Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, May 25, 2007

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, May 25, 2007
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 25, 2007

Yucca financing taking shape

Congressional committees begin process of setting 2008 budget levels

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- House and Senate committees this week took the first steps toward setting Yucca Mountain spending for 2008, a year in which the Department of Energy plans to meet a key licensing milestone if Congress supplies the funds.

The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday chopped $50 million from the military's contribution to the Yucca project, which would store Defense Department nuclear waste along with commercial used fuel within the planned repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

On Wednesday, the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee formed a spending bill that would fully fund the repository plan at the $494.5 million amount that DOE requested.

Both actions took place early in the Capitol Hill budget process. Final spending for nuclear waste disposal won't be set until the fall.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., engineered the Senate cut. Though the Pentagon asked for $292 million as its share of the program next year, the Armed Services Committee reduced that to $242 million.

"The more success we have in cutting funds for this reckless project, the further from reality it becomes," said Ensign, a committee member who opposes the disposal of high-level nuclear waste disposal in the state, as do most of its other elected leaders.

But in the House, Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., the chairman of the energy and water subcommittee, included full funding for Yucca in his panel's annual DOE spending bill.

Visclosky told reporters he wanted to ensure that the Energy Department had the money it said it needed to complete a Yucca license application.

Ward Sproat, director of the Energy Department's office for Yucca Mountain, has testified to Congress that the DOE hopes to complete a repository license bid and file it with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by next June.

The repository would not open until 2017, and probably a half-dozen years later, under schedules devised by DOE. The state of Nevada and environmental groups plan to mount legal challenges in a continuing effort to kill the project outright.

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

New Haven Register
May 25, 2007

Governor heartened by bill on nuke dump

Luther Turmelle
North Bureau Chief

A spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Thursday that she will be closely watching the progress of legislation introduced late Wednesday that seeks to expedite the development of a national repository for spent nuclear fuel at a site in Nevada.

Adam Liegeot, a Rell spokesman, said the governor is encouraged by the reintroduction of a bill by U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. He first introduced the bill in September 2006 to speed up the development of the repository at Yucca Mountain.

Liegeot said Rell continues to be active in a bipartisan coalition of governors supporting the creation of a national storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in Nevada.

"The governor's message is simple: We cannot allow Connecticut to become a storage site for spent nuclear fuel," Liegeot said.

Connecticut is home to a pair of sites where spent nuclear fuel is being kept: a section of the former Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant location in Haddam and Dominion Energy's Millstone nuclear generating station in Waterford.

Bob Capstick, a spokesman for the consortium that owns the power plant, said he hadn't seen Domenici's latest attempt to expedite the development of the Yucca Mountain facility.

"Connecticut Yankee supports any legislation that advances the day when the federal government finally removes the spent fuel ... from the site," Capstick said.

The U.S. government established a fund in the early 1980s to build a centralized, permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles north of Las Vegas.

But the project has seen numerous construction delays and isn't expected to be completed until 2017.

The legislation Domenici introduced last fall failed to advance and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has vowed to block any attempts to advance the creation of a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in his home state.

Domenici has cited a vote by Congress in 2002 that declared Yucca Mountain the permanent repository for waste produced by U.S. nuclear energy plants and weapons industry. President Bush signed the legislation, Domenici said.

"We cannot have a serious discussion about climate change without including nuclear energy," Domenici said in a statement.

"In order to have a robust nuclear energy program, we must address the waste issue. I recognize that this bill faces long odds given the current makeup of the Senate; nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an essential option to deal with nuclear waste," he said.

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

Senator Harry Reid
May 23, 2007

BREAKING NEWS!

Reid Fights Legislation to Revive Yucca Mountain

This week, Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Larry Craig (R-ID) introduced legislation that would be especially shortsighted and dangerous for Nevada if it ever had a chance of passing. The Nuclear Waste Access to Yucca Act (NU-WAY) is a last-ditch effort to try to salvage the dying Yucca Mountain project by gutting laws that protect our environment and public health. NU-WAY would permit the Department of Energy to begin shipping nuclear waste to Nevada before the proposed repository has even received a license. If this bill ever passed, it would force Nevada to serve as a temporary above-ground nuclear waste dump for decades. As Nevada’s senior senator, I will leverage my position as the Senate Majority leader to ensure that this bill is dead on arrival.

We should not try to change federal law and lower our safety and health standards for Yucca – we need a solution to nuclear waste that lives up to American standards.

Solving the Nuclear Waste Problem

While nuclear energy powers 20 percent of our country, it creates thousands of tons of one of the most harmful substances known to man. Over two decades of work at Yucca Mountain show that it is not a solution for nuclear waste. The science behind Yucca is corrupted and riddled with politics. We need a real solution that does not attempt to defy scientific reality.

That is why I have worked with Senator Ensign to find a solution to this problem. Earlier this year, we introduced the Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act. Under our proposal, the DOE will take ownership of nuclear waste and store it safely at nuclear power plants where it is produced. The waste will be in secure dry casks, which have a long and proven record of safety. Nevadans will be assured that nuclear waste will never be stored at Yucca, and all Americans will be safer without spent nuclear fuel being shipped past communities home to 250 million people.

Dry cask storage is already here to stay. More than half of our nation’s nuclear power plants already store nuclear waste in dry casks, and according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it is safe for over one hundred years. Dry cask storage saves taxpayers money, is safe and secure, and gives us time to find a scientifically sound solution. Best of all, it allows us to achieve these goals without putting our nation at risk of nuclear terror on highways. It saves us from a potential public health catastrophe in Nevada.

Please rest assured that I am seeking a scientifically sound long-term solution to our nuclear waste problems. Let’s take the focus away from the dead-end Yucca Mountain project, and find real solutions for America’s future.

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

Senator Harry Reid
May 23, 2007

Reid, Ensign Respond to Dangerous Legislation That Would Advance Development of Yucca Mountain

Bill aims to increase nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain before it is even built

Washington, DC— U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign of Nevada are again working together to ensure the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump doesn't become a reality, this after U.S. Senators Pete Domenici and Larry Craig, today introduced legislation that would allow the Department of Energy to recklessly speed up the licensing process.

"This is an irresponsible piece of legislation. Rather than addressing the problems facing the proposed dump at Yucca Mountain, its supporters are already trying to cram in more waste before it's even built," said Reid. "The dump is not based on legal, political, or scientific reality. Rather than trying to force nuclear waste into Yucca Mountain, the DOE should take ownership of nuclear waste and store it at nuclear power plans where it's produced. This is a critical topic that must be addressed as part of the bigger picture of energy independence."

"For the last 25 years, the Yucca Mountain project has been disastrous and has wasted billions of taxpayers' dollars," said Ensign. "This bill attempts to circumvent existing hazardous material laws, start construction and increase spending on the broken Yucca Mountain project all prior to license approval. This legislation continues a reckless policy that disregards public safety and fiscal responsibility. I will continue my efforts to end this terrible project."

Reid and Ensign recently introduced the Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007 that would eliminate the need for the Yucca Mountain project.

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

KLAS-TV
May 23, 2007

Yucca Mountain Project Takes Center Stage Again

Melissa Duran
Reporter

The Yucca Mountain nuclear storage project takes center stage again.

Those against the plan to store the nation's nuclear waste in Southern Nevada are strategizing ways to thwart the federal project. They are convinced the Yucca Mountain Project is virtually dead, but they're still talking about issues surrounding the proposed facility.

The Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects met to discuss transport dangers just in case the Yucca Mountain Project becomes a national repository for nuclear waste.

The train that cuts right behind downtown hotels, government offices and even the Las Vegas Strip could one day be filled with lethal nuclear waste.

The Department of Energy wants to Nevada's railways and major highways to transport radioactive waste and nuclear spent fuel to Yucca Mountain. But many against the project are convinced it's all an act.

Bob Loux heads up the Nevada State Agency for Nuclear Projects, the agency fighting the project. He said, "It's kind of a marketing strategy to make it seem like the project is alive, active, viable, like it's only a matter of time before it's built. But the reality of the situation is that Congress is going to slash their budget. They're not only in trouble politically, but technically at the site."

Former Nevada Governor Robert List said, "This project is not dead at all. It's the law of the land that this facility will be built to take the nation's waste."

The Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects says on the remote chance the repository does come to fruition, they have to be ready. While the D.O.E. says chances of transport accidents are low, others say congested roads mixed with nuclear waste are accidents waiting to happen.

Sheila Conway, spokeswoman for Clark County, said, "They use a national set of statistics to try to model what the impacts are going to be. Those models have fatality rates that we already know are much lower than what exists in the state of Nevada."

Robert List said, "They have withstood broad side impacts from high speed trains, dropping of huge weights that simulate aircraft running into them with no leakage whatsoever."

But while both sides argue what's safe and what's not, the debate goes on with both sides believing they are winning the argument.

The Department of Energy asked for close to $495 million for this upcoming fiscal year. A decision has not been made if they'll get it.

The D.O.E.'s funding was cut in 2006. If that happens again, some believe it would just cause a delay, while others think it will eventually kill the entire project.

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

KRNV
May 24, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton Issues Statement on Yucca Mountain

Senator Hillary Clinton issued the following statement in response to legislation introduced yesterday by Senators Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) and Larry Craig (R- Idaho) seeking to advance development of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository.

"I have long opposed storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. This latest attempt to push forward development of the project is particularly reckless, as it aims to increase spending and begin construction on the site prior to license approval. There are far too many unanswered questions about both the geology of the site and integrity of the science to support the decision to store waste at Yucca at all - let alone to justify accelerating the site's development.

Senator Clinton also said, "Continued attempts to push this misguided project forward are both disappointing and irresponsible. As President, I will work with the scientific community to examine all options for safe, secure storage of nuclear waste as part of a comprehensive national energy policy."

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 24, 2007

National Problem: Nuclear dump concern grows

'Mostly rail' proposal also means cars

By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal

Communities across the country are waking up to the risks of hauling highly radioactive waste to the planned Yucca Mountain repository, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and Nevada nuclear officials said Wednesday.

But nowhere is the awareness more prevalent, they said, than in the Las Vegas Valley, where rail cars and trucks carrying casks of spent nuclear fuel rods will travel if the Department of Energy decides to build a 319-mile rail line from Caliente to the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"When you talk to the mayors who have routes through their cities, and tell them that this is not a local problem but a national problem, they become emphatic," Goodman told members of the state Commission on Nuclear Projects.

After the meeting, Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, said opinion polls and campaigns by watchdog groups have heightened awareness about the government's plans to begin waste shipments to the mountain in a decade or more.

"I think awareness and concern about it is growing," Loux said.

The commission's meeting came a day after the Nevada Conservation League, the Sierra Club and Citizen Alert joined colleagues in the Southeastern United States in opposing plans to transport spent fuel from nuclear power plants for reprocessing at the Savannah River site in South Carolina.

"It's really the first time that any other part of the country has started saying, 'You can't put this stuff on our roads,' " said Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a statewide environmental group.

The Commission on Nuclear Projects meeting also followed a workshop Tuesday in which Nevada's transportation consultant, Bob Halstead, gave a presentation on the state's expectations to the nonprofit U.S. Transport Council, a nuclear industry backed group that's independent of the government.

Some participants on the council's panel represent companies that expect to shoulder the task of transporting nuclear waste.

Halstead gave a similar presentation Wednesday to the Commission on Nuclear Projects, emphasizing that if the Caliente rail route is selected it will pose unacceptable risks to Las Vegas.

"This will be the most challenging rail project in this country in many decades," Halstead said.

He noted that at a minimum 5 percent of the total rail casks, and more than likely 50 percent of them, would roll through the Las Vegas Valley, posing safety risks from human error to providing targets for terrorists.

Under a maximum scenario, depending on a railroad's selection of routes, up to 87 percent of all rail shipments could pass through the Las Vegas Valley, representing almost all shipments across the United States with the exception of those from the Pacific Northwest.

"When we get to Las Vegas, what are they dealing with? We're dealing with a city built around a railroad," Halstead said.

He said most of the used nuclear fuel assemblies inside the shipping casks would come from reactor sites in the East and Midwest. They would pass through two "gateways," or marshaling sites, in Kansas City and Memphis, where railcars of highly radioactive waste could sit for up to 48 hours.

When Department of Energy officials describe their nuclear waste shipping strategy as "mostly rail, they also mean a lot of trucks," Halstead said.

Legal weight truck shipments would increase from 25 in the first year of the transportation campaign to 175 in the fifth year.

Allen Benson, Energy Department spokesman for the Office of Repository Development in Las Vegas, said the public will have a chance to comment at hearings this fall on the rail corridor draft impact statement and a supplement for the Yucca Mountain site.

"We are not selecting any national routing at this point," Benson said before Tuesday's U.S. Transport Council meeting.

National routes will be handled through a step-by-step process, he said.

CORRECTION -- 05/25/07 -- A headline on a report Thursday should have said that trucks, in addition to trains, would haul nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain repository. A photo with the story showed a workers shuttle entering a Yucca Mountain tunnel in April 2006. And the orange lines on the map show the truck routes used under the mostly rail scenario.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 24, 2007

Bill puts Yucca on fast track

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- A bill revived in Congress on Wednesday envisions nuclear waste being shipped to Yucca Mountain in 2010, almost a decade sooner than the government plans.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he reintroduced legislation that would put the Department of Energy on a faster path to develop a Nevada repository for used nuclear fuel from commercial power plants.

The bill drew immediate condemnation from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and others in the Nevada delegation to Congress who charge Yucca Mountain is unsafe.

Reid, who is Senate majority leader, has said he would block repository bills from advancing through the Senate.

Domenici in a statement acknowledged his bill "faces long odds given the current makeup of the Senate."

"Nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an essential option to deal with nuclear waste," Domenici said. "This legislation will establish a comprehensive program that will provide confidence that our nation's nuclear waste will be managed safely both for current and future reactors."

The bill, introduced with Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and nine other Republican senators, would authorize the Energy Department to build concrete pads and upright containers at the Yucca site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and to deliver high level nuclear waste from Defense Department and DOE sites.

Assuming the Energy Department can keep to licensing and construction schedules and complete environmental studies, the bill would allow shipments to commence as early as 2010.

DOE officials have said they believe the Yucca site could be ready to begin accepting nuclear waste by 2017 but probably five or six years later as a more realistic estimate.

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

Las Vegas SUN
May 24, 2007

GOP senators reintroduce bill to speed waste to Yucca Mountain

By Erica Werner
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican senators led by Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced legislation Wednesday to speed nuclear waste to Nevada and stow it above ground until the underground dump at Yucca Mountain is completed.

Domenici, top Republican on the Energy Committee, introduced similar legislation last September. It did not advance even though Republicans then controlled Congress and has less chance now with Democratic Sen. Harry Reid as Nevada serving as majority leader.

"I recognize that this bill faces long odds given the current makeup of the Senate. Nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an essential option to deal with nuclear waste," Domenici said.

Reid and Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada released a joint statement deeming Domenici's bill dangerous and irresponsible.

"Rather than addressing the problems facing the proposed dump at Yucca Mountain, its supporters are already trying to cram in more waste before it's even built," Reid said.

Reid, who has played a key role in stymieing the nuclear waste dump, said he'll try to keep any Yucca Mountain legislation from advancing in the Senate.

The long-delayed dump won't open until 2017 under the best-case scenario, and the delays are costing the public because the Energy Department was obligated to start accepting waste from nuclear utilities beginning in 1998. More than 50,000 tons of the material is waiting at commercial reactors around the country.

Domenici's bill would seek to cut down on that liability by allowing waste to move sooner to the Yucca Mountain site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

His bill also would repeal the current 77,000-ton legal limit on how much waste Yucca Mountain can accept. Federal studies have estimated the dump could safely hold at least 132,000 tons.

Reid and Ensign's preferred solution is to move the waste into dry cask storage containers at the reactor sites where it now is stored.

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

Mohave Valley News
May 24, 2007

Yucca Mountain bill reintroduced

‘‘I recognize that this bill faces long odds given the current makeup of the Senate. Nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an essential option to deal with nuclear waste,'' Domenici said.

Reid and Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada released a joint statement deeming Domenici's bill dangerous and irresponsible.

‘‘Rather than addressing the problems facing the proposed dump at Yucca Mountain, its supporters are already trying to cram in more waste before it's even built,'' Reid said.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
May 24, 2007

Letters to the Editor

Radioactive Russian roulette

Nye County Commission Chairman Gary Hollis, described as "an unabashed advocate for the safety of the Yucca Mountain project," was quoted in your article as saying "I will ride the first shipment myself from the power plant to Yucca Mountain."

I would warn him not to ride on the shipment as a publicity stunt, for these shipments would be like mobile X-ray machines that cannot be turned off.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows a chest X-ray per hour of gamma radiation to be emitted at a distance of six feet. NRC even allows 20 chest X-rays worth of gamma radiation to be emitted at the surface of the shipping container.

If the container is externally contaminated with radioactivity - and the state of Nevada has documented 50 such mishaps in the U.S., while France has suffered many hundreds of such mishaps - then the doses would be even worse to drivers, gas station attendants, toll booth workers and innocent bystanders at rest areas and along the roads and rails.

The National Academy of Science reported last year that no dose of radiation, no matter how small, is free from health risks. It's been known for over 50 years that a single X-ray to a fetus in its mother's womb doubles that baby's risks for contracting cancer.

Such risks refer to "incident-free" shipments. Severe accidents or terrorist attacks upon high-level radioactive waste shipments bound for Yucca Mountain - and there would be thousands to tens of thousands of such shipments - could release catastrophic amounts of harmful radioactivity downwind.

The trucks and trains bound for Yucca would carry 40 to 240 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb, so release of even a fraction of such cargoes would be a disaster. That's why we call these shipments potential "mobile Chernobyls," and "dirty bombs on wheels." Their transport through 45 states and the District of Columbia to Yucca Mountain would represent radioactive Russian roulette on the roads and rails.

Kevin Kamps
Nuclear waste specialist, Nuclear Information and Resource Service

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

PR Newswire
May 24, 2007

Nuclear Industry Leaders Identify Challenges on Road to U.S. Nuclear Energy Renaissance

MIAMI, May 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Financial, regulatory and communications challenges are among those that still must be met to bring the emerging "nuclear energy renaissance" to fruition, Nuclear Energy Institute leaders told hundreds of industry executives assembled at NEI's three-day annual conference here.

"The outlook for nuclear energy is bright and growing brighter. But that is not the whole story," said NEI board Chairman John Rowe, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Exelon Corp., the nation's largest operator of nuclear power plants.

The industry has proven its ability to operate nuclear power plants on a sustained basis at high levels of safety and efficiency at a time when demand for reliable electricity from clean-energy technologies is increasing. Despite this favorable situation, "significant regulatory, financial and infrastructure challenges stand between where we are and where we need to be," Rowe said.

He cited used nuclear fuel management, financing of capital-intensive projects, and future work force needs as among the key challenges facing the industry. In separate remarks during the conference's opening session, NEI President and CEO Frank L. "Skip" Bowman identified a need for improved communications to solidify political and public support among people and entities who are increasingly - but sometimes tenuously - embracing nuclear energy.

"Yes, we see growing support for nuclear energy because it is a carbon-free technology, but it is not unqualified or unambiguous support," Bowman said. "There are solid steps we can take - must take - to shore up that support, to make it less ambiguous, more solid, more sustainable." More than 100 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states provide electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and businesses. They provide more than 70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or other pollutants into the atmosphere, including renewable technologies and hydroelectric power plants.

As the nation looks to strengthen its energy security, meet future electricity needs and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, 16 energy companies and consortia over the past 18 months have announced their intention to file license applications with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build as many as 30 new nuclear power plants.

"We are at long last moving to a time when generating companies will make business decisions to build new nuclear plants. I firmly believe that we will need 20 to 30 new plants by 2030 if we have any hope of addressing climate change and enhancing our energy security," Rowe said. Against this backdrop, the federal government should develop an interim storage alternative for used nuclear fuel pending licensing and construction of the long-delayed geologic repository planned for Yucca Mountain, Nev.

"We must accept that the operation of a permanent disposal facility will not happen soon. We must establish a process under which the federal government takes title to spent fuel and moves it from reactor sites to one or more federal locations for consolidated interim storage," Rowe said. On new nuclear plant financing, Rowe cautioned that "capital projects of this magnitude" typically are undertaken by companies with market values many times larger than even the largest U.S. electric power company.

The industry will have to summon the courage both to tell federal officials that the investment incentives contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are not sufficient and to admit to itself that, in the long run, "the federal government cannot and will not be the financier of first or even last resort," he said.

"While the federal government must play a role in providing the initial incentives to jump-start the industry, including most particularly a robust and workable loan guarantee program, over the long term both state regulators and the industry will have to step up if we are to successfully build the nuclear capacity the nation needs."

Bowman noted that states like Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia just this year have passed legislation encouraging new plant construction by providing higher assurance of investment recovery.

Nonetheless, he said, the industry must do a better job answering questions - in areas like safety, used fuel management and economics - that skeptics often raise when discussing increased reliance on nuclear energy. "We must do a better job at engaging thoughtful people in a factual discussion. We must train and empower our people as ambassadors for nuclear energy," he said.

The theme for this year's conference, "The Changing Climate for Nuclear Energy," reflects the need to better manage shifting political and policy environments, Bowman said.

"Growing numbers of people want to believe that nuclear power should be a larger part of our nation's energy portfolio. It's up to us to give them reasons to believe. That's our biggest challenge." The theme also reflects increasing concerns about the scientific phenomenon of global warming, said Bowman, a retired Navy admiral who recently served on a Military Advisory Board that examined the national security implications of climate change. The panel concluded that, even if the likelihood of catastrophic climate change is low, the potential consequences are immense and have negative implications on national security.

"We can add energy security impacts to the national security and military impacts, because we're dangerously dependent for energy on parts of the world most likely to experience political instability and social collapse, and whose values do not coincide with our own," Bowman said. He lamented the findings of a Government Accountability Office study that revealed federal support for renewable, fossil and nuclear energy research and development has fallen by more than 85 percent in real terms from 1978 through 2005.

"We are deluding ourselves if we believe we have taken even the first steps necessary to address our energy and environmental challenges," Bowman said. "Only aggressive deployment of a portfolio of technologies - energy efficiency, renewables, advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration and nuclear energy - will reduce the upward trend in carbon dioxide emissions."

Nuclear energy "has the smallest environmental footprint of any major source of energy available today or likely to be available in the next 100 years," he noted.

---

The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's policy organization. This news release and additional information about nuclear energy are available at http://www.nei.org

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

UPI
May 24, 2007

Bill to move nuclear waste reintroduced

WASHINGTON, May 24 (UPI) -- The top Republican on the U.S. Senate's energy committee and nine colleagues reintroduced a bill to store nuclear waste, a plan likely doomed for now.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., ranking member on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, restarted his push to open a repository in Yucca Mountain, located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The site is opposed by most Democrats, as well as Nevada's entire congressional delegation. They say there is not enough science to support the project.

Domenici, however, cites a vote by Congress in 2002 declaring Yucca Mountain the permanent repository to house waste produced by U.S. nuclear energy plants and weapons industry. President Bush signed the legislation.

"We cannot have a serious discussion about climate change without including nuclear energy," Domenici said in a statement. "In order to have a robust nuclear energy program, we must address the waste issue. I recognize that this bill faces long odds given the current makeup of the Senate. Nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an essential option to deal with nuclear waste."

The site was to open in 1998, but has been stalled by funding cuts and scientific controversy.

The bill would allow the U.S. Energy Department to move weapons waste to an above-ground temporary storage area near the Yucca Mountain site once an environmental impact statement is completed, and move plant waste there after the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves a construction permit.

It would also waive the 70,000-ton storage limit and give the department access to the fund collected in fees from rate-payers, intended to pay for the project.

"This is an irresponsible piece of legislation," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement with Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "Rather than addressing the problems facing the proposed dump at Yucca Mountain, its supporters are already trying to cram in more waste before it's even built.

"The DOE should take ownership of nuclear waste and store it at nuclear power plans where it's produced."

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

University of Chicago Chronicle
May 24, 2007

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ‘remains steadfast in its clarion call,’ wins national general excellence award
By Steve Koppes
News Office

The first issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists appeared in December 1945, as a modest, six-page newsletter. The product of Manhattan Project scientists at Chicago, the Bulletin was devoted exclusively to their concerns about the release of nuclear energy. Contemporary readers know it as a glossy watchdog publication that encompasses a broader scope, informing the world about weapons of mass destruction, international security issues, the arms trade and the nuclear industry.

In recognition of that history and the continuing importance of nuclear energy issues, the Bulletin reached a pinnacle in publishing this year by receiving the 2007 National Magazine Award for General Excellence from the American Society of Magazine Editors.

Said the judges: “Six decades after its founding by a group of physicists, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists remains steadfast in its clarion call that the world has not yet tamed the nuclear beast. The Bulletin remains relevant today because of its persuasive insight into the range of causes for our eroding global security. Its iconic atomic Clock now ticks more urgently than ever.”

The general excellence award “honors the effectiveness with which writing, reporting, editing and design all come together to command readers’ attention and fulfill the magazine’s unique editorial mission.”

“Our goal has been to create a lively magazine that has the credibility of a peer-reviewed journal,” said Editor Mark Strauss. “I think the National Magazine Award is a measure of our success.”

The prize-winning issues included an assessment of Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, took the U.S. news media to task for botching the coverage of the military campaign to capture Kandahar in Afghanistan, and analyzed the nuclear waste problem and the nation’s designated nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Kennette Benedict, the Bulletin’s Executive Director, noted that in a feature that provoked some thoughtful reactions from readers, international affairs authorities Graham Allison and William Arkin squared off about nuclear terrorism. Is it “the worst possible threat of our time, or rather a way to scare people into acquiescence?” posed Benedict.

“We also published an award-winning photo essay on AIDS in Burma, and others on culture and security. One of my favorites looked at how inaccuracies in translation from Chinese to English have led to misperceptions in government intelligence and even in diplomatic relations between China and the United States,” Benedict said.

The Bulletin was honored in the category of publications with a circulation under 100,000, leading a field of five finalists that included I.D., Metropolis, Print and the Virginia Quarterly Review. The selection was based on three issues of the Bulletin produced in 2006: May/June, July/August and September/October.

The magazine, headquartered on campus at 6042 S. Kimbark Ave., is produced every other month by Strauss and four other editors, an art director and a publishing staff of four. The Bulletin won a National Magazine Award for a single-topic issue in 1987, on Chernobyl, Strauss noted.

“The Bulletin beat out some prominent magazines in that category, including Esquire and Texas Monthly,” said Strauss, who was a longtime reader of the magazine before becoming editor in 2005.

The National Magazine Award validates the Bulletin’s 2005 redesign; in undertaking an intensive effort to redesign and reconceptualize the magazine, the staff expanded the use of graphics and illustrations, dropped some sections and reformulated existing ones.

“We sought to produce articles that were more reader-friendly and accessible to a mainstream audience,” Strauss said. “And, although nuclear weapons, nuclear power and arms control remain central to our mission, we feel our mandate also includes expanded coverage of topics such as climate change, global health and the potential threats of emerging technologies.”

Nevertheless, the Bulletin’s mission has remained constant throughout its 62-year history, Strauss said: “to act as a bridge between the scientific community and the mainstream public on crucial issues of global security.”

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

Philadelphia Inquirer
May 24, 2007

Appeal for new nuclear plants

By Jeff Gelles
Inquirer Staff Writer

The U.S. power industry needs to build 20 to 30 new nuclear plants by 2030 to meet the nation's demand for electricity, according to Exelon Corp. chief executive officer John Rowe. But Rowe said the industry would need continuing help - from federal and state lawmakers, from regulators, and from the public - to meet that goal.

In remarks prepared for delivery today to the annual Nuclear Energy Assembly in Miami, Rowe warned that Exelon and its counterparts faced major hurdles as they moved toward building a new generation of nuclear plants. (To read his speech, go to http://go.philly.com/rowe24.)

Since 2004, Exelon has been part of NuStart Energy Development, a consortium of 10 power companies and two reactor manufacturers that is one of several groups inching toward building new power plants.

Marilyn Kray, NuStart's president, said the consortium was preparing license applications for two demonstration reactors, based on designs by General Electric Co. and Westinghouse.

Kray said both designs would be inherently safer and more economical than the nation's current reactors. For instance, the reactors would still use water for cooling the nuclear fuel, but would rely on gravity-based feeding systems, not pumps, to provide emergency cooling.

Rowe said so-called passive safety systems should help ease concerns about the safety of nuclear power, which has won new support among some environmentalists because its generation does not contribute to global warming.

But he said other challenges still loom, including:

Financing. Rowe said each new nuclear plant would probably cost about $5 billion, too large an investment for companies the size of Exelon or its competitors without a new wave of consolidation and without support from government.

Nuclear waste. Rowe said the long-promised Yucca Mountain facility "will not happen soon – certainly not by the 2017 date currently advertised by the Department of Energy." The alternative, he said, is "long-term interim storage" under the auspices of the federal government.

Infrastructure. He said the "intellectual and manufacturing infrastructure that once supported this industry has atrophied over the past 20 years," because of a lack of new projects.

Despite the challenges, Rowe said, the time was right for nuclear power to make a comeback, with fossil-fuel prices and demand climbing and the country "increasingly dependent upon foreign regimes - often hostile regimes - to heat and light our homes."

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 23, 2007

Nuke waste routes discussed

Meeting focuses on transportation issues

By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal

What's the best way to get nuclear waste to a "dump" at Yucca Mountain?

The same way the government wants to haul highly radioactive spent fuel for entombment in a "repository" at the mountain: By train and truck, over railways and freeways across the United States with the least risks of accidents and terrorist attacks.

Or, maybe not at all in the not-so-distant future.

That's how the discussion went Tuesday at a workshop of the U.S. Transport Council where Nye County Commission Chairman Gary Hollis made the distinction clear.

"A dump is a hole in the ground. A repository is somewhere where you put something valuable that's safe," he said. "We're putting something in there that's valuable, that's safe."

With that, others from counties in Southern and Central Nevada along with nuclear transportation industry representatives and the state's transportation consultant presented views on the issue.

The discussion was fitting for the role of the independent, nonprofit U.S. Transport Council in the nuclear waste debate.

"Our goal is to enhance communication, hold frank discussion of the issues with transparency," said David Blee, a former assistant secretary of energy who is executive director of the U.S. Transport Council.

Prospects of the north-south Mina rail corridor faded last month when the Walker River Paiute Indians announced they no longer were interested in having nuclear waste shipped across their reservation.

After that, the proposed east-west Caliente corridor regained the spotlight for building a railway to Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

An outspoken proponent of that plan, Caliente Mayor Kevin Phillips, would rather call it the Central Nevada Energy Corridor because of its potential not only for bringing the nation's high-level nuclear waste to Nevada but also for furthering the state's potential for wind, coal and solar power.

"I would hope Nevada would get its head out of its hands," he said.

Bob Halstead, transportation consultant for the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, presented a slide show that, among other things, emphasized that a railroad from Caliente to Yucca Mountain should not be built because it fails to meet the state's expectations and doesn't have great economic potential.

"I guess the killer issue on the Caliente route is the impact on Las Vegas," Halstead said. Selecting the route would put at least 5 percent of all nuclear waste rail casks through the populated Las Vegas Valley and as much as 87 percent.

The so-called "mostly rail scenario" also would bring radioactive shipments through the Las Vegas metropolitan area on trucks, he said.

Halstead commended the departments of Energy and Homeland Security for considering security issues "so bushwhackers can't know for sure what path they're going to come down today." However, the risk of human error and more sophisticated terrorists tactics involving "explosive formed penetrators" could breach transportation casks and spread potentially deadly radioactive materials, he said.

"The bad guys are upping their game," he said privately as the workshop participants broke for lunch.

Even without a terrorist trying to turn a nuclear waste cask into a so-called "dirty bomb," supporters of nuclear waste transportation can't dilute the human error factor with low-risk probabilities. He noted the Exxon Valdez accident that polluted Alaskan waters with crude oil occurred after 8,000 safe shipments.

"Are they willing to kill us to force us to solve their waste problem?" Halstead asked. "The more you know the facts, the more you understand uncertainties. Where's the redundancy to protect us from waste-package failures?"

Contrary to the nuclear industry's preference, he said the Department of Energy in order to meet the state's expectations should ship the oldest spent fuel first, if it is shipped at all, because there is less risk with the decaying waste.

Maine's nuclear safety advisor, Charles Pray, said he thought Halstead's point about Nevada's expectations is valid. "But you also have to work with the expectations of every state with a nuclear power plant," he said. "I think this country has to move toward a national repository."

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

KLAS-TV
May 23, 2007

Caliente Corridor Being Considered Again For Yucca Mountain

Melissa Duran
Reporter

The Yucca Mountain project is far from dead. One of the trickiest parts about building a nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain is getting the waste to the facility. One month ago, the Walker River Paiute Tribe said no to building a rail corridor through the middle of their reservation. Now, the idea of using the Caliente corridor is being tossed around again.

Major interstates are being looked at including using the beltway, I-15 and US-95. Nevada leaders say the transportation of waste to our area is more likely to be a threat to us, in the short term, than the repository itself. Although studies show the possibility of an accident is low, the consequences are great.

A worse case scenario accident could cost $10 billion to clean up in an urban area and an accident isn't the only thing Nevada leaders are worried about.

"There are a lot of military guns, lots of improvised explosives that we know are available that might attack a shipment and that's a very big concern," says Nevada consultant Bob Halstead.

"We have spent a lot of money looking at this project and site, and all of our information demonstrates we can protect public health and safety," Allen Benson with the Department of Energy states.

The nuclear waste that will be stored at Yucca Mountain is currently being stored at temporary facilities throughout the U.S.

The Yucca Mountain project is still slow moving. It's going to be another four years before any definite decisions are made about making Yucca Mountain the permanent U.S. nuclear waste repository.

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

NIRS
May 22, 2007

Contact:
Kevin Kamps, NIRS 301-270-6477 14
John Sticpewich, 828-675-1792

New Maps from Common Sense Campaign Reveal Another Cost of New Nuclear Power: Southbound Mobile Chernobyl

May 22 — Today 41 community-based groups nationwide teamed with Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads Campaign are releasing new maps showing one set of likely transport routes (road, rail and water) that high-level radioactive waste (irradiated or spent fuel) would take from nuclear power reactors to the federal Savannah River Site in South Carolina for reprocessing, if that location is chosen under the federal Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Eleven sites are currently under consideration for GNEP; two in South Carolina. Implementation of GNEP would redirect the transportation of this waste, previously assumed to target the flawed and unsuitable Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.

Part of a study by John Sticpewich entitled "A Study of the Problems With Transport and Reprocessing of Nuclear Waste in the Carolinas," the maps were generated using Department of Energy (DOE) data and the on-line DOE routing program, TRAGIS. "Credit analysts on Wall Street have suggested that moving the accumulated high-level waste from the reactor sites would make investment in new nuclear power more likely," said Sticpewich. "This report documents the huge tonnage of radioactive waste that must be dealt with, the very high costs of transporting it, and the potential for impact that such a move would have on hundreds of communities along the way." John Sticpewich did this work on behalf of the Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads Campaign based in Asheville, NC. The maps and his report are available at: http://www.nuclearcrossroads.org/secondreport.htm .

If implemented, GNEP would move accumulated waste from 75 sites in 33 states. Due to limited resources, the new maps show only a defined "study area:" waste sites that are east of the Mississippi River, and from the Carolinas, north. While routes are shown in all states east of the Mississippi, those in MS, AL, GA and FL include only out-of-state waste — the reactors in those states are not included as a points of origin — though they would be under the GNEP program.

"This case study of one scenario and a limited study area includes two thirds of the nation's reactors. It is a good start on looking at the impact of bringing the nation's high-level waste into the South," said Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "Another scenario we do not show is a possible plan for this deadly waste to be centralized for storage at a "parking-lot dump" -- a top candidate for so-called "temporary" storage is the Piketon site in Appalachian Ohio" concluded Olson. Piketon is another of the 11 sites being considered under GNEP.

"NIRS coined the slogan 'Mobile Chernobyl' back when Congress weighed shipping this high-level nuclear waste to Nevada to a parking-lot style dump. It refers to the elevated risk of accidents or incidents that will travel with this deadly waste if put on the roads and rails," said Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist with Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "The risk of terrorist attack means that these shipments are potential dirty bombs on wheels or water," says Kamps. "The big news in these maps is the water routes to SRS — the Great Lakes could be hit by many hundreds to thousands of these shipments, along with rivers, canals, and coastlines in every region." Although Yucca Mountain cannot be approached directly by water, DOE proposed barge shipments for segments of transports there as well.

"Coincidentally, Dairyland Power's intensely radioactive Genoa atomic reactor pressure vessel shipment by train from LaCrosse, Wisconsin to Barnwell, South Carolina for dumping in a ditch, is about to roll — perhaps as early as today -- down the tracks, most likely via IL, IN, KY, TN, and GA, the very routes identified in this new study," said Kevin Kamps of NIRS. "This real-life shipment, happening right now, has its own radiological hazards, but these are dwarfed by the many thousands of high-level radioactive waste shipments that would follow it in years ahead if South Carolina opens a reprocessing facility," said Kamps.

"There are 32 new reactors moving forward, and of these 30 are in the South," said Mary Olson. "In 2005 Congress started talking about reviving the failed, unprofitable reprocessing technology — that would bring the worst nuclear waste to South Carolina. This is a major shift in 'the deal.' We were told that nuclear waste would not be a problem—effectively it would be dumped on someone else! Now if GNEP goes forward, more of the real cost of those new nuclear power reactors will be clear: nuclear waste would stay here in the South and more would come from all over the country — and possibly the world!" concluded Olson.

Groups taking participating in the May 22nd release: Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads (Asheville, North Carolina); Nuclear Information and Resource Service (Takoma Park, MD and Asheville, North Carolina); Physicians for Social Responsibility of Western North Carolina; Citizen's Awareness Network (Massachusetts); Green Party of Onondaga County (New York); Central New York Citizens Awareness Network; Syracuse Peace Council (New York); Don't Waste Michigan; Nuclear Energy Information Service (Chicago, Illinois); Earth Day Coalition (Cleveland, Ohio); Southern Ohio Neighbors Group; Citizen Action Coalition of Indiana; Yggdrasil/Earth Island (Kentucky); Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League; The Canary Coalition (North Carolina); Nuclear Watch South (Atlanta, Georgia); Citizens For Environmental Justice (Savannah, Georgia); Atlanta WAND (Georgia); Action for A Clean Environment (Georgia); South Carolina Chapter, Sierra Club; HIPWAZEE (Columbia, South Carolina); Environmentalists Inc. (Columbia, South Carolina); Carolina Peace Resource Center (Columbia, South Carolina); Columbia Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (South Carolina); Charleston Peace (South Carolina); Thinking People (Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina); South Carolina Alliance for Sustainable Campuses + Communities; Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (Pennsylvania); Energy Justice Network (Pennsylvania); Don't Waste Connecticut; Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone; North American Water Office (Lake Elmo, Minnesota); Citizen Alert (Las Vegas, Nevada); Southern Nevada Group of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club; NatCap Inc. (Colorado); Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes (Monroe, Michigan); Citizens Resistance at Fermi Two (Livonia, Michigan); Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy (Ohio), Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee (Port Hope, Ontario), Canada Voices for Earth Justice (Roseville, MI), Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (Lake Station, MI), Huron Environmental Activist League (Alpena, MI).

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

Olean Times Herald
May 22, 2007

Buildings come down at West Valley

By Rick Miller
Olean Times Herald

WEST VALLEY - West Valley Demonstration Project officials said Monday progress is being made on cleanup at the contaminated former nuclear fuel reprocessing center.

West Valley Nuclear Services Company President Al Konetzni told reporters at the U.S. Department of Energy's cleanup site in the town of Ashford that buildings are being removed and waste is being shipped.

Mr. Konetzni and Craig Rieman, deputy site director for the Department of Energy, spoke in front of a warehouse that was being demolished for removal to a licensed landfill near Rochester. It had been decontaminated prior to the demolition.

Mr. Konetzni, a former vice admiral in the Navy, said federal and state officials are embracing what he called "the way ahead," which he said will result removing "most, if not all, of the contamination from the site."

Officials are also drawing up plans to halt an underground plume of radioactive material that leaked from the process building and is headed for Cattaraugus Creek that empties into Lake Erie, a source of drinking water for millions.

Mr. Konetzni said the plans now call for the eventual demolition and removal of the main process building, where 275 stainless steel containers encase highly radioactive glass logs measuring 10 feet high and 2 feet in diameter. As recently as last year, plans called for demolishing the building and cementing it in place.

Current plans for four carbon steel underground storage tanks that still contain some liquid radioactive waste and sludge are to let them dry out so they can't leak and leave them where they are subject to review every five years. The tanks, which are highly radioactive on their interior walls, will not be grouted or cemented in place, at least for now. "Empty tanks can't leak," Mr. Konetzni said.

He also said officials expect the last of more than 18,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste - mostly concrete and made with water distilled from the radioactive liquid that was left in the underground tanks - should be removed from the site by the end of the summer.

The drums are currently store in the drum cell facility. They are packaged in heavy-duty bags and loaded onto railroad cars to be taken to a Department of Energy nuclear test facility in Nevada. Thirty bags, each containing six drums, are loaded onto each rail car.

Mr. Konetzni said rail shipment is much more cost-effective. Nine hundred drums can be shipped at a time as compared to 36 drums on a truck. "It's far more efficient and safer" to ship by rail, he added.

"We want to restore this site in as pristine a manner as we can," Mr. Konetzni said.

Core teams of officials from the U.S. Department of Energy and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) have been meeting for the past six months to find areas of agreement on the cleanup, Mr. Konetzni explained.

Last year, the state filed suit in U.S. District Court in Buffalo to force the U.S. Department of Energy to fully clean up the site, which from 1966 to 1972 operated as the country's first commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. In 1980, Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Project bill authorizing the federal/state cleanup.

Mr. Rieman said no final decisions have been made on whether to remove the underground tanks, which once held more than 600,000 gallons of highly radioactive liquid wastes.

"They haven't decided anything yet," he added. "They are looking at different options. Nothing has been ruled in or out" regarding the tanks.

Currently, Mr. Konetzni said, "Drying them is the right thing to do." The decision on what to do with the tanks has been deferred for two decades, he said. "To me, it's a no-brainer. You've got to get going."

Even if the underground tanks were to be unearthed and dismantled, the steel would have to be safely stored on-site until a federal repository, likely Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is available. The 275 radioactive glass logs also will be removed when the federal repository opens.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 21, 2007

Barack Obama explains Yucca Mountain stance

To the editor:

In response to Erin Neff's Tuesday column, "Obama and Yucca":

I want every Nevadan to know that I have always opposed using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, and I want to explain the many reasons why I've held that view.

In my state of Illinois, we have faced our own issues of nuclear waste management. There are some who believe that Illinois should serve as a repository for nuclear waste from other states. My view on this subject was made clear in a 2006 letter to Sen. Pete Domenici, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. "States should not be unfairly burdened with waste from other states," I wrote. "Every state should be afforded the opportunity to chart a course that addresses its own interim waste storage in a manner that makes sense for that state."

That is a position I hold to this day when it comes to both Illinois and Nevada.

After spending billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain Project, there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there. I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site at the reactors where it is produced, or at a designated facility in the state where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term disposal solution that is based on sound science.

In the meantime, I believe all spending on Yucca Mountain should be redirected to other uses, such as improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country and exploring other long-term disposal options.

There is no doubt that this is a difficult issue. But I believe our approach must be based on sound science above all else. I do not do the bidding of any special interest or industry, including the nuclear industry, which has a major presence in my state.

In my own campaign, I have not accepted donations from political action committees or Washington lobbyists. In fact, I've often taken positions at odds with special interests. When I learned that radioactive tritium had leaked out of an Exelon nuclear plant in Illinois, I led an effort in the Senate to require utilities to notify the public of any unplanned release of radioactive substances.

All Nevadans should know that as president, I will bring to this issue not just independent judgment and careful deliberation, but a personal appreciation that comes from my own experience of living in the back yard of hazardous nuclear materials. The safety and security of Nevadans and all Americans requires nothing less.

Barack Obama
Washington, D.C.
The writer represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate and is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

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

MarketWatch
May 21, 2007

States maneuver to lure new nuclear power plants

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- In a positive shift for U.S. power companies planning a new fleet of nuclear facilities, nuclear power has gained popularity in several states as a solution to high power prices and growing demand.

Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia are offering incentives to develop new nuclear generation, hoping that nuclear power prices will be lower and less volatile than power generated by natural gas. State regulators also hope new nuclear power plants will create jobs and bolster local industry. Nuclear operators say state rules ensuring cost recovery of new plants - particularly pre-construction costs - will likely affect their decisions about where to build new plants.

Louisiana and Florida have approved measures that would allow New Orleans-based Entergy Corp to pass on some pre-construction nuclear plant development costs to their customers, while Georgia regulators are considering a similar move.

A new nuclear plant in Florida would diversify the state's energy sources, protecting customers from fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices, said Lisa Polak Edgar, chairwoman of the Florida Public Service Commission.

FPL hasn't confirmed that it will build a nuclear reactor in Florida. Progress Energy last year chose Levy County as a potential site for a new plant, but hasn't applied for an early site permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In May, the South Carolina legislature passed a law that guarantees utilities can recover costs from the construction of nuclear and coal plants in the state. Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) is working with lawmakers in North Carolina to pass a similar bill.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke is considering building a new nuclear plant in the Carolinas. although it hasn't applied for an early site permit.

Southern Co. utility Georgia Power Co. last year asked Georgia regulators to approve licensing and pre-construction expenses for a new nuclear plant near Augusta.

Even though the company hasn't confirmed it'll proceed with construction, Georgia Public Service Commission Chairman Stan Wise said he hopes his commission approves Southern's request so it will build the new plant.

Georgia needs a robust source of baseload power to keep up with growing demand, Wise said. "Somebody has got to figure out how to keep the lights on," he said. "Renewable energy and energy efficiency are important, but I'm not sure that's going to be enough to take care of the 4 million new Georgians."

Louisiana Prepares To Compete

Entergy Corp. is considering building two new plants: one near its River Bend nuclear plant in St. Francisville, La. and another near the Grand Gulf plant in Port Gibson, Miss.

"State regulatory treatment is going to be key" to Entergy's development decisions, said Randy Hutchinson, Entergy's senior vice president of nuclear business development and new plant activities.

Under Louisiana's cost-recovery policy, Entergy can pass through about 10% of its River Bend development costs to consumers before the new plant is operational. Jay Blossman, chairman of the state Public Service Commission, said he hopes the policy will encourage Entergy to choose Louisiana over Mississippi for a new nuclear plant.

"We wanted to be very aggressive in encouraging (Entergy) to build here," Blossman said.

A new nuclear plant in the state would reduce electricity customers' exposure to rising natural gas prices and would create at least 2,000 permanent jobs, he said. Two Louisiana parishes have have benefited from existing nuclear plants, Blossman said.

"In both of those parishes, the school districts are among some of the top in the state," he said. "It's a win-win for everybody."

Louisiana's need for new sources of power outweighs concerns about nuclear waste disposal, Blossman said. Storing the waste on-site indefinitely isn't seen as a problem, he said.

Nuclear operators have been storing the waste from their plants for years. The nation's troubled waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is more than 18 years overdue and isn't expected to be permitted or operational anytime soon.

Investors Demand Rules Investors won't back new nuclear plants unless clear rules for cost recovery are in place. Financing is vital to the development of a new nuclear plant, which can run between $1.5 billion and $2 billion, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's Washington-based lobbying group.

In the 1970s and 1980s, nuclear power companies faced significant cost overruns in building new reactors, with some plants' final costs surpassing $5 billion. The cost of new power plants should be lower because next-generation reactors are more standardized and the NRC's licensing process has been streamlined, power companies say.

The southern states' cost-recovery policies mark a sea change from the nuclear plant building boom of the late 1970s and early 80s, when state regulators often saddled developers with cost overruns.

Still, state regulatory incentives are no guarantee that a new nuclear plant will be built. Power companies must weigh a number of factors, including the need for new power generation and the cost of alternative sources of energy, when deciding whether to develop new nuclear generation.

"State incentives do play a role, but they're not the driver for us," said Beth Thomas, a spokewoman for Southern Co.

Entergy Corp. will consider the costs of supplies and materials needed for construction and federal tax credits for nuclear power production before deciding whether or not to build a new nuclear plant, said Hutchinson.

Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) is based in Charlotte, N.C.

("Power Points: States Maneuver To Lure New Nuclear Pwr Plants," published at 12:11 p.m. EDT Friday and at 9:35 a.m. EDT Monday misstated the company's headquarters.)

--Contact: 201-938-5400

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

Seattle Times
May 20, 2007

Warming up to nuclear power

Kate Riley
Times staff columnist

Craig Pridemore was a University of Washington student when he started his career influencing public policy. He and his friends made a road trip to Richland in the early 1980s to protest planned construction of five nuclear-power plants.

Now, the Vancouver state senator, who remains an environmentalist and successfully sponsored legislation this session to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, reluctantly concedes nuclear power might need to play a role in the monumental task of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States — he said so in testimony before a state House committee.

He's not the only one. U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, who has been driving a Prius and talking about global climate change since before it was fashionable, also agrees that nuclear power might need to be part of the solution to curb greenhouse-gas emissions while managing new demand.

"Global warming is such a titanic challenge, all of us have to check our prejudices at the door," said Inslee. He has just finished a book, "Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Revolution," that will be published by Island Press this fall.

Neither Pridemore nor Inslee is enthusiastic about the prospect of an expansion of nuclear power — which accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. electricity — because it has other problems. Though nuclear plants don't emit greenhouse gases, disposal of the radioactive waste stream is a challenge.

But the challenge of climate change is so daunting that it is already causing major policy reprioritization, whether federal, state or household. Gov. Chris Gregoire recently set ambitious goals, starting with reducing the state's greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels within 13 years. A high-powered stakeholders group, including utility representatives, industry executives and environmentalists, has begun meeting to figure out how the state will get there.

So far, the governor has taken a cautiously open-minded tack on a Tri-City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC) proposal that, if successful, could expand nuclear activities in the state.

The community in southeastern Washington is among 13 candidates for the Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program. TRIDEC, along with other community organizations, including the operator of the state's lone nuclear-power reactor in Richland, has proposed the community be part of a program to reprocess spent commercial nuclear fuel and recycle it, and also be the site of a new research reactor. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell also are in a wait-and-see mode.

Such open-mindedness about nuclear power borders on heresy among many environmental organizations, especially in the Northwest, which has plenty of negative nuclear baggage.

First, there was the notoriety of the Washington Public Power Supply System default on $2.25 billion in bonds in 1983. Hugely overestimated need for power and the large capital cost of five planned nuclear-power reactors contributed to the breathtaking default — a record for any public agency at the time. Though Washington state was not involved in the project, its bond rating fell by association. Only one reactor was completed — in Richland — and is still operated by the agency, since renamed Energy Northwest.

Second, there is the wince-evoking legacy of five decades worth of nuclear defense production — and inept disposal of waste — at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation on the elbow of the Columbia River. The last defense-production reactor was shut down in 1989, but the costly cleanup is expected to take decades.

Then there is the muscle of the Northwest environmental community, which has tended to use both the former and the latter episodes to argue against anything nuclear.

"Political feeling may be more raw in the Northwest because of the failure to build those four nuclear plants," says Rudi Bertschi, who also actively opposed nuclear construction in the early 1980s. He later served as chairman of the Energy Northwest board and helped play a role in the agency's turnaround. "That was very traumatic for a lot of people."

An economist and energy consultant, Bertschi says he's "agnostic" about whether new nuclear plants should be built, saying it will depend on the costs government associates with carbon emissions. "A carbon tax would definitely change the economic formula," he said.

Nuclear technology fell so out of favor locally, the University of Washington terminated its nuclear-engineering department in 1992 for lack of student interest.

But now the conversation is changing. Environmentalists acknowledging nuclear might have a role in combating climate change are becoming, if not common, much less rare.

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has been the most vocal. The organization was founded to oppose nuclear weapons and warfare.

"... I think we made the mistake early on of lumping the peaceful use of nuclear in with the war-like use of nuclear," Moore said in a recent interview with E&ETV. "And I've come to realize that it doesn't make sense to ban the beneficial use of technology just because that technology can be used for evil."

Greenpeace remains fervently anti-nuclear, promoting instead an expansion of renewable energy and energy conservation. From its Web page: "Greenpeace has always fought — and will continue to fight — vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants."

Moore and former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports nuclear as a clean-emissions energy source. Although some environmentalists denounce Moore, others with respectable environmental credentials are joining him in pushing nuclear to be considered as part of the solution. Among them are James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, which suggests Earth is a superorganism, and a member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Power; and Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Guns, Germs and Steel."

Worldwide, more countries are embracing nuclear. France gets 78 percent of its power from nuclear — and never has had an accident; all of Europe gets about 32 percent.

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its fourth assessment report released May 4, included nuclear as a potential part of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Last month, finance ministers from the Group of Seven industrialized countries, including Britain, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United States, announced their support for nuclear power as a partial solution to global warming and easing dependence on fossil fuels. Also in April, the United States and Japan signed an agreement to conduct joint research on nuclear power, which includes the GNEP proposal.

The one serious U.S. nuclear accident, at Three Mile Island in 1979 (causing no injuries or death), triggered a safety revolution that led in 2006 to a median plant safety record of only 0.12 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours, a record low, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Back in the Northwest, it will be interesting to see how this debate plays out, especially given the crunch between energy demand growing with population and the legal challenges to the Northwest's electricity mainstay — hydropower.

About 60 percent of Washington's energy comes from the 31-dam federal hydro system, but four dams on the lower Snake River in southeastern Washington are under the jurisdiction of a federal judge. Environmentalists have prevailed in federal courts to press U.S. agencies to do more to restore endangered salmon runs affected by the Snake dams. Federal District Court Judge James Redden has said if the agencies don't satisfy his concerns, he might order the dams breached. Together, the four represent about 1,000 megawatts of power — enough to keep the lights on in Seattle.

The same organizations that support dam breaching, including the Northwest Energy Coalition, successfully proposed Initiative 937, which requires most utilities to have at least 15 percent of their energy portfolio be produced by non-hydro renewable sources, such as wind and solar power. Also backed passionately by Inslee, the new law encourages energy conservation to lessen the need for new polluting power sources, which will help buy some time.

But many in the Northwest are skeptical of the changes going forward. Hydropower, which is created by letting water run through turbines, is particularly suited to "shape" — or balance — the ups and downs of wind power. The wind doesn't always blow, after all.

That will mean, eventually, power plants with more-controllable energy production will be needed to fill in the power need when the wind doesn't blow. And given passage of Sen. Pridemore's bill that essentially eliminates the possibility of any new coal plants, that means new natural gas plants or something that burns cleaner — like, possibly, nuclear power.

Nuclear power has some major drawbacks. It is expensive and what to do with the waste stream remains an open, politically charged question. Energy Northwest, like other commercial reactor operators across the nation, has years worth of spent nuclear fuel intended for permanent disposal at the U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Repository that is years past opening. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., intends to kill the repository in his state and, with his clout as Senate majority leader, just might be successful.

Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposal would reverse a more than 30-year-old U.S. policy decision and begin recycling spent nuclear fuels with "proliferation-resistant" technologies. The plan could entail spent nuclear fuel being shipped to Hanford from sites around the country for reprocessing and recycling, as well as a new power reactor.

At a public Energy Department siting hearing in Pasco in March, there was a lot of activist muscle memory in the room that drew more than 300 people. Many of the old guard in the community of Cold Warriors argued they had the expertise to help the nation reduce existing waste through the recycling mission and advance a new generation of safe nuclear power. Anti-nuclear activists, including Heart of America Northwest, raised the specter of Energy Department's indisputably atrocious record of defense-waste disposal from years ago. Clean up the mess before you add more, they argue.

There is some truth and reason on both sides. But GNEP might not even survive the next presidential election.

Inslee, who says he hasn't yet studied GNEP enough to have a position, has an important message for everyone, including polluters and environmentalists like himself: "We are all going to have to get rid of our knee jerks."

This is a shrewder world where climate change is a reality and humans are considering how to minimize their role in it. The solutions need to be more carefully pragmatic and less reflexively ideological.

Kate Riley's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is kriley@seattletimes.com

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

Jackson Clarion Ledger
May 20, 2007

NUCLEAR DEBATE

Fate of new reactor uncertain

By Julie Goodman
jgoodman@clarionledger.com

PORT GIBSON — Plant operators toil away in what looks like a control room from Star Trek: Highly educated men fixated on switchboards of buttons and blinking lights.

Waste heat is rejected from a 550-foot cooling tower, and high-level radioactive spent fuel collects in a special 50-foot deep pool of water.

Men strapped with assault rifles and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols stand guard at every turn.

The scene is a peek into operations at Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, where uranium atoms are split and energy in the form of heat is released.

The plant, just outside Port Gibson, has one reactor and is on course to win permission for another.

A consortium of energy companies, NuStart Energy Development LLC, is pursuing a construction and operating license for the plant, although Entergy has not decided whether it wants to build another reactor.

A decision to build would be based on the need for power in the service area, the costs of nuclear power, construction costs and other factors, Entergy says. It hopes to submit its license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the end of the year, and it could take more than three years to review the application.

The last application the commission received for a reactor was in 1974, for a plant subsequently built outside Phoenix. But now, 29 reactors in coming years could join the 104 in use.

"There's just been, I guess, a growing trend in the acceptance of nuclear power over the last few years," said Jay Brister, the plant's manager of nuclear business development.

The nuclear plant is set back on a secluded road, in a pretty wooded area dotted with churches.

Visitors, wearing pajamalike clothing that can be dissolved in water after use, wear alarm devices that detect radiation levels. Background checks are run on tour participants.

Port Gibson, for the most part, eagerly has embraced the idea of a second unit. But if there are concerns, they've risen over two major issues: security and waste disposal.

Although the public has weighed in before with some angry words, a recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting in Port Gibson was wrapped up in about 15 minutes and drew no questions. The commission had given the plant high marks for its performance.

The major opposition has come from out of state.

Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy organization, has strongly opposed new reactors in Claiborne County and elsewhere.

The reactors, it says, are not thoroughly examined for potential waste and security hazards.

"Building new reactors at Grand Gulf will mean additional waste will be generated and stored on site around the facility," the group says in material it distributed in Mississippi. "No country in the world, including the United States, has a solution for permanently and safely managing its nuclear waste."

It doubts whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the national repository under consideration as a long-term disposal site, can store waste safely.

"The worst case scenario is that the waste just sits there indefinitely," said Michele Boyd, a legislative director for the group's energy program.

Two types of waste are produced by Entergy. The first is low-level waste typically in the form of trash, paper or clothing that usually is buried or incinerated.

The pool, which stores high-level waste, contains the fuel discharged over the plant's 20 years of operation at the site. Racks at the bottom of the pool hold the fuel in bundles. A cooling system keeps the water cool and filters out any radioactive materials.

"We have the capability to store dry fuel on the site indefinitely," said Russell Brian, vice president of operations at the plant.

SECURITY CONCERNS

Public Citizen also has accused Grand Gulf and other plants pursuing new reactors of increasing the country's security risks. "Grand Gulf's location on the Mississippi River could make it an attractive strategic target," the group said.

Brian contends the plant is one of the safest facilities of its kind in the nation and is designed to withstand a terrorist attack, pointing to an around-the-clock, well-trained security force.

The security is tested periodically by a team of ex-special forces that simulates an attack using a laser tag system and weapons that fire blanks.

"They come in, it's typically at night and they attempt to get into the plant and we successfully repel them," Brian said.

The plant has an eight-week notice the mock force is coming.

Emergency diesel generators supply power in the event of any shutdown.

Fears about security are expected, he said, but Entergy is limited in how much it can disclose about its protection.

"We can't go out and talk about what all specifically we're doing to defend the station, but I believe if we could share a lot of the details, some of those concerns would go away," Brian said.

As part of the requirements to receive an NRC license, the plant must show it has an emergency preparedness plan for the 10-mile radius around the plant, known as its "Protective Action Area."

An early warning siren is tested monthly.

The weapons, they say, have only been used for target practice so far.

Brian says it would take a lot of explosives to penetrate the reinforced concrete two to four feet thick at the plant.

"An airplane would crumble and then we'd go sweep it up," he said.

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

Green Bay Press Gazette
May 20, 2007

Guest column: Nuclear power is now a viable option

By Jim Soletski
Guest columnist

One of the many reasons that I wanted to represent Northeastern Wisconsin in the state Assembly was to bring a discussion of realistic energy policy to the forefront. Now is the time to swing the pendulum to the middle, away from coal plants on every corner and living in caves and burning candles. There is a better way.

The Wisconsin Legislative Council voted May 10 to submit three bills to the state Legislature. These bills, if approved, would lift the moratorium on nuclear power plant construction in Wisconsin, require the Public Service Commission to investigate future electric supplies, and make the PSC an advocate for the state relating to the centralized interim storage of nuclear waste.

Many may ask why we would need to direct the PSC to perform these tasks. Almost a quarter century ago, soon after the Three Mile Island accident, when our electric needs leveled off for a few years, the Legislature decided nuclear power contained too many unknown factors to be expanded in Wisconsin.

When the moratorium was enacted, we were fearful of recent events, which made us question the ability of humans to operate this technology safely. Storage or reprocessing of spent fuel was a total mystery to us. Now, after 35 years of operation, we see these plants can and do supply a safe, dependable source of power.

What has changed in the interim? The specter of global warming caused by carbon-based fuels hangs over our heads, and the search for clean technology continues. We have seen 25 years of continued improvement in the operation of nuclear plants. Now, more than 100 units provide 20 percent of our nation's electric power. The demand for electricity is expanding, and we have found that on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel in wet pools and dry-cask storage is feasible and effective. While not the perfect solution, it is an interim solution we may live with until Yucca Mountain is completed.

I applaud Gov. Doyle for directing our state to be more energy independent. It takes a lot of effort. Many of us give lip service to energy independence and conservation but refuse to take part in basic opportunities presented to us. I am working on proposals suggested by constituents to expand the use of energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs. I am also in the process of exploring conservation issues with our state power companies.

I believe it is time we evaluate the use of new standardized plant designs being employed throughout the world. As our aging power infrastructure demands replacement, we are facing continued "Not In My Back Yard" pressure. As I have repeatedly pointed out to anyone who will listen, the replacement of 1,000 megawatts of base load energy will require the purchase, siting and construction of 750 to 900 windmills and transmission lines to support them. I realize we are not required to use wind energy exclusively, but I use this illustration to drive home the point that we need to consider many sources of power and not just one as the "magic bullet."

Conservation, biofuels, nuclear, wind and solar — our choices are many. They cannot be limited by outdated legislation.

As technology changes and improves, the public and its legislature need to constantly evaluate our positions and options. I believe that is a realistic energy policy.

--Jim Soletski recently retired from the electric power industry and is a first-term state representative from the 88th Assembly District, which is comprised of most of Green Bay's east side and portions of the west side and the town of Scott.

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

Green Bay Press Gazette
May 20, 2007

Guest column: Nuclear power has too high a price to pay

By Jill Bussiere
Guest columnist

In 1983 the Wisconsin Legislature decided building more nuclear plants was a bad idea, so it adopted a statewide moratorium. Some in our Legislature now want to end that moratorium.

Nowadays, we need to think about Wisconsin's energy future in light of global warming, diminishing oil supplies, wars over oil, water and air quality, and the health of the Earth.

Our Wisconsin moratorium has two common-sense criteria for the construction of new nuclear power plants:

1. Nuclear power must be the best deal for Wisconsin ratepayers among alternatives, including the costs of waste storage and the decommissioning of plants.

The situation requires a seventh-generation mindset. Nuclear waste will need to be stored far longer than the span of recorded human history. It is irresponsible to foist today's waste on our children and grandchildren for 10,000 years.

Green Party members believe in true-cost pricing. In addition to waste storage and plant decommissioning costs, the environmental and health costs of the nuclear fuel cycle must be included. Nuclear power is a bad deal for Wisconsin ratepayers.

2. There must be a federal facility that will be able to store Wisconsin's waste. The Yucca Mountain waste storage facility is not yet a sure thing. Nevadans are opposed to having their state used as a national nuclear dump. We would feel the same if it were Wisconsin. Wisconsin is near the top of the list of possible national sites for radioactive waste.

Why would we get rid of the moratorium when it has such basic protections for us?

We are told that nuclear energy is clean and safe and will help us cut carbon dioxide emissions.

But nuclear energy is not safe. Breast cancer deaths in counties with nuclear plants are 10 times the national rate. Living near reactors is correlated with increases in leukemia, bone cancer, and childhood cancer.

Although nuclear power plants do not emit CO2, uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations there is. It is also very dangerous for workers.

About 70 percent of the world's uranium deposits are located on indigenous people's lands, resulting in environmental degradation and enormous problems around land rights.

Nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and they produce plutonium. Plutonium and enriched uranium are essential ingredients for nuclear bombs.

The unstated assumption in the discussion is that our energy demands must be met in order to ensure our future well-being.

That assumption does not consider whether our demands are sustainable, or that we in the United States have the largest ecological footprint in the world.

An ecological footprint is a measure of how many of earth's productive acres each person uses to support his/her way of life. Worldwide, there are 4.5 productive acres per person. The average U.S. citizen uses 24 acres. If everyone lived at that level, 5.3 Earths would be needed.

If we build more nuclear power plants, will we be living within our ecological means?

The question should not be, "How can we get rid of consumer and environmental protections so that we support our unsustainable way of life?'"

Instead, it should be, "How can we meet basic needs of all in Wisconsin without compromising the well-being of future generations?"

Many economic opportunities exist for meaningful work in a transition from our current unsustainable society into a sustainable one.

Greens support conservation and efficiency as first steps in addressing sustainable energy needs, followed by developing renewable energies.

--Jill Bussiere is co-chairwoman of the Ahnapee River Green Party. She was a 2006 candidate for state Senate in the 1st District.

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

Las Vegas SUN
May 19, 2007

FLASHPOINT

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

It's not often that pro-nuclear dump forces come to Nevada to tout their case. But that will happen Tuesday at the South Point when a workshop will be held on transporting waste to Yucca Mountain. Most of the speakers on the agenda appear to be folks who think bringing the waste here poses no problem. The state will have its own transportation consultant to talk about the awful things that can happen to those casks carrying the waste. But the anti-dump forces will be in the minority at this forum, which doesn't happen too often here . Maybe if some of these people see all the transportation problems here, they will think twice about it. Hmm. Maybe the Legislature shouldn't try to fix the traffic, after all.

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

Lahontan Valley News
May 19, 2007

Mackedon retires after 25 years at WNCC

Christy Lattin
clattin@lahontanvalleynews.com

After spending 25 years at "the perfect job," Michon Mackedon is retiring to finish her first book, spend time with her family, travel and continue her work on the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects.

Mackedon has been an instructor at Western Nevada Community College in Fallon since 1982. She said her "bread and butter" was teaching English and humanities, but she's also taught science fiction as literature, world literature and introduction to drama. Her instruction isn't just limited to the classroom, though. Mackedon has taken classes to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival three times and more recently toured the Nevada Test Site with a writing class.

Mackedon, a 1962 Churchill County High School graduate, earned a history degree from the University of Nevada in 1966 and a master's degree in English in 1981. She's been honored twice as Instructor of the Year at the Fallon campus and twice as Outstanding Faculty Member, a college-wide honor. She's also served as Faculty Senate Chair for the college and was a member of Nevada Humanities for six years.

Aside from her position at WNCC, Mackedon is also widely known for her participation with the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects. She received a phone call from Gov. Richard Bryan in 1986 asking her to sit on the commission, which is comprised of lay people from various city governments and three gubernatorial appointees. She said she is the only academic on the commission.

Ironically, Mackedon now serves alongside Bryan, who himself was appointed to the commission by Gov. Kenny Guinn. With 21 years of service on the commission, she is the longest serving member.

She said the commission is charged to advise the governor and Legislature on policies regarding Yucca Mountain - the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository located at the Nevada Test Site in Nye County.

Mackedon's work on the nuclear commission prompted her to begin writing a book delving into the language and perceptions used to persuade politicians and Nevadans into accepting the nuclear waste dump. She said there's an outside perception that Nevada is a wasteland and the people of the state are marginalized as simply a bunch of prostitutes, gamblers and desert folk.

"It's masked by science and becomes the rationale that we have to take one for the team," Mackedon said.

Although she's taken two sabbaticals in her career, Mackedon said finishing her book is one of the main reasons she's retiring. She'd also like to travel the world more, even though she's logged many miles already. Mackedon has studied various cultures first-hand in Italy, Greece, England, the Republic of Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. She hosted a young exchange student from the Republic of Georgia in 2003 and would like to reconnect with her, as well as visit her son, John, who will soon be living in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Closer to home, Mackedon plans to continue writing for the Churchill County Museum's "In Focus" publications and work as the official humanities evaluator for the Churchill Arts Council. While the first book is still a work in progress, Mackedon thinks she's got more in her.

"I've got a lot of ideas up there," she laughed as she pointed to her head.

Last year, Mackedon celebrated her 40th wedding anniversary with husband, Mike, through a trip to Paris, London and New York. The couple has a large handful of children and grandchildren - James "Gib" Mackedon and wife, Melissa, have a son, Fenn; Amy and Patrick O'Flaherty with daughters Maggie, Ellie and Sadie; and Leonard "Lem" Mackedon and John Mackedon.

"I'll miss my students. I'll miss the challenge and the last-minute panic," she said. She likened the preparation and entertainment aspects of teaching to performing on stage.

"This became the perfect job for me," she said. "I've been able to raise my kids with good values and live them. I never really looked back."

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

Rutland Herald
May 19, 2007

Report: Vt. has most nuclear waste per capita

May 19, 2007

By Ross Sneyd
The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Activists released a report Friday indicating Vermont has the most radioactive nuclear waste per capita of any state in the nation, which they said underscores the need for approval of a climate change bill that would tax the Vermont Yankee plant.

Federal records compiled by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C., and analyzed by the anti-nuclear Citizens Action Network determined that the 1.3 million pounds of irradiated nuclear fuel that will be on the grounds of Yankee by 2011 amounted to 2.15 pounds of waste for every resident of the state.

The analysis found that South Carolina ranked second, with the equivalent of 2.03 pounds per resident. Elsewhere around New England:

* Connecticut, 1.34 pounds per person.

* Maine, 0.89 pounds per person.

* New Hampshire, 0.72 pounds per person.

* Massachusetts, 0.23 pounds per person.

* Rhode Island does not have a nuclear power plant.

In all cases, the amount of nuclear waste is what will exist in each state as of 2011, according to an environmental impact statement filed by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2002 for its proposed long-term storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Many states have significantly more waste than Vermont. Illinois, for example, will have 17.6 million pounds by 2011. But with a population of 12.8 million, it will have only 1.38 pounds per person.

"Having two pounds of this stuff for every Vermonter is not a distinction, it's a disaster waiting to happen," said study author Chris Williams, the Vermont organizer for Citizens Action Network.

A Vermont Yankee spokesman said he had not seen the report.

But Rob Williams called nuclear power an environmentally preferable alternative to burning coal or other fossil fuels to generate electricity because it does not emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

"Our plant and all nuclear plants in this country protect the environment and that's by displacing the need to burn fossil fuels," Williams said. "If this plant were to be replaced by a fossil fuel plant, it would probably burn about two-and-a-half tons of coal a minute."

The federal government has responsibility for the long-term disposal of highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Congress essentially designated Yucca Mountain as the site for it, but that decision has been caught up in politics and scientific disputes. If Yucca ever eventually becomes the long-term disposal site, it would be 2017 at the earliest before any waste is taken there, according to federal estimates.

Activists and others say it's more likely the waste will remain at the nuclear energy plants where it's produced.

Drew Hudson of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group said that was justification enough for tripling a tax on Vermont Yankee for the electricity it produces, as the Legislature proposed in a climate change bill that Gov. Jim Douglas has said he'll veto.

The tax is in place of the statewide property tax to pay for education.

"The truth about nuclear waste in Vermont isn't pretty," Hudson said. "And that truth is all the more reason why Gov. Douglas should make (Yankee owner) Entergy pay their fair share in property taxes by signing H.520 into law."

Williams said that was an anti-nuclear view.

"It's just clear we may never find common ground with nuclear plant opponents," he said. "But I think most Vermonters have come to realize the importance of keeping Vermont Yankee online to protect the environment by displacing fossil fuels."

Home heating fuel dealers oppose the bill that would tax Yankee, also, because the money would be used to expand an energy efficiency utility so it could work to help consumers use less fuel to heat their homes.

Independent dealers already do that, said Matt Cota, executive director of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association. "We have demand side management; it's called service," Cota said.

Since the 1970s, despite population growth, Vermont's appetite for home heating oil has dropped by 53 million gallons a year to about 90 million gallons, he said.

"The building stock's getting better and the way we heat our homes has improved," he said.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
May 18, 2007

Nicholson doesn't make cut as nuclear waste director

By Mark Waite
PVT

Lewis Darnell Lacy Jr., a former assistant county attorney in Harris County, Texas and former consultant in the oil and gas industry, is Nye County Manager Ron Williams' choice as the new director of the nuclear waste repository project office.

The recommendation to the Nye County commissioners will be made Monday.

Lacy recently relocated to Las Vegas to work for Sierra Pacific Resources. He has experience as an engineer, manager and executive. He holds degrees in law, business administration and chemical engineering.

Coming up short for the position was Rachel Nicholson, former deputy district attorney for Nye County, as well as interim nuclear waste project office director Dave Swanson.

In his career Lacy has provided advice on real estate and property taxation, did consulting and business development work for clients in the oil and gas business as well as the nuclear power industry.

"Your position would be an ideal fit for an attorney with my prior experience in the energy industry," Lacy wrote in his application letter.

The director will interact with the U.S. Department of Energy on the Yucca Mountain project, supervise consultants in the county's oversight of the project, work with county commissioners on implementing the $10 million in annual payment equal to taxes the county receives from the DOE and other duties.

Swanson has been interim director of the nuclear waste office since the resignation of Les Bradshaw in March 2004, except for a brief period from February to May 2006 when Dale Hammermeister ran the office.

Swanson was offered the job last fall, but the commission held back after Commissioner Joni Eastley complained about a conflict of interest on the selection committee, which included Geneva Hollis, wife of Commissioner Gary Hollis, the county's liaison on nuclear waste.

A selection committee narrowed down the latest list of candidates.

When it comes to the assistant county manager position, former three-term County Commissioner Cameron McRae confirmed he was one of three candidates called in to interview for that job.

Williams said last month he expects to have a recommendation to present to commissioners for assistant county manager by late June or early July. A five-member selection committee met April 6 and listed the same top seven candidates out of 45 applicants, Williams said.

McRae served three terms as a commissioner until defeated by Candice Trummell in 2002. McRae has been the Nye County School District transportation director since October 2001.

Pahrump Town Manager Dave Richards withdrew his application after failing to make the list of finalists.

Three candidates were eventually interviewed. A selection committee member disclosed the other two finalists include a candidate from Oregon and one from Las Vegas. The only candidate from Oregon among the applicants is Jay Henry, Klamath County community development director. Four candidates list addresses in Las Vegas, according to applications obtained by the Pahrump Valley Times after a written request filed under the Nevada Open Records Act.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
May 18, 2007

2021 seen as more likely Yucca opening date

By Mark Waite
PVT

March 2017 would be the earliest date the Yucca Mountain repository could open, but it will more likely be the year 2021, Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said Monday during a stopover in Pahrump.

Sproat visited Pahrump as three models of the Yucca Mountain project -- a shipping cask, the tunnel boring machine and a model of a rail and road shipment of nuclear waste -- were delivered to the Nye County Courthouse on East Basin Avenue.

The exhibits were from the Beatty and Las Vegas Yucca Mountain information centers, which were closed recently due to budget cuts. Sproat said, "Those two information centers had very low numbers of people coming in."

A new 5,000-square-foot Yucca Mountain information center was dedicated on East Postal Avenue in Pahrump last July, with facilities like touch screens to access information on the project, exhibits on the history of the repository from prehistoric times, plant life, cultural artifacts and other displays.

The information center, however, is open only Mondays and Wednesdays due to the budget cuts. The plan is to keep it open to the public Mondays through Thursdays as funding permits.

Sproat said when the operating budget for the Yucca Mountain budget is reduced by $100 million from $544.5 million to $444.5 million, the department has to look at where the program can be funded. But he still emphasized the role of public education at this critical step in the project.

"I want to increase our public outreach and education in this program," Sproat said. "The licensing process is going to take three to four years in front of the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at least.

"The more we can provide about the straight scoop and give them a place locally to get answers to their questions that's what we want to do," he said.

Sproat said he's been in his current job 11 months and during that time he met three times with representatives of the affected units of local government, the 10 counties surrounding Yucca Mountain including Nye County. Sproat said he put their budget requests in the federal 2008 year budget.

"If we get fully appropriated the counties and the state are going to get everything they asked for," Sproat said.

The affected units of local government stand to collect $7.5 million in the continuing resolution to fund the federal government this year. Nye County would receive $2.5 million under the plan proposed in February.

Allen Benson, director of the office of external affairs for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said the department wanted to keep some exhibits in Nye County following the closure of the Beatty facility. There is also a Yucca Mountain information office in Goldfield in Esmeralda County.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has to approve the license for Yucca Mountain, Congress has to continue to approve appropriations to build the project and Congress has to approve the withdrawal of the land before Yucca Mountain can open, Sproat said.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the project wouldn't open by 2010, a delay the Associated Press reported was due to allegations government scientists skirted quality control regulations and a federal court invalidation of proposed radiation safety standards.

Nye County Commission Chairman Gary Hollis, the county's liaison on nuclear waste, suggested the exhibits be set up at the entrance to the courthouse. He said the exhibits could be moved to the Pahrump museum at a later date.

Hollis was an unabashed advocate for the safety of the Yucca Mountain project.

He vowed, "I will ride the first shipment myself from the power plant to Yucca Mountain."

Hollis pushed for more nuclear power. He said if there are shortages of power in the future he'll blame the people who are today calling the nuclear waste repository a dump.

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

Oak Ridger
May 18, 2007

Y-12 leader to discuss site’s future at Dick Smyser Lecture

How can a World War II historical icon play a role in today’s defense world? Transform itself into a lean, efficient facility that today is known as the Y-12 National Security Complex.

George Dials, president and general manager of the site’s managing and operating contractor, BWXT Y-12, will discuss the site’s ongoing plans and efforts to modernize itself at a free lecture, open to the public, at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday in the American Museum of Science and Energy, 300 South Tulane Ave., Oak Ridge.

Tuesday night’s lecture is part of the 10th annual Dick Smyser Community Lecture Series sponsored by the Friends of ORNL. Smyser was the founding editor of The Oak Ridger, Oak Ridge’s daily newspaper.

Y-12 was born out of necessity — to help end a world war that had taken 63 million lives worldwide.

The growth of the site during the Cold War that followed resulted in some 500 buildings containing 7 million square feet of nuclear weapons machining, dismantlement, and research and development areas covering more than 2.5 miles of Bear Creek Valley.

Today, the Y-12 National Security Complex faces a new challenge — maintaining excellence in uranium handling, processing, storage and manufacturing technologies in a more compact, efficient facility that meets the needs of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

How will Y-12 fit into the Nuclear Weapons Complex of the future? Ongoing modernization efforts are changing the site’s skyline, and they are revitalizing its work force and preparing this once super-secret facility to rank as a world leader in all things uranium.

Before arriving at Y-12 in February 2006 to lead the NNSA’s premiere site for work with highly enriched uranium, Dials had accumulated an impressive record of education and work experience in the nuclear and energy industries, according to news release.

Dials, a West Point graduate and dual MIT degree holder, has experience in the federal sector when he led the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M., as well as spending time on the contractor side contributing to the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project. Dials also had a 10-year stint outside the nuclear world when he was involved in the coal industry in his home state of West Virginia.

Friends of ORNL is a non-profit organization of persons interested in fostering the goals of the Oak Ridge complex. The Community Lecture Series is one of the FORNL activities and provides historical, scientific or technical information to teachers, students and the general public.

Additional sponsors of the lecture series include BWXT Y-12, UT-Battelle, The Oak Ridger and the American Museum of Science and Energy.

A reception in the museum’s lobby will follow Tuesday’s lecture.

BWXT Y-12 LLC, a BWX Technologies Inc. and Bechtel National Inc. enterprise, operates the Y-12 National Security Complex for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

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

Boston Globe
May 18, 2007

Report: Vermont has most nuclear waste per capita in country

By Ross Sneyd
Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER, Vt. --Activists released a new report Friday indicating Vermont has more radioactive nuclear waste per capita than any state in the nation, which they said underscores the need for approval of a climate change bill that would tax the Vermont Yankee plant.

The analysis found that South Carolina ranked second, with the equivalent of 2.03 pounds per resident. Elsewhere around New England:

--Connecticut, 1.34 pounds per person.

--Maine, 0.89 pounds per person.

--New Hampshire, 0.72 pounds per person.

--Massachusetts, 0.23 pounds per person.

Rhode Island does not have a nuclear power plant.

Many states have significantly more waste than Vermont. Illinois, for example, will have 17.6 million pounds by 2011. But with a population of 12.8 million, it will have only 1.38 pounds per person.

"Having two pounds of this stuff for every Vermonter is not a distinction, it's a disaster waiting to happen," said study author Chris Williams, the Vermont organizer for Citizens Action Network.

A Vermont Yankee spokesman said he had not seen the report.

The federal government has responsibility for the long-term disposal of highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Congress essentially designated Yucca Mountain as the site for it, but that decision has gotten caught up in politics and scientific disputes. If Yucca ever eventually becomes the long-term disposal site, it would be 2017 at the earliest before any waste is taken there, according to federal estimates.

Activists and others say it's more likely the waste will remain at the nuclear energy plants where it's produced.

The tax is in place of the statewide property tax to pay for education.

Williams said that was an anti-nuclear view.

Independent dealers already do that, said Matt Cota, executive director of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association. "We have demand side management; it's called service," Cota said.

Since the 1970s, despite population growth, Vermont's appetite for home heating oil has dropped by 53 million gallons a year to about 90 million gallons, he said.

"The building stock's getting better and the way we heat our homes has improved," he said.

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