Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, February 15, 2007
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
February 15, 2007
Gibbons to candidates: Address Nevada issues
By Molly Ball
Review-Journal
Gov. Jim Gibbons wants presidential candidates who come to Nevada to take positions on issues that matter to the state, according to a letter his office is scheduled to release today.
Gibbons' open letter to candidates from both parties asks them to take public positions on the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, sales of Nevada federal lands and homeland security funding for Las Vegas.
"As you travel to the Silver State during your candidacy, Nevadans look forward to hearing your views on these central issues, vital to our state and its population," the letter states.
Gibbons, who has thus far not endorsed a presidential candidate, planned to mail the letter to the presidential campaigns today, his staff said Wednesday.
It won't be long until the candidates have a chance to answer. All of the Democratic candidates for president are scheduled to descend on Nevada within the next week, with former U.S. Sen. John Edwards appearing in Las Vegas on Saturday, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visiting Southern Nevada on Sunday, and U.S. Sen Hillary Clinton appearing at a forum in Carson City next week along with Edwards and others. Republican candidates are also scheduled to visit Nevada in the near future.
"We find our state targeted as the storage site for (nuclear) waste generated by many other states -- a burden that is not ours, and to which we cannot accede," Gibbons' letter states. "Nevadans deserve to know whether their presidential vote will help bolster the already flawed project."
Gibbons then notes that as a congressman, he and the rest of the state's federal delegation passed legislation to put money generated from sales of Nevada's abundance of federally owned land back into the state.
"In recent years, however, attempts have been made to redirect the proceeds of these land sales to other federal agencies," the letter states. "I call on all current presidential candidates to pledge not to raid this fund, ensuring the money is available for the good of Nevada."
Gibbons further states that the people and tourists of Las Vegas need federal help to protect against terrorism. "It is imperative that Las Vegas continues to hold its high-threat status under the Urban Areas Security Initiative program," he states, referring to federal funds that Las Vegas recently was denied despite the city's high profile.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
February 14, 2007
Editorial: Conflicts in Yucca review
'Independent' analysis is sought from firm where many employees have Yucca ties
If Congress wanted an independent review of events leading up to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, would it offer the job to a panel whose members included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice?
Of course not.
So why has the Energy Department, which last summer announced it wanted three independent reviews of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, hired a Henderson-based consulting firm loaded with former Yucca Mountain officials to conduct the first of those reviews?
The Las Vegas Sun's Washington reporter, Lisa Mascaro, reported Tuesday that the Energy Department has awarded Longenecker & Associates a six-month, $450,000 contract to review engineering work by the Energy Department and a Yucca Mountain contractor, Bechtel SAIC.
Not only has the Energy Department turned to the consulting company in the past for work at Yucca Mountain, but also several members of the company's staff and board have extensive individual experience working at the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where the federal government wants to bury the nation's high-level nuclear waste.
Serving on its board is Donald Pearman Jr., a former Energy Department official who also worked at Yucca Mountain as deputy general manager of Bechtel SAIC. Among the company's staff members are Donald Horton, former deputy project manager at Yucca, and Ronald Milner, who for 10 years served as chief operating officer of the Energy Department's office that oversees work at Yucca.
The company's president, John Longenecker, told Mascaro that his 10-person review team will be a "totally fresh set of eyes," with none of the members having worked in the past for the Energy Department or Bechtel SAIC.
But that is not reassuring. Obviously, if the company's review contained criticisms of past work at Yucca Mountain, the expertise of many of its own employees who have years of experience there would come into question. A company laden with conflicts of interest has no incentive to perform a hard-hitting analysis.
Rather than waste more money reviewing 20 years of failed work at Yucca Mountain, the federal government would be wise to shut down this unsafe project.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
February 14, 2007
Nicholson applies for nuke office slot
By Mark Waite
PVT
Former Nye County Deputy District Attorney Rachel Nicholson is one of 15 applicants for the position of director of the Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Office.
Interim director Dave Swanson has also applied for the job. Applications closed Jan. 26. The county is offering an annual salary of $82,243 to $106,849.
The applications were released by Nye County after an Open Records Act request was filed by the Pahrump Valley Times.
The director supervises Nye County's oversight of the federal Yucca Mountain program. Nye County received $2.65 million from the U.S. Department of Energy this year for oversight.
The director also works with the county commission on implementing the Payment Equal to Taxes agreement, under which the county receives $10 million annually from DOE.
Nicholson was deputy district attorney from November 1992 to June 1998. Since then she has done extensive lobbying work in her Pennsylvania law office for Nye County at a rate of $110 per hour.
Commissioners last October rejected a recommendation to appoint Swanson to the permanent director's job, after then Commissioner Patricia Cox pointed to a possible conflict of interest by the selection committee. Commissioner Joni Eastley then used a parliamentary measure to defeat the measure.
Eastley then pushed to change the job description to give preference to candidates with a degree in law or public administration in addition to at least a degree in physical sciences, engineering or related fields.
Nicholson will be familiar to Commissioner Gary Hollis, the commission's nuclear waste liaison, and Commissioner Roberta "Midge" Carver. Nicholson drew up the lease papers for Carver's late husband, former Commissioner Dick Carver, to use a Chevrolet Suburban purchased for his use by a constituent, which was the subject of a complaint with the Nevada Commission on Ethics filed by Hollis in 1998.
Nicholson prosecuted the county's case against Nevada Test Site contractors seeking to obtain possessory use tax money. She represented Mineral County in a taxation case against Day, Zimmerman, Hawthorne Corp. She handled cases involving the sale of Nye Regional Medical Center, worked as a consultant on the Nye County town sites plan and the land conveyance for the Amargosa Valley Science and Technology Park in 2000.
Swanson has been interim director of the repository office since Les Bradshaw left in March 2004, except for a brief period from February to May 2006 when Dale Hammermeister was director. He was assistant project administrator at the nuclear waste office under Bradshaw from 2002 to 2004.
Swanson has 25 years of experience in environmental remediation for various companies in Georgia and as chief hydro-geologist for the Georgia Department of Natural Resource. Swanson is familiar with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Other candidates for the position include:
Bruce Hinton of Lindenhurst, Ill. He was vice-president of marketing and sales for PCI Energy Services LLC and a product manager for Westinghouse Electric.
Lewis Lacy Jr., of Las Vegas, a former assistant county attorney in Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston, and manager of manufacturing and petrochemical plants in Texas.
Joseph Meshi, of Las Vegas, manager of Inovium Corp., a start-up financial company; CEO of Computility Inc. of Des Moines, Iowa, and managing director of Venture Services LLC in Newport Beach, Calif.
Gerald Rizza of Murrysville, Pa., a project manager at Westinghouse Electric Co., former school vice-principal in Lebanon, Ore., and planner for ABB Combustion Engine of Windsor, Conn. He has a masters degree in nuclear engineering from the University of Arizona.
John E. Thompson, of Yorkville, Ill., a former principal engineer in nuclear fuel management with Commonwealth Edison who also worked at the Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station. He has a degree from the Chicago Kent College of Law and a masters degree in nuclear engineering from the University of Wisconsin.
Grayson Young Jr., of Baton Rouge, La., a project engineer for Sargent and Lundy Engineering in Juno Beach, Fla., who evaluates nuclear plants. He has a master's degree in nuclear engineering from Louisiana State University.
Deirick L. Dorrell, of Pontiac, Mo., director of a nuclear lab responsible for nuclear waste management for DLDC. He has a master's degree in nuclear engineering.
Other candidates include a former 7 Up Bottling driver and a plumbing engineer for a Las Vegas casino.
---------------------------
Chillicothe Gazette
February 14, 2007
Nuke recycling site in Piketon good idea
By Dr. G. Ivan Maldonado
With more than 30 construction and operating license (COL) applications for new nuclear power plants actively being pursued in the United States, many scientists and engineers applaud the Bush administration's support for nuclear power.
I include myself among those professionals who believe the political uncertainties surrounding nuclear power are beginning to recede, in large part as a result of President Bush's forceful advocacy of a program aimed at expanding the use of nuclear power in the United States and around the world.
Known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, Ohioans will have an opportunity next month to hear the program discussed, and to provide input of their own. The Department of Energy has scheduled a public hearing in Piketon on March 8.
What's important about the hearing is that the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant is one of 11 locations in different parts of the country that DOE is considering as sites for nuclear-fuel recycling facilities. The facilities will be built under the GNEP program, and if Portsmouth wins the competition, it will bring in an estimated $16 billion and some 8,000 jobs.
As part of this high-stakes competition, DOE has selected 11 commercial and public consortia to receive up to $16 million in grants to conduct site studies for the recycling facilities. The Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence, LLC is sponsoring the Portsmouth site.
Envisioned by the pioneers of nuclear power, recycling extracts more energy from nuclear fuel, while at the same time reduces the inventory of some of the most radiotoxic and longest-lived isotopes in nuclear waste from power plants, thereby significantly increasing the capacity of an underground repository.
Recycling in the United States was banned by President Carter in 1977, who thought other countries would use the process to build nuclear weapons. Some nuclear countries did not follow Carter's example, and continued to recycle. Among the countries were France, Great Britain and Japan, all of which recycle nuclear fuel safely and securely. President Reagan overturned Carter's ban, but recycling was considered too expensive and not resumed.
Now, with the resurgence of nuclear power, the outlook for recycling has changed. It is estimated that as many as 1,000 nuclear power plants will be in operation worldwide by 2050, more than double the number now. Consequently, there might not be enough uranium to support the growth in nuclear power. So recycling spent fuel from nuclear power plants - some 50,000 tons is in storage at reactor sites in the United States - is beginning to make more and more sense.
The process is straightforward. Leftover uranium is extracted for recycling while long-lived waste is chemically separated from spent fuel. Specific actinides such as plutonium, neptunium, americium, and curium are separated from the waste and used as fuel for advanced "burner" reactors. These reactors, also known as "fast reactors," generate electricity while destroying long-lived radioactive waste. Some nuclear waste would remain, and this would need to be shipped to the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada for permanent disposal.
In other words, recycling is not a substitute for nuclear waste disposal. We would still need the Yucca Mountain facility, but it would have enough space to hold all of the nuclear waste from nuclear power plants as well as waste from decommissioned plants and the defense program, thus sparing the need to go through the difficult political process of finding sites for a second and third repository since one repository would be sufficient.
Other countries are understandably watching the U.S. recycling initiative with great interest, since they might be able to obtain nuclear fuel for electricity production without having to engage in recycling themselves. That, of course, is the goal of the GNEP program: to reduce the risk of nuclear-weapons proliferation and enhance everyone's security.
Persuading DOE to site the recycling center in Portsmouth is a prize worth striving for. Now is the time for state and local officials in Ohio to mount a campaign.
(Maldonado is an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering at the University of Cincinnati.)
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid
February 13, 2007
Press Release of Senator Reid
Reid Statement on "Independent" Review of Yucca Mountain
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Washington, D.C.- U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada issued the following statement after it was exposed that the Department of Energy (DOE) has hired Longenecker and Associates to conduct an "independent" review of Yucca Mountain. Ronald Milner, who served as the chief operating officer for the DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, is a member of the senior management team of Longenecker and Associates.
"This situation would be laughable if the risks weren't so high. The man formerly responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Yucca Mountain Project as a chief operating officer at the DOE now turns out to be a senior manager at the same firm the DOE just hired to conduct a review of Yucca. That's like hiring a student who is failing in literature to grade his own term paper.
"The DOE is planning to waste half a million more taxpayer dollars on work that will ultimately be meaningless because the company hired to conduct the review has a major conflict of interest. The DOE should stop wasting taxpayer dollars and come to the realization that the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain is a dying beast and will never be built. On-site storage is the answer to the nation's nuclear waste challenges."
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
February 13, 2007
Old Yucca firm joins new review
Nuclear waste dump foes say 'rubber stamp' effort waste of taxpayer dollars
By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun
WASHINGTON - To conduct an independent review of the troubled nuclear waste dump, the Energy Department has hired a firm whose staff and board include past Yucca Mountain officials.
The firm, Henderson-based Longenecker & Associates, said that none of the former officials of the Energy Department or its main contractor, Bechtel SAIC, will play a role in the assessment. The company says it has assembled a new team of professionals from elsewhere in the corporate world for the $450,000 contract.
But opponents of the proposed nuclear dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas say they expect nothing more than a "rubber stamp" review to come from the effort.
"It would seem very difficult to get an independent assessment if you're just turning around and hiring former Yucca Mountain people," said Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, which has been fighting Yucca Mountain for 25 years.
"These are individuals who are likely responsible for the problems at Yucca Mountain, now you're going to turn around and hire them?"
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has vowed to cut Yucca's funding in the department's 2007 budget, said the firm's report is a waste of taxpayer dollars and "already has no credibility.
"I don't think anyone would look at that and think it passes the smell test," Reid spokesman Jon Summers said. "It's sort of like having a failing math student go back and grade his own test," he said. "If they're paying for an independent review ¦ then it needs to be independent ... Otherwise you're just seeking advice from people who are going to tell you what you want to hear."
Ward Sproat, the new director of the Energy Department's civilian radioactive waste management office, which overseas Yucca Mountain, announced as soon as he took over last summer that he wanted three independent reviews of the project that is now 20 years behind schedule.
Sproat, who is seen as the department's best hope in getting Yucca Mountain back on track, called for reviews of its engineering, the draft license application and the quality assurance program.
In explaining his game plan before a House energy subcommittee in July, Sproat told the panel: "There are a number of process and organizational issues which must be addressed, all of which are correctable."
His goal is to get the project to its next milestone of submitting a construction license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2008. The Energy Department has missed similar deadlines in the past.
The department said Monday that it had awarded Longenecker the first of those contracts, a six-month engineering review of the civilian radioactive waste office and its contractor, Bechtel SAIC. The firm has done work at Yucca Mountain before, mainly in quality assurance oversight.
Company President John Longenecker said the 10-person team for the engineering job comes from the ranks of some of the country's leading corporations, including Fluor and Northrop Grumman.
"We would never consider putting anybody who's ex-DOE on the review team," Longenecker said Monday.
"The way we propose it is to take a fresh look with people who haven't been exposed to it," he said. "Our team of 10 is going to be a totally fresh set of eyes."
The company's Web site lists many former Energy Department officials on staff. Ronald A. Milner, who spent 10 years as the chief operating officer of the department's civilian radioactive waste management office, is part of Longenecker's senior management team. He was hired in April after retiring from the Energy Department. He had worked for the department since 1977.
The company also counts on its roster Donald G. Horton, the former deputy project manager at Yucca Mountain, who also headed up its quality assurance work.
The company's board includes Donald W. Pearman Jr., who had served as Bechtel SAIC's deputy general manager at Yucca Mountain. He previously worked at the Energy Department.
Many of the firms' associates have conducted Yucca-related work.
Longenecker noted the three former Yucca executives were retired and working mostly on a part-time basis for his firm. He was unable to immediately forward a list of team members for this contract.
Longenecker said he will oversee the final report, but said he would not be part of the team because he has done past quality assurance reviews at Yucca.
The project has suffered from repeated problems in its quality assurance protocol, some of which were documented in 2004 by the Government Accountability Office.
The Energy Department stands by its selection, and spokesman Allen Benson said, "We're quite satisfied we're going to get what it is we need, which is a fair, outside look."
He noted that federal ethics laws require cooling-off periods before many former officials can work on past projects in the private sector.
He added that most of the firms capable of taking on such work would have staff members who have familiarity with Yucca Mountain.
"The fact that people have worked for us is certainly not a detriment. It's an asset because they do bring knowledge," Benson said. "It can't hurt."
But Loux says the department could have hired a firm without ties.
"There are plenty of people out there who have never had anything to do with Yucca whatsoever," he said. "If you're really looking for someone independent, you would find someone who hasn't done Yucca Mountain work."
Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.
---------------------------
Kansas City Star
February 13, 2007
U.S. Excerpts
Forget Yucca Mountain
From the Las Vegas Sun
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.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved designs for on-site dry storage 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.
---------------------------
Chattanooga Times Free Press
Oak Ridge nuclear waste plan hearing tonight
By Pam Sohn Staff Writer
A nuclear waste recycling plan that could bring highly radioactive waste to Oak Ridge, Tenn., is not receiving a green light from everyone.
U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, RTenn., says bringing such waste to Oak Ridge “is not my goal.”
“We’re really not aggressively going after it,” said Rep. Wamp, who represents Oak Ridge and Chattanooga. “Once we modernized our facilities and moved away from the Manhattan Project era, we do not want waste. We do not want to process waste. We do not want waste coming in. We want waste leaving Oak Ridge.”
With the U.S. government’s new push to encourage and license new nuclear power plants across the country, Oak Ridge, an East Tennessee city 100 miles northeast of Chattanooga, is one of 11 sites receiving up to $16 million in grants for detailed siting plans of a nuclear fuel reprocessing and/or recycling center.
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory could be designated as an advanced fuel cycle research facility.
A public hearing is scheduled for tonight from 6 to 9:30 in Oak Ridge.
Mike Bradley, spokesman for Oak Ridge National Laboratory, deferred comment to Jeffrey Wadsworth, director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Mr. Wadsworth could not be reached for comment.
Sherrill Greene, director of the national laboratory’s nuclear technology programs, has said recycling the waste is a better strategy than storing it.
“I feel a personal responsibility to my children. I think about the world they are going to inherit. ... We have got to solve this problem, and this is an approach that we can take,” Mr. Greene said recently.
The proposal is part of President Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership plan, known as GNEP. Its stated mission is to expand the use of nuclear power while reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation.
According to the plan, DOE intends to create three separate facilities, and Oak Ridge could be the recipient of any or all of them. The facilities are:
A recycling center that would separate spent nuclear fuel into reusable and waste components and then manufacture new nuclear fast-reactor fuel using the reusable components.
An advanced recycling reactor that would destroy long-lived radioactive elements in the new fuel while generating electricity.
An advanced fuel cycle research facility that would have to be placed on a national laboratory property and would perform research and development into spent nuclear fuel recycling processes and other advanced nuclear fuel cycles. CONCERNS AND NEEDS
Some critics fear that if the Oak Ridge group seeking the $20 billion to $40 billion reprocessing and recycling sites wins one or both, then Oak Ridge could become the de facto nuclear waste destination for the country.
Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the proposed site of a long-term nuclear waste storage facility, but public opposition has stalled it until at least 2017, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he opposes a repository in Nevada.
Lawrence Young, president and chief executive officer of Oak Ridge’s Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, said Oak Ridge has the technology and needs the new jobs. Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s work force is a third of what it was at the height of production in the World War II and early Cold War years.
“The jobs are important,” Mr. Young said. “And the expertise is just as important. Oak Ridge truly wants to stay at the forefront of this technology.”
The Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee is an group that seeks to reuse national laboratory land donated to the local governments.
Joe Lenhard, co-founder of the group, said it would be fitting for Oak Ridge to play a part in the recycling and reuse of spent nuclear fuel because Oak Ridge is where nuclear materials originated. Oak Ridge played a prominent role in the Manhattan Project and was where uranium first was enriched to build the first atomic bomb.
Mr. Lenhard said GNEP is “something the U.S. should have done 25 to 30 years ago. It’s going to be our salvation. Global warming is real.”
The 11 locations vying for the facilities have about 90 days to submit their proposals, according to DOE officials. Oak Ridge officials say the state will have to OK the local plan, and Congress will have to fund it.
--E-mail Pam Sohn at psohn@timesfreepress.com ON THE WEB
* To see the Federal Register announcement of the plan, visit: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/gnepNOI010407.pdf.http To: // www. gnep. energy. gov / pdfs / gnepNOI 010407. pdf
* To learn about the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, visit: http://www.croet.com
* To read about the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Strategic Plan, visit: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepPRs/gnepPR011007.htmlhttp : // www. gnep. energy. gov / gnepPRs / gnepPR 011007. html
---------------------------
Detroit News
February 13, 2007
Text of Early's speech: The Nuclear Renaissance: Is it real?
Text of the speech by Anthony F. Earley Jr., DTE Energy Chairman and CEO, to the Economic Club of Detroit, on Feb. 12, 2007:
Around five years ago I talked to the Economic Club of Detroit about fundamental changes underway in the energy industry. Then, electric utilities across the country were dealing with the unintended consequences of a patchwork of deregulation efforts. Electric utilities, the classic "widows and orphans" investment, became as volatile as the trading pit at a commodities exchange. It seemed the electric industry was making headlines daily.
Unfortunately, the headlines were rarely positive. Most dealt with power shortages, soaring prices, trading disasters and the swift consolidation of our industry. At the extremes, we saw one of the 10 largest corporations in America, Enron, disappear in a blitz of scandals. Pacific Gas & Electric, one of the most respected names in our industry, was forced into bankruptcy by a regulatory scheme created by California that was positively insane. Two other California utilities teetered on the brink, and ultimately the fiasco cost Gov. Gray Davis his job.
I wish I could tell you that all of this ended with California. But other states created new regulatory rules based on market rates but then enacted multi-year transition periods. Those transitions are now coming to an end and we're seeing another wave of silliness.
In Maryland, Constellation Energy's Baltimore Gas & Electric subsidiary announced a 72 percent rate increase for residential customers to bring it in line with the market. The legislature promptly tried to fire the Public Service Commission, the Maryland Supreme Court denounced the legislators' actions as unconstitutional, and just two weeks ago, as the new governor was trying to clean up the mess, the Commission chairman resigned.
In Illinois a similar story is unfolding. Illinois' utilities were forced to sell most of their power plants and required to buy electricity from the marketplace. After a five-year transition, companies like Exelon went out for bids and came home with sticker shock. Then, to shield residents and businesses from unstable and much higher market rates, the state told the utilities that they'd have to eat the difference - meaning utilities would lose money on every kilowatt of electricity they sold. Exelon's Commonwealth Edison unit has said that will lead to certain bankruptcy if a deal is not cut. But that's another story, for another time. It does, however, drive home the point that electric markets can be exceedingly volatile if not handled carefully.
When I addressed this group in 2002, my comments about nuclear energy were brief and pretty discouraging. I predicted that while most nuclear power plants would have their licenses renewed, no new nuclear power plants would be built in the U.S. to accommodate growing demand.
Today I'm here to tell you that I was dead wrong. Despite the condition of our economy, within the next decade, Michigan - and the rest of our country for that matter - will need more electricity . . . a lot more. And pollution free nuclear power has to be an important part of the mix.
Today I am pleased to announce that DTE Energy has started work on preparing a license application for a new nuclear plant at our existing Fermi site near Monroe. This is the first step to providing clean, reliable and affordable energy for the better part of the rest of this century. And with it we will provide thousands of highly paid jobs to highly skilled Michigan workers. But despite my enthusiasm, let me be clear that we have not yet made a final decision to build. Rather we are preserving our option to build at some point in the future by beginning the long and complex licensing process now.
Given the four-to-five-year time frame for the federal licensing process, and the five-to-six-year construction period, we need to take this step immediately to have any chance of having a new plant operating in the next decade. Also, moving ahead now positions us to take advantage of the attractive, but time limited, financial incentives included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We'll keep you posted as we move through this challenging process.
As demand grows for electricity, so should nuclear energy's stake in our nation's fuel mix. A report by the North American Electric Reliability Council warns that U.S. demand for electricity is increasing three times as fast as resources are being added to our electric grid.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2030, electricity sales in our country will increase by 45 percent. Just to keep our current fuel mix, we'll need 50 additional nuclear plants, 93 wind farms (with thousands of windmills), 279 natural gas plants, and 261 new coal plants.Even if you cut those numbers in half, we need a massive infrastructure construction program.
Closer to home, our state will require at least one new baseload plant by 2015, according to the just published Michigan 21st Century Energy Plan. And we'll need additional plants soon after that.
How will we address the growing need for electricity? You'll hear a lot of talk in the coming months about energy efficiency, renewable energy and new technologies. We need them all. But if we're brutally honest with ourselves, they are only a part of the solution for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, we will never run an auto assembly line or a cold-rolled steel mill using windmills or solar panels. You need big baseload nuclear and coal power plants to keep them running.
That's what I'd like to talk about today - the resurgence of nuclear energy and the vital role I think it will play in powering the future of our nation and our state.
It's easy for me to admit my flawed prediction of five years ago because it's incredibly exciting for me to be standing before you discussing the possibilities for nuclear power.
My experience in the nuclear industry dates back 36 years when, to become a commissioned officer on a nuclear submarine, I had to run the gauntlet of an Admiral Rickover interview just to get into the program. Admiral Rickover, of course, was the father of the nuclear Navy. Every officer who qualified in nuclear submarines had to pass his scrutiny and then learn in endless detail both the elegance and the complexities of the technology.
Later, in my civilian career in a large law firm, I worked on licensing proceedings for nuclear plants. That led to a position at Long Island Lighting Company where I was introduced to the bare knuckles politics of the technology. I arrived in New York in time to complete the 20-year licensing and construction process for the Shoreham nuclear power station, a saga marked with bitter political battles. Ultimately, we sold a perfectly good plant to the state of New York to end decades of controversy. The state shut down the plant. And Mario Cuomo lost his job in the fallout from that decision.
When I moved to Detroit Edison in 1994, the utility had just recovered from the financial stress associated with building its Fermi 2 nuclear power plant. In those days, the financial risks associated with nuclear plants - licensing, construction and operations - were overwhelming. Based on what I'd experienced, I would have bet money that I'd never see a new nuclear plant built in this country in my working lifetime. Now, as chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the trade association of the American nuclear industry, I can tell you that I was sorely mistaken. Today, there are plans pending for building up to 32 new reactors across the country. Utilities have spent more than $1.5 billion so far in the planning stages. While no shovel has hit the ground yet, the change in the environment is unmistakable.
What happened?
I've already mentioned the growing need for large-scale baseload electric generation. If we don't start soon, the California energy crisis will seem like a minor inconvenience.
The increased volatility of natural gas prices and limited supply also has played a role. In the early 1990s, natural gas was inexpensive and gas-fired generation was a low-risk investment. Federal policy encouraged a massive build of gas-fired plants, but discouraged exploration and production of gas in areas considered environmentally sensitive. Since the laws of supply and demand had not been repealed, gas prices skyrocketed. At today's prices, natural gas-fired power is not a cost-effective option.
Growing environmental concern is another factor causing the public to take a closer look at nuclear energy. With mounting evidence of the negative impact of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, nuclear power is an attractive alternative to fossil-fuel generation. Nuclear power plants do not emit any greenhouse gases or controlled air pollutants.
The superb performance of our nation's 103 operating nuclear plants is another reason to revisit this technology. With plants operating at or near record levels during the past six years, we're more comfortable with nuclear power. It's proven itself clean, safe, reliable and affordable. And that's with a generation of plants designed in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already certified new standardized advanced-plant designs for the U.S. These next-generation nuclear plants incorporate features designed to make them simpler, safer, and less costly to build and operate. Some of these simplified plants have been built overseas in a fraction of the time it took to build our current plants.
As a result, nuclear energy is finding favor with growing numbers of people and institutions. Who would have thought that a co-founder of Greenpeace and the author of the Whole Earth Catalog would become advocates of nuclear power? Yet Patrick Moore and Stewart Brand agree that nuclear energy must be part of America's energy future.
In fact, seven in 10 Americans now favor the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity, according to a 2006 national survey prepared by Bisconti Research for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The survey found that the public associates nuclear energy most closely with clean air, reliability, efficiency, and energy independence.
And many people in Michigan agree. In November, a national group advocating for nuclear energy launched its efforts in Michigan and announced a state coalition to further its cause. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition - or CASE Coalition as it's called - is aggressively promoting nuclear energy as part of an affordable, reliable and clean electricity supply for our state and the nation.
Membership in this coalition in Michigan is as diverse as the Michigan Chamber of Commerce; labor organizations like the Teamsters and IBEW; the Michigan Retailers Association; state representatives, senators, civic leaders, and business leaders across the state.
So why the buzz? First, nuclear plants provide low cost electricity at extremely high levels of safety and reliability; second, it's electricity produced at a stable price without the punishing volatility of gas-fired generation and third, it's power generation with a negligible impact on the environment.
This final point has become one of nuclear's strongest assets. Nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide which creates greenhouses gases. They emit no sulfur dioxide which produces acid rain. And they emit no nitrogen oxide. That means no ozone. The U.S. Department of Energy says that the single most effective emission control strategy for utilities has been to increase nuclear power production.
It will be more than just utilities that benefit. With the increased emphasis on plug-in-hybrids in the automotive sector, those vehicles will only be as clean as the fuel used to make the electricity.
Reliable. Affordable. Clean. Other plants have one or two of these attributes, but only nuclear plants can boast all three.
Fitch Rating agency recently said it right: "It is no longer a question of whether there will be new nuclear plants." So what's the hold up?
I've already mentioned my personal experience -- the siting, permitting and licensing processes for nuclear plants historically have been lengthy and up-front capital costs are steep. From application to operation, it takes at least a decade to build a nuclear power plant and it comes with around a $3 billion price tag, depending on its size.
Fortunately, at the federal level, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 had a number of innovative provisions to facilitate the licensing process and reduce financial risk.
At the state level, we still have major barriers. What company would be willing to make a $3 billion investment without some sort of assurance that it could recover its costs? That's the dilemma for Michigan utilities caught in a hybrid regulatory environment. The partially regulated and partially competitive structure in Michigan fails to provide the certainty required for the power plant investment critical to the state's future. Michigan must take control of its energy fate and fix its regulatory structure. I'm pleased to say that Michigan's recently released 21st Century Energy Plan recognized the need for structural changes. Now we have to be bold and make them.
Another perceived hurdle is the disposal of used nuclear fuel. Yucca Mountain was designated by Congress as a national repository site in 2002 after decades of scientific study. Nuclear energy customers across the U.S. have already paid $28 billion through their electric bills to fund this project.
However, Nevada has opposed the project at every turn and Congress has used most of the funds to balance the federal budget. As the debate over where to store waste continues, the U.S. is producing 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year, with 50,000 metric tons held on site at existing nuclear facilities. While that approach may be inefficient, it is perfectly safe.
For example, at our Fermi 2 nuclear plant, used fuel has accumulated in our fuel pool which will reach capacity in 2010. We will build a dry cask storage facility similar to the two other facilities already in place at other Michigan nuclear plants. These facilities can safely store waste for decades.
Meanwhile, the current political stalemate over long term solutions may be a blessing in disguise. While the Department of Energy is targeting 2020 to begin accepting used fuel rods at Yucca Mountain, progress has become problematic since U.S. Sen. Harry Reid from Nevada, a long and vigorous opponent of the Yucca repository, has become the Senate Majority Leader. We now need to explore other options. In fact, the nuclear fuel left in these used fuel rods has immense value so we really do not want to "dispose" of them. The political logjam on Yucca may give us the opportunity to rethink nuclear fuel policy.
The bottom line is that the used fuel debate is a political and policy debate, not a safety debate. Used fuel can be stored for decades in fuel pools and dry cask storage sites in total safety. We cannot delay the start of a new generation of nuclear plants while waiting for these endless political debates to play out.
While my theme today is the revival of nuclear power as a major part of the path to a clean, safe and affordable energy future, it's not a "uranium bullet" -- no single source of energy can or should supply all our needs. The key is maintaining a diverse mix of fuels in our energy portfolio.
Today 27 percent of Michigan's electricity is generated by four nuclear plants. Coal fuels about 58 percent of total generation, and natural gas fuels more than 11 percent.
Given these numbers and despite all the talk about climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, the reality is coal-fired generation will be the workhorse of the American electric grid for most of this century. Our challenge is to continue to develop technologies to make new coal plants cleaner than ever.
We also need to accelerate our development of renewable energy resources. These resources can play a useful role in helping us meet our goals.
At DTE Energy, we announced a new program called GreenCurrents that will give our 2.2 million electric customers a renewable energy option. Once it's approved by the MPSC, this voluntary program will give customers the ability to buy power created from wind, sun, water, biomass and other environmentally friendly sources for just a few additional dollars a month.
Our company already produces alternative energy through biomass projects. We are also an industry leader in reforestation projects, and in wildlife habitat restoration and preservation.
Finally, we need to aggressively pursue programs to help consumers and businesses be more efficient in their use of energy. This is easier said than done. It's like trying to force consumers to give up their SUVs.
When I was president of Long Island Lighting Company, we launched an aggressive energy conservation program in the wake of the loss of the Shoreham nuclear plant. One of the offerings was a time-of-use rate structure that sold discounted electricity in off-peak hours.
Wanting to lead by example, I signed up for the rate and proudly informed my wife, Sarah, that she would now have to do the laundry after 10 p.m. to take advantage of the great deal. Well, with four young boys, we were off that rate very quickly.
Our challenge will be to find easily understood programs that are in the economic best interest of both the customer and the utilities offering them. Detroit Edison has done that in the industrial sector. As part of contractual agreements with our largest industrial customers, a staff of 60 people have helped those customers save over $400 million in the last 10 years. We just need to get the incentives right.
Everyone in this room understands that our economic growth is inextricably linked to affordable, abundant electricity. You know that and I know that. And so do the policy makers in many countries across the globe.
That's why a nuclear renaissance is already occurring in many parts of the world. Currently, 30 countries worldwide are operating 442 nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 29 new nuclear plants were under construction in 12 countries but none in the U.S.
France's 59 nuclear power plants generate more than 78 percent of its electricity. China and India are both embarking on ambitious plans to add more nuclear capacity over the next decade.
China plans to add as many as 63 nuclear reactors, nearly quadrupling its current fleet of 16. India is building 7 reactors. Russia is building five, with plans for 42 new nuclear plants by 2030.
Here in Michigan, we have the opportunity to participate in the early stages of our nation's nuclear energy resurgence while providing solid solutions for concerns about the environment, energy reliability and energy costs.
Moreover, nuclear power plants provide thousands of highly paid construction jobs and long-term employment for hundreds of engineers, scientists and skilled technicians - just the kind of new economy jobs we need.
But Michigan must act to remove its regulatory barriers. If that happens, DTE Energy is committed to keeping nuclear energy as a critical and growing segment of our energy portfolio well into the 21st century.
---------------------------
Toledo Blade
February 13, 2007
New reactor planned for Fermi site
DTE Energy is Midwest's 1st to seek OK since '70s
By Tom Henry
Blade Staff Writer
NEWPORT, Mich. - DTE Energy, the parent company of Detroit Edison, yesterday said it will apply for a license to build another nuclear reactor on its Fermi nuclear complex 30 miles north of Toledo.
The northern Monroe County site houses the operating Fermi 2 plant, which is licensed through 2025. It used to house an experimental reactor known as Fermi 1, which was shut down in 1972.
The announcement was made yesterday at a Detroit Economic Club luncheon by Anthony Earley, Jr., DTE chairman and chief executive officer.
Mr. Earley said during his speech that a new plant would cost about $3 billion.
Before moving forward to build it, the company will have to weigh fluctuating energy market conditions and what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has to say about the company's license application.
The application is expected to cost $30 million to prepare. The company plans to submit its application in the fall of 2008, John Austerberry, DTE spokesman, said.
If it breaks ground on a new plant before 2013, DTE could be eligible for $300 million or more in incentives under the Federal Energy Policy Act, he said.
No applications for new nuclear plants have been submitted to the NRC since half the core of Unit 2 melted at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., in March, 1979.
Applications for new reactors ceased months prior to that, though, because of cost overruns that made Wall Street nervous about continuing to invest in nuclear power.
The industry's future became bleaker after it was mired in post-Three Mile Island regulations.
Its hopes of a renaissance have been complicated by a ban against reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that has been in effect since former President Gerald Ford's administration as well as the highly contentious and unresolved issue of where to bury those radioactive uranium-filled fuel rods from the reactor cores.
The U.S. Department of Energy in June, 2008, is expected to submit its application to have the NRC consider Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the national disposal site.
The industry sees a renaissance on the horizon, but concedes numerous hurdles still exist.
Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's Washington-based lobbying group, said DTE is the 15th company to announce plans for submitting license applications for new reactor designs.
The Bush Administration is promoting them with various incentives. Nearly all the other 14 are in the South.
DTE is the first from the Midwest to announce its intention to seek a license for a new plant.
Eliot Brenner, director of the NRC's office of public affairs, told The Blade last night he knows of one other utility that plans to apply for a license but - citing proprietary reasons - wants to keep its intentions secret for now.
DTE is proposing just one new reactor. Several others have announced plans for multiple reactors.
Nationally, the NRC knows of at least 16 utilities contemplating more than 30 new reactors, Mr. Brenner said.
He said the federal agency will spend about 2 1/2 years on a core review of each application, plus another 12 months devoted to fine-tuning technical specifications for those that successfully meet the objectives of the process. Some could be streamlined to save time.
The NRC expects to receive applications from the first four to five utilities this fall and another six to eight in 2008, Mr. Brenner said.
Jim Riccio, nuclear power analyst for Greenpeace, one of the world's most outspoken anti-nuclear groups, said he doubts projects will be viable.
"Nuclear power is still prohibitively expensive," he said, citing a Congressional Budget Office report that predicts a high default rate on loan guarantees. "So why is Congress willing to risk my tax dollars on this unsound investment?"
But DTE is determined to take the next step.
Although Mr. Austerberry said the utility's decision was not tied to the Jan. 30 release of Michigan's so-called 21st Century Energy Plan, Mr. Earley noted it in his remarks.
He said he was pleased the report "recognized the need for structural changes" in Michigan's energy portfolio.
The report, written by J. Peter Lark, the state's public service commission chairman and ordered by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, called for at least 10 percent of the state's energy to come from wind, solar, and other renewable sources by 2015.
It also included a recommendation for a new baseload power plant to help meet Michigan's growing energy needs. However, the report did not specify whether the plant had to be nuclear or coal-fired, the nation's two most prevalent types.
MORE PLANTS?
America has 103 operating nuclear plants. But no applications to build new ones have been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for almost 30 years. But now:
• Sixteeen utilities, in response to President Bush’s incentives, have made plans to submit applications. DTE Energy, the parent company of Detroit Edison, yesterday became the 15th to go public.
• DTE is the fi rst from the Midwest to announce. It plans to spend $30 million to submit its application by the fall of 2008.
• The cost of a new plant itself would be $3 billion.
• Fermi 2 is licensed to operate until 2025. But DTE is expected to seek a 20-year extension to the operating license for that plant.
--Contact Tom Henry at:
thenry@theblade.com
or 419-724-6079.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
February 12, 2007
Nevada Legislature starts 2nd week
Brendan Riley
Associated Press
The 2007 Nevada Legislature opens its second week today with an Assembly hearing that's expected to focus on a huge, long-term liability of up to $4.1 billion in health benefits for current and future state government workers.
The Government Affairs Committee will hear from Leslie Johnstone, executive officer of the state's employee benefit program. The liability issue is one of the big concerns facing lawmakers.
Potential solutions to reduce the liability range from big appropriations for some 30 years to smaller appropriations of taxpayer dollars coupled with money-saving limits on benefits, higher premiums and reduced pay raises for state employees.
Also today in Carson City:
* Assembly Democrats plan a press briefing on their education agenda, which includes a bid for full-day kindergarten in Nevada's public schools. The kindergarten plan, opposed by Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons, also will be discussed at an Assembly Education Committee hearing.
* Gibbons' proposed budget for his office and the Governor's Mansion will be reviewed in Senate Finance. The panel and its Assembly counterpart, Ways and Means, also will review the state Gaming Control Board, which oversees the state's gambling industry.
* Ways and Means also is scheduled to review spending plans for the state agency that has been battling federal efforts to open a high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
* Senate Judiciary will review a plan for early release of some prisoners from county or city jails to relieve overcrowding. Assembly Judiciary is scheduled to discuss penalties for graffiti and other damage to property.
* Assembly Natural Resources looks at the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, while Senate Human Resources reviews the state's big Medicaid program. The total of Medicaid recipients in Nevada is about 170,000. That's up from about 100,000 in 2000.
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
February 11, 2007
In search of Western Democrats
Guy W. Farmer
Special to the Appeal
As a registered Democrat (believe it or not) who is thoroughly disillusioned with President Bush and the Republicans, I'm looking for a moderate Democrat to back for president in 2008 - someone like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who made an early campaign stop in Minden late last month.
I've admired Richardson ever since he was a bright young congressman while I was still serving in the U.S. Foreign Service. Knowledgeable about foreign affairs and a centrist on domestic policy, he reminds me of the Democratic senator I admired as I grew up in Seattle, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who fought international communism as hard as he fought for compassionate social programs.
A foreign policy moderate, Richardson has had some success in the international arena. Most recently, as one of the few American politicians the North Koreans will meet with, he went there to urge that nation's Communist leaders to give up their destabilizing nuclear weapons program.
As President Clinton's United Nations ambassador, Richardson earned the respect of the international community and has served both Democratic and Republican presidents as an effective, low-key global trouble-shooter. Moreover, as Clinton's Energy Secretary he dealt with western land and water issues, and understood Nevada's implacable opposition to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which is on life support now that powerful Nevada Democrat Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader.
Although Richardson is Hispanic - the son of an American father and a Mexican mother - he doesn't wear his ethnicity on his sleeve, and neither does another Democratic presidential candidate, African-American Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Wisely, they choose not to campaign as hyphenated Americans, and that's a good thing.
More often than not, presidential candidates are elite Easterners who don't connect with Western voters. Most of the 18 (!) politicians who have already announced for president are Easterners or Southerners who know little if anything about the West - people like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani, who probably couldn't find Yucca Mountain on a map if their life depended on it. But Mrs. Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Richardson will know where Nevada is by next January when they'll compete head-to-head in statewide Democratic caucuses sandwiched between the Iowa caucuses and the all-important New Hampshire primary.
Edwards has already been here and Richardson headlined a "Turn Nevada Blue" dinner in Minden two weeks ago; however, I was troubled by what the governor said about Yucca Mountain. "I blocked the nuclear dump ... when I was (President Clinton's) Energy Secretary and insisted the location be based on science, not politics," he said. Well, not exactly, because Richardson supported the toxic project and his explanation echoes the "sound science" whopper President Bush told before he suddenly approved the nuclear waste dump in 2002. Yucca Mountain isn't about science; it's about politics, and has been ever since Congress passed the infamous "Screw Nevada" bill in 1987.
Time magazine's Joe Klein recognized the importance of the West in a recent article about what western Democrats can teach their party. Noting that the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver next year, Klein predicted that the West will be a key political battleground in 2008. "There's a distinct Rocky Mountain Democratic agenda, which emphasizes pragmatism and moderation," he wrote. "Some of the issues are local and perennial, including how to manage growth and resources like water in the nation's fastest-growing region."
Klein singled out governors Richardson, Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Brian Schweitzer of Montana along with senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and newly elected Jon Tester of Montana as western Democrats who "get it." Although Klein wrote that Richardson "sometimes tries a bit too hard at playing the western card," I disagree because he's a successful governor with deep roots in our part of the country and a keen understanding of regional issues. In fact, we might be able to turn him around on Yucca Mountain with the help of our own Sen. Reid.
According to Klein, "The Democratic Party is being reborn (in the West) with a raft of colorful candidates who have won the hearts of independents and moderate Republican voters." That's true in Nevada, where Democrats now occupy three statewide offices previously held by Republicans. So the Silver State isn't nearly as "red" as it used to be, thanks to an unpopular president and GOP congressional scandals. Once President Bush lied to us about Yucca Mountain, he was in deep doo-doo (that's how they say "problem" in Texas) around here. And he still is as we sink deeper and deeper into the Iraqi quagmire.
During an early debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls in Carson City on Feb. 21, we'll have a firsthand opportunity to hear what they say about Yucca Mountain and other western regional issues, and we should rule out any of them who don't know how to pronounce the name of our state. To paraphrase an old movie, The politicians are coming! The politicians are coming! Run for the hills.
• Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
February 09, 2007
2007 Nevada Legislature starts second week
By Brendan Riley
Associated Press
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - The 2007 Nevada Legislature opens its second week on Monday with an Assembly hearing that's expected to focus on a huge, long-term liability of up to $4.1 billion in health benefits for current and future state government workers.
The Government Affairs Committee will hear from Leslie Johnstone, executive officer of the state's employee benefit program. The liability issue is one of the big concerns facing lawmakers. Potential solutions to reduce the liability range from big appropriations for some 30 years to smaller appropriations of taxpayer dollars coupled with moneysaving limits on benefits, higher premiums and reduced pay raises for state employees.
Also Monday, Assembly Democrats plan a press briefing on their education agenda, which includes a bid for full-day kindergarten in Nevada's public schools. The kindergarten plan, opposed by Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons, also will be discussed at an Assembly Education Committee hearing.
Gibbons' proposed budget for his office and the governor's mansion will be reviewed Monday in Senate Finance. The panel and its Assembly counterpart, Ways and Means, also will review the state Gaming Control Board, which oversees the state's gambling industry.
Ways and Means also is scheduled to review spending plans for the state agency that has been battling federal efforts to open a high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
Senate Judiciary will review a plan for early release of some prisoners from county or city jails to relieve overcrowding. Assembly Judiciary is scheduled to discuss penalties for graffiti and other damage to property.
Assembly Natural Resources looks at the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources on Monday, while Senate Human Resources reviews the state's big Medicaid program. The total of Medicaid recipients in Nevada is about 170,000. That's up from about 100,000 in 2000.
On Tuesday, a joint Senate-Assembly budget panel will discuss the state Department of Motor Vehicles and the federal Real ID Act, which calls for a national driver's license. DMV chief Ginny Lewis says the new federal requirement could lead to chaos, including DMV wait times for Nevadans that could double.
An Assembly panel dealing with corrections, parole and probation will hear from state Department of Corrections officials and also from former Chief Justice Bob Rose.
Also Tuesday, the Assembly committee that deals with election rules will discuss AJR10, a resolution that would change the residency requirements for voter registration.
On Wednesday, joint Senate-Assembly education committees will discuss a school adequacy study that says Nevada should spend at least $1.3 billion dollars more a year on public education to meet a goal of having most students meet federal and state standards.
Assembly Judiciary plans a midweek hearing on AB49, which would reinstate exemptions from jury duty for any federal or state officer, judge or lawyer, various county officials and state prison guards. A new exemption would be created for local jail guards.
Assembly Health and Human Services will get a report Wednesday on uninsured Nevadans. In trying to help the state's roughly 400,000 uninsured, lawmakers say they may seek more insurance and health care opportunities for target populations such as pregnant women, poor children or those who work for small businesses.
Also Wednesday, Senate Government Affairs will review SB13, which restricts local governments from trying to prevent people from carrying signs on public sidewalks "on the basis of content or viewpoint" of the signs.
On Thursday, Assembly Ways and Means will discuss the budget for the Health and Services Department, including spending plans for mental health programs and rural clinics.
Friday's hearings include a Senate Human Resources and Education meeting on SB8, which says that repeated misuse of drugs or alcohol by someone responsible for a child's welfare is evidence of negligent treatment.
Also Friday, Assembly Judiciary will discuss AB8, which would require that someone arrested for driving under the influence could not be released on bail for at least 12 hours.
---On the Net: Nevada Legislature: http://leg.state.nv.us/
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
February 09, 2007
Study says existing sites will cost less than Yucca
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.
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."
He 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).
"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 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 would 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 that 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.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
February 09, 2007
Fund cuts won't hinder county oversight
By Mark Waite
PVT
Nye County commissioners didn't seem concerned Tuesday over a slight decrease of $83,000 in oversight funding for Yucca Mountain for 2007.
The county's funding will decrease to $2.56 million. Commissioners approved the distribution plan for the remainder of the 2007 federal year without comment.
But under the proposed Bush administration budget for 2008 released this week, Yucca Mountain oversight funding combined for the 10 counties neighboring the project would be slashed from $7.5 million to only $4 million. That isn't a concern for county officials working on the Yucca Mountain project either.
The reduction of $83,000 for this year came after a Jan. 11 meeting of the 10 counties which receive oversight funds. The federal government is operating under a continuing resolution to the end of the 2007 budget year Sept. 30.
The reduction of Nye County funding by $83,000 is to accommodate the funding constraints and the needs of counties along the new, proposed Mina rail route to Yucca Mountain, according to the summary presented to county commissioners by Dave Swanson, Nye County interim nuclear waste repository project office director. Clark County agreed to reduce its allocation by $200,000 to $1.4 million.
"We can take slightly less without harming our budget at all," Swanson said afterwards. "These other counties are contemplating some big issues when you're contemplating a railroad being constructed through your county."
The 10 counties surrounding Yucca Mountain, including Nye County, will receive their usual $7.5 million in combined, oversight funding this year. Counties less affected by the project, like White Pine, will receive only $267,000, while Lander, Eureka and Churchill counties will each receive $317,000. Esmeralda County is in line for $478,750 in funding and Inyo County, California $562,500.
Nye County could actually receive close to the same amount of funding it now receives if the Bush administration budget for 2008 is passed. Nye County normally receives about 35 percent of the funding given to the 10 counties, which would amount to $1.35 million out of $4 million, while separate Section 117 funding under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, under which Nye County received $500,000 this year, would be increased to $1.5 million next year under the Bush administration proposal.
The outlying counties would feel more of an impact in the 2008 budget if it passes. Swanson said, however, the Bush administration has proposed a similar budget cut in previous years. The U.S. Senate has always restored oversight funding to previous levels.
"It's always been the Senate that has come through with a higher appropriation for us," Swanson said. But he added, "The question is how will that happen this year with Sen. Reid in a slightly different position?"
The Nye County percentage of the 10 counties' oversight funding has ranged from 33.5 percent in 1998 to 2004, up to 37.8 percent in 2005. The county's percentage of funds will be 34.2 percent this current year.
Nye County authorizes up to $1.7 million of its oversight funding for consultants working on various projects, the remainder is used to operate the nuclear waste project office on East Basin Avenue.
A budget proposal in the House of Representatives for 2007 to delete congressional earmarks, would delete the $500,000 in Section 117 funds for the Nye County Yucca Mountain oversight office. That is the fund scheduled to increase to $1.5 million next year under the Bush budget. That pays for a Nye County expert, Bob Gamble, to work day-to-day at the DOE offices in Summerlin.
Nye County federal lobbyist Rick Spees was confident Nye County will get that $500,000 anyway.
Swanson said the money doesn't fit the definition of an earmark, his programmatic funds under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The $500,000 was first funded last year.
The new Democratic majority wants to crack down on congressional earmarks, items individual congressmen attach on other bills for pet projects.
"It was not directed at Nye County. It also did not say DOE could not fund it. It said DOE had the discretion to fund it," Spees said by phone from Washington D.C. "In our discussions with DOE our indications are DOE does intend to give us the oversight money because it is important for the programmatic process."
Swanson said Nye County officials are monitoring the situation now that U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has become U.S. Senate Majority Leader, an avowed foe of the Yucca Mountain project along with other members of the Nevada Congressional delegation.
In a written statement on President Bush's 2008 budget proposal, Senator Reid said, "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."
But while Reid has talked tough about preventing bills on things like interim storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain or the railroad to the waste dump for discussion on the Senate floor, oversight funding by the local counties continues to flow.
Funds like Payment Equal to Taxes for the land value of Yucca Mountain, under which Nye County receives $10 million per year, is mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Swanson said.
"Senator Reid has always been sensitive to our needs to oversee the program," Swanson said.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
February 09, 2007
Overall Yucca Project spending is scaled back
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."
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., a repository 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 focus $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 emplaced 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.
---------------------------
San Luis Obispo Tribune
February 08, 2007
Nevada says taxpayers would save if Yucca Mountain project dies
Ken Ritter
The Associated Press
LAS VEGAS (AP) – Nevada officials released a report Thursday saying taxpayers would save billions of dollars if the federal government never opens a national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
It would be far cheaper and just as safe for the Energy Department to leave radioactive waste at sites where it is produced, Nevada nuclear projects chief Bob Loux said, including the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near Avila Beach.
"At-reactor storage is significantly less expensive than building Yucca Mountain, even using DOE’s low-balled numbers," Loux said, citing Energy Department estimates that the Yucca project would cost $58 billion to build and operate. Loux added that power plant executives have testified that onsite storage is safe.
The state-commissioned report by Michael Thorne, a London-based cost analyst, represented the latest Nevada effort to undercut support for the Yucca project, which has been stalled in recent months by lawsuits, budget shortfalls and quality assurance questions.
An Energy Department and Yucca Mountain project spokesman in Las Vegas blamed the state for driving up costs, despite President Bush and Congress approving the repository site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, in 2002.
"The state’s analysis of cost is based on delay," said project spokesman Allen Benson, who said Thursday that about $9 million had been spent on the project since 1982.
"The state’s tactic is to delay development of Yucca Mountain so that its costs keep rising," he said, "and that’s what the report says and justifies."
Thorne weighed the costs of proceeding with the Yucca project and the cost of continuing to store spent nuclear fuel in dry casks at 100 U.S. reactor sites, factoring in what Loux called "normal" projected inflation rates of 3 percent to 7 percent per year for 25 years. Thorne figured onsite dry storage costs of $4 million per reactor per year.
Using the 3 percent estimate, the analyst found that taxpayers would save almost $31 billion if the Yucca Mountain repository is never built, Loux said.
"Continued onsite dry storage will save billions of dollars relative to proceeding with the repository," Loux added in a statement that put the cost of dry storage at reactor sites "for all perpetuity" at $13.3 billion.
In a report to state legislators on Tuesday, Loux characterized the Yucca project as "on life support." But he said his agency needed more state money to fight the federal government’s plan to seek an operating license in 2008 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and begin operating the dump in 2017.
As planned, Yucca Mountain would entomb 77,000 or more tons of the nation’s most highly radioactive waste 1,000 feet beneath an ancient volcanic ridge on the western edge of the government’s Nevada Test Site reservation.
———On the Net:
Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste
Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov
---------------------------
Blogging Vegas
February 08, 2007
Yucca Mountain project may be dying
The infamous Yucca Mountain project to stash 77,000 tons of nuclear waste inside an old volcano northwest of Las Vegas may be moribund, slowly dying of inanition as funding is cut.
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving project.
Five years after then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended on Feb. 14, 2002 to President George W. Bush that Yucca Mountain be used for storage of radioactive rods, the Department of Energy has scaled back its spending on the project. It probably represents a tacit recognition that storage in Nevada of radioactive waste from the nation’s nuclear power plants is a doomed project.
The DOE in early February sent Congress a budget requesting $494.5 million for the proposed nuclear waste repository in the federal fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. It was the smallest Yucca Mountain request since fiscal 2002, and $50 million less than the amount budgeted last year for 2007.
In an editorial titled “Waste dump loses support,” the Las Vegas Sun on Feb. 8 waxed eloquently on the predictably languishing project:
“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 nuclear waste around the country, causing increased risk of nuclear accidents on the nation’s highways. Burial would also make the waste susceptible to earthquakes, and hasten what appears to be the inevitable—that the waste will eventually leech into the ground water.”
One of the little-publicized truths of the Yucca Mountain boondoggle is that nobody has developed a cask that will hold the radioactive nuclear rods for 1,000 years, let alone 10,000 years as has been suggested as being necessary. Once the casks were laid to rest in the mortiferous mausoleum of the mountain, and began to leak, you can’t send in guys dressed in lead space suits to fix the problem. And once the radioactivity leeched into the ground water, it would seep into Death Valley, thereby provoking a giant interstate battle between Nevada and California.
Good riddance to a bad project.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
February 09, 2007
Letter: Yucca plan
To the editor:
Your Sunday editorial, "Opponents of industrial civilization," contained no surprises for those familiar with your right-wing version of reality (i.e., those who care about clean air and clean water hate capitalism; global warming is not as bad as the tree huggers claim; etc.). What was surprising about the editorial was its tacit endorsement for the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain.
In the editorial, you claim that nuclear power plants release virtually no greenhouse gases, yet those who support clean air oppose them nonetheless. However, your editorial fails to take the next step in the argument. That is understandable, as this would expose your editorial hypocrisy -- that being, what is disconcerting about nuclear power is not the amount of greenhouse gases it releases into the atmosphere, but what to do with all the spent nuclear fuel.
High-level nuclear waste remains incredibly radioactive for many centuries. It is not easily discarded. At the same time, the nuclear power industry adamantly opposes storing spent nuclear fuel at the plants where it was created. There presently are 120 temporary storage sites in the United States. Consequently, the nuclear industry, in concert with its allies in the federal government, developed a plan to permanently store the nation's high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, an isolated ridge in the desert about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Based on what your editorial left unsaid, this may not be such a bad idea. By extrapolation, if your opinion is that we must continue generating nuclear power as an alternative to meet our growing energy demands and to remain a productive industrial civilization, then certainly we must be equally willing to accept the by-product of this "clean" energy source -- that is, high-level radioactive nuclear waste -- at Yucca Mountain.
After all, it cannot be bad for us if the air is cleaner thanks to nuclear power. Right?
Thomas E. Bradley Jr.
Henderson
---------------------------
NASDAQ
February 09, 2007
US Energy Secretary: Yucca Mountain Project Costs To Rise On Delay
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Costs for the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository planned in Nevada are likely to rise because of ongoing litigation and other delays in getting the program approved, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Thursday.
Costs for construction of the facilities, including the transportation infrastructure, will reach $20 billion alone, up from the previously estimated $ 12-13 billion, Bodman said.
Furthermore, a previous estimate for an entire life-cycle cost of $58 billion is also considered outdated.
"Frankly, I think that all of the numbers that have been around for five years are going to increase because we've had delays," Bodman told reporters Thursday after testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee at a hearing on the White House's fiscal-year 2008 budget.
"It's going to be more costly to accomplish what we want to accomplish," he added.
Department of Energy spokesman Craig Stevens said that once an application for the Yucca Mountain project is approved, the DoE will be able to produce a more accurate cost estimate.
Last week, Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell estimated the facility wouldn't likely become operational until around 2020, three years later than the planned 2017 date. He expected the license application would be ready by June 2008.
But approval of the repository is in doubt because of objections from a growing grass-roots campaign, environmentalists and lawmakers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a key critic of the administration's plan to open the permanent waste site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. He and other federal lawmakers promised to block the plan.
President George W. Bush's budget request describes building the repository as a legal obligation to open a permanent geological waste site for high-level radioactive waste produced from the nation's nuclear power plants.
In the budget proposal, his administration described 2008 as a critical year for the project and provided $494.5 million for the Energy Department's radioactive waste office to make progress toward opening the site.
--By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires; (202) 862 9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com
--(Maya Jackson Randall contributed to this report.)
---------------------------
Platts
February 08, 2007
Cost of US nuclear waste repository put at $20 bil
Washington (Platts)--8Feb2007
US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told Congress Thursday that building the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain will cost a total of roughly $20 billion. DOE has spent some $10 billion on the project to date.
Testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on his agency's fiscal 2008 budget request, Bodman stuck to a deadline of completing the Nevada project by 2017, and said that the $19 billion currently in the Nuclear Waste Fund would cover most of the future repository costs. Money in that fund is paid by consumers of nuclear energy through a surcharge on nuclear-generated electricity.
"I looked at the numbers...we still are working at it, [but] my own estimate is something like $20 billion," Bodman said. "There is already $19 billion in the fund, some $700 million that will be paid in this year. The income [from interest] is also going to be $700 million to $800 million dollars," the secretary added.
--Daniel Whitten, daniel_whitten@platts.com
---------------------------
Patriot Ledger
February 09, 2007
Readers View: Threats to Pilgrim nuclear plant go unanswered
By Brian F. Sullivan
FAA Special Agent (Retired)
New England Region, Plymouth
The Patriot Ledger has asked what we think of the government’s decision to put the burden of preventing an air attack on a nuclear power plant on the U.S. military. My answer is that, as far as our government is concerned, what difference does it make what we think. The government has demonstrated that it isn’t going to listen to local concerns and is again failing in its primary mission, which is to defend the American people.
It is going to do what it is going to do, regardless of the facts or citizen input, and that is to support the position of the nuclear power industry at all costs. This decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is just one more example of the kind of avoidance mentality that led to 9/11 and the devastation caused by the failure of the levies in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The 9/11 Commission has documented that targeting U.S. nuclear facilities was in the terrorists’ playbook. Add to that that our government has for years botched the development of nuclear waste storage sites at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and Skull Valley in Utah, and we have a recipe for disaster.
Little did towns like Plymouth know that 30 years after Pilgrim was built, we’d see the local woods used as a nuclear waste storage facility, which is exactly what will happen when the spent fuel rod pool at Pilgrim reaches full capacity within the next few years.
Expecting that the military will be able to prevent an air strike on the spent fuel rod pool at Pilgrim demonstrates the same ‘‘lack of imagination’’ condemned by the 9/11 Commission. There simply isn’t enough time for the good folks at the Otis Air Force Base, or anywhere else, to react.
The tragedy is that our government just doesn’t seem to care about our concerns. While it has ‘‘fiddled and diddled’’ with the development of storage sites at Yucca Mountain and Skull Valley, and catered to the whims of the nuclear power industry, it has decided once again, in the tradition of 9/11 and Katrina, to wait for a disaster to occur before considering effective counter measures.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------