Yucca Mountain News Clips - Thursday, April 26, 2007

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, April 26, 2007
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
April 26, 2007

Officials shift focus for rail route to Yucca

Paiute decision shuts off western option

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy is refocusing its plans for a Nevada railroad to Yucca Mountain after the Walker River Paiute Indians announced that they no longer were interested in having nuclear waste shipped across their reservation, a DOE official said Wednesday.

A Northern Nevada railroad corridor that would have crossed tribal territory in Mineral County no longer will be considered, according to Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

DOE now will dedicate itself to completing studies of a rail corridor to the waste repository site that originates in eastern Nevada near Caliente, he said. "I wish they would have told us sooner, but they told us now," Sproat said of the Walker River Paiutes.

Following a vote by its governing council, the tribe announced on April 17 that it was withdrawing from environmental studies of the Mina rail corridor, named after a site south of Hawthorne.

Sproat said the Mina corridor studies essentially were done and still will be included in an environmental impact statement that DOE expects to make public in October, along with its assessment of the Caliente corridor.

But, Sproat said, the Mina route "essentially wouldn't be considered as a viable alternative. So Caliente most probably we will end up sticking with and providing in our formal record of decision."

The DOE official gave a presentation to a conference organized by the U.S. Transport Council, whose members are organizations tied to the shipping of nuclear materials.

The tribe's participation was the key element of a strategy to route nuclear waste cargo on rail through Northern Nevada, then south to the repository through old mining districts once served by rail.

Nuclear waste bound for Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would have utilized tracks that run through the middle of the Paiute community of Schurz. As a possible condition of the tribe's participation, the relocating of the rail line away from the town was being studied.

"I don't view this as a setback," Sproat said. "It is one less option that could have been cheaper and faster to build, but it is not something that is a major difficulty to us."

Gary Lanthrum, transportation director for the Yucca program, said the tribe's decision effectively closes the door on any rail route through western Nevada.

In the early days of the Yucca program, DOE identified a branch that essentially would go around the Walker River reservation.

But Lanthrum said in an interview that such a path was "longer and more problematic. It is very rough terrain, rougher than Caliente, and it makes (the route) as long or longer than Caliente."

Lanthrum also said he doubted there was time to develop other railroad options.

DOE officials and some nuclear shipping industry officials said the 280-mile Mina corridor could have proved a less expensive and more easily built alternative to the 319-mile Caliente corridor, where price projections have eclipsed $2 billion.

Critics of the route said the Mina corridor could expose more communities to waste shipments. Opposition began to build in cities such as Reno and Sparks.

Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant to the state of Nevada, said the Energy Department will have its hands full trying to develop the Caliente route.

"The assurances that we are hearing that this is not a big deal that Mina has dropped off, maybe that is good damage control, maybe that is wishful thinking," he said.

Halstead said the DOE faces engineering challenges at several locations along the Caliente corridor along with resistance from disgruntled ranchers and the sponsors of "City," a monumental desert art exhibit in Garden Valley.

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

Las Vegas SUN
April 26, 2007

Government renews focus on cross-Nevada rail line to nuclear dump

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The Energy Department is refocusing plans for a cross-Nevada railroad to a national nuclear waste repository, after an Indian tribe said it won't let radioactive waste cross its reservation, a top Yucca Mountain official said.

A north-to-south railroad corridor that would have crossed the Walker River Paiute reservation in Mineral County no longer will be considered, Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said Wednesday.

The department will instead focus on completing studies of the so-called Caliente rail corridor, a 319-mile route that would be built from eastern Nevada across the state to the Yucca Mountain repository at a projected cost of more than $2 billion.

Sproat made his comments during a presentation in Washington, D.C., to a conference organized by the U.S. Transport Council, whose members are tied to the shipping of nuclear materials.

Sproat, the Energy Department's Yucca project chief, said it was too late to remove the 280-mile Mina corridor from an environmental impact study the department expects to make public in October.

He said the Mina route could have been cheaper and faster to build, but said planners now expect the decision will favor the Caliente route.

The Walker River Paiute tribe announced April 17 that it was withdrawing from environmental studies of the Mina route, named after a site south of Hawthorne.

The tribe's participation was key to Energy Department plans to use existing railroad rights-of-way through old mining districts to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant to the state of Nevada, said the Energy Department might face difficulties trying to develop the east-west Caliente route.

Halstead said planners face several engineering challenges along the route, plus resistance from some ranchers and from the sponsors of a monumental desert art exhibit in Garden Valley.

The Energy Department plans to use the rail line to ship materials to Yucca Mountain, where it plans to entomb at least 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive waste in tunnels.

Congress picked the Yucca site in 2002, with plans to open it in 2010. But budget cuts and questions about quality control have stalled the Energy Department schedule for seeking an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

--Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com

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

Las Vegas SUN
April 26, 2007

FLASHPOINT for Apr 26, 2007

By Jon Ralston
<ralston@vegas.com>
Las Vegas Sun

Tonight we will find out if what happens in South Carolina stays in South Carolina. I hope that when the Democratic presidential hopefuls gather for the first debate of the campaign, someone asks a question about nuclear waste. Nuclear power is big in South Carolina. Consumers have paid an estimated $2 billion into the federal nuclear waste management fund. Thousands of metric tons of spent fuel are being stored in the state. I wonder how these supposed Friends of Nevada will answer if asked whether they support getting that waste out of South Carolina and on its way to Yucca Mountain. Imagine what will happen if they give the answers there that they give here .

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

KLAS-TV
April 26, 2007

Renewed Focus on Caliente Corridor for Nuke Dump Rail Line

A top Yucca Mountain official says the Energy Department is refocusing plans for a cross-Nevada railroad to a national nuclear waste repository.

That's after an Indian tribe decided not to let radioactive waste cross its reservation on the northern Nevada route dubbed the Mina corridor.

Ward Sproat is the director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. He told a conference Wednesday in Washington that the department is back to focusing on the Caliente corridor.

That's a 319-mile route that would be built from eastern Nevada across the state to the Yucca Mountain repository. It's got a projected cost of more than $2 billion.

Sproat says the 280-mile Mina route might've been cheaper and faster to build -- since it would have used existing rail rights-of-way through old mining districts.

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

Nuclear Engineering
April 26, 2007

Yucca Mountain faces reservation blow

Plans for a US long-term nuclear waste repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain have been set back after a local native American tribe withdrew permission for the waste to be transported over tribal lands.

The Walker River Paiute Tribe said that it no longer wanted the Mina rail corridor, which runs along the outskirts of tribal lands north of Walker Lake, to be included in an environmental impact study for a proposed rail route to the repository.

Tribal chairwoman Genia Williams said the tribe had decided to drop out of the process after reviewing information saying: “The tribe will not allow nuclear waste to be transported by rail through our reservation.”

The DoE is believed to favour a 500 km rail route that originates at Caliente in eastern Nevada but some suggest this would be more expensive and challenging to build than the 300 km long north-south Mina route, which could use old rail beds in some areas.

Yucca opponent the Nevada Senator Harry Reid issued a statement welcoming the decision saying: “The Tribe's decision is yet another blow to this project, which is on its last legs. It is time for the federal government to come to the realisation that on-site storage is the answer to America's nuclear waste challenges.”

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

Asbury Park Press
April 26, 2007

America needs nuclear power like Oyster Creek's

Edward Stroup

Anyone who objectively read the recent commentary from Dennis Zannoni about the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey will realize that he relies on hype and hysteria in his attempt to besmirch this good plant and its dedicated employees. ("Oyster Creek plant hasn't lived up to promises," April 1.)

Let me set the record straight. For 40 years, Oyster Creek has lived up to its promises to the state and the public.

Everyone who works at the plant takes their responsibilities to provide safe, reliable power very seriously. We live and work here, our children go to the same schools and play the same sports as local residents. We own homes, pay taxes and spend our salaries in the local community. We attend church and support local charities. We have not forgotten (and never will) our responsibility to the plant, the public and our families.

Now more than ever, America and New Jersey need all the safe, clean, reliable nuclear power they can get. Our dependence on foreign oil puts us at great risk every day. Oil and gasoline prices are through the roof. The more we burn oil to produce electricity, the more we reduce the limited available supply and put pressure on already high prices.

It is considerably cheaper to produce electricity with nuclear power than with oil or natural gas. That's why nuclear power plants are base-load plants and natural gas plants are peak-load plants. This means that nuclear power is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In contrast, natural gas plants run when the need for additional power is so great, like on consecutive 90-degree summer days, that the price becomes secondary to demand. Wind, hydro and solar power don't even come close to being able to provide the levels of electrical power and reliability that consumers require.

While Zannoni implies that nuclear power is the reason for high electric prices, the truth is just the opposite. Every other form of generation, especially oil and gas, is much more expensive than nuclear power.

What about the environment? Oyster Creek is a clean plant and does not pollute the environment like fossil fuels such as oil and gas. What about coal? A lot of our power comes from coal plants located in Ohio and Pennsylvania. These plants spew toxins and pollution into the air, which blow directly toward New Jersey. Any reduction in clean nuclear power would only increase and prolong the life of these dirty coal plants, further increasing our air quality problems.

Closing Oyster Creek would have a huge impact on the local and state economy. The plant employs nearly 600 workers. During outages, the company hires thousands of craft workers, who pay taxes, use goods and services and support the local economy. The plant is an economic engine for the state. For anyone to say that closing the plant would not affect the economics of the entire state is wrong.

The issues raised around spent fuel are not unique to Oyster Creek. This issue is being addressed by the construction at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy. Spent fuel is managed safely at hundreds of sites around the country.

Whether Oyster Creek closes or not, the spent fuel will remain on site until a federal repository is opened. Until that takes place, it is better to have it guarded and overseen by a highly skilled and trained work force at a fully operating plant than left in the shell of a closed plant.

The Oyster Creek security program uses a combination of a well-trained armed security force, physical barriers and electronic surveillance and detection systems to control access and protect plant systems. Since 9/11, Oyster Creek has invested more than $27 million to improve site security.

It is preposterous to say the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a weak body. The NRC has overseen the safe operation of nuclear plants since the first plant was built. The NRC bases it decisions on science and fact — not on supposition and hype. The agency's highly qualified experts independently watch over every aspect of the daily operation of the plants. The NRC has the ability to shut down the plant any time there is a problem.

Zannoni claims to have 20 years of involvement with Oyster Creek. He states that while plant owners, managers, operators, NRC regulators and others have come and gone, he has remained. He says, "I have the best understanding of the overall picture of Oyster Creek."

The average union worker has more than 20 years' experience at the plant. They are highly skilled and trained technicians who have seen, repaired and maintained everything there is. They are senior licensed operators with 20 and 30 years of experience. They are radiation protection experts responsible for the health and safety of the plant and public. They are chemical technicians, maintenance technicians, as well as instrument and control technicians. They are nuclear-certified welders, electricians and many others — all the best in the industry.

Oyster Creek is a good, safe, reliable plant that provides clean electrical power in a cost-effective manner to a state that needs all the generation it can get. It should be relicensed.

Edward Stroup is president and business manager of Local 1289, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Wall.

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

Rutland Herald
April 26, 2007

Politics at its worst

April 26, 2007

By Jennifer Clancy, Ph.D.

The ill-conceived, last-minute legislative proposal by Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin to impose a special, confiscatory $37 million tax on Vermont Yankee shows state politics at its worst.

This measure, which would pay for an energy-efficiency program, should be disturbing to all hard-working Vermonters, and those who are concerned with Vermont's business reputation. It is also very bad environmental policy because it discourages production from a clean energy source.

The Shumlin proposal comes as the Legislature grapples for a way to fund a global warming bill designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions via an expanded energy-efficiency program.

Whether the senator likes to admit it or not, Vermont today has the lowest per capita carbon emissions rate of any state in the country and got there in good part because it gets one-third of its electricity from emission-free Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee mitigates the production of more than 4 million tons of carbon dioxide annually that would result otherwise from base-load, fossil-fuel sources. While wind, solar, and other sources of renewable power do have an important role to play in Vermont's energy future, they are intermittent sources and cannot be counted on 2-4/7.

The message the senator is sending to other large businesses in the state, and those considering relocating and creating jobs here is this: "If we think we can take something from you, we will. And we will do it even if your company has given us good deals in the past."

In 2002, when Entergy bought Vermont Yankee it entered into a power purchase agreement projected to save the state's ratepayers $250 million through 2012, based on estimates from the Vermont Department of Public Service. These estimates are in all likelihood too low, as energy prices have risen significantly beyond 2002 projections and Vermont Yankee still only charges 3.95 cents per kilowatt hour for its electricity.

In his Monday press release, Shumlin all but said he is shaking down Vermont Yankee because they cannot do anything about it, stating, "… and it won't affect our energy rates: those are locked in until 2012."

But it will impact those who decide to come to Vermont to do business and employ people. This includes IBM in Essex Junction, which employs thousands of Vermonters and which is already a statewide leader in energy-efficiency programs. It will also affect our children who want to stay here to work and raise families.

It will affect the southeast Vermont regional economy which will see tens of millions of dollars taken from hard-working employees and businesses that do business with Vermont Yankee. And it will affect the amount of power and the price of that power that Vermont Yankee chooses to sell to Vermont in the future.

The senator's audacity is even more disturbing considering that in 2005 Vermont Yankee agreed to finance a fund for renewable energy projects as a condition of obtaining dry-cask storage for spent nuclear fuel at the plant.

Today, there is more than $25 million in the fund, yet the state has barely begun to identify or allocate this money for renewable projects.

The Shumlin proposal formally claims to be taxing "the long-term storage of highly reactive nuclear waste created by Vermont Yankee."

Many, including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace, view used fuel as a resource because it can be recycled into additional fuel, which indeed already happens in most other countries around the world with nuclear facilities.

The state-of-the-art dry-cask containers for Vermont Yankee's spent fuel are widely used in the industry and have an impeccable safety record. Vermonters have already paid significant energy taxes over the past 20 years to have this waste shipped to a federal waste repository. To this end, Sen. Shumlin should use his influence with Sens. Leahy and Sanders to encourage U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stop obstructing the opening of the Yucca Mountain storage facility in his home state of Nevada.

Whatever Sen. Shumlin's motivation for this measure, it is at best illogical and ill-conceived.

The senator's proposal neither taxes sources of carbon emissions nor does it impose any type of "cap and trade" system in the state. Thus, it fails to address the carbon problem at its source or provide any direct disincentive for additional carbon production.

Legislative hearings on such a large tax would certainly make this clear, while possibly leading to an adjustment of the size of the tax and more sensible funding measures.

With arbitrary enactment of the Shumlin tax, Vermont would send a negative message out to all businesses considering expansion or relocation to the state, while jeopardizing the amount of no emission carbon power it receives, at attractive prices. This would be both unfortunate, unnecessary, and clearly not the Vermont way. Shumlin should end the shakedown of Vermont Yankee now.

--Jennifer Clancy, Ph.D., of St. Albans is an environmental scientist and a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership. (www.vtep.org).

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

Los Angeles Times
April 26, 2007

U.S. and Japan sign nuclear power pact

In a key step for Bush's disputed agenda, the two nations agree to conduct joint research on reactors and fuel.

By Ralph Vartabedian
Times Staff Writer

The Bush administration's plan to rapidly expand global nuclear energy took a key step Wednesday when the government signed an agreement with Japan to conduct joint research on a new generation of reactors and a new type of nuclear fuel.

The Energy Department has been pushing an ambitious but controversial agenda to build a fleet of nuclear power plants worldwide, based on prospective technology that would include reprocessing radioactive wastes.

The agreement with Japan is the first formal international deal under the program, known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

The program would make the U.S. a more important player in the worldwide nuclear building boom, in which 222 new reactors are planned, said Assistant Energy Secretary Dennis Spurgeon.

"That is $1 trillion of business on the horizon," he said.

But many nuclear energy experts are lukewarm to the proposition, saying it seeks to solve complex future problems even before the U.S. can fully address the existing questions involved in restarting nuclear power plant construction.

"Some kind of nuclear nirvana is the driving force behind this," said Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "It has a certain intellectual appeal until you think about how it would work and what it would cost."

The program got strong backing from congressional Republicans, but the new Democratic leaders say it is going forward without proper authorization.

"To date, there has been very little congressional input to and oversight of this plan," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said in a statement to The Times. "I look forward to having a hearing in the Energy Committee to learn more."

The idea of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel dates back decades. But it has long been rejected because reprocessing it is so expensive and environmentally messy.

The National Research Council said in a mid-1990s study that reprocessing existing U.S. commercial waste by so-called transmutation would cost more than $100 billion and take more than a century.

Spurgeon, a former nuclear industry executive, said newer technology could reprocess waste at a much lower cost.

The administration is seeking a major expansion of nuclear power as a way to reduce production of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The U.S. is considering about 30 possible applications for new commercial reactors, all based on conventional technology that uses enriched uranium as the only fuel.

Under the global partnership program, a new generation of breeder reactors would burn reprocessed fuel that is currently stored at power plants.

In theory, the global nuclear proposal would help reduce the amount of nuclear waste in the U.S. while enabling other countries to develop nuclear energy without risk of weapons proliferation.

Even if the proposed nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain gets past political opposition, its capacity of 70,000 metric tons would be almost entirely spoken for on the day it opened. Reprocessing would sharply reduce the amount of waste destined for Yucca Mountain and make room for future waste from a bigger industry.

But that would leave behind tons of highly radioactive cesium and strontium that would have to be stored somewhere for the next several hundred years, creating yet another political problem, according to such critics as Robert Alvarez, who worked in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration.

"They are making this up as they go along," Alvarez said.

The global partnership plan is based partly on the premise that the U.S. could ultimately sell reactor fuel in the international market and import back the radioactive waste for reprocessing.

Congressional critics say that prospect alone raises serious political obstacles.

The intent is to allow a large number of countries to have commercial nuclear power industries but not the facilities that could enrich uranium and thus produce materials for nuclear weapons, Spurgeon said.

--ralph.vartabedian @latimes.com

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

CNN
April 25, 2007

Reactor of the future powered by toxic-waste

(PopSci.com) -- Later this year, scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee hope to take a big step toward solving America's nuclear-waste woes. Pending clearance from the Department of Energy, they will demonstrate a new toxic-waste recycling process.

The aim of the demo -- part of a controversial $405-million government project called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) -- is to transform nuclear leftovers into fuel for a new breed of reactors. The new reactor/fuel combo, GNEP officials say, could produce up to 100 times as much energy as conventional reactors and could generate 40 percent less waste.

The initiative is a key part of the Bush administration's long-term strategy to meet America's rising demand for electricity -- according to the DOE, it's expected to jump by 45 percent from 4,000 billion kilowatt-hours in 2005 to 5,800 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030 -- without creating more greenhouse gases.

"Nuclear energy is the biggest source we have for meeting our energy needs without contributing to global warming," says Sherrell Greene, director of the nuclear-technology program at Oak Ridge, one of the 13 potential recycling sites selected earlier this year by the DOE.

Even if no new reactors are built, at current rates, the U.S. will have produced more than 94,600 tons of spent nuclear fuel by 2050, and the repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, America's lone long-term solution to radioactive-waste storage, will stow just 77,000 tons when it's slated to open in 2020.

Yet not everyone thinks GNEP's strategy for recycling waste is the solution. Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists, for example, says that the new type of recycled fuel would contain as much as 90 percent plutonium, making it a much more attractive target to a bomb-building terrorist. Spent fuel from traditional reactors, by comparison, contains only 1 percent plutonium.

The uranium is then re-enriched, recombined with the actinides, and compressed into fuel pellets for state-of-the-art reactors. In this scheme, waste is used repeatedly, transforming it into less harmful elements with each cycle.

But the program's defining moment will happen next year when the U.S. secretary of energy decides whether to step up the initiative and build America's first full-scale demonstration plant.

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

Popular Science
April 25, 2007

Nuking Nuclear Waste

Energy officials argue for a new breed of reactors that run on recycled radioactive fuel

By Seth Fletcher
April 2007

Later this year, scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee hope to take a big step toward solving America's nuclear-waste woes. Pending clearance from the Department of Energy, they will demonstrate a new toxic-waste recycling process.

The aim of the demo—part of a controversial $405-million government project called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)—is to transform nuclear leftovers into fuel for a new breed of reactors. The new reactor/fuel combo, GNEP officials say, could produce up to 100 times as much energy as conventional reactors and could generate 40 percent less waste. The initiative is a key part of the Bush administration's long-term strategy to meet America's rising demand for electricity—according to the DOE, it's expected to jump by 45 percent from 4,000 billion kilowatt-hours in 2005 to 5,800 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030—without creating more greenhouse gases. "Nuclear energy is the biggest source we have for meeting our energy needs without contributing to global warming," says Sherrell Greene, director of the nuclear-technology program at Oak Ridge, one of the 13 potential recycling sites selected earlier this year by the DOE.

Another central GNEP objective is to deal with the nation's growing nuclear-waste problem: The country's 103 nuclear reactors produce 2,200 tons of radioactive waste annually, and there's no good place to put it. Even if no new reactors are built, at current rates, the U.S. will have produced more than 94,600 tons of spent nuclear fuel by 2050, and the repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, America's lone long-term solution to radioactive-waste storage, will stow just 77,000 tons when it's slated to open in 2020.

GNEP officials reject this criticism. The new recycling process, they argue, will not isolate pure plutonium, making it more difficult to convert the leftovers into a bomb. Specifically, the process calls for dissolving spent fuel in nitric acid to chemically extract the nastiest 1 percent—the highly radioactive elements plutonium, neptunium, americium and curium, also known as actinides—as well as depleted uranium. (The remaining waste is stored in traditional casks.) The uranium is then re-enriched, recombined with the actinides, and compressed into fuel pellets for state-of-the-art reactors. In this scheme, waste is used repeatedly, transforming it into less harmful elements with each cycle.

The Oak Ridge demonstration is intended to be a miniature model (minus the reactors) of how this recycling process could work at the industrial scale. "It's a synthesis of the whole process," says Greene, who is working on the project. In addition to pursuing scaled-down tests of the new recycling technology, GNEP officials will release a draft report this summer on the environmental impact of the potential sites. But the program's defining moment will happen next year when the U.S. secretary of energy decides whether to step up the initiative and build America's first full-scale demonstration plant.

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

Connect Savannah
April 25, 2007

Endless power, endless cost

The brutal economics of a move to more nuclear energy

By Kathleen Graham

Editor’s Note: In last week’s Lead Story “Atomic Spring,” Kathleen Graham brought us an overview of the resurgence of nuclear power advocacy in Georgia. This week she delves deeper into the economics a move to more nuclear energy would bring the taxpaying public.

Proponents of nuclear power as an energy resource often argue three things in its favor: it’s cost-effective during operations, reliable and clean.

“One of the reasons we and many other utilities have gone back to give nuclear energy a strong look is because when you look at the cost of other fuels for generating electricity- when you look at the whole production costs and construction costs- nuclear energy stacks up very competitively,” says Carol Boatright of Georgia Power.

“It’s cheaper than gas or coal or any others. The things we are seeing right now indicate that nuclear energy is the most effective, efficient and economic means for meeting the growth and demand that we’re seeing.”

Sara Barczak, Safe Energy Director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), disagrees and argues nuclear power is a poor investment.

“The economics of this as an investment have been masked for decades,” says Barczak. “Now it’s masked even more because you have old plants that are operating right now and their operational costs are cheaper than a coal plant. But they aren’t thinking about the fact that it cost 12 times what they predicted to build it, and we’re still paying for those investments.”

One investment now sits in Burke County, near Waynesboro, Georgia. Final construction costs for the Plant Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and its two nuclear reactors were capped at nearly $8.87 billion, a twelve-fold increase from its initial estimated cost of $660 million.

According to Georgia Power’s Carol Boatright, many factors contributed to the unexpected cost increase, including high interest rates at that time and a nuclear accident.

“During the period of construction, the incident of Three Mile Island occurred,” explains Boatright, referring to the accidental meltdown in 1979 at the Three Mile Island Generating Station, a commercial nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

“After that incident, there were a lot of changes- re-engineering, regulation changes and reviews- that slowed down the process.”

Boatright describes how parts of the plant already built had to be torn down or reconstructed to meet new regulations, and the blueprints were being reworked while construction was ongoing.

In addition, Plant Vogtle was originally intended to accommodate four reactor units before it was downsized to two units, mostly due to a decline in growth and financial constraints within the company, according to Boatright.

Since the two current reactors came online in 1987 and 1989, ratepayers have paid, and continue to pay back the $8.87 billion used to build the units, resulting in the largest rate hike in Georgia’s history.

“It’s still in the rate base, and it’s still an asset our ratepayers are paying on,” says Boatright.

Recently, Southern Company, the operator of Plant Vogtle (Georgia Power is the majority co-owner) applied for an Early Site Permit (ESP), which if approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Georgia Public Service Commission, would allow the company 20 years to decide whether or not to build two additional reactors on the site.

While an ESP is not a commitment to build anything, the cost of the ESP application ($51 million) and the exhaustive measures taken to secure approval from the necessary commissions says something of Southern Company’s intentions.

No final cost estimate for the two reactors has been set, but a $3-4 billion price tag would be in the neighborhood.

With respect to unanticipated construction costs and rate hikes, what’s to keep history from repeating itself in Georgia?

“That is why we are in contract negotiations now,” says Boatright. “We want to confirm everything ahead of time as much as possible. We want to have a firm price from the vendors as to how much various materials and the total project itself would cost. The economics are part of the decision on whether we do go forward.”

Sara Barczak of SACE maintains government subsidies and incentives make nuclear power seem more attractive as an investment.

“If the Energy Policy Act of 2005 didn’t have these subsidies ($13 billion in subsidies allocated to the nuclear industry), I don’t think we’d be seeing this race by these utilities to build these new nuclear plants,” says Barczak. “The more money that they can get for free, so to speak, from taxpayers and ratepayers, the less risk they have and their shareholders like that.”

Barczak also argues, rather than sinking large amounts of money into building nuclear reactors, there are better ways to invest that capital.

“Let’s just say, let’s give it to them that it’s going to cost $4 billion and they’ll get it online by 2015-2017,” she says. “There’s so much more that you could have done with that same amount of money in terms of energy efficiency.”

For the most part, Georgia Public ServiceCommissioner Stan Wise supports nuclear energy.

“To go forward we’ve got to look and see what do we do to promote efficient and reliable production of electricity in our state, not only for our current customers but also for the new Georgians that will move here in the next 20 years,” says Wise, underlining the importance of utility companies to remain healthy and earn a profit as well.

“I think we have to do the very best we can and know that fuel diversity, reliability and safe generation for future Georgians is vital. I think the nuclear option has to be one that’s in the mix.”

The Public Service Commission (PSC), made up of five elected commissioners, negotiates with utility companies and regulates utility rates on behalf of ratepayers. With respect to electricity, while the goal is to keep electric rates as low as possible and electric generation high, Commissioner Wise argues Georgians shouldn’t expect a free lunch.

“I wish I could tell you that all of this could be done at no cost, but that’s the head in the sand approach that I don’t believe this commission can afford to take,” says Wise. “If you go into the hearing room expecting a free lunch, you’re going to walk out with no lunch.”

Although he’s a keen supporter of nuclear energy, Commissioner Wise criticizes the federal government’s failure to take ownership of the steadily accumulating nuclear waste stored on-site at commercial plants around the country.

No one, not even the federal government, gets a free lunch.

“Ratepayers in this state have paid a significant sum of money on their power bills every month to the federal government, the black hole of all black holes, for a nuclear waste repository, always with the expectation that it would be Yucca Mountain,” argues Wise. “We continue to pay into that fund.”

In 1982 the federal government established the Nuclear Waste Fund, one of its first steps toward taking ownership of the spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste generated by nuclear reactors around the country.

Power plants that use nuclear energy to produce electricity also produce extremely toxic nuclear waste. In the early 1980’s utility companies began paying into the Nuclear Waste Fund with the expectation that the government would eventually remove the waste from their plants and store it elsewhere.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) took charge of designing and developing a permanent repository that could safely store radioactive waste over a long period of time, 10,000- 100,000 years.

For several years the DOE studied the suitability of building a permanent repository at different sites around the country, but in 1987 Congress directed the DOE to focus on Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Since then the Yucca Mountain Repository has faced much opposition and repeated setbacks, and what was supposed to open in 1998 now has a “best-achievable” opening date of 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Energy website.

“Yucca Mountain has been both a political and scientific nightmare,” says Sara Barczak of SACE.

“It was just a few years ago when the project sort of imploded on itself because scientists working on the project came forward and admitted there was a lot of falsified information. The science is now essentially discredited and billions of dollars have been spent on it.”

Carol Boatright of Georgia Power arguesthe problems with Yucca are mostly political.

“It’s bogged down in politics,” she says. “It’s been called the most expensively studied piece of real estate on earth.”

Whether the delays are due to science, politics or both, Commissioner Stan Wise argues it’s not fair on Georgians and other ratepayers who continue to pay the federal government for services it isn’t providing.

Even as more money is poured into the Fund, local utility companies and ratepayers pay for the waste to be stored on-site at their local plants.

“We’re already paying for a national waste repository and now our companies have to fund a ‘temporary’ site, which we know good and well won’t be temporary,” says Wise, arguing that the federal government is content to let utility companies handle their own waste in the meantime.

Wise, who has visited the Yucca Mountain Repository, insists it must be approved and opened as soon as possible. Continuing to pay for two repository sites is simply not fair to ratepayers, and it’s deceptive on the government’s part.

“If you’re not going to finish this, we want our money back, and we’ll refund our ratepayers,” says Wise. “When you’ve opened Yucca Mountain, then we’ll forward you back your money. This continues to be bought and paid for, and we don’t get anything for our money. It’s wrong, and it’s theft on a grand scale.”

Since 1982 electricity customers nationwide have paid over $28 billion into the Fund. Out of that total payment, $9.1 billion has been put toward the repository.

According to Carol Boatright of Georgia Power, Georgians have paid $616.3 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Meanwhile, nuclear facilities like Plant Hatch in Baxley, Georiga have run out of space in their spent fuel pools and have begun storing nuclear waste aboveground in dry-cask storage containers. Plant Vogtle will run out of space in its spent fuel pools in 2014, after which it will move to dry-cask storage.

“There’s really no specific length of time we could not store in dry-cask storage,” says Boatright. “If we had to we can continue to store like that.”

Both Wise and Boatright are hoping the right amount of political pressure will force the government to shift into a faster gear, and both are encouraged that the DOE is finally getting around to applying for its permit to finish construction of the Yucca Mountain Repository. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must still approve the permit.

Sara Barczak is worried about another permit closer to home. “Why would you advocate to build new reactors when there’s no end in sight as to what to do with the nuclear waste?” she asks. ƒç

--To comment, e-mail us at:
letters@connectsavannah.com

Learn more about the concerns raised by Southern Alliance For Clean Energy at www.cleanenergy.org, or to learn more about Southern Company’s nuclear operations, visit www.southerncompany.com. A Public Service Meeting will be May 11 at 9:45 a.m. at the offices of the Georgia Public Service Commission, 244 Washington Street, in Atlanta. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and other groups will present their case against the construction of 2 new reactors at Plant Vogtle. The public can call the Georgia Public Service Commission at (404) 656-4501 or (800) 282-5813.

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

Las Vegas SUN
April 24, 2007

Giuliani leads in cash grab

In Nevada, former N.Y. mayor beats all contenders, including Democratic frontrunner Clinton

By Michael J. Mishak
Las Vegas Sun

Presidential candidates are tapping Nevada donors in earnest, even if the election is still 19 months away. The story so far:

Republican Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, pulled large sums of cash from the Fertitta family, owners of the neighborhood casino giant Station Casinos, and a bevy of the company's executives.

Republican Mitt Romney, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, tapped Nevada's Mormon community.

And Hillary Clinton dominated the state's Democratic donors, drawing big support from the development and entertainment industries.

That hasn't left much for the political coffers of Democrats Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who have largely relied on small checks and grass-roots support here.

The contributions offer a glimpse into the mechanics of the various campaigns and show the potential appeal and reach of the candidates, both in Nevada and on the national stage.

Most striking is Giuliani's strength. Despite all the excitement and activity surrounding Nevada's new early Democratic caucus, Giuliani, a Republican, has attracted the most financial support.

He raised $526,000 in the first three months of 2007, more than the top three Democrats combined, according to a state-by-state analysis of campaign contributions by PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which tracks donations.

Giuliani picked up support from a wide swath of Nevada Republicans, including influential players in the state's gaming and development industries. The large fundraising numbers follow state and national polls showing Giuliani as the double-digit frontrunner among Republicans.

The Fertitta family donated $27,600 to Giuliani. In addition, Station executives gave the campaign nearly $40,000.

Also backing Giuliani are prominent developers Barry Becker and Randy Black, as well as Larry Ruvo, owner of Southern Wine & Spirits of Nevada, an important fundraiser for President Bush's 2004 election campaign.

Mike Sloan, a longtime Democratic operative and gaming consultant, said Giuliani was the "Obama phenomenon" of the Republican Party - someone who appeals to a cross section of voters and even to some Democrats. (Sloan donated to the top three Democrats and gave $2,300 to Giuliani. He said the contribution was a personal favor to the Fertittas for their past fundraising help.)

Giuliani's appeal is evident in the support by Republican Steve Wark, who hosted a fundraiser for Giuliani last month in Reno. As chairman of the state party in 1988, Wark led an effort that ultimately delivered the party's caucuses for Christian televangelist Pat Robertson. Wark describes himself as a social conservative, yet says he and many like-minded Republicans support Giuliani because of his support for constitutionalist judges.

"He's got the skill set to govern as commander in chief," Wark said. "He ran the country's largest city. He's a symbol of fighting terrorism. And, while conservatives don't agree with him on social issues, they understand that national security is the issue of our time."

Romney, on the other hand, is banking on his conservative connections. He raised $397,000 from Nevada donors.

Much of that came from Mormon donors, including Jacob Bingham, a developer and former Clark County commissioner; Mormon church spokesman Ace Robison; Colorado River Commission Chairman Richard Bunker; and former Las Vegas City Manager Ashley Hall.

Robison, who gave $1,000 to the campaign, said he supported Romney because of the candidate's stance on limited government and his "firm moral foundation."

He said sharing Romney's religion was not a factor . But, he added, many Mormons have come to admire the Republican for getting into the race.

"I think that many Latter-day Saints are impressed by the fact that one of their own has the courage to stand up and have his religion and personal life scrutinized by the world," Robison said.

Romney also has the support of former Gov. Kenny Guinn and former Rep. Barbara Vucanovich, co-chairs of his Nevada finance committee.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, despite his status as the sole Westerner on the Republican side, was easily outpaced in Nevada. He received $92,000, one-quarter of Romney's total.

Sig Rogich, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan who's helping McCain in the state, said the poor showing reflected a campaign that had not begun in earnest. Also, unlike the other two leading Republicans, McCain did not hold a fundraiser here in the first quarter.

Among McCain's big-name supporters is MGM Mirage Chief Executive Terry Lanni.

Rogich said that fundraising would pick up soon, and that Nevadans would gravitate toward McCain .

"On the preponderance of issues related to Western states, John McCain is in lockstep with the way Nevadans believe," he said.

UNLV political scientist David Damore said it's the issues on which McCain differs that hurt his efforts in Nevada, not to mention his strident support for the war in Iraq. The senator supports storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and once proposed a ban on college sports betting in Nevada.

"People don't forget stuff like that," Damore said.

Clinton dominated Democratic donors in Nevada, underscoring her status as the establishment candidate. She raised $317,000, nearly five times as much as her chief rival, Obama.

The results also track with polls showing she is the Democratic frontrunner in Nevada.

Members of the Greenspun family, which publishes the Las Vegas Sun, donated a combined $31,400 to Clinton. Executives of Greenspun-owned companies gave Clinton $18,100. Sun Editor Brian Greenspun, a longtime friend of the Clintons, hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton last month.

"She has wisdom, she has experience that is unmatchable, and she has the intellectual capacity to deal with the complexities of the job," Greenspun said. "We have all learned what happens when we elect someone who is not similarly qualified."

Among Clinton's leading supporters are Diamond Resorts owner Stephen Cloobeck, Sacramento Kings owner Gavin Maloof and Top Rank Chief Executive Bob Arum. All gave the maximum contribution to Clinton's primary and general election campaigns.

The roster of big-name givers doesn't bode well for the campaigns of Obama and Edwards, whose relatively small fundraising totals reflect the immaturity of their Nevada operations.

The state's pool of Democratic donors is small and those donors tend to stick together, said Fred Lokken, a political scientist at Truckee Meadows Community College.

Steve Kanigher and Mary Manning contributed to this report.

--Michael J. Mishak can be reached at 259-2347 or at michael.mishak@lasvegassun.com.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
April 23, 2007

Editorial: Cities welcome tribe voices opposing Yucca transit plan

Members of the Walker River Paiute Tribe were looking out for their own best interest when they rejected a railroad route (the so-called Mina-Schurz Rail Route) that would carry spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain.

Residents and officials in Sparks and Reno, who also object to the Energy Department's transit plans, welcome the Tribal Council's decision. The more voices in this fight, the better.

Regular updates coming from Washington show the U.S. Department of Energy is intent upon opening the repository and transporting the nation's nuclear waste for burial there, despite objections, and in any way it can. The tribal members' formal opposition to letting trains carry the waste through their reservation means the department can look elsewhere to continue its environmental impact study of the most efficient and cheapest way to transport the material. The department still can use the more expensive route through Utah and Caliente. But its cheapest and easiest plan (through Southern California to Northern California, over the Sierra and through Reno-Sparks) has been turned on its head.

If state officials oppose burial of the waste on safety concerns, Energy officials might have predicted that residents would back them up and local objections to having trainloads of toxic material pass through town would reach a fever pitch, also primarily on safety concerns.

Residents are right, as well, to protest that the material might decrease property values, affect tourism and endanger residents in case of an accident.

It has been said before that Nevadans have reason for skepticism about the federal government's safety claims. Deliberate denials and misinformation surrounding Yucca Mountain and previous Defense and Energy projects at Nevada test sites, the health problems of so-called Downwinders after those projects, and the string of problems with the Yucca construction plans (including possible fraud) justify refusal to buy into the current plan.

There were worries when it was thought the tribe would make the rail project easy. It is good to know now that most of the state's communities continue to stand in solidarity against the repository.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
April 23, 2007

Nuke waste shipping has a spotless record

The issue of transporting used nuclear fuel is being used as just another scare tactic by the political opponents of Yucca Mountain ["Nuclear waste on our rails," April 1]. The transportation of fuel has a spotless safety record, and for good reason. The containers used are designed and tested to withstand any conceivable impact on the road, fire, and immersion in water -- all in the same accident. Since 1964 there have been over 3,000 shipments of fuel covering 1.7 million miles without a single leak or container failure. And since the fuel consists of ceramic pellets in metal tubes, even a break in a container would not spread material very far.

What about a terrorist attack? An attack on a nuclear waste container would be largely pointless. Because the containers have thick steel walls, breaching them would be very difficult, and then again any released material would not travel very far. Remember the nuclear fuel is solid, not liquid or gas. Not much of a terrorist target!

There are many shipments of hazardous chemicals and explosive materials traveling through our area every day with much larger consequences for the population in case of a terrorist attack.

Nick Tsoulfanidis
Reno

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

UPI
April 23, 2007

Yucca project route nixed by tribe

SCHURZ, Nev., April 23 (UPI) -- The long-delayed nuclear-waste repository in Nevada has one less possible transportation route after a tribe withdrew permission to use its land.

The Walker River Paiute Tribe adopted a resolution that it will no longer work with the U.S. Energy Department on an environmental impact study of potential routes to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.

"After considering the information we had gathered to date and discussions with our membership, the tribal council made the decision not to continue with the Department of Energy's process," Genia Williams, tribe chairwoman, said in a news release. "The tribe will not allow nuclear waste to be transported on rail through our reservation."

The repository, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was supposed to open by 1998 to store nuclear waste generated by U.S. nuclear plants and military activity. Department officials say it will open by 2017, at the earliest, though Congress, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is likely to delay the project further because of ardent opposition.

The Yucca Mountain Project has yet to be approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- in fact the license application hasn't been filed -- and finding a route to ship the waste hasn't been solidified. Train is the most likely method to be approved.

The "Mina Route" would ship by rail through Reno and Sparks to Yucca Mountain, and cut into the 325,000-acre Walker River Paiute Tribe reservation.

Another route being studied is the "Caliente" in eastern Nevada, which is supposedly more expensive and is longer than "Mina," the Reno Gazette-Journal reported.

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

Las Vegas SUN
April 23, 2007

FLASHPOINT for Apr 23, 2007

By Jon Ralston
<ralston@vegas.com>
Las Vegas Sun

People have very strong feelings about John McCain, who was in town last week . There are many who will never vote for the Arizona senator for president because of his loyalty to the Bush administration on the surge in Iraq. McCain knows that goes against the country's grain and yet he persists - some might conclude he really believes it because the position is so politically perilous. So it should come as no surprise that McCain's verbiage while he was here on the subject of Yucca Mountain was analogous to what he is doing on Iraq. McCain essentially said: I'm for it. I think it's the right thing to do. And then he added: President Bush is for it, and he won Nevada. Hard to argue with that.

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

Bay Area Indymedia
April 23, 2007

Will Nuclear Waste be Shipped on Central Valley Rail Lines?

by Mike Rhodes

Last week, in a presentation at CSU-Fresno about the proposal to build a nuclear power plant in this community, it was reveled that there are plans to ship nuclear waste products up the Central Valley on the railroad lines. David Weisman is seen in the 5:42 minute video below speaking at the forum - The Cost of Nuclear Energy: What’s Really at Stake? What he says is that if Yucca Mountain is opened, nuclear power from around the country will go right through Fresno.

video: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/04/22/nuclear.wmv

http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home

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

Joliet Herald News
April 23, 2007

Nuclear waste transportation plans intensify debate

By Bill Bird
Sun-Times News Group

If the discussion had only stayed centered on the federal government's proposed transportation of spent nuclear reactor fuel, there might not have been quite as much commotion as there was.

Brian J. Quirke, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy, came close to promising west suburban residents Friday that the area would be bypassed should trucks eventually begin hauling the used fuel to Argonne National Laboratory near Darien and a new nuclear waste facility in Morris, 60 miles southwest of Chicago.

Electricity in northeastern Illinois is generated in large part by nuclear power plants in Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Zion and the Quad Cities area.

Only the Byron and Zion facilities lie north of Interstate 88. The others are closer to Interstate 80, as is Morris.

"Interstate 80 will be a major (spent fuel) shipment route for trucks" bringing tons of the material to the Morris facility and ounces of it to Argonne, where it will be used in research under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Quirke said. He added it was "very unlikely" any of the used fuel would be shipped to either destination via Interstate 88.

Fewer than 20 people turned out for Friday night's public hearing on the issue, held in Nichols Library near downtown Naperville. The session was organized by the Naperville-based grassroots group Nuclear Waste Containment Campaign.

But those attending gave energy department officials an earful, voicing their concerns over the potential perils of the shipping plan and nuclear power in general.

Differing viewpoints

Quirke was joined Dave Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service, which has been highly critical of the transportation plan and related proposals.

Kraft and Quirke found themselves in agreement that the spent fuel does not constitute "highly radioactive, weapons-grade plutonium," as had been characterized in some printed material. The men also concurred that burying the used fuel rods on the site of their power plant of origin -- which has been highly touted in some quarters -- was a bad idea.

But disagreement sprouted throughout much of the 2 1/2-hour hearing. Quirke contended nuclear power would have to play a key role in meeting the nation's energy needs, which he said were expected to double by 2030. The Energy Department envisions construction of as many as 300 new nuclear power plants nationwide by the end of the century.

Kraft gently chided Americans with the words, "We are all electricity addicts." He contended alternative energy sources and conservation should be pursued over the construction of more nuclear power plants.

Health risks

Federal officials, according to Quirke, also are considering construction of one or more of the following in Morris: a nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced recycling reactor and an advanced fuel cycle research facility.

Audience members noted Argonne is in the orbit of a densely populated area, and that Illinois has more nuclear reactors than any other state.

One woman said Illinois residents already assume more nuclear waste-related health risks than residents of any other part of the country.

Kraft conceded he and his organization "don't have a place in mind yet" that might prove acceptable for the storage of all of the nation's spent nuclear fuel, although the group is opposed to the idea of warehousing it within Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

He also aimed a barb at President Bush, a proponent of nuclear fuel recycling, which is generally abhorred by environmentalists.

"You guys think it's so safe?" Kraft challenged proponents of the current spent-fuel storage proposals. "Store it under Congress, or some guy's ranch in Texas."

Public commentary on the proposals continues through May.

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

Sydney Morning Herald
April 22, 2007

Proliferation must shape the nuclear debate

Anthony Albanese

Uranium is a moderate export earner, but a big principle in the Labor Party. That's why there will be considerable passion from delegates to the ALP national conference this week: delegates understand the uranium debate is about values.

The principles behind the "no new uranium mines" policy are drawn from concerns about economic cost, safety, nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation. The policy also recognises that Labor governments should not repudiate contracts because of sovereign risk and compensation issues, while phasing out our involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.

The advocates of change argue for more stringent nuclear proliferation controls and management of waste. However, expanding uranium mining before those controls are in place, and before nuclear waste can be safely disposed of, puts the cart before the horse.

Given the nature of the nuclear fuel cycle, the ALP should be cautious and have those measures in place before considering approval for any new uranium mines.

After 60 years of operation, the nuclear industry has failed to come up with solutions to nuclear waste and proliferation. The storage of nuclear waste remains a public policy black hole.

In Australia, we have been unable to find a solution to low-level waste, let alone the high-level waste created by nuclear reactors.

Australians are right to be cautious about storing waste for tens of thousands of years and assurances that geological, climate and political changes will not disturb this highly toxic material.

Not a single repository exists in the world for the disposal of high-level waste from the nuclear fuel cycle.

A US site, Yucca Mountain, was due to be operational by now. However, after 20 years and $US7 billion, all that has been built is an access tunnel and it is unlikely to proceed because of a growing list of environmental impediments.

Put simply, you can guarantee that uranium mining will lead to nuclear waste, but you can't guarantee it won't lead to nuclear weapons.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, warned about the dangers of nuclear proliferation: "Our fears of a deadly nuclear detonation ... have been reawakened ... driven by new realities. The rise in terrorism. The discovery of clandestine nuclear programs. The emergence of a nuclear black market ..."

The activity of Iran is a reminder of the link between civil nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons proliferation. The former US vice-president Al Gore stated that in his eight years in the White House, each and every issue of nuclear proliferation was related to a civil nuclear reactor program. In the era of terrorism this threat is more acute.

Nuclear proliferation is the cold, hard reality that must shape the nuclear debate and the debate over uranium. If you can't resolve the issue of proliferation and waste after 60 years, then maybe there just aren't any answers.

The Bush Administration's plan for a global nuclear energy partnership is an admission of failure by the nuclear power industry's greatest advocates that the issues of waste and proliferation remain outstanding.

And with all this risk, nuclear power does not solve our greatest global challenge: climate change.

If we doubled the global use of nuclear energy we would use all known reserves of uranium in coming decades. We would achieve emission reductions of only another 5 per cent by 2050, compared with the 60 per cent reduction that is required to avoid dangerous climate change.

Conservative commentators argue that our anti-nuclear position holds Labor back electorally.

Does anyone seriously believe that there are any people in marginal electorates whose position is: "I would change my vote to Labor if only they would change to a pro-uranium policy?"

Labor's electoral prospects are best served by consistent and coherent opposition to any further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.

The "Light on the Hill" famously espoused at ALP conferences was not a product of radiation.

Labor has always been strongest when the party shows the courage of its principles and applies them in a practical and pragmatic way to meet policy challenges.

It is on that basis that a resolution of the outstanding nuclear waste and proliferation issues needs to be found before Labor governments consider removing our long-held opposition to new uranium mines.

Anthony Albanese is a Labor member of Federal Parliament and the manager of Opposition business.

And with all this risk, nuclear power does not solve our greatest global challenge: climate change.

Conservative commentators argue that our anti-nuclear position holds Labor back electorally.

Does anyone seriously believe that there are any people in marginal electorates whose position is: "I would change my vote to Labor if only they would change to a pro-uranium policy?"

Labor's electoral prospects are best served by consistent and coherent opposition to any further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.

The "Light on the Hill" famously espoused at ALP conferences was not a product of radiation.

Labor has always been strongest when the party shows the courage of its principles and applies them in a practical and pragmatic way to meet policy challenges.

--Anthony Albanese is a Labor member of Federal Parliament and the manager of Opposition business.

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

Augusta Chronicle
April 21, 2007

Energy group eyes Barnwell

Company looks for nuclear fuel recycling facility

Tim Hicks

BARNWELL, S.C. - Before EnergySolutions can generate fuel for electricity through a nuclear energy partnership, its task is to generate public interest in bringing the program to the Barnwell County region.

Company officials from EnergySolutions finished a tour of the area this week, conducting meetings in Yemassee in Hampton County, New Ellenton in Aiken County, and Barnwell in Barnwell County to explain the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - a plan to recycle spent nuclear fuel through a reprocessing facility. The recycled fuel would then be used in advanced burner reactors to generate commercial electricity.

The partnership has three purposes:

- Recycling spent nuclear fuel to generate further reactor fuel.

- Reducing the amount of spent fuel being buried in Yucca Mountain, Nev.

- Rendering volatile nuclear waste into inert glass forms.

On Jan. 20, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded $10 million in site study grants to review 11 possible sites around the nation for the placement of GNEP facilities.

Two of the 11 sites being considered are in the Barnwell County region.

The Allied General facility was a commercial nuclear reactor site until it was closed in the 1970s.

The other site is Savannah River National Laboratory at Savannah River Site.

A Global Nuclear Energy Partnership facility has the potential to create roughly 10,000 jobs as it is built, then about 5,000 permanent jobs when it becomes operational. The surrounding area also would benefit from the creation of industries to support the operation.

The DOE likely won't choose a site until June 2008, said Alan Dobson, the senior vice president of fuel cycle and spent fuel management with EnergySolutions.

Even then, it would take at least five years for the proper design work and permitting to be completed. Construction wouldn't begin until about 2013. Building the facility would take between seven and nine years, he said.

Industry backers consider support of the project vital now.

In Barnwell, an area hit by economic downturns and factory closings in the past few years, the interest was not whether to have the facilities here, but when.

"What would make Barnwell the site of choice over the other sites? I want to see it come here," said Jackie Ramsey, a former Barnwell County Council member.

The site near SRS has the benefit of meeting much of the criteria needed for a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership site, said Richard Smalley, a technical director for EnergySolutions from the Aiken office.

The Barnwell site has favorable points to it, such as the availability of water, Mr. Dobson said.

Two of the other sites of the 11 on the site study list don't have the water availability needed, he said.

But local public support must become political clout to land a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership in Barnwell, he noted.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
April 20, 2007

McCain questions Nevadan's assertion

Republican makes campaign stop in LV

By Molly Ball

Sen. John McCain put away his cell phone.

"Harry Reid just said he believed that the war was lost," he said. "My response is: The men and women who are putting everything on the line in Iraq don't accept that idea. It's a great disservice to them to assume that."

McCain was being interviewed by the Review-Journal at The Venetian on Thursday afternoon when he stopped to take a call and heard the news.

He was asked whether he thought Reid's statement was demoralizing.

"I don't know whether it is or not," he said. "I think it's incorrect, and I know that the men and women -- I was just recently in Iraq -- and I know they think we're going to win. I don't think they think it's lost."

The Republican candidate for president was in Las Vegas for his first Southern Nevada stop of the current campaign. On Thursday night, he spoke to the annual Lincoln Day dinner of the Clark County Republican Party.

A couple of hours later, McCain's response to Reid, the Nevada Democrat and Senate majority leader, was sharper. Answering questions from the media Thursday evening, he said, "It seems to me Senator Reid has lost all sense of priority."

He accused Reid of exploiting the war for partisan purposes. "Senator Reid should understand that presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't lose wars," he said. "Nations lose wars, and nations lose the consequences."

McCain is scheduled to be back in Nevada on April 28 as part of his official announcement tour, his campaign said.

The longtime Arizona senator has become one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush's strategy of increasing the number of troops in Iraq. According to polls, it is an unpopular stance, and many in Washington believe it could torpedo McCain's chances.

McCain on Thursday said that before getting on board with the present strategy, "I was the biggest critic of the previous strategy."

"This conflict was badly mismanaged, and I complained about it from the beginning," he added. "I knew what was happening. I knew it was going to fail, that strategy, and I gave speeches about it, hearings of the Armed Services Committee, everywhere I could to try and change it. But (then-Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld wouldn't change."

He said he thought the change in strategy under the new defense secretary, Robert Gates, and Gen. David Petraeus would turn the situation around.

"I'm telling everybody it's long and it's hard and it's tough, and the consequences of failure are catastrophe and genocide," he said.

McCain said he was unwilling to consider alternatives.

"I don't think anybody asked what Plan B was after Pearl Harbor," he said. "We were going to win, and we were going to do what was necessary to win."

McCain said it soon would be apparent whether the war effort was successful enough for the U.S. military to start to leave.

Some of the benchmarks of success, he said, would include more effective function of the Iraqi government; passage of laws on oil revenue sharing and dealing with former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath political party; provincial elections, and better control of Baghdad neighborhoods.

McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said that it could be argued that the United States left Vietnam too soon.

"Maybe we did, since they slaughtered thousands of innocent people and put millions of people in re-education camps and millions of people fled on boats," he said. "I think that most people had predicted that everything was going to be fine once we left Vietnam. History proves that was wrong."

Once thought to be the favorite for the 2008 Republican nomination, McCain finds himself a distant second to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. A national poll this week found Giuliani had the support of 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters, while McCain had 19 percent.

McCain this week was damaged by news that he had raised less money for his presidential bid than his two main rivals. In the first quarter of this year, he raised $13 million, compared with nearly $17 million for Giuliani and more than $23 million for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

One of McCain's top fundraisers is Republican political consultant Sig Rogich of Las Vegas.

McCain said he wasn't discouraged about the direction of his campaign.

"I think we're building a pretty solid base for our campaign," he said. "We have good organizations on the ground in the early states, and we'll be working hard in Nevada."

In the interview and media question-and-answer session, McCain used the "nuh-VAH-dah" pronunciation that gives some locals fits. By the time he took the stage Thursday night, he proudly pronounced the state's name so that the middle syllable rhymed with "sad."

"I have a proven record of being fiscal, social and national security conservative," McCain said. "I'm proud of my record of service, but most importantly, I think I'm best equipped to lead."

McCain's conservative bona fides have been questioned based on his more moderate image in the past. Asked whether he considered himself the most conservative Republican primary candidate, he said, "I don't pay much attention to the other candidates, to be honest with you."

McCain touted his appeal to Nevadans as a fellow Westerner but was unrepentant about his stance in favor of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

"I think we have to have a place to store the waste," he said. "I think that nuclear power has got to be a vital part of our effort to be independent of foreign oil, and I think it's (Yucca Mountain) a suitable place for storage."

He said he had not been convinced that the site wasn't safe or that transporting the waste to the site was unduly dangerous.

McCain has been an advocate of measures to curb global warming. Nuclear energy, he said, is necessary to clean up the environment and make America energy independent.

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

Lahontan Valley News
April 20, 2007

State official refutes Yucca Mountain claims

By Robert Loux

Your article about Churchill County High School students' reactions to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository following a tour of the site sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy ("Local students impressed by safety of nuclear repository after site visit" in the Lahontan Valley News, April 5, 2007) demonstrates just how much misinformation is disseminated during these DOE public relation tours.

It is important to recognize that the tours of Yucca Mountain operated by DOE are part of the federal government's larger effort to promote the proposed repository project. They are not "unbiased," as the students apparently were led to believe. The entire tour program is run out of DOE's Office of Public Affairs, the public relations arm of the Yucca project. The office maintains a whole staff of people who run the tours and who are trained to present information in such a way as to make Yucca Mountain appear safe and suitable. Nothing, however, could be farther from the truth.

I am sure none of the students on the trip to Yucca heard anything about the fundamental problems with using this site for disposal of deadly radioactive waste, such as:

The fact that the Yucca site is so fractured and porous that, according to DOE's own assessments, the geology of the site contributes virtually nothing to waste isolation. In a desperate effort to "fix" this fatal problem, DOE has come up with a system of manmade barriers relying on waste disposal canisters that must remain intact for between 10,000 and 1 million years! Almost no one in the scientific community believes this is remotely possible, yet DOE continues to assert that this "Rube Goldberg" fix somehow make Yucca a safe and suitable site.

Because the site is so porous and so fractured, water moves very rapidly though the subsurface. These fast water pathways mean that once waste is out of the manmade containers, it moves very quickly to the aquifer below and into the environment.

The groundwater at Yucca Mountain is highly corrosive, and even though the proposed repository would be above the water table, there is a great deal of it (the so-called unsaturated zone is actually 80 percent or more saturated). State of Nevada experts have shown that DOE's waste disposal containers - the ones that need to last for up to 1 million years - will begin to corrode very rapidly (within tens and hundreds of years) when exposed to water with the chemical composition of that found underground at Yucca.

Yucca Mountain is located in what the U.S. Geological Survey calls a major earthquake zone, and scientists are still trying to understand the risk of new volcanic activity at and near the site. All in all, it would be hard to find a place that is less suited for disposing of deadly radioactive material that must be isolated from people and the environment for hundreds of thousands of years.

Another thing I'm sure the students weren't told during their public relations visit is that Yucca Mountain was singled out in 1987 as the only site to be studied for a repository on purely political grounds, not because it was the best site or even one that had been shown to be safe and suitable.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that DOE and Yucca Mountain supporters in the commercial nuclear industry will say and do almost anything to try to keep this fatally flawed and potential dangerous project alive. It's even more unfortunate that this includes misinforming and misleading Nevada students whose enthusiasm for science and learning deserves better.

Robert R. Loux is the executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.

--Comments:

Re: State official refutes Yucca Mountain claims
by Anonymous on Friday, April 20 @ 09:20:29 PDT
Mr. Johnson, the teacher who takes these student groups to Yucca Mountain, is a fine teacher, but he has a definite political agenda too. I don't know how much information he gives the students on the flaws at Yucca Mountain; I hope it's equal to the promotion of Yucca Mountain, but I doubt it. Hopefully these students will do some research on their own, and not just swallow the DOE's PR whole.

Re: State official refutes Yucca Mountain claims
by Anonymous on Friday, April 20 @ 13:04:06 PDT
The liberal leftist media dogma is at work here again filling the media with dis-information for their political goals.

Re: State official refutes Yucca Mountain claims
by Anonymous on Friday, April 20 @ 17:24:11 PDT
oh for goodness sake...go watch Russ Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or some other radio or TV show where you picked up this garbage.

Re: State official refutes Yucca Mountain claims
by Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 @ 21:58:47 PDT
Its RUSH, not Russ, Limbaugh, you dolt. You would know this if you actually listened to him. Oh, by the way, how do you "watch" a radio show?

Re: State official refutes Yucca Mountain claims
by Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 @ 16:05:54 PDT
We were alarmed at the obvious political agenda of the "tour guides" at Yucca Mountain. Their thinly veiled attempt to brainwash our children was disgusting. Mr. Loux is an expert in the field and his thoughtful, well written article was filled with factual data. THANK YOU, Mr. Loux.JF

Re: State official refutes Yucca Mountain claims
by Anonymous on Monday, April 23 @ 10:45:25 PDT
Whatever happened to those Bikini Islands where they blew up those bombs? Can't we store stuff there? They don't use the islands for anything else to they?

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
April 20, 2007

Walker River Tribe nixes nuclear waste transport through Lyon County

Patrick Abanathy

The Walker River Paiute Tribe passed a resolution earlier this week putting the kibosh on the possibility of Yucca-bound nuclear waste being transported through Lyon County.

The Tribe owns a critical portion of existing railway land between Wabuska and Schurz, which helps make up the formerly proposed Mina Corridor. The April 17 decision makes the second time the Tribe has declined permission to use their land.

Late last year the Tribe agreed to participate in an environmental study with the U.S. Department of Energy to reexamine the Mina Corridor, which passes through Fernley, Silver Springs and Wabuska before heading to Schurz.

"The Tribal Council began the (Environmental Impact Study) process to allow the Tribe to make an informed, educated decision on the likelihood of nuclear waste passing through our Reservation, and to determine the safest method for that transportation," Walker River Paiute Tribal Chairman Genia Williams said.

Following consideration of gathered information and consulting with Tribal members, the Tribe has decided to cease participation in the environmental study.

"The Tribe will not allow nuclear waste to be transported by rail through our Reservation," Williams said.

She expressed her appreciation to the Department's personnel.

"We understand that (the Department of Energy) will need to continue its efforts to locate a method to transport nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, but the Tribe came to the decision that a rail route through our Reservation was not in the best interest of our people."

Allen Benson, a Department of Energy and Yucca Mountain spokesman in Las Vegas, told the Associated Press the Tribe's decision means the Mina corridor will be dropped from the department's choices of potential rail lines to Yucca Mountain. However, it will still be included in an impact statement expected for release in October.

Elimination of the Mina corridor "certainly simplifies (the Department of Energy's) options," said David Blee, executive director of the U.S. Transport Council, a coalition of nuclear waste shippers.

Another possible route includes the Caliente Corridor southeast of Lyon, though the Mina route was favored, as it included existing rail beds rather than a need for more than 300 miles of new infrastructure.

Both Bob Loux, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects executive director, and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, who adamantly opposes the Yucca Mountain project as a whole, welcomed the tribe's announcement.

"I am so pleased that the Walker River Paiute Tribe has made the decision not to allow nuclear waste to be transported through their Reservation," Reid said in an issued statement. "With this decision, the Tribe has made the determination that the risks associated with transporting thousands of tons of nuclear waste through Nevada communities far outweigh any potential benefits being touted by those looking to turn Nevada into the nation's nuclear dumping ground."

Reid also spoke to the larger project, which is, at minimum, 10 years out.

"Further, what is true for Nevada is true for the nation. It is not safe to haul 77,000 tons of the most dangerous substance known to man through this nation's cities and towns so it can be buried 90 miles outside of Las Vegas. The Tribe's decision is yet another blow to this project, which is on its last legs."

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

KLAS-TV
April 20, 2007

Senator McCain Looks for Las Vegas Support

Arizona Senator John McCain was on the campaign trail in Las Vegas as controversy was brewing about a joke he made regarding bombing Iran.

The Republican presidential candidate defended the joke at his stop in Nevada on Thursday. "Please, I was talking to some of my old veterans friends, and my response is lighten up and get a life," he said.

McCain spoke to Las Vegas reporters where he talked specifically about the controversy as well as Nevada issues.

"I think I understand many of the issues that confront both Arizona and Nevada whether they be land, water, Native Americans and other issues," McCain said.

McCain did discuss his support of Yucca Mountain saying nuclear power is vital and a waste storage facility is necessary.

"I've supported Yucca Mountain. I think we need to resolve the nuclear waste issue. The president supported Yucca Mountain and was able to win this state in 2000 and 2004," McCain added.

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

New York Sun
April 20, 2007

2008 Candidates Show Affinity for Atomic Energy

By Josh Gerstein
Staff Reporter of the Sun

In American politics, the rallying cry "No nukes!" seems to be losing its punch.

The crop of candidates seeking the White House in 2008 shows an affinity for atomic energy that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

"You absolutely would not have gotten the same reaction not that long ago," a key anti-nuclear activist in California, Rochelle Becker, said.

Each of the top contenders for the Republican nomination and all but one of the major Democratic hopefuls support nuclear power to some extent. Most cite the prospect that atomic energy could help reduce climate change by supplanting power produced by fossil fuel sources such as coal and natural gas.

"The global warming issue is what is causing at least the Democratic candidates to say we need to leave nukes on the table," Ms. Becker, the executive director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said.

The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Clinton and Obama, have joined one of the top Republicans in the race, Senator McCain of Arizona, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The measure includes more than $3.6 billion in funding and loan guarantees for the planning and construction of nuclear plants using new reactor designs.

The only major candidate opposed to increased reliance on nuclear power is a former senator from North Carolina, John Edwards. The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that during a visit to that city in February, Mr. Edwards declared that atomic energy had no future in America. A spokeswoman for the candidate, Kate Bedingfield, said the report slightly overstated his position, but she added, "He does not advocate building additional nuclear power plants in the U.S."

One potential entrant in the Democratic field, Vice President Gore, also remains cool to nuclear power. Despite his advocacy for urgent action to combat climate change, he has repeatedly dismissed the prospect of increased reliance on atomic power.

The Democrats' take on nuclear energy this time is nearly a mirror image of their stance in 1992. Then, a former senator from Massachusetts, Paul Tsongas, was the sole advocate for greater use of atomic power. The rest of the field stood opposed and heaped scorn on Tsongas as a proponent of a dangerous and foolish policy.

"There is no such thing as a pro-nuclear environmentalist," one of Tsongas's rivals, Senator Harkin of Iowa, declared in campaign ads. Other Democratic hopefuls such as a former California governor, Jerry Brown, and a senator from Nebraska, Robert Kerrey, made similar arguments.

However, the leader of the anti-nuclear assault on Tsongas was arguably the then-governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who was jousting with the Massachusetts native for the front-runner slot in the presidential nominating contest.

"We do not need to do what Senator Tsongas needs to do and build hundreds of more nuclear plants to become energy independent," Mr. Clinton said at a debate in Denver on February 29, 1992. "One of the reasons he's ahead in the polls it that people do not know what he stands for."

Tsongas took umbrage at the claim that he wanted to build hundreds of new nuclear facilities. "That is a lie. That is a lie. That is a lie," the former senator declared.

The fight over the nuclear issue provoked one of the primary campaign's most memorable exchanges, as Mr. Clinton went on to needle his rival by saying, "No one can argue with you, Paul, you're always perfect."

"I'm not perfect, but I'm always honest," Tsongas replied caustically.

Mr. Clinton's use of the nuclear cudgel against Tsongas is in sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton's open embrace of nuclear power in the current campaign.

"I think nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution," the New York senator said during a town hall meeting in Aiken, S.C., in February. "We've got to be very careful about the waste and about how we run our nuclear plants, but I don't have any preconceived opposition. I just want to be sure that we do it right, as carefully as we can because obviously it's a tremendous source of energy. We get about 20% of our energy from nuclear power in our country. … Other countries like France get, you know, much, much more. So, we do have to look at it because it doesn't put greenhouse gas emissions into the air."

Mr. Obama's camp gave a somewhat more reserved answer when asked about the Illinois senator's views on atomic energy. "Barack Obama feels we must address three key issues before ramping up nuclear power, including the public's right to know, security, and waste storage," a campaign spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, said. "Nuclear power represents the majority of non-carbon generated electricity therefore making it unlikely that it will be taken off the table."

A spokeswoman for another Democratic hopeful, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, said he "has been supportive of safe nuclear power." The campaign of Senator Biden of Delaware did not respond to requests for comment on the issue, but in 2005 he voted for an amendment containing a next-generation nuclear design program similar to the one backed by Mrs. Clinton and Messrs. McCain and Obama.

Tsongas, the early nuclear advocate, died at 55 in 1997, from a recurrence of lymphoma. His adviser on energy issues, Mitchell Tyson, said Tsongas backed nuclear power primarily as an alternative to the pollution caused by burning coal. However, press clippings show that, even back in 1992, the Lowell, Mass., native also cited global warming as a reason to consider atomic power.

"Paul Tsongas was 100% right," Mr. Tyson said in an interview this week. "Paul had a multigenerational approach to energy. He did not see it as what's easy today. … It's nice to see the mainstream Democratic candidates coming around to it."

When read the text of Mrs. Clinton's recent remarks, Mr. Tyson said he was stunned by the contrast with her husband's anti-nuclear attacks a decade and a half ago. "Amazing. Just astounding," he said.

One critical part of the nuclear calculus for Democrats these days is the negative sentiment of Nevada residents to the federal government's plan to store high-level nuclear waste at a site there known as Yucca Mountain. The clout of Nevada voters is magnified in this cycle by plans to stage the state's Democratic presidential caucuses on January 19, 2008, prior to New Hampshire's primary.

The four senators in the Democratic race also have another good reason not to get crosswise with Nevadans: the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, hails from that state.

"In the Democratic Party in Nevada, it's just sort of an article of faith that you don't even question that Yucca is bad," a political science professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Eric Herzik, said.

As a result, and perhaps for substantive reasons as well, all of the major Democratic candidates are now opposed to the plans for Yucca. The even appear to be in something of a competition to outdo one another on the issue. Mr. Biden's campaign sent out a press release Monday calling attention to a Washington Post report that found him to be a "steady foe" of Yucca but labeled Messrs. Dodd and Edwards as "flip-floppers." The article said Mrs. Clinton has also steadily opposed Yucca for a number of years.

Mr. Dodd backed the waste site in 2002 but recently said he opposes it because of security concerns. Mr. Edwards voted against the Yucca plan in 2000, in favor of it in 2002, and is now back to opposing it. An aide said the former senator said he was troubled by recent allegations of forged engineering reports and by increased prospects that terrorists could intercept waste shipments.

Anti-nuclear activists like Ms. Becker see hypocrisy in those who claim to be worried about the waste but still tout nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming.

"If you're really concerned about the waste, how can you favor nuclear power if we have no way to deal with the waste?" she asked. "What they're doing is really a very political decision and not a very pro-nuclear decision."

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

San Luis Obispo Tribune
April 20, 2007

County Roundup

SLO County:

The state Assembly this week killed legislation that would have lifted the state’s moratorium on new nuclear power plants.

The bill by Orange County Republican Chuck De- Vore would have struck down a 1976 law that prohibits licensing of any new nuclear power plants until a permanent solution to the problem of storing the nation’s high-level radioactive waste is found.

The proposed underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is beset by problems and is years away from opening, if it ever does. The Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee voted 6-3 to uphold the ban.

The San Luis Obispobased Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility lobbied against the bill.

“We anticipate that the results of an upcoming study by the California Energy Commission analyzing the costs, benefits and risks of continuing down the nuclear energy path will lead us to a clearer understanding of where to invest our energy dollars,” said Rochelle Becker, the group’s director.

—David Sneed

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