Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, September 27, 2007
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
September 27, 2007
Editorial: Yucca becoming irrelevant
Eager to build more plants, nuclear power industry warms to on-site waste storage
Owners of the South Texas Project, a nuclear power plant southwest of Houston, are planning a $5.2 billion expansion - and "Whether Yucca Mountain happens or not plays no part in our calculation," an executive says.
Their announcement at a news conference on Tuesday in Washington signals the start of a new strategy for justifying the building of more nuclear power plants.
Part of the reason - aside from safety and cost - that nuclear power plants have not been proposed in decades was that Yucca Mountain is years from opening.
In the past 25 years the federal government has spent $8 billion preparing the mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the site for burying the plants' deadly nuclear waste.
Nevada has spent that time documenting the ways in which the burial plan would pose grave risks. The state thinks, as we do, that the waste should continue to be stored at existing nuclear power plants until a solution far safer than burial is developed.
Stubbornly, the federal government and the nuclear industry have clung to the Yucca Mountain plan - largely to justify building more nuclear power plants.
But two facts are now becoming clear: The Nevada congressional delegation, particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has been effective in blocking a Yucca repository, and there is no guarantee the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would license it, given the safety issues.
David Crane is president of Princeton, N.J.-based NRG Energy, one of the owners of the South Texas Project. He said Tuesday that there's plenty of room at the company's 12,200-acre site in Bay City, Texas, to store all the plant's waste from its existing reactor and the two it plans to build.
So after years of the nuclear power industry being opposed to on-site storage, it is suddenly OK in Texas. We think on-site storage is the only option for existing nuclear power plants, because the waste purportedly will be safe there for about 100 years.
But no more plants should be built until there is a true long-term solution to the waste, which in its present form, will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.
---------------------------
Santa Fe New Mexican
September 27, 2007
Senator rallies around nuclear-plant application
By Andy Lenderman
Domenici’s steadfast nuclear support draws quick criticism
Presidents and pop stars come and go, but one thing stays the same: Sen. Pete Domenici’s steadfast support for nuclear power.
Domenici, R-N.M., heralded the first nuclear power plant application in 29 years this week by hosting a capital news conference and broadcasting his message to news outlets all over the state. But it’s not always a welcome message, and the public is still not sold on the idea, some say.
“Nuclear energy is a clean, efficient power source that America will need if it is to meet expected energy demands over the next several decades,” Domenici said in a news release. And global warming is a reason to support it, he says.
“I believe that any serious effort to address climate change must include nuclear power,” he said.
Two new reactors would be constructed by NRG and the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co. in Matagorda County, Texas. Those companies have filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Incentives like risk insurance and loan guarantee programs were provided to the industry in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which Domenici wrote with U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.
Today, almost 20 percent of the country’s electricity comes from 104 nuclear power plants. There are three in Arizona, four in Texas and none in New Mexico. Most are east of the Mississippi River.
“This is the first time in almost 30 years that the NRC received a licensing application for a new nuclear power plant,” Bingaman said in a statement. “Nuclear power is an important part of our nation’s energy mix.”
One student of energy issues said Domenici is a spokesman for the industry. “Without the over-the-top promotion, I don’t know that nuclear power would be a serious consideration today,” said Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group.
Mello said without government subsidies, the applications would not appear. “And some people might think that they will help us with global warming, but it will be too little and too late and too expensive,” Mello said “… And then we come to the waste part.”
Political opposition and environmental issues have stopped the government from opening Yucca Mountain, a permanent waste dump in Nevada.
Indeed, there are intellectual arguments for nuclear power, a political science professor at The University of New Mexico said, like greater energy independence. But there are trust issues about the government taking care of waste, and nobody wants a power plant in their backyard, professor Lonna Atkeson said.
“If safety trumps efficiency and clean energy, then people aren’t going to be supportive of it,” she said. Atkeson studies public opinion, and added many people have a negative view of nuclear energy.
Contact Andy Lenderman at 986-3037 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
September 26, 2007
Maybe no dump at Yucca after all
First new nuclear plant in decades says it can store its own waste
By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun
WASHINGTON - For years Yucca Mountain and the future of nuclear energy in this country have been intertwined until, suddenly Tuesday, that seemed to no longer be the case.
At a packed Capitol Hill news conference celebrating plans for the nation's first new nuclear power plant in a generation, senators praised the project. Colorful charts showed what the future would bring.
Then 45 minutes into the briefing the most important issue for Nevadans emerged: Would Yucca Mountain, the nation's planned repository 90 miles outside Las Vegas, be expected to store the nuclear waste?
Not necessarily, came the answer.
The chief executive of the firm submitting the first nuclear power application in nearly 30 years for a pair of plants in south Texas said that as far as he's concerned, the waste can stay on the company's 12,200-acre site for the next century.
"There's plenty of room to store our own waste," said David Crane, president and chief executive of NRG Energy Inc.
Later he told reporters: "Whether Yucca Mountain happens or not plays no part in our calculation."
Ever since Washington chose Yucca Mountain to be the nation's nuclear waste dump over Nevada's objections five years ago, the Bush administration's hoped-for nuclear energy renaissance and Yucca Mountain have been intertwined.
Without a guaranteed place to store the waste, new plants would have difficulty coming online.
Now, if the companies are saying they don't need Yucca Mountain, who does?
Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley's spokesman, David Cherry, said, "if it's perfectly OK to leave it in Texas for the next 100 years, what is the urgency - or need, period - for Yucca Mountain?"
"The whole dialogue has shifted in our favor," Republican Rep. Jon Porter said. "This should change history as to the future storage of nuclear waste."
What came through Tuesday was the acknowledgment by NRG Energy and industry backers in Congress that on-site storage will be the de facto plan for the future.
The company's application is the first of 28 expected in the next few years for 32 new plants , according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses the facilities.
Government regulators have long said that spent fuel can be safely stored at plant sites well beyond the life of those facilities - for at least 90 years.
Perhaps the industry's strongest supporter in Washington, New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, said Tuesday that a permanent repository remains the goal, but interim options should be on the table.
"Some people believe we should proceed with the site in Nevada, and others believe it's close to becoming a research facility," Domenici said.
"I think we're ready as a nation to get around to a temporary storage facility," he said. "That's what I'm hoping for."
Domenici called the waste issue "the most important question."
But he added, "I'm not worried yet."
Even as nuclear energy has grown in popularity as a way to curtail global warming, Yucca Mountain's popularity has been waning among the industry and lawmakers as the project drags on. When Nevada Sen. Harry Reid became majority leader in January, some thought the proposed repository was doomed.
More than 50,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are stored at power plants across the country. Because of the delays, the government failed to carry out its legal responsibility to take the waste to Yucca Mountain, and the companies have sued the government for storage costs.
Separately, the Energy Department has been entertaining ideas to store waste at research sites nationwide that are being considered to pursue nuclear waste reprocessing - a method of recycling the waste that scientists think remains decades off.
Nevada's congressional delegation has sought legislation to have the government take ownership of waste at existing storage sites nationwide.
"This is the way the nuclear industry needs to be thinking," Reid spokesman Jon Summers said.
Although the industry's new attitude may be good for Yucca's critics, it still poses problems for the nation, some said.
The industry still has no long-term solution for one of the most dangerous materials on the planet, Cherry said.
"I'm sure the people of Texas will be thrilled to hear they will become a waste dump," he said. "They're going to create trash there's nowhere to put."
Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 26, 2007
Yucca review board in dark
Project design changes revealed only recently
By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal
New evidence of the location of the Bow Ridge earthquake fault line prompted designers of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project to change where they had planned to build concrete pads for cooling thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel.
But the design change made in June as project officials rushed to complete bore hole drilling operations wasn't discussed with a presidential board overseeing the scientific work until last week, the board's chairman said Tuesday.
"It was not discussed in our meetings," said B. John Garrick, chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
He said the first he heard about the realignment of the Bow Ridge fault line was last week during a private "fact-finding" session with project scientists between public sessions of the board's meeting in Las Vegas.
"This is a work-in-progress issue," Garrick said. "It isn't just a matter of the aging pad. It has to be addressed in the context of all the facilities."
Garrick said government scientists are still trying to calibrate how active the Bow Ridge fault is and the potential force it could unleash.
Garrick said the Department of Energy has provided few details about the aging pads or other surface facilities where spent nuclear fuel canisters from the nation's commercial power reactors will be handled and stored for decades before they are entombed in the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Garrrick said it's unclear if the pads will be covered or not.
"I have not seen any drawings that the pads will be sheltered, but they may be," he said. "One thing for sure; the canisters will be warm."
Project spokesman Allen Benson said scientists found out several months ago after analyzing rock core samples that the Bow Ridge fault line runs hundreds of feet east of where they thought it was located.
As a result, the surface facilities design was changed June 18 so that the pads wouldn't be built directly over the fault line. Instead, they were moved about 100 feet east of where designers had planned them on March 29.
Last week the Review-Journal obtained a May 21 letter to project officials from the U.S. Geological Survey describing "preliminary drilling results" that indicated the Bow Ridge fault was farther east than originally mapped.
A story about the letter Monday quoting Nevada Nuclear Agency Projects chief Bob Loux revealed that the Energy Department would either have to change the design or show regulators in a license application that the pads could be fortified to withstand a surface offset of the Bow Ridge fault.
In an e-mail Monday, Benson said, "Changing the design and location of facilities to enhance safety is the right thing to do. "The information presented here is not new. It has been discussed at Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board meetings."
But Tuesday, Benson said he misspoke before learning that Garrick confirmed that board members had only heard about Bow Ridge fault line's realignment for the first time in last week's private session.
Loux, a longtime critic of the project, reacted, saying, "DOE only tells information that they think helps them out. This is certainly not going to be the only 11th hour surprise they find as they move toward a license application.
"They have a fundamental lack of knowledge about the geology of the site, otherwise they would have known where these things are," Loux said.
The Department of Energy couldn't provide the Review-Journal with a map that shows the location of faults in reference to the planned location of surface facilities and the proposed repository site.
"All of that will be in the license application," Benson said. "We are not going to piecemeal discuss our license application in the media."
DOE officials have repeatedly said they will meet a self-imposed deadline of submitting a license application for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review by June 2008.
Garrick said he expects the detailed design at that time will only be 35 percent complete based on Energy Department estimates.
Geologist Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant to Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the danger posed by earthquake faults in the area of surface facilities is not just limited to displacement of the surface but ground shaking as well.
"If you have strong ground motion, things can tip over and bounce," he said about the waste canisters. "The danger is they'll fall over and rupture."
If that happens, the highly radioactive materials could contaminate the surface and spread potentially deadly particles into the environment.
He said by moving the planned location of one of the aging pads 100 feet away from the Bow Ridge fault line "doesn't mean it's still not sitting on top of it."
Frishman said Energy Department is designing the aging pads to hold up to 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or roughly one-third of the repository's capacity, which is 77,000 tons. Officials expect it will take 24 years to fill the repository.
Frishman said the transport, aging and disposal canisters are being designed for a 100-year life span because the canisters could sit outside the repository site without any maintenance for as long as 60 years after having sat at reactor sites for 40 years.
"One of the issues we've had with the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) all along since they (DOE) came up with aging pads is they shouldn't be regulated under the repository license," he said.
"Instead, if it's a big storage facility, it should be regulated the same way as private fuel storage, the same as for a nuclear power plant," Frishman said.
"If you look at the faults at Yucca Mountain, it is highly unlikely you could license a nuclear power plant there."
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
September 26, 2007
In Brief
Yucca Mountain open house
The Department of Energy will present three new emergency response vehicles to Nye County during a ceremony at the Yucca Mountain Information Center, 2341 Postal Drive.
An open house hosted by the Yucca Mountain Information Center, Valley Electric and Nye County Emergency Services will be form 9 a.m. to noon Sept. 29.
There will be an interactive power demonstration and participation in emergency response related activities.
Hamburgers and hot dogs will be served.
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
September 26, 2007
Sue Ballew
Pages from the Past: 20 Years Ago
Senator Pete Domenici (New Mexico) is opposed to considering offering his state for a high-level nuclear waste dump and wants one of the three current candidate sites to be chosen. Those sites are Yucca Mountain in Southern Nevada; Hanford, Washington and Deaf Smith County, Texas.
---------------------------
Heritage Foundation
September 26, 2007
The Nuclear Renaissance: Ten Principles to Guide U.S. Policy
by Jack Spencer
WebMemo #1640
Nuclear power has many advantages over other power sources, but a global expansion of peaceful nuclear technology could present risks if not managed properly. While acting to mitigate these risks, U.S. policy should, as in other sectors, include pro-market regulatory reforms, foster competition, and avoid unnecessary intervention. The government will, however, have a more direct role in the nuclear sector than in most industries due to its history and the nature of the technology. Following the government-induced stagnation of the industry in the 1970s and 1980s, the private sector remains leery of making large investments without a clear sign that the government will not regulate the industry out of business again. To reap the benefits of nuclear power, while minimizing the risks, the United States must commit to reestablishing itself as a technology leader in commercial nuclear power, avoid unwanted foreign dependencies, modernize its approach to waste disposal, promote marketplace freedom, and modify its approach to nonproliferation. The 10 straightforward principles laid out in this paper should guide Congress and the Administration's actions.
1. Avoid creating dependency-based vulnerabilities.
To the casual observer, nuclear energy is domestically produced. The plants exist in America, are generally operated by Americans, and generate electricity distributed to Americans. This is a narrow view, however; it does not respect the significance of the industrial and intellectual base that produces the people, components, and fuel necessary to build and operate nuclear plants. After three decades of decline, the domestic industrial base does not have the capacity to produce the components for a single reactor.
This lack of capacity goes beyond items that are easily found on the international market. Essential components, such as heavy forgings (the enormous pieces of metal out of which components are manufactured) and specialized piping, are not available domestically and are in limited supply internationally. These industrial bottlenecks could be difficult to overcome as nuclear plant construction ramps up. Ultimately, there is little difference between relying on foreign oil or foreign manufacturing if both allow America's ability to produce energy to be disrupted by foreign interests. This reliance creates opportunities for others to exercise power over the U.S. Minimizing these leverage points is central to advancing national interests. The Administration and Congress must avoid the potential vulnerabilities and risks associated with foreign energy dependence.
2. Establish technological leadership across the spectrum of military, civilian, and commercial nuclear activities.
The international influx of investment to the commercial nuclear sector (public and private) almost guarantees that more advanced nuclear technologies, some of which could threaten the United States, will become available to unfriendly actors. Preventing this requires that the U.S. and its allies establish technological superiority across the spectrum of nuclear activities. Close links among civil, commercial, and military nuclear technologies will assure that those nations with the most advanced commercial and industrial capabilities are able to develop the most advanced military technologies. Therefore, it is vitally important that America's nuclear industrial base, along with that of its close allies, both commercial and military, remain globally preeminent.
3. Assure access to the components, capabilities, and materials necessary to build, operate, and maintain America's nuclear power plants.
Several critical sectors of the nuclear industry will have to be strengthened to support a near-term, sustained effort to expand America's commercial nuclear industry. For example, the very large forgings needed to build reactors are available only in Japan, which can provide parts for only seven or eight reactors annually. This is not adequate to sustain a broad nuclear renaissance. Only one U.S. company today can take those forgings and manufacture them into the components used to build reactors. Other choke points may include the capacity to manufacture steam generators and specialized piping. Even if there were additional manufacturers, there are too few skilled technicians, boilermakers, pipe fitters, electricians, and ironworkers to support the effort. Supplies of raw materials must also be secured. Global capacity could be enough to support the near-term expansion of America's nuclear power industry, but problems will arise as other nations expand their nuclear industries simultaneously. This will seriously stress the current infrastructure and challenge America's ability to meet its energy needs.
4. Promote free trade as a central tenet of the global nuclear industry.
The nuclear marketplace is often understood to be global, but this is not exactly true. Though the U.S. market is certainly international, with companies from around the world—many state owned and subsidized—doing business in the United States, most states control foreign access to their markets. American companies are effectively barred from most countries' markets through a combination of tariff and non-tariff barriers, bureaucracy, protectionism, and onerous liability regimes. This is becoming a significant issue as major manufacturing countries like China and India and parts of Europe are developing plans to expand their commercial nuclear capabilities. Gaining access to these markets will be crucial to the long-term health of America's domestic nuclear industrial base.
5. Limit subsidies to the commercial nuclear industry.
The federal government has a critical role to play in the initial phases of the American nuclear rebirth, but this role must be finite. Many countries are choosing to consolidate control over their nuclear industries to protect their strategic and economic interests. This approach may seem attractive in the near-term—it allows these industrial titans to underbid competition, minimize risk calculations, and enjoy market preferences—but it will undoubtedly leave those industries worse off in the long-term.
Congress and the Administration must resist efforts to rebuild America's commercial nuclear industry through long-term federal support. While some near-term incentives may be appropriate, given the government's part in inducing the current atrophy of the nuclear industrial base, industry must not become dependent on subsidies. An American industry that grows out of the free market will be stronger over the long term. Furthermore, a competitive, market-driven U.S. industry will provide critical competition to the state-owned and state-supported companies that currently lead the commercial sector. Strong competition will force these nationalized and quasi-nationalized industries to maintain high quality standards. Quality assurance is critical to the success of nuclear energy, because an accident at one facility could negatively impact the entire industry.
6. Recognize nuclear power as a clean and abundant energy source.
It is not good that the federal government is working to pick winners and losers in the energy market. The results will surely be increased costs and limited choices for U.S. consumers. Instead, once a set of goals and priorities are set following adequate public debate, the government should remain technology-neutral. In the current political climate, however, this may be unrealistic. If the government is not able to be neutral, it should at least do as little harm as possible. Federal laws, programs, and regulations should recognize nuclear power as an emissions-free, domestic energy source just like wind, solar, and other favorites of the environmental community. Furthermore, nuclear energy is abundant. Whether or not it fits the strict definition of “renewable,” the fact is that known uranium stocks will last for a very long time—perhaps centuries or even millennia, with certain fuel recycling technologies.
7. Move beyond a Yucca-only approach to spent nuclear fuel.
When the nuclear industry was in decline, there was little incentive to resolve the Yucca impasse or develop alternatives, but renewed interest in expanding America's nuclear fleet demands a change in policy. The expansion of nuclear power in the United States should not be held hostage to political differences over the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear by-product repository.
Although Yucca is critical to the overall future of nuclear power in the United States, other disposition options do exist. The recycling (capturing the unused energy from spent nuclear fuel) component of the President's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is an important part of moving beyond Yucca. Depending on how technology evolves, recycling spent nuclear fuel could reduce the amount of highly radioactive waste that will require permanent storage. In addition, utilities have demonstrated the potential of interim storage over the past four decades, as they safely kept spent nuclear fuel while waiting for the government to take title of the material. The most appropriate policy will likely combine on-site, interim, and permanent storage with recycling.
8. Recognize that nuclear weapons are not the result of peaceful nuclear energy programs.
Nuclear energy critics often argue that the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation outweighs any potential benefits of nuclear power. While civilian nuclear power has been used to clandestinely pursue nuclear weapons programs in the past, there is no causal link between the two. As has been demonstrated consistently throughout history, states act in their interests and generally behave according to agreed norms only to the extent that doing so advances their national objectives. Therefore, limiting the technology development of peaceful nations will not serve to limit the threatening behavior of other nations. With very few exceptions, law-abiding countries do not divert their energy programs for weaponry.
9. Modify international nuclear regimes to better manage a global nuclear renaissance.
The prevailing thrust of global nonproliferation policy has been to keep weapons out of the hands of non-weapons states. The grand bargain of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was that its parties would have access to all nuclear technology so long as it was not weaponized. This allowed countries like Iran and North Korea to operate within the letter of the treaty while amassing technology to begin a weapons program. With the growth of nuclear power, the focus should be on the fuel cycle. Rather than be based on five nuclear weapons states, the nonproliferation regime should be based on a limited number of nuclear diverse fuel states. Some countries could still pursue nuclear weapons, but by focusing on fuel cycle activities, this nonproliferation regime would make such nations much easier to identify, because they will have moved beyond the bounds of international norms much earlier in the process.
10. Pursue nuclear power programs that make the U.S. government work better.
Because of the integrated nature of the nuclear industry, government programs work symbiotically with the private sector. The United States should not fund programs simply to support the nuclear industry; legitimate programs, however, will assure that the United States maintains critical capabilities that nuclear technology uniquely provides and serve as vital investment in essential intellectual capital. For example, growing the Navy's fleet of nuclear submarines and surface ships will help meet critical national security requirements and strengthen the domestic commercial industrial base. Rationalizing, streamlining, and modernizing the nation's nuclear weapons complex and the Department of Energy laboratory system would not only save taxpayers money but would also strengthen domestic nuclear capability.
These programs not only make financial sense and provide significant operational upgrades but also demonstrate U.S. commitment to nuclear energy. These are the most important activities that the government can undertake to stimulate the nuclear industry, and undertaking them bolsters private-sector investor confidence. Ultimately, these steps would lead to a robust nuclear industrial base and the development of the skilled personnel base required to support an expansion of nuclear power in the United States.
Conclusion
The United States risks cementing its status in the second tier of commercial nuclear power states unless it takes action. While European and Asian companies aggressively work to meet the emerging demands of a growing commercial nuclear market, America's industry has lost its capacity, intellectual expertise, and competitive edge. For economic and national security reasons, U.S. policy must change to better promote and manage the growth of nuclear power.
--Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
---------------------------
KLAS-TV
September 25, 2007
Earthquake Fault Possible Beneath Yucca Mountain Site
Tedd Florendo
Reporter
Drilling operations at the Yucca Mountain project, north of Las Vegas, have unearthed a big surprise that could create concern about the project.
New rock samples show preliminary evidence of an earthquake fault right underneath where Yucca Mountain project planners want to handle highly radioactive waste.
U.S. Geological Survey maps show the fault beneath where officials hope to build concrete pads to store spent radioactive fuel canisters.
The possible discovery of a fault doesn't surprise environmental science professor Barry Perlmutter who says Nevada ranks third in the nation, behind California and Alaska, for active fault lines.
View recent earthquake activity in Nevada and California
The head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects calls the finding an example of technical work being done after-the-fact. Executive Director Bob Loux says this is one of the reasons the project should be stopped.
"If you had a bunch of spent fuel on this concrete pad and some sort of event that triggered the fault, the dry canisters could fall and come apart and release some of the contents," he said.
The Department of Energy released a statement saying safety is their number one concern and the purpose of the drilling is to find specific places to put the concrete facilities. They say they will not build on spots that are seismically active.
Congress picked Yucca Mountain in 2002 to become the nation's nuclear waste dump.
---------------------------
The Guardian
September 25, 2007
US nuclear dump plan in danger after seismic shock
Fred Attewill
The most expensive public works project in the US was today in disarray after it emerged that a planned giant nuclear dump would be located on a faultline.
Rock samples from deep within Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, showed that the fault runs directly beneath the site where the US federal government planned to store 70,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste.
More than $8bn (£4bn) has already been spent on the $58bn project, which had been due to open in 2017, but the proposals - approved by George Bush in 2002 - may now have to be redrawn.
Samples taken from 76 metres below the surface of the mountains, which are around 90 miles north-west of Las Vegas, revealed that the Bow Ridge fault passes hundreds of metres to the east of where scientists believed it lay.
The measurements were backed up by US Geological Survey maps and a letter, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported yesterday.
The fault is now thought to run beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels inside the mountain.
Bob Loux, the executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, expressed amazement that the US Department of Energy had only just carried out the "11th hour" drilling tests.
"It certainly looks like DoE has encountered a surprise out there, and it certainly speaks to the fact they haven't done the technical work they should have done years ago," he told the paper.
"It's going to have to cause some change of the design in the final analysis. It's going to impact the safety case."
The state of Nevada - the third most seismically unstable in the US - has long opposed the project on the grounds that earthquake activity makes the site unsafe.
Since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 on the Richter scale within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain.
The Department of Energy refused to comment on the claims, but project officials said they were continuing to develop repository design, construction and operating plans in preparation for applying next year for a licence from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
---------------------------
Mohave Valley News
September 25, 2007
Yucca nuclear dump structures moved after fault-line study
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Engineers made plans to move some structures at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump after rock samples indicated a fault line unexpectedly ran beneath their original location, an Energy Department official said Monday.
Allen Benson, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy in Las Vegas, said adjustments to the project were made in June.
‘‘In the spring we discovered the true course of the Bow Ridge fault line. As a result we moved locations several hundred feet'' to the east, he said. ‘‘That's why we do studies, to come up with information to make the repositories safer.''
The department responded to a published report that cited a May 21 letter in which U.S. Geological Survey maps showed the Bow Ridge fault ‘‘may be farther east than projected.''
The Las Vegas Review-Journal said it obtained the documents last week.
Bob Loux, head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects and the state's chief anti-Yucca administrator, said he was not reassured by what he called ‘‘just-in-time engineering.''
‘‘This represents a complete lack of understanding about the site's characteristics,'' Loux said. ‘‘They've been out there for 25 years or longer. And they get surprises like this. This is basic geology, stuff they should have known all along.''
The May 21 letter and maps show the fault beneath where officials hoped to build concrete pads to store spent radioactive fuel canisters for cooling before they are entombed in tunnels inside the mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Core samples from 250 feet below the surface showed the fault is hundreds of feet east of where scientists thought it was, and that it passes beneath the initial site for the storage pads, forcing their relocation, Benson said.
Recent rock core sampling operations have spurred a legal battle in federal court in Las Vegas.
State Engineer Tracy Taylor has asked U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt to order the Energy Department to stop using Nevada water for cooling and lubricating drill rigs collecting rock samples.
Hunt denied the state request last week.
Congress in 2002 picked Yucca Mountain to become the nation's nuclear waste dump, with plans calling for entombing 77,000 tons of spent radioactive fuel hauled to Nevada from 39 states. But the plan has been delayed by legal challenges, money shortages, scientific controversies and political opposition. Planners now concede the dump won't open before 2017.
Project officials say they are continuing to develop repository design, construction and operating plans in preparation for applying next year for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
To meet that self-imposed June 2008 deadline, project planners are taking a nontraditional approach to risk assessments, based on probabilities that earthquakes will occur.
A scientist for a project contractor told an oversight panel last week in Las Vegas that planners expect to know by February what could go wrong with surface facility equipment, and potential consequences. Michael Frank of Bechtel SAIC Co. called the task ‘‘a very large effort with a compressed schedule.''
Seismologist Leon Reiter said more than 10 faults within a 20-mile radius of Yucca Mountain could generate ground motion.
---------------------------
Common Dreams
September 25, 2007
New Reactors in South Texas Would Set U.S. Energy Policy on Misguided Course
September 25 - Today, NRG Energy said it is submitting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new reactors at its South Texas nuclear site. This is the first full application for a new reactor in the U.S. in more than 30 years.
This project is emblematic of the failures of U.S. energy policy to effectively meet the needs of our nation. Nuclear power is a 20th century technology in a new world of climate crisis and a future that demands a distributed, sustainable approach to energy. Nuclear power requires massive taxpayer subsidies and yet still cannot compete environmentally with the sustainable energy technologies that will power our future.
NRG Energy already has been quoted in the media (Washington Post, September 25, 2007) as saying that “the whole reason” the company is considering new nuclear reactors is taxpayer subsidies provided by Congress and the Bush Administration in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. These multi-billion dollar subsidies include taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors, tax credits for the first six reactors built, the Price-Anderson Act limitation of utility liability for nuclear accidents, and “risk insurance” to cover possible delays in the licensing process.
Without taxpayer support, no utility would build a new atomic reactor, and no financial institution would invest in a new reactor.
Moreover, the NRG Energy application would repeat one of the fundamental mistakes of the first generation of nuclear power: the construction of nuclear reactors without a feasible facility or plan for storage of the lethal radioactive waste the reactor would produce. The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, radioactive waste dump is on its last legs, and appears increasingly unlikely to ever open. Even if it did, a new round of nuclear construction would necessitate construction of another radioactive waste dump as well—something no state in the country likely would accept. After 50 years, one would think the lesson would have been learned: building atomic reactors without a scientifically-sound waste plan is folly.
Texas is blessed with enormous potential for wind and solar power, while aggressive energy efficiency programs remain the cheapest, fastest and cleanest method of addressing both electricity demand and the need to quickly reduce carbon emissions. Construction of new reactors in Texas would divert the resources needed to implement those efficiency programs and help solar and wind reach their full potential—to the detriment of Texans and all Americans.
Both Texas and the United States deserve better than a greedy utility feasting at the taxpayer trough to build another large polluting power plant. We expect Texans to oppose the NRG Energy project, and we expect to help Texans with their opposition.
---------------------------
Wall Street Journal
September 25, 2007, 2:09 pm
Congress Hearts Nukes
Posted by Mark Gongloff
Siobhan Hughes has this report on one place where the nuclear revival has big fans:
U.S. lawmakers gave a warm embrace to NRG Energy and its plans to build two new nuclear reactors, vowing to do everything in their power to speed approval of the first nuclear-reactor application in about three decades.
Sen. Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who has long advocated for nuclear energy, and fellow lawmakers portrayed the plans as a way to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming and lessen dependence on imported energy.
“In my judgment, any serious effort to reduce carbon emissions in this country must include nuclear power,” Domenici said before a Senate hearing room that was filled with nuclear-power advocates. “Nuclear power is clean, efficient, safe, and across the globe other nations are taking advantage of it.”
NRG Energy late Monday submitted an application to build two new reactors at its existing South Texas facility, expecting the reactors to be running starting in 2014. The filing was the first of what is expected to be a flood of applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has already awarded contracts to outside firms to help review the applications.
“I want you to know that you’re going to have all the cooperation that you can ask for on the Hill in processing these licenses,” Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican [and global-warming skeptic — ed.], told NRG Energy Chief Executive David Crane.
The application may raise questions about the storage of nuclear waste and the costs. But the chief executive of NRG Energy and U.S. lawmakers moved to assuage such concerns. “If America is going to become more energy independent, more secure, there are costs,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat.
As for the storage of nuclear waste, Crane said that “a permanent resolution” is important, but added that “there are perfectly safe interim solutions.” Noting that the South Texas facility occupies 12,200 acres, he said that “there’s plenty of room to store our own nuclear waste for a period long past when any of us will still be here.”
---------------------------
Wall Street Journal
September 24, 2007
First Step in a Nuclear Revival?
Posted By Mark Gongloff
Rebecca Smith reports on the latest development in what may be a nuclear renaissance:
NRG Energy will file papers Tuesday at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking permission to build and operate two nuclear reactors in Texas, the first such application submitted to the agency in three decades. It would signal the start of a possible nuclear revival in the U.S.
NRG’s application for a two-reactor addition to an existing nuclear plant in South Texas marks the first full test of a new licensing process at the federal safety agency meant to deal with what is expected to be a flood of applications in the next 15 months. The industry is on the move, in part, due to concerns about the environmental impact of building plants fired by coal, believed to contribute to global warming.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has overhauled the approval process and has staffed up a new office in anticipation of receiving applications for permission to build as many as 29 reactors utilizing five reactor designs at a total cost of $60 billion or more. Companies are rushing to submit applications, in part, because the greatest federal incentives will go to first movers; to qualify at all, applications must be received by the end of 2008.
For those firms that submit all the necessary information and satisfy its requirements, the agency is offering a four-year review process that will culminate in a commission decision. It’s designed to provide the certainty that was missing in the past by providing a way to apply for both a construction permit and a conditional operating license. In the past, companies had to pursue two separate tracks to get both documents, leading to delays and cost overruns, and there was the risk that a plant might be built that it wouldn’t be allowed to operate.
NRG says it hopes to have approvals in hand by 2010 covering two new 1,350-megawatt units, based on a General Electric design for “advanced boiling water reactors” built by Toshiba. It hopes to have the first unit in operation in 2014 and the second in 2015.
NRG’s application likely will revive debate about the wisdom of building more nuclear reactors, especially since the industry still does not have a federal repository for the radioactive waste from an existing U.S. fleet of 104 operating reactors. Efforts to license a waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, have been opposed by Nevada officials.
---------------------------
Wall Street Journal
September 25, 2007
Nuclear Energy's Second Act?
Bid to Build Two New Reactors In Texas May Mark Resurgence;
NRC Gears Up for Many More
By Rebecca Smith
In a move that could mark the beginning of a nuclear-power revival, a New Jersey-based energy company today plans to submit an application to build and operate two new reactors. The request, the first submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 31 years, comes from an unlikely source: NRG Energy Inc., a company that has never before built a nuclear plant.
The application -- for a two-reactor addition to the company's existing South Texas nuclear station -- could offer the first full test of the nuclear agency's new licensing process, which has been under development since the 1980s. The new process allows companies to submit a single application for a construction permit and conditional operating license, eliminating the risk that a firm could build a plant but not be allowed to run it.
The nuclear agency has geared up for an expected flood of applications over the next 15 months, which could cover as many as 29 new reactors at 20 sites and represent a possible investment by the U.S. power industry of $60 billion to $90 billion. Companies are rushing to get their applications in quickly, hoping to qualify for potentially billions of dollars in federal incentives and loan guarantees offered in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Barring an unexpected move on the part of Congress, a decision by the commission could clear the path for NRG to go ahead with its plans. Congress has mostly encouraged the revival of nuclear energy, concluding the nation's aging nuclear fleet needs refreshing, though opposition could surface now that the industry appears to have momentum.
The NRG application likely will revive debate about the wisdom of building more nuclear reactors, especially since the industry still doesn't have a federal repository for the radioactive waste from an existing U.S. fleet of 104 operating reactors. Efforts to license a waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, have been opposed by Nevada officials and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Still, the renewed optimism within the industry is noteworthy, given that it was virtually left for dead a decade ago, in the wake of safety worries stemming from the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant, huge cost overruns and disappointing operating performance. In the late 1990s, plants were practically being given away by frustrated operators. A handful of consolidators started picking them up and the industry dramatically improved its productivity, often spurred by the profits available in deregulated electricity markets like Texas.
More recently, the industry has regained momentum, partly because other forms of power generation have continued to show significant flaws. Coal-fired plants undermine efforts to combat global warming. Many natural-gas-fired plants rely on a fuel with volatile prices. And renewable energy mostly comes from intermittent forces like wind, rain and sunlight.
This first application comes from a somewhat unlikely source; NRG is a so-called "merchant generator," a company that makes electricity and sells it on the open market. NRG has never built a nuclear plant, and because it doesn't own a utility, has no ratepayers to whom it could bill the estimated $5.5 billion to $6 billion expense.
"We're like the uncola," says David Crane, NRG chief executive in Princeton, N.J.
In December 2003, NRG exited federal bankruptcy protection, the result of overly aggressive expansion in the 1990s. Recently, it announced plans to spend about $16 billion adding 10,350 megawatts of new generation to its existing fleet. It has a 44% ownership interest in the existing South Texas nuclear station and intends to bring in other investors to share in the cost of the additional plants, if approved.
Under the new application process, nuclear regulators are pushing standardization -- both in plant design and in applications seeking licenses. For those companies that satisfy the nuclear agency's requirements, the agency is promising a 42-month review period, culminating in a license decision. But the level of scrutiny will be strict and demanding, the agency says.
NRG says it hopes to have approvals in hand by 2010, though the nuclear agency hasn't promised that the review will be that quick. NRG's ultimate aim: to install two new 1,350-megawatt units, designed by General Electric Co., with Toshiba Corp. taking the lead on construction. The company hopes to have them ready for commercial operation in 2014 and 2015.
In order to speed the process, NRG is using a reactor design that the nuclear agency already has certified for U.S. use and which has been in use in Japan for more than a decade. It is the only reactor design being considered in the U.S. that can make both claims.
Both the power industry and the agency face significant risks going forward. The industry risks spending billions on designs not built here before. The agency's challenge: to stick to timelines promised and maintain high safety standards with a work force facing large numbers of retirements.
To date, most of the companies that have expressed an interest in building nuclear units have been traditional utilities that built plants in the past, such as Southern Co., Dominion Resources Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. Regulated utilities expect to put new investments "in ratebase," meaning they are allowed to charge ratepayers for the expense and book a profit.
But a few merchant operators, such as NRG, Exelon Corp., Constellation Energy Group Inc. and TXU Corp., are now jumping in, proposing to build plants without traditional rate protections. Because they have no one to whom to pass along the costs; the merchant operators must cover expenses and make a profit as a result of open-market power sales. If they guess wrong, shareholders will be hurt. NRG's Mr. Crane thinks merchant operators, with so much at risk, will provide the truest test of the financial viability of nuclear power.
Mr. Crane says his firm has arranged for Toshiba to build the nuclear reactors because "the Japanese have built four of these already, on time and on budget."
Andrew White, president of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a joint venture of General Electric and Hitachi Ltd., said both firms participated in construction of GE advanced boiling water reactors in Japan and Taiwan and he said GE helped NRG prepare its license application. Due to the U.S.'s long period of dormancy in nuclear-reactor construction, many U.S. companies are playing catch-up with Japanese and European outfits.
The GE design selected by NRG was certified by the regulatory commission in 1997. Mr. Crane said he looked at other reactor designs, including the Westinghouse AP 1000 reactor, the only other design currently certified by the safety commission. But in the end, Mr. Crane decided against "building something that's never been built before. [That] creates a risk I can't quantify."
Contract terms also were a factor. Mr. Crane said Toshiba "understood we would need a fixed-price, fixed-schedule contract...where, if you're late, you bear the cost" and was able to offer more cost certainty because it's built the plant before. Other vendors, he said, offered less protection. He said Toshiba is offering units with a blended price of $2,000 to $2,250 per kilowatt of capacity, substantially less than the $3,000 per unit of capacity that other utilities have cited as a ballpark estimate of cost.
So far, it appears merchant generators think Texas provides the most promising market. Deregulation in that state has resulted in a sharp run up in wholesale power prices since 2004. A recent decision by Dallas-based TXU to abandon efforts to build eight coal-fired plants could result in shrinking electricity reserves in the coming years, creating an environment receptive to operators looking to bring large units online and sell such units' full output.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 24, 2007
Yucca fault line might spring surprise
Letter, maps suggest it's not where scientists had thought it was
By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal
Bore hole drilling operations at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site have turned up preliminary evidence that an earthquake fault line passes beneath the place where project officials want to build concrete pads for storing thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel.
A letter and maps from the U.S. Geological Survey obtained last week by the Review-Journal show that the Bow Ridge fault passes directly beneath the footprint of a pad where spent fuel canisters would age or cool down before they are entombed in a maze of tunnels inside the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Rock core samples extracted by drill rigs about 250 feet below the surface indicate that the fault is hundreds of feet east of where scientists had thought it was.
That means designers either must revamp their plans or show regulators that the so-called aging pad, and possibly nearby buildings where nuclear waste would be handled, can be fortified enough to withstand an offset of the rock layers beneath them, said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.
The agency for two decades has been reviewing scientific work and plans for the Yucca Mountain repository. Loux has been an outspoken critic of the Department of Energy project.
"It certainly looks like DOE has encountered a surprise out there, and it certainly speaks to the fact they haven't done the technical work they should have done years ago," Loux said Friday in a telephone interview from Carson City.
"It's going to have to cause some change of the design in the final analysis," Loux said. "It's going to impact the safety case."
The DOE's "11th hour" bore hole drilling operations, as Loux calls them, have been the focus of recent legal wrangling in federal court in Las Vegas. Attorneys for Loux and State Engineer Tracy Taylor asked U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt to make the DOE stop using Nevada's water for cooling and lubricating drill rigs and creating mud to collect rock samples. Hunt denied their request last week.
In the meantime, the DOE had proceeded with the first phase of bore hole work but agreed to stop using the state's water for the second phase, which was in progress until Sept. 6.
The bore holes that were completed, however, might bolster the state's arguments that the site is not safe because of looming earthquake hazards. Other potential natural threats include floods and volcanic activity. The mountain itself is a volcanic-rock ridge formed about 13 million years ago by ash deposited by a nearby volcanic eruption.
A May 21 letter from Kenneth Skipper, chief of the U.S. Geological Survey's Yucca Mountain Project Branch, to Andrew Orrell, senior program manager for DOE's lead laboratory, said: "Preliminary data from the recent drilling phase indicate the location of the Bow Ridge fault in northern Midway Valley may be farther east than projected from previous work in the area."
Skipper's letter goes on to say: "Originally, it was thought that the Bow Ridge fault was west of the proposed aging pads; however, these preliminary drilling results indicate that a large down-to-the-west fault, that could be the Bow Ridge fault, is farther east than originally mapped."
Yucca Mountain Project officials last week said they would try to address questions about design changes and the potential magnitude of the Bow Ridge fault, based on the new, preliminary information from bore hole work.
But late Friday, they sent by e-mail a one paragraph statement repeating the DOE's oft-stated position that it continues to develop the repository's design and construction and operational plans in preparation for its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
While some project scientists are scrambling to complete design of surface facilities, others continue to assess seismic risks in the area.
The problem is that the risk assessment team lacks 65 percent of the facilities' design, leaving much guesswork in their predictions on how cranes, hoists and pools for transferring some spent nuclear fuel assemblies will function if an earthquake strikes.
To meet a self-imposed deadline for submitting a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June 2008, the team is taking a nontraditional approach to their assessment task. It's based on probabilities that earthquakes will occur.
If calculations show that the probability is too great, then design concepts will have to be modified accordingly. Otherwise, the design will stand.
That's what a project contractor scientist told a presidential oversight panel last week in Las Vegas. The scientist, Michael Frank of Bechtel SAIC Co., said the team expects to know by February what could go wrong with numerous pieces of equipment in the surface facilities' operations, how likely that would be and the potential consequences.
The task, he said, "is a very large effort with a compressed schedule."
A panel consultant, seismologist Leon Reiter, who was at last week's meeting, said there are more than 10 faults within a 20-mile radius of Yucca Mountain that can generate ground motion, including the Solitario Canyon fault just west of the planned repository site. He said the Solitario Canyon fault is capable of producing an earthquake with a magnitude of about 6.5.
Loux, however, is quick to note that the Department of Energy never has produced any blueprints that state officials could review for comments.
Instead, he said, "Everything is conception designs and cartoons."
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 24, 2007
Regulating the Rails: Runaway tanker wake-up call
Incident turns spotlight on railroad safety
By Lisa Kim Bach
Review-Journal
More than 1 million tons of hazardous materials criss-cross the United States by road and rail each day.
Most of those shipments tallied by the U.S. Department of Transportation arrive at their destinations safely, with people none the wiser about the lethal substances that just rolled through their backyards, said Patricia Abbate, executive director of the Boston-based Citizens for Rail Safety.
But every now and then, the tragic or the almost-tragic shocks communities with the consequences of accidents, carelessness or error.
It's a wake-up call, Abbate said, the kind Las Vegas received on Aug. 29 when a Union Pacific Railroad tanker loaded with chlorine gas escaped the Arden train yard and cut across 20 miles of urban landscape before being brought to a safe stop.
"The great majority of railroad shipments get through with no trouble," Abbate said. "But it just takes once."
In recent weeks, Union Pacific has dealt with more than one train accident.
After responding to the Las Vegas incident, the railroad company soon had to deal with at least four other accidents involving runaway cars or derailments:
• On Sept. 7, a Union Pacific train in Texas derailed, spilling corn, wheat and soybeans. No injuries were reported.
• On Sept. 8, several runaway cars crashed into others at the switching yard in Colton, Calif., leaving demolished railroad cars spread across four sets of tracks. Thirty-eight cars were involved. Several tank cars carried residual amounts of hazardous materials, but no leaks occurred, according to media reports.
• On Sept. 9, a Union Pacific train loaded with steel derailed near Livermore, Calif.
• On Sept. 11, Houston media reported a train collision in east Texas involving a Union Pacific freight train and an Amtrak train. Six people were hospitalized with injuries.
All four incidents are being investigated.
"We have a strong record of safety in the industry, but at the same time, incidents do happen," said Union Pacific spokesman James Barnes.
Union Pacific and the Federal Railroad Administration are still investigating what went wrong in Las Vegas.
No findings have been issued yet, said Federal Railroad Administration Spokesman Warren Flatau.
"It's possible there will be enforcement action taken, including, but not limited to, civil penalties," Flatau said.
The railroad administration is empowered to issue violations that can lead to civil penalties, which include fines of up to $25,000 per instance.
Railroads also can be placed under increased inspection and safety compliance orders in the wake of serious incidents or infractions of federal regulations, Flatau said.
Union Pacific, the nation's largest railroad and its largest hauler of chemical freight, garnered 4,951 violations in 2006 and 5,479 violations so far this year.
The violations represent individual defects or a series of defects that put the railroad out of compliance with federal regulations. The defects may be related to track conditions, equipment issues, paperwork, or operations.
On the one hand, Flatau said, the numbers aren't all that surprising since Union Pacific is so large. It operates in 23 states, across two-thirds of the continental United States.
On the other hand, protecting people is paramount, Flatau said, and everything that can be done to prevent a tragedy should be done.
"We're less interested in being a meter maid and writing tickets and levying fines," Flatau said. "We're more focused on bringing companies into compliance and ensuring the safety of people and equipment."
The issue of train safety and threats posed by the transport of hazardous materials has been taken up by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.
"We have to take immediate and serious steps to keep this from ever happening again," Porter said. "I want to ensure that our community is safe."
Porter plans to gather community input at a public meeting at 10 a.m. Oct. 8, at the Henderson Fire Training Center, 401 Parkson Road.
Porter said it's planned as a round-table discussion involving government officials, transportation representatives from Union Pacific and the trucking industry, emergency responders, and other interested parties.
It's the starting point of a dialogue that Porter said will shape what he does in Congress.
He plans to incorporate the input in legislative proposals to better protect residents and equip local governments with better tools to deal with hazardous materials transport.
"We're going to look at the very broad picture," he said.
The topics will range from the transport of nuclear waste through Clark County to what happened during the chlorine tanker incident.
According to a June report by Citizens for Rail Safety and prepared by researchers at Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, one 90-ton car of chlorine, whether involved in an accident or act of terrorism, could create a toxic cloud 40 miles long and 10 miles wide.
That kind of widespread dispersion could kill as many as 100,000 people in 30 minutes.
That parallels the findings of a 2006 report from the Institute for Security Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In a vulnerability assessment of threats to Nevada, the institute found that a massive chlorine release at the Union Pacific overpass on Charleston Boulevard was a worst-case scenario, with the potential of causing up to 91,000 fatalities.
On Sept. 6, representatives of Union Pacific met with Clark County officials and city representatives to discuss back-up safety measures.
Anchor cars with brakes set now block the north end of every track in the Arden yard, where the runaway tanker incident originated, to prevent runaways.
An additional rail car diversion track has been constructed at Arden to make sure no cars can move from the switch yard to the main track.
A thorough review of emergency notification procedures also is being conducted at the Arden yard and at Union Pacific's dispatch center and Response Management Communications centers.
At the time of the meeting, Tom Jacobi, vice president of Union Pacific's western region, also offered assurances that the Las Vegas incident would not be repeated.
Abbate said accidents on the tracks underscore the need for stepped up inspections and scrutiny of an industry that transports nearly everything that eventually ends up in a person's home.
Railroads are designated common carriers, which means that under federal law, they can't refuse to transport hazardous materials.
In the case of Union Pacific, the need for increased scrutiny was highlighted by Calvin Scovel III, the inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation. In January, Scovel testified before a U.S. House subcommittee considering the reauthorization of the Federal Railroad Safety Program.
In his comments, he noted that a 2005 review showed serious safety problems exist for all four major U.S. railroads, with Union Pacific showing the highest rate of train accidents between 1998-2000, and between 2001-2003.
However, in terms of safety inspections, Union Pacific was scrutinized less often than two other railroad companies, the Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Transportation.
"We find it counterintuitive that the railroad with the most track miles and the worst accident rate and defect ratio would be inspected at a lower rate than two of the three other major railroads that had fewer miles and better rates," Scovel said.
Barnes said safety is a priority for Union Pacific, which conducts internal inspections on top of those performed by government inspectors.
"Anytime an inspector wants to come out and inspect us, we comply," Barnes said. "When an incident occurs, we report it, we handle it, and we work proactively internally to address it. But we operate in a dynamic environment and things do happen."
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
September 24, 2007
Report: Quake fault possible beneath nuke dump surface facility
LAS VEGAS (AP) - New rock samples show preliminary evidence of an earthquake fault beneath where Yucca Mountain project planners want to handle highly radioactive waste before burial at the planned nuclear waste repository, a report says.
A May 21 letter and U.S. Geological Survey maps show the fault beneath where officials hope to build concrete pads to store spent radioactive fuel canisters for cooling before they are entombed in tunnels inside the mountain, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Monday.
"Preliminary data from the recent drilling phase indicate the location of the Bow Ridge fault in northern Midway Valley may be farther east than projected from previous work in the area," Kenneth Skipper, chief of the USGS Yucca Mountain project branch, said in the letter to Andrew Orrell, senior program manager for the Energy Department lead laboratory.
Bob Loux, head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects and the state's chief anti-Yucca administrator, told the Review-Journal the finding means project planners might have to revamp plans or show regulators that the so-called aging pad can be fortified to withstand an earthquake.
"It certainly looks like DOE has encountered a surprise out there, and it certainly speaks to the fact they haven't done the technical work they should have done years ago," Loux said.
An Energy Department spokesman for the Yucca Mountain project did not immediately respond Monday to a request for comment.
Core samples from 250 feet below the surface show the fault is hundreds of feet east of where scientists thought it was, and that it passes beneath the storage pad site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Recent rock core sampling operations been spurred a legal battle in federal court in Las Vegas, where the State Engineer Tracy Taylor has asked U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt to order the Energy Department to stop using Nevada water for cooling and lubricating drill rigs and creating mud to collect rock samples. Hunt denied the state request last week.
Congress in 2002 picked Yucca Mountain to become the nation's nuclear waste dump, with plans calling for entombing 77,000 tons of spent radioactive fuel hauled to Nevada from 39 states. But the plan has been delayed by legal challenges, money shortages, scientific controversies and political opposition. Planners now concede the dump won't open before 2017.
Project officials say they are continuing to develop repository design, construction and operating plans in preparation for applying next year for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
To meet that self-imposed June 2008 deadline, project planners are taking a nontraditional approach to risk assessments, based on probabilities that earthquakes will occur.
A scientist told an oversight panel last week in Las Vegas that planners expect to know by February what could go wrong with surface facility equipment, and potential consequences.
Michael Frank of Bechtel SAIC Co. called the task "a very large effort with a compressed schedule."
A panel consultant, seismologist Leon Reiter, who was at the meeting, said more than 10 faults within a 20-mile radius of Yucca Mountain could generate ground motion.
He said one fault, the Solitario Canyon just west of the planned repository, is capable of producing an earthquake with a magnitude of about 6.5.
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
September 23, 2007
Nevada should turn off the water on an arrogant federal bureaucracy
Guy Farmer
For the Appeal
Newcomers who want to understand the roots of Nevada's contentious relationship with the federal government need look no further than the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its toxic Yucca Mountain Project for an explanation.
For 20 years now, DOE, Congress and the White House have consistently defied the will of the people of the state of Nevada by moving ahead with plans to build a massive nuclear waste dump (the Feds call it a "repository") at Yucca Mountain only 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the fastest growing city in the nation. Although more than 70 percent of Nevadans oppose the project, DOE continues to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on a white elephant that will never open.
In the most recent DOE outrage, a spokesman for the project defied a federal judge's definitive ruling and declared that drilling would continue at the Southern Nevada site. Following the judge's decision, James Hollrith, acting director of DOE's Las Vegas office, asserted that some drilling was exempt from State Engineer Tracy Taylor's June 1 cease-and-desist order despite a recent federal court decision ordering DOE to stop using state water for its drilling operations. To add insult to injury, Hollrith told Taylor that drilling would continue until the end of September and that the department would use at least 286,000 additional gallons of the state's limited groundwater supply.
In late August Las Vegas Federal District Judge Roger Hunt ruled that the Feds couldn't ignore state restrictions by continuing to drill test holes at the Yucca Mountain site. "This entire 'crisis' is self-imposed and self-created," Hunt wrote in his 24-page decision. "The only argument the DOE makes is that because the site has been approved ... it has the authority to do whatever it wishes," which is the height of federal arrogance. "We'll do whatever we want no matter what restrictions you put on us," they're telling Nevada. That attitude obviously violates the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States." Clear enough?
"We're going to file an emergency request with the court to compel (DOE) to stop," said outspoken Nevada Nuclear Projects Chief Bob Loux. "We think they're thumbing their nose at the court." I agree and wonder why Nevada's top elected officials - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has vowed to kill the Yucca Mountain Project, and Gov. Jim Gibbons - haven't weighed-in publicly in support of Loux and Nevada voters. Perhaps Reid is too busy trying to end the war in Iraq, but Gibbons has no excuse.
In fact, I worry about the governor's commitment to the fight against Yucca Mountain because he has waffled on the issue since taking office in January. As a Sept. 5 Nevada Appeal editorial noted, "(Gibbons) supported allowing DOE to use the state's water for an additional month...(and) appointed a Yucca supporter to the state's nuclear watchdog committee before quickly rescinding the decision after the subsequent outcry." We expect more from our governor on this life-and-death issue.
"Scientific and political improprieties have been used ... to keep the (Yucca) project on track," added the Reno Gazette-Journal. "The closer DOE gets to the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) deadline, the more desperate it will be to push the project forward." Especially because Vice President Dick Cheney is pushing hard for the "repository" behind the scenes because of his well-known and well-documented friendship with Big Energy.
DOE has been drilling at the dump site to compile data about the potential for earthquakes and floods that must be included in a license application that DOE must submit to the NRC by next June. But since DOE has missed every previous deadline, there's no reason to believe they'll make this one, and their target date for opening the facility has already been pushed back from 2010 to 2017 at the earliest.
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Director Allen Biaggi told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that Judge Hunt's decision "was pretty clear and convincing. We want them (DOE) to confirm to us that they've stopped using the water..." So has DOE actually stopped using the state's water? We have a right to know the answer to that question.
In 1987, Congress decided that Yucca Mountain was the only site that would be studied for the nuclear dump on the insulting theory that Nevada was a thinly populated desert wasteland. But that was before the Silver State's population exploded and before Reid became Senate majority leader and moved Nevada's 2008 party caucuses to mid-January, making our state a principle player in the presidential nomination process. As far as I know only two presidential candidates - Democrats Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, a former Energy Secretary - have come out strongly against Yucca Mountain. Perhaps others have chimed in, but if so, I'm unaware of their opposition.
Yucca Mountain is a major campaign issue in Nevada and the sooner the candidates recognize that fact, the better. In the meantime, the state should make sure the water is off at the dump site, and keep it off.
• Guy W. Farmer, of Carson City, is a semi-retired journalist who has been a Nevada resident since 1962.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
September 22, 2007
County quartet: Scandinavia tour conforms Yucca viability
By Mark Waite
PVT
A recent trip to Sweden and Finland confirmed the viability of using a geologic repository to house nuclear waste, consultant Cash Jaszczak, from SRS Technologies, said.
Three of the four Nevada officials who went on the U.S. Transport Council fact-finding trip to Scandinavia from Aug. 25 to Sept. 1 briefed Pahrump reporters Monday. The trip was paid for out of nuclear waste repository oversight funds.
Nye County Commission Chairman Gary Hollis, Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Office Director Darrell Lacy, Bob Gamble, Nye County's on-site representative at the U.S. Department of Energy office in Las Vegas, and Jaszczak went along.
There were some differences in the repository plans:
The nuclear waste to be stored at the Scandinavian facilities is about one-tenth the 70,000 tons that will be stored in Yucca Mountain, the panel said.
The nuclear waste is shipped by barge in Scandinavia, not by a rail line or by truck. Both Scandinavian locations are on the Baltic Sea, the Swedish location south of Stockholm, the Finnish location northwest of Helsinki.
Instead of figuring out how water can be kept out of the repository in Yucca Mountain, the Scandinavians plan to flood their nuclear waste repositories after they're full.
The nuclear waste at Oskarshamn, Sweden, will be buried in a shaft over 1,500 feet deep; at Yucca Mountain the waste would be buried at the same level as the entrance, Jaszczak said.
The Scandinavians will use copper canisters to house the waste in cavities filled with bentonite; the Americans will use a stainless steel alloy for the canisters.
The Scandinavian repository will be in bedrock granite; the Yucca Mountain site lies in volcanic tuft.
The Swedes and Finns won't take the nuclear waste back out of the repository for reprocessing; the Americans are looking into that possibility.
"They're making commitments to expand their use of nuclear power. It has to do with the availability of electricity," Jaszczak said of the Scandinavians.
The Swedes and Finns don't have supplies of coal and gas as alternatives, Hollis said.
"They have the same issue we have in America. There's an environmental consequence for any type of electrical power they get," Jaszczak said.
An important difference in the two programs is the acceptance of the repositories by the local community and different levels of government, of the repository, Jasczcak said.
The communities that will house the waste actually requested the repository; in fact two communities in Sweden are both vying for it, Jasczcak said, describing something like a community out of "The Simpsons" television show, where people already work close to nuclear power plants and interim storage facilities.
They feel an obligation to dispose of the nuclear waste they created, he said.
"They're not afraid of the technical solutions they found and they'll work, they have confidence in that," Jaszczak said. "They're confident they've resolved the issues and they'll deal with anything that comes along."
Probably more important politically, members of the tour said Swedish and Finnish government officials support the geologic repository project.
"The one thing we have a problem with in Nye County, we have a congressional delegation that is against it and is not working with Nye County to make anything happen on the economic side," Hollis said.
Jaszczak said the Nye County community protection plan has three objectives: to protect the health and safety of Nye County residents; to see the repository succeeds and is "not just some dump in the desert," and the transportation program used to move the waste provides economic development.
Jaszczak said the U.S. Transport Council includes representatives of companies like Duke Energy, Energy Solutions, General Electric, Northrop Grumman, companies that are going to have business with the Yucca Mountain repository. Jaszczak said those companies believe the best location for their businesses would be in close proximity to the repository.
"Unlike the Nevada Test Site, where the great majority of the federal largesse associated with the test site migrates to Clark County, Nye County would like to have the opportunity for the people who work at Yucca Mountain to live in Nye County and for the business and industries associated with Yucca Mountain to be located in Nye County. Those things aren't going to happen overnight," Jaszczak said.
Tour members stayed in Stockholm at the Victory Hotel, with an advertised on-line special of $264 per night.
It was a round of talks and speeches Monday, while Tuesday and Wednesday were spent in Oskarshamn, before catching a ferry to Turku, Finland. The delegation visited the Finnish facility planned in Olkiluoto. After the Olkiluoto tour Thursday, they had a day of talks with Finnish officials. They spent two nights at the Scandic Marski Continental Hotel in Helsinki, where the cheapest rooms are advertised on-line at $230.
"We can't spend nuclear waste oversight money on roads, wages or benefits, anything other than stuff associated with Yucca Mountain," Hollis said.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 21, 2007
Judge refuses to stop Yucca water use
Energy Department can finish Phase 1 drilling
By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal
U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt on Thursday denied motions by Nevada attorneys to make the Department of Energy stop using the state's water for all bore hole drilling operations at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.
In so doing, Hunt urged lawyers for both sides to sit down and work out their differences rather than "dig in their heels" and not budge on their respective positions.
"I am directing -- sharply suggesting, short of requiring -- that the parties get together seriously and reasonably," Hunt said after announcing his decision without hearing arguments.
Later, he said, "The court could craft an agreement that neither one of you are going to like."
Hunt said neither party can claim they won this case, yet.
Nor does the case deal with the larger issue of preempting Nevada's stance that it's not in the state's interest to grant permanent water rights for construction and operation of a repository. That would be premature, Hunt has said, because no license has yet been granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build one and the Environmental Protection Agency has not issued a final radiation safety standard for the site.
Hunt left in place his denial on Aug. 31 of an emergency motion by Energy Department lawyers who wanted him to block State Engineer Tracy Taylor's June 1 order for DOE to stop using Nevada's water for the second phase of its bore hole drilling operations near the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Department of Energy officials later agreed to stop using the water for the second phase but said they would continue with the first phase until it is completed at the end of this month.
"I expect the Department of Energy to keep its promise that it had stopped the Phase 2 ... and that it will end its unauthorized water use for bore holes," Hunt said.
Court papers filed by Department of Justice attorneys this week in response to the state's motions say the Department of Energy "is in the process of drilling the very last bore hole," or the 35th one, under the first phase.
Work on both phases was being conducted simultaneously with an objective to drill more than 80 bore holes to collect data about potential earthquakes and floods where surface facilities for handling and short-term storage of spent nuclear fuel are planned.
Water from nearby wells is used to cool and lubricate drill bits and to create mud for extracting rock core samples. The samples are needed to support data required for a license application to show regulators how safe the site is for handling and storing nuclear waste.
Project officials had said they needed to continue collecting samples through November, but it remains to be seen if they will seek to use more of the state's water.
At Thursday's hearing, Hunt said the state "has at least given tacit authorization for use of that water" and that he didn't interpret Taylor's cease-and-desist order as going beyond the second phase, meaning the order doesn't cover the first phase.
Taylor issued the cease-and-desist order on June 1 after deciding it was not in the state's interest to use the water for the second phase of bore hole work on the nuclear waste project. He lifted it temporarily until June 12 while his staff reviewed the drill work, only to reinstate it on July 20 when the Department of Energy turned down his offer to allow the second phase drilling to continue through mid-August.
In the meantime, DOE continued using Nevada's water for the first phase. State attorneys filed motions for Hunt to compel DOE to stop using the state's water for all bore hole work.
Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects who opposed the drilling operations, said after Thursday's hearing that if DOE officials want more water they must negotiate in good faith with the state. They can't just proceed as they have in the past regardless of a court-approved agreement that bans use of Nevada's water for that purpose, he said.
"If they have more data needs, then I guess they'll schedule something to talk. If not, I guess we won't be talking," Loux said.
Nevada Senior Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams, who represents Loux, said, "I think the judge is speaking loud an clear about urging us to have a meeting of the minds."
Senior Deputy Attorney General Michael Wolz, who represents Taylor, said he was disappointed that his motion was denied. "However, I don't think it changes the original outcome of Phase 2 cease-and-desist order."
Whether the DOE will need to use more water for bore hole drilling after September, Wolz said, "We're going to have to see."
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
September 21, 2007
Judge refuses to stop water use at Yucca Mountain
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A federal judge has denied motions by Nevada attorneys to force the Department of Energy to stop using the state's water for all bore hole drilling operations at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.
U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt urged lawyers for both sides to sit down and work out their differences rather than "dig in their heels" in the fight over water at the site.
"I am directing - sharply suggesting, short of requiring - that the parties get together seriously and reasonably," Hunt said Thursday after announcing his decision without hearing arguments.
Hunt said neither party can claim they won this case, yet.
At issue is whether the federal government can use the state's water for drilling on the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Nevada opposes the planned nuclear waste dump and has tried to cut off water use. State Engineer Tracy Taylor issued a cease-and-desist order in June arguing it was not in the state's interest to use the water for the second phase of bore hole work on the nuclear waste project.
Last month, Hunt sided with the state.
Department of Energy officials later agreed to stop using the water for the second phase but said they would continue with the first phase until it is completed at the end of this month.
"I expect the Department of Energy to keep its promise that it had stopped the phase two ... and that it will end its unauthorized water use for bore holes," Hunt said Thursday.
Court papers filed by federal attorneys this week say the Department of Energy "is in the process of drilling the very last bore hole," or the 35th one, under the first phase.
Work on both phases was being conducted simultaneously with plans to drill more than 80 bore holes to collect data about potential earthquakes and floods where surface facilities for handling and short-term storage of spent nuclear fuel are planned.
Water from nearby wells is used to cool and lubricate drill bits and to create mud for extracting rock core samples. The samples are needed to support data required for a license application to show regulators how safe the site is for handling and storing nuclear waste.
Project officials had said they needed to continue collecting samples through November.
At Thursday's hearing, Hunt said the state "has at least given tacit authorization for use of that water" and that he didn't interpret Taylor's cease-and-desist order as going beyond the second phase, meaning the order doesn't cover the first phase.
Senior Deputy Attorney General Michael Wolz, who represents Taylor, said he was disappointed that his motion was denied. "However, I don't think it changes the original outcome of phase two cease-and-desist order."
--Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com
---------------------------
Sacramento Bee
September 21, 2007
Paul R. Epstein: Finding the green solution to global climate crisis
By Paul R. Epstein
With weather turbulence turning heads on Wall Street, an emerging call among evangelicals for "creation care" and a barrage of energy bills on Capitol Hill, are we about to get serious about climate change? Trimming energy use 60 percent to 80 percent, while priming the economy and preserving the environment is the task we face.
California is, as usual, the pacesetter, and can invigorate the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; and other governors are grabbing hold of the mainsheets. But we need a national plan, and may have just months before the next presidential election to craft a solid one. What follows is a suggested framework for overarching principles and financial and policy instruments for implementing the plan.
Comparing life-cycle costs -- health, ecological and economic -- of proposed solutions can separate safe solutions from those warranting further study and those with prohibitive risks. Those serving multiple goals merit a high rating.
Energy conservation, smart growth; a smart grid; plug-in hybrids; heat capture from utilities (known as cogeneration); green buildings; plus walking, biking and public transport can get us halfway there -- and save money.
Distributed generation -- power produced near the point of use -- with solar, wind, wave, geothermal and fuel-cell power can be fed into existing grids -- and generate income. (And geothermal heat pumps provide air conditioning.)
Where energy is scarce, such systems can pump water, power clinics, light homes, cook food and drive development. Clean distributed generation power improves resilience in the face of weather extremes (adaptation), reduces carbon emissions (mitigation) and creates jobs.
All fossil-fuel-based methods demand the utmost scrutiny, for their exploration, extraction, refining, transport and combustion are taking an enormous toll on human health, and ecological and social systems. Burning coal and sequestrating CO2 underground may work in restricted areas; but there are risks of lead and arsenic leaching into groundwater, and limestone fractures causing leaks and releases in quantities toxic to plants and animals.
Nuclear power is under consideration for a revival -- even among some environmentalists and scientists, desperate for a solution, as Earth's ice cover dissipates and wind patterns shift. But replacing carbon pollution with radioactive pollution is hazardous. Safety may be solvable; but security and storage may prove intractable. Meeting a significant portion of energy needs with nuclear power would generate enough radioactive waste to fill one Yucca Mountain (the long-proposed site in Nevada for waste) every 5-10 years; and we've yet to resolve the first.
Biofuels hold promise. But converting corn to ethanol may yield no net energy gain, and while sugar ferments without added energy, large plantations can deplete soils and groundwater. Using range grasses, farm waste and grease does not displace edible crops, and recycling garbage helps with disposal. But burning anything organic produces CO2 and volatile organic compounds, which increases smog.
Green buildings with green environs create a critical syzygy, aligning clean energy with sustainable forestry and green chemistry; the last eschewing petrol-based carcinogens in the production of carpets, paints, fertilizers and pesticides.
For central and regional power -- to complement distributed generation -- the U.S. Energy Department projects that wind farms in the Plains, solar thermal arrays in the Southwest and deep geothermal in the Northwest could power the grid. And while it is unrealistic to think we can meet our energy needs in the short run without some fossil fuel use, natural gas offers the cleanest burning, back-up source during the transition.
To make all this happen, corporations can -- and many have begun to -- change their products and practices. Financial institutions -- with long-term perspectives -- have a pivotal role to play in redirecting investments and insurance.
But governments must provide the incentives and the infrastructure. Credits for clean-tech industries, progressive procurement practices (e.g., for hybrid and electric car fleets) and tax benefits for commercial models that defray upfront capital costs for distributed power generators are among the carrots needed to launch infant industries and drive market shifts. Aligning regulations and rewards -- and dismantling financial and bureaucratic disincentives -- can help erect the necessary scaffolding for the low carbon economy.
Fortunately, forces are converging. Concerned capital is emerging, with companies worried about escalating damages and missed opportunities. But the opportunities for building real wealth (unlike the substantial paper wealth that recently evaporated) are burgeoning and a stirred polity is demanding cleaner practices, products and produce.
Finally, we must rejoin the international community and sign the Kyoto Treaty. In its second phase (post 2012) a Global Fund for Adaptation and Mitigation (climate stabilization) on the order of 1 percent of world output -- $350 billion a year, as called for by the authoritative Stern Review -- would be a substantive investment in our common future, and can make the clean energy transition a win-win-win for energy, the environment and the global economy.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------