Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, February 8, 2007
---------------------------

State of Nevada
February 08, 2007

Press Release:

Contacts:

Bob Loux
Agency for Nuclear Projects
(775) 687-3744

George McCabe
Brown & Partners
(702) 967-2222

Nevada study shows Yucca Mountain Project will cost much more than storing nuclear waste at existing reactor sites

CARSON CITY - A study released this week by the state of Nevada contradicts cost estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy and suggests the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository would actually cost billions more than storing the waste at existing nuclear reactor sites.

Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the study debunks DOE's longstanding argument that it can somehow save taxpayers money by building a proposed high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Loux said a detailed analysis of DOE's own cost data confirms that the proposed nuclear waste repository "is a vastly more expensive solution to the nuclear waste problem than indefinite dry-cask storage of spent nuclear fuel at the nation's existing commercial reactor sites."

Loux said previous DOE statements to the contrary are based on faulty economic analyses in DOE's 2002 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Yucca Mountain Project.  He said this FEIS document "totally ignored the simple principle that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow."

By basing its cost estimates on today's dollar values and ignoring the declining buyer power of a dollar over many years, he said DOE failed to follow the normal accounting guidelines required by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Nevada study shows Yucca costs more than on-site storage - page 2

"When analyzed correctly using the reasonable discount rates required by OMB, DOE's own numbers show that, over time, continued on-site dry storage will save billions of dollars relative to proceeding with the repository," Loux said.  "And the longer the repository is delayed, the greater these savings will be.  In other words, contrary to DOE's 2002 study, putting off Yucca saves money.  Putting it off forever saves a lot of money."

Nevada commissioned Dr. Michael C. Thorne, an internationally known expert on complex cost studies, to use DOE's own figures to evaluate the cost of proceeding with the Yucca Mountain Project versus the cost of continuing to store spent fuel in dry casks at 100 U.S. reactor sites.  Thorne based his analysis on DOE's conservative $58 billion repository cost estimate and a conservative dry-cask storage cost of $4 million per reactor per year.  He performed his study using the range of so-called discount rates that OMB has prescribed over the past 25 years - between 3 and 7 percent per year.

Thorne's analysis shows that if the repository is delayed by only one year, the actual cost savings associated with at-reactor storage range from $1 billion to $1.4 billion, depending on how fast the buying power of a dollar declines during that year.  If the repository is delayed for 10 years, cost savings range from $8 billion (at a 3 percent annual discount rate) to $10.4 billion (based on a 7 percent rate).

If the Yucca Mountain repository is never built, Thorne found U.S. taxpayers would save at least $30.8 billion (based on the current OMB discount rate of 3 percent).

Thorne's analysis shows that (using that same 3 percent discount rate) it would cost $13.3 billion today to pay for the costs of dry storage at all 100 U.S. reactor sites -"for all perpetuity."  Conversely, based on the same conditions, he found that it would cost $38.3 billion to build the Yucca repository by DOE's target date of 2025.  The additional cost to store spent fuel until the repository is completed in 2025 is estimated at $5.8 billion.

As a result, Thorne determined the total cost savings of at-reactor dry storage over the Yucca repository, using DOE's own conservative numbers, is at least $30.8 billion.  If the Yucca repository is delayed beyond 2025, if its construction costs increase, or if the discount rates mandated by the federal government rise even slightly, he found that the potential savings of dumping the Yucca Mountain Project increase dramatically.

For more information on the cost study and on Nevada's opposition to the proposed nuclear waste dump, visit www.state.nv.us/nucwaste.htm.

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

Las Vegas SUN
February 08, 2007

Editorial: Waste dump loses support

Nuclear regulator says government should scrap Yucca Mountain dump and start over

Outgoing Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr. has said what Nevadans have been saying for two decades: Forget Yucca Mountain.

The planned nuclear waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas has been fatally flawed since the beginning, and McGaffigan says a major part of the problem is that the process to select the site was unfair.

All along, Congress has ignored science and chosen political solutions. Instead of studying three sites in Nevada, Texas and Washington, as had been mandated under federal law, lawmakers did the politically expedient thing in 1987 by singling out Nevada, which at the time had a small and not very powerful congressional delegation. Congress passed the so-called Screw Nevada Bill, which bypassed a study and designated Yucca Mountain as the site. Nevada has been in strident opposition since. The state and federal governments have spent millions of dollars in legal fights, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is leading the strong congressional effort to stop the Yucca Mountain repository.

McGaffigan has declared that the project is not "politically viable."

"There is no chance Yucca can go forward under current statute," McGaffigan said in a story by Lisa Mascaro in Wednesday's Las Vegas Sun. "I would go back to the beginning. When you go out of process it's a problem, it's a huge political problem. If a process is done fairly, I think you have a shot."

He said the plan needs to be put "on a path where states are treated from the get-go with great respect and deference - and I don't believe that will result in 50 states saying no.

"If you chose a course that is hostile to the state ... if you try to jam something down a state's throat, it won't work."

McGaffigan is speaking out because he is dying from cancer. He is a supporter of nuclear energy and the creation of a waste repository, but beyond the inequity, he sees other problems with Yucca Mountain. People at the Energy Department, he feels, have been avoiding issues, making unrealistic promises and hoping succeeding administrations would fulfill them.

Energy Department officials "managed to lock themselves into solutions that didn't work," he said. "I grew more frustrated over time that we weren't honestly dealing with the issue."

There is no question the project was simply a bad idea to start with, and it has been compounded by terrible science and shoddy work, some of which has had to be redone. "Rework is not a good sign of a healthy project," McGaffigan said.

In a commentary piece written for Energy Daily, McGaffigan said there had been a "quarter century of bad law, leading to bad regulations, bad personnel policy, bad budget policy and bad science advice."

Still, President Bush, who approved the project in 2002, wants to push ahead and has put nearly $500 million for Yucca Mountain in the proposed budget he sent to Congress. Energy Department officials expressed "some level of confidence" they can meet their latest deadline - completing the license application next year. But the department has a sorry performance history. The project was originally slated to open in 1998, and now, using the most optimistic projections, it could open in 2020.

Burial of high-level nuclear waste is not the answer, whether at Yucca Mountain or anywhere else. It is simply too dangerous. It would require carting the highly radioactive waste around the country, causing increased risk of nuclear accidents on the nation's highways. Burial would also make the waste susceptible to earthquakes, which could split casks open and hasten what appears to be inevitable - that the waste will eventually leech into the ground water.

The only realistic answer is to store the waste, as many reactors are doing, in heavily fortified above-ground casks until there is a better answer, such as recycling. McGaffigan has said a blue-ribbon panel should be appointed to study proposals and bring a new plan to Congress after the 2008 elections.

World Nuclear News, an industry online publication, quoted Edward Sproat, the Energy Department official in charge of Yucca Mountain, as responding to that criticism with what is simply an incredible answer. "The site is Yucca Mountain," he said. "That decision was made in 2002. The next step is, can you license a repository at that site? That's where we are now."

The answer should now be clear. No, absolutely not. The administration should be listening to the wise words of Edward McGaffigan.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
February 08, 2007

Report to show Yucca plan too costly

Nevada raising questions about repository

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The state of Nevada plans today to unveil a report that argues the true cost of a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository "vastly exceeds" that of leaving radioactive waste at reactor sites for the foreseeable future.

In the latest move to raise questions about the Yucca site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, state officials commissioned an economic analysis they said shows more savings the longer spent fuel is kept on site.

"The cost savings of storage relative to constructing Yucca increase the longer the repository is delayed," a summary states. Over 200 years, it would be cheaper by $24.1 billion to store waste at reactors than to build the Nevada repository, the study concludes.

The study assumes that by then alternatives to Yucca Mountain will have been discovered or developed, making the Nevada site unnecessary.

The Energy Department was forwarded a copy of the report Wednesday but had no comment.

The study, performed by Nevada technical consultant Michael Thorne, applies a "discount rate" accounting principle to DOE-estimated costs to build the repository versus keeping waste on site. The principle holds that a dollar spent today is worth more than a dollar spent tomorrow.

Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the White House budget office requires agencies to incorporate such discount rates into long-term projects, but he said the Energy Department for some reason did not do that for Yucca Mountain.

DOE in 2002 estimated a Yucca Mountain repository will cost $58 billion to build and operate while dry cask storage would cost $4 million per reactor per year, multiplied by 103 active plants, more costly in the long run, according to the report.

"DOE did a faulty analysis that illustrated reactor storage was vastly more expensive than Yucca Mountain, but when you apply the discount rates that they were required to do the numbers come out differently," Loux said.

"I would say take these same assumptions and run them through OMB or GAO or CBO and they will show these numbers are not cooked in any way," said Loux, referring to government financial agencies.

Brian O'Connell, an executive who monitors Yucca Mountain financial matters, said the analysis could prove helpful to explore long-term repository costs, an area where there still is much uncertainty.

"It is the first such calculation I have seen using discount cost methodology," said O'Connell, nuclear waste manager for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

O'Connell added that cost is only one among several reasons the government and industry have advanced for building a repository.

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

Earthtimes
February 08, 2007

NRC chair hopeful Congress approves funds

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 The top U.S. nuclear regulator said he's spent a lot of time on the Hill this week and hopes it will pay off with full funding of his agency.

I am a believer that all good things come to those who wait -- provided they work feverishly while they are waiting, Nuclear Regulatory Chairman Dale Klein said at the Nuclear Energy Opportunities for Growth and Investment in North America conference in Washington, organized by the global energy information firm Platts. My fellow commissioners, the NRC staff and I have been working hard to communicate to the Congress the importance of the work that the NRC is and will be performing, Klein said. Congress at the end of last year couldn't agree on most of the federal budget, so it passed a continuing resolution flat-lining finances at 2006 levels.

But the NRC is expecting much more work this year, including around seven applications for new nuclear reactors, license renewal applications and power uprates. It also is preparing for the 2008 application of the U.S. Energy Department for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

And it needs to continue hiring staff to meet this demand during a retiree boom.

An NRC official also confirmed Thursday the agency is cautiously optimistic the Senate will approve the $813 million budget the House authorized last week. The NRC will recover 90 percent of that funding through charges to utilities, plants and other entities that utilize its regulatory services.

All indications are Congress will support us, Klein said.

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

Energy Central
February 08, 2007

Letters From Readers

Below are a few letters we received on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.

Fueling Texas' Future - January 10, 2007

Your January 10 editorial ("Fueling Texas' Future") and some of the subsequent letters it inspired contain several misstatements of fact and mischaracterizations of TXU's positions.

You allude to a so-called "fast track" of the plant permits.

The governor's executive order streamlines only the administrative hearing process. Neither the technical review nor the public input process has changed. Moreover, the applicability of the executive order was recently upheld by the State Office of Administrative Hearings. We'd note that the permit for our Oak Grove facility has now entered its 19th month, hardly the "rush" that has been implied.

You pay significant attention to a developing coal technology called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), calling it the "cleanest of all," and so efficient that it results in "greater productivity and fewer emissions."

These statements are incredibly misleading. IGCC is a promising technology, but is not yet viable on a large-scale commercial basis for the types of coal available to Texas. There are only two IGCC units in operation today in the U.S. -- both are small, were heavily subsidized, and actually have dirtier emissions profiles than the advanced supercritical plants we have proposed. Further, both these plants continue to operate at low reliability levels more than five years after coming on line.

While, TXU has teams working with the major IGCC vendors to understand its performance potential, no vendor has been willing to guarantee performance with the types of coals available to the Texas market (lignite and Powder River Basin).

Some IGCC projects are meeting resistance because of ratepayer concerns about rising costs or because the technology is still developing commercially.

Unlike what you write, there is unfortunately no established, commercially-viable way to remove CO2 from an IGCC plant and efficiently produce power from the gas turbines.

While no commercial technology exists today to capture and sequester CO2, TXU is making our reference plants carbon capture-ready because we believe future technologies will enable economical capture and sequestration of CO2 for both IGCC and advanced supercritical generation.

In fact, you only mention one aspect of our investment in technology, but we have a three-part program for today and tomorrow.

First, our plan includes an over $500 million program to retrofit TXU's existing power plants. This would cut key emissions by up to 70% at these facilities and actually lower key pollutants across the company's fleet by 20% from 2005 levels, while more than doubling the company's coal-fuel generation capacity.

Secondly, we are investing in state-of-the-art, clean technologies that will make our new reference plants 80% cleaner than today's average U.S. coal plant (not simply for those built 30 years ago, as you state).

Lastly, as you alluded to -- though inaccurately -- we are investing up to $2 billion to commercialize state-of-the-art clean technologies, such as investing in retrofit technology for cleaner operation of older plants and developing IGCC to commercial viability.

Unlike some in the debate, TXU believes that carbon reduction technology can and will be developed for coal power plants. We are ensuring that our plant designs meet International Energy Agency criteria for carbon capture-readiness, so that we may retrofit these plants with the newest environmental control technologies in the future.

In conclusion, we were disappointed that you neglected to mention the broad support that the plan has generated. While you mentioned one new opposition group of businessmen, you didn't mention that the Texas Association of Business -- the largest and most widespread business organization in the state -- supports the plan.

We're proud that the TXU plan is supported by more than 100 community leaders and organizations across this great state.

Thoughtful consideration of the facts demonstrates why.

Brian Tulloh
Vice President, Corporate Affairs
TXU Corp.

Nuclear Energy's Potential Comeback - January 22, 2007

All resources will go through the same depletion process and Uranium is not the exception. Prices for Uranium in the medium run shows they will be higher than other energy sources. Besides, there is a green house emission associated with exploring, extracting, building Nuclear power, plants, and most importantly disposal of nuclear waste! The net emissions (Fossils-Nuclear) are not that much.

Luis J Rodriguez
Down Stream Oil Co.

All investments in nuclear technology, besides reducing the investment pool for clean energy, prolong the era of dependence on centralized power. Distributed ownership of energy collection and storage systems -- ownership by homeowners, small businesses, and communities -- will

-- Save the middle class.

-- Enrich our communities and make them less vulnerable to national and global economic shocks.

-- Prevent further oil wars

-- Help the US get out from under the petrodollar recycling game that helped build our empire but that now threatens to undo us through our accumulated debts to other nations.

-- Help end world poverty and restore our good name in the world, because our distributed generation system exports will help poorer countries remove the World Bank/IMF yoke they took on to afford centralized energy (hydro dams, gasoline, coal-fired plants). They won't be able to afford nuclear energy, but they will thrive under distributed generation. Their prosperity will be good for our economy. And my daughters can then travel the world in greater safety.

-- Help us avoid further dangerous advances in nuclear technology (such as technologies to recycle radioactive waste into fuel, or, just as easily, weapons)

A complete transition to clean energy is the end goal, anyway, so why invest in an intermediate technology that takes so long to come on line that it won't help us endure the likely near-term shocks of oil shortages due to political events?

The overall demand for power will NOT "surely be so expansive that any newfound resurgence in nuclear energy cannot be ignored." New efficiencies in manufacturing, transportation, home energy use, and energy transmission are already enabling us to do much more with less, and this has happened without federal support. Federal support for "negawatts", smart grid, local storage, wind power, solar power, ground-source geothermal, LEDs, plug-in hybrids, etc. will get us much farther toward our goal, and much faster, than federal support for nuclear power.

Lance McKee

Ultimately, we can't solve global warming or energy demand shortfalls by growing the supply. We're approaching a tipping point. More nuclear waste is, well, more nuclear waste, and increasing the rate of its growth is going in the wrong direction. Until there is a technology that can safely reduce the waste or--better--convert it to a benign form, then we have to concentrate on efficiency.

Ray Welch

Your statement, "there is a near endless supply of uranium to keep such plants perking along", is not very accurate. All the current commercial nuclear reactors run on U235. U235 is less than 1% of natural uranium. The amount of high-grade uranium ore from which to extract U235 is limited. As with oil, uranium has a Hubbert peak. With the current level of nuclear power production and current technology maximum production is likely to occur within the next 50 years, sooner if nuclear power is significantly increased worldwide. There are large quantities of low-grade ore, but in concentrations so low that the energy profit ratio would less than 1 (less net energy out than energy in).

An adequate long term fuel supply for nuclear energy is dependent upon reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to "burn" a larger fraction of U235 and upon using breeder reactors to upgrade abundant U238 to Plutonium. So far, both reprocessing of spent fuel and breeder reactors have been problem plagued and are far from being reliable commercial technologies. Another possible fuel source is thorium. Thorium is relatively abundant, but there are no commercial reactors running on thorium. It is unclear whether thorium based reactors can be commercialized.

Overall fuel supply is a serious problem for nuclear energy. Whether it can be solved in the foreseeable future is not yet clear.

Michael Winkler
Energy Research Engineer
Schatz Energy Research Center
Humboldt State University

I AM a firm believer in the future of nuclear power generation and a supported of building new plants. However, I am also a pragmatic guy. The REAL issues are not technical, scientific, or even operating economics. The REAL issues are political and emotional.

At present, no Board of Directors could authorize construction of a nuclear power generation plant without immediately attracting numerous lawsuits-from both its shareholders, and parties opposed to anything and everything. It requires strong and definitive action by Congress and our Executive branches to break the political log-jam that prohibits nuclear power expansion. Until that happens--all the talk will remain just that--empty, futile, and unproductive. Specific hurdles are:

1) Unbounded liability -- Inability to cap damages sought by 'injured parties' in an 'event' is a deal -breaker.

2) Spent Fuel management -- Present laws prohibit ANY company from generating a 'waste product' that cannot be safely and reliably 'managed.' in perpetuity.

3) Unbounded construction delays potential from civil lawsuits -- Again, the unbounded potential delays for a new nuclear power plant construction make it in reality, impossible for any group to obtain financing or insurance for the financial impact of such delay.

4) Technical risks -- The technical risks associated with the 'new high temperature gas cooled' reactor designs are far from trivial.

A Solution to Technical (and Political Risks)--- I believe a 'Manhattan Project' scale and organization of effort should be strongly considered as the best overall way to get new nuclear power plant design and plants engineered and constructed. I do not think our investor owned Power Generators and Engineering & Construction Companies are up to the tasks if left to their own devices and agendas. The magnitude and urgency of the need, the complexity of the technical requirements, and the political quagmire facing a individual Corporation mandate a coordinated and combined task force to ensure successful execution of this vital undertaking. One has only to look at the U.S. Navy nuclear power program to see just how safe and effective a consolidated, coordinated, well managed program can be.

The REAL QUESTION: Is the present Executive Branch up to the task of leading the way? Answer: In my opinion--NO. Nuclear power generation has very little probability of moving forward during the remainder of this Administration's term.

Keith E Bowers

The Modular High Temp Gas Reactors also use ceramic fuels. They have a microsphere of uranium fuel encased in carbide layers. This acts as a "mini-containment."

In the case of a total loss of coolant (helium), the heat transfer out of the "small" modular reactors, even just through the ground, precludes fuel temperature increases to levels sufficient to damage the fuel. These plants are "inherently safe" vis. light water reactors (LWRs), beyond even the advanced "passively safe" LWRs which limit dependence on active systems to maintain core cooling. No water (or gas, either helium or air) is required to "flush through the reactor" by pumps or gravity to maintain cooling.

The time to site a plant, to pre-construction, may still be many years. However, the time from start of construction to fuel loading will now be about 4 years. This is exemplified by Tokyo Electric Power's two 1356 MWe Kashiwazaki-Kariwa ABWRs which went on line in 1996 and 1997. This is due to starting with completed designs with detailed procurement and construction plans, and building large modules to be lifted into the containment. One such module was 650 tons.

Current nuclear plants are not "dangerous" in that the most extreme realistic accident or terrorism scenarios can cause few, if any, deaths to the public. See, e.g., our Sep 20, 2002 "Policy Forum" paper in "Science," and our "Response-to-Comments" in the Jan 10, 2003 issue. These papers were authored by 19 nuclear-power expert members of the National Academy of Engineering. Most of these authors were intimately involved with AEC and Nuclear Navy power reactor development. These conclusions are also grounded on research conducted following the 1979 Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident. EPRI's study results are presented by Levenson and Rahn 1981 in Nuclear Safety. These documents are available on our web site at: http://radscihealth.org/rsh/realism/. A subsequent White Paper for the American Nuclear Society, with participation by additional senior and retired industry leaders, is there also.

Also, the industry's "spent fuel problem" is primarily of the industry's own making. It tried to "force" the DOE Yucca Mountain project into premature decisions and rapid implementation. The industry perceived that the overstatement of the nature and magnitude of spent fuel waste provided incentive for the politicians to address the issue.

Consistent with this erroneous strategy, Congress and the industry precluded "monitored retrievable storage" for spent fuel to "provide urgency to repository siting and licensing." This was compounded by requiring that the DOE and NRC license the repository for final disposal, not allowing for an interim licensing period for monitoring and resolution of uncertainties.

Schedule assessments at the time showed that DOE acceptance of spent fuel at Yucca Mountain in 1998 was not realistically possible. However, the industry assessment did not adequately consider the implications of disposing of spent fuel instead of solidified high level waste, nor uncertainties in geology. The program, with its "schedule urgency," has therefore been constantly "patched" to rely on increasing waste package integrity instead of geological barriers that were the original basis for deciding on deep geological repository high level radioactive waste disposal.

The industry also did not adequately object to repository radiation release limits at small fractions of natural radioactivity sources. And these limits are estimated by computer models that are little more than guesses about small possibilities of any radioactivity releases. The models use assumptions that, combined, are expected to overstate projected radiation doses from such releases by orders of magnitude. And these are small doses at which there are no possible adverse effects to humans.

The undue industry pressure to implement the Yucca Mountain repository are politically motivated. The industry, instead of simply accepting that spent fuel is safe in dry storage, and will be safe in permanent disposal, used false fears to produce political imitative. The industry went so far as to make false claims that spent fuel stored at plant sites is a hazard that the individual states and the public should not accept, in the misbegotten strategy to open Yucca Mountain. The industry needs to recognize that there is a great advantage to letting spent fuel cool until later decisions about reprocessing vs. spent fuel disposal. This rests essentially on national, and international, imperatives to implement nuclear power as an essential energy resource, far beyond just electricity. Either the fuel will be reprocessed, producing a more stable waste form with much less of a heat load, or the direct disposal of the spent fuel will also have reductions in the heat load in the repository, along with time to further resolve the uncertainties of waste forms and geology at more reasonable costs.

Utility arguments for off-site interim storage have been irresponsible efforts to push government into the costly (i.e., to ratepayers and/or taxpayers) effort to move the spent fuel. This would be more responsible if and when the fuel were to be moved to the reprocessing plant location. However, it is not likely that Yucca Mountain is an acceptable location for reprocessing and fuel fabrication plants.

Jim Muckerheide
Radiation, Science, and Health
Mass. State Nuclear Engineer

Mercury Debate Reaches Feverish Pitch - January 24, 2007

Regarding your article "Mercury Debate Reaches Feverish Pitch," please see the comments made by EPRI on the research quoted in the piece. I've noted that when authors hold a press conference to announce their environmental research, it should be carefully checked. Why "journalists" typically don't try for at least some balance or show some degree of skepticism in their reporting has always puzzled me. Especially from a publication titled EnergyBiz Insider, the objective source of energy insight and analysis.

Quotation from EPRI study:

Both EPRI and U.S. EPA studies have shown that mercury credits will be preferentially generated by Eastern power plants, such as those in the study area, with relatively high proportions of divalent mercury in their mercury emissions.

John Humes
Environmental Specialist
Hoosier Energy REC, Inc.

A recent study showed unequivocally that heavy metals and chemical toxins in the body in as few as parts per *TRILLION* produced DNA changes.

Mercury is a known nervous system toxin. When removing toxic mercury, etc. from the body, patients with diseases including autism, multiple sclerosis and dementia see their conditions stabilized to vastly improved.

Companies should work toward reducing and eliminating emissions of toxic chemicals.

Marlene Oliver
Consumer Advocates in Research and Related Activities
National Cancer Institute

A pretty good article overall. I only have major issues with paragraph 2 that makes it sound like five whole states and parts of Canada are considered hotspots. The study only found five locations in the northeast states and Canada (nine more possible ones) that were considered hotspots, not the whole states. And the reference to the mercury hovering overhead creating the hotspots is a bit misleading too. The hotspots are caused by increased deposition (falling to the earth) not necessarily because it hovers there longer, but because of climatological occurrences rain and snow and such, and increased levels of mercury in the air masses because of a concentration of coal burning plants upwind. Good stuff though, well written.

Larry Golden
CleanAir Engineering

Deal Making Peaks - January 26, 2007

I very much enjoyed this article and the way that you addressed the need for consolidation in our industry.

Covering three-quarters of this country's land mass, owning 43% of the nation's wires and poles, and currently serving about 12% of US population, electric co-ops represent a big part of the utility industry. Co-ops also historically grow at roughly double the rate of the rest of the industry and, as development inexorably comes to formerly rural areas, that growth is accelerating.

Unfortunately, co-ops bring high costs along with that growth. As there are nearly 1,000 co-ops located in 47 states, co-ops are incredibly balkanized. Indeed, the largest co-op in the country has just 200,000 customers, and average co-op has just a fraction of that. Co-ops have a saying that they use as justification for their incredible balkanization: "If you combine two co-ops with density of a meter a mile, you end up with one co-op with a density of a meter a mile". That mindset serves entrenched co-op boards and management and disserves their customers since, as you so ably pointed out, "size is an advantage" in the electric utility industry.

Some of the current deal-making activity will involve consolidating co-ops into more rationally-sized entities. Indeed, IOU's and financial buyers desire co-op service territory to grow (both by acquisition and organically): as they face "growth expectations that cannot be achieved unless there is more consolidation in the industry."

Kevin T. Williams
Attorney at Law

Extracting Earth's Energy - January 31, 2007

Idaho is one of the best states to do business when considering geothermal development because they do not attempt to keep the Renewable Resource Credits (if they occur in Idaho) nor do they attempt to keep any carbon credit or other tertiary benefits.

In other states, it appears the utilities are attempting to keep such credits and not provide any economic benefit to the developer for such credits. Greed overcomes logic and need. Many of those states are looking to build coal-fired power plants and need the CO2 potential credits and the RECs we mentioned above to meet their renewable portfolio requirements under state legislation. If the commissions and utilities were to be a bit more generous and share those benefits, I dare say the geothermal business could triple or quadruple in a very short period of time.

Remember, geothermal production could be as much as 20,000 MW in the US, but is only about 2,000 MW right now. The fact that the regulatory impediments still exist is amazing.

One of the last points to make is the fact that for every 2 MWs of geothermal power production, it is equal to the avoidance of one ton of coal consumption or the consumption of about 3 barrels of oil. Geothermal creates local jobs, infrastructure and energy. It is a benefit to power lines in remote areas of the US that could use such sources as to avoid distribution or sub transmission reinforcement and investment by the utilities, particularly in the West where all the geothermal resources are located.

Geothermal is one of the best ways to help reduce our foreign oil needs, help the environment and create local jobs. Even if all 20,000 MW of geothermal were developed, it would only offset the consumption of some 600,000 barrels of oil a day, but that is still about 4% of our total daily imports of oil. None the less, it is still a great way to do something that strengthens our economy and helps in the scheme of energy independence.

Martin A. Buckley

2007 Looks Bright - February 2, 2007

Why do you not even mention CO2 emissions as an issue for future electric generation? Natural Gas and Coal emit catastrophic amounts of global warming gases. IPCC has just announced that there is a "90% chance" that human beings are a cause of this problem, and there is virtual certainty that some form of carbon control will come into effect in the next few years in the US. This is hardly "sunshine" for an industry that contributes so much to a problem that will cost millions of lives and many trillions of dollars over the next centuries, particularly if we do not stop seeing everything through near-sighted rose colored glasses. China's plans to build 1000 gigawatt of coal plants are positively terrifying.

Alas, but sales will be up and business never better!

Robert Freehling

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

Las Vegas SUN
February 07, 2007

Nuclear official's stark farewell: Scrap Yucca

Member of regulatory panel says it 'may be time to stop digging'

By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - The longest serving member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is stepping down, and, on his way out, saying something about Yucca Mountain that few in government dare to suggest out loud: "It may be time to stop digging."

The reason Commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr. gives for his conclusion, however, is not that the mountain is a bad site or the science of storing radioactive fuel is unsound, two of the major arguments critics have mounted.

Rather, Yucca Mountain is unlikely to ever open as a storage site for nuclear waste largely because the politics were flawed at the start, he said. Nevada never wanted it.

The state has fought the project for two decades, finding allies in science and environmental quarters, and elsewhere. Together, those critics have created a machine dedicated to one purpose. The only option McGaffigan sees at this point - $9 billion later - is to start over.

"There is no chance Yucca can go forward under current statute," McGaffigan said. "I would go back to the beginning. When you go out of process it's a problem, it's a huge political problem. If a process is done fairly, I think you have a shot."

McGaffigan feels free to speak his mind because he is dying.

The cancer he knocked back six years ago returned last summer with new aggression. What started as a bout of melanoma now checkers his brain.

McGaffigan notified President Bush in January that he could not finish his term on the commission, where he has served since 1996.

In an interview with the Sun last week, as McGaffigan sat with his back to a window on suburban Rockville, Md., it was clear that cancer drugs have taken a toll. They have robbed him of the flop of preppy gray hair seen in pictures on the hallway walls and the ID card dangling from his neck.

His departure from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will end a distinguished career for the 58-year-old Harvard-trained physicist, one that included two years in Moscow as an American diplomat and a second master's degree, in public policy. The experiences have shaped a mind that answers questions nimbly, in a soft voice that moves nonstop, the words tumbling from history to science to public policy.

After returning from Moscow, he worked in President Ronald Reagan's science office in the 1980s. He was there when Congress passed the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act that set the course for creating a repository, officially kicking off the hunt for a site.

McGaffigan said he barely remembers passage of the 1987 legislation dubbed by the state as the "Screw Nevada Bill." In it, Congress designated Yucca Mountain the only site for the nuclear waste repository. After joining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a decade later, McGaffigan began studying Yucca Mountain. He says he didn't like what he found.

He doubted that downwinders in Nevada could be protected for 1 million years from cancer-causing radiation, as required by the law. He thought it was an impossible standard.

His doubts grew as scientists and bureaucrats were found not documenting their work with the rigor required by the regulatory community, forcing do-overs, including the $25 million now being spent on water infiltration data that may have been falsified. "Rework is not a good sign of a healthy project," he said.

Through those early years, he saw Yucca directors come and go. He got the feeling their strategy at the Energy Department was "to promise dates - and good luck to our successors in making those dates work."

The original 1998 opening date had long since been abandoned, burdening the government with a projected $7 billion liability from utility company lawsuits. The department next missed its 2000 deadline for applying for a license.

By 2002 McGaffigan's thinking shifted further. President Bush gave final approval on years of study, moving Yucca Mountain forward as the nation's repository. The state, under the original law, was offered an extraordinary veto power, which then-Gov. Kenny Guinn exercised that year.

When Congress used its ability to override the veto, "I knew it had problems," McGaffigan said.

That year was a turning point for him, he said. Here was the chance for the Energy Department to face up to the opposition by admitting shortcomings and push for changes needed in land and water rights, funding, transportation and storage capacity.

But no one spoke up. Energy Department officials seemed to operate on the vague idea that "someday Nevada's going to sue for peace, and we'll make this all part of the package."

McGaffigan calls that naive.

"They weren't telling Congress - their friends, the people who wanted to help them, 'Here's what's needed to open the repository.' There was a time when they might have gotten it done."

McGaffigan started speaking out a bit during these years. He was quoted in the Sun in 2003 as saying the 2010 opening date was just about impossible. He wonders now whether he should have said more.

As a commissioner, he was bound to stay neutral or forgo participation in Yucca Mountain issues. But by 2004, he said he knew the law as written could never work - and he suspected the Energy Department officials realized as much 15 years earlier.

"They managed to lock themselves into solutions that didn't work. I grew more frustrated over time that we weren't honestly dealing with the issue."

Last year, the department brought many of the problems to Congress with its "Fix Yucca Bill" that drew little support on Capitol Hill. With Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, now in charge, the bill is given virtually no chance of passing.

As McGaffigan prepared last fall for his latest rounds of chemotherapy, he decided he had to speak out. He told Reid as well as the boss he had before he took the commission job, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., of his plans.

McGaffigan said he believes that Congress should set up a bipartisan commission to study new sites and hand a report to the new president in 2009.

"This is not that hard a problem," he said. "We need to put this on a path where states are treated from the get-go with great respect and deference - and I don't believe that will result in 50 states saying no.

"If you chose a course that is hostile to the state ¦ if you try to jam something down a state's throat, it won't work."

After McGaffigan began speaking out, the Energy Department attacked him initially, then softened its criticism in deference to the commissioner's health.

Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell told reporters this week the department still has "some level of confidence" it can meet the new deadline to apply for a license by 2008. The opening, now scheduled for 2017, could well be put off until 2020, he said.

But Sell said there's "no question in my mind" the Nevada site can work. At the Nuclear Regulatory Commission office, McGaffigan's cadence quickens and his eyes light up as he strives to make a point: He supports nuclear power, always has. He sees it as critical to solving global warming and meeting the nation's rising energy needs.

It's just that he no longer supports Yucca Mountain. "I knew I had a very limited time left, and this was one of the first things that came into my mind," he said.

"I didn't want my legacy just to be that, 'He and his colleagues did a good job managing NRC for a decade.' I wanted this issue to be dealt with."

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

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

KLAS-TV
February 07, 2007

Nevada's Efforts to Stop Yucca Mountain May Have Worked

Jonathan Humbert
Legislative Reporter

Opponents of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain believe time is finally on their side. They're claiming the fight to stop the project may be all but over.

Tuesday in Carson City, lawmakers heard from the head of the state's regulatory agency.

Robert Loux says there is a large amount of money is this fight. Monday, President Bush asked for $500 million to keep Yucca Mountain moving forward. But Loux says, even with all that funding, the table is still heavily slanted toward Nevada.

It's a twenty-year battle that may finally be coming to an end -- new word Tuesday that the state's efforts to stop construction of Yucca Mountain have worked.

Robert Loux said, "It appears to be on life support, barely in existence."

Loux heads the Nevada agency on nuclear projects and says the federal government finally understands the mess of a mountain. "Clearly the Department of Energy is incompetent. That's fairly clear. The site is not a good one and those two things spell a disaster for the whole Yucca Mountain Project."

Loux also says there shouldn't be new legislation on a federal level now that the Democrats are in control and Harry Reid runs the Senate. But he told the Nevada senate finance committee that one last chance will come next year with the DOE would seek approval on an operating license. If the license is shot down, it will effectively end Yucca Mountain's construction.

State Senator Barbara Cegavske sees this last ditch maneuver as typical federal arrogance. "Here's a small state, not very many people will notice. It's out in the middle of the desert, which we're not anymore."

But if Yucca isn't ever finished, all that nuclear waste will have to go elsewhere and that might mean it stays locked up at nuclear reactors.

Robert Loux continued, "It would give the country opportunity to find a good repository site, one that can actually perform, as opposed to a bad one like Yucca Mountain."

Now the question turns to money. Loux said his agency is almost out of money and asked for $2.5 million to continue the fight against the DOE. That's just a drop in the bucket compared to what the president wants, but the state still believes it's a heavy favorite in this fight.

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

Las Vegas SUN
February 07, 2007

Nevada lawmakers urged to fund anti-nuclear dump agency

By Joe Mullin
Associated Press

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - The director of Nevada's nuclear watchdog agency told lawmakers Tuesday that a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain may be "on life support," but his agency still needs a budget increase to oppose the federal government's final push for dump licensing in 2008.

Bob Loux said that the plan to store high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain has suffered a series of setbacks, and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised to block further legislative progress on the project.

But since federal energy officials will push forward with an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, Loux said his agency needs increased funding to maintain its opposition.

"On the one hand, we believe the project is dead, over with," said Loux. "But they're going to do this anyway. Without the state's opposition it (the dump) would already be built."

Loux is asking the Legislature for a $600,000 supplemental appropriation as well as a 16 percent increase in the agency's two-year budget, to $10.3 million.

"We need to wrap up scientific and technical studies of the site," said Loux. "It's critical in this final year prior to the DOE application."

In addition, since the Department of Energy will be applying to three separate NRC licensing boards, Loux said his agency must staff teams of lawyers at each of those boards to effectively oppose the efforts of federal energy officials.

President Bush has asked Congress for $494.5 million in his upcoming budget to allow energy officials to complete their application in 2008.

Nevada's seven-person Agency for Nuclear Projects, which operates under the governor's office, was created in 1985 to oppose the Yucca Mountain dump, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Loux has been director of the agency since its inception.

While Loux faced numerous questions about his budget, senators said the prospect of the dump's demise was good news for Nevada.

"We're doing the right things," said Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas. "Our elected officials in Washington are having an impact."

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

Reno Gazette Journal
February 07, 2007

Reid: Nuclear Energy Institute 'backing off'

Rachel Dahl

U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-Searchlight) recently held a press conference call with area reporters and after joking easily for a few minutes with the press, talked mainly about the issue of nuclear waste and his reaction to President George Bush's State of the Union address.

"It's good news that the Nuclear Energy Institute is backing off, and for the first time the industry is saying what we've been saying for a long time now," said Reid. "Yucca Mountain is in trouble here and that's good."

According to Reid, he is not opposed to nuclear power, but the issue of disposal of the waste is the problem that must be solved. "On-site storage is the solution," he said.

On a local topic, Reid said the work being done on the Walker River is going well and the government is currently obtaining contracts for the settlement project. There will be a meeting in Nevada in February to address the issue and the Senator said he will attend.

"I feel better today than I ever have. I was able to get quite a bit of money through the ag bill that people didn't think I was going to get. We are going to save that lake," he said.

In addressing the President's speech to the country Jan. 23, Reid said President Bush is good at identifying problems and did a good job in his seventh State of the Union address. "Unfortunately," said Reid, "his track record is not good at solving these problems. I was happy to see finally the words global warming came out of his mouth."

According to Reid, there are currently over 500 coal fire power generating plants being proposed or built across the country.

In regard to the Democratic Party's response to the president's speech, Reid said he believed that Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) did a good job addressing the president's comments. For the most part, Reid said he was pleased with the president for covering the issues that most needed to be discussed.

Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, said he was dismayed over the new plans for Iraq, saying that plans for escalation would be "hard for him to accept" when he remembers the huddled masses who have been forgotten in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

(Note: The Leader-Courier was not invited to participate in this conference call.)

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

Pahrump Valley Times
February 07, 2007

Resident takes position at Yucca Project office

PVT

Claire Sinclair of Pahrump has been selected as the first representative of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (OCRWM) to work full time in Pahrump.

She begins her duties today as public affairs specialist for the OCRWM Office of External Affairs. In that position, she will work at the new Yucca Mountain Project Office, 2341 E. Postal Drive, Pahrump.

As a former Bechtel SAIC Co. employee, Sinclair was responsible for communications outreach programs, which included the operation of the Pahrump Information Center for the past seven years.

In that capacity, Sinclair developed and implemented all educational outreach programs, conducted workshops and informational programs for students, teachers, and members of the public.

She has lived here for several years.

"Claire will be a valuable asset to our program in this new position," said Allen Benson, director of the Office of External Affairs. "Her knowledge of the program as well as her established presence in the community of Pahrump will be a considerable help in our outreach efforts. She will also travel throughout Nevada in this new position."

Prior to her work for the Yucca Mountain Project, Sinclair served in a number of capacities, including director of casino marketing at Maxim Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and special events manager at Luxor Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. She was also the special events manager at the Tropicana Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City and restaurant manager at Bally's Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City.

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

NEI Nuclear Notes
February 06, 2007

Nuclear Engineers on John Edwards and Yucca Mountain

Elizabeth McAndrew-Benavides and her husband watched John Edwards on Meet The Press on Sunday, and they weren't happy with what he had to say about nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain:

My 30 year old Hispanic husband and I watched Tim Russert this past Sunday and were incredibly disappointed with the uneducated statement John Edwards made concerning Yucca Mountain. We are both nuclear engineers who are proud to work as environmentalist on a daily basis to supply the needed electricity for our country.

I will gladly vote for a candidate who supports a national call for conservation, but I cannot support a candidate who does not understand the fundamental basis nuclear power supplies for our energy security. I became a nuclear engineer because I believe the millennia generation will need to do more than just debate the energy question, but constantly work to solve it. My husband and I help create an emissions free base load energy supply for millions of US citizens. Nuclear Power is not dependent on the Middle East for oil and I personally ensure that our plant is a good environmental steward by operating within environmental guidelines.

Simply stating that nuclear waste should stay near its home location is a policy that continues a broken promise by the federal government. John Edwards should consider a policy that includes updating US technology to reprocess used nuclear fuel and continuing the necessary research and construction of a permanent fuel repository.

2 Comments:

At 3:46 PM, Anonymous said...

I didn't see Meet the Press with John Edwards, but I am not surprised to hear of Mr. Edwards comments. Why? He's a former trial lawyer; probably hasn't taken a science class since high school biology. He made millions suing corporations, hospitals, etc. He has never done any productive "work" in today's society (including his stint in congress). So to hear that he has made inane comments regarding Yucca Mountain, the science supporting the project, etc. does not surprise me the least. Having been a failed VP candidate, perhaps he should devote his life towards something more productive than another failed attempt at public office.

At 11:10 AM, Anonymous said...

Edwards should be more supportive of nuclear energy if for no other reason that he lives in the South where there is quite a bit of nuclear capacity, some of which helps power that 28,200 sq. ft. mansion he just moved into. From the looks of the land around it, he had to clear-cut quite a few trees as well to make room to build it on his 102 acres of land. Well, Edwards likes to talk their being "two Americas". I wonder which one someone who has a 28,200 sq. ft. mansion would belong to? Heck, I've only got 1500 sq. ft. in a tract development and I'm happy to have some of my electricity come from nuclear.

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

Atlanta Journal Constitution
February 07, 2007

State should tap into nuclear recycling

By Nolan E. Hertel

recycled to produce more electricity for homes, businesses and industry.

Often mistakenly called nuclear waste, the spent fuel contains valuable nuclear materials such as plutonium that could be reprocessed into new fuel to provide huge amounts of clean energy, more than enough to ensure our nation's energy security and make a decisive difference in the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

But for this to happen, the federal government will need to establish firm, long-range policies that support recycling and new technologies that would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for plutonium to fall into the hands of rogue countries or terrorists and be used to make a crude nuclear weapon.

Because safe production of electricity from recycled materials has great potential, the U.S. Department of Energy has established a nuclear recycling program known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. DOE has invited the public to comment on the program at a public hearing in North Augusta on Feb. 15.

DOE is considering 13 sites for the recycling program, and two are in this area, the Savannah River Site and the former Allied-General facility in Barnwell, S.C.

The economic stakes are enormous. If selected for the GNEP program which involves the construction and operation of two nuclear facilities and a research center, this area could expect to see a capital investment of $16 billion and the creation of 8,000 jobs. This is no mirage. Sponsors of the competing sites, both commercial and public consortia, have already been selected to receive up to $16 million in DOE grants to conduct siting studies for the recycling facilities.

GNEP entails construction of a recycling facility to chemically extract nuclear materials from spent fuel and use the materials to manufacture so-called mixed oxide fuel for an advanced nuclear reactor. The reactor, in turn, generates electricity, while destroying long-lived radioactive elements.

As a nuclear engineer, I believe recycling holds great promise. With new reprocessing methods, it actually reduces the risk of nuclear proliferation, while allowing many other countries to use emission-free nuclear energy for electricity. It significantly reduces the amount and heat levels of high-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in an underground repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

It would allow the United States to remain at the head of the world's nuclear table, shaping global policies on technology and making the world safer.

There is great pressure on natural gas supplies and continuing price volatility. Even with greater energy efficiency and conservation, demand for electricity is increasing.

With France, Great Britain and Japan already recycling, there is ample evidence the process offers a way to recover vast amounts of additional energy, safely and securely.

If we succeed in drawing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program to this area, we will have an appealing new option for dealing with the growing need for clean energy, while bringing in thousands of well-paid jobs and strengthening our economy.

--Nolan E. Hertel is a professor of nuclear and radiological engineering at Georgia Tech.

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

Senator Harry Reid
February 5, 2007

STATEMENT BY SENATOR HARRY REID ON RELEASE OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S FY 2008 BUDGET

Yucca Request “Waste of taxpayer dollars”

Washington, DC—U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada today released the following statement regarding President Bush's Budget. A fact sheet detailing the effects this budget would have of Nevada is attached.

“The president’s budget is a reflection of his priorities. But with cuts to children’s health care, Medicare, and homeland security funding, his priorities don’t match those of Nevada.

“Rather than sending Congress a budget that strengthens homeland security, energy independence, education, affordable health care and fiscal discipline, the president proposes nearly a half-billion dollars for the nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The proposed dump is a project whose time has passed. As Majority Leader of the Senate, I promise the highest Congressional scrutiny for this waste of taxpayer dollars.

“Under the president’s plan, more than 200,000 Nevada veterans could be hurt by funding shortfalls to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the president’s Social Security privatization proposal, 239,000 Nevadans could see a cut in their retirement benefits. Most concerning – the president’s budget slashes millions in funding for Nevada terrorism prevention and disaster response.

“My Democratic colleagues and I remain interested in working cooperatively with the president and congressional Republicans to address fiscal issues. We want to produce a budget that while making the investments in priorities that meet real needs of the middle class and our nation. Although the president’s budget is disappointing, we have not given up hope that we will be able to work with our GOP colleagues to address the priorities of the American people in a fiscally responsible manner. I am calling on the president to develop better budget priorities.”

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

Nevada Appeal
February 05, 2007

Head of Nevada agency says Yucca Mountain plan almost dead

By Joe Mullin
Associated Press Writer

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- The head of Nevada's nuclear projects agency says the federal Department of Energy's plan for a radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain is almost dead - although the department will still push forward with the project in 2008.

Bob Loux, director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects, planned to report to the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday that recent scientific and political changes have dimmed the Yucca Mountain project's chances of success.

"I think the program is in big trouble, if it's not already deceased," Loux said in an interview Monday. "There seems to be eroding support both on Capitol Hill and in the industry."

In recent weeks, leaders in the nuclear industry have backed away from trying to make legislative progress, said Loux. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he'll prevent any further legislation to support the Yucca Mountain plan.

Also, one member of the five-person Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Edward McGaffigan, retired in January after more than 10 years of service, and Reid will have a say over who succeeds McGaffigan. The NRC will decide on the dump's licensing application.

Loux added that new, still unpublished EPA standards for nuclear waste storage will dictate that stored waste will have to be safe for hundreds of thousands of years - a standard the current DOE proposal falls far short of.

Department of Energy spokesman Allen Benson said he couldn't comment on Loux's description of the project's status because he hadn't seen the details of the presentation to the Senate Finance Committee.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a news conference in Washington on Monday that the agency will prepare an application to ask the NRC for a license for the dump, located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, by June 2008. President Bush has asked Congress for $494.5 million in 2008 to allow energy officials to complete the application.

Loux said that his agency will challenge the anticipated application. The state's Agency for Nuclear Projects, part of the governor's office, was created in 1985 to oppose the Yucca Mountain dump. The agency has asked for $10.3 million in the upcoming two-year budget, about $600,000 more than the previous one.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
February 06, 2007

DOE requests reduced Yucca Mountain budget

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy scaled back its planned Yucca Mountain spending in a 2008 budget it announced Monday, delaying railroad designs and deferring advanced research while focusing on forming a license application for the nuclear waste site.

Department leaders sent Congress a budget requesting $494.5 million for the proposed waste repository in the year that begins Oct. 1.

It was the smallest Yucca Mountain request since fiscal 2002, and $50 million below what the Bush administration budgeted last year for 2007.

That request has not been finalized on Capitol Hill, although lawmakers appeared to be settling on $445 million.

"The goal is to try to create a license application in the next 18 months, that is really what the focus is," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said of Yucca at a budget briefing. "There are various other aspects we are not pursuing."

Bodman said the project is not being scaled back.

"It is a matter of looking in realistic ways as to where our opportunities are," he said. "It is not a matter of retrenching, it is a matter of try to recognize our priorities."

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a repository critic, said, "I promise the highest congressional scrutiny for this waste of taxpayer dollars."

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., another critic, said the budget for the much-delayed repository was "reckless."

"To ask for an additional dime for this doomed project is not only fiscally irresponsible but an insult to the residents of Nevada," Porter said.

The DOE budget contains $2.5 million for the state of Nevada to fund its own Yucca oversight programs, and $1.5 million for Nye County, where the site is located.

Nye County, Clark County and other Nevada counties that border Nye, plus Inyo County in California, would split another $4 million.

Within the $494.5 million request, DOE officials said they plan to allocate $131 million on completing a voluminous license application by a self-declared June 30, 2008, deadline.

Another $195.2 million is budgeted to continue designing an above-ground complex where highly radioactive waste would be managed before being placed in the mountainside.

On the other hand, designs for a railroad line DOE wants to build to the Yucca site were cut back by $22 million, while spending was deferred on development of rail cars and early purchase of waste casks, a cut of $30.8 million.

Research into specialty metals and other advanced technologies that might be integrated into the repository effort also was deferred.

But the budget does contain $2 million for a study ordered by Congress on whether a second repository should be built, and where.

Project director Ward Sproat said Yucca Mountain was pressed by Bush administration demands to keep spending under control and to lower the federal deficit.

Spending for railroad designs became expendable for now, he said, because DOE has not yet decided on competing railroad corridors to the repository site.

A draft environmental impact study is expected this summer comparing an east-west corridor from Caliente to Yucca Mountain with a north-south corridor through Western Nevada.

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

Las Vegas SUN
February 06, 2007

Editorial: Why not just burn it?

The money budgeted for Yucca Mountain - hundreds of millions - is just a waste

If President Bush were serious about cutting wasteful government programs, he would not have included nearly $495 million for Yucca Mountain in his new budget.

There is only one encouraging fact about his budget request for this unsafe plan to bury high-level nuclear waste under the mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas - it is a lower amount than he asked for last year.

For his fiscal year 2007 budget, he asked for $544 million. Congress cut that amount to $446 million, an amount, in our view, that was $446 million too much. For the years 2006, 2005 and 2004, Congress approved a total of $1.6 billion. And before that, counting construction and research costs, more than $4 billion was spent.

Twenty years ago Nevada, through its own research, proved that Yucca Mountain was geologically unsafe. And in succeeding years, the state used statistics to demonstrate that hauling the deadly waste to Yucca Mountain from all over the country for 25 years would almost certainly result in horrendous rail and trucking accidents.

An inability to prove the project's safety has prevented the Energy Department from even applying for a license to open Yucca Mountain. In the 1980s the goal was to have the project licensed and operational by 1998. Last week, in an article in Congressional Quarterly, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell estimated 2020 as the opening date.

This is folly. A few years ago the date was estimated at 2010. Then it became 2012. Then 2017. Now it's 2020. The pattern is obvious: This project cannot be proven safe, and no amount of millions in any president's budget is going to change that.

We have supported legislation such as the Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Act, introduced in 2005 by the combined congressional delegations of Nevada and Utah, which would require commercial nuclear utilities to transfer their waste from water-filled pools to on-site dry storage casks.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved designs for the casks and says they are capable of storing the waste safely for 100 years. This would provide time to research nuclear waste disposal and find a much safer solution than Yucca Mountain.

The money being wasted every year on Yucca Mountain could finance some of that research.

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

Environmental Leader
February 06, 2007

Bush’s Budget Earmarks $24 Billion for Department of Energy

President Bush’s $24.3-billion budget for the Department of Energy remains a tiny part of the overall $2.9-trillion budget plan for 2008. the Detroit Free Press reports.

The proposed budget for the Department of Energy includes $42 million for developing batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles, a modest increase from last year’s $31-million request.

The administration’s request for vehicle efficiency research was $176 million, down $8 million from last year’s request. That research, part of the department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, includes areas such as lightweight materials, better internal combustion engines and heavy vehicle efficiency.

Research for biofuels is slated to nearly double, to $179 million. The president also pledged $309 million for hydrogen-powered fuel cell research, the last payment of a five-year, $1.2-billion effort.

The budget includes no funding for geothermal technology or for hydropower research and development, the Reno Gazette-Journal reports.

Bush’s proposal also trims funding for wind energy to $40 million, nearly a 10 percent drop from last year’s request. The 2008 request keeps funding levels stagnant for solar energy development: $148.3 million.

The coal industry would get a $100 million boost to $385 million next year to develop technology to capture hydrogen from coal-fired power plants and store carbon dioxide emissions.

The Office of Nuclear Energy would receive $875 million which includes $395 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and other activities to support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Department of Energy reports. In addition, $10 million is provided to GNEP from the National Nuclear Security Administration to promote GNEP’s non-proliferation goals, for a total of $405 million for GNEP; and also supports Generation IV, Nuclear Power 2010, and the standby support, or risk insurance, called for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to protect against unexpected delays of nuclear power plant construction and spur investments in emissions-free nuclear energy.

The budget would give a lift to investors such as Goldman Sachs, which has poured about $1 billion in the past year into ventures such as Horizon Wind Energy, Iogen Corp., and Sun Edison LLC, Bloomberg reports.

Archer Daniels Midland, the world’s biggest producer of ethanol from corn, VeraSun Energy, the second-biggest ethanol producer, and Pacific Ethanol, also would benefit.

The plan to turn more corn into fuel hurts Tyson Foods Inc., the world’s largest meatpacker, and Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., the world’s largest poultry processor, according to Bloomberg.

The Department of Energy’s offficial press release breaking down its budget requests:

U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bush’s $24.3 billion budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.  This request supports continued scientific discovery and the development of alternative energy sources that are vital to America’s energy and economic security.  Funding priorities include investments to address growing demand for affordable, clean and reliable energy; further scientific discovery; continue the legacy waste environmental cleanup; and strengthen and maintain the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile while promoting global non-proliferation.

“Under President Bush’s leadership, this budget builds on our commitment to strengthen our nation’s energy security by diversifying our energy resources and reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy.  In addition, this budget will help us expand our nation’s scientific know-how, protect generations from the dangers of our Cold War legacy, and safely and reliably maintain our nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile,” Secretary Bodman said.  “Thanks to the investments in this year’s budget, we will be able to meet the Department’s mission for today, as well as have a profound and lasting positive impact on our nation’s future.”

Among the President’s goals funded in the FY 2008 budget request include $179 million for the President’s Biofuels Initiative, an increase of $29 million (19 percent) compared to the 2007 budget request, to help achieve the President’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive by 2012.  This will help reach President Bush’s goal to reduce U.S. consumption of gasoline by 20 percent in ten years.  In addition, to increase our energy security, the FY 2008 budget includes $168 million to begin the doubling of our nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels by 2027.

The budget also continues to significantly invest in the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) and the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), both of which were unveiled in President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address.

Accelerating the Advanced Energy Initiative

The FY 2008 budget request includes $2.7 billion, a 26 percent increase above the FY 2007 request of $2.1 billion, and 53 percent above FY 2006, to advance President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative.  This initiative seeks to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of energy and transform the national energy economy by promoting the development of cleaner sources of electricity production.  The FY 2008 request supports AEI goals to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy technologies, such as biomass, hydrogen, and solar energy; clean coal technologies through FutureGen; and nuclear energy technologies, through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.  These funds support a diverse portfolio of energy research, development, and commercialization programs designed to meet the energy challenges of the 21st century.

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.24 billion) budget includes significant funding increases for hydrogen technology, vehicle technology, biomass, and building technology programs.  The Office of Fossil Energy ($863 million) supports research and development of low cost carbon sequestration technology for new and existing coal plants, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, and the FutureGen project, which will establish the capability and feasibility of co-producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with near-zero emissions for start-up in 2012.

The Office of Nuclear Energy ($875 million) includes $395 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and other activities to support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). (In addition, $10 million is provided to GNEP from the National Nuclear Security Administration to promote GNEP’s non-proliferation goals, for a total of $405 million for GNEP.); and also supports Generation IV, Nuclear Power 2010, and the standby support, or risk insurance, called for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), to protect against unexpected delays of nuclear power plant construction and spur investments in emissions-free nuclear energy.

In addition, the Department’s FY 2008 requests $8.4 million to operate an Office of Loan Guarantees and the ability to expand DOE’s loan volume limitation to $9 billion.  This funding will help spur the commercial development of new and novel clean energy technologies.

Advancing the American Competitiveness Initiative

The Department’s role in the American Competitiveness Initiative is funded through the DOE’s Office of Science and provides research investments to spur innovation and strengthen America’s competitive edge.  The FY 2008 budget requests $4.4 billion, an increase of         $300 million over FY 2007 requested levels and more than $800 million over FY 2006, to further basic research in the physical sciences and to carry out the large scale scientific demonstrations essential for leading global breakthroughs.  This ambitious strategy represents President Bush’s commitment to double federal spending on science this decade and ensure that America will continue to lead the world in opportunity and innovation for generations to come.

Office of Science ($4.4 billion)

DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation and its $4.4 billion request will help ensure U.S. leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines.  DOE’s Office of Science budget also incorporates $428 million in funding for basic research in nuclear fusion, including the international fusion energy experimental reactor agreement, known as ITER; $340 million for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research to sustain DOE’s position as world leader in civilian computing power; $158 million for operations of the Tevatron at Fermilab for collider and neutrino physics programs; and $146.5 million for operations of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider to provide an idea of conditions of the very early universe.  DOE’s FY 2008 request includes $75 million for three innovative Bioenergy Research Centers to accelerate basic research in the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels and make biofuel production cost-effective on a national scale to meet the President’s goals.

National Nuclear Security Administration ($9.4 billion)

The FY 2008 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) budget requests $9.4 billion,  39 percent of the Department’s budget, to promote national security through a combination that includes maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile, advancing science, and promoting nuclear nonproliferation and threat reduction.  The NNSA budget requests $6.5 billion for weapons activities to keep the nuclear weapons stockpile safe, secure and reliable through continued surveillance, assessment, and life extension programs.  This includes the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program as a long-term strategy to maintain a safe, secure and credible nuclear deterrent.

The FY 2008 budget request maintains current commitments to the nuclear deterrence policies of the Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review through NNSA’s “Complex 2030”, the long-term strategy for effective transformation and modernization of the Cold War era weapons complex into one that is more efficient, smaller, and secure.  To further nuclear nonproliferation activities, the FY 2008 request of $1.7 billion supports the international nuclear materials protection and cooperation programs that are denying terrorists the nuclear materials, technology and expertise needed to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.  The budget includes a request of   $334 million for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant project at DOE’s Savannah River Site that will dispose of 34 metric tons of U.S. surplus plutonium and facilitate complex-wide consolidation of nuclear material.  The FY 2008 budget request also includes $162 million for NNSA to maintain its robust nuclear and radiation emergency response teams and capabilities.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.24 billion)

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget requests $1.24 billion, $60 million (5 percent) more than the FY 2007 request.  Much of this funding is an integral part of the Advanced Energy Initiative and will help us achieve the President’s goal to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.  It also expands key programs that focus on developing new energy choices, including: vehicle efficiency technology ($176 million); biomass ($179 million), including research into cellulosic ethanol, made from switch grass, wood chips, and corn stalks; the Solar America Initiative ($148 million); hydrogen technology including fuel cell development ($213 million); and wind projects ($40 million).

Office of Nuclear Energy ($875 million)

The Office of Nuclear Energy FY 2008 budget requests $875 million, a $242 million (38 percent) increase over the FY 2007 request.  In addition to the $395 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative in support of GNEP, the budget request includes Nuclear Power 2010  ($114 million), which will reduce barriers for light water reactor designs and deployment; and Generation IV ($36 million), which will focus funding on long-term research and development to support the Next Generation Nuclear Plant technology.  The FY 2008 budget request supports implementation of the standby support, or risk insurance, program called for in EPAct, to protect against unexpected delays of nuclear power plant construction and spur investments in emissions-free nuclear energy.

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ($495 million)

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management requests $495 million to further plan for operation of the safe, permanent, geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, $50 million below the FY 2007 request.  The FY 2008 budget request sets DOE on a path to file a license application no later than June 30, 2008, continue the facility planning and safety design, make critical infrastructure upgrades at Yucca Mountain to ensure worker safety and operational efficiency, and build on national transportation planning activities.

Office of Fossil Energy ($863 million)

The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) FY 2008 budget requests $863 million, an increase of $214 million, or 33 percent above the FY 2007 request.  The FY 2008 budget supports President Bush’s priorities to develop advanced clean coal technologies ($427 million) which includes FutureGen ($108 million), the public-private international partnership to build the world’s first coal-fired power plant that produces electricity and hydrogen with nearly zero-emissions; the Clean Coal Power Initiative ($73 million) to initiate, by or before 2010, demonstration of advanced coal-based power generation technologies; and coal research and development activities ($246 million).  As part of the Administration’s effort to deploy clean energy technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the budget request includes $79 million in      FY 2008 for sequestration work including four large scale field tests, which have the potential to store more than 600 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of more than 200 years of emissions from energy sources in the United States.

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ($115 million)

The FY 2008 Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) budget requests $115 million, a decrease of $10 million (8 percent) from the FY 2007 request.  This request supports a variety of programs designed to modernize the electricity transmission and distribution system; and increase energy reliability, energy and system efficiency, and security.  Within the request, the Department will focus $86 million on research and development (R&D) activities to strengthen grid stability, reduce frequency and duration of operational disruptions, and increase efficiencies.   The budget request also supports implementation of EPAct requirements in transmission and energy corridor designation and coordination of Federal agency transmission line permitting.  Additionally, this budget request supports OE energy emergency response capabilities to ensure energy assurance through federal, state, and local coordination.

Office of Health, Safety and Security ($428 million)

The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) was created by Secretary Bodman last year to strengthen DOE’s health, safety, and security organization, which previously operated in separate offices within DOE.  The new office requests $428 million for FY 2008, an increase of $20 million, or approximately 5 percent above the FY 2007 request for the combined activities of the former offices, to support its mission of ensuring the safety and health of the DOE workforce and members of the public and the protection of the environment in all DOE activities.  HSS is responsible for policy development and technical assistance; safety analysis; corporate safety and security programs; education and training; complex-wide independent oversight; and enforcement.

Office of Environmental Management ($5.7 billion)

The FY 2008 Environmental Management budget requests $5.7 billion, $173 million below the FY 2007 request, primarily due to the completed clean-up of seven sites over the past two years, including the 1,050 acre Fernald site in January 2007.  This budget request supports the Department’s efforts to complete clean-up of three additional sites in FY 2008 and continue clean-up progress across the complex with a focus on activities with the greatest risk reduction.  The FY 2008 budget requests $690 million to continue safe construction of the Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford, which will stabilize high-level waste currently stored in tanks into a glass form for disposal.

Office of Legacy Management ($194 million)

The Office of Legacy Management FY 2008 budget requests $194 million, $7 million below the FY 2007 request, to support the long-term stewardship responsibilities where active remediation has been completed and payment of pensions and benefits for former contractor workers after site closure is needed.  This budget request reflects the transfer of clean-up sites completed by the Office of Environmental Management.

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

Environment News Service
February 06, 2007

Bush Budget Slashes Environment, Funds Nuclear Development

WASHINGTON, DC, February 5, 2007 (ENS) - President George W. Bush today sent Congress a $2.9 trillion budget package for the fiscal year starting in October that includes big increases for defense spending, cuts in conservation programs and assumptions that tax revenues will increase and that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be leased for oil and gas development.

Yet the administration said reducing U.S. dependence on petroleum imports and expanding incentives for clean energy technologies are central to the President's energy budget proposal.

As part of $24.3 billion funding request for the Energy Department, the president is asking Congress to provide $2.7 billion to accelerate research into power generation technologies based on coal, nuclear energy and renewable sources, as well as the development of efficient vehicles and biofuels.

"This budget builds on our commitment to strengthen our nation’s energy security by diversifying our energy resources and reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

But while the newly elected Congress now controlled by Democrats generally supports reducing dependence on foreign oil and increases in renewable energy sources, some parts of the president's budget are in for a rough ride.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada today took aim at the budget's half-billion dollar proposal to develop the nation's only high-level nuclear waste repository already approved by the President for Yucca Mountain, Nevada 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"Rather than sending Congress a budget that strengthens homeland security, energy independence, education, affordable health care and fiscal discipline, the president proposes nearly a half-billion dollars for the nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain," said Reid. "The proposed dump is a project whose time has passed. As majority leader of the Senate, I promise the highest Congressional scrutiny for this waste of taxpayer dollars."

The president is requesting $114 million to support the planned expansion of the U.S. nuclear power industry and $405 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP. Under this program, the United States would build a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility and sell fuel for nuclear reactors to nations that do not have the technology to manufacture their own nuclear fuel.

In 2006, the administration asked for $250 million for the GNEP but lawmakers expressed doubts about the feasibility, the timeline and other aspects of the program.

Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, said he is puzzled that the increase sought for spent fuel reprocessing as part of the GNEP funding is larger than the entire proposed research and development budget for solar energy.

Bingaman welcomed the increases proposed by the administration for biomass and biofuels research and development programs but criticized the elimination of all research related to oil and natural gas and a lack of funding for geothermal research.

The budget would fund expansion of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve over 20 years to more than double its current capacity of 727 million barrels.

The president’s proposal calls for $385 million to fund coal-based clean power generation projects such as the near-zero emission coal power project FutureGen and large-scale carbon sequestration field tests.

Advanced coal technologies will help the United States tap its huge coal reserves at reasonable cost without adding to greenhouse gas emissions, the administration said.

Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee today expressed disappointment in the president's budget for failing to set the right priorities for the American people and obscuring the true costs of the war in Iraq.

"The American people voted for change last November, but instead of listening to them, the president is giving us more of the same - a blank check for this endless war and penny-pinching for critical domestic priorities like education, health care, energy independence, support for local law enforcement, and combating the threat of global warming," said Boxer.

The Energy Department is seeking loan guarantee authority to provide $9 billion in financial backing for projects related to commercialization of more efficient biofuel production, advanced nuclear energy, and more efficient electricity transmission.

In addition, $4.4 billion would go toward basic research in the physical sciences and bioenergy and nanotechnology research programs that carry a longer-term promise of improvements in energy use.

But at the same time, the president's 2008 budget proposes a 40 percent cut, a $98 million reduction, to the Weatherization Assistance Program, which conserves energy by helping low-wage workers and retirees on fixed incomes to insulate their homes.

National Community Action Foundation Executive Director David Bradley said the administration's plan unwisely elects energy experimentation over conservation.

"The administration is proposing that all new energy resources go into research and development of new technologies for the future. We certainly need new breakthroughs, yet it is not wise to invest only in risky, long-range experiments and neglect more immediate and proven home energy-saving upgrades," Bradley said. Reducing energy use is the cheapest way for society to ease the demand for fuels."

New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed disappointment that the budget cuts $44 million from clean water funding. She said the cuts slash funding by 36 percent to the revolving loan fund that cities and towns across New York rely on for funding to make improvements to sever and wastewater treatment facilities.

There is a $9 million cut in research funding to the National Cancer Institute, and a $4 million cut to the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences.

The most important environmental priority for the 110th Congress is the enactment of strong global climate change legislation - specifically, legislation that caps emissions of carbon dioxide and the other heat-trapping gases that are released through combustion of fossil fuels said a coalition of 21 national and regional environmental groups, introducing their Green Budget last week.

"Investing in the modernization of our country’s transportation infrastructure is critical to combating global climate change, whether by developing efficient and effective public transportation or passenger rail (one of the most fuel efficient forms of transportation using less energy per passenger-mile than most airplane and automobile travel), or by increasing the efficiency of car engines," the environmental groups said.

But the president's budget proposal makes deep cuts to Amtrak funding to $900 million in 2008 from $1.3 billion estimated for 2007. This 83 percent cut jeopardizes Amtrak’s ability to serve many of its passenger lines and removes an alternative to automotive transportation fueled by gasoline and diesel.

Natural Resources Funding Cuts

In total, the president's budget cuts appropriated funding for natural resources and the environment by nearly $1.5 billion, a 4.8 percent cut.

Briefing the media today, Rob Portman, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget attempted to introduce as "new" a plan to get the private sector to invest in the National Park System that was in fact introduced last August.

"We are proposing today an exciting new plan, called the National Parks Centennial Initiative," said Portman. "This new program will provide up to $3 billion over the next 10 years in new federal and private spending to help achieve new levels of excellence in our national parks."

But on August 25, 2006, the 90th anniversary of the National Park Service, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne launched the "National Parks Centennial Challenge," a 10 year initiative to improve the Park System in time for its 100th anniversary in 2016 by selling private companies the right to name trails or other park facilities.

Conservationists raised an outcry today over cuts to programs that protect land, water and wildlife.

The budget figures for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, alone show a cut of nearly $85 million below FY 2006 levels, about a 60 percent cut. The fund was established in 1964 to provide money to federal and state governments to purchase land, water and wetlands for the benefit of all Americans. Funded with receipts from oil and gas drilling off the outer continental shelf, the LWCF is authorized to receive $900 million a year.

Already faced with a $2.5 billion budget backlog, the National Wildlife Refuge System received a small increase in the administration's request, but that still leaves the system more than $55 million behind the inflation adjusted 2004 funding level.

"Daily we are seeing reports of the impacts of severe budget shortfalls in the refuge system," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, who served as director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the Clinton administration.

"Overall, the system is losing a fifth of its staff. Across the country refuges are eliminating active outreach, visitor programs, habitat maintenance, wildlife restoration and education programs. Without more funding the refuge system will not be able to fulfill its vital mission to conserve our nation's fish, wildlife and their habitats for generations to come," said Rappaport Clark.

President Bush's budget also reduces the endangered species recovery program by 7.5 percent for a $5.5 million cut below FY 2006.

In addition, funding for programs that help private landowners conserve at-risk wildlife were zeroed out. This cut to the Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants programs totals $29 million.

"Programs that protect our nation's lands and wildlife are in structural collapse," said Clark. "We urge the new Congress to begin to reinvest in all critical lands and wildlife conservation programs, including those in the farm bill, so that we can leave a true conservation legacy for our children and grandchildren."

Despite the president’s new goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10 years, the president’s budget reverts to old, dirty energy and assumes that the Arctic Refuge’s Coastal Plain will be leased to oil companies for $7 billion, warned the "Green Budget" environmental groups.

The budget proposes a $5.8 million boost in funding for the Bureau of Land Management oil and gas program – from $115,308 million appropriated in FY 2007 to $121,191 million requested for FY 2008 – but does not mention the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System.

In addition, BLM’s wildlife program shows a slight decline, making it unclear how the administration proposes to fund its new $15 million Healthy Lands Initiative.

"The Healthy Lands initiative is a tacit acknowledgement of the havoc wreaked by the administration’s oil and gas policies, but what we really need is a halt to new oil and gas leasing on sensitive lands, and adherence to protective wildlife stipulations on the leases that have already been issued," said The Wilderness Society's Senior Policy Advisor Dave Alberswerth.

On a positive note, the environmental groups approved a budget increase for the National Park System of $258 million, 14.3 percent, over requested fiscal year 2006 levels.

"The increased National Park Service funding is a step in the right direction," said The Wilderness Society’s Kristen Brengel. "The funding would add nearly 500 permanent employees and several thousand seasonal employees. More rangers mean that parks visitors will experience these places in the way they were meant to, through ranger-led tours and active natural and cultural resource protection."

For the second consecutive year, the President’s Forest Service budget includes a proposal to sell off up to $800 million of National Forest lands. Although the full details of the land sale proposal are not yet available, there is every indication that it is nearly identical to the proposal made last February that would have sold up to 300,000 acres of National Forest lands across 35 states.

The budget also once again proposes to sell up to 950 million acres of BLM lands to raise $334 million over 10 years.

Similar Forest Service and BLM proposals announced last year met with strong and widespread opposition from hunters, anglers, locally-elected officials, businesses, governors, and both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress.

The U.S. Forest Service's timber sale program helps fund schools in rural counties. Bob Douglas, president, of the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, a group of 1,100 organizations, representing 37 states. Douglas also serves as county superintendent of schools, Tehama County, California. He said the president's budget proposal is inadequate to keep rural schools operating.

Douglas says, "Although we appreciate that the administration has included a funding mechanism in the budget proposal that would partially fund the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Act for four years, our real and immediate priority is to obtain passage of a one-year extension of the Act so we can rationally discuss a long-term, bipartisan solution with the administration and Congress."

"Frankly," Douglas said, "if we cannot get that commitment now, local governments will start sending out pink slips to between 12,000 and 16,000 teachers and county employees as early as March 15th. In our most rural counties, these layoffs will have a devastating effect on the quality of our schools and the level of county services. Some local school districts will be forced to declare bankruptcy."

"We are truly facing an emergency of catastrophic proportions in our 800 forest counties and 4,400 forest county school districts. Without urgent action, over nine million forest county children will feel the effects of federal inaction."

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

Las Vegas SUN
February 05, 2007

Bush budget would give small boost to Yucca funding

By Erica Werner
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is asking Congress to spend $494.5 million on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in 2008.

The amount is lower than Bush's budget requests for the dump in past years, but a slight increase over funding levels that lawmakers have approved in the past two years.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said spending on the Yucca project has been unacceptably high and has promised to trim Bush's request as he's done in years past.

The funding request was part of a $2.9 trillion 2008 spending plan Bush sent to lawmakers on Monday - the first time he's submitted a budget request to a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Congress approved about $405 million for Yucca Mountain for the 2007 fiscal year after Bush asked for $544 million.

The project was funded at $450 million in 2006 and $577 million in 2004 and 2005.

Yucca Mountain is planned as the nation's first national nuclear waste dump and would entomb 77,000 or more tons of highly radioactive waste in the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The project has been plagued by delays and controversy.

Budget documents say 2008 work on Yucca Mountain will focus on submitting a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30, 2008, with the hope of opening the repository in 2017.

The documents also say that the Bush administration plans to again present legislation to make regulatory and other changes to facilitate development of the dump.

The administration's Yucca legislation stalled in the last Congress, and Reid has said he'll block any pro-Yucca legislation in the Senate.

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

Gallup Independent
February 05, 2007

"Hot" waste shipments apparently in Navajo future.

By Kathy Helms
Dine Bureau

WINDOW ROCK -- When the Public Safety Committee heads to Washington next week, one of the federal agencies it will lobby for funds will be the Department of Energy.

PSC Chairperson Hope MacDonald-LoneTree told the committee this week that there are shipments of high-level nuclear waste proposed for transport on Interstate 40.

"That's what is being proposed and that is what they're working on right now," she said.

Last year, PSC was given a tour of Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a site slated to be the permanent burial ground for the nation's high-level nuclear waste.

"That's why we have meetings with Department of Energy: to find out what their plans are, what they're doing, how it's going to affect Navajo, what our recommendations are, how we oppose it," MacDonald-LoneTree said.

The Navajo Nation has approved a ban on future uranium mining and processing in Navajo Indian Country.

In a Dec. 21 preliminary draft of Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act sent to the Navajo Nation, the federal Office of Management and Budget stated that DOE will provide grants and technical assistance to states and tribes affected by the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

DOE intends to make two grants available to states and tribes affected by the shipments: an assessment and planning grant set at $200,000, and an annual training grant with a base amount of $100,000. Funding beyond the base grants will be according to a needs assessment conducted by the tribe.

FIVE-YEAR NOTICE

OMB said the Department of Energy will notify each eligible state and tribal government through a letter to the governor or tribal leader approximately five years before shipments are scheduled through that jurisdiction. The letter will announce anticipated routes.

Jimson Joe of Navajo Deparment of Emergency Management said DOE already has given the tribe the requisite five-year notice that "hot" nuclear waste shipments will be moving on I-40.

"They don't have specific days. They just kind of gave us general information," he said.

The Navajo Nation Department of Emergency Management has been working on a proposed plan of how it will deal with public notification and what type of precautionary measures it will use in regard to the shipments.

Navajo Nation Council Delegate Lorenzo Curley introduced legislation last October which would have approved a cooperative agreement between the Navajo Nation and DOE's Carlsbad Field Office.

At that time, Curley said the shipments planned for I-40 are so "hot" they have to be handled by machines, rather than people.

The agreement included in the legislation would provide funding for a Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Emergency Services Liaison who would provide community education in 10 Navajo chapters located in Apache and McKinley counties through which the shipments will pass.

Those include Nahata dziil, Houck, and Lupton in Apache County, and Manuelito, Tsayatoh, Red Rock, Church Rock, Iyanbito, Thoreau and Baca in McKinley County.

Through the WIPP liasion's educational efforts, "the members of the ten communities will better understand the effects of hazardous materials and be prepared to respond to incidents that may occur related to the transportation of transuranic waste materials over I-40," according to the statement of work.

Curley's legislation, which has been languishing since it was tabled by the Intergovernmental Relations Committee last year, includes a DOE financial assistance agreement totaling $50,000. However, DOE obligated only $31,250 for the budget period March 1, 2006-Feb. 28, 2007.

The project would continue through Feb. 28, 2011, during which time the Navajo Nation could receive up to $250,000. However, DOE said there is no guarantee that amount will be awarded.

WASTE CORRIDORS

On Jan. 16, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency removed one of the final roadblocks to transport of remote-handled transuranic waste by approving preparations at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the source of waste from nuclear weapons work.

Don Hancock of the Southwest Research Information Center in Albuquerque said both Hanford, Wash., and INL have remote-handled (RH) wastes. INL is supposed to be the first DOE site to ship the RH waste, he said.

"However, the transportation route for those wastes is through Utah, Wyoming on I-80, Colorado, and then into New Mexico on I-25 and down US-285.

Hancock said DOE currently does not ship remote-handled waste on I-40. "In fact, those sites are prohibited from shipping on I-40," he said. "There are no remote-handled shipments planned from the west which would come on I-40."

"Idaho says it has 183 RH shipments in the waste stream that it's starting to ship. WIPP hopes to handle about two RH shipments a week, so that's more than a year's worth," he said.

UNFORSEEN EVENTS

OMB said there may be instances when unforseen events force the closure of a primary or alternate route, requiring shipments to be re-routed to a less prepared or unprepared route.

In instances where re-routing of the shipments is required, DOE will work with the tribe to reach a mutually acceptable solution and will make funds available, if necessary.

DOE also will work with states and tribes on an individual basis to determine whether fees levied on radioactive materials shipments will impact the amount of funds received.

Currently, 28 states levy fees on radioactive materials shipments, ranging from $25 to $4,000 on the initial rail cask. No tribes now assess fees on radioactive materials shipments through their reservations.

OMB said that if a tribe does impose a fee, DOE would have to decide whether it was paying twice for some activities if it pays fees and funds to the tribe through Section 180(c), and if so, what it can do to meet its obligations under that section, while complying with applicable tribal laws, and avoiding paying twice for the same service.

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

NewsBlaze
February 05, 2007

Department of Energy Requests $24.3 Billion for FY 2008 Budget

Request Forwards President Bush's Initiatives to Advance Clean Energy Alternatives, Maintain America's Edge in Scientific Innovation and Discovery, Continue Strong Economic Growth, and Ensure the Reliability of our Nuclear Weapons Stockpile

U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bush's $24.3 billion budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. This request supports continued scientific discovery and the development of alternative energy sources that are vital to America's energy and economic security. Funding priorities include investments to address growing demand for affordable, clean and reliable energy; further scientific discovery; continue the legacy waste environmental cleanup; and strengthen and maintain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile while promoting global non-proliferation.

"Under President Bush's leadership, this budget builds on our commitment to strengthen our nation's energy security by diversifying our energy resources and reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy. In addition, this budget will help us expand our nation's scientific know-how, protect generations from the dangers of our Cold War legacy, and safely and reliably maintain our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile," Secretary Bodman said. "Thanks to the investments in this year's budget, we will be able to meet the Department's mission for today, as well as have a profound and lasting positive impact on our nation's future."

Among the President's goals funded in the FY 2008 budget request include $179 million for the President's Biofuels Initiative, an increase of $29 million (19 percent) compared to the 2007 budget request, to help achieve the President's goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive by 2012. This will help reach President Bush's goal to reduce U.S. consumption of gasoline by 20 percent in ten years. In addition, to increase our energy security, the FY 2008 budget includes $168 million to begin the doubling of our nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels by 2027.

The budget also continues to significantly invest in the President's Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) and the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), both of which were unveiled in President Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address.

Accelerating the Advanced Energy Initiative

The FY 2008 budget request includes $2.7 billion, a 26 percent increase above the FY 2007 request of $2.1 billion, and 53 percent above FY 2006, to advance President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative. This initiative seeks to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of energy and transform the national energy economy by promoting the development of cleaner sources of electricity production. The FY 2008 request supports AEI goals to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy technologies, such as biomass, hydrogen, and solar energy; clean coal technologies through FutureGen; and nuclear energy technologies, through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. These funds support a diverse portfolio of energy research, development, and commercialization programs designed to meet the energy challenges of the 21st century.

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.24 billion) budget includes significant funding increases for hydrogen technology, vehicle technology, biomass, and building technology programs. The Office of Fossil Energy ($863 million) supports research and development of low cost carbon sequestration technology for new and existing coal plants, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, and the FutureGen project, which will establish the capability and feasibility of co-producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with near-zero emissions for start-up in 2012.

The Office of Nuclear Energy ($875 million) includes $395 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and other activities to support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). (In addition, $10 million is provided to GNEP from the National Nuclear Security Administration to promote GNEP's non-proliferation goals, for a total of $405 million for GNEP.); and also supports Generation IV, Nuclear Power 2010, and the standby support, or risk insurance, called for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), to protect against unexpected delays of nuclear power plant construction and spur investments in emissions-free nuclear energy.

In addition, the Department's FY 2008 requests $8.4 million to operate an Office of Loan Guarantees and the ability to expand DOE's loan volume limitation to $9 billion. This funding will help spur the commercial development of new and novel clean energy technologies.

Advancing the American Competitiveness Initiative

The Department's role in the American Competitiveness Initiative is funded through the DOE's Office of Science and provides research investments to spur innovation and strengthen America's competitive edge. The FY 2008 budget requests $4.4 billion, an increase of $300 million over FY 2007 requested levels and more than $800 million over FY 2006, to further basic research in the physical sciences and to carry out the large scale scientific demonstrations essential for leading global breakthroughs. This ambitious strategy represents President Bush's commitment to double federal spending on science this decade and ensure that America will continue to lead the world in opportunity and innovation for generations to come.

Office of Science ($4.4 billion)

DOE's Office of Science is the single largest federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation and its $4.4 billion request will help ensure U.S. leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. DOE's Office of Science budget also incorporates $428 million in funding for basic research in nuclear fusion, including the international fusion energy experimental reactor agreement, known as ITER; $340 million for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research to sustain DOE's position as world leader in civilian computing power; $158 million for operations of the Tevatron at Fermilab for collider and neutrino physics programs; and $146.5 million for operations of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider to provide an idea of conditions of the very early universe. DOE's FY 2008 request includes $75 million for three innovative Bioenergy Research Centers to accelerate basic research in the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels and make biofuel production cost-effective on a national scale to meet the President's goals.

National Nuclear Security Administration ($9.4 billion)

The FY 2008 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) budget requests $9.4 billion, 39 percent of the Department's budget, to promote national security through a combination that includes maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile, advancing science, and promoting nuclear nonproliferation and threat reduction. The NNSA budget requests $6.5 billion for weapons activities to keep the nuclear weapons stockpile safe, secure and reliable through continued surveillance, assessment, and life extension programs. This includes the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program as a long-term strategy to maintain a safe, secure and credible nuclear deterrent.

The FY 2008 budget request maintains current commitments to the nuclear deterrence policies of the Administration's Nuclear Posture Review through NNSA's "Complex 2030", the long-term strategy for effective transformation and modernization of the Cold War era weapons complex into one that is more efficient, smaller, and secure. To further nuclear nonproliferation activities, the FY 2008 request of $1.7 billion supports the international nuclear materials protection and cooperation programs that are denying terrorists the nuclear materials, technology and expertise needed to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. The budget includes a request of $334 million for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant project at DOE's Savannah River Site that will dispose of 34 metric tons of U.S. surplus plutonium and facilitate complex-wide consolidation of nuclear material. The FY 2008 budget request also includes $162 million for NNSA to maintain its robust nuclear and radiation emergency response teams and capabilities.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.24 billion)

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget requests $1.24 billion, $60 million (5 percent) more than the FY 2007 request. Much of this funding is an integral part of the Advanced Energy Initiative and will help us achieve the President's goal to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years. It also expands key programs that focus on developing new energy choices, including: vehicle efficiency technology ($176 million); biomass ($179 million), including research into cellulosic ethanol, made from switch grass, wood chips, and corn stalks; the Solar America Initiative ($148 million); hydrogen technology including fuel cell development ($213 million); and wind projects ($40 million).

Office of Nuclear Energy ($875 million)

The Office of Nuclear Energy FY 2008 budget requests $875 million, a $242 million (38 percent) increase over the FY 2007 request. In addition to the $395 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative in support of GNEP, the budget request includes Nuclear Power 2010 ($114 million), which will reduce barriers for light water reactor designs and deployment; and Generation IV ($36 million), which will focus funding on long-term research and development to support the Next Generation Nuclear Plant technology. The FY 2008 budget request supports implementation of the standby support, or risk insurance, program called for in EPAct, to protect against unexpected delays of nuclear power plant construction and spur investments in emissions-free nuclear energy.

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ($495 million)

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management requests $495 million to further plan for operation of the safe, permanent, geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, $50 million below the FY 2007 request. The FY 2008 budget request sets DOE on a path to file a license application no later than June 30, 2008, continue the facility planning and safety design, make critical infrastructure upgrades at Yucca Mountain to ensure worker safety and operational efficiency, and build on national transportation planning activities.

Office of Fossil Energy ($863 million)

The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) FY 2008 budget requests $863 million, an increase of $214 million, or 33 percent above the FY 2007 request. The FY 2008 budget supports President Bush's priorities to develop advanced clean coal technologies ($427 million) which includes FutureGen ($108 million), the public-private international partnership to build the world's first coal-fired power plant that produces electricity and hydrogen with nearly zero-emissions; the Clean Coal Power Initiative ($73 million) to initiate, by or before 2010, demonstration of advanced coal-based power generation technologies; and coal research and development activities ($246 million). As part of the Administration's effort to deploy clean energy technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the budget request includes $79 million in FY 2008 for sequestration work including four large scale field tests, which have the potential to store more than 600 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of more than 200 years of emissions from energy sources in the United States.

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ($115 million)

The FY 2008 Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) budget requests $115 million, a decrease of $10 million (8 percent) from the FY 2007 request. This request supports a variety of programs designed to modernize the electricity transmission and distribution system; and increase energy reliability, energy and system efficiency, and security. Within the request, the Department will focus $86 million on research and development (R&D) activities to strengthen grid stability, reduce frequency and duration of operational disruptions, and increase efficiencies. The budget request also supports implementation of EPAct requirements in transmission and energy corridor designation and coordination of Federal agency transmission line permitting. Additionally, this budget request supports OE energy emergency response capabilities to ensure energy assurance through federal, state, and local coordination.

Office of Health, Safety and Security ($428 million)

The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) was created by Secretary Bodman last year to strengthen DOE's health, safety, and security organization, which previously operated in separate offices within DOE. The new office requests $428 million for FY 2008, an increase of $20 million, or approximately 5 percent above the FY 2007 request for the combined activities of the former offices, to support its mission of ensuring the safety and health of the DOE workforce and members of the public and the protection of the environment in all DOE activities. HSS is responsible for policy development and technical assistance; safety analysis; corporate safety and security programs; education and training; complex-wide independent oversight; and enforcement.

Office of Environmental Management ($5.7 billion)

The FY 2008 Environmental Management budget requests $5.7 billion, $173 million below the FY 2007 request, primarily due to the completed clean-up of seven sites over the past two years, including the 1,050 acre Fernald site in January 2007. This budget request supports the Department's efforts to complete clean-up of three additional sites in FY 2008 and continue clean-up progress across the complex with a focus on activities with the greatest risk reduction. The FY 2008 budget requests $690 million to continue safe construction of the Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford, which will stabilize high-level waste currently stored in tanks into a glass form for disposal.

Office of Legacy Management ($194 million)

The Office of Legacy Management FY 2008 budget requests $194 million, $7 million below the FY 2007 request, to support the long-term stewardship responsibilities where active remediation has been completed and payment of pensions and benefits for former contractor workers after site closure is needed. This budget request reflects the transfer of clean-up sites completed by the Office of Environmental Management.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

--judythpiazza@gmail.com

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

Reuters
February 05, 2007

Bush seeks extra energy research funds in 2008

By Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Monday asked