Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, March 15, 2007
---------------------------

Friday, March 16, 2007

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 15, 2007

QUALITY ASSURANCE: Yucca e-mails explained

Geological Survey hydrologists created perception problem, panel told

By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal

BERKELEY, Calif. -- Federal hydrologists who wrote e-mails about short-cutting quality assurance of their work on water moving through the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site created more of a perception problem than a scientific failure, the head of a presidential oversight board said Wednesday.

Nevertheless, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will report to Congress on what it learned from a daylong discussion on the controversial e-mails written mostly by a trio of U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists led by Alan L. Flint, board Chairman B. John Garrick said.

"It's regrettable this e-mail issue developed the way it did," Garrick said during a break in the meeting of the review board's panel.

"The work was overshadowed by the e-mail fiasco," he said. "The board generally believes the work was competently performed. It does not appear the science has been unduly compromised even though there was a mishandling of information."

At issue are e-mails written during a six-year period between 1998 and 2004 by Flint, his wife, Lorraine Flint, and Joseph Hevesi. The three who worked at the USGS's Sacramento office expressed a negative attitude about the Yucca Mountain quality assurance in their e-mails and suggested skirting quality assurance requirements by back-dating notebooks, making up dates of task completions and misrepresenting information, according to Energy Department managers who probed the problem.

The USGS reports on water infiltration models "were not fully compliant with the traceability and transparency requirements" for quality assurance, Gene Runkle, project controls manager for the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told the panel.

"The review did not find a widespread or pervasive pattern ... of a negative attitude toward quality assurance or willful noncompliace with quality assurance requirements," he said. "We had no clear evidence that it had been falsified."

Civilian Radioactive Waste chief Ward Sproat will present the agency's findings to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff at a meeting March 27 in Rockville, Md.

During Wednesday's panel discussion, USGS Ground Water Office Chief William Alley said after the e-mail scandal surfaced in March 2005, it "really cast a pall around the whole branch for a while."

"It's been a traumatic experience for the USGS and we take it very seriously," he said.

Alley said the Survey has spent about $200,000 trying to clean up the Yucca Mountain water infiltration work and restore the integrity of the models even though they won't be used by the Department of Energy in seeking a license for the planned repository.

Instead, the Department of Energy has hired Sandia National Laboratories develop new infiltration rate estimates and maps by redoing the models using the data and measurements that Flint's team compiled over more than a decade of work at the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The price tag on that unfinished work was not available.

Flint talked about the work elaborating on how his team sometimes set up camp during heavy rainstorms to watch how water moves on and around the ridge and to collect data on how it descended through plant-covered soils and exposed rock faces. Boreholes were monitored in channels and near earthquake faults.

Much of the surface runoff that travels to the depth of the planned repository comes through fractures in the ridgetop and trickles through side slopes, he said.

He said the data is credible and trustworthy despite the "perceived" shortcomings with its quality assurance traceability and transparency."

"There was no problem with quality assurance. It was a perceived problem," he said after his presentation.

"The perceived problem was that people didn't understand some of the wording that was used and the inner workings of how the program was going at the time," said the 54-year-old Flint.

He cited an example of an e-mail discussing a quality assurance audit in which the auditors wanted to see a scientific notebook.

"Because everything we had was electronic and all the records were electronic, the models were electronic, the input files, I think the e-mail said, 'Well, I'm going to have to make up a notebook.'

"People thought that meant you were going to fake a notebook," Flint said. "What that really meant was you were going to take your electronic data, put that into one of these green record books and document the pages and sign them, which was done all the time. ... And that was one of the kinds of mistakes that was made."

Another example, he said, was an e-mail that discussed keeping two sets of records: "One to keep Q/A happy and one I use in the model. ... That's an example of the kinds of things that were sort of blown out of proportion."

Regardless of Flint's assertion, an Energy Department spokesman for the Office of Repository Development in Las Vegas, said the modeling work is being redone because of questions about its integrity.

"There can be no question if we are to have a license application," said the spokesman, Allen Benson. "There can be no question about the integrity. As a result we are taking another look at the work that was done."

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

The Tennessean
March 15, 2007

Transportation plan perilous, ill-conceived

By DON SAFER

I feel a sense of dread, a foreboding — the insecurity leads me to outrage. I never wanted us to create nuclear waste in the first place. Thirty years ago, opponents of nuclear power plants pointed out the folly of producing large quantities of nuclear waste. To date, we have created more than 59,000 tons of this waste.

Ill-conceived new plans would create multiples of this amount worldwide. The Department of Energy is proposing to bring this waste to the U.S., possibly Tennessee or Kentucky, for dangerous and dirty reprocessing. Long-term storage is at least 20 years away, and the proposed solutions remain highly controversial.

Implementation of the GNEP plan could result in Tennessee highways and rails carrying a high volume of spent reactor fuel in casks that have never been tested in real-world crash, fire or immersion tests. The previous plan, transporting the waste to Yucca Mountain, Nev., has estimates of 108,500 shipments; six a day for 38 years. And that estimate does not include the imported waste.

Shipping is one of the most vulnerable links in the nuclear fuel cycle. Spent fuel is much more radioactive than the original because of the buildup of fission and transuranic elements. One truckload has 40 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima bomb; a rail cask has the radiation of 200. During transit, nuclear material comes closest to the public while under its lowest levels of security.

'Dirty bombs on wheels'

Nuclear waste casks have been called "dirty bombs on wheels" because they would make extremely attractive targets to terrorists. The state of Nevada says: "Both truck and rail shipping casks are vulnerable to an attack using a single, current-generation weapon." They conservatively estimate contamination of an area of several square miles.

The consequences of high-level radiation exposure are horrible. They last for a very long time and affect future generations of humans, animals, plants and viruses. The National Academy of Science says that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, can have a negative health effect.

Potential DOE plans for Tennessee are to use Interstates 40, 65, 24 and 75. Trucks carrying nuclear waste would be crisscrossing Tennessee alongside each of us much more often than they do now. It is hard to imagine the human and economic costs of an accident or attack in Nashville, but it would certainly be devastating and cost billions. Lowered property values along routes with heavy nuclear waste traffic are a reality.

Be very skeptical of those who minimize the dangers of nuclear power. Thirty years ago, they were almost successful in their blind, willy-nilly effort to turn the Tennessee Valley into the world's biggest nuclear experiment. Then, in 1979, the Three Mile Island meltdown occurred. In 1986, the nuclear plant in Chernobyl exploded. These, along with a near-catastrophe at TVA's Browns Ferry Plant, quieted the building frenzy.

It took the realities of those accidents to stop the nuclear madness. Let's hope we stop it this time before our worst fears are realized.

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

The Tennessean
March 15, 2007

GNEP a solution to climate, energy needs

By Dennis Spurgeon

In the effort to support economic growth, aggressively address climate change, and satisfy a demand for world energy that is expected to double by 2050, the need for nuclear power — a safe, clean, affordable and emissions-free source of energy — has never been greater.

Never before has the need for energy security driven more countries to turn to nuclear power. The president's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), announced in 2006, provides a global solution of appropriate magnitude to address these issues.

GNEP is a comprehensive strategy involving the U.S. and partnering nations to increase the use of nuclear power to meet an ever-increasing worldwide demand for energy. Specifically, it creates a program to eliminate the need for countries to develop technology that can be used to create nuclear weapons. It also seeks to develop existing technologies to recycle used fuel, allowing us to safely consume elements that are especially difficult to dispose of. By implementing GNEP, we would increase global energy security, reduce the risk of proliferation, improve the environment, and cut our dependence on fossil fuels — all while creating jobs and growing economies worldwide.

The U.S. Department of Energy has received interest from 13 sites for potential GNEP facilities. We envision three facilities. The first would separate used fuel, the second would recycle this fuel with an advanced reactor, and the third would provide research support. Currently, DOE is hosting public meetings near each of these potential sites to gain a better understanding of the environmental conditions under which we might be operating. On the whole, feedback has been positive.

Partnership offers options

Of course, safety and security are a concern. In fact, they were a driving force behind GNEP. Because nuclear power is the only technology currently capable of delivering large amounts of power without emitting carbon dioxide, a managed worldwide growth of nuclear fuel production and recycling is essential because it minimizes the risk of nuclear materials getting into the wrong hands. Unmanaged, we would have little to no room to provide safeguard from nuclear material winding up in the hands of those bent on harming us. With inaction, we are complacent. With GNEP, we have options.

With recycling, GNEP will significantly reduce the amount of used fuel that ultimately needs to be disposed of; however, a permanent repository is still necessary. Yucca Mountain, Nev., is best-suited for this function, as the nation's permanent geologic repository. GNEP will allow us to recycle and reuse fuel that would otherwise end up unused at Yucca Mountain.

We are now at a crossroad in terms of establishing the international framework necessary to support such expansion. Many countries such as Japan, China and Russia are already aggressively pursuing the expansion of nuclear power — regardless of our involvement. In order to have a stake in how nuclear fuel is handled, processed, stored and used, we must invest in and provide leadership in the nuclear fuel cycle. GNEP does just that.

For more information, visit: www.gnep.gov.

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

Las Vegas CityLife
March 08, 2007

Up Front

Collision course

Railroad workers worry about the safety of Las Vegas Valley's toxic trains

by Matt O'Brien

When the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published a five-part series on railroad safety and security, including some alarming information about Southern Nevada, it seemed to draw little more than yawns.

"That series is just one of a number of articles that have talked about transportation issues," said Larry Casey, executive director of the Nevada Homeland Security Commission. "Folks that work transportation security are very cognizant of that type of threat. Those kind of articles are out there all the time. I wouldn't say that it immeditately got everybody fired up and ready to go down range and look at stuff. It's just another piece of information we have to take a look at and analyze."

The series, which ran in the Tribune-Review on Jan. 14 and 15 and was picked up by media outlets throughout the country, did resonate with one group of locals: railroad workers. They talked about it in the locker rooms, rail yards and locomotives. On the rails, in the lodges and in restaurants. In bars, at home (on the rare occasions they were there) and in union halls.

The consensus: The series was dead-on -- but there's a lot more to the story.

Five years after 9/11, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine sought to find out how well U.S. railroads and railroad plants protect hazardous materials. The short answer: not very well. Using information provided by the Federal Railroad Administration as a road map, Prine accessed more than 45 plants and the rail lines that serve them, in areas including Atlanta, Seattle and San Francisco.

In the Las Vegas area, he accessed 11 hazmat tankers in plants or on the rails.

"All these reporters get plum assignments and I always get sent to do the worst things possible," said Prine, who was embedded in Iraq from July 2005-July 2006. "I'm always the guy crawling through a crack house or getting shot at in Iraq. I finally get to the place I think I'm going to have a great assignment, Las Vegas, and what do I do? I spend all my time in industrial plants and on the railroads."

Prine was in Las Vegas from Oct. 13-18. He infiltrated the Thatcher Company and Pioneer Companies chemical plants in the Henderson area, then followed the Union Pacific railroad into Vegas proper. He left his business card on rail cars, as if planting an improvised explosive device.

The materials he accessed include chlorine gas, anhydrous ammonia and sulfuric acid.

The railroad cuts through neighborhoods in Green Valley, passes within yards of CityLife's offices, skirts McCarran International Airport and runs parallel to the Strip. Downtown, it borders the Clark County Government Center and the Plaza hotel-casino.

Trains can have more than 100 rail cars and each car can hold more than 30,000 gallons of materials.

Prine said security was "pretty good" in the Northeast United States, particularly in New Jersey. But it was "universally bad" on the West Coast and in the Southwest.

"I just walked right in and put my business card on the [rail-car] placards, rode the rails and walk around," said Prine.

He added that the Las Vegas Valley's wide-open spaces make finding and accessing the materials relatively easy. All you have to be able to do, he said, is read a placard.

"Any casino parking lot in the state is safer than any rail yard in the state," said Joe Carter, Nevada legislative director of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. "Every yard is wide open. You can walk right into them. There are no fences. There are no cameras. There's no security."

Added Jack Fetters, state legislative director of the United Transportation Union: "You can walk right into the yards and walk around. You can spend the day in there, if you want. You can watch the trains go by, watch the guys switch cars, whatever. There's no such thing as security in the rail yards."

Union Pacific, the main railroad in Southern Nevada, has its own police force. It -- not Metro, the Henderson Police Department or the North Las Vegas Police Department -- is responsible for patrolling the yards and rails.

However, said Fetters, there are no Union Pacific railroad cops stationed in Southern Nevada. The nearest railroad cop is in West Colton, Calif., he said, about 190 miles away. There's another cop in Sparks, he said, who covers more than 500 miles of rail.

"They used to have a couple of cops stationed here," said Fetters, who has been a conductor for more than 25 years, "up until about four or five years ago. For whatever reason, they're not here anymore."

But Carter, an engineer, said there are three Union Pacific railroad cops in Nevada. There's one in Sparks, he said, who works from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday through Friday.

"He's on call the rest of the time," said Carter, "but good luck reaching him."

There are two railroad cops in Southern Nevada, said Carter. One of them works full time, he said, the other part time.

"They may or may not be around on a regular basis," said Carter. "I don't know what their territory is, but I assume it at least goes to Yermo, Calif. I can see how Jack would think there aren't any stationed here, because you never see them around. They're always gone."

One local rail worker, who requested anonymity, said he only sees the railroad cops after something bad happens. For example, he said, after a drifter gets hit by a train, the cops will show up and sweep the area. The next day, he said, they may bust some teenagers spray-painting along the tracks.

"From what I've seen," he said, "it's a Band-Aid approach. If there's an incident, there's a small show of force. They'll make themselves a little more visible for a few days."

Mark Davis, spokesman for Union Pacific, said the duties of railroad workers include reporting anyone suspicious in the yards and on the rails. It's not only a safety issue, Davis said, but a security issue.

"Part of our duties from a safety standpoint, even before 9/11, were to let management know when someone suspicious was around," said Davis, "so you could get the railroad police and have the person removed from the area. After 9/11, we reminded all employees of that and encouraged them to contact a dispatcher or a manager, who would contact the railroad police."

Since 9/11, said Davis, Union Pacific has installed surveillance cameras in yards and on rails. But, he said, the eyes and ears of the workers are our "first line of defense."

"They tell us to report any suspicious people," said Fetters, "but how do we know who's suspicious or not? There are kids riding dirt bikes along the rails. There are rail buffs who come up to the trains and take pictures. Unless a guy's wearing a turban or something, it probably wouldn't raise my suspicion."

How many railroad cops are stationed in Southern Nevada?

"We don't like to talk numbers," said Davis, "but we do have an adequate number of railroad police across the system. We also rely on local, county and state law enforcement. We have help from federal agencies.

"Railroad security is extremely well staffed across the country."

Local railroad workers have many safety and security concerns. They include easy access to the locomotives, which are not locked, poor maintenance of the trains and rails, and poor training.

But they have two main concerns, said Carter: access to the yards and rails and worker fatigue.

Fetters said airline pilots can only work 80 hours a month. Some conductors and engineers, he said, work 80 hours a week.

"When you get on a train," said Fetters, "you never know when you're going to get off work. You never know when you're going to come home."

A conductor or engineer can arrive at a yard in Milford, Utah, at 10 a.m. He leaves the yard at 11:30 a.m. and arrives in Las Vegas around 10 p.m. He ties down the train, then heads home or to a motel.

He can be called back to work as soon as six and a half hours later, said one rail worker.

"It's not fun," he said. "A lot of guys are tired, real tired. It's the schedule. A lot of guys try to have normal lives, but it's tough when you don't know when you're going to work. We all knew what we were signing up for. There were no illusions about the schedule and how hard it would be, but it's still tough."

Federal law says conductors and engineers can only work 12 hours a shift. But, said Fetters, there's no weekly or monthly limit to how many hours they can work.

"You can work 12-hour shifts for 1,000 days in a row," said Fetters. "You can make a lot of money, but you'll work your ass off. You'll be a dead man walking in two weeks."

There are times, said Fetters, when the conductor wakes up and finds the engineer asleep.

"Running a train is not real hard," he said, "but it's time-consuming and, at times, very boring. You're looking out the window -- and the next thing you know, you've been on duty for six hours. Your mind starts to wander. You've worked 12-hour shifts for five or six days in a row. You just fall asleep. It's Circadian rhythms."

Added the rail worker, "The joke is that the downhill indicator is when the engineer's chin is against his chest. The uphill indicator is when his chin's in the air. That's our grade indicator."

Fetters knows conductors and engineers who have run stop signals.

"You're running a 10,000-ton train that's going 50 miles per hour," said Fetters. "You don't stop it like you would a Volkswagen. You need to be on top of the game a couple miles ahead of when you think you're going to need to stop."

Davis said fatigue is a concern and Union Pacific has been addressing it since the mid-1990s. The company even has an expert who focuses on it, he said.

"Because of the varied work cycles, we tell our employees to get proper rest," said Davis. "Science has told us that a proper diet is important, exercise, your surroundings. We work with the motels and lodges to make sure the insulation in the walls is thick and that the curtains block the light. We've really worked hard on those kinds of things."

Davis said Union Pacific has studied schedules and found that most employees work a "reasonable number of hours a month." It also found that less than 10 percent of its employees work overtime, he said.

And they, said Davis, worked overtime because they wanted to.

"The one thing we hear when we cut back hours is that someone is going to be making less money," said Davis.

Giving employees a regular schedule is tough, he said, because we never know when a train is going to arrive.

"Safety is always No. 1 at Union Pacific," said Davis. "It comes first and it's something we're very proud of. We wouldn't put anything ahead of safety. This company just doesn't do that."

Carter and Fetters aren't convinced. They said Union Pacific and other railroads are driven by profits -- the coal in the engine. They put their stakeholders ahead of their employees. They're greedy.

"We need to talk vested interests," said Carter. "Our vested interest is the safety of our members and the safety of the community. Remember, we live here. The railroads' vested interest is money and return to their shareholders. They have a vested interest to short-cut safety. They do it all the time. They'll tell you that safety is No. 1, but they're showing you something entirely different."

In January, Union Pacific reported a fourth-quarter net income of $485 million. Its fourth-quarter commodity revenue was a record $3.8 billion, up 9 percent.

Added Fetters, noting that Union Pacific isn't the only culprit: "It's like with most industries. They'll wait until something bad happens and then say, 'Well, maybe we should've done this or done that.'"

Fetters said the United Transportation Union once proposed a bill in Carson City to fence all yards and rails in Nevada. Union Pacific did the math, he said: 1,000 miles of track at $8,000 a mile. The railroad decided not to support the bill and it didn't pass.

Carter and Fetters said if the railroads were serious about safety and security, they would at least fence the yards, create checkpoints (Carter said he hasn't had to show his Union Pacific ID in 11 years), install surveillance cameras and hire security guards.

Carter also said local police and firefighters, who support the railroad cops, need training on how to communicate with rail workers and how to handle hazardous materials.

"Say we have a carload of alcohol that's on fire," said Carter, "and a carload of propane gas next to it. The conductor and the engineer are incapacitated. Who's going to separate the cars and pull the train ahead? The railroad cops aren't around. The regular cops don't know how to do it. The firemen don't know how to do it. That's another part of the problem."

Calls to Metro were not returned. Henderson Police Department spokesman Keith Paul said its officers have hazmat training, but are not trained to work the rails.

"If something like that happened," said Paul, "we'd contact the railroad. All of our officers are equipped with gas masks and suits to handle any sort of explosion or derailment. As first responders, we would go to the scene and I imagine that everybody else would go to it as well. It wouldn't just be a Henderson issue or a railroad issue. It would be a community issue and we'd all work together to solve it."

That's of little comfort to Carter, Fetters and many other railroad workers in Southern Nevada. They want to see safety and security improvements -- and fast.

"I think the railroads know it's only a matter of time before something happens," said Carter. "But it's too expensive for them and their shareholders to provide the security that's needed. It's all a matter of money and risk. They've done the risk assessment and determined that it's cheaper to pay for the dead bodies than to fix the problem."

--Matt O'Brien is CityLife's news editor. He can be reached at 871-6780 ext. 350 or mobrien@lvcitylife.com.

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

Idaho Mountain Express
March 14, 2007

DOE to host meeting on nuclear project

By Greg Stahl
Express Assistant Editor

The U.S. Department of Energy is holding meetings around the nation this winter to evaluate potential sites for a nuclear waste recycling center.

It doesn't sit well with a Boise-based nuclear watchdog, the Snake River Alliance.

"Take it off the table. They haven't even figured any of this science out," said Jeremy Maxand, the alliance's executive director. "This reprocessing is going to make more plutonium in the world, not less. This is going to make new nuclear power 100 billion times more expensive than it should be."

The department's Idaho National Laboratory last week announced that the 11th of 12 public scoping meetings on an environmental impact statement for the siting of such a facility will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, at the Red Lion Hotel, 475 River Parkway in Idaho Falls.

Idaho National Laboratory, the vast DOE research site in the Arco Desert west of Idaho Falls, and the hamlet of Atomic City, south of the INL headquarters, are under consideration in Idaho.

"This is the worst place to put it," Maxand said. "You're putting it above an aquifer. It may never leave the state if they build this facility. If Yucca Mountain (a proposed federal depository for highly radioactive waste in Nevada) doesn't open, this stuff's never going anywhere."

The Idaho sites are two of 13 sites in eight states the Department of Energy is considering for construction of three different facilities, and the department is touting the "safe" and "affordable" attributes of nuclear energy.

--More information is available at www.gnep.gov.

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

Toledo Blade
March 14, 2007

A nuclear move

DTE Energy, the parent firm of Detroit Edison, wants to build a new nuclear power plant on the site of its Fermi nuclear complex in Monroe County, replacing the 22-year-old plant now generating energy. The announcement is notable in itself: it will be the first time in more than three decades that anyone has sought a license for a new plant from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Merely applying for a license is a daunting task.

DTE officials say they plan to spend $30 million to prepare their application. The new plant itself would cost an estimated $3 billion, and would take years to build. If a license is granted, the soonest a new reactor could be generating energy would be 2013.

Applying to build a replacement now seems like a prudent and sensible step. Nuclear power plants are seen as having a normal life span of about 40 years, and while some plants have been granted extensions to operate longer, this is a technology that has benefited from constant improvements in technology and safety procedures.

Naturally, there will be some people who will always oppose nuclear power, no matter what. Yet the industry has actually had a remarkable safety record, especially since Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

The fact is that the nation has ever-increasing energy needs, and is now too dependent on dwindling supplies of fossil fuel, much of it from the terminally unstable Middle East.

Paul Block, Jr., our late publisher and a research scientist, often said that nuclear plants should be built precisely when safety was the major concern. Otherwise, he feared that there would be a crash program to build them when fossil fuels suddenly ran out or were cut off, and that this might lead to riskier construction.

Nuclear critics have, however, one very valid worry: Disposal of the radioactive spent fuel rods which are piling up at nearly every nuclear plant in the nation.

Several years ago, the federal government decided there should be a national nuclear waste fuel depository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. But political and financial concerns have delayed its construction. Most Nevadans don't want it in their backyards, and both parties have been guilty of pandering to what is now a swing state in close presidential elections.

The new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, reportedly has indicated that he will not allow Yucca Mountain to go forward.

That may be good politics, but it's hardly responsible public policy.

DTE is itself fast running out of storage space for the fuel rods at its Fermi site. The Big Rock nuclear plant in northern Michigan was torn down years ago, but there is still a building on the site housing the spent fuel rods.

In an age where terrorism is a concern, America needs a national solution to the worsening nuclear fuel-storage problem, and it needs one soon.

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

The Australian
March 14, 2007

Don't go nuclear, US expert warns

By Rosemary Desmond

AUSTRALIA could face serious environmental problems if it went ahead with a nuclear power industry, a visiting American expert has warned.

Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington DC, said marine life would suffer if superheated water used to cool nuclear reactors built on the coast was released back into the sea.

Mr Kamps said there could be no safe disposal of nuclear waste.

Prime Minister John Howard has backed a nuclear power industry, saying it is a long-term solution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Kamps said Australians should "nip this proposal in the bud".

"Nuclear reactors in Australia would be de facto permanent waste dumps until a nuclear sacrifice site was made somewhere in the country," Mr Kamps said.

In the US, a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, had so far cost $US9 billion ($11.53 billion) and 25 years work to set up.

"The earliest they can open it is 2021, but it's looking more and more likely it may never open now, so it's back to square one with our dilemma," Mr Kamps said.

The Prime Minister's nuclear taskforce has said 25 nuclear power plants in Australia would generate 45,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste.

But this was almost as much as America's estimated 60,000 tonnes after 50 years of nuclear power, Mr Kamps said.

Nuclear waste remained a deadly poison in the environment for up to a million years.

A study has identified cities such as Townsville, Mackay and Brisbane as potential sites for nuclear reactors because of the coastal cities' proximity to power and water.

But the US experience had been that marine life was seriously affected by coast-based nuclear plants, Mr Kamps said.

"Even large animals like endangered sea turtles are sucked into these cooling systems," he said.

"In one year, 933 endangered sea turtles were sucked into a reactor in Florida.

"Sixteen of these were killed and many of the others were injured or traumatised, so it's having very serious impacts on endangered species on the sea coasts."

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

Spero News
March 13, 2007

The nuclear renaissance: Is it real?

Given the four-to-five-year timeframe 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

Anthony F. Earley Jr.

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 timeframe 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.

Speech by Anthony F. Earley Jr., DTE Energy Chairman and CEO, to the Economic Club of Detroit, February 12, 2007

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

Las Vegas SUN
March 11, 2007

Brian Greenspun finds answers, raises questions on the golf course

Reaching for the low-hanging fruit.

I owe whatever business and other success I have to the game of golf. At least, that should be my mantra after years of listening to my father justify his occasional sojourns from the office to his wife and, then, my doing the same thing to my mother. It was our way of rationalizing where we wanted to be with the place we thought our wife and mother wanted us to be. The long and short of that conversation is that my mother played more golf than either one of us did and was only looking for someone to be at work so she could.

I mention this because it really is true that much of what we do in the business, social and philanthropic world happens - or gets its start - on the golf course. People have time to get to know one another and get to know what others are like, whether they can be trusted, whether they take shortcuts, whether they live by the rules and, most importantly, whether or not they can count.

And so it was earlier this week when I took one of those rare days off in the middle of the week to sneak out to the golf course with some friends. One of those friends was former President Bill Clinton, who was in town to give a speech and visit with his good friend Terry McAuliffe, who was in Las Vegas for a book party honoring his terrific new book, "What A Party." The three of us joined another friend who insisted he hadn't played in five years and proceeded to whip us handily. That also happens on the golf course, especially when the sandbagger is the greatest tennis player in a generation.

So here's what I learned that day: The theory of low-hanging fruit.

Whenever former President Clinton is in the middle of a large group of people, it should not be a surprise that it is his opinion, his understanding of the facts and his reflection on matters of great national and international concern that is sought out by the group. It was no different following our golf game, when we gathered around a large table to swap golf stories.

The conversation immediately turned to the Bush administration's latest effort to continue the "Screw Nevada" scenario that was put into place over 20 years ago by a Congress and a president who cared nothing for us out here in Nevada but who, obviously, cared deeply about the electoral votes of Texas and Louisiana - two states which had better sites for long-term storage and more people (read voters). And just in case you continue not to believe me, or the GOP spin machine takes issue with what I and this newspaper have been saying since what seems like the beginning of time, I need only refer you to an expert.

Edward McGaffigan was the longest-serving member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when he retired last month. It wasn't until then that he opened his mouth and spoke the truth. Suffering from cancer and looking at an uncertain future, McGaffigan said, "It may be time to stop digging." His view is that Yucca Mountain is unlikely to ever open as a storage site for nuclear waste largely because the politics were flawed at the start. "Nevada never wanted it," he said. And, contrary to what my colleague, Jon Ralston, believes is true, Nevadans still don't want it and they care deeply about that belief.

President Clinton was asked his opinion about nuclear power plants and the utility companies' drive to build many more of them - a situation that would exacerbate the waste issue. Without saying whether he favored that plan or not, he questioned, based on his own extensive research into the subject when Yucca Mountain was on his radar screen, whether nuclear power was really as cheap as the proponents have suggested it is. That, after all, is a major selling point for building multibillion-dollar nuke plants before there is a cogent and responsible plan for safe disposal of the high-level radioactive waste. I suppose when one factors in the cost of disposal the price of that energy starts to soar.

In any event, President Clinton's theory grabbed everyone's attention. Why, he asked, would we embark on a costly and uncertain nuclear power future before we have picked off the easy targets? The low-hanging fruit, if you will. For example, there is reason to believe that clean coal technology will allow us to generate almost twice as much electricity as we currently do with no more greenhouse gas emissions or other environmental damage than is currently the case. And repairing or replacing the electrical grid system in this country, while expensive, will significantly enhance our power delivery capacity. Whatever those costs involved, they are far less than nuclear plants and disposal issues. Why shouldn't we do that first?

When President Clinton spoke to the Nevada Development Authority not too long ago, he laid out a plan for solar and geothermal power in this state that would create tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs and put Nevada on the map as one of the premier high-tech environmental states in the country. He asked this past week what had happened since that speech and why our governor hasn't made such a program the highest priority for a state with abundant sunshine and geothermal capacity. Those are fair questions. It is the answers that are unfair to the people of this state.

If you go to the nation's midsection - Iowa, the Dakotas and Montana - there is enough wind to drive those new windmills crazy with renewable energy that is absolutely free. Enough, in fact, to power a major part of this country. Why, the former president asked, isn't there a program to develop that capacity?

That's the low-hanging fruit. The obvious and easy things to do first before we risk too much. And only if those efforts prove fruitless and fail to produce what common sense and reason say will happen, only then should we attempt the more difficult, and by doing so risk our lives and our environment on the limbs where the higher-hanging fruit beckons us.

So that's the theory. And I have to say that I cannot find fault with it, especially the part about Nevada, our abundant sunshine and the opportunity to create thousands of new jobs while we become the next environmentally high-tech wonder of the world. I am so convinced, in fact, I think I will head back out to the golf course to see what else I can learn.

Maybe there is someone out there who can explain why the Bush administration and its Republican allies are so hell-bent on putting Nevada families at such great risk.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

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

About - News & Issues
March 11, 2007

From Robert Longley,

USGS Yucca Mountain Gaffes Costing Taxpayers Millions

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Energy has spent over $20 million so far in dealing with records apparently falsified by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) workers concerning site suitability testing for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada nuclear waste storage facility.

In March 2005, a series of emails sent during the late 1990s between USGS employees indicated that USGS may have falsified data pertaining to the safety and suitability of the Yucca Mountain site to serve as the nation’s nuclear waste repository.

Along with contending that USGS may have falsified test results on the potential dangers of water filtration at the Yucca Mountain site, the emails expressed dissatisfaction with the project's overall quality assurance program.

According to the GAO, the USGS spent $4.2 million during 2005-2006 reviewing the emails and associated documents just to determine the extent and nature of the problem. Another $16 million was spent by USGS to perform a “scientific rework” of its Yucca Mountain water infiltration model. Another $5.1 million will be spent during 2007 to further refine the water infiltration model.

GAO estimates that just the environmental licensing phase of the Yucca Mountain project has cost taxpayers $12 billion from 1983 through 2005, and that another $11 billion will be spent from 2006 through 2017, the latest projected opening date.

The U.S. Geological Survey is a component of the U.S. Department of the Interior, a regulatory, Cabinet-level agency.

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

Hagerstown Morning Herald
March 11, 2007

Editorial: A neutral answer to global warming

by ROBERT GARY

Global warming can be solved by taxing carbon dioxide sources according to the amount they release into the atmosphere and using the money raised to subsidize zero carbon dioxide alternatives.

The model for this policy is the Social Security system, which is one of the only federal programs that actually works, at least so far. The reason it works is because it is astonishingly simple.

Working people pay their FICA taxes, and the money goes into a trust fund. From that fund, Social Security checks are written for retirees. So the government is functioning merely as a bookkeeper. It is an automatic taxing authority, and an automatic check writer.

This is how the carbon dioxide problem needs to be addressed. The federal government taxes, at the point of sale, electric power, gasoline and natural gas, and it subsidizes at the point of sale, conservation (such as fluorescent light bulbs), zero emissions energy (such as wind power or solar power), and energy use avoidance (like telecommuting).

Why at the point of sale? Because that relegates government to a pure bookkeeping role, taxing at one side and subsidizing at the other, with no management skill or imagination required.

This robotic participation by the government is really just getting out of the way and letting the free market do its thing based on price theory. You get more of the things you subsidize (solar, photovoltaic, hydro, conservation, and energy use avoidance) and less of the things you tax (burning coal, or other fossil fuels). If the tax or the subsidy applies at the point of sale and at the moment of the sale, then price theory gets a chance to work its magic.

For this to be viable, many electricity generating firms must be permitted to provide power to the grid. Put creativity to work, let the entrepreneurs figure out how to make electric power with a relatively low carbon footprint, or none at all. If the carbon emitted into the atmosphere is low, the companies get their subsidy by giving the subsidy to the customers at the point of sale - like with the hybrid cars. No checks went to Ford or Toyota, the checks went to the customers who bought the hybrid cars.

Same on the tax side. You tax the customer who buys the electric power made by burning fossil fuels. Because of price theory this tax get fed back up the line and affects the businesses that sell high carbon impact electric power and fossil fuels. Those businesses become less profitable at the same time the low-carbon-impact businesses become more profitable. Over time, with big enough numbers of transactions, the results are predictable - carbon dioxide emissions released to the atmosphere go down.

What about the other greenhouse gases such as methane, or ethane or carbon monoxide? It's safe to say that not less than 75 percent of the global warming problem is caused by carbon dioxide and probably closer to 95 percent. So first things first. The perfect is the enemy of the good. The fact that the whole problem can't be solved at one stroke must not paralyze us into inaction.

What about nuclear power? Nuclear power should not be taxed by this proposal and should not be subsidized. It should be neutral for now. Clearly it is a zero-carbon dioxide source, so it can play a major positive role in quelling the global warming problem. Just as clearly, there is no repository for high level nuclear waste and it would be extremely irresponsible to subsidize an industry that is creating a national security problem by storing high-level wastes in auxiliary buildings and dry casks at or near nuclear power plants.

If Yucca Mountain ever opens, or some other high-level waste repository, then nuclear power could be a socially acceptable form of power that is sustainable and reasonably safe.

The global warming problem is actually secondary to the global caring problem. Why should you care about global warming? Well, you might have relatives in New Orleans for one thing, or in Florida, which is going to be half submerged in 25 years if global warming continues at the present rate.

You might know somebody in New York City, or your 401(k) or IRA might be managed from there - you don't want that to be under water. About 90 percent of the U.S. population lives in areas that are going to be flooded or submerged or subjected to devastating storms if the global warming problem is not abated in the next 25 years. Even with a complete lack of altruism, caring would still be possible for many people. But we do care about other people and what happens to other people, right?

What about other countries? Do they care? Most of the industrialized countries have done more already. We are the laggards among the developed nations in taking meaningful action to quell global warming. The only actors in the U.S. that can be effective on this issue are the customers, the citizens, you and I, not the government. The government needs a nano-sized and robotized role that it can constructively play, while it stays out of the free market's way. Good casting makes good policy.

--Robert Gary is a Hagerstown resident who writes for The Herald-Mail.

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

Chicago Daily Southtown
March 11, 2007

'Let us build the dump, now'

Marlene Lang

The Secretary of Energy last week asked Congress, in a most urgent tone, to hurry and pass the "Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act."

This was a rerun of a proposal made almost one year ago to set aside 147,000 acres at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and start building an underground dump for unsavory radioactive waste. The proposal expands the request the secretary made one year ago, though. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman explained last week that there is so much radioactive waste sitting around the country -- safely contained in "Monitored Retrievable Storage" -- that if the dump were built next week, it would be at capacity.

"Please let us build our radioactive waste dump now! The lawsuits are killing us."

What?

That's a paraphrase.

Actually, the lawsuits were mentioned only after the energy secretary made an attempt at giving more popular reasons for passing his law. His entreaty was based on a few "key facts."

"Expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. is a critical priority for 'energy security' and 'national security,'" his letter states.

"Energy security?" Is it a priority? And, further, does a thing being a priority make that thing a fact?

Maybe, since goals are facts, too, in the Department of Energy.

"In order to insure (the expansion of nuclear power), the Nation must have a repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel (that's the industry's term) and high-level radioactive waste."

It IS a fact that nuclear power produces radioactive waste that takes centuries to degenerate to a state that will not cause abnormal structural changes to the atoms of, well, YOU. The DOE Web site assures us that, "These (radioactive) atoms will eventually quit being radioactive as they release their energy over time."

Yes, over time. How comforting. Bring me some hot chocolate while I ponder how much time. I guess 10,000 years or so qualifies as "over time."

It is a fact, though, as noted by the esteemed secretary, that IF we keep churning out that heavy-metal-driven power, we will have "spent fuel," or radioactive waste that needs a final resting place.

It is not a "fact" that we must ensure that nuclear power expands. This is purely a corporate growth vision.

Yucca Mountain is less than 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The industry anticipated starting the project in 1998, but, darn, many in Nevada didn't want the nation's radioactive dump in their back yard, and many didn't want any nuke waste dumps any place, so it's been a rocky road for Exelon and other giants in the "clean and reliable" nuclear power biz, with generating plants scattered across 39 states. The waste is currently stored at about 100 varied sites, often at the sites of the power plant in stainless steel pools, then in "containers" made of lead and concrete and other stuff that keeps us all safe.

If the bill is approved, all that precious spent fuel will be moved to Nevada; some 55,000 metric tons awaits the journey to Yucca Mountain. If given the go-ahead, work will start soon and the dump will be ready to "receive spent fuel" 10 years from now. It'll take a while to dig that 35- or 40-mile tunnel and line it with material that is supposed to keep the bad stuff in for millennia to come. In a cross-section drawing at the DOE Web site, it looks like a giant suppository. Poor mountain.

Meanwhile, as the decade marches on and the underground repository is -- or is not -- constructed, at least 20,000 metric tons more of radioactive waste will have piled up in those on- and off-site containers.

Plans originally set a 70,000-ton capacity for permanent waste storage at Yucca Mountain. If the Act passes, by the time the dump is taking trash, they'll be at least 75,000 tons awaiting.

The radioactive waste will be transported by train and truck from places like New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Illinois to Nevada, in containers that look like giant bar bells, atop truck beds and flat cars. The Department of Energy tells us plainly, "The number of these shipments by road and rail is expected to increase." This understatement is brought to you by the source that calls 10,000 years: "over time."

When does the circus begin?

Soon, the Department of Energy and the nuclear power industry hope.

Meanwhile, there's the lawsuit factor.

Bodman asks Congress to expedite the matter, not because of the mounting pile of radioactive waste sitting around in temporary containers, but because of the "mounting Federal Government liability associated with delays in opening the repository."

Seems legislation passed in 1982 placed responsibility for disposal of spent fuel from nuclear power plants squarely on the shoulders of the federal government.

Contracts were to be made with the facilities outlining removal procedures. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act presumed there would be a nice big dump ready by 1998 for the nasty load. Didn't happen.

The energy secretary reports -- and I imagine beads of sweat dropping and forming a puddle on the Senate floor -- that 60 lawsuits have been filed against the fed for breach of contract.

So far, Bodman reports, the government has paid out $214 million in three settlements. Three.

The federal government is already liable to the tune of about $7 billion, Bodman notes. And even if the Act becomes law, 2017 looks a long way off.

Watch for more on: The Issue Won't Go Away. Well, maybe it will, over time.

Daily Southtown columnist Marlene Lang can be reached at blackbirdlang@yahoo.com">blackbirdlang@yahoo.com.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
March 09, 2007

More Yucca documents to be released

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy is preparing to make public more than 2 million Yucca Mountain documents, a government attorney said Monday in defusing at least one fight with Nevada over the nuclear waste site.

When the documents are added to what already has been posted to a dedicated electronic database, DOE will have shared more than 3.3 million documents totaling 30 million pages, attorney Michael Shebelskie said at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing.

The documents will be made available within 60 days, Shebelskie told a panel of three NRC administrative judges.

"We will have completed our review of those documents and in the interest of making public disclosure sooner rather than later we made that decision," Shebelskie said after the hearing.

Nevada officials and attorneys said there may have been another reason: to head off yet another lawsuit the state was building against the Yucca project.

"I don't think they are doing this because they are nice guys," said Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "DOE began to believe we would have a claim."

The documents include science and engineering studies that DOE plans to cite in its bid for an NRC license to store highly radioactive wastes within the mountain ridge 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The documents already have been formatted and loaded for the Yucca database that is managed by the NRC technicians. Administrator Dan Graser said once DOE gives the okay, the 2.148 million documents could be posted in "less than an hour."

Last November, then-Gov. Kenny Guinn charged DOE was hoarding millions of documents, hiding them from Nevada consultants who sift through them for flaws and ammunition against the Yucca effort.

Federal regulations allow DOE to wait until the database is officially certified before making the documents available, which may not be until the end of 2007.

But Loux said the state was building a case that by waiting that long even if the documents were ready, DOE was depriving the state, Nevada counties, environmental groups and other interested parties of the right to examine them fully.

"As a result we may have a claim in court that we were denied due process," Loux said.

DOE spokesman Craig Stevens said Yucca project director Ward Sproat "committed last year to releasing documents in advance of certification.

"This early release is a result of that commitment," Stevens said.

A team of Nevada attorneys was prepared to set the groundwork for a lawsuit at the NRC hearing on Monday. But they were blunted when Shebelskie announced DOE was going to make the documents public within 60 days.

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

UPI
March 09, 2007

Analysis: Yucca work reviewed, redone

By Ben Lando
UPI Energy Correspondent

WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- The director of the Yucca Mountain Project says he's making the controversial quality assurance culture of the proposed nuclear waste repository in Nevada a priority as the U.S. Energy Department prepares to submit a license to open the facility. But the historical ignoring or tamping down of problems has deep roots, a former auditor says, and the results are still being felt.

"If you were to ask me, 'So, given what you're doing this year, in 2007, and the work that's leading up to developing this license application, how much of it is new and how much of it is review and rework of work that's been done before?,' I don't have an exact number, but I'm betting ... at least 60 percent of the work we're doing this year ... work that's been done before," Edward "Ward" Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told reporters Tuesday at a briefing organized by The Energy Daily and the nuclear company Areva.

The Energy Department says that by June 2008 it will submit an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to store radioactive waste created by nuclear plants and weapons inside Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"There's a fundamentally different approach by the senior management team than this program has ever had before," said Sproat, who's been on the job less than a year. "And we recognize that behaviors of managers below us have in the past been major contributors to some of these problems and we have made changes in those management teams."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has led the charge of members of Congress to oppose the site, which is also opposed by the Nevada state government and other groups.

And, more than anything, they've been buoyed by claims the science behind the site won't wash.

"For us, early on, we felt that we had identified almost all the major quality assurance problem areas that needed to be fixed," Kristi Hodges, a former lead auditor on the project, told United Press International during numerous interviews. "Instead of concentrating on fixing those issues, they concentrated on fixing quality assurance so we could no longer identify these problems."

Hodges, who spent 17 years there at the project, resigned in August 2006. In February 2002, she decided to speak up, sending a complaint to the Energy Department's inspector general detailing circumstances surrounding the removal of a head quality assurance director from the project and the firing of the quality assurance program manager, "railroaded," she said, "after bringing evidence of malfeasance in project investigations" to Sproat's predecessor.

"The managers oversaw audits for the Energy Department that were responsible for identifying significant deficiencies in areas software, data and models, including the very issues that eventually rocked the project when e-mails pertaining to falsification of data were discovered," she said. (A Labor Department investigation later found the firing of Mattimoe "extraordinarily egregious." Congressional hearings were held on the e-mails.)

The Las Vegas Review-Journal filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the complaint from the inspector general in June 2002. More than four years later, the newspaper received it, though much was missing from the original hundreds of pages. In fact, spokeswoman Marilyn Richardson told the paper it was summarized into a "two- or three-page" document, sent to those at the project named in the complaint, but never fully investigated.

"I didn't see anything that was insurmountable, except for politics and bad management," said Hodges, now a senior engineer for the Nevada Test Site, who still maintains multiple, inches-thick binders on the latest Yucca happenings.

"These people (scientists) have done awesome work, world class work, it's just the politics won't let them...they never see their work come to fruition," Hodges said.

"I don't think that the site is unsound. I just don't think they can prove that it is or is not," she said. "Until they acknowledge what they did to QA in the past, no one will believe current QA is good."

In an August 2006 report, the Energy Department's inspector general wrote: "While progress has been made in the construction and licensing process at Yucca Mountain, the department has continued to experience quality control deficiencies, which could affect the ongoing design, analysis, and eventual licensing of the repository."

Specifically, "quality assurance issues were not promptly identified, investigated, or resolved by the department;" "a corrective action program, implemented by the department as required by the NRC, was not effectively managing and resolving conditions adverse to quality;" and "as outlined in several OIG reviews over the past year, the DEPARTMENT must continue to improve quality assurance measures to assure the scientific reliability as well as the overall safety of the proposed repository."

"Your characterization that a number of the issues around quality of the program originate with management behaviors and/or lack of management awareness and sponsorship for and demand for high quality is absolutely right on the mark," Sproat said, responding to a UPI question at the briefing.

He says he's brought on a new team to focus on the quality assurance issues, ordered multiple assessments, and will soon develop "the get-it-right, fix-it-plan."

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

Ruidoso News
March 09, 2007

Nuclear fuel reprocessing and GNEP: What they are saying

Deanna Cheney

Proponents:

Proponents of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and President George Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership say the waste management program is a way the government can meet its obligation to the American people while being a good environmental steward. They describe GNEP as a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global energy security, reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation and to encourage clean development around the world.

Unlike plants which burn fossil fuels to produce electricity, nuclear and nuclear waste reprocessing does not contribute to global warming, proponents say. They contend that nuclear power is the only proven technology that can provide abundant supplies of base-load electricity reliably and without air pollution emissions of greenhouse gasses. Last year, the operation of U.S. nuclear power plants displaced 681.9 million metric tons of carbon emissions. GNEP plans to recycle spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors, in part, to decrease the toxicity of these fuels and the volume of waste requiring disposal.

Since 1957, when the first nuclear reactor was built in the U.S., more than 30,000 metric tons of spent fuel have been accumulated and sits idle, treated as waste rather than a resource. Meanwhile, worldwide demand for electricity generated in nuclear plants is expected to double by 2030.

In addition to addressing concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels, rising costs, utility price volatility, GNEP supporters say the plan promotes proliferation resistant technologies by providing fuel services to developing nations. GNEP will bring the benefits of nuclear energy to the world safely and securely without all countries having to invest in the complete fuel cycle, or enrichment and reprocessing. At the same time, GNEP will reduce the U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

Online resource sites: www.gnep.energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy), www.ans.org/ (American Nuclear Society), www.nei.org/ (Nuclear Energy Institute)

Opponents:

Opponents say it is wrong to label the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as "recycling" as the process does not neutralize or make safe radioactive waste. Rather, it divides the spent fuel into several streams. Some of those streams can be reused but some cannot and still must be stored until they radioactively decay enough to be buried in a permanent repository, such as that proposed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Further, opponents contend that construction and operation of a nuclear reprocessing plant and next generation nuclear reactor will be taxpayer funded. They point to reprocessing plant construction in Rokkasho, Japan currently over budget by $10 billion, as one example.

They also point to failure rates. Thus far, only one nuclear fuel reprocessing plant has been built and operated in the U.S - the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in West Valley, N.Y., that was operated from 1966-1972. After several reported fires, worker exposure to radiation, and a rate of production that was 1/6th of that projected, plant owners ceased operations. In current dollars and uranium equivalents, the plant produced about $20 million worth of fuel in six years but its clean-up and decommissioning have cost taxpayers $6 billion. After 31 years, the cleanup continues.

Finally, opponents say GNEP will make nuclear weapons proliferation worse. Under the administrations of Presidents Ford and Carter, U.S. plans for spent nuclear reprocessing was halted and reaffirmed, respectively. Government administrators said reprocessing requires the stockpiling of plutonium and the "moving" of mixed-oxide fuels creating a heightened security threat.

Online resource sites: www.ucsusa.org (Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions); www.energyactivist.org (Public Citizen's Energy Program); www.nirs.org (Nuclear Information and Resource Service)

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

WBIR-TV
March 09, 2007

Oak Ridge possible site for nuclear waste recycling center

Robin Murdoch

The home of the Atomic bomb could soon become a temporary home for nuclear waste.

"It's the type of project that would advance science and advance the countries ability to be self sufficient for generations," says Lawrence Young, President and CEO of the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee or Croet.

Oak Ridge is one of 11 communities studying the feasibility of what's called a recycling center.

Young adds, "Is it suitable from a geologic standpoint? Is it suitable from a transportation stand point? Is it suitable from a population density standpoint ? That's what we are trying to analyze now. Does it make sense to locate it here?

Croet recently received a grant to conduct the study.

It's part of the President's push to expand nuclear power.

"This would be an opportunity to repackage it, to reuse it, make it less dangerous and ultimately ship off items that still remain dangerous to a permanent repository," says Young.

The spent fuel would be brought in by road and by rail.

Right now, there are two recycling center sites under consideration on the Oak Ridge reservation.

Stephen Smith, Executive Director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Knoxville which opposes the idea says, "This isn't as simple as recycling an aluminum can. It's a dangerous process that's never been done successfully in the United States."

Young adds, 'The people are ultimately going to decide whether we are an appropriate site. If we meet all the criteria, it's meeting the criteria. It's the communities acceptance that's going to decide if it's appropriate for Oak Ridge and Knoxville or not."

Croet plans to host several public meetings in hopes of educating the area on the issue.

An issue that's proving to be controversial from all angles.

The final stop for the radioactive waste would eventually be a site like Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

It could be several years before a decision on Oak Ridge is made.

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

Mount Vernon Gazette
March 09, 2007

Yesterday's Fear, Tomorrow's Power

Film emphasizes both potential and safety aspects of nuclear energy .

By Chuck Hagee

Ralph Nader and Jane Fonda may have to rethink their opposition to nuclear power. Which would they prefer: nuclear generated electric power or global warming?

Robert Tinker, a 2002 graduate of West Potomac High School and 2006 graduate of Oberlin College in Ohio with a degree in political science, makes a strong case for "The Nuclear Option" — the title of his 81 minute film documentary.

"I made the movie for people who are not aware of the benefits of nuclear power. I consider myself an environmentalist and nuclear power does not cause global warming because it doesn't release carbon dioxide," Tinker said.

On Feb. 23 and 24 his work was shown to audiences at Mount Vernon Unitarian Church and Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington. The response was "very good," according to Tinker.

"We had about 50 people at the Mount Vernon site but only about a dozen at Arlington. However, at both, we had a very good discussion after the showing," he said.

THE FILM explores the potential for nuclear energy to provide sustainable, non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy for our society in the future, according to Tinker.

It takes an in-depth look at the following aspects of "The Nuclear Option": Fission and How Nuclear Power Works; the Three-Mile Island and Davis-Besse Accidents; Nuclear Safety; Waste Transportation; Yucca Mountain; Recycling/Reprocessing Nuclear Fuel; Breeder Reactors; Sustainability; and the Potential of Fusion Energy.

As noted by William Evans, a wind energy consultant and one of those interviewed for the film, "Green energy may only be able to supply five to 15 percent of the energy needed in the future. Nuclear energy may have to be looked at as a viable option."

Robert Goldston, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, summarized the option in one simple statement: "We are going to need more energy in the future. Not less."

"The film was shown at Oberlin on Feb. 8 and received a great response. I hope to send it to Al Gore for his reaction," Tinker said.

Some of the experts giving their views in the film on not only the nuclear option but also future energy needs and considerations include: John Pasacantando, executive director, GreenPeace, USA; David Lockbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists; Alan Bunner, NASA; and Phillip Finck, Nuclear Program, Idaho National Laboratory.

ALTHOUGH TINKER, 23 and a resident of Hollin Hills in Mount Vernon District, graduated with a degree in political science, he got the inspiration for his documentary from his physics professor, Dr. John Scofield. It was developed as his Senior Independent Project.

"I concentrated on energy policy in political science. I am thinking about going to law school and focusing on energy issues," he said.

Next Tinker hopes to enter his film in the Toronto Film Festival for documentaries. "The deadline for entering is late April and I still have some copyright details to get accomplished," Tinker said.

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

Chillicothe Gazette
March 09, 2007

Letter: Risks of nuclear waste facility in Piketon must be considered

Do you realize our federal, state and local governments plan to build near Piketon, at the old atomic plant site, a high-level nuclear waste facility?

High-level waste from nuclear reactors all over the country and the world will be shipped by truck and rail through neighboring communities to the Piketon plant for processing in a nuclear reactor and storage on the site.

Do you realize there are five schools within 5 miles of the proposed nuclear waste site and 9,000 students attending school within 12 miles each day.

The alternate proposed site is deep in desert volcanic caves at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (makes sense to me), but powerful western legislators are fighting against the project in their area.

The Feds are trying to take advantage of our high unemployment rate. They dangle jobs in front of us expecting us to jump through hoops of fire like trained poodles, oblivious to the high risks involved.

Have we completely lost our minds?

James Caughlan
Waverly

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

Olean Times Herald
March 09, 2007

State, county officials tour West Valley Demonstration Project

Rick Miller

WEST VALLEY — State and county officials toured the West Valley Demonstration project Thursday as word came of a possible change in thinking on the part of the U.S. Department of Energy over the nuclear waste cleanup.

Among those touring the town of Ashford cleanup site were Cattaraugus County Undersheriff Timothy Whitcomb, county Environmental Health Director Eric Wohlers, Julie Sirianni of state Sen. Catharine M. Young’s office and Michael Briskey of state Assemblyman Joseph Giglio’s office.

Mr. Wohlers, Ms. Sirianni and Mr. Briskey are members of the West Valley Citizen’s Task Force. Ms. Sirianni and Mr. Briskey were touring the site for the first time.

Representatives from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) briefed those attending and led the tours.

The state and federal governments are partners in the West Valley Demonstration Project cleanup, but they are at odds over the pace and extent of the cleanup. NYSERDA has filed suit in federal district court challenging the U.S. Department of Energy’s long-term cleanup plans.

The federal budget for 2008 proposed by President Bush cuts the West Valley Demonstration Project by more than $20 million. It was budgeted for $79 million in the present year. The Department of Energy would like to see most of the cleanup at the site completed in 2010.

The Department of Energy has proposed to “rubble-ize” the process building where most of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel was done between 1966 and 1972 when the Nuclear Fuel Services plant operated. Instead of removing the debris, the Department of Energy was considering leaving it in place and grouting, or cementing, it over.

The building now holds 275 stainless steel containers that are 10 feet tall, two feet in diameter and filled with glass made from highly radioactive liquid wastes. The canisters are waiting for the day when they can be shipped to a federal repository — possibly Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

In the past week, however, the Department of Energy has begun to suggest it is seriously considering decontaminating the building and removing the debris after it is torn down. That is a welcome development to NYSERDA officials, who note this will make it possible to dig up soil beneath the process building that is contaminated with radioactivity. Officials have said the radioactivity is spreading in a plume toward creeks that empty into Cattaraugus Creek and Lake Erie, the source of drinking water for millions of people.

State officials would like to see the radioactive plume addressed more aggressively by the Department of Energy because the further it spreads, the more costly the cleanup will be.

Currently, there is some pumping and filtering of radioactivity from groundwater within the plume, as well as other less successful methods to slow its spread.

There also is the issue of four underground steel tanks that once held radioactive liquids used in the original process. The tanks were used during the cleanup which has been ongoing since 1981 at a total cost of $2.2 billion.

The Citizens Task Force, the Coalition on Nuclear Wastes at West Valley and NYSERDA officials have endorsed the removal of the tanks while the Department of Energy is considering filling them with grout or cement. The tanks contain highly radioactive residue.

Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s New York regional director suggested it would be best for the tanks to be removed. “This is a state-owned facility,” Tom Attridge of NYSERDA’s West Valley staff told officials in a briefing. “The Department of Energy is here to do a job. We have different motivations. DOE’s is to get the job done and get out. We’re going to stay here forever. Our job is to see that things are cleaned up.”

The Citizens Task Force, created by the Department of Energy to get local input on the cleanup, has argued West Valley is not a good spot for long-term storage, Mr. Attridge said.

More than 400,000 cubic feet of low-level waste has been shipped from the facility, with most going to a facility in Utah, said Sonja Allen of West Valley Nuclear Services, the prime contractor for the cleanup.

The process of solidifying highly radioactive liquid wastes resulted in nearly 20,000 drums of cement made with much of the radioactivity removed, she said.

The state-licensed disposal site for low-level nuclear waste is not addressed by the West Valley Demonstration Project, Mr. Attridge said during a tour of the site that included the black, plastic-covered, low-level disposal areas on the South Plateau. There are 14 trenches with low-level nuclear waste dating from 1963 to 1975.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation prohibited further waste disposal after trenches overflowed with water contaminated with radioactivity in 1975. The massive tarps keep water from further infiltrating the site, which is also threatened by erosion.

“These are all different kinds of facilities that need to be managed,” Mr. Attridge said as the tour was ending. “They are all actively managed and safe right now. We need to decide how to manage them in the future.”

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

Rutland Herald
March 09, 2007

Letter: Don't fall for nuclear fiction

The latest article in nuclear energy's misinformation campaign is once again about the wonders of "reprocessing" (or what is sometimes euphemistically and mistakenly called "recycling") of radioactive waste. This strategy is aimed at quieting the fears of those who are opposed to the 20-year relicensing of Vermont Yankee, an issue that the Vermont Legislature, in the next year or so, will decide. According to the Nuclear Information Research Service, "recycling" is a process in which nuclear waste can go places not licensed for radioactive materials and can then appear in everyday life, in "regular" garbage dumps, sidewalks and plastic toys.

"Reprocessing" of the 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste produced every year at reactors such as Vermont Yankee, now that Yucca Mountain is sure to fail as a federal repository of all our nuclear waste, is now the newest buzzword in the nuclear energy business' propaganda campaign. We are to believe that old waste can be reprocessed into new fuel in a sort of revolving-door cycle with ease and without becoming another source of grave danger.

Wrong, according to the NIRC's article, "Reprocessing is Not the Solution to the Nuclear Waste Problem." Besides creating a transportation problem that is being called the "mobile Chernobyl," "the Bush/Cheney administration and its congressional allies are reversing over 30 years of rare common sense in nuclear policy. In the 1970s it was decided that irradiated nuclear fuel, and the plutonium it contains, should be treated as a waste, not a resource, in part due to the catastrophic failure ... of the only commercial reprocessing site to operate in the U.S. The site, at West Valley, N.Y., is still not cleaned up, and the project cost is over $5 billion."

Not only that, but "reprocessing destabilizes waste." The fuel rods are chopped up into a "highly radioactive stew" that is then processed to remove the plutonium and the uranium, leaving highly radioactive fission products behind that are far less stable than they were in the original "dry ceramic pellets" inside metal "cladding."

Therefore, reprocessing is not recycling, and "it is not possible to make the original uranium fuel again from high-level waste; reprocessing does not reduce radioactivity, and reprocessing does not reduce the volume of radioactivity.

An important aside to all this is that reprocessing recovers even more depleted uranium and plutonium than is produced during the primary enrichment of uranium and the operation of the reactor, thus making reprocessing an added bonus to our already well-supplied military-industrial complex. This connection, though well hidden, is a another clue if anyone is wondering why on earth we would consider leaving future generations, for thousands of years to come, a legacy of a radioactive wasteland.

Jane Newton
South Londonderry

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