Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, August 17, 2007
---------------------------

E&E TV
August 17, 2007

Nuclear Waste:

Nevada's Bob Loux calls DOE "virtually incompetent" regarding Yucca Mountain

(OnPoint, 09/13/2006)

About this video:

With the House and Senate both addressing the issue of a nuclear waste repository, the Department of Energy is facing major opposition from the state of Nevada regarding Yucca Mountain. During today's OnPoint Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office talks about why Nevada will not, under any circumstances, accept a repository. Loux also discusses the safety issues and health risks associated with a nuclear repository.

Transcript:

Mary O'Driscoll: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Mary O'Driscoll. Our guest today is Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office. Welcome to the show Bob.

Bob Loux: Thank you Mary. It's good to be here.

Mary O'Driscoll: Good. You represent the state of Nevada in the debate over the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which of course the state of Nevada opposes and has opposed for many years. A lot of people would like to see this 20 year long debate though, they'd like to see it, this fight, just kind of get over with. They're looking at, Congress is already designated Yucca Mountain as the site where repository is going to be. DOE has been studying the site for years and people are saying, you know, enough already. Nevada's opposition, you're throwing up legal roadblocks, funding roadblocks, regulatory roadblocks. It's keeping the nuclear industry from being able to build new nuclear power plants because they need a place to put the waste before they can build the plants. How do you respond to this kind of thing?

Bob Loux: Well, I would respond by saying that I don't think Nevada is doing anything any other state wouldn't be doing in a similar situation. The real fundamental problem with the whole program is that you have a bad site. It won't do what they want it to. It will leak. It will contaminate Nevada's groundwater, you couple that with an agency that's virtually incompetent. The Department of Energy has never built a facility that's contained radioactive materials anywhere in the country. According to GAO they own and operate 127 facilities that handle these materials, 124 have completely failed and the other three have partially failed. So there's no confidence and no trust whatsoever in DOE. And the fact that they're promoting a scientifically defective site only adds to that skepticism.

Mary O'Driscoll: Well, how can it be scientifically deceptive if they've been studying it for 20 years? How long does it take for them to determine whether the site is good or bad? I mean this has been a pretty long process.

Bob Loux: Well, they certainly could have determined it in about 1992 when they first discovered that water moves through it much faster than they thought. And previous statements by DOE said if water moves that fast at a site, we don't have a site. Since then it has been more or less a case of momentum. It's not about whether the site meets scientific standards; it's about how we can maybe engineer it to work. So it's clearly past the threshold of setting safety standards and finding the site that meets that. We're now saying, well, this is the site, and we're going to alter any health and safety standard we need to to get this thing on. The idea from the Department of Energy is that all things nuclear, and nuclear waste included, is totally, inherently safe, so all of these health and safety regulations, in their mind, are not needed. They're an obstruction, in their mind. But in this country we developed health and safety regulations to protect a certain level of public health, and Yucca Mountain won't fit that need.

Mary O'Driscoll: OK. At a hearing shortly before the August recess, a Senate hearing, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, said, from the dais, told you flat out that you have no credibility before the committee because you represent the state of Nevada that just flat out opposes the repository. And your job is to kill the repository period. How do you respond to that? And what does that tell you about the state of the debate on Yucca Mountain?

Bob Loux: Well, it tells me that it's still very much contentious, as we all know. If I was the only one in the room getting paid to have a specific view about Yucca Mountain, and we're going to eliminate everyone else who had the same, I mean the hearing wouldn't, everybody in that room is paid to have a specific agenda. And I don't think promoting Yucca Mountain is any different than opposing it. And so I would question the credibility, according to Mr. Craig's standard, of everybody else who's in there. The problem is that it really shows his lack of understanding and his lack of diplomacy to sort of lash out at someone like myself and single me out after he asked me the question, which I responded to. So I would match my credibility against Senator Craig's any day of the week.

Mary O'Driscoll: OK. DOE and Senator Domenici are working on legislation, coming back to work this month and working on legislation that will jumpstart the Yucca Mountain process, to speed it up, to try to get things moving, streamline the process. DOE says it needs this legislation in order to get the repository licensed. What's Nevada's view of the legislation?

Bob Loux: Well, in our view there's nothing in the legislation that in fact promotes or helps DOE file a high-quality license application with the NRC. DOE seems to believe the problems with the program are all external to them. For example, they want to be able to have the Secretary of Energy exempt Yucca Mountain shipments from any transportation regulation by anybody, Federal Government or the states. So clearly, that tells you a lot about the project. If it requires these extraordinary measures, wiping off transportation regulations, DOE being allowed to deposit hundreds of millions of pounds of heavy metals that would never be allowed to be used in land disposal anywhere else, if that's what it takes to get Yucca Mountain going, then that tells you everything you need to know about the poor quality of the site and the incompetency of department. The fact is that all these problems are occurring of the department's own making. A case in point, their failure to actually correctly certify their record before the NRC is a prerequisite to filing a license application. And they screwed that up, not the state of Nevada, not the NRC or anybody else. So very little in this bill does anything for getting a high-quality license application submitted to the NRC. In fact, nothing does.

Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Well, a lot of people say that this is just a NIMBY situation. That Nevada otherwise enjoys the federal largess. You're getting the money. You're getting the jobs at the site and that you're enjoying that, but yet you're still fighting the repository itself. What is your response to that?

Bob Loux: Well, first of all, there's not any jobs at the site that actually mean anything to Clark County economy where Yucca Mountain, Las Vegas is located, adjacent to Yucca Mountain. If creating 3000 to 5,000 new jobs a month, so the idea that we have 200 or 300 people or even a thousand people working out there is not even a blip on the screen. So it's not like there's some big economic benefit. And then the money we get is to oversee and evaluate the program and tell people our view of it, and that's what the law requires and that's what we perform under, so none of these things are "benefits" per se. Nevada would love to see this project go away. I'm sure any other state in the same position would like it to go away and not be in their state as well. They're frustrated with, I think, our effectiveness in opposing this site, our ability to challenge them on health and safety issues, and they're very upset with that. And I can understand the frustrations of people like Senator Craig, who, once again, believes all nuclear things are safe. We really don't need any health and safety regulations. Just go build it. Ignore NEPA and the environmental laws, none of that stuff matters. And when you raise those issues about, wait a second, we have laws. Well, then we're obstructionists. We're just trying to get the government to follow the law.

Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Now there's a defense angle to this as well, because the site itself is in a little tiny corner of the Nevada test site and it involves the Nellis base, the big Air Force training range that they have out there. And that there has been some concern that building Yucca Mountain and taking the land away would affect training there at Nellis. But that now DOE says it's a very small portion. We're only going to affect four cubic miles, I guess, four miles of air space. It's going to be a very small piece. What is actually the concern out there?

Bob Loux: Well, when we talked to the Air Force people at the Nellis Air Force Range, they believe restricting air access to the gunnery range, by restricting the airspace over Yucca Mountain, would be very inhibiting to their mission. The Secretary of Air Force has written previously to the Congress and saying anything that interferes in any way with our mission, they would be opposed to. So it's not about the number of acreage, what it is about is right over Yucca Mountain has been the entrance and the exit for all these fighter jets, with live ordinance, coming in and out of this gunnery range. And also the Air Force tells us that the new fighters coming online, the F-22s, require even more space. And that the southern southwestern corner of the gunnery range, which is where we're talking about, where Yucca Mountain is, is one of the critical components of areas that they need to have to be able to do their training. So I think there's a conflict coming. The Air Force tells us there is no understanding or agreement with DOE. They will not sign off on any flight restrictions over that area, like a no-fly zone. In contrary to the remarks by the DOE people, there is not in agreement and I don't think there will be.

Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Now this all kind of ignores the crucial fact about transportation of waste to the site. I guess it's supposed to be rail, yet there's no spur that actually gets to the site itself, and this is a bone of contention with the state of Nevada as well. What can you tell me about that?

Bob Loux: Well, first of all, we're in litigation with them over the selection of the so-called Caliente route, which is a 319 mile proposed route right through the heart of central Nevada to get waste to Yucca Mountain from the eastern side of the state. Now we repeatedly told them this is probably the most difficult, the most expensive route they could pick. They even now agree that the route, the cost of this would be over $2 billion. There are several big mountain ranges to go over. And we don't think that an adequate comparison has been done to other, more reasonable alternatives for getting waste to Yucca Mountain, assuming that it even happens. So we're concerned with the selection of the Caliente route. We think that it is inappropriate and, moreover, we believe that the wrong agency is in charge. Under federal law this EIS and this selection of these routes should be done by the Surface Transportation Board that has exclusive jurisdiction over new rail construction in this country and not DOE. Since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act says that the transportation regulations and authorities of any other entities, including the Surface Transportation Board or even the state of Nevada shall not be compromised by this program. DOE will follow the rules. Yet they're turning around, in this legislation, and saying we should be exempt from all transportation regulations. We should be self-governing. And if DOE had a good track record in handling these materials, once again, people might be willing to believe that. But the fact that they don't only reinforces more that we need the regulations on the books.

Mary O'Driscoll: Is there any circumstance under which the state of Nevada would accept a repository within its borders?

Bob Loux: No, in a word.

Mary O'Driscoll: Even if it can be proven safe?

Bob Loux: No, in a word. We believe it would be very harmful to our gaming economy. There are lots of studies out there by the gaming industry, as well by the state, that indicates that even if it was operating exactly as planned with no leaks, no accidents, perfectly, that we'd still see between a ten and twenty percent drop-off in gaming because people just don't want to visit places where they have these ongoing nuclear activities, in particular nuclear waste.

Mary O'Driscoll: Well, if you're talking about nuclear activities doesn't that mean the Nevada test site would be a problem?

Bob Loux: Well, because those activities are no longer going on and I think there's a vast difference sort of between some of the other activities going on out there and some proposed for Yucca Mountain. Some of it has been in place for so long that it's almost been institutionalized. Yet a new nuclear facility in Nevada, at least according to most of the work we've done and the industry has done, would be very harmful to tourism, gaming, business relocation, retirement, all of those things. In fact, Clark County itself, the county adjacent to Yucca Mountain, sees a $3 billion a year negative impact to their economy simply from Yucca Mountain going forward.

Mary O'Driscoll: OK. We'll have to end on that note. I'd like to thank Bob Loux of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office for joining us today, and thank you for joining us. I'm Mary O'Driscoll. See you next time on OnPoint.

[End of Audio]

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

Las Vegas SUN
August 17, 2007

Edwards campaign announces environmentalists' support

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A group of Nevada environmentalists lined up Friday behind Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards.

Scot Rutledge, the executive director of the Nevada Conservation League, will lead the group of supporters in pushing Edwards' candidacy in Nevada and advising him on environmental issues, the campaign said.

Rutledge said his endorsement was personal and not on behalf of the league, a leading environmental lobbying group in the state.

In a conference call with reporters, Rutledge said Edwards' support for biofuels and plans to halt global warming won him over.

He described the former vice presidential candidate as "somewhat of a maverick on energy."

Thirty others have signed on to the Nevada Conservationists for Edwards, according to the campaign.

Edwards' opposition to the construction of a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain also was a factor in his endorsement, Rutledge said.

As a North Carolina senator Edwards voted in favor of the dump, but has since changed his position. Unlike some of his Democratic opponents, Edwards has said he doesn't favor nuclear power.

"To really oppose Yucca Mountain, that means you have to have a position against nuclear energy," Rutledge said.

---------------------------
The American
August 17, 2007

A Second Crisis in Radioactive Waste

By Joseph DiCamillo

The way things are going, low-level nuclear waste could end up in everyone’s backyard.

The public has long been familiar with the problem of high level radioactive waste disposal at Yucca Mountain. In the next 12 months, the nation will face a second crisis, of disposal of low level waste. Low level waste is not the spent fuel itself, but rather many objects that have absorbed radiation, such as pipes, tools, resins, filters, medical tools, protective clothing, and whole sections from decommissioned nuclear power plants.

The scheduled closing of the disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina in June 2008 will leave the majority of reactors unable to dispose of certain low-level waste. Hospitals, universities and research facilities will also be affected. For the lowest-level radioactive waste there will be only one privately owned disposal site available for the majority of the waste generated, in Clive, Utah. The answer to this challenge is in part additional disposal sites—a difficult proposition since most states don’t want to allow new sites to be built within their borders. We also must take steps to assure that existing sites are used optimally. The best technology should be encouraged, including volume reduction, waste stabilization and best disposal site management techniques to conserve space.

Until now, our system has silently but effectively dealt with the disposal of low-level nuclear waste. However the GAO reports that this system no longer meets the disposal requirement for the United States. The consequences may harm the $15 billion per year commercial nuclear power industry, which is on the verge of a renaissance. As general counsel of Studsvik, a leading company involved in using modern technology to efficiently and safely dispose of low-level waste, it is clear to me that the government must act now.

In the 1980s, Congress enacted a program permitting formation of multi-state compacts to encourage creation of more low-level waste disposal sites. Commercial nuclear generators and state governments spent over $800 million attempting to open new sites. States have resisted creating such facilities within their borders. As a result of this failure and the huge price of entry (licensing, public opposition, etc.), no new low-level waste disposal sites have opened in almost 20 years. Only three active, designated disposal sites exist with one new site in Texas in the permitting processes. One, in Richland, Washington, only accepts waste from 11 Northwestern and Rocky Mountain states (notably, only one reactor is in operation in these states).

The second, in Barnwell, South Carolina, has for years been open to disposal of low-level waste, but starting in June 2008, the site will accept waste from only three states (containing just 12 of America’s 104 operational reactors). A bill to keep Barnwell more accessible failed when the South Carolina legislature declined to act. While the federal government seems concerned, it has not made clear how it will respond under its limited emergency powers to keep the site open for out-of-compact waste.

The third site, a privately-owned facility in Clive, Utah, after 2008 will be the last remaining one to accept commercially-generated low-level waste from across the nation. However, in March, Utah’s governor signed an agreement with the owner of the site capping the volume of the lowest class of low-level waste (Class A) that Clive will accept, and forbidding delivery of higher activity “Class B” and “Class C” waste. It is unlikely the governor will revisit his decision.

Taken together, the South Carolina and Utah actions mean that after 2008, nuclear generators in 36 states will have access to no permanent disposal facilities for Class B and C waste. As a result, hospitals, universities, and commercial nuclear power will need to store the most dangerous classes of low-level waste indefinitely, on-site, and closer to the public. Worse yet, guarding these myriad small storage sites from terror attacks is more difficult than securing a few designated disposal facilities.

Further, the nation is on the verge of markedly increasing the volume of low-level waste it generates. This increase is largely due to the growing number of older reactors now going off-line, requiring dismantling of the reactor and decommissioning of the site. At the same time, the nation is considering building approximately 20 new nuclear power reactors, the first application for construction of a new reactor having been recently submitted to NRC.

We must face this looming second crisis in nuclear waste disposal because nuclear energy itself is a direct and positive answer to our national goal of energy independence. It is also a key component in meeting expected demands for electricity. Without support for and expansion of nuclear energy, neither of these challenges can be achieved. The Administration and Congress have recognized the key role that nuclear power will play in our future.

Nuclear energy has a proven safe record in electricity generation and the technology is very inexpensive to operate compared to fossil fuels. As an example, South Carolina residents enjoy very low electricity rates in large part due to the significant portion of electricity generated by nuclear energy in that state.

Of no less importance is the fact that nuclear energy does not generate any greenhouse gases to create electricity. In the May 2005 edition of Technology Review, noted environmentalist Stewart Brand wrote: “The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.”

Since it is clear that the 20 year old system of state-compacts has not led to sufficient waste disposal, national, state and local governments must mobilize to help meet these challenges. Sound policy can address the looming crisis and provide the framework for the expansion of nuclear energy to safely and economically meet our Nation’s energy demands.

Given these stakes, Congress, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must address this lack of disposal capacity. There are essentially three options.

First, the federal government could again try to encourage states to accept the waste. But this is unlikely to yield dividends, given that states have not welcomed radioactive waste from other states.

Second, the government could open up federally-owned disposal sites to commercially-generated low-level waste. This probably will not happen, because the federal government currently uses the three state sites to dispose of its own low-level waste.

A third option—the most environmentally-conscientious one—is for the government to promote techniques that stabilize and minimize the volume of low-level waste prior to disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1981 issued a policy calling for increased attention to this option, but the Commission has done little to implement it. Those technologies can lengthen the life of disposal sites without the need for expansion as well as substantially reducing the possibility of contamination outside of disposal site boundaries. An effective market-based option available to the federal government is to end the practice, followed by some disposal sites and state governments, of price discrimination. This practice results in the disposal facilities charging higher rates and taxes for stabilized and compacted waste than for the same volume of untreated waste. As a result, the United States fails to use optimally our scarce disposal capacity.

There is no more time to wait. The federal government must do everything possible to encourage or require the few existing disposal sites to stabilize and reduce the volume of low-level waste. And direct federal intervention is necessary to ensure that after June 2008, 28 states (housing 91 of the 104 reactors in the U.S.) can deposit their “Class B and C” waste in a designated disposal site, rather than leaving it scattered at power plants, universities, and hospitals. After the actions in Utah and South Carolina, the clock is ticking.

Joseph DiCamillo is the general counsel of Studsvik, Inc., a subsidiary of a Swedish firm providing nuclear technology and radiological services to the nuclear industry around the world.

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

KLAS-TV
August 16, 2007

Judge Urges Compromise on Water Use for Yucca Mountain Drilling

A federal judge has urged the U.S. government and the state of Nevada to compromise on the use of water for drilling bore holes at the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Lawyers are at loggerheads over the Energy Department's use of groundwater in defiance of an order issued by the Nevada state engineer last month.

The Energy Department says millions of gallons of water are needed to cool and lubricate drill bits used in collecting data about potential earthquakes and floods in the area.

The state says that use of the water is not in the public interest. U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt told lawyers to find a compromise.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 16, 2007

Judge questions sudden rush on Yucca drilling

By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal

U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt pressed a Justice Department attorney Wednesday to explain why the Department of Energy after 20 years is suddenly rushing to drill bore holes to collect rock samples at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.

Nevertheless, he urged the state and federal attorneys to try to reach a compromise while he weighs arguments on the Justice Department's motion to allow DOE to continue using the state's water for the project.

During the hearing, Hunt noted that the federal energy agency had ignored State Engineer Tracy Taylor's order to stop using Nevada's water without involving the court or attorneys for the parties, "which I find quite frankly is a little disingenuous."

Hunt's comment came midway through the four-hour hearing on the Justice Department's emergency motion to block Taylor's June 1 cease-and-desist order that Taylor had lifted temporarily on June 12.

Marta Adams, Nevada's senior deputy attorney general representing Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects chief Bob Loux, said outside the courtroom that the state's attorneys would speak Tuesday with Justice Department trial attorney Stephen Bartell about a possible compromise.

In the courtroom, however, Adams' colleague, Senior Deputy Attorney General Michael Wolz told Hunt his client, the state engineer, already had allowed DOE 30 days to complete drilling work. "That was as far as we could go."

"I don't think it would be beneficial," Wolz said about a compromise discussion. "I don't want to waste anybody's time in what would be a futile exercise."

Taylor reinstated his cease-and-desist order on July 20 after deciding that DOE's need for some 4 million gallons of water to complete another phase of the drilling program is not a beneficial use in the state's interest.

Subcontractors for the Yucca Mountain Project are using the water to drill some 80 bore holes. That is up from DOE's original estimate that only 15 bore holes would be needed for "geotechnical" work to ensure that surface facilities where spent nuclear fuel assemblies would be handled and stored before entombing them in the mountain will be safe from earthquakes and floods.

The water is used to cool and lubricate drill bits and to make mud for collecting rock samples.

Taylor offered to let DOE use the water for 30 more days, but DOE officials rejected the time-limit condition on July 20 and proceeded to use the water without permission while Justice Department attorneys filed their emergency motion for a preliminary injunction.

Adams said, "We find that extremely egregious."

After the hearing, Taylor said he was pleased with the state's position in light of the judge's comments. "I think our case went well," he said.

Loux, a longtime critic of the Yucca Mountain Project, said whether a compromise can be worked out "remains to be seen."

"If they continue to drill, they have no incentive," Loux said. "I think it's pretty clear. He's not going to grant them a preliminary injunction. The cease-and-desist is in effect. Whether they honor that remains to be seen."

Hunt wondered why DOE needs 4 million gallons of non-potable water from two wells near Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, after the state agreed with the court's approval to let DOE use only 300,000 gallons.

Instead, he said, DOE acted on its own in the void of negotiations to help itself to the state's water in defiance of the state engineer's order.

Bartell tried to explain that if the water had been claimed by someone else "the United States could take the water if it offered just compensation."

Hunt said, "It seems to me that what you're arguing runs counter to what you did."

Hunt also wondered why bore holes are being drilled hundreds of feet deeper than previously planned and why DOE decided late in the game to add more surface facilities to the design.

"Was that known that you needed this information at the time of site characterization?" Hunt asked Bartell.

Bartell responded, saying, "There was no way the Department of Energy could have known where bore holes would be needed."

He acknowledged, though, that without the geotechnical data, DOE would be unable to meet the requirements of a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for constructing a repository at Yucca Mountain.

Hunt told Bartell he was "trying to find out if this was a surprise."

"It doesn't seem to me that anybody anticipated that that license application was going to require all that bore hole drilling," Hunt said. "While there was nothing done for several years, now there seems to be not only this rush, but multiplication of what needs to be done."

Hunter later asked, "Is the Department of Energy trying to stay busy? I'm trying to find out why the Department of Energy didn't make this determination a lot earlier instead of just springing it on me."

Bartell's answer: "It's not that the Department of Energy is rushing for no reason. The Department of Energy is on a strict deadline."

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

Las Vegas SUN
August 16, 2007

Letter: Better use for Yucca's storage capacity

President Bush has banned the use of federal funds for stem cell research. He and some other conservatives believe an embryo is human life and to destroy it for any purpose would be immoral.

Those who favor stem cell research point to the potential for treating and possibly curing many human ailments and disabilities. Both sides appear firm in their convictions.

A complication is that there are thought to be hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos stored at individual fertility clinics across the country. Some embryos will be used to induce pregnancies, but the vast majority ultimately will be destroyed. If Bush knew about this massive destruction of human life , he would be appalled.

While the debate over frozen embryos continues, let's do what we can. These scattered embryos should be collected into one federally supervised location for safekeeping.

Here's where Yucca Mountain enters the picture. Forget about storing nuclear waste there. Instead, make Yucca Mountain the site of a Federal Embryo Registry and a Federal Embryo Storage Center. What could be more important than saving human life?

Edward Howatt, Las Vegas

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

Heartland Institute
August 16, 2007

California Assemblyman Taking Nuclear Power to the People

Written By: James Hoare
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: September 1, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Frustrated by obstructionism in the California Assembly, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) is taking the issue of nuclear power directly to the people. DeVore in July announced he has begun gathering signatures necessary for placing a nuclear power ballot initiative before voters next June.

A state law passed in 1976 prohibits the construction of new nuclear power plants in California until the national government begins accepting spent fuel at a central depository. With the proposed Yucca Mountain facility unlikely to begin accepting spent fuel for at least another decade, the 1976 law effectively serves as a moratorium against new nuclear power plant construction in the state.

Assembly Leaders Say No

Viewing nuclear power as a more cost-effective means than solar or wind power to meet California's stringent greenhouse gas reduction laws, DeVore has tried in vain during the past year to have the California Assembly readdress the 1976 law.

Although the Public Policy Institute of California reports the state's voters are evenly split on the construction of new nuclear power plants, Assembly leadership has thwarted any serious consideration of revising the moratorium.

"I came to the conclusion that the Legislature doesn't want an honest discussion about nuclear power," said DeVore in the July 17 San Luis Obispo Tribune.

DeVore added, "I'm confident we can embark on a vigorous debate about this."

Taking it to the People

DeVore has begun taking his case straight to the people.

California law requires approximately 500,000 signatures to put the initiative on the ballot. DeVore vows to meet the requirement and let voters decide the future of the state's energy choices.

"We have a myriad of legislation and mandates in this state," DeVore said in an interview for this article. "We have renewable energy mandates that are not close to being met right now. The same applies for greenhouse gas mandates.

"If you look at the mandates for renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and the mandate to eliminate coal-based power by 2027, you find that the only way to meet these requirements without shutting off the power for California citizens and bankrupting them in the process is to allow for the construction of nuclear power plants," DeVore continued.

Lower Cost, Emissions

DeVore is quick to answer arguments that nuclear power plants are prohibitively expensive. While real-world data show nuclear power is more expensive than coal-fired power, the current energy mix in California is more expensive than both coal and nuclear.

"Nuclear power is slightly cost-positive relative to California's current energy mix. If we went all nuclear, we would actually reduce energy costs for California citizens. Even now, California's energy costs are increasing due to expensive natural gas and solar power comprising more and more of the state's energy portfolio," DeVore said.

Tom Tanton, vice president of the Institute for Energy Research, agrees nuclear energy would lower the price of California power. "Nuclear technology is cost-competitive even compared to new coal plants, especially with California's greenhouse gas statutes," Tanton said.

"While solar is nice, it remains the single highest cost [source] and cannot supply enough to meet California's growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases. Nuclear has known costs once the plants are built, adding further to the economically rational choice of nuclear," Tanton added.

"The great irony in this debate is that had America continued to build nuclear power plants over the past 30 years instead of switching to coal-fired plants, we'd be meeting our Kyoto Treaty limits for carbon dioxide emissions," Tanton noted. "Thankfully, California voters are now evenly divided on the question of more nuclear power."

Optimistic About Success

DeVore realizes he faces an arduous task, but he is eager directly to take his case to the people of California.

"You may see this become the most high-profile fight in the country in the mid-year political battles next year," DeVore said.

"We are getting support from organized labor. I am encouraged by some of the public comments from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi regarding nuclear power. That has not yet translated into support at the local California level, but I am expecting that you will see some legislators from working-class districts come around and support this when they see that support is more widespread and less partisan than people may think," DeVore added.

--James Hoare (ljahoare@aol.com) is an attorney practicing in Rochester, New York.

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

Los Alamos Monitor
August 16, 2007

Little support for new waste at LANL

ROGER SNODGRASS

Monitor Assistant Editor

At a public meeting Tuesday evening, one person spoke in favor of burying an orphaned class of nuclear waste in New Mexico.

At the first-stage environmental planning session sponsored by the Department of Energy, Mike Dempsey was outnumbered 10-to-one by the opponents of nuclear-waste disposal at Los Alamos.

Another speaker urged that the decision be made on the basis of science, rather than politics.

At issue is where the nation should put about 2,600 cubic meters of "Greater Than Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste" regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as an additional 3,000 cubic meters of similar, "GTCC-like" wastes that are owned or generated by DOE.

Under current regulations, GTCC waste is supposed to be buried in a geological repository such as WIPP or Yucca Mountain, but the DOE project is also considering various "near surface" and "intermediate depth borehole" options. These alternatives are being considered for LANL, WIPP and five other national laboratories.

DOE officials began their visit on Monday, taking public comments about the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in southern New Mexico as a possible disposal site.

At the forum Tuesday Christine Gelles, DOE's disposal operations director, provided the overview for a proposed environmental impact statement.

She noted that Congress had called on DOE to conduct the environmental evaluation and then report to Congress on the disposal alternatives before issuing a final decision.

The chief characteristic of GTCC waste is that it is not transuranic waste and not high-level waste, which are mostly spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors and by-products of processing. Although it is called a low-level waste, GTCC may be packaged in highly radioactive concentrations.

Specifically, GTCC includes activated metals from decommissioned nuclear reactors, sealed sources (usually small, encapsulated, highly radioactive materials used for medical and industrial purposes and laboratory research) and a miscellaneous, catchall category.

Dempsey said he wanted to "lobby to have the dump in Los Alamos County, because ... we're part of the situation and we should be part of the solution."

He said he had spent more than two decades at Waste Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad and then at Los Alamos as a nuclear waste professional.

"WIPP's my number one choice now, having worked there," he said.

"WIPP will be there another 100 million years."

James Bearzi, chief of the state's Hazardous Waste Bureau, followed up on comments by Gov. Bill Richardson on the subject, emphasizing that the state was determined that WIPP remain focused on its core military mission.

Bearzi called near-surface or intermediate-depth disposal, as proposed for LANL, "a horrible idea."

He said that in the midst of a comprehensive cleanup operation in which every effort is being made to move TRU and other defense-related waste off the Hill, that the DOE's proposal for LANL was "cleanup" in reverse.

John Tauxe, a resident of Los Alamos and an environmental engineer, said he was not an advocate for any particular site or technology.

"If the analyses are based on science, then that will direct us to the best sort of site," Tauxe said.

Critics from nuclear watchdog groups in Santa Fe and Albuquerque pushed for a storage solution that is not being considered in DOE's evaluation.

Scott Kovac of Nuclear Watch New Mexico called for analysis of hardened on-site-storage (HOSS), a concept for storing wastes as close to where it was generated as possible.

While admitting it was not a permanent solution, he discussed security, surveillance, public funding and governance safeguards for the system.

He also called for other alternatives, including vitrification and compaction for lowering disposal volume, as well as an analysis of transportation impacts to be included in the statement.

Marian Naranjo of Santa Clara Pueblo and a newly formed group, Honor Our Pueblo Existence (HOPE), told the federal officials that earlier that day she had been on a tour of Area G, the waste disposal area where the waste was most likely to be stored. It is a location with a number of places considered sacred to the pueblo people.

"The things we believe in happened in this place," she said, adding that she was not allowed to conduct a traditional cornmeal offering, as she is supposed to do whenever she passes near a sacred site.

She reminded the federal officials that they were free to come and go, but that Native Americans have no other place to go.

"This is it," she said. "It's a very bad idea to bring more radiation things to this area."

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

San Antonio Express
August 16, 2007

S. Texas towns vying to be site of possible $4 billion nuke plant

Roger Croteau
Express-News

SEGUIN — The nation's largest operator of nuclear power plants is considering building a massive $4 billion plant in South Texas, bringing hundreds of jobs and a major economic boost to the region.

Exelon Corp. has identified two possible sites close to the Gulf Coast. The primary site is in Matagorda County, near Collegeport, while a second site is about 20 miles south of Victoria.

"We have not made a decision to build," said Craig Nesbit, communications manager for Exelon Nuclear. "We are gathering geologic and environmental data that we need to put in an application for a license with the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission.) If we get the license we will decide whether to go forward."

He said the license application should be ready by the end of next year and, if everything goes smoothly, the plant could be built and operating in 2017.

Exelon foresees two reactors, each generating 1,400 to 1,500 megawatts of electricity. The two reactors, together, could generate enough electricity to power up to 3 million homes.

The plants would create about 2,000 jobs during construction and perhaps 900 permanent jobs, Nesbit said.

He said the primary reason the Matagorda County location is preferred to the McFaddin area south of Victoria is that Gulf of Mexico water is readily available in Matagorda. The company would have to build a lake in Victoria County. Huge quantities of water are needed to cool the facility and create steam for the generators.

Water is available for the lake, though. The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority board of directors voted Wednesday to reserve 90,000 acre-feet of water a year for the project, enough to provide water to about 180,000 households.

"This is a reservation agreement, not a contract," Executive Director Bill West said. "It means we won't sell that water to anyone else through June 2009. This is just the tip of the iceberg. All it does is start the dance.

"This project is that area's Toyota," West said, referring to the giant truck plant that recently opened on San Antonio's South Side. "You are talking about hundreds of jobs and they are high skill jobs."

GBRA board member Steve Wilson said that, while the nuclear project is "very exciting," he and other board members would have many questions, and have to balance the health of the Guadalupe River and the estuary it feeds, and other factors, before approving a contract to sell the water to Exelon.

Victoria Mayor Will Armstrong said the impact would be even greater than San Antonio's Toyota plant because Victoria is so much smaller than San Antonio.

"We want to see what we can do to move up to their first choice," he said, noting that a firm water supply should help his cause. "These jobs would be so important for Victoria. I have no reservations about nuclear power. This company is a top-of-the-line company."

Matagorda County officials are similarly enthusiastic.

Commissioner George Deshotels said the existing South Texas Nuclear Project in Bay City, which is considering doubling its size, has been a "good neighbor," providing needed jobs and tax base. San Antonio, Austin and NRG Energy run the South Texas facility jointly.

"We've met with the folks from Exelon and they seem rather positive on it," he said of the prospects the plant will be built. "Of course, they are still in the exploratory stage."

Nesbit said the final decision on whether to build would depend on a number of factors, including the outlook for the supply and demand for electricity in Texas. The Federal Department of Energy predicts the demand for electricity will increase by 48 percent by 2030.

If the plant is built, it will be the first new one in the United States in 30 years, the Associated Press reported.

"The spent fuel issue must be resolved," Nesbit said. "We can't build any new nuclear plants until the federal government resolves the spent fuel issue."

Plans call for a permanent underground repository for spent fuel rods to open at Yucca Mountain, Nev., in 2010. However, that project is very controversial.

Exelon, based in Chicago, has with 17 reactors nationwide, generating about 20 percent of the nation's nuclear energy.

--rcroteau@express-news.net

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

The Chattanoogan
August 16, 2007

Wamp Emphasizes Technology That Leads To Energy Independence

by Dana Wilbourn

Congressman Zach Wamp, speaking to the Chattanooga Technology Council on Wednesday, said that with new technology, energy independence is attainable in the United States. “We don’t have to eliminate oil to be energy independent, just reduce it,” he said.

Congressman Wamp said the National Biofuels Initiative is distributing $375 million over the next three years to establish three centers for bio-fuel research. One of those centers, he said, is going to be at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL). ORNL will receive $125 million and will lead one-third of the nation in bio-fuel research.

The National Biofuels Initiative marks the first time in over 30 years that the U.S. had gotten serious about energy independence. The oil embargo of the 1970s was the last time, he said.

The future for Chattanooga and the Tennessee Valley Corridor is bright, the congressman said. Chattanooga is halfway between Oak Ridge and Huntsville on the Tennessee Valley Corridor. “I can foresee mass production of fuel cells at Enterprise South,” he said. “This is our future and we must claim it.”

The Tennessee Valley Corridor, said Congressman Wamp, will lead this country in the coming years in stationary solid oxide fuel cell system design and production.

Rep. Wamp told the group that later in the day he, along with K.R. Sridhar from Bloom Energy Corporation and David Rayburn from Modine Manufacturing Company, would announce the coming of a 100kW Stationary Solid Oxide Fuel Cell demonstration system to the campus of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

A 5kW solid oxide fuel cell already located at the UTC SimCenter on M. L. King Boulevard has been in operation for 18 months and the energy from it is already being sold back to TVA, Congressman Wamp said.

A 5kW solid oxide fuel cell can produce enough electricity to heat or cool a 5,000 square foot house. A 100kW fuel cell could heat or cool a 30,000 square foot office building or supermarket.

The beauty of a stationary solid oxide fuel cell, said Congressman Wamp, is that it is not connected to any transmission lines. It runs off one feedstock source such as natural gas or ethanol.

Speaking of ethanol, Congressman Wamp said, corn-based fuel could ruin our agriculture system and drive the price of corn too high as a food source. An alternative, he said, is switchgrass.

As an experiment, 40 acres of switchgrass is growing in west Tennessee near the city of Milan. Congressman Wamp said that switchgrass can become the feedstock for ethanol fuel production in the southeast. The grass in Milan is currently 9-feet tall and grows as much as 13-feet tall. It can be harvested twice a year and only has to be replanted every ten years. Commercial plants to convert switchgrass to ethanol could be built in the Tennessee Valley area.

The Congressman told the council that Brazil currently uses sugarcane as feedstock for ethanol production, and Ethanol-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is available at almost every gas station in Brazil.

For about $150 each, he said, our cars in the U.S. can be converted to burn Ethanol-85.

Congressman Wamp said that he is an advocate for more nuclear-powered energy production in America. France, he said, leads the world with 80% of their energy produced from nuclear plants.

“You can’t find a better nuclear program in America than right here at TVA,” he said. “TVA has six operating nuclear plants and they run them safely and economically.” “I applaud TVA for announcing the planned completion of a second reactor at Watts Bar,” he said.

According to the Congressman, the problem we have in America with nuclear energy is with storing the nuclear waste.

France, he said, uses a nuclear fuel recycle system that takes the spent fuel and turns it usable fuel or plutonium. That process partially closes the loop in the nuclear fuel cycle.

Whereas France has 56 nuclear reactors, the U.S. has 106, Rep. Wamp said. France has one nuclear recycle center; the U.S. would need two. Our current nuclear waste disposal system, he said, is to store it onsite for eventual shipment to the Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada.

Congressman Wamp said that within the next 10 years he expects a closed nuclear fuel cycle plant to be demonstrated in Tennessee.

Another need in America is a second form of mass transportation, Congressman Wamp said. “Our air transportation is just one incident away from being grounded,” he said. “The MagLev (magnetic levitation) high-speed rail proposal between Chattanooga and Atlanta is a long-shot, but we (as a nation) will be paralyzed if we do not develop a ground-based mass transit system.”

If MagLev is started in the U.S., the first line would be built between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, he said. The Atlanta to Chattanooga route would be built second. MagLev is an exciting possibility, just not a probability, he said.

“People in America are beginning to realize that change is needed,” Congressman Wamp said. “It’s up to Congress make it happen.”

Congressman Wamp told of meeting a group of Battle Academy 5th graders at the Challenger Center at UTC earlier in the day. He said the students were wearing t-shirts that had ‘Battle Geek’ printed on the front. Upon inquiring, he learned that these students have expressed an interest in math and science at their school.

He said that he told them he was proud of them for tackling the tough subjects like math and science because our country will be relying upon them for future technology and scientific advancements.

Paul Weidlich, president of the Chattanooga Technology Council, made the introduction of Congressman Wamp to the council. After citing all of Rep. Wamp’s appointments and chairmanships of various committees and caucuses related to energy and technology he said, “Zach Wamp is a Tech Council kind of Congressman.”

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

Aiken Standard
August 16, 2007

Congressmen Wilson discusses immigration, Yucca Mountain and more

By Haley Hughes

Congressman Joe Wilson, R-S.C., spoke to a group of Aiken business leaders Wednesday on issues circulating in Washington, D.C., placing particular emphasis on immigration, Yucca Mountain and Social Security.

Wilson said he strongly supports the recently introduced Immigration Enforcement Bill sponsored by U.S. Sens. John Kyl (R-Ariz.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas). The bill contains 72 provisions, some of which are the construction of a 700-mile fence at the U.S./Mexico border, the hiring of 14,000 Border Patrol Agents, four unmanned aerial vehicles and a "Catch and Return" provision requiring the Department of Homeland Security to detain those who cross the border illegally.

Now, Wilson said, when immigrants are caught trying to cross the border illegally, they are "caught and released" instead.

"We're still waiting on the first person to come back," Wilson added, eliciting a few chuckles from around the room. "That (bill) will now go to conference. I am really hopeful that it will be implemented."

Rick Osbon, of Obson's Laundry and Cleaners, inquired if there was any component of assimilation in the bill. Wilson said he supports any bill that would mandate English as the country's official language.

Wilson also said he is supportive of moving forward with Yucca Mountain, despite the political agendas of other people in Congress and the state Senate.

Yucca Mountain is a proposed nuclear waste repository, slated for a location 90 miles outside of Las Vegas, Nev. Savannah River Site officials are eyeing it as a possibility for holding the site's waste.

"Hope springs eternal, but it is so political," Wilson said. "I am still hopeful Yucca Mountain will proceed. I am working with a team to address this. But there are people who don't want it to work. I am hopeful we can keep pushing it."

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative branch of Congress, reported earlier this month that it wasn't sure if the Department of Energy could submit the required "high quality" license application for Yucca Mountain by its self-imposed mid-2008 deadline. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must decide whether to approve construction of the nuclear waste dump within four years of receiving the application.

At City of Aiken Mayor Fred Cavanaugh's suggestion, Wilson also touched on the dismal future of Social Security. He cited statistics that in the year 2017, the government will pay out more in Social Security benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. In the year 2027, it will take an extra $200 billion a year to keep the system alive.

"That's just got to be addressed," Wilson said. "There are people who don't see the problem or who don't want to see the problem."

He added that he supported the attempts of President George W. Bush to implement private Social Security accounts, an idea which never gained traction.

Wilson also discussed briefly the War on Terror, the economy, tax breaks for small business owners and port security.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

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

ECM HometownSource
August 16, 2007

The fuel of the universe silenty roars at Xcel Energy's Monticello nuclear power plant

by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

Beneath the yellow circle on the floor the fuel of the universe silently roars — its power, electric and political, reaching far beyond the banks of the Mississippi River.

Xcel Energy’s Monticello nuclear power plant, located on the Mississippi in the northwest metro, is coming off a good year.

Opened in 1971, the plant’s one-unit, 600 megawatt-rated reactor — its top marked by the yellow circle within the multi-level containment area— achieved a 99 percent capacity factor last year.

“Essentially this plant ran flat out, full power for the entire year of 2006,” said Nuclear Management Company (NMC) Monticello Plant Manager Bradley Sawatzke..

NMC manages Xcel’s nuclear power plants.

“It was a record year for us,” he said.

Sawatzke, 48, a graduate of Monticello High School, began work at Monticello in maintenance — one Xcel official quipped you can eat an egg off that plant floor and Sawatzke (pictured at right) speaks of cleanliness setting the right tone — eventually becoming a licensed reactor operator and plant manager.

“I think I have a unique perspective,” he said.

Community welcomes plant

“The community was always pretty welcoming of it (the plant) — they saw it as an opportunity for jobs and a tax base to help with the city,” said Sawatzke.

“I live one mile away. So that tells you all you need to know about my belief (about plant safety) — I have raised my family a mile away from the plant,” he said.

Moving from Point A to Point B within Monticello involves constant scrutiny, measured steps.

Leaving the reactor area requires stepping through a radiation screening device — a female-sounding voice counts down during the sweeps.

Employees wear radiation monitors — footprints on the floor of one corridor beckons pedestrians away from exposed pipes on a nearby wall to minutely reduce their radiation exposure.

Even the choice of a pair of slacks can be meaningful.

Sawatzke cautioned one employee their polyester slacks could set off detectors because the fabric picks up naturally occurring radon.

Gazing out Sawatzke’s office window at the plant a visitor can see the pad that one day will hold dry casks filled with radioactive waste culled from the reactor.

Waste stored onsite

Monticello, like all U.S. nuclear plants, currently stores its nuclear waste onsite.

There is no national collection system.

The last shipment of waste from the plant, Sawatzke explained, was 20 years ago when it was shipped by rail to processing facility in Illinois.

Currently, the waste is amassing in a pool.

“It’s not completely full yet,” Sawatzke said. “It will be after another refueling cycle or two if we don’t get this done,” he said of using the dry casks.

Monticello refuels on a 24-month cycle. That involves changing a quarter of the 12-foot long fuel-bundles in the reactor — there’s 484 of them total.

Monticello plans a “loading campaign” with the dry casks next summer.

Casks will be brought into the reactor facility on a railroad car and hoisted to the top of the reactor.

Exchange done under water

There, the casks will be lowered into the pool — the exchange of old fuel into the casks will be done under water.

Once filled, the cask will then be lowered back onto the railroad car and rolled outside for storage in a concrete bunker on the pad.

Across America last year, some 830 casks sat on pads at nuclear power plants, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry’s chief lobbyist.

Over 161 million people in America reside within 75 miles of temporarily stored nuclear waste, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

“The way the cask system is set up we could probably operate until the end of the our license, which is in 2030,” said Sawatzke. “We’re not counting on that,” he said.

“Our expectations is Yucca Mountain (the national nuclear waste depository site in Nevada) is gong to be finalized, approximately the year 2015, 2016, somewhere in there.” “So they can take that fuel,” he said.

Monticello is older than Xcel’s other Minnesota nuclear power plant at Prairie Island, whose two nuclear reactors came online in 1973 and 1974, respectively.

Power generated is significant

The power generated from the three reactors is significant.

It provides about 30 percent of the power mix in Xcel’s northern states’ power region.

World events have complicated and perhaps brightened things for the nuclear power industry.

The World Trade Center attack raised the specter of terrorists storming the nation’s more than 100 nuclear power plants.

NMC officials are tight-lipped about plant security; guards with military-style weapons slung over their shoulders are commonly seen at Monticello.

Detectors check for explosives.

Specialists at checkpoints peer from behind thick glass panels as if up from the depths of a pond.

An employee escorting a visitor must keep the visitor in sight at all times.

Must have prior authorization

A sign at the plant entrance basically tell visitors without prior authorization to visit to go away.

Although Sawatzke won’t talk about security, he grabbed a marker and drew a picture to illustrate what happened last January to cause an automatic plant shutdown at Monticello.

The incident caught media attention.

Two welds cracked on an I-beam that supports steam lines to the turbine — the turbine generates the electricity with the steam created from the heat from the reactor.

The I-beam, explained Sawatzke, only lowered about six inches. But it was enough for sensor to detect a change in steam pressure, triggering the shutdown.

Things were not falling off walls, Sawatzke insisted. “This whole thing about it fell, it crashed — this I-beam moved about six inches,” he said. The weld dated to the original construction of the plant.

First shutdown in 5 years

The January shutdown was the first automatic shutdown at Monticello in five years, explained Sawatzke. “That’s very, very good performance,” he said.

Monticello has been on line for 36 years, and it’s certainly not a new.

“By nuclear standards, quite honestly, it’s one of the older ones,” said Sawatzke of age of the plant.

“We haven’t built a new plant (in America) in years and years,” he said. “They’re all old,” Sawatzke said of the country’s nuclear plants.

Sawatzke is upbeat about the future of nuclear power in America — industry officials have spoken of a nuclear renaissance.

Nuclear power plants don’t produce greenhouse gasses — they don’t burn anything. The energy is derived from splitting atoms.

“I really think that will help people see the benefits of nuclear power,” said Sawatzke.

A third plant someday?

Could Minnesota see a third nuclear power plant someday?

The state currently has a moratorium against nuclear power plant construction.

Xcel Energy currently is not in the market for a new nuclear plant any time soon.

“We do not have a pressing need right now in our northern service territory to add additional power,” said Charlie Bomberger, Xcel Energy’s general manager of nuclear assets. “So the prospects of new nuclear is not first and foremost on our minds,” he said.

Instead, Excel’s focus has been on getting Monticello and Prairie Island relicensed.

The company has been pursuing a long-term plan for the two plants, one estimated to cost about $1 billion, explained Bomberger. “We will monitor what’s going on in the industry,” he said.

And the moratorium?

“Well, that’s beyond where we are right now,” said Bomberger.

Sawatzke believes it’s possible some day Minnesota could have another nuclear power plant. It’s not out of the question, he opined. “(But) the first new nuclear plant in the county will not be here,” he said. “I can assure you of that,” Sawatzke said.

Boosters in the Legislature

Nuclear power has boosters in the Minnesota Legislature, but it also has its critics.

Rep. Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis, House Environment and Natural Resources Finances chair, opined that lawmakers have already decided to focus on “homegrown Minnesota energy,” such as wind.

It’s sheer speculation to say when Yucca Mountain would begin to receive nuclear waste shipments. “Nobody knows,” she said.

Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, former Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee Chair, said the problem of nuclear waste — the problem of nuclear proliferation — has never been solved.

Nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years, he explained.

Looking backward historically, that radioactive time line would go back to the Age of the Pharaohs, he said.

“I think that would be very unlikely to happen,” Marty said of lawmakers lifting the moratorium. “Certainly, that’s a very uphill fight,” he concluded.

(Photos by T.W. Budig, ECM Capitol Reporter)

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

ECM HometownSource
August 16, 2007

Major issue in U.S. Senate race in Minnesota will be energy

by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

One issue in the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota will be energy, and one form of energy is nuclear power.

What are the candidates’ opinions?

“I’m not reflexively against nuclear power,” said Al Franken, Democratic U.S Senate candidate.

“The obvious disadvantage to it — I don’t think the safety issue is the biggest issue,” said Franken. “I think the issue is the waste — which in itself is a safety issue, and a long-term safety issue,” he said. “That waste is going to be around for thousands and thousands of years,” he said.

It’s been shown greenhouse gases are impacting climate change, explained Franken. “Nuclear offers an alternative,” he said. “I’d much rather focus on conservation. I’d much rather focus on renewables — wind for generating electricity,” he said.

“But I’m not reflexly against nuclear. And we have nuclear plants around the country, so we are storing waste,” said Franken. “I’m kind of counting on the technology of storing the waste to keep up with it,” he said.

Would Franken push to get the proposed federal nuclear storage depository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, opened? “I don’t feel comfortable saying one way or the other on it. I would really have to study that more,” he said. “I know people in Nevada aren’t wild about it,” he said.

U.S. energy independence

DFL U.S. Senate candidate Mike Ciresi said nuclear energy must be considered in the context of U.S energy independence.

“I think we first start from the proposition that we’re not going to entirely move away from fossil fuels — that’s not going to happen,” he said. “I think everybody understands that,” he said. “So I take a look at nuclear as a option that should be looked at,” he said.

“There’s a number of issues. First of all, (waste) storage,” he said.

“What are we going to do about Yucca Mountain — or wherever else,” he asked.

Ciresi looks to the nuclear waste reprocessing as practiced in Europe as an option to be explored. “That’s really a phenomenal advance over the technology we have right now,” he said.

“So I think we ought to take a look at that whether it’s plausible and feasible here in the United States,” he said. “And then there’s the site — where are you going to put it?” he said.

“For everything I know about Yucca Mountain, it was a good site. But it’s kind of the NIMBY attitude — not-in-my-back yard,” he said.

Long-term sustainability

“But from what I know about Yucca, and we’ve spent a fortune there already, that it does seem to have long-term sustainability,” he said.

“Now there’s some argument about that with some people, but by and large, scientifically people feel it is an appropriate place,” he said.

“Whether that’s going to happen or not, I don’t know,” he said. “But I think that issue has to be resolved before we look at the available technologies out there,” he said. “Bottom line for me, I think it’s (nuclear) an option that has to be looked at,” he said.

“I mean we’ve been talking about energy independence since (President Richard) Nixon,” said Ciresi.

Coleman supports nuclear energy

U.S. Senator Norm Coleman supports nuclear energy. “I believe it’s absolutely critical to end our dependence on foreign oil,” said Coleman. “It’s a national security issue,” he said.

“If you’re committed to ending dependence on foreign oil, you have to support nuclear,” said Coleman. “You can’t do it all with renewables, you can’t do it all with wind — those are all critical pieces,” said Coleman. “But you got to do nuclear,” he said.

“It’s clean. It’s safe, it’s affordable. It cuts our dependence on foreign energy. It also protects the environment,” he said.

“I tell people, ‘The French are not braver than we are,’” said Coleman, referring to the extensive use of nuclear energy in France.

The U.S. will be building new nuclear plants in the future, Coleman believes. “Waste is an issue,” he said.

Opposition to Yucca Mountain, Coleman opined, is more philosophical than on account of the waste. “And I think that’s unfortunate,” he said.

Coleman looks to technology to solve nuclear waste issues.

“I think you have to move forward with this. One, Yucca Mountain, move forward aggressively with that,” he said. “On the other hand, with the understanding, just as with renewables, we’re looking beyond the horizon where the future is going (with technology),” he said. “I think you have to do the same thing with nuclear,” Coleman said. “I’m very, very confident on the technology side,” he said.

“I think it’s a straw man to somehow argue your opposition to nuclear is based on waste,” said Coleman.

Nuclear plant security

What about nuclear plant security? “I am confident it would be a terrible mistake to allow fear of an attack to preclude us from moving forward (with nuclear),” he said

The challenge is to make sure the facilities are secure, he said. “I’m confident we can rise to that challenge,” said Coleman. “You cannot let fear dictate and take the position of being frozen and paralyzed from moving forward with developing this energy opportunity,” he said.

“If you allow that fear to take hold, you’d be shutting down a whole range of chemical and gas operations all throughout the Eastern Seaboard,” said Coleman.

“I’m not out there seeking investors for a (another nuclear) plant in Minnesota,” said Coleman. “I am out there saying we have to develop the resource and move forward with more aggressive use of nuclear power in the country,” he said.

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

ECM HometownSource
August 16, 2007

PUC Chairman Koppendrayer says U.S. should be aggressive in pursuing nuclear energy

by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

Public Utilities Commission Chair LeRoy Koppendrayer is direct — you can’t talk about electric power, cutting carbon emissions, and not talk about nuclear energy.

The countries most aggressively pushing the United States to comply with the Kyoto Protocol — to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions — have nuclear power, he said.

“It’s my personal opinion that the United States has made a huge, huge error in not pursuing nuclear energy sooner and more aggressively than we have,” said Koppendrayer, former Republican lawmaker from Princeton.

“We simply have put our head in the sand on that issue — going forward with a lot of rhetoric and a poor energy policy,” he said, speaking for himself, not the commission.

Active in Coalition

Koppendrayer has been active in the National Nuclear Waste Coalition, a lobbying group pushing Congress to more speedily open the proposed federal nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The target date for the facility opening is now 2017.

Minnesota ratepayers have contributed about $350 million toward the federal nuclear waste fund, according to an Xcel Energy official.

According to Nuclear Management Company there is about 1,050 metric tons of used nuclear fuel stored in Minnesota.

“The only thing really holding it (Yucca Mountain) up is the political football in Congress of the funding,” said Koppendrayer. “The rest of the world is building nuclear and we’ve got — we sit here and politically screw around with the issue,” he said.

Nuclear energy in the United States may be on the threshold of a new era, Koppendrayer (pictured at left) opined.

Right now, plans for some 30 new nuclear power plants are on the drawing board, he explained.

No new nuclear power plant has been built in the United States in decades.

The technology has advanced, explained Michael Sellman, NMC President and Chief Executive Officer. NMC manages the Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear power plants for Xcel Energy.

Basically all 103 nuclear power plants in the United States are equipped with second generation nuclear reactors, said Sellman.

“Gen 3” reactors — a lot have been built in Asia — are more passively safe. Advanced models do not even use pumps, Sellman explained.

Hydrogen important

“Gen 4” reactors will be inherently safe, clean running, able to produce not only electricity but hydrogen. “Why do you want hydrogen? Because then you can eliminate your dependence on foreign oil,” said Sellman.

Hydrogen-powered cars could one day replace gas driven.

Sellman views the challenges facing nuclear power as solvable. “That’s overblown,” he said of the nuclear waste being the Achilles’ heel of the industry.

America has an open waste system — nuclear waste is discarded, Sellman explained.

In countries like France, nuclear waste is reprocessed — 95 percent of the power remains in the fuel when its culled from nuclear reactors, he noted.

“If you were to have a nuclear renaissance — build plants — and not close the fuel cycle, then what you need is to do either change the limits on the amount of spent fuel that can be absorbed at Yucca Mountain, or build other depositories besides Yucca Mountain,” said Sellman.

Closing the fuel cycle

America must decide whether it wants more nuclear power plants, Sellman explained. “And if the answer is ‘Yes,’ then we need to take a hard look at closing the fuel cycle,” he opined.

One advantage to reprocessing fuel is that its toxicity can be reduced to 700 years versus thousands of years of toxicity for open cycle nuclear waste.

Koppendrayer expressed confidence in nuclear technology.

“Am I concerned about nuclear — No,” said Koppendrayer. “We know how to handle it, we know how to do it, we know how to do it safely,” he said.

In 60 years of commercial nuclear history, there has never been a death or lost time accident due to nuclear radiation exposure, said Koppendrayer. “It is one of the safest industries you can work in,” he said.

According to PBS’s “Frontline,” between 1931-1995 some 33,134 fatalities occurred in the U.S. coal mining industry.

In U.S. civilian aviation between 1938 to the present there’s been more than 54,000 fatalities.

There has been no deaths historically with U.S. nuclear power.

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

ECM HometownSource
August 16, 2007

Some state lawmakers willing to take second look at role of nuclear power in Minnesota

by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

Legislative action last session shows at least some lawmakers want to take a second look at the role of nuclear power in Minnesota.

A number of local lawmakers — Erickson, Hackbarth, Peppin, Gerlach, Jungbauer, Pariseau — backed legislation to remove the moratorium on new nuclear power plant construction in Minnesota.

The moratorium dates to 1994 Prairie Island legislation.

“It doesn’t really add up to me,” said Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, of someone concerned about global warming rejecting nuclear power.

Peppin fought for the legislation in the House.

“We don’t have a lot of options left,” she said of generating power without contributing to the growth of greenhouse gases.

Attempt to repeal failed

The attempt to repeal the moratorium failed, but caught people’s attention.

“For the first time the Legislature did consider, and there were votes on, elimination of the nuclear facility moratorium,” said Commerce Department Deputy Commissioner Edward Garvey.

Although the moratorium remains in place, lawmakers did approve a study of the economic and environmental affects of building an additional nuclear power plant in Minnesota.

The study is to be completed by March 1.

One person in no hurry to repeal the construction moratorium is Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Pawlenty speaks of the advantages of reprocessing nuclear waste, but also of a culture in Minnesota resistant to changing the moratorium without a nuclear waste breakthrough.

“It’s clear through the literature and even some of the discussion that even some of the environmentalists are at least willing to think about that (an expanded use of nuclear power),” said Pawlenty.

“But in Minnesota our culture is such I think that it would be difficult to do — politically and practically,” he said of repealing the moratorium.

Focus not on another nuclear plant

“So my focus in Minnesota is not going to be on another nuclear energy plant,” said Pawlenty.

Some local lawmakers also express reluctance to change nuclear energy policy.

Rep. Jeremy Kalin, DFL-Lindstrom, has a focus on renewable energy and energy conservation and views nuclear energy as a low priority. “One of the very, very last options,” said Kalin.

Sen. Rick Olseen, DFL-Harris, remains concerned about the waste. “Where are we going with it?” asked Olseen. “Where are we storing it?” he questioned.

Still, one veteran local lawmaker, Rep. Dennis Ozment, R-Rosemount, while wanting the moratorium left in place also wants a renewed debate. “I would like to get the discussion going,” he said, saying some lawmakers still carry ideas about nuclear technology decades old.

The nuclear power industry cites surveys showing the American public comfortable with nuclear energy.

Generational difference

Garvey opined there may be generational difference in the acceptance of nuclear power.

He once taught a university freshman environment course, he explained, and would ask his students if nuclear energy had a role in energy policy.

“And when I first started asking this question, I expected everyone to say ‘No,’” said Garvey.

“I was surprised: it was more or less overwhelming — 75 percent saying ‘Sure.’”

One Xcel Energy official opined that public sentiment about nuclear energy in Minnesota mirrors other areas of the country.

“I don’t think the tone is different than elsewhere,” said Charlie Bomberger, Xcel Energy’s general manager of nuclear assets.

“Rightfully so, there were major concerns back in the early-90s that made it a very difficult environment to get permission to continue to operate nuclear plants,” he said..

“Many things have changed on the national level that influences the state,” said Bomberger, citing global warming as one factor.

Appropriately skeptical

Bomberger styled the region as “appropriately skeptical” about nuclear power.

Will lawmakers succeed in removing the moratorium?

Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, former Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee chair and nuclear energy skeptic, doubts it.

“I think that would be very unlikely to happen — certainly, a very uphill fight,” he concluded.

In addition to ordering the nuclear facility study, lawmakers last session also imposed on Xcel Energy a $350,000 annual fee for every dry cask of nuclear waste stored at Monticello while the plant is operating.

The storage fee will increase if the casks remain after the plant ceases to produce power.

The money is to be paid into a renewable energy fund.

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

ECM HometownSource
August 16, 2007

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository will be designed to send message to the centuries

by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

Will the proposed federal nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada become the Stonehenge of the modern age?

Like Stonehenge in southern Britain, Yucca Mountain, too, will be designed to send a message to the centuries.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a series of tall — about 25-feet high — monuments will ring the Yucca Mountain parameter and also be placed near the top of the mountain.

Warning messages in the six official languages of the United Nations — Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish — are proposed to be written on the monuments.

The markers may also contain sign language symbol warnings used by the deaf.

Linguists suggest a unique international symbol be developed to symbolize a nuclear waste depository.

The warnings on the basalt or granite markers would be placed about 40-inches off the ground to prolong legibility, notes the energy department.

These monuments must endure the rigors of the desert — wind-blown sand that creates “desert varnish” over time, or a darkening on surfaces.

The depository parameter markers are envisioned as six-sided cones jutting upward at varying angles — planners want them to look unusual so people a thousand years hence won’t mistaken them as honorific memorials.

In addition to the large parameter markers, plans call for nine-inch warning markers to be secured to the desert surface — these could be granite, stainless steel, fired clay.

Each marker would display the international radiation symbol.

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

Las Vegas SUN
August 15, 2007

Judge urges compromise on water use for Yucca Mountain drilling

By Ryan Nakashima
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A federal judge urged the U.S. government and the state of Nevada to compromise Wednesday on the use of water for drilling bore holes at the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Lawyers are at loggerheads over the U.S. Energy Department's use of groundwater in defiance of a cease-and-desist order issued by the Nevada state engineer July 20.

The Energy Department says millions of gallons of water are needed to cool and lubricate drill bits used in collecting data about potential earthquakes and floods in the area. The state has said that use of the water in arid Nevada is not in the public interest.

Before adjourning to contemplate a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt told lawyers that he will "strongly submit to the parties" to make a "good faith effort to reach some agreeable compromise."

After a nearly four-hour hearing on the Energy Department's motion for a preliminary injunction to block the state's order, lawyers said they would attempt to reach a deal.

"We'll see if it's a possibility," said Michael Wolz, the attorney for the state engineer.

Department of Justice attorney Stephen Bartell is scheduled to speak with the state's lawyers on a possible compromise Tuesday, said Marta Adams, a lawyer representing Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency.

The proposed underground storage site for 77,000 tons of the nation's most highly radioactive nuclear waste has been vehemently opposed by Nevada politicians and residents.

The site, beneath an ancient volcanic ridge about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was picked in 2002 but the facility won't open until 2017 under the best-case scenario. It has been delayed by legal challenges, budget issues, political opposition and scientific controversies.

Bartell accused state bureaucrats of "using water in an attempt to stop or delay the project" and said the department would suffer irreparable harm if data collection was delayed past a June 2008 deadline when it plans to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He also argued that the government suffered $350,000 in damages by paying for idle drill crews after an initial cease-and-desist order was issued June 1.

The order was lifted temporarily June 12 after officials from both sides met but was reinstated July 20 after they could not agree on conditions for using the water.

Wolz said federal crews ignored the new order and kept drilling, using state groundwater pumped up near the site without permission.

"They switched from negotiations to self-help," Wolz said. Nevada lawyers also complained that the needs of the project kept growing, from an estimated 15 bore holes to 80 and from 300,000 gallons of water to 3.5 million gallon.

"We can't in Nevada, the driest state in the nation, permit use of water for an illegal purpose that keeps changing," Adams said.

Bartell said state law cannot be used as an impediment to projects approved by Congress. He said the water was readily available and did not conflict with any other user.

State engineer Tracy Taylor said of the availability and rights to the water, "that's an analysis I need to do."

The ruling of Taylor's predecessor, Hugh Ricci, that the use of the water was not in the public interest is being appealed by the Energy Department in U.S. District Court.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 14, 2007

Federal lawyers defend water use

Filing contradicts Nevada in Yucca Mountain case

By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal

Contrary to Nevada's stance that the Department of Energy violated a court-approved agreement by using the state's water to drill bore holes at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site, Justice Department attorneys contend in court papers Monday that DOE did nothing wrong.

The 44-page document filed by Stephen Bartell and Ronald Tenpas, attorneys for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, sets the stage for a hearing Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas on their emergency motion to block the state engineer's cease-and-desist order.

"State defendants assert that this case does not involve state regulation of federal activity, but rather state control over acquisition of state property rights which, as a consequence of federal as well as state policy, is exclusively governed by state law. (They) are wrong as to each of these contentions," Bartell and Tenpas wrote.

The lawyers further tried to debunk the state's position, citing the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution which they said prohibits state interference with DOE's water use on federal land.

Scientists at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, have continued to use water from two nearby wells despite State Engineer Tracy Taylor's June 1 cease-and-desist order that was reinstated July 20 after he determined that it is not in Nevada's interest to allow the water to be used to drill bore holes.

The water is used to cool and lubricate drill bits and to create mud for collecting soil and rock samples from hundreds of feet below the surface where DOE wants to build hangar-size buildings above ground for handling and storing spent nuclear fuel before it is entombed in the mountain.

The "geotechnical" information about the potential for earthquakes and floods in the area is needed for a license application for building a repository that DOE plans to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 2008.

State attorneys have argued in court filings that the drilling program should have been completed by 2002 before then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended the site to President Bush.

The Justice Department lawyers assert that activities related to bore hole drilling "lawfully occur 'between' the 'site characterization state' and the 'construction stage.' "

By failing to follow the court-approved agreement and ignoring Taylor's cease-and-desist order, state attorneys have said the Department of Energy and its counselors have come to the court with unclean hands that should disqualify them from receiving a preliminary injunction.

"The state's argument is baseless," the Justice Department attorneys wrote in Monday's filing.

"The correspondence between the parties reveals unmistakably that DOE followed the procedures it had agreed upon, gave ample notice of its planned water use to the state engineer and complied with all previous agreements," they wrote.

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

Las Vegas SUN
August 14, 2007

Federal lawyers defend water use at Nevada's Yucca Mountain

LAS VEGAS (AP) - In advance of a scheduled court Wednesday hearing, Justice Department lawyers argue that the federal Department of Energy didn't violate a court-approved agreement in using Nevada water during drilling near the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump.

Justice Department lawyers Stephen Bartell and Ronald Tenpas made the argument in papers filed Monday in U.S. District Court in efforts to block the state engineer's cease-and-desist order against the water use.

The lawyers said the state engineer is wrong in maintaining that the water use is governed exclusively by state law. They also cited the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing it prohibits state interference with DOE's water use on federal land.

Scientists at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, have continued to use water from two nearby wells despite state Engineer Tracy Taylor's June 1 cease-and-desist order that was reinstated July 20 after he determined that it is not in Nevada's interest to allow the water to be used in drilling bore holes.

The water cools and lubricates drill bits used in collecting soil and rock samples at a site where DOE wants to build hangar-size buildings for storing spent nuclear fuel before it's entombed in Yucca Mountain.

The geotechnical information about the potential for earthquakes and floods in the area is needed for a license application for building a repository that DOE plans to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 2008.

State attorneys have argued in court filings that the drilling program should have been completed by 2002 before then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended the site to President Bush.

By failing to follow a court-approved agreement and ignoring Taylor's cease-and-desist order, state attorneys have said the DOE and its counselors have come to the court with unclean hands that should disqualify them from getting a preliminary injunction.

The plan for the dump, which would contain 77,000 tons of the nation's most highly radioactive waste, has been delayed by legal challenges, money shortages, scientific controversies and political opposition.

The Energy Department was obligated to start accepting waste from nuclear utilities around the country beginning in 1998, but the dump site wasn't picked until 2002 and the site won't open until 2017 under the best-case scenario.

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

Victorville Daily Press
August 14, 2007

Victorville heads to Europe for energy talks

Tatiana Prophet

VICTORVILLE — City officials went to Europe for ways to meet energy demands back home.

Mayor Terry Caldwell and City Manager Jon Roberts recently returned from a week-long trip to Spain and France to find out more about solar, waste-to-energy and nuclear technologies.

Only the cost of Roberts’ airfare and hotel were available, at $3,700, said city spokeswoman Yvonne Hester, adding that Caldwell’s expenses were likely similar.

The city began looking into nuclear energy in 2006, hiring an environmental attorney to explore the possibility of using the technology.

But such a program would require a major legal change, namely the opening of Yucca Mountain to nuclear waste, before any power plant can be built in California, state officials have said.

Caldwell and Roberts are also looking at finding a private company to become the city’s partner in the energy business.

“There’s a great deal of interest by companies in being involved in our public-private partnership, particularly the solar component,” said Roberts, adding that nothing had been finalized.

Unlike nuclear energy, solar is more realistic for the short-term, and is part of the city’s plans for a second massive power plant at the north end of the city — this one near Southern California Logistics Airport.

The 563-megawatt plant is slated to include 513 megawatts of energy powered by natural gas and 50 megawatts generated by the sun.
In Seville, the group toured energy company Solucar’s research and design facility, looking at the latest solar technology.

Solucar is planning to build two of the world’s largest solar plants in Spain. Right now, the titleholder is the Florida Power and Light, which owns a pair of power plants built in the 1970s at Kramer Junction and Harper Dry Lake.

In Paris, city officials met with French company Areva to discuss nuclear technology and with transit company Cofiroute.

City Attorney Andre de Bortnowsky also went along, as well as executives with Victorville’s consultant, Newport Beach-based Inland Energy, who traveled at their own expense.

--Tatiana Prophet may be reached at 951-6222 or at tprophet@vvdailypress.com.

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

Tri-City Herald
August 14, 2007

Business:

Fluor to make senior management changes

Annette Cary

Fluor Hanford and Fluor Government Group will make several changes to senior management effective next week, the Department of Energy Hanford contractor announced Monday.

George Jackson, chief operations officer and executive vice president of Fluor Hanford, has been named manager of Fluor Government Group's Richland Operations Office. He will be replaced at Fluor Hanford by Pete Knollmeyer.

The changes are being made to align the contractor with the work DOE has assigned it in the coming year, Fluor Hanford Chief Executive Con Murphy said in a statement. The changes also are planned to strengthen overall performance and to capitalize on the experience and technical credentials of senior managers, he said.

Fluor's contract with DOE expires in September 2008, and DOE is asking for proposals from companies interested in doing work now done by Fluor, including cleanup of central Hanford other than the tank farms and providing support services across the site.

Fluor's last major reorganization of senior management was announced three years ago.

In his new position, Jackson will lead the 600 employees of Fluor Government Group. About 350 of those employees now are assigned to Fluor or other Hanford contractors or subcontractors to work on cleanup of the nuclear reservation.

He'll be responsible for increasing Fluor Government Group's environmental and nuclear business as well as other government and commercial business. That could include work at Yucca Mountain, Nev., or NASA's testing ground for rocket propulsion, as Fluor Government Group discussed earlier this year.

Norm Powell, who has had dual responsibility for Fluor Government Group's Richland Operations Office and Fluor Hanford's business services organization, now will focus his attention on managing and integrating business services for Fluor Government Group.

Knollmeyer, who will replace Jackson as Fluor Hanford chief operations officer, has been Fluor Hanford's vice president in charge of removing spent nuclear fuel and sludge from the K Basins. Fluor Hanford has about 3,600 employees, which includes some of the Fluor Government Group employees assigned to cleanup work.

Leadership at the K Basins now will be split between Mark Peres and Bob Wilkinson. As vice president of K Basins Operations, Peres will lead activities for the K West Basin and the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, where sludge from the basins will be treated.

With sludge removed from the K East Basin, draining of the water and demolition work will be added to Wilkinson's responsibilities as vice president of deactivation and decommissioning.

Bruce Hanni has been named Fluor Hanford's vice president of business services after serving as assistant controller for Fluor Government Group.

Tony Umek, vice president of safety and health for Fluor Hanford, will lead Fluor Government Group's environmental, safety, health and quality organization.

Most of Fluor Hanford's regulatory compliance and safety and health organizations will be combined under the leadership of vice president Beth Bilson. However, Craig Walton will continue to manage safeguards and security.

Mark Cherry will become the deputy vice president in the waste stabilization and disposition project, which recovers temporarily stored transuranic waste and prepares the waste to be shipped offsite.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 14, 2007

Federal lawyers defend water use

Filing contradicts Nevada in Yucca Mountain case

By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal

Contrary to Nevada's stance that the Department of Energy violated a court-approved agreement by using the state's water to drill bore holes at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site, Justice Department attorneys contend in court papers Monday that DOE did nothing wrong.

The 44-page document filed by Stephen Bartell and Ronald Tenpas, attorneys for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, sets the stage for a hearing Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas on their emergency motion to block the state engineer's cease-and-desist order.

"State defendants assert that this case does not involve state regulation of federal activity, but rather state control over acquisition of state property rights which, as a consequence of federal as well as state policy, is exclusively governed by state law. (They) are wrong as to each of these contentions," Bartell and Tenpas wrote.

The lawyers further tried to debunk the state's position, citing the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution which they said prohibits state interference with DOE's water use on federal land.

Scientists at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, have continued to use water from two nearby wells despite State Engineer Tracy Taylor's June 1 cease-and-desist order that was reinstated July 20 after he determined that it is not in Nevada's interest to allow the water to be used to drill bore holes.

The water is used to cool and lubricate drill bits and to create mud for collecting soil and rock samples from hundreds of feet below the surface where DOE wants to build hangar-size buildings above ground for handling and storing spent nuclear fuel before it is entombed in the mountain.

The "geotechnical" information about the potential for earthquakes and floods in the area is needed for a license application for building a repository that DOE plans to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 2008.

State attorneys have argued in court filings that the drilling program should have been completed by 2002 before then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended the site to President Bush.

The Justice Department lawyers assert that activities related to bore hole drilling "lawfully occur 'between' the 'site characterization state' and the 'construction stage.' "

By failing to follow the court-approved agreement and ignoring Taylor's cease-and-desist order, state attorneys have said the Department of Energy and its counselors have come to the court with unclean hands that should disqualify them from receiving a preliminary injunction.

"The state's argument is baseless," the Justice Department attorneys wrote in Monday's filing.

"The correspondence between the parties reveals unmistakably that DOE followed the procedures it had agreed upon, gave ample notice of its planned water use to the state engineer and complied with all previous agreements," they wrote.

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

Victorville Daily Press
August 14, 2007

Victorville heads to Europe for energy talks

Tatiana Prophet

VICTORVILLE — City officials went to Europe for ways to meet energy demands back home.

Mayor Terry Caldwell and City Manager Jon Roberts recently returned from a week-long trip to Spain and France to find out more about solar, waste-to-energy and nuclear technologies.

Only the cost of Roberts’ airfare and hotel were available, at $3,700, said city spokeswoman Yvonne Hester, adding that Caldwell’s expenses were likely similar.

The city began looking into nuclear energy in 2006, hiring an environmental attorney to explore the possibility of using the technology.

But such a program would require a major legal change, namely the opening of Yucca Mountain to nuclear waste, before any power plant can be built in California, state officials have said.

Caldwell and Roberts are also looking at finding a private company to become the city’s partner in the energy business.

“There’s a great deal of interest by companies in being involved in our public-private partnership, particularly the solar component,” said Roberts, adding that nothing had been finalized.

Unlike nuclear energy, solar is more realistic for the short-term, and is part of the city’s plans for a second massive power plant at the north end of the city — this one near Southern California Logistics Airport.

The 563-megawatt plant is slated to include 513 megawatts of energy powered by natural gas and 50 megawatts generated by the sun.
In Seville, the group toured energy company Solucar’s research and design facility, looking at the latest solar technology.

Solucar is planning to build two of the world’s largest solar plants in Spain. Right now, the titleholder is the Florida Power and Light, which owns a pair of power plants built in the 1970s at Kramer Junction and Harper Dry Lake.

In Paris, city officials met with French company Areva to discuss nuclear technology and with transit company Cofiroute.

City Attorney Andre de Bortnowsky also went along, as well as executives with Victorville’s consultant, Newport Beach-based Inland Energy, who traveled at their own expense.

Tatiana Prophet may be reached at 951-6222 or at tprophet@vvdailypress.com.

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

Tri-City Herald
August 14, 2007

Fluor to make senior management changes

Annette Cary
Herald Staff Writer

Fluor Hanford and Fluor Government Group will make several changes to senior management effective next week, the Department of Energy Hanford contractor announced Monday.

George Jackson, chief operations officer and executive vice president of Fluor Hanford, has been named manager of Fluor Government Group's Richland Operations Office. He will be replaced at Fluor Hanford by Pete Knollmeyer.

The changes are being made to align the contractor with the work DOE has assigned it in the coming year, Fluor Hanford Chief Executive Con Murphy said in a statement. The changes also are planned to strengthen overall performance and to capitalize on the experience and technical credentials of senior managers, he said.

Fluor's contract with DOE expires in September 2008, and DOE is asking for proposals from companies interested in doing work now done by Fluor, including cleanup of central Hanford other than the tank farms and providing support services across the site.

Fluor's last major reorganization of senior management was announced three years ago.

In his new position, Jackson will lead the 600 employees of Fluor Government Group. About 350 of those employees now are assigned to Fluor or other Hanford contractors or subcontractors to work on cleanup of the nuclear reservation.

He'll be responsible for increasing Fluor Government Group's environmental and nuclear business as well as other government and commercial business. That could include work at Yucca Mountain, Nev., or NASA's testing ground for rocket propulsion, as Fluor Government Group discussed earlier this year.

Norm Powell, who has had dual responsibility for Fluor Government Group's Richland Operations Office and Fluor Hanford's business services organization, now will focus his attention on managing and integrating business services for Fluor Government Group.

Knollmeyer, who will replace Jackson as Fluor Hanford chief operations officer, has been Fluor Hanford's vice president in charge of removing spent nuclear fuel and sludge from the K Basins. Fluor Hanford has about 3,600 employees, which includes some of the Fluor Government Group employees assigned to cleanup work.

Leadership at the K Basins now will be split between Mark Peres and Bob Wilkinson. As vice president of K Basins Operations, Peres will lead activities for the K West Basin and the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, where sludge from the basins will be treated.

With sludge removed from the K East Basin, draining of the water and demolition work will be added to Wilkinson's responsibilities as vice president of deactivation and decommissioning.

Bruce Hanni has been named Fluor Hanford's vice president of business services after serving as assistant controller for Fluor Government Group.

Tony Umek, vice president of safety and health for Fluor Hanford, will lead Fluor Government Group's environmental, safety, health and quality organization.

Most of Fluor Hanford's regulatory compliance and safety and health organizations will be combined under the leadership of vice president Beth Bilson. However, Craig Walton will continue to manage safeguards and security.

Mark Cherry will become the deputy vice president in the waste stabilization and disposition project, which recovers temporarily stored transuranic waste and prepares the waste to be shipped offsite.

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

Cleantech Blog
August 13, 2007

Goin' Nucular

by Richard T. Stuebi

It was pouring rain last Wednesday morning, as I entered an office building near Cleveland Hopkins Airport to attend a meeting convened by Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) to discuss the future of nuclear energy.

Unlike many of his peers, Senator Voinovich appears to take the issue of climate change seriously. Also unlike many of his peers, he sees an increasing reliance on nuclear energy as essential in meeting the energy and environmental challenges of the future.

The keynote speakers of this 90-minute meeting were Dennis Spurgeon (Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, DOE), Dr. Peter Lyons (Commissioner, NRC) and Adrian Heymer (Sr. Director of New Plant Development, Nuclear Energy Institute). In attendance were representatives of Ohio-based utilities with nuclear fleets AEP (NYSE: AEP) and FirstEnergy (NYSE: FE), as well as major suppliers to the nuclear industry such as locally-based Babcock & Wilcox.

The basic message from the speakers was simple: a lot of nuclear plants must be built in the coming decades, and the U.S. urgently needs to take steps to get out of the way to enable the development of these new plants. The speakers outlined the activities required to revive the industry to bring about this nuclear "renaissance": Federal loan guarantees (at 100% of debt requirements, not 90%) for new nuclear plants, opening of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage facility, increased training and workforce development to replace retiring nuclear engineers, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), etc.

And, the speakers couldn't reiterate enough how safety was the paramount concern. This is truly an amazing technology if everyone has to emphasize how steps will be taken to ensure disasters don't occur. (I am reminded to recall tour of the Clinton nuclear plant in Illinois in the early 1990's, at which point about 200 of the 1100 site employees -- almost 20% of staffing! -- were dedicated to security, preventing people from doing the wrong things. I can't think of another technology that requires so many band-aids to mitigate perverse effects. Hard to imagine any private investor wanting a piece of that cost structure.)

In the open discussion that followed the speakers' remarks, I had the temerity to question the wisdom of furthering our bet on the uranium-fission cycle as the basic technological platform for nuclear power production in the future.

While I admitted that the current nuclear fleet was an important contributor to the energy mix that we can't afford to prematurely retire, and I conceded that some new nuclear plants of more-or-less conventional technologies may be necessary as a stop-gap measure for a few years, I also submitted that other fission cycles -- certainly including thorium, maybe others as well -- ought to be explored much more thoroughly, so as to create the possibility of a new and much better generation of nuclear plants offering more than just incremental improvements.

This is because, in my view, uranium fission suffers from three unavoidable pitfalls:

1. Uranium supplies are hardly infinite themselves, and have a significant concentration in places like Russia that we ought to prefer NOT to rely upon for precious commodities.

2. Uranium fission creates sizable quantities of transuranic wastes of extreme toxicity and half-lives measured in the thousands of years.

3. Uranium fission makes for excellent bombs -- not only nuclear explosions, but also dirty residues -- that would be highly prized by terrorists and other ne'er-do-wells.

I've been told by credible sources that fission from thorium essentially obviates each of these fundamental challenges. Relative to uranium, there are orders of magnitude more thorium in the earth's crust, and it is widely distributed. Thorium fission produces wastes with much lower toxicity and much shorter half-lives (a few hundred years), in much lower quantities to boot. And, thorium doesn't have a positive gradient that facilitates run-away fission that leads to explosions. These all sound like attractive attributes to me, worthy of a lot more exploration.

Alas, the nuclear experts at the meeting pooh-poohed thorium and defended uranium. They said that never had any uranium been used by bad guys to make a bomb. (You mean, Yet?) They said that the GNEP would create an effective international pact to prevent nuclear materials from getting into the hands of enemies. (Oh, really?) They said that there was plenty of uranium for the next generation of nuclear plants. (And then what?) They said that the GNEP would dramatically reduce the amount of long-lived nuclear wastes from future uranium fission facilities. (For tens of billions of dollars -- what a bargain!)

Ultimately, I was not reassured by the views of the uranium fission advocates. To paraphrase Shakespeare, they doth defend too much. And, note that the nuclear industry is the not-so-pretty offspring of the military-industrial-Oedipal complex of the 1950's.

It is hard to think of a less-credible set of proponents than those who carry the combined DNA of the defense and electric utility sectors, niether of which is particularly famous for a commitment to the truth in the light of established facts. Their mantra has often been: "Trust us." I'm typically not paranoid, but in this case, I am very skeptical indeed.

--Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.

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

Las Vegas SUN
August 12, 2007

Jon Ralston on how presidential hopefuls are trying to curry favor with the Culinary Union

The rhetorical contortions of presidential hopefuls visiting Nevada remain a spectacle not to be missed.

The gymnastics on Yucca Mountain are occasionally entertaining but usually annoying, with practiced buzz phrases such as "sound science" as predictable as the inflated sense by the media that the issue really matters much in presidential voting.

But nuclear waste dump pandering is a sideshow compared to the vaudeville act that is ongoing at Culinary Union headquarters, as the Democratic White House hopefuls serially try to prove who loves labor most. This continues to get ratcheted to new levels in this game of one-upmanship, with Sen. Hillary Clinton the latest to pledge to walk a picket line if the Culinary votes to strike a month from today.

The state's most powerful union has seen elected officials dance for it before - I still remember the competition on the Clark County Commission between Erin Kenny and Yvonne Atkinson Gates to be the Culinary's go-to girl.

But this isn't about influencing a redistricting plan or stopping Wal-Mart from expanding. This is about helping to determine the outcome of a presidential caucus and, by extension, hav ing a potentially significant effect on who the nominee will be if Nevada retains its early-state clout.

We can debate how much actual influence the 50,000-member union will have. Yes, some Culinary members are not Democrats, but those who are generally will follow the union endorsement. And turnout probably will not be nearly as robust as some of the outlandish predictions by some, perhaps as low as 25,000, which will maximize the union's impact.

(One wild card is that the caucus is scheduled on a Saturday during Martin Luther King weekend, and many Culinary workers may have a difficult time getting off from work. I am sure that will be even more difficult at MGM Mirage properties should a strike occur.)

The calculus for the presidential hopefuls is obvious: They believe the union is the key to the caucus, so they will say and do almost anything to curry favor.

And the Culinary folks are exploiting this to the hilt, painting the specter of a picket line in front of the Bellagio with Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and the rest posing for what would be an international press corps. I bet they think this is putting much pressure on MGM Mirage and downtown properties to settle, lest they become national symbols of recalcitrant, greedy managers.

The figurative sight here is as startling as the potentially literal one in September: Candidates running for the highest office in the country are sticking a thumb in the eye of the state's most potent special interest, one that has provided some of their campaigns with money in the past, for short-term gain. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has taken $10,000 this year from MGM Mirage and says he hopes the negotiations bear fruit, also has pledged to join a strike line.)

These candidates, although well briefed before they pander, surely have not tried to get the other side, perhaps with a phone call to MGM Mirage boss Terry Lanni: "Mr. Lanni, I'm trying to decide in a thoughtful, deliberate manner whether to side with the Culinary in this labor dispute. Could you give me your perspective on this issue?"

I have no doubt that most of the candidates think their promise to walk the line carries no political risk. In fact, most probably believe that there will be no strike, so they will not have to deliver.

But rest assured that if the Culinary votes to strike, the union leadership will call in these markers. And the candidates won't be able to use the proverbial "scheduling conflict" to back out of this commitment. They will have to appear on a picket line, whether it's on the Strip or downtown, with all the volatility that such a situation would carry with it.

The evolution for the union has been, ahem, striking. For months the national media have played up the likelihood that Edwards, who is close to Culinary partner UNITE, has a leg up on the endorsement. The locals have downplayed such speculation, insisting Edwards is far from a lock. And with Obama and Clinton equaling or bettering Edwards' rhetoric to workers, union insiders say it is a toss-up.

The Culinary endorsement is not expected to come anytime soon, probably not until late this year. So there is plenty of time for the Democratic presidential hopefuls to carry this high-stakes game of "who loves the Culinary more" to newly spectacular heights.

I wonder who will be carrying the largest picket sign.

--Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program "Face to Face With Jon Ralston" on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the daily e-mail newsletter "RalstonFlash.com." His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or at ralston@vegas.com.

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

Nevada Appeal
August 12, 2007

Burning Man and Yucca Mountain not what they seem

Guy Farmer
For the Appeal

Burning Man and Yucca Mountain have something in common - both are highly dubious projects in the Nevada desert. Let me explain.

Burning Man, the annual naked drug festival co-sponsored by San Francisco-based Black Rock City LLC and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), will take place over the Labor Day weekend in the Black Rock Desert near Gerlach. It will attract some 40,000 "free spirits" who will pay between $250 and $400 apiece for the "privilege" of baking in the sun for three or four days. Doing the math, it's clear that the festival will gross more than $10 million for its aging hippie organizers. And the BLM will rake in about a million dollars - last year's BLM take was approximately $843,000 - for looking the other way as participants do drugs and get naked in the presence of young children.

For years the Burners have claimed that their event is nonprofit and non-commercial and that they're dedicated to art and assorted consciousness-raising activities. But seven-time Burner Chris Taylor, who writes for the techie magazine "Business 2.0," has revealed the truth about the festival in the July issue of that magazine. Taylor confirms that Burning Man is a $10 million business that is now seeking corporate sponsorships. So much for the high-minded New Age baloney that Burning Man organizers "lord Larry" Harvey and "Maid Marian" Goodell peddle to the media every summer.

"We've got four properties in Nevada totaling more than 200 acres," Goodell told Taylor in an interview, "and three people in accounting managing a budget of $10 million." And, sounding exactly like one of those despised CEOs, she confirmed that Black Rock LLC is now seeking corporate partners who will exhibit their products at this year's event without displaying their logos.

This has created a conflict with some old-timers, who believe that the festival "has grown too big and lost touch with its anti-commercial roots," according to Taylor. "We're inviting the Greeks into the heart of Troy," said Burning Man Environmental Director Tom Price. "Burning Man may have to destroy itself to save the planet." How noble!

Another veteran Burner, John Law, who co-founded the event in the early 1990s, sued his former partners earlier this year to strip them of their exclusive rights to the festival's name and logo. "Burning Man belongs to everyone," Law told the AP, implying that BLM, Harvey, Ms. Goodell and their co-conspirators are making money (Gasp!) on a "nonprofit" event. When asked about profits, Maid Marian turned coy while acknowledging that the drug festival has earned "comfortably about $50,000" annually in recent years. I suspect that her estimate is way low; nevertheless, I welcome the Burners back to Black Rock and urge them to spend lots of money in Nevada. Thanks in advance.

• • •

I have often wondered why the federal government continues to pour hundreds of millions of dollars down the Yucca Mountain rat hole even though an overwhelming majority of Nevadans, and most Americans, oppose the toxic project. Today, I offer a possible two-word answer to that question: Dick Cheney.

Here's what the Washington Post reported about Cheney's position on the proposed nuclear waste dump: "The vice president ... pushed to make Nevada's Yucca Mountain the nation's repository for nuclear and radioactive waste - a victory for the nuclear power industry over those with long-standing safety concerns." But are we surprised? No, because Cheney has had a cozy relationship with Big Energy ever since he took office in January 2001.

Public opposition to Yucca Mountain is strong and growing even as the Nuclear Energy Institute continues to buy politicians and pseudo-journalists. A recent national poll by the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that only 28 percent of 1,200 respondents believed that nuclear waste could be stored safely at the Southern Nevada site, and statewide polls have shown that more than 70 percent of Nevadans oppose the multi-million-dollar boondoggle. As the Appeal noted in a recent editorial, "The people have spoken on Yucca Mountain ... A vast majority of people in Nevada don't want any part of a nuclear waste dump within our borders."

Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, has declared Yucca Mountain "dead," The U.S. Energy Department (DOE) presses forward with construction plans. Gov. Jim Gibbons waffled on the hot-button issue earlier this summer when he allowed DOE to use state water for test drilling at the site and moved to appoint a toxic dump supporter, Nye County Commissioner Joni Eastley, to the Nevada Nuclear Projects Commission. Fortunately, the governor quickly came to his senses, rescinding the Feds' state water permit and canceling Ms. Eastley's appointment. DOE is appealing the permit denial.

Note to Gov. Gibbons: Along with most of my fellow Nevadans, I urge you to stay on the right side of this life and death (literally) issue. Your constituents have spoken loudly and clearly on Yucca Mountain and our bipartisan congressional delegation is unanimously opposed to the project. Your predecessor, Kenny Guinn, spoke out early and often against the toxic dump and you'll do the same if you value your political career. Enough said!

• Guy Farmer, of Carson City, is a semi-retired journalist who has been a Nevada resident since 1962.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
August 11, 2007

Nye County up by 386 residents

Special to The PVT

Nye County grew by 386 residents in the second quarter of 2007, county planners estimate, from a population of 46,041 March 31 to 46,427 by June 30.

Pahrump accounted for the vast majority of the increase, it grew by 363 people, from 38,068 residents to 38,431, planners estimate.

Nye County's population increased by 1.5 percent so far this year, from 45,703 at the start of 2007. Pahrump grew at a 1.9 percent rate from 37,696 Pahrumpians at the start of the year.

Elsewhere, Tonopah gained three residents in the second quarter, with 2,870 resident Tonopahns by the latest county estimates. Beatty's population went up by eight, to 1,133 at the end of the second quarter. Amargosa Valley gained seven more people, it now has 1,386 residents.

Smoky Valley took in 10 more residents, it now has a population of 1,767. Gabbs had a gain of three people, for an estimated population of 386. Northeast Nye County has two more residents to count, for a total of 340. Reese River Valley's population stayed at 114.

Nye County planners base their calculations on customer data from various electrical utilities multiplied by the average number of persons per household for each area, as determined by the 2000 census.

Residents in group quarters, like nursing homes and detention facilities, were counted using a trending factor, which are checked by annual telephone interviews. There are now no residents permanently residing on the Nevada Test Site and Tonopah Test Range.

The population estimates are used to monitor and assess baseline conditions for the Yucca Mountain projects, to prepare baseline projections for the county and its communities and for public and private agency planning