 megawatts of wind power being built in the gusty Tehachapi area. The era of renewables is upon us.
9. Dick Pombo Before He Dicks You
Environmentalists from coast to coast quivered with paroxysms of gleeful disbelief as formerly unassailable, six-term Republican Rep. Richard Pombo, the outspoken chairman of the House Resources Committee, was swept out of office by the Democratic wave in November. Pombo’s relentless push to gut the Endangered Species Act and the other holy laws at the bedrock of American environmentalism made him a hero to a rear-guard of people-firsters, but the reality community came back swinging when he was sent packing by newcomer Jerry McNerney, a wind-power engineer. Oh, yeah, and hardcore green Dems like Barbara Boxer also took over many of the other key environmental posts in Congress.
10. Purple Train, Purple Train
The eastward expansion of the MTA’s Green Line will open in 2009. Ground was broken in September on the Expo light rail line into Culver City. But the big news is, after being blocked by the federal government for 20 years, the subway to the sea became viable again. In August, MTA renamed the Wilshire subway segment the Purple Line and Rep. Henry Waxman introduced a bill in Congress to get federal dollars to extend it toward Santa Monica. Umpteen gazillion dollars are still needed, but at least the political will is building.
---------------------------
E/The Environmental Magazine
January 03, 2007
Commentary: Nuclear Waste: A Mountain of Questions
By Matt Gaffney
Clean, renewable energy. Reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Lowering greenhouse gas emissions and curbing global warming. These are the selling points, say nuclear advocates, for a “nuclear renaissance” in this country. The Bush Administration, federal lawmakers, industry lobbyists and numerous utility companies want the country to consider the nuclear option as a solution for our future energy needs. In addition to the 103 nuclear power plants that currently supply the nation with 20 percent of its electricity, as many as 30 new nuclear power plants are now being considered by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The fact that nuclear waste is the most toxic substance on the planet may be lost on those who vehemently call for the country to pour its resources into creating more plants. And the U.S. currently has no viable near-term storage options for nuclear waste which continues to pollute for generations.
President Bush has long been a staunch supporter of nuclear power, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks gave him and fellow Republicans the power and leverage to finally allow the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to apply for a construction authorization license from the NRC to build a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. June 30, 2008 now looms as the much-anticipated date when the DOE will submit its license application (LA) to the NRC for construction authorization. Despite the new Democratic majority Senate leadership, the date is not expected to change.
The licensing proceeding is expected to last three to four years, so a final decision on the repository is still years away. The DOE has spent over 20 years and approximately $7 billion for research at Yucca Mountain, and the cost of repository construction is expected to exceed $60 billion. Whatever NRC’s decision, it will certainly have far-reaching implications for energy policy, national security and environmental protection. It may be the most important land-use decision ever made by the U.S. Government.
There are two main reasons why Yucca Mountain projects have languished since 1987, the year Congress mandated that it be the only site in the nation considered for deep geological disposal: lack of a coherent and comprehensive transportation plan, and potential impacts to regional groundwater resources.
Getting it There
From the beginning, a general vagueness and an unwillingness to work cooperatively with state and local agencies and other stakeholders have all plagued DOE’s transportation plan for moving waste to Yucca Mountain. If authorization to construct the depository is granted, it will impact almost every state in the West because of the nationwide transportation of high-level nuclear waste from U.S. Department of Defense weapons-making and research facilities, and commercial nuclear power plants.
The DOE prefers a “mostly rail” method of transporting waste to Yucca Mountain. Under this scenario, 9,000 to 10,000 railcars would carry waste on the nationwide rail network for a period of 24 years. There is, however, no rail line to the site, so DOE is considering two rail corridor options.
The Caliente Rail Corridor would enter Nevada from the east, and would cost more than $2 billion. The bill is stratospheric because the rail line would have to cut through incredibly demanding terrain on its way to Yucca Mountain. The 319-mile route would cross seven different north-south mountain ranges with steep grades, as well as numerous areas subject to flash flooding and potential washouts. The DOE has stated that this route would have the fewest land-use conflicts. Nevertheless, the route will conflict with recreation, the movement of both wildlife and water, and mineral extraction. Many local ranchers would also lose access to traditional grazing lands and watering holes.
The Caliente Corridor could also impact the Railroad Valley Springfish, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the endangered desert tortoise, and three other species classified as sensitive by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This corridor could also impact springs and riparian areas in the area, 97 identified Native-American archeological sites, three BLM Wilderness Study Areas and eight BLM designated wild horse or wild burro herd management areas.
The DOE did not consult with local residents about the routing process of the rail corridor, and has admitted that the route is not “clearly environmentally preferable.” Most of the corridor is on federal land managed by the BLM, but this does not guarantee fewer land-use conflicts. Rarely does land ownership correlate with land use in the state because more than 85 percent of Nevada is federally owned, but most is open to the public.
The second option is the Shurz-Mina Rail Corridor, which would travel approximately 250 miles in a north-south direction in western Nevada, with a cost of $1.5 billion. The Walker River Paiute Tribe, which owns a crucial piece of land within the corridor, was previously against waste being transported through its reservation. This route is now on the table because the tribe has since allowed DOE to conduct a feasibility study.
This second route may require a 3,000-foot long bridge over the Walker River, and several intersections with Nevada Highway 95. The area is home to several endangered species under the ESA, including the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. It offers wintering grounds for the bald eagle, and houses one plant species classified as critically endangered by the State of Nevada. Impacts to wetlands along the Walker River Corridor may also require special permits under the Clean Water Act. Other land-use conflicts for the route include condemnation of private land, interference of mineral extraction and processing facilities, and disruption to utility corridors. Native American cultural resources also exist in the Shurz-Mina Corridor.
If the DOE is unable to resolve costs, legal impediments, and land use conflicts in relation to a rail shipping campaign, then a “mostly truck" alternative may be the most feasible way of transporting nuclear waste. In this event, the DOE would most likely use the interstate highway system. The most attractive routes for the DOE to transport waste would be I-5, I-10, I-15, I-40, I-70 and I-80. The DOE anticipates that 53,000 truck shipments over a period of 24 years would be needed to transport nuclear waste from 131 interim storage facilities nationwide to Yucca Mountain. Another critical issue the DOE must resolve is Clark County, Nevada’s steadfast opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste through Las Vegas. If a “mostly truck” scenario becomes a reality, the DOE could transport all nuclear waste from the southern U.S. through Las Vegas because of its location and proximity to Yucca Mountain. The Mayor of Las Vegas, Clark County, the State of Nevada, and Nevada’s federal lawmakers oppose the shipment of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain through the tourist-dominated city.
Groundwater Issues
The repository could also have significant groundwater impacts in both Nevada and California due to escaping radionuclides from waste packages in the repository. The DOE discovered several faults and many more fissures when excavating exploratory tunnels at the site, indicating a geologically complex and active site. The Ghost Dance Fault, the Soltario Fault, the Sundance Fault and the Drill Hole Wash Fault would run beneath or very near the proposed repository boundaries. An earthquake at Little Skull Mountain in 1992, with a magnitude of 5.4, was centered less than 12 miles from the repository site. The DOE surface facilities at Yucca Mountain suffered minor structural damage from the earthquake. The DOE maintains that seismic shaking on the Earth’s surface is more intense than in the consolidated rock matrix at Yucca Mountain, and that even a strong earthquake in the region would have little impact on a deep geologic repository.
Another concern for the DOE is that hydrologic analysis conducted in the mid 1990s showed water may move from the surface through the rock at Yucca much quicker than first predicted. The repository will be located approximately 950 feet below the surface and 950 feet above the water table. Currently, critical uncertainties remain with regard to water flow through “fast pathways” in the rock fractures at Yucca Mountain. The DOE claims that surface processes, such as evaporation and plant transpiration, will remove 95 percent of water entering from the surface into the Yucca Mountain. The DOE believes that any remaining water entering the repository through fractures will evaporate due to heat output from highly radioactive waste packages, or simply drain around the waste packages into a cooler area via fractures in the rock. Where the water goes from here, and how long that will take, is still unknown. Movement of radionuclides from corroded or failed waste packages is yet another uncertainty.
Initially, the DOE wanted to rely primarily on the geologic features of the site to isolate and contain radionuclides. However, a complex and robust waste package system was conceived in response to the hydrologic and geologic conditions discovered at Yucca Mountain. The DOE is now relying primarily on engineered barriers to contain and isolate radionuclides within the repository. The waste package will consist of an inner stainless-steel package, a nickel alloy outer covering, and a titanium “drip shield” to prevent corrosion. If the DOE believes that geologic features will play a very small role in containing radioactivity from waste packages, the site ceases to be effective or distinctive for deep geologic disposal. The DOE may be better served by beginning to study other sites where the geologic features can be more adequately utilized to contain escaping radionuclides.
The DOE uses intricate computer modeling programs to evaluate groundwater flows and predict how the repository will perform over time. Such modeling is the most effective form known for making predictions, but is it reliable? Can computer modeling based on the assumptions of the DOE scientists be relied upon to predict repository performance and groundwater movement 10,000 years in the future? Since 1988, the U.S. General Accountability Office has issued eight reports criticizing the DOE’s Quality Assurance and model validation programs. These programs ensure the accuracy of all the DOE’s methods and results from its myriad of modeling programs, and provide a foundation for all scientific research conducted at Yucca Mountain. Will the DOE ever reduce the numerous uncertainties in the modeling process to an acceptable level? It will ultimately be up to the NRC to decide.
Groundwater contamination from escaping radionuclides in Nye County, Nevada, where the repository will be located, and Inyo County, California, are significant not only because of the disastrous environmental consequences on groundwater resources, but because of several other regional factors.
Groundwater contamination from Yucca Mountain could affect the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge at Ash Meadows, Nevada. Groundwater from the Lower Carbonate Aquifer, which underlies the repository site, reaches the surface at numerous spots in Ash Meadows to provide a haven for rare fish, plants, snails and insects. Ash Meadows provides habitat for at least 24 endemic plants and animals. Four different types of fish, including the famous Devil’s Hole Pupfish, and one plant species found at Ash Meadows are currently listed as endangered species under the ESA. Six other species of plants found at the refuge are listed as threatened. Ash Meadows holds the greatest concentration of endemic life in the U.S. and the second greatest in all of North America
Many communities in Southern Nevada and Eastern California, soon to be complemented by proposed residential developments, depend on large amounts of pumped groundwater to sustain their needs. A number of organic farms and dairies in the Amargosa Valley, Nevada are located down-gradient from the repository, and they rely on groundwater for irrigation and farming operations. Groundwater resources in Death Valley National Park could possibly be threatened by escaping radionuclides. Park employees and the 1.5 million people who visit the Park annually rely on pumped groundwater as the only source of potable water in the region. Finally, the historic tribal lands of the Timbisha Shoshone would be threatened due to any release of radionuclides from Yucca Mountain.
What the Future Holds
If Yucca Mountain is licensed, it will be the first-ever deep geologic disposal site for high-level nuclear waste in the U.S., and only the second planned deep geologic disposal site for high-level waste in the world. If the NRC turns the plan down, the U.S. Government will have to scramble to find new solutions for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. In fact, if Yucca Mountain does not go forward, the DOE may be forced to look at several interim regional storage sites in the West while a longer-term search continues. The West might again be targeted as a site for deep geologic disposal because of an abundance of federal lands, huge tracts of remote and unpopulated areas, and a generally arid climate, which minimizes surface water intrusion into a potential repository.
Many have argued that the DOE was the wrong agency to be given the task of constructing a repository in the first place, and that a new, separate federal agency should have been created to build a national repository. Since its inception, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, which was later reorganized into the DOE, operated covertly, focusing almost exclusively on weapons-making activities. The DOE may be ill-equipped to handle the construction of a geologic storage facility under the intense microscope of public and governmental oversight.
One of the chief reasons the DOE wants Yucca Mountain to become a reality is the U.S. Government’s liability to utility companies, which presently store used fuel onsite in aboveground casks. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), the federal government became legally obligated to take title and possession of waste generated by utility companies in early 1998. The date came and went, and now close to $300 million has been paid by the U.S. Treasury to compensate utility companies. This amount will grow substantially, and may eventually exceed $1 billion as more utility companies file suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for breach of contract claims under the NWPA. The big loser is the American taxpayer, who foots the bill for missteps by Congress and the DOE in implementing our nation’s nuclear waste policy.
--Matt Gaffney is the Project Associate of Inyo County’s Yucca Mountain Repository Assessment Office.
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid
January 01, 2007
For Immediate Release
Monday, January 1, 2007
CONTACT: Jon Summers, (202) 329-3848
REID STATEMENT ON THE SWEARING IN OF JIM GIBBONS AS NEVADA’S GOVERNOR
“Jim Gibbons has spent most of his life serving the people of Nevada as a combat pilot, a state assemblyman, and congressman. Now, a new chapter of his life in public service opens as he prepares to serve as our state’s 28th governor.
“I congratulate Jim on being sworn in as Nevada’s governor. During the ten years he served in the House of Representatives, he and I have worked together with Nevada’s congressional delegation on many important Nevada issues, but there is still a lot of work ahead. I look forward to working with Governor Gibbons to make Nevada an even better place to live by addressing the state’s challenges in areas such as education and growth, making Nevada a leader in energy independence, and putting an end to the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.”
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
December 31, 2006
John Arthur III - Obituary
JOHN ARTHUR III W. John Arthur, III, 53, succumbed to cancer Dec. 26, 2006. John led a courageous 27 year career as a public servant for the U.S. Department of Energy, managing operations in support of the nation's largest environmental cleanup and nuclear materials management programs. Some of his assignments included servings as deputy director of the Yucca Mountain Project (Las Vegas), assistant manager for the Office of National Defense Programs, DOE Albuquerque Operations Office, manager of DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Albuquerque Operations Office DOE, manager of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project-WIPP (Carlsbad, N.M.), and chief operating officer for the DOE Office of Environmental Management at DOE headquarters. He accepted some of the most environmentally, technologically, and politically-challenging government assignments and led them with dignity and respect for the good of our country. His down-to-earth and positive approach to life was infectious to everyone he encountered. He was known for his compassion and friendship to all, no matter what station they held in life. As an avid hunter who traveled the world, he loved to share his experiences with all his beloved friends and family. John was born in Atlantic City, N.J., the son of Catherine (Betty) Arthur and W. John Arthur, Jr. He left the East to pursue an education in wildlife biology. He received his masters degree in radiation ecology at Colorado State University, where he also met and married his wife, of 28 years, Rita K. Arthur. John and Rita loved the beauty of the West, and made their homes and lifetime friends in Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. He has left behind two lovely children, Stephanie and James Arthur; his wife, Rita; his mother, Betty; and many countless friends. A visitation will be from 5-7 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007, at Palm Mortuary, 1600 S. Jones Blvd., in Las Vegas. Funeral services will be at 11 a.m. Wednesday, Jan. 3, at St. Joseph, Husband of Mary, Catholic Church, 7260 W. Sahara Ave., in Las Vegas. Burial will be in Littleton, Colo. Memorial contributions may be made to the Nevada Cancer Institute. John, we will miss you more than words could possibly convey and we will never forget your beautiful smile.
---------------------------
PhysicsToday
January 02, 2007
Letters
Nuclear power's costs and perils
In "Stronger Future for Nuclear Power" (PHYSICS TODAY, February 2006, page 19), Paul Guinnessy surveys plans for refurbishing, expanding, and building new civilian nuclear power reactor facilities in numerous countries. In the US, passage of the 2005 energy bill marks the federal government's readiness to put the national credit card behind the nuclear industry. Tax credits worth $3.1 billion and the renewal of legislation mandating that the US taxpayer assume all corporate nuclear liability in excess of about $9.3 billion1 represent a nice vote of confidence.
Some observers attribute these ambitious plans, after 25 years of drought in investment in nuclear power, to a gradual dissipation of the fear that followed the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Arguably the more important factor in the drought was that when all costs are accounted, nuclear energy is not cost-competitive with fossil energy.
The reason that well-informed and intelligent people are still talking about Three Mile Island emerges clearly from two major new scholarly works published in 2004. The first, by J. Samuel Walker,2 was sponsored by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The authors of the second book, Bonnie A. Osif, Anthony J. Baratta, and Thomas W. Conkling,3 chose the 25th anniversary of the accident as an occasion to evaluate its impact.
Both books describe the TMI accident as a watershed event. The story of how that accident happened—how it could possibly have happened—emerges not so much as a technological who-done-it as a loss of the public's confidence in the people who own, operate, regulate, and oversee the nuclear power enterprise.
Woven throughout the technical details is the unmistakable thread of facts manipulated and people misinformed. The 1979 Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island documents that what the technical people knew minute by minute had been concealed from the media and public officials. Repeated assurances of "no danger," continued even after TMI station manager Gary Miller had declared a "general emergency," which includes in its official definition "the potential for serious radiological consequences to the health and safety of the general public."
Osif and coauthors remind us that before the accident, the nuclear industry believed it had designed "accident-proof plants . . . thanks to the many safety features engineered into each reactor" (page 32). Now, 25 years later, as those same assurances are being repeated, perhaps they are losing credibility.
What went wrong at TMI was not primarily a technology fiasco but a character flaw in management and regulation. Lessons learned from the technical failings may well have led to some technical improvements. However, one could easily suspect that the character flaw is intrinsic to the political–industrial complex; consider, for example, the sequence last year that started with the coal-mining industry's lobbying for and obtaining a lowering of national safety standards and ended with the needless deaths of 17 coal miners.
The TMI accident happened not because a pump failed, but because the management—staffing, training, maintenance, and a sense of public responsibility—failed. For more than two hours on 28 March 1979, reserve coolant injection that could have saved the plant from a major catastrophe was manually throttled because the problem was misdiagnosed. And two of the technical failures leading to the accident—the stuck pressure relief valve and the clogged polisher—had occurred before and had not been properly addressed. Even with the redesign of the failed gadgets, TMI remains an icon of a profit-driven industry cutting corners.
One would expect that the decision to give unparalleled government subsidy to the nuclear power industry would be made after public discussion and input from the best scientific and technical authorities in the country. Instead, decisions have been made in a political setting. Even the possible future directions for nuclear power generation were chosen in a casual and cavalier way. As far as anyone not on the inside knows, no one was invited to the Vice President's Energy Task Force in 2002 who might have supported funding for development of Carlo Rubbia's thorium reactor.4
Walker recognizes in his book that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has tried hard to improve its regulatory function. (See a review of Walker's book in PHYSICS TODAY, February 2005, page 63.) However, TMI continues to be discussed because we have not yet come to terms with the fact that it was allowed to happen.
Rather than disparage those who raise concerns about nuclear safety, physics educators might try to present students with facts not colored by free teaching materials paid for by those with a financial interest in biasing materials used in schools.
The lay public is not as stupid as some experts would have us believe. For one thing, there are out there in America some 2500 young adults who have an appreciation for the complexities of nuclear power, which they gained in a physics unit at Huron High School in Ann Arbor, Michigan.5 In that unit they learned to think for themselves, to shy away from a decision to be simplistically for or against nuclear energy, and to apply knowledge about how a reactor works, from control rods, primary coolant, and emergency core cooling system, to pressurization, relief valves, and loss-of-coolant conditions.
References:
1. American Nuclear Society, "The Price-Anderson Act, Background Information" (November 2005), available at [LINK].
2. J. S. Walker, Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, U. California Press, Berkeley (2004).
3. B. A. Osif, A. J. Baratta, T. W. Conkling, TMI 25 Years Later: The Three Mile Island Power Plant Accident and Its Impact, Pennsylvania State U. Press, University Park, PA (2004).
4. CERN Courier at [LINK]. See also R. Garwin, G. Charpak, Megawatts and Megatons, Knopf, New York (2001), p. 153.
5. See course materials in W. Scheider, A Serious but Not Ponderous Book About Nuclear Energy, Cavendish Press, Ann Arbor, MI (2001).
Walter Scheider
(cavendish@worldnet.att.net)
Ann Arbor, Michigan
In light of Edwin Karlow's letter supporting nuclear power (PHYSICS TODAY, February 2006, page 11) and the article "Stronger Future for Nuclear Power" in that same issue (page 19), I would like to remind readers of the many reasons why nuclear power is a bad idea.
Nuclear power is not economically viable. Karlow explains the subsidies that the nuclear power industry needed in the past and pleads for continued subsidies in the future. Contrary to the early promise that nuclear power would be so cheap we would not need electric meters, nuclear power is very expensive. The main reason is that it is so dangerous; expensive safeguards must be attempted.
The risk of a catastrophic accident persists. Nuclear power plants are built and run by humans, who make mistakes and who can be pressured into making decisions that put profit above safety. And the same government that took care of us after Hurricane Katrina will assume responsibility for us after a nuclear accident.
Nuclear power plants are possible terrorist targets. A dedicated attack against a nuclear plant could not be prevented, and the highly radioactive spent fuel is poorly contained in many plants and is particularly open to attack.
The waste disposal problem is not solvable in the near future. The politically chosen Yucca Mountain disposal site is nowhere near opening, precisely because of its geological problems, and because of local opposition. So spent fuel will continue to pile up around the country, producing increasingly dangerous sources of radioactive materials vulnerable to human error, accident, and attack.
Current nuclear plants are being operated unsafely. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is lax in its supervision of those plants. The NRC does not have workable evacuation plans for many power plants, including the Indian Point plant just upwind of New York City and the oldest plant in the country, in Oyster Creek, New Jersey. Fire safety problems have not been addressed. Routine operation of nuclear plants results in planned and unplanned releases of radioactivity, and there is no safe level of radiation exposure. The procedures for extending the life of unsafe reactors do not allow meaningful public input.
The most important reason why nuclear power is a bad idea is that it results in nuclear weapons proliferation. A fuel-processing plant for a standard 1000-MW reactor could produce enough uranium for between 10 and 30 uranium weapons per year. Its waste reprocessing plant could produce enough plutonium for 30 plutonium weapons per year. It is no accident that Iran and Venezuela, nations awash in oil, are pursuing nuclear power. India and Pakistan received nuclear fuel and technical help from other countries to develop nuclear power, and took advantage of this opportunity to make nuclear weapons. And the material can find its way into the hands of terrorists. Even a small nuclear attack or a small war between newly nuclear states would be devastating to humanity. Having invented nuclear weapons, we physicists have a moral responsibility to do everything we can to lower the probability of their use.
I am a climatology professor doing research on global warming. In my opinion, we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate future negative consequences to the climate. But nuclear power is not the answer.
Alan Robock
(robock@envsci.rutgers.edu)
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey
---------------------------
San Bernardino Sun
January 02, 2007
Dangerous waste could be transported through area
Andrew Silva
The clusters of finger-thick steel rods are so radioactive that standing next to them for a few minutes would be fatal.
Thousands of such assemblies could be rolling through San Bernardino County if the waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas is built.
With Yucca Mountain's most vocal critic, Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, rising to majority leader, opponents are in a good position to slow down or kill building of the facility.
Yucca Mountain has generally been off the radar for most local officials, but they do worry that San Bernardino County could be a major transport route, even for waste from outside California.
"My biggest problem has been how they chose to route the material - looping around so it had to come through our county," said county Supervisor Dennis Hansberger. "I guess it was to avoid a major metropolitan area. If that's true, then don't send it through a major metropolitan area."
He said he's not qualified to say if the Yucca Mountain site itself is safe, but would like to see more thought about how the waste is going to get there.
Barstow Mayor Lawrence Dale said he's not up to date on the issue so couldn't comment with authority.
"We would not be real pleased with it coming through on Interstate 15 or Interstate 40," he said. "We would be remiss if we made any brash statements about it."
Supporters of the Yucca Mountain site argue it's far better to store extremely radioactive waste in one geologically safe location than to leave it at more than 100 sites throughout the nation.
Opponents disagree that Yucca Mountain will be safe, and say it's better to leave the waste in those well-guarded locations than to expose it out on highways and railroads.
"You'll be taking it away from safe, secure sites and putting it on the transportation system and making it subject to accidents or attack for 30 to 40 years," said Joe Strolin, with the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.
The heavily shielded casks that will carry the waste will be designed to withstand severe collisions, fires and sinking.
Strolin said the casks could still be vulnerable to military weapons, and that there are no plans to see how they stand up to sabotage.
Critics worry there is still no guarantee that full-scale testing of the casks will be done, though the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has indicated such tests may be required.
The Department of Energy tends to focus on the very low probability of a catastrophic release, but Nevada does look at worst-case scenarios, Strolin said.
The federal government did find that a major release of radiation could cost $10 billion to clean up, he said.
The Department of Energy has decided to use trains as much as possible to reduce the number of trips and to improve safety.
San Bernardino County has seen more than its share of train crashes.
A decade ago, there was a spectacular crash in Cajon Pass that shut down I-15 for days as rail cars spewing toxic smoke burned. And in 1989, a runaway train jumped the tracks and plowed through homes on Duffy Street in Muscoy, killing four, followed by a gas line explosion in the same place two weeks later.
Those are the kinds of incidents the casks will be designed to survive.
And the Yucca Mountain trains will be dedicated solely to transporting high-level waste, allowing for more control and security, something critics have long recommended.
High-level waste has been moved around the country for decades without incident, thanks to robust containers and strict security and monitoring, energy officials say.
An intensely hot fire in a Baltimore rail tunnel in 2001, which did not involve radioactive waste, would not have breached the casks or led to a release of radiation, according to an analysis by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
And the government is looking at building a new 300-mile rail line along one of two possible routes within Nevada that would avoid major population areas and could reduce the number of shipments that have to come through San Bernardino County.
It's still too early to comment on particular routes or how much material might go through any one area, said Allen Benson, spokesman for Yucca Mountain.
"We need to decide where to build the rail spur. Then we start looking at specific routes," he said.
The earliest the Yucca Mountain facility could be open is 2017.
---------------------------
San Luis Obispo Tribune
January 02, 2007
Yucca dump doomed?
Lisa Friedman
The Daily News
WASHINGTON - While supporters vow to plow forward with plans for a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nev., critics hope Democrats will be able to kill the project - which would take highly radioactive material transported through the Southland - when they take control of Congress next month.
Led by incoming Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who already has declared the federal nuclear waste repository "dead," congressional Democrats are expected to severely decrease funding for the dump.
That, opponents say, is good news for Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and other communities through which approximately 70,000 tons of radioactive waste would likely be shipped on its way to the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
"All of us in the Inland Empire will be safer if shipments of nuclear waste are not traveling through our communities on local highways or railroad tracks," said Democrat Rep. Joe Baca, whose San Bernardino district lies smack in the middle of the proposed shipment route.
"An accident could have deadly consequences," Baca said. "We are fortunate that Harry Reid will be the Senate majority leader and in a better position to block the Yucca Mountain project."
First proposed in 1982, the Yucca Mountain depository has been strongly supported by President George W. Bush and the nuclear energy industry. Proponents say it is a secure alternative to storing waste at nuclear plants and hundreds of other sites around the country.
Originally targeted to open in 1998, Yucca Mountain has been repeatedly set back by lawsuits, money shortfalls and scientific controversies. The Department of Energy’s best-case opening date is now 2017.
Southern Californians are concerned about proposals to ship spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County - a trek that could take it by train through Ventura County and the San Fernando Valley.
There have also been discussions about a rail line through the Antelope Valley and across the High Desert; multiple rail links through the San Gabriel, Pomona and San Bernardino valleys; and a truck route from the San Onofre nuclear power plant along the Santa Ana, San Gabriel and San Bernardino freeway corridors.
The DOE is poised to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in mid-2008 that will allow it to proceed. But activists on both sides of the issue acknowledge that the DOE is quietly preparing for the likelihood of reduced funding and political support for Yucca.
"I’m getting the sense there may be some reluctance to submit a sizeable, needed budget if Mr. Reid is just going to have it reduced," said Brian O’Connell, director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ nuclear waste program.
He and other supporters of the repository have accused Reid of overstepping his power by refusing to allow Yucca legislation to come for a vote, and they argue that safety concerns have been blown out of proportion and politicized.
"The typical representation of nuclear waste is a 50-ton cannister with green goo hanging out the sides," O’Connell said. "It is well-protected. And the reality is that it has been shipped safely for over 30 years."
Annual federal funding for Yucca Mountain has ranged from $450 million to $550 million in recent years. O’Connell predicted that Reid and other lawmakers will "drastically reduce" that amount.
Michelle Boyd, legislative director at Public Citizen, agreed, saying Yucca officials "are hobbling along, and they’re going to be hobbling even more when they have less money. It’s certainly on its last legs."
She and others also noted that the newly empowered anti-Yucca coalition in Congress has vowed to block bills like the one introduced last year by Sen. Pete Dominic, R-N.M., and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, to guarantee funding for the repository.
"No legislation will occur as long as Reid is there," said Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects. "We believe this project has been on life support anyway for the last several years. This may be the final nail."
O’Connell disagreed that the death of Yucca is near.
"I don’t think so," he said. "(Reid) will do everything he can to impede it, but he can’t kill it outright."
Argun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research agreed.
Though an opponent of Yucca Mountain who calls it a "badly botched project," Makhijani said he expects plans for the repository to move ahead with shrunken resources.
"I don’t think the project can be stopped altogether without setting in motion some larger scheme for the management of spent fuel," he said.
---------------------------
Salem Statesman Journal
January 02, 2007
Commentary
Q&A: New Senate boss lays out priorities
By Diana Marrero
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 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, of Nevada, 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 it’s 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.
Contact Diana Marrero at dmarrero@gns.gannett.com
---------------------------
Idaho Statesman
January 02, 2007
Letter:
Yucca Mountain is unsafe and has unfixable flaws
By Joseph Strolin
Your Dec. 19 editorial, "Nation, Idaho need Yucca Mountain," fails to recognize that the reason the federal government's nuclear waste repository program is on the brink of collapse is not a NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) reaction on the part of the state of Nevada. Rather, Yucca Mountain's intrinsic and unfixable flaws and the federal government's shoddy, fraudulent, and politically motivated science have presented the nation and Nevada with a site that is incapable of isolating deadly radioactive waste for the long time period necessary.
The Yucca site was singled out in 1987 solely on the ground that Nevada was politically vulnerable and an attractive target of opportunity for members of Congress who wanted to protect their states from this unwanted project. For over a decade, DOE's own studies have generated information indicating the Yucca site should be disqualified as a repository.
Yet each time new, potentially disqualifying data has come to light, DOE has sought to make the site's failings with more and more exotic — and unrealistic — manmade compensatory "fixes." Probably the most outlandish is DOE's proposal to construct waste disposal containers that will have to remain intact for 100,000 years or more (in a highly corrosive, highly radioactive and thermally hot environment) in order for the site to meet even the relaxed health and safety standards being proposed for Yucca.
People in Idaho would do well to look at how Nevada is being treated by the federal government with respect to the Yucca Mountain project and recognize that, there but for the grace of God and the 1980s political winds, there goes Idaho. Small western states like Nevada and Idaho should be on common ground in assuring that decision like where to dispose of deadly radioactive materials are made based on science, not politics. If NIMBY is, in fact, at work in this regard, your editorial citing Idaho's self interest in getting rid of the INL waste is a fine example.
The simple fact — one that is finally being recognized in Congress and even within the commercial nuclear industry — is that Yucca Mountain is not needed for the so-called nuclear renaissance. Spent fuel is and will be perfectly safe and secure at existing and new power plants, with improved dry storage technologies making such storage even safer and more economical.
It is unfortunate that Idaho has had to bear the burden for storing radioactive waste at INL and will likely be required to continue to store those wastes for the foreseeable future due to DOE's inept and almost criminal mismanagement of the federal repository program.
However, advocating that the Idaho waste and tens of thousands of tons on highly radioactive commercial spent fuel be shipped to a patently unsafe disposal site in Nevada is irresponsible and not in the interests of Idaho or the nation.
Joseph C. Strolin is the Planning Division Administrator for Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects in Carson City, Nev.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------