Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, December 3, 2007
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
December 02, 2007

Yucca Mountain rail line hearing set for Monday

Department of Energy officials with the Yucca Mountain Project will hold a public hearing Monday in Las Vegas to air issues about building a rail line to haul highly radioactive waste to the planned repository and potential, additional impacts from entombing spent nuclear fuel there.

The hearing is from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Cashman Center, 850 Las Vegas Blvd.

Last week, Clark County officials issued a statement encouraging residents to "speak up on Yucca Mountain" by attending the hearing or sending e-mails to weigh in on the issues.

"Whatever your views on Yucca Mountain, this is a rare and important opportunity to publicly express them," Clark County Planning Manager Irene Navis was quoted as saying in the statement Thursday.

She noted that comments can be submitted to the Energy Department's Web site at www.ocrwm.doe.gov.

Navis said the draft, supplemental impact documents "are complex and lengthy, and we are in the process of reviewing them."

The county has steadfastly opposed the Yucca Mountain Project in resolutions passed since 1985.

Recently, DOE officials indicated the cost of the project is likely to increase beyond the initial projection of some $58 billion. They have vowed, however, to meet a self-imposed deadline of submitting a complete license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review in June.

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 02, 2007

Yucca Mountain rail line hearing to be held Monday

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A public hearing is set for Monday in Las Vegas over plans to build railway to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Department of Energy officials are set to discuss air issues and other potential environmental impacts.

The hearing is from 4 to 7 p.m. at the Cashman Center.

Last week, Clark County officials issued a statement encouraging residents to "speak up on Yucca Mountain" by attending the hearing or sending e-mails.

Recently, Energy officials indicated the cost of the project is likely to increase beyond the initial projection of some $58 billion.

They have vowed to meet a self-imposed deadline of applying for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June.

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 02, 2007

Editorial: Scientific data tainted

When political influence is allowed to trump science, we all end up losing

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing seven of its recent decisions on threatened species because agency officials say they were "inappropriately influenced" by a high-ranking Interior Department official.

That official, Julie MacDonald, resigned as interior deputy secretary in May after the department's inspector general found that she routinely pressured Fish and Wildlife Service biologists to alter scientific reports.

Now that more has been revealed about MacDonald's time at the agency - one scientist called it a "reign of terror" - a reassessment and possibly even reversals of decisions are under way regarding protections for such species as the Gunnison sage grouse and the white-tailed prairie dog.

In a letter to Rep. Nick Rahall II, D-W.V., chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Kenneth Stansell, the Fish and Wildlife Service acting director, said revising the decisions "is supported by scientific evidence and the proper legal standards."

The animals under consideration for protection all live in areas of the West in which cattle ranching or oil and gas drilling occurs. The Bush administration's efforts to increase drilling and grazing activities likely would be curtailed if species dwelling in the region were listed as threatened or endangered.

MacDonald, appointed to the deputy interior secretary's post in 2004, had repeatedly refused to accept - and even ridiculed - her scientific staff's recommendations regarding several species, including the grouse and the prairie dog, which scientists said were on the brink of extinction. In one instance, she demanded that biologists reduce the habitat range of an endangered bird - which, coincidentally, overlapped California land owned by her husband's family.

Subverting scientific data in order to favor industry interests is an ongoing and tiresome theme with the Bush administration. Nevadans still are fighting the results of political pressure concerning a proposed high-level nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain, including the falsifying of scientific geological data. We certainly hope the insidious meddling that has thrived under Bush stops with the next White House administration.

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

Los Angeles Times
December 02, 2007

Yucca Mt. neighbors speak out from Lone Pine

A few dozen attend Energy's only public hearing in California on the nuclear dump. Las Vegas and D.C. are up next.

By Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
ralph.vartabedian@latimes.com

LONE PINE, CALIF. -- Henry Williams, a Paiute from Bishop, drove an hour south to a meeting hall to deliver his tribe's verdict on the contested federal plan to bury nuclear waste inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain, about 16 miles from the California border.

"I am here to speak for my Paiute family," he told a public hearing last week held by the federal government. "We have been here for thousands of years. Our spirits in this area are totally against this."

The federal plan to bury nuclear waste at a dump in Yucca Mountain has encountered one setback after another in the courts. It is hated in much of the West. It looks like it is in deep political trouble in Congress. And a number of presidential candidates have attacked the dump.

But the wheels of the Energy Department bureaucracy are still going through the exacting legal steps to get a license for Yucca Mountain, where it wants to bury 70 metric tons of spent commercial fuel and nuclear weapons waste.

In the last week, the department has held a series of public hearings on two environmental impact statements, a process required under federal law.

At the hearing in Hawthorne, Nev., only four locals showed up, greeted by 30 or so federal employees and contractors bused in from Las Vegas. About 55 people appeared for a meeting in Reno. Bigger turnouts are expected in Las Vegas on Monday and in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.

The only hearing in California was held Thursday in Lone Pine, part of Inyo County, whose eastern border can be seen from the crest of Yucca Mountain. A few dozen locals showed up, including a book publisher, several Native Americans, some retirees, a few anti-nuclear activists and a lot of people in cowboy boots and worn blue jeans.

"We are putting a burden on future generations to watch and care for this waste longer than man has been on this Earth," said Roger Rasche, a retired proofreader from Lone Pine. "I hope future generations will be forgiving. The best place for the nuclear waste would be under Washington, D.C., because any accident would be less devastating to the environment."

Asked about public opposition against the dump, Edward F. Sproat, the Energy Department's director of civilian radioactive waste management, said in an interview: "I wouldn't expect anything less. This program has been around a long time, and it has a lot of history."

Government scientists insist that there is no chance radioactivity could leak for 10,000 years and that the dump will be safe for hundreds of thousands of years after that.

The hearing also focused on another aspect of the plan: getting the waste to the dump.

The plan calls for 13,600 truck and rail shipments of waste, about 12% of which would probably move through California. The majority would come from out of state, largely via Interstate 40 and then up the steep Cajon Pass in San Bernardino, either on rail or by truck.

Wynne Benti, who publishes books in Bishop, said the environmental impact statements, one for the dump and one for a rail transportation plan, failed to adequately assess the risk of accidents in transportation or the government's ability to respond: "Recent experience shows -- from the collapse of a bridge in downtown Minneapolis to a barge dumping oil into the San Francisco Bay -- that federal and local agencies' ability to coordinate and quickly deal with the aftermath of large-scale accidents have been wrought with delays in communication and immediate, critical action."

David Weisman of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility said the Energy Department also had failed to explain who would pay for emergency training and equipment along those rail and truck lines.

The group alleges that the Energy Department held the hearing in remote Lone Pine to discourage a larger turnout. Not so, said Energy officials. Lone Pine was chosen because it is part of Inyo County, an AULG, or affected unit of local government, they said.

According to the plan, once the waste gets to Yucca Mountain, it will be transferred to special 18-foot-long alloy canisters inside a series of large facilities built to handle highly radioactive waste. Then, the canisters are to be placed in tunnels about 1,000 feet underground; the water table is about 2,000 feet from the surface. There the waste will decay harmlessly for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the government.

But, Inyo County Supervisor Richard Cervantes testified Thursday, any leakage would flow downhill in the direction of Furnace Creek, 80 feet below sea level in Death Valley National Park. The county says it wants better assessments of the risk to aquifers that feed into the park.

A number of other speakers said the mere existence of the dump would harm local tourism.

Though the process of licensing Yucca Mountain will take into account reasonable scientific issues, it is not set up to argue about the very concept of the dump, Sproat said.

The department intends to file its application for a license next year.

A new administration will be in place in Washington in about 13 months, and whether it will support the project is unknown.

Nonetheless, Sproat said of suggestions that the waste be left in place for a century until technology could deal with it: "I think it is ethically wrong. The current and past generations that created this spent fuel are the ones who should determine what to do with it."

At least a couple speakers in Lone Pine were on Sproat's side.

"You people are exaggerating the problems here," said John Goit, who said he had moved nuclear bombs in his days in the military. "I am in full support of this site."

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 01, 2007

YUCCA'S CROSSROADS

What's decided in this room could change the proposed dump's fate

Next step toward license hinges on good faith

By Lisa Mascaro
<lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun

Judy Treichel has been here before - not this room, per se, but this moment in history. So have many of the other players in the Yucca Mountain saga that has been running for the past 20 years.

The Yucca Mountain project will reach a milestone Wednesday - the same one it hit in 2004, when the U.S. Energy Department's plans to build a nuclear waste repository about 90 miles outside of Las Vegas became seriously delayed.

At that time, a three-judge panel ruled the department had not made a good-faith effort to publicly disclose millions of pages of documents supporting the waste dump proposal.

It sounds like such a small hurdle compared with the engineering feat of converting Yucca Mountain into a high-tech dump to store nuclear waste for the next 1 million years. But that 2004 ruling became a critical setback that helped to stall the project until now.

The law governing Yucca Mountain's development requires the documents to be posted six months before the Energy Department embarks on its next major step - submitting its application next summer to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license the dump.

No documents, no license.

Now, we are at that crossroads again.

On Wednesday those same three administrative judges from Washington will convene in Las Vegas to determine whether the Energy Department has complied with the law.

The department says it has made publicly available 3.5 million documents - about 30 million pages of engineering reports, maps, drawings, e-mails, even scribbled notes from geologists in the field - supporting the dump proposal.

Joseph R. Egan, the attorney shepherding Nevada's fight against the project, said if the document collection is rejected again, as he believes it will be, "it would be a more serious blow than last time."

The stakes are even higher now. Congress has lost patience with the delays. When the Energy Department announced it would submit its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 2008, many saw that as an effort to ensure it is in the approval pipeline before the Bush administration leaves office. Bush supports nuclear energy and the Nevada dump site, but every Democratic candidate for president now opposes Yucca Mountain. Even the utility companies that have long championed the dump are looking at other, temporary waste solutions.

"They could really be in trouble because of a political point of view, a cost point of view, a congressional point of view," Egan said.

Treichel can't help but feel deja vu.

She remembers the summer day in 2004 when the Energy Department sent out a news release announcing the new Yucca Vista Web site for the online library of Yucca Mountain documents.

She pointed and clicked on the site, and couldn't find a thing.

The Web page looked more like an advertisement for time shares in Pahrump, she said, than the electronic database for millions of technical engineering and scientific documents about the project.

She complained.

Now, from her Las Vegas home that doubles as the headquarters for her nonprofit community group, the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Treichel said she doesn't see much improvement in the new library.

Sure, there are more documents. And the Web site is now managed by the neutral Nuclear Regulatory Commission instead of the Energy Department.

But Nevada's attorneys argue that critical documents remain missing.

And, Treichel says, good luck finding the document you're looking for - searches produce 300,000 hits or none.

"It's actually in some ways worse than their first attempt," said Egan, the state's lawyer. "At least in the first attempt, the bungling was obvious. This time they're trying to cover it up."

The hearing on Wednesday is an administrative law proceeding. On one side will be lawyers from the Energy Department and the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main lobbying arm. On the other will be Nevada and Treichel.

Each side will argue its case before the panel in a Las Vegas hearing room the Nuclear Regulatory Commission built just to handle Yucca Mountain's legal battle.

The Energy Department knows the stakes for Wednesday's hearing.

Its lawyers insist the department has "fully complied" with the law's requirement to make the information accessible.

"Nevada's motion should be seen for what it is - a bid to delay the licensing proceeding for delay's sake," the Energy Department wrote in its legal filings.

The department acknowledges that some documents remain unavailable, but argues the panel should move forward with certifying the online library as complete.

"The limited amount of remaining material will promptly be made available ... when completed, and Nevada and all other potential participants will have an ample opportunity to review it," according to a department legal filing.

When the panel asked the Energy Department how many documents remained outstanding, the department said there are 79 missing "pieces" - but an untold numbers of pages.

Nevada argues one of those omissions is key - the Total System Performance Assessment, what one representative of the Nuclear Energy Institute calls "the mother of all codes." The document is a massive multivolume report explaining just how the repository will function over time.

Because nuclear waste is planned to be buried in canisters in the mountain for 1 million years, engineers have been struggling to figure out how to prevent water from seeping in through the rock. Water could corrode the canisters, which could allow deadly nuclear waste to seep into ground water used for agriculture in the Amargosa Valley.

The Energy Department declined to comment for this story.

But Steven P. Kraft, senior director of used fuel management at the Nuclear Energy Institute, said Nevada is misinterpreting the law and that the document can be added when it is ready.

The panel isn't expected to make a ruling on Wednesday.

Either side can appeal the decision to the full Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If the Energy Department's application is approved, the department can move forward with filing its license next year, as planned.

If it's denied, Yucca Mountain would again be set back.

--Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 01, 2007

YUCCA'S CROSSROADS

What's decided in this room could change the proposed dump's fate

Yucca case leads U.S. to build courthouse of the future here

By Lisa Mascaro
<lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has built in Las Vegas one of the nation's most technologically advanced courthouses, in order to handle the next several years of legal battles expected over Yucca Mountain.

Doors open Wednesday for its debut public function - a hearing on whether the Energy Department has sufficiently made its Yucca Mountain project documents available for public review.

The $6.3 million building near the airport might not look like much. But it is outfitted with technology that legal experts say is on the cutting edge of judicial proceedings in the United States.

This will be a paperless trial.

Virtually every document used in the court proceedings, including about 30 million pages of support material for the Yucca Mountain license application, will be digitized and accessed via computers.

When a witness is asked, for example, to mark the spot on a map to show where nuclear waste could spread to ground water, that annotation can be digitally captured and stored forever. If someone years later wants a printout, he can get it.

Lawyers, witnesses, even judges could participate in the hearings remotely, via video connections from across the country.

All the transcripts and video footage from the hearings will be available - and searchable - to the legal teams.

The public can watch many of the proceedings from home, as is being done Wednesday through an arrangement with Cox cable.

Professor Fred Lederer, director of the Center for Legal and Court Technology at the College of William & Mary law school in Virginia, said creating the courthouse is a responsible attempt by a public agency "to handle a case of enormous complexity."

His surveys show that time in court can be shaved by 30 percent - up to 50 percent for more complex cases - by doing away with the shuffling of paper documents.

Building the 200-seat facility outside the Washington Beltway, some say, protects the commission's neutral standing before Nevadans as it decides the fate of Yucca Mountain.

By this time next year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could begin hearing the legal battles over the Yucca Mountain site.

Administrative judges from the commission are expected to hear more than three years of legal challenges to the Energy Department's proposal for a waste dump. Nevada, which opposes the dump, is expected to file thousands of contentions.

As far as legal proceedings go, the nation has never seen anything quite like it.

--Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com

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

Pahrump Valley Times
December 01, 2007

One Contract Amended Five Times

Commissioner balks at county consulting fees

By Mark Waite
PVT

Nye County Commissioner Peter Liakopoulos Tuesday jumped on the bandwagon of his predecessor, former district five Commissioner Patricia Cox, in voicing concerns about paying for too many consultants.

Commissioners voted to increase county hydrologist Tom Buqo's contract $47,251 to a total of $272,281, but commissioners approved other consulting contracts without a fuss.

A summary of the agenda request for Buqo's contract amendment states his original contract was signed in 2003 to perform water-related work, but has since been amended five times.

The latest contract amendment states Buqo will assist the county on water issues, including water rights filings and long term stewardship of the county's water resources. Buqo will be preparing documents to pursue damages to ground water resources at the Nevada Test Site.

Another task involves completing work on the wellhead protection program for Pahrump Valley.

Buqo's principal fees are $140 per hour, associate fees $115 per hour, managing scientist's fees $90 per hour, down to field technicians who make from $25 to $40 per hour.

"At what point does it become prudent for us to hire a county hydrologist?" Liakopoulos asked. "I think it's important we start getting away from consultants and start bringing in staff."

Nye County Manager Ron Williams said the county is paying outstanding invoices owed Buqo. He said Buqo was issued a stop work order in mid-June due to non-payment.

Assistant Nye County Manager Pam Webster said Buqo's increased contract will be paid out of the $11.25 million annual payment equal to taxes Nye County receives from the U.S. Department of Energy for the land value of Yucca Mountain. Nye County Natural Resources Director Jim Marble will review the funding request to see if it can be paid out of a congressional earmark for a groundwater study.

Other requests to fund consultants sailed through without discussion.

Commissioners voted to retain attorney Frank Cremen as a special prosecutor to handle the case against AnnJet Switzer at an undetermined amount not expected to exceed $15,000.

A former legal secretary in the Nye County district attorney's office, Switzer was arrested in September on misconduct by a public officer, possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy to violate the Uniform Controlled Substance Act.

Switzer was accused of trading information from the district attorney's office in exchange for drugs.

Pahrump resident Walt Kuver was hired to provide professional services in support of county project management. Kuver owns a company called Directed Solutions LLC. He will be paid $75 per hour, at a contract not to exceed $35,000.

Kuver's fees will be paid out of a renewable energy projects fund, approved by commissioners Nov. 6, using county proceeds of $561,000 from the auction of geothermal leases by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in northern Nye County earlier this year.

Kuver will conduct research into renewable energy projects Nye County is involved with and other projects relating to energy and economic development.

Attorney Mark J. Ricciardi, from the law firm of Fisher and Phillips, was given another $50,000 to increase his contract to $150,000 for county labor negotiations. His contract was originally approved in January 2006. It will now expire June 30, 2008.

Commissioners pulled a request to approve a contract extension with Entrix Consultants to complete a Pahrump Valley multi-species habitat conservation plan at the county manager's request.

The Las Vegas company recently completed a draft habitat conservation plan for the desert tortoise.

The request would've extended the company's contract to Dec. 31, 2010 at a cost of up to $225,000.

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

Daily News Journal
December 01, 2007

Gordon: Foreign nuclear waste has no place in state

The Daily News Journal

A Utah-based company with operations in Kingston, Memphis and Oak Ridge is seeking a license to bring foreign nuclear waste into Tennessee for processing and disposal, but U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Murfreesboro, said that proposal is bad policy.

According to documents from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EnergySolutions is seeking permission to import thousands of tons of radioactive nuclear material from Italy and bring it to Tennessee for processing. Some of the waste could then stay in Tennessee for disposal, according to a news release from Gordon's office.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has never reviewed an application for importation and disposal of such a large volume of foreign nuclear waste," said Gordon in the release. "The NRC should deny this license ... I don't want Tennessee to become the nation's — and now the world's — nuclear dumping ground."

EnergySolutions wants to bring 20,000 tons of nuclear waste through the ports of Charleston and New Orleans. The waste would be brought by rail, barge or truck to Tennessee for processing, and then it could go to Utah for burial or stay in the Volunteer State. The waste importation would begin next spring and continue for five years.

Gordon said he fears some waste could end up in Tennessee's landfills under the state's Bulk Survey for Release program, which allows low-level radioactive waste to go into Class A landfills.

In August, Allied Waste, the owner of Middle Point Landfill in Rutherford County, announced it would voluntarily discontinue its participation in the BSFR program. Low-level radioactive materials have been deposited at the landfill on Jefferson Pike in the Walter Hill community since the 1990s as part of the program.

"The U.S. already faces capacity issues and other challenges in treating and disposing of radioactive waste produced domestically," Gordon said. "We should be working on solving this problem at home before taking dangerous waste from around the world."

This is not the first time Tennessee has been mentioned as a destination for nuclear waste. In the 1980s, the Department of Energy proposed building a storage site at Oak Ridge for the nation's highly radioactive waste.

Ultimately, Congress designated the remote, unpopulated Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as the sole location for the waste. That facility has faced repeated delays and is now scheduled to open in 2017.

"I fought the Department of Energy's proposal to build a nuclear waste dump in Tennessee because I didn't want millions of Tennesseans to live with the hazards that come with transporting radioactive material," Gordon said. "Using Tennessee as a nuclear dumping ground was a bad idea 20 years ago, and it's a bad idea today."

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

KLAS-TV
November 30, 2007

Speak Out on Yucca Mountain Nuke Waste Project

Edward Lawrence

A new effort is underway by Clark County to enable Southern Nevadans to have their say on the Yucca Mountain Project.

The Department of Energy wants to ship the nation's most radioactive nuclear waste to the repository site about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Clark County wants to sound an alarm concerning plans to bring a nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, and county leaders want public opinion documented. They worry changes to the original site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas will increase the danger to people in the valley.

Irene Navis, Clark County nuclear planning manager, said, "In their environmental impact statements they are proposing doubling the capacity of the repository, which doubles the number of shipments and the duration of the shipments."

Navis says Monday, Dec. 3 will be the last face-to-face public meeting with the Department of Energy. She adds a new county push for public involvement at that meeting started with this display in the government center.

Fliers have also been circulated.

The campaign by the county is called "Speak Up on Yucca Mountain." The goal is to overwhelm the Department of Energy with public concern on the project.

That will not stop the Department of Energy, but the county's nuclear planning manager says it will put the government agency on notice to concerns about property values, impacts on tourism, and public safety.

"Survey after survey we have seen 70 to 75-percent opposition to the repository. We want to make sure this is an event that reflects the interest in the issue," Navis continued.

Department of Energy spokesman Allen Benson says his agency has gone above and beyond to include the public.

They will hold a total of eight public hearings across the country giving people a last chance to be heard.

Allen Benson, DOE Yucca Mountain spokesman, said, "Are the comments listened to? The comments are absolutely listened to and we have to respond to the comments, whether or not we have missed something. Important for people to point out."

Clark County agrees and wants everyone's voice heard.

The public hearing will be at the Cashman Center on Monday from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. The public will get a chance to speak face-to-face with DOE representatives.

You can also e-mail your comments to: YuccaOpinions@aol.com.

The public comment period ends on Thursday, Jan. 10, 2008.

Click here to print the "Speak Up on Yucca Mountain" flyer.

DOE's Allen Benson says the license application will be submitted by Jun. 30, 2008.

If approved, the first nuclear waste would be shipped in 2017.

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

KLAS-TV
November 29, 2007

Speak Out on Yucca Mountain Nuke Waste Project

Edward Lawrence
Reporter

A new effort is underway by Clark County to enable Southern Nevadans to have their say on the Yucca Mountain Project.

The Department of Energy wants to ship the nation's most radioactive nuclear waste to the repository site about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Clark County wants to sound an alarm concerning plans to bring a nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, and county leaders want public opinion documented. They worry changes to the original site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas will increase the danger to people in the valley.

Irene Navis, Clark County nuclear planning manager, said, "In their environmental impact statements they are proposing doubling the capacity of the repository, which doubles the number of shipments and the duration of the shipments."

Navis says Monday, Dec. 3 will be the last face-to-face public meeting with the Department of Energy. She adds a new county push for public involvement at that meeting started with this display in the government center.

Fliers have also been circulated.

The campaign by the county is called "Speak Up on Yucca Mountain." The goal is to overwhelm the Department of Energy with public concern on the project.

That will not stop the Department of Energy, but the county's nuclear planning manager says it will put the government agency on notice to concerns about property values, impacts on tourism, and public safety.

"Survey after survey we have seen 70 to 75-percent opposition to the repository. We want to make sure this is an event that reflects the interest in the issue," Navis continued.

Department of Energy spokesman Allen Benson says his agency has gone above and beyond to include the public.

They will hold a total of eight public hearings across the country giving people a last chance to be heard.

Allen Benson, DOE Yucca Mountain spokesman, said, "Are the comments listened to? The comments are absolutely listened to and we have to respond to the comments, whether or not we have missed something. Important for people to point out."

Clark County agrees and wants everyone's voice heard.

The public hearing will be at the Cashman Center on Monday from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. The public will get a chance to speak face-to-face with DOE representatives.

You can also e-mail your comments to: YuccaOpinions@aol.com.

The public comment period ends on Thursday, Jan. 10, 2008.

Click here to print the "Speak Up on Yucca Mountain" flyer.

DOE's Allen Benson says the license application will be submitted by Jun. 30, 2008.

If approved, the first nuclear waste would be shipped in 2017.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
November 29, 2007

Dual Use of Railroad Disputed

So, state may sue the feds

By Mark Waite
PVT

AMARGOSA VALLEY -- Nevada officials have pushed the U.S. Department of Energy for years to make a railroad to Yucca Mountain available for dual use.

Now that the DOE has publicly stated it will let commercial freight shippers use the rail line -- both in the environmental impact statement and on a placard at the public hearing here Monday -- the State of Nevada plans to sue the DOE over it.

"The argument may be, if it's a shared use line, you have to build it like any other railroad. You have to go before the Surface Transportation Board and get construction authorization. That means the guy who really knows about railroad building," said Bob Halstead, transportation advisor for the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.

Halstead urged Nevada residents to order the EIS and study it closely, particularly if they are concerned about ranching.

"The biggest impacts on the land frankly don't have anything to do with nuclear waste. They have to do with the fact you're building a railroad," Halstead said.

He described the logistics of "building a 300 to 350 mile crushed stone wall with a railroad on top of it." The DOE will have to drill 175 wells for dust suppression, which could affect water supplies used by ranchers. Large quarries would be needed to supply ballast. Grazing allotments will be crossed.

Halstead said the estimated cost of the rail line has increased from $800 million to $3 billion, but the DOE doesn't want to spend an additional $20 million to $30 million for alternatives that would have less impact on ranching, mining and recreation. The EIS identifies different routes through places like Coal Valley, Garden Valley and in particular, the Goldfield Mining District.

Halstead complained the DOE has now decided to ship the hottest nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, which is twice as dangerous thermally and radioactively, than letting it cool for five to 10 years at the reactor sites.

"The National Academy of Sciences spent three years recently studying nuclear waste transportation. They concluded, as did the state of Nevada, nuclear fuel can be shipped safely. But can be shipped safely and will be shipped safely are two very different things," Halstead said.

Halstead's speech put a damper on pro-Yucca Mountain positions by Nye County and nuclear energy officials.

Nye County Commissioner Joni Eastley said the county was never consulted about the original selection of Yucca Mountain. But Nye County commissioners refuse to assume the State of Nevada will prevail in its opposition to Yucca Mountain, Eastley said.

Eastley said "it would be dangerous and irresponsible not to constructively engage DOE during this process."

Nye County concluded after $30 million worth of studies Yucca Mountain is not only technically feasible, but it can be done safely, Eastley said.

"The time has come to either advance or terminate this program based on its merits," she said. "We need to see an end to the stalling tactics and politicizing of science and bring this project to a conclusion."

Paul Seidler, senior director of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said 150 million Americans live within 75 miles of nuclear power plants. Commissioner Butch Borasky said he used to live within 100 miles of three nuclear power plants in central New York state.

Rod McMullen, director of the NEI Washington D.C. office, said he looked forward to licensing hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when opponents can challenge the project before impartial judges.

Inyo County, California repository office project coordinator Matt Gaffney had concerns over flows into the carbonate aquifer below Death Valley coming from Yucca Mountain. He said the EIS didn't consider the socioeconomic impacts to Inyo County, which is 15 miles from Yucca Mountain.

Jennifer Viereck, from Tecopa, Calif., who is executive director of Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth, felt intimidated by all the nuclear industry executives. She advocated green energy like wind and solar. Viereck also begged to differ on statements saying there are no nearby streams, pointing to the Amargosa River.

"Legal ownership of this land will be necessary in the licensing process and cannot be proved. All of the land lies within the treaty lands of the Western Shoshone nation which was ratified in 1863," Viereck said.

A handful of anti-nuclear activists stood up to complain. Carl Dyken said he opposed uranium mining, nuclear power and nuclear waste.

'I believe the process for Yucca Mountain is really the push for more nukes," said Ryan Wiegel, of Sacramento.

"Someone said in the last five years they found out Yucca Mountain is safer than it was even thought it was five years ago. Well, what are they going to find out in the next five years? We're talking about a million years," said Paul Bloom of San Francisco.

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

PR Newswire
November 29, 2007

Cox Las Vegas Provides Live Broadcast, Sat Feed and Webcast of Nevada's Challenge to DOE Document Certification for Yucca Mountain

Cox 96 broadcasts hearing in So. Nevada and offers uplink to news media nationwide as public service

LAS VEGAS, Nov. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Cox Communications, Las Vegas will broadcast the oral arguments on Nevada's challenge to the Department of Energy's certification of its document collection on the Licensing Support Network (LSN) for the Yucca Mountain proceeding on Cox Cable Channel 96, a local access channel for customers with basic cable service. Cox is also providing a no-cost, live satellite feed to local, state and national news media. In addition, a live webcast of the proceeding will be available at http://www.cox96.net. The hearing is scheduled to begin in Las Vegas on Dec. 5 at 9 a.m. PST and continue until approximately 1 p.m. PST.

The hearing before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Pre-Application Presiding Officer (PAPO) Board is an important milestone preceding DOE's application for an NRC license to construct and operate the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, north of Las Vegas. DOE expects to submit the application in mid-2008.

"Cox Las Vegas creates, produces and broadcasts exclusive content for our Southern Nevada customers on our local origination channel Cox 96 as a continuing public service," notes Leo Brennan, region vice president and general manager. "We're committed to providing our customers the widest array of content for the widest array of audiences, and we're offering this live feed of the NRC proceeding to broadcast partners as well as streaming video over the Internet so that the widest audience possible can have access to this important content."

Steve Schorr, vice president of public and government affairs for Cox Las Vegas, said about the multi-pronged delivery of the proceeding, "The storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is an issue that concerns not only the citizens of our state but our entire country, and as such the ability of our cable system to provide interested parties on both sides of this issue with access to this critical hearing is exceedingly important."

Cox Las Vegas is providing a no-cost, live satellite feed from the NRC's Las Vegas Hearing Facility on Dec. 5 from 9 a.m. PST until the expected close of the proceeding at 1 p.m. PST. A satellite test signal will be broadcast on Tuesday, Dec. 4 from 10:30 a.m. PST until 11:30 a.m. PST. The test signal and day-of broadcast will utilize the same satellite coordinates (see below).

Galaxy 26                digital ku-band
Transponder 17           Slot C
Downlink frequency       12031 (V)
Data rate                5.5
Symbol rate              3.9787, FEC 3/4
For technical questions occurring only on Dec. 5 and related only to the satellite uplink, please contact David Mills at (702) 278-8278.

While the hearing room at the NRC's multimedia facility was constructed in anticipation of the adjudicatory hearing on the Yucca Mountain application in order to provide the people of Nevada maximum access to the hearing, seating is limited. By providing a live broadcast on Cox Cable Channel 96, a live direct satellite feed to news media and a live webcast at http://www.cox96.net, Cox Las Vegas, part of the nation's third largest cable television company, is helping to ensure that access to the proceeding is expanded to those without the means of being physically present at the facility.

Cox Las Vegas will provide one rebroadcast of the entire proceeding on Cox Cable Channel 96 on Sunday, Dec. 16, from 2 p.m. PST until 6 p.m. PST. The rebroadcast will also be simultaneously webcast on http://www.cox96.net.

About Cox 96

Cox 96, Cox Communications' local programming cable channel, creates, produces and broadcasts exclusive content designed for the Southern Nevada audience. Since the channel launch in 2004, Cox 96 has been the local broadcast source for community parades including the annual Dr. Martin Luther King Day Parade and Hispanic Awareness Day Parade, as well as State of the City addresses from the Cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson as well as the Governor's State of the State address. Cox 96 also served as the exclusive broadcast partner for the Clark County School District, the nation's 5th largest, to air its Superintendent search interviews. For local sports fans, Cox 96 is home to San Diego Padres baseball -- providing live coverage of home games through a partnership with Cox Communications, San Diego.

About Cox Communications

Cox Communications is a multi-service broadband communications and entertainment company with more than 6 million total residential and commercial customers. The third-largest cable television company in the United States, Cox offers an array of advanced digital video, high-speed Internet and telephony services over its own nationwide IP network, as well as integrated wireless services in affiliation with Sprint. Cox Business is a full-service, facilities-based provider of communications solutions for commercial customers, providing high-speed Internet, voice and long distance services, as well as data and video transport services for small to large-sized businesses. Cox Media offers national and local cable advertising in traditional spot and new media formats, along with promotional opportunities and production services. Cox Communications wholly owns and operates the Travel Channel. More information about the services of Cox Communications, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, is available at http://www.cox.com, http://www.coxbusiness.com, and http://www.coxmedia.com.

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

Reuters
November 29, 2007

Cox Las Vegas Provides Live Broadcast, Sat Feed and Webcast of Nevada's Challenge...

Cox Las Vegas Provides Live Broadcast, Sat Feed and Webcast of Nevada's Challenge to DOE Document Certification for Yucca MountainCox 96 broadcasts hearing in So. Nevada and offers uplink to news medianationwide as public serviceLAS VEGAS, Nov. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Cox Communications, Las Vegas willbroadcast the oral arguments on Nevada's challenge to the Department ofEnergy's certification of its document collection on the Licensing SupportNetwork (LSN) for the Yucca Mountain proceeding on Cox Cable Channel 96, alocal access channel for customers with basic cable service. Cox is alsoproviding a no-cost, live satellite feed to local, state and national newsmedia. In addition, a live webcast of the proceeding will be available athttp://www.cox96.net. The hearing is scheduled to begin in Las Vegas onDec. 5 at 9 a.m. PST and continue until approximately 1 p.m. PST.

The hearing before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Pre-ApplicationPresiding Officer (PAPO) Board is an important milestone preceding DOE'sapplication for an NRC license to construct and operate the proposed nuclearwaste repository at Yucca Mountain, north of Las Vegas. DOE expects to submitthe application in mid-2008.

"Cox Las Vegas creates, produces and broadcasts exclusive content for ourSouthern Nevada customers on our local origination channel Cox 96 as acontinuing public service," notes Leo Brennan, region vice president andgeneral manager. "We're committed to providing our customers the widest arrayof content for the widest array of audiences, and we're offering this livefeed of the NRC proceeding to broadcast partners as well as streaming videoover the Internet so that the widest audience possible can have access to thisimportant content."Steve Schorr, vice president of public and government affairs for Cox LasVegas, said about the multi-pronged delivery of the proceeding, "The storageof nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is an issue that concerns not only thecitizens of our state but our entire country, and as such the ability of ourcable system to provide interested parties on both sides of this issue withaccess to this critical hearing is exceedingly important."

Cox Las Vegas is providing a no-cost, live satellite feed from the NRC'sLas Vegas Hearing Facility on Dec. 5 from 9 a.m. PST until the expected closeof the proceeding at 1 p.m. PST. A satellite test signal will be broadcast onTuesday, Dec. 4 from 10:30 a.m. PST until 11:30 a.m. PST. The test signal andday-of broadcast will utilize the same satellite coordinates (see below). Galaxy 26 digital ku-band

Transponder 17 Slot C

Downlink frequency 12031 (V)

Data rate 5.5

Symbol rate 3.9787, FEC 3/4

For technical questions occurring only on Dec. 5 and related only to thesatellite uplink, please contact David Mills at (702) 278-8278.

While the hearing room at the NRC's multimedia facility was constructed inanticipation of the adjudicatory hearing on the Yucca Mountain application inorder to provide the people of Nevada maximum access to the hearing, seatingis limited. By providing a live broadcast on Cox Cable Channel 96, a livedirect satellite feed to news media and a live webcast athttp://www.cox96.net, Cox Las Vegas, part of the nation's third largest cabletelevision company, is helping to ensure that access to the proceeding isexpanded to those without the means of being physically present at thefacility.

Cox Las Vegas will provide one rebroadcast of the entire proceeding on CoxCable Channel 96 on Sunday, Dec. 16, from 2 p.m. PST until 6 p.m. PST. Therebroadcast will also be simultaneously webcast on http://www.cox96.net.

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

Farmington Independent
November 29, 2007

Nuclear to remain part of Minnesota energy

Mike Longaecker
Forum Communications Co.

RED WING, Minn. – Even as Minnesota becomes more reliant on renewable energy sources, the state will continue leaning heavily on nuclear power.

Industry officials and lawmakers say the state's energy needs require a steady source of “baseload power” — constant output that doesn't fluctuate. Wind turbines popping up across the state won't take the place of that vital need.

"The industry as a whole in the U.S. does not feel threatened by emerging technologies," said Mike Wadley, Nuclear Management Co.’s site vice president at the Prairie Island nuclear generating plant.

Renewable sources like wind, water and biomass produce energy, but remain at the mercy of weather and climate changes, he said. Droughts, Wadley said, affect hydroelectric and biomass power, and “wind generation is wonderful — when the wind is blowing.”

“It's intermittent,” he said. “We can't control it.”

But nuclear can be counted on, many say, despite concerns over waste storage. That is why Xcel Energy, Minnesota's largest energy producer, is banking on nuclear well into the future.

Plans are in place to upgrade power output at both the Monticello and Prairie Island plants, said Charlie Bomberger, Xcel's general manager of nuclear asset management. By investing about $270 million at each facility, he expects to increase the life of the plants by 20 years.

Monticello's federal operating license was to expire in 2010, but it received a new license this year that reaches to 2030. Prairie Island's licenses are to expire in 2013 and 2014. Xcel officials say they will seek 20-year extensions for the two reactors near Red Wing.

While those dates approach, others say it is time to look even further ahead — perhaps by expanding the number of Minnesota's nuclear plants. Rep. Joyce Peppin, one of the Legislature's leading nuclear power proponents, said the state must begin investigating that possibility by lifting its moratorium on new nuclear plants.

Provisions of the ban, she said, prohibit the state's Public Utilities Commission from even discussing the matter. Peppin said she will continue pushing legislation in 2008 to lift the ban, so nuclear's future in Minnesota can be explored.

Without that mapped out, the Rogers Republican fears Minnesota could be on a course for energy blackouts like those in California.

“You start getting to a point where you must make a decision of, ‘Are we going to be living in a cave?’” she said.

Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, wants no part of a push for more nuclear plants in the state, saying the moratorium was instituted for a reason.

Anderson said she's willing to hear discussion on the topic, but said talks should be limited to lawmakers who create policy — not by the utility commission members who implement it.

"The Legislature needs to take the lead," she said, adding that the joint Legislative Electric Energy Task Force would be the appropriate venue for such a discussion.

Anderson, who authored legislation establishing Minnesota's renewable energy standard, said costs, security issues and questions of where to store nuclear waste stand in the way of new nuclear generation here.

“I don't think there's an appetite to do new nuclear power in Minnesota,” she said.

Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty agreed.

“The future will be about more wind, more solar, more biomass, more biogas, hydrogen fuels cells, hopefully clean coal, maybe next generation nuclear in some parts of the country,” Pawlenty said in an interview. “I don’t think (more nuclear) will happen in Minnesota because of our political culture here.”

Nuclear makes up 25 percent to 30 percent of Xcel Energy’s Upper Midwest power.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to nuclear expansion is the question of waste storage. Plans to haul spent nuclear fuel to Nevada's Yucca Mountain remain in limbo, with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., leading the charge against the project.

Opponents of the project claim the site — nestled about 90 miles north of Las Vegas, Nev. — and its geologic characteristics are unfit for a massive repository.

Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, scoffed at the notion, saying the repository could be open for business in less than a year.

“I think the risks are nominal at best,” the senator and Xcel employee said.

----

Wadley said he would like to see the repository used temporarily until a viable method of recycling spent fuel is rendered.

“But that's not a technical decision,” he said. “It's a political decision.”

While Peppin doesn't think an expansion of nuclear would necessarily mean phasing out coal plants, that's just what Murphy proposes.

Coal's fossil-fueled plants don't create a good energy mix as Minnesota heads toward a greener future, he said.

“If we're serious about flipping the switch to ‘off’ on some of these coal plants...” Murphy said. “Then that's where nuclear fits in.”

Eventually the state will need at least one other nuclear plant, said Murphy, who once worked at the Prairie Island facility.

Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon is one of two lawmakers heading up the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force. The Duluth Democrat said legislators must continue evaluating the role of different energy sources, including nuclear. That doesn’t mean nixing any particular option, she said, but added that nuclear’s reputation has improved since the 1970s.

“There’s more willingness to re-look at it among people in Minnesota,” Prettner Solon said.

--Longaecker reports for the Red Wing Republican Eagle, which is owned by Forum Communications.

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

SouthCoastToday
November 29, 2007

CONSERVATIVE CORNER: Only nuclear power can reduce greenhouse emissions

By Peter Friedman

Our leaders on Beacon Hill, who are clearly more knowledgeable about the law than engineering, are steadily moving toward enacting legislation that would require "greenhouse gas" emissions caps that are 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

We need to step away from the widely misunderstood issue of global warming and man's influence on the climate, so that we can focus on the obvious question: "Is this lofty goal of an 80 percent reduction even achievable?"

Unless the future includes a wide-scale expansion of nuclear power, then the answer is "absolutely not!" However, with a progressive nuclear energy program, it might be achievable, although I would still argue that ill-conceived, mandatory emissions caps will do more harm than good.

To put this knee-jerk legislation into perspective, if we assume (somewhat unrealistically) that we can derive 25 percent of our total energy production from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, the proposed caps would require that we reduce our energy consumption to one-fourth of what it was in 1990 by the year 2050.

Of course if the exodus of productive citizens and industry that are currently leaving the state continues, we might get there by default. But then enacting ill-conceived policies that forces production overseas where efficiencies are lower would actually increase the world's "carbon footprint."

To be clear, we should use solar, wind, tidal, ethanol and other renewable energy sources where practical, but we should keep in mind their limitations, and we should understand that these sources can only be a minority part of a comprehensive energy strategy.

For example, 400 very large wind turbines, each rated at 2.5 megawatts, while operating at full capacity could produce as much power as Brayton Point power station. But on average, a 2.5-megawatt turbine will produce only about 30-35 percent of its rated capacity, and its production is based on Mother Nature's schedule — not ours.

Furthermore, few locations are suitable for wind power, and because the power source is diffuse, each turbine requires a substantial surface area. Likewise, because the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth's surface is less than 1,000 watts per square meter, solar power also has large area requirements. In addition to weather limitations, solar energy is seasonal and is only available during daylight hours.

On the other hand, using currently available nuclear power technology, we could economically produce all of the electricity we need in New England and the United States without producing any carbon dioxide.

Energy for transportation is a tougher nut to crack. However, with the combination of nuclear power and continued research, ground transportation could realistically be fueled by hydrogen. With a supply infrastructure, hydrogen could be burned in internal combustion engines or, better yet, directly combined with oxygen in fuel cells to produce electricity.

However, because hydrogen does not exist in nature except in combination with other elements and it requires energy to separate, it should not be considered an energy source. Rather it is more appropriate to view hydrogen as a means to store and transport energy.

In an ideal world, hydrogen releases as much energy when it combines to form water as it requires to produce; but as every competent mechanical engineer knows, when inherent irreversibilities and inefficiencies are factored into the equation, more useful energy (referred to as exergy) is expended in hydrogen production than is available to do useful work when it recombines.

However, when coupled with nuclear power, the hydrogen economy becomes practical. Hydrogen could currently be produced from conventional nuclear power using electrolysis in off-peak hours when demand is normally low. More promising technologies exist in specialized high-temperature gas-cooled reactors optimized for hydrogen production.

To expand the nearly limitless supply of environmentally clean and safe power that the nuclear industry could provide, we must overcome an irrational fear and misunderstanding that has been developed, ironically by environmentalists, over the last four decades. The arguments against nuclear power usually center on safety, radioactive waste and the threat of terrorism.

Let's start with the safety issue first. The poster child of anti-nuclear power advocates is the Three Mile Island accident, which occurred 30 years ago. The TMI accident was the result of a worst-case combination of operator errors in which the reactor was prevented from protecting itself. Roughly 50 percent of the nuclear fuel experienced a meltdown.

Nevertheless, with the exception of a small release of low-level radioactivity, the problem was entirely confined within the concrete containment structure. It is unlikely that anybody outside the plant received more exposure from the accident than they would have normally received from natural sources in a three-month period. The industry learned lessons from TMI and improved the design and training, virtually eliminating the chance of reoccurrence.

Our problem with nuclear waste is largely the result of a lack of political will. It is hard to believe how little waste nuclear power plants actually produce. If you were to stack all of the high-level waste produced over the last 40 years by all of the nuclear power plants operating in the United States combined, you would have one pile that would cover a single football field to a depth of 5 yards. As fabricated in fuel assemblies, high-level waste is not a threat to leak in the environment since it is composed of small impervious ceramic tablets. These tablets are further encapsulated in corrosion-proof zirconium alloy tubes.

Currently, the assemblies are stored at their power plants, although the longer-term goal is to send them to a geologically stable repository at Yucca Mountain, which was chosen after years of analysis. Waste can also be encapsulated into glass beads that could exist indefinitely. While this is a safe and acceptable solution, an even better solution would be to begin a fuel reprocessing program, like France and Britain already have. The advantage of reprocessing is that it would allow us to obtain a significantly increased energy yield from the fuel and it would further reduce the amount of high-level waste.

Finally, concerning the threat from terrorists, nuclear reactors are inherently very secure facilities that are enclosed within 2- to 5-foot-thick reinforced concrete containment structures. Add impenetrable vehicle barriers, multiple perimeters, and highly armed and trained security details stationed in armored, secure guard stations with clear sight lines to all approaches. Everyone entering or leaving is screened with metal detectors and radioactivity detectors, and all packages entering or leaving are X-rayed and inspected. Considering the threat to all of our energy facilities, there are many targets that we need to be concerned about; but we can feel confident that are our nuclear facilities are the most secure.

Dr. Peter Friedman is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at UMass Dartmouth and a retired naval officer. In the Navy, he served as the chief engineer of a nuclear submarine. He can be reached at ConservativeCorner@hotmail.com.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 28, 2007

NRC puts complaint about Yucca on hold

Officials say it's too soon to judge request for probe

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has shelved another Nevada complaint about government management at Yucca Mountain.

Officials with the nuclear safety agency said it is too soon to judge a request that Sandia National Laboratories, a major contractor at the nuclear waste site, be investigated for safety and suspended from the project in the meantime.

The petition filed by Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto on Oct. 16 was based on documents that she said suggested Sandia managers were putting repository safety behind a rush to meet deadlines set by the Department of Energy.

DOE and Sandia officials responded that the complaint was baseless.

The NRC can't take action on the Nevada complaint because the Energy Department has not yet applied for a license to build the repository, said Aby Mohseni, deputy director in the Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety.

"NRC will not prejudge the adequacy of a potential license application, or the safety analyses it may contain, before an application is received," Mohseni said in a letter sent to Cortez Masto on Nov. 15.

Sandia National Laboratories is preparing safety analyses that Energy Department officials will rely on to argue that highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel and other forms of high-level nuclear waste can be stored within Yucca Mountain and shielded from the elements for thousands of years.

In October, the NRC set aside a Nevada request to limit the amount of nuclear waste that could be stored above ground while awaiting burial at the Yucca site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Agency officials similarly said they could not judge that matter before receiving a DOE repository application.

In September, a complaint by the state and by environmental groups that the Energy Department was withholding key documents from scrutiny also was declared premature by the nuclear agency.

--Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or (202) 783-1760.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 28, 2007

Poll finds Nevada voters strongly oppose Yucca

Survey shows 76 percent are against nuclear waste project

The Associated Press

RENO -- Nevada voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to federal plans to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, according to a statewide poll published Tuesday.

The survey of 600 likely Nevada voters conducted for the Reno Gazette-Journal found that 76 percent oppose the project and 57 percent say the issue will be important in making their choice for president.

The survey also found that opposition to the project crosses party lines, but Democrats think it's a more important issue in the presidential election than Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Democrats said the issue is important to them in the presidential race, compared with 38 percent of Republicans.

The poll was conducted Nov. 16-19 by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4 percent.

"From a national perspective, any campaign that wants to win the hearts and minds of Nevada voters has to be prepared to talk about long-term radioactive storage," said GOP strategist Greg Ferraro of Reno. "These numbers will also force the candidates to look at alternatives for the waste."

Yucca Mountain has gained more attention from presidential candidates since Nevada moved up its presidential caucuses to Jan. 19, following Iowa on Jan. 3 and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8.

Nevada's congressional delegation is adamantly opposed to the project. Congress in 2002 picked the Yucca Mountain site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor fuel.

Political analysts said the issue's importance in presidential elections has been questionable. They cite President Bush's ability to carry Nevada in 2004, despite his support of the Yucca Mountain site.

"Yucca Mountain is not going to swing it for them from one candidate to another," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.

"Among Democrats, this is a far more salient issue. There is no nuance allowed. ... Republicans, even those who are opposed to Yucca Mountain, are not as adamant as are the Democrats," he said.

Every Democratic presidential candidate has come out against Yucca Mountain, but Rep. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to come out strongly against it.

The Department of Energy is preparing a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct the project.

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

Las Vegas SUN
November 28, 2007

FLASHPOINT: Reno Gazette-Journal poll

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

It's hard to believe but a Reno Gazette-Journal poll has found that nearly 60 percent of Nevada voters say the Yucca Mountain issue will be important when they decide whom to vote for in the presidential election. What if other issues were offered up, too? I bet it wouldn't finish in the top five or even 10. More interesting was the one comment appended to the online version of the Gazette-Journal poll story from a reader who supported the project in part because if "something went wrong the very worst it could do is wipe out Vegas. Which would be a blessing for the state of Nevada." And Nevada would really miss Reno so much if it disappeared. Come to think of it, why not just put the dump in Sparks? Show of hands, please.

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

Energy Central
November 28, 2007

Taking Swipes at Nuclear Power

Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief

It is election season and the rhetoric in the air may not be healthy for the nuclear industry. The sector is getting it from all sides, with some on the right arguing that too many subsidies exist while some on the left are saying it is still unsafe.

It all means that nuclear energy could get burned before it would rise from the ashes. With ample uranium to feed the proposed plants and with relatively no harmful emissions associated with it, the nuclear sector is poised to respond. But legal and financial impediments are still combining to add extraordinary risks.

Currently, 104 nuclear reactors operate with a combined generating capacity of about 100,000 megawatts. That provides about 20 percent of this country's electricity. But, no new nuclear plants have been ordered since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

The price tag to build a nuclear facility in the days before Three Mile Island totaled about $1 billion but after that the sunk costs amounted to about $6 billion. Meantime, the timeframe to actually build the plants doubled from five years to 10 years. Long Island Lighting Co.'s Shoreham nuclear power station, for example, was estimated to cost about $75 million when construction started in 1965. But, after 20 years of legal battles, the tab was $6 billion -- and it never reached commercial operation.

The challenge going forward is to win investors who recognize the risks tied to regulatory and legal concerns as well those hazards associated with construction and technology. Wall Street, for example, is concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could mire the licensing process in red tape while specific communities could entangle the process in the courts for years. The repercussions would lead to construction delays that make projects cost prohibitive.

That's the impetus behind provisions enacted under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The law provides for loan guarantees of up 80 percent of a project's cost, while it also provides tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for 6,000 megawatts of capacity from new nuclear power plants for the first eight years of operation. The act also extends the Price-Anderson Act that limits utilities' liability with any potential nuclear accident.

Altogether, the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions says that it is expecting 19 applications from utilities in the coming months to build new facilities. Among those applying are Entergy, Exelon and NRG Energy. Recently, the NRC received applications for new reactors in Texas and Maryland.

Critics say that the renewed interest is about winning government largess. "Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero," write Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDoren, scholars at the conservative Cato Institute, in Forbes.

Concrete Steps

Ironically, the political right has traditionally been supportive of the nuclear sector. The left, conversely, has been cold. But, it has partially warmed up because of all the attention paid to climate change and the benefits that nuclear power could bring. Now that national elections are around the corner, though, the left is souring on some points such as where to store to spent fuel. Nevada's Yucca Mountain has been authorized by lawmakers to be the central repository for such waste. But, fierce opposition and legal fights have delayed the opening until at least 2020 -- an issue that could derail all proposed nuclear projects.

With Nevada strongly opposed to the site being located there and with the state central to the primary contests, the Democratic candidates are pulling back. Front runner Hillary Clinton, who has accepted thousands in campaign contributions from the industry, says more nuclear development is possible, although storing spent fuel at Yucca Mountain is not. Barack Obama, who is the hometown favorite of nuclear powerhouse Exelon, rejects the site too. Ditto for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who has reversed course after once supporting the proposed central repository.

The candidates may be ambivalent. But, some on the left remain totally opposed to any further nuclear development. The slightest potential of radioactive material escaping makes nuclear power implausible, they say. They are also dubious of claims that more nuclear energy could make a dent in the climate change picture, pointing to an MIT study that says if nuclear power is to have any significant effect on global warming it would require building at least 1,000 new reactors worldwide.

Despite the level of intense opposition, one industry-sponsored poll says that about 68 percent of the public would favor more nuclear energy. Utilities have capitalized on the momentum and are reaching out.

While the industry favors a central repository for spent fuel, many utilities say that they are successfully storing on site the waste in dry casks that are encased in large concrete barrels. To speed along further development, those companies have said they are okay with that arrangement for now.

The more immediate issue is winning the necessary financing. The industry says that while the upfront capital costs to build plants are high, the operational cost to run the plants is lower than competing sources. They also say that nuclear technology has advanced while the experience of those overseeing the plants is now unsurpassed. Plants now run at 90 percent of installed capacity. In the 1970s, they had an average annual capacity factor of less than 70 percent.

"We are taking concrete steps to position ourselves to be able to make a decision when that time comes whether to build," says Randy Hutchinson, senior vice president for nuclear business development at Entergy Nuclear.

Nuclear developers are prepping but they are stopping short of making any firm commitments. The regulatory, legal and financial hurdles may be less formidable than before, but they are still daunting -- a reality underscored by the positions that both the hard right and left have staked out.

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

Metro Spirit
November 28, 2007

Chronicle staff needs a writing class

By Jim Christian

AUGUSTA, GA. - If you’ve read this column more than once, it’s no secret that I occasionally take issue with what The Augusta Chronicle presents on its opinion pages.

Truth be told, it’s not actually their conservative propaganda, but rather the manner in which they present it. I mean, every paper has an editorial bent.

Case in point: In “A mountain of a problem,” The Chronicle’s editorial staff illustrated beautifully the problem I have with their writing. And it’s this: One of the basic tenets of editorial writing is that you present both sides of an issue and then make your case for supporting one of them.

In the editorial, they used 500 words to tell us why not to vote for Democrats next fall, based on a single issue: the Yucca Mountain Project.

The project is a plan to bury all of the nation’s nuclear waste in the desert above Las Vegas rather than in various regional dumps. They started off well enough, telling us not to base our vote on a single issue. But they abandoned that premise quickly by telling us if you are going to do that, then this is the issue for you.

They could have gotten back on track, laying out the pros and cons and then telling us what they thought. Instead, they asked, “So where do the Democratic front-runners stand on this?” You can probably figure out where this is going. As it turns out, the Democratic candidates are all against the project. So you, dear voter, have just had your mind made up for you.

Now, the astute reader might have wondered, you know, why they’re all against it. But that apparently isn’t the point. The point is that they are against it, so it must be good.

I guess the one good thing they do is actually explaining their position a bit, telling us that, without Yucca Mountain, the waste generated by the Savannah River Site, for example, will have to be stored on-site. And that’s rightfully scary to people like us, who live near it.

But if you’ve got a valid point, why hide behind anti-Dem rhetoric? Would it kill you to tell us, for instance, that Obama doesn’t like the plan because the Yucca Mountain site leaks and is in an active earthquake zone? Or that Clinton believes it may not be as safe as proponents of the project want us to believe? Or that Richardson thinks that shipping nuke waste cross country is a health and safety risk, as well as a threat to national security?

They probably think that it’s enough that the Dems are against it, and that the reasons are insignificant. Or it may be that the Dems might have valid points, and muddying an opinion piece with valid opposing points might weaken their argument.

Whatever their reasoning, by not giving their readers all of the information, they cheat them.

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

Atlanta Journal Constitution
November 28, 2007

Nuclear foes protest Plant Vogtle expansion

Indigo Girls singer among those opposed to Georgia Power plan

By Margaret Newkirk
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Holding signs, applauding and shivering in the wind outside the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's office in Atlanta, 21 staunch opponents of nuclear power, including one Indigo Girl, made their case Tuesday.

The occasion was the second to last day of a key public comment period related to Georgia Power's planned expansion of the Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta.

The comment period on an environmental impact report on that plant closes at the end of the day Wednesday.

Georgia Power wants to add two more units to the two units already at the plant.

The group outside the NRC wants the public to weigh in against that expansion — or any nuclear expansion.

"We're few but we're strong," said Emily Saliers, the Indigo Girls member in the small crowd.

"Nuclear energy is not the answer," she said. "It's not clean, it's expensive, it's dangerous and its highly subsidized by the federal government."

Georgia Power and its parent, Southern Co., are among a number of utilities now pushing to build nuclear units for the first time in decades.

The push has heavy support — including financial support — from Washington.

Of the 21 opponents on hand, 11 took the mike.

Some had been fighting nuclear power since the first two Vogtle units were finished at great expense in the 1980s. Some had been at it since the 1970s.

Their issues haven't changed much.

The United States still has no final, central resting place for the radioactive waste reactors produce, for instance.

Nuclear plants remain costly to build. The activists passed out fliers showing the huge cost overruns that plagued the original Vogtle units.

The activists strongly opposed increased subsidies for nuclear builders now pending in Congress.

Those proposed subsidies include $50 billion in tax dollars to guarantee nuclear builders' loans.

A newly prominent issue is water. Nuclear power consumes lots of river water, now at a premium because of the region's drought.

Sara Barczak, of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said an expanded Vogtle would consume as much water per day as is used by every resident inside the city limits of Atlanta, Macon, Augusta and Savannah.

Southern Co. said it couldn't vouch for Barczak's numbers, but said Plant Vogtle uses less than one percent of the Savannah River's average flow now and will use less than two percent of that flow if expanded.

The company said it has safely stored waste for decades at pools and casks at its plant, and will continue to do so until a long-promised central repository opens at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The company has yet to give an estimate of what its proposed new nuclear units will cost customers.

But it's getting closer. The company expects to have a price from its vendor, Westinghouse, on Friday.

Beth Thomas, a spokeswoman for Southern's nuclear subsidiary, said that though Southern supports federal loan guarantees for the industry at large, it isn't counting on them for Plant Vogtle. However, it would take advantage of them if they became available, Thomas said.

She said the company doesn't need the guarantees as much as power companies in some other states because Georgia has a regulatory approval process that cuts down on financial risks.

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

Las Vegas SUN
November 27, 2007

Letter: 9/11 should change the way we look at Yucca

Hurray for Harry Reid! The Senate majority leader didn't trust the Bush administration not to fill two of the five positions on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the holiday break, so he kept the Senate chamber active. Who can blame him? With the Yucca Mountain repository application's filing right around the corner, and with the administration in favor of a nuclear dump in Nevada, that was an intelligent move to protect Nevada and perhaps the U.S.

In her Nov. 25 story about the Senate pro-forma session, Sun reporter Lisa Mascaro writes that the repository application for a license is to be submitted to the NRC by the Energy Department next year.

But it's time, I think, for us as a nation to ask the question: Do we even want to parade fissile materials in front of terrorists, inviting them, in essence, to take them?

The repository concept was developed in 1957, 50 years ago, long before 9/11. Since 9/11, we've found out some people are trying to destroy this civilization. Do we really want to risk helping them do it?

What needs to happen right now, in my opinion, is for Congress to reexamine what we are about to do with the hauling of highly radioactive nuclear waste. The sterling record of the transportation industry in moving nuclear fuel was established over 60 years with shipments to 106 locations in total secrecy.

Shipments to Yucca Mountain, however, will be at the rate of six per day for 20 years to one single location. Terrorists need merely to lie in wait at the Nevada state line. To use the industry's shipment history to justify movement of waste to Yucca Mountain makes no sense. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

We hear about how low the uranium and plutonium content of the waste is. If terrorists get their hands on spent fuel rods, it won't be the amount that bothers us. It'll just be the fact that they were able to do it.

I think America needs to rethink this entire issue.

Ron Bourgoin
Rocky Mount, N.C.

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

Nevada Appeal
November 27, 2007

Poll: Most Nevadans oppose Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site

Associated Press

RENO — Nevada voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to federal plans to store the nation’s nuclear waste at southern Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, according to a statewide poll published Tuesday.

The survey of 600 likely Nevada voters also found that opposition to the project crosses party lines, but Democrats think it’s a more important issue in the presidential election than Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Democrats said the issue is important to them in the presidential race, compared with 38 percent of Republicans.

The poll was conducted Nov. 16-19 by Maryland-based Research 2000 for a Reno newspaper. The margin of error is 4 percent.

“From a national perspective, any campaign that wants to win the hearts and minds of Nevada voters has to be prepared to talk about long-term radioactive storage,” said Republican strategist Greg Ferraro of Reno. “These numbers will also force the candidates to look at alternatives for the waste.”

Yucca Mountain has gained more attention from presidential candidates since Nevada moved up its presidential caucuses to Jan. 19, following Iowa on Jan. 3 and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8.

Nevada’s congressional delegation is adamantly opposed to the project. Congress in 2002 picked the Yucca Mountain site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor fuel.

Political analysts said the issue’s importance in presidential elections has been questionable. They cite President Bush’s ability to carry Nevada in 2004, despite his support of the Yucca Mountain site.

“Yucca Mountain is not going to swing it for them from one candidate to another,” said Eric,” said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.

“Among Democrats, this is a far more salient issue. There is no nuance allowed. Where Republicans, even those who are opposed to Yucca Mountain are not as adamant as are the Democrats,” he said.

Every Democratic presidential candidate has come out against Yucca Mountain, but Rep. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to come out strongly against it.

The Department of Energy is preparing a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct the project.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
November 27, 2007

Candidates court Yucca foes

Anjeanette Damon
Reno Gazette-Journal

Nevada voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to storing the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and are poised to rely on that issue as they make their choice for president, according to a new poll.

The Reno Gazette-Journal poll found that fierce opposition to the project crosses party lines but that Democrats think it is a more important issue in the presidential contest than do Republicans.

Of 600 likely Nevada voters surveyed, 76 percent said they oppose the project to store 77,000 tons of the nation's radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles outside of Las Vegas. Nearly 60 percent of all voters said the issue will be important in determining their vote for president.

Among Democrats, 74 percent said the issue is important to them in the presidential race, while only 38 percent of Republicans said it will be important.

The poll was conducted Nov. 16-19 by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4 percent.

"From a national perspective, any campaign that wants to win the hearts and minds of Nevada voters has to be prepared to talk about long-term radioactive storage," said Republican strategist Greg Ferraro of Reno. "These numbers will also force the candidates to look at alternatives for the waste."

The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is a perennial fight in Nevada politics, with the state's entire congressional delegation opposed to the project.

But its salience in presidential elections has been questionable. In the most recent referendum on the topic, the 2004 presidential race, U.S. Sen. John Kerry lost Nevada to President Bush despite his vocal opposition to Yucca Mountain.

"Had George Bush been against Yucca Mountain, the people who are so adamantly opposed to it wouldn't have voted for him anyway," said Eric Herzik, a political scientist with the University of Nevada, Reno and a Republican.

The poll did not ask respondents to rank several issues in order of importance, leaving it unclear as to whether the Yucca Mountain issue will play more prominently with voters than, for example, Iraq, immigration or health care, pollster Del Ali said.

Likely voters named those three issues as the most important in an open-ended question on an August poll. In 2004, Bush was able to make the election about terrorism, which outweighed Yucca Mountain and other issues, Ali said.

But Yucca Mountain is strongly associated with other top issues for voters, including national security, the environment and energy independence.

"People are rating this as a very important issue because it is part of a broader set of issues," Herzik said. "But Yucca Mountain is not going to swing it for them from one candidate to another."

Yucca Mountain has played a starring role in the Democratic presidential primary race because of Nevada's Jan. 19 caucus, the third contest in the nation.

Every Democratic candidate has come out against Yucca Mountain, and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton used her position on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to schedule a congressional hearing on the project.

For Republicans, the issue has not been as prominent. Most of the field has failed to articulate a clear position either in support or opposition to the project.

U.S. Sen. John McCain remains a supporter of the project. And former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front-runner in most Nevada polls, sought and obtained the endorsement of former Gov. Bob List, a nuclear industry lobbyist in support of the project.

Only U.S. Rep. Ron Paul has come out sharply against Yucca Mountain.

"Among Democrats, this is a far more salient issue," Herzik said. "There is no nuance allowed. Where Republicans, even those who are opposed to Yucca Mountain, are not as adamant as are the Democrats."

Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the attention generated by the Democratic race is good for the state's fight against the project.

"What people are battling is Yucca fatigue," Loux said. "It's been going on so long, in starts and fits, that sometimes you think it is either a done deal or it's already dead. But many of us think it's important to keep it in the public's mind."

The Department of Energy is preparing a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct the project. Loux expects that application to be submitted in June.

"Clearly, their agenda is to get it filed before a new president comes into office," he said. "They clearly read the same polls and comments from the candidates and are concerned that if this thing isn't in the licensing hopper it would be easier to kill."

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
November 27, 2007

Gibbons appoints conservative education activist as an energy adviser

Anjeanette Damon

Joe Enge, a conservative Carson City education activist and recent school board member, has been appointed to run Gov. Jim Gibbons' energy office. (Tip of the hat to Myrna the Minx who first reported the story last night.) Enge took the job of deputy energy director on Nov. 12 (well after a hiring freeze was instituted by the governor because of budget woes.) Gibbons' spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin said Enge was hired by Hatice Gecol, director of the energy office.

Enge has little, if any, energy experience to speak of. Rather, he was hired for his legislative credentials, Subbotin said. Enge is a former history teacher at Carson High School, who left after a battle over how the Civil War should be taught. He then started an education advocacy group and writes policy columns for the conservative Nevada Policy Research Institute. He's testified before the Legislature on some issues, but has never registered as a lobbyist. Since earning notoriety for his 2005 battle with the school district, Enge has been involved in several conservative political groups in Carson City.

"He has an extensive background with the Legislature, therefore she thought he would be an asset to their department," Subbotin said. "She was looking for somebody to assist with the legislative and policy aspects. She says she has known him through various organizations and working with the Legislature previously."

Subbotin said Gecol discussed the appointment with Gibbons, who signed off on the hire.

As for the hiring freeze, Subbotin said Enge's Nov. 12 hire date is just the day the paperwork was finalized. She said he was offered the job before the freeze, but didn't have any other details as to when the offer was made.

Gecol has been unavailable for comment.

The appointment follows a long line of appointments that have earned the governor repeated criticism. They include the short tenure of a Yucca Mountain supporter to the state's anti-Yucca Mountain commission; the appointment of a Reno developer to the board that had sanctioned his company in the past for violations; and the naming of a former executive of a bankrupt subprime lender to run the state's mortgage lending division.

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

San Luis Obispo Tribune
November 27, 2007

Initiative to reverse ban on nuclear plants statwide is withdrawn

Insufficient public support for new nuclear plants in California prompts sponsor to shelve the plan

By David Sneed

An initiative to lift the state’s ban on new nuclear power plants will not appear on the June 2008 ballot.

State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, has withdrawn the ballot initiative he submitted to state elections officials, after public opinion polls found lukewarm support for new nuclear power plants in the state.

His initiative would have overturned a 1976 state law prohibiting construction of new nuclear reactors until a permanent solution for the storage of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is found.

About 14 percent of California’s power comes from nuclear plants. The state has two nuclear power plants in operation: the San Onofre plant near San Diego and the Diablo Canyon plant near Avila Beach.

“This was certainly a controversial initiative,” DeVore said. “If we pushed this thing to the ballot, we were likely to lose.”

Lifting the state’s nuclear moratorium is relevant to San Luis Obispo County because most proposals for new nuclear plants call for adding reactors to existing plants.

Officials with Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which owns and operates the Diablo Canyon plant, say they are interested in more nuclear power but are not proposing adding new reactors to Diablo.

PG&E spokesman Pete Resler said Monday the utility had no comment on the De- Vore initiative.

There is renewed interest nationally in nuclear power and federal regulators expect to process applications for about 30 new reactors along the East Coast and in the Southeast in coming years.

A group of entrepreneurs has proposed building a new nuclear plant in Fresno.

Unless it is overturned, the state’s nuclear moratorium will prevent new nuclear plants for the foreseeable future. Completion of a planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is at least a decade away—maybe longer if Nevada legislators succeed in their pledge to keep the repository out of their state.

Lacking support

In addition to lifting the nuclear moratorium, DeVore’s ballot initiative would have prevented nuclear plants from being built in earthquake-prone areas and along ecologically sensitive parts of the coastline.

In October, DeVore got permission to begin gathering signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. No signature gathering was done, however, because several opinion polls showed that 52 percent of the public supports more nuclear power while 42 percent is opposed.

That was not enough support to justify moving ahead given the fact that environmental and some consumer groups were gearing up to fight the initiative.

“That’s very modest support,” he said. “You want to be in the mid-60 percent range before you start on something that controversial.”

Rochelle Becker, who heads the San Luis Obispo-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said she was delighted by DeVore’s decision to stop the campaign. The state Energy Commission is doing a cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power and it would be premature and irresponsible, she said, to change the law before that analysis is finished.

Becker was working with other groups, including the Sierra Club, to fight the initiative. They want the state to pursue renewable energy sources rather than nuclear power.

“When Mr. DeVore introduced this initiative,” she said, “he brought many more people together on our side than he anticipated.”

DeVore said he hasn’t given up on the idea of new nuclear power plants in California as a way of meeting ambitious state goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He plans to submit a bill next year that would lift the nuclear moratorium legislatively and said it may take several years to generate enough public support to change the law.

DeVore submitted such a bill to the state Legislature last year, but it was voted down in committee. The new bill has not been written yet, so De- Vore is not sure how it will differ from the previous one.

--Reach David Sneed at 781- 7930.

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

Chickasha Express Star
November 27, 2007

“It’s a very hot topic ... It can be, no pun intended, politically radioactive.”

Energy experts: State needs more power

By Jaclyn Houghton
CNHI News Service
Oklahoma City

Energy experts agree: Oklahoma needs more power.

The source of that power is up for discussion.

Lawmakers heard testimony from nuclear power and utility experts at an interim study at the Capitol on Tuesday regarding the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in the state.

No nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in nearly 30 years, but about 30 applications are expected for creation throughout the country, according to Mike McGarey, director of state outreach for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C. Two nuclear power plants were approved in Texas this year.

He told lawmakers nuclear power would benefit Oklahoma. The state does not have a nuclear power plant but a plant - Black Fox - was proposed in the 1970s near Inola, Okla. The proposal brought out concerned citizens afraid to have a nuclear power plant so close to home, especially after accidents such as the nuclear meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania in the late 1970s.

A concerned citizen also came to the Capitol on Tuesday.

A woman dressed as a polar bear with a sign on her chest reading: “No nukes” and “Solar yes” attended the end of Tuesday’s meeting to protest the creation of nuclear power plants.

Jean McMahon, 47, of Fort Gibson, said she dressed as a polar bear to represent all the plants and animals impacted by environmental pollutants.

Nuclear power plants are “extremely dangerous and we’ve got to stop it,” she said. “This is out of hand. There are lots of environmentalists against this.”

Jeff Cloud, commissioner of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, said he remembers the “No Nuke” concerts from the late 1970s and early 1980s and the movement against nuclear power.

“It’s a very hot topic,” he said. “ … It can be, no pun intended, politically radioactive.”

He has studied nuclear power and considers it a reliable, low-cost, safe form of energy and he believes discussions about nuclear energy are beneficial to the state. He said his only concerns are the high cost to build nuclear power plants, the limited expertise about nuclear power and what to do with the nuclear waste. Understanding the risks involved is important, said Cloud, and no matter what is decided power will be needed.

McGarey said the United States will see a 41 percent increase in demand for electricity by 2030 and a 39 percent increase in Oklahoma and the surrounding area by the same year. He said that equates to adding 10 nuclear power plants to the area.

There are 104 operational nuclear power plants in 31 states. McGarey said thse plants supply about 20 apercent of the nation’s ehlectricity. He said the process is clean because it has the least emissions of all forms of electricity. As for disposing of the waste, he believes recycling could be a possibility. There was also a plan to hold the waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the plan has stalled at the Congressional level.

The issue of what to do with the nuclear waste is what concerns Bob Rounsavell, member of the board of directors for the Carrie Dickerson Foundation. Dickerson died last year but was an outspoken opponent of the proposed Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant’s creation in Inola in the 1970s. The foundation is a non-profit focused on educating the public on safe forms of energy. If there was a safe way to dispose of the waste byproducts he said his group may support the creation of the nuclear plants. Since he does not feel confident in the current disposal efforts he does not support the plant creation.

“This is something we hoped wouldn’t come up again,” he said.

If Dickerson were alive, Rounsavell believes she might say, “‘oh my, here we go again.’ Then she would get up and go” do something about it.

He believes the state should look at expanding wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric technologies before addressing nuclear energy.

Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove, said education is key to understanding nuclear power. He said he had concerns about the health and public safety of citizens related to nuclear power prior to hearing the testimony, but the speakers relieved those concerns.

“I think if people get educated it will allay the fears,” Cox said.

He said the state’s role in nuclear power should only be to offer incentives to operate the plants.

Officials with the Grand River Dam Authority, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority and the Public Service Company of Oklahoma all spoke at the meeting and voiced similar interests and concerns. All the utility companies said they may be interested in nuclear power, but cannot afford the endeavor on their own.

McGarey said it could take eight to 10 years and cost $5 billion to $6 billion to construct a nuclear power plant. That is almost the amount of the state budget for one year.

John Wendling, director of power plant operations with Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, said the high cost and the long construction time are problems.

“OG&E needs energy in the next five years, meaning nuclear won’t meet that need,” he said. But, “ … as we move forward we think everything’s on the table, including nuclear.”

Cox said Tuesday’s gathering was the only scheduled meeting to discuss nuclear power plants.

--Jaclyn Houghton is CNHI News Service Oklahoma reporter.

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

MIT Technology Review
November 27, 2007

Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Congress pushes for another look at thorium fuel, saying it could reduce the amount of high-level nuclear waste produced by reactors.

By Peter Fairley

Senators representing several Western states, including Utah's Orrin Hatch and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, are working on legislation to promote thorium. They say it's a cleaner-burning fuel for nuclear-power plants, with the potential to cut high-level nuclear-waste volumes in half.

"They're concerned about the spent fuel from nuclear reactors ending up in their states," says Seth Grae, president of thorium-fuel technology developer Thorium Power, based in McLean, VA.

Nuclear watchdogs say that Thorium Power's technology has real potential. Moreover, they say that the legislation is needed. It would force the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the nuclear industry, to create new offices at the agencies to study thorium-fuel options and promote their use abroad.

"It makes a lot of sense in my view," says Thomas Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in Washington. He says that congressional action is needed to overcome resistance within the DOE to exploring thorium.

Using thorium in existing reactors means rethinking the "once through" nuclear fuel cycle employed today in most countries, including the United States. The cycle starts with uranium-oxide fuel enriched in the fissile uranium isotope U235. Fission of the uranium in a reactor generates heat to drive a nuclear power plant's turbines, and it produces a highly radioactive blend of fission breakdown products, including plutonium that can be recovered to make nuclear weapons. Other fission products slow the chain reaction, requiring replacement of fuel every one or two years. The spent fuel is removed and stored on site, awaiting burial.

The DOE is working on a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. But the facility won't open for at least another decade, and there is little political will to build more such sites. Meanwhile, Private Fuel Storage, based in Salt Lake City, is proceeding with a controversial interim storage site on Native American land, with a 20-year license and an option to renew. "That's quite a stopover," says Grae.

Thorium Power was launched in 1992 to commercialize a process that reduces the amount of toxic waste produced by traditional reactors. The process was developed by the late nuclear scientist Alvin Radkowsky, a seminal designer of the U.S. Navy's reactors and early commercial nuclear plants. Radkowsky's scheme relies on both thorium and uranium fuels, making it more complex on the front end. But doing so keeps most of the fuel in the reactor longer, and it produces waste that's less toxic.

Each fuel assembly carries a mix of two different fuel rods. The majority are rods containing pellets of thorium oxide. The thorium can't sustain a chain reaction on its own like U235 can, but it can absorb neutrons to form another fissile isotope of uranium that will: U233. In Thorium Power's design, these neutrons are supplied by the remaining rods, which are solid alloys of zirconium and fissile U235-enriched uranium.

Grae says that Thorium Power's hybrid-fuel assemblies are designed to perform as drop-in replacements for uranium-oxide fuel in pressurized water reactors, the most common reactor design worldwide. The reactors require only minimal modifications. The most important adjustment is the use of more-precise cranes to insert and remove fuel assemblies to enable separate extraction of the uranium rods. Grae says that this is key to the waste reduction because most of the thorium stays in the reactor core for nine years. (The uranium rods, like conventional uranium-oxide fuel, are swapped out more frequently.)

Thorium Power plans to test this fuel system within three years, starting in a pressured-water reactor in Russia. The tests will be conducted in partnership with the Kurchatov Institute, a nuclear research center in Moscow. The institute has been testing the endurance of Thorium Power's fuel materials for four years while simultaneously scaling up a uranium-zirconium extrusion process to produce the 3.5-meter rods used in the Russian reactors.

If the rods endure, experts expect that Thorium Power's scheme will succeed because the hybrid thorium-and-uranium fuel concept is already proven. Several early gas-cooled nuclear reactors of the 1950s and '60s used a seed-and-jacket fuel scheme conceptually similar to Thorium Power's. And a few early water-cooled reactors such as the first reactor at Indian Point, NY, operated in the 1960s and '70s with fuel rods filled with a thorium-uranium blend. However, thorium fell out of favor as the nuclear industry standardized around uranium, particularly after uranium fuel slumped to rock-bottom pricing following the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979.

Dumping fuel every two years looks less appealing today, with uranium prices rising rapidly and high-level waste piling up at commercial reactors across the United States. Thorium fuel also responds to growing concern over proliferation of fissile materials that could be used in nuclear weapons. Thorium's byproducts produce intense gamma radiation, making them hard to handle by would-be bomb makers. Thorium Power is focusing its marketing efforts on developing countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America that are looking to build their first reactors; Grae bets that a design that impedes proliferation of nuclear weapons will make reactors easier to finance in such countries. The company is also looking to India, which hopes to exploit its large thorium reserves.

The challenge for thorium proponents is that the DOE already advocates another fuel cycle that promises to cut waste and manage proliferation risks: a so-called closed fuel cycle, whereby chemical reprocessing recovers plutonium from spent uranium fuel for reuse in conventional reactors.

Reprocessing is central to the DOE's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), whereby major nuclear players such as the United States would guarantee uranium fuel supply to countries that promise to return spent fuel--the plutonium within which could be used to make nuclear weapons.

The GNEP has many critics who argue that the reprocessing of spent fuel will be costly, will increase rather than limit the risk of diversion of fissile materials, and will do little to reduce high-level waste volumes. The DOE's plan is to burn recovered plutonium by blending it with uranium. This produces a hotter and more toxic spent fuel that can only be burned in breeder reactors. Those reactors have, to date, proved infeasible at commercial scale. (See "The Best Nuclear Option.")

Grae insists that Thorium Power could benefit, in the long run, from stepped-up reprocessing because its fuel system provides a better outlet for the recovered plutonium: replacing uranium as the neutron source for Thorium Power's thorium-fuel rods. In 2005, nuclear-technology giant Westinghouse evaluated Thorium Power's system as an option for burning surplus military plutonium, and the company predicted that this would be "substantially" cheaper, quicker, and more effective than burning plutonium with uranium.

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

Sarasota Herald-Tribune
November 26, 2007

Letter: Depleted energy and global warming

Four letters on Nov. 19 called for conservation and alternative energy to protect the world from global warming. None, however, called for building nuclear power plants.

No writer even asked Americans to overcome the politicized misinformation that is keeping this emission-free source from growing, even though it safely produces 20 percent of our nation's electricity, day after day.

Nuclear energy is not the whole answer. Its proponents never even suggested that. However, it is the only available energy source that can result in any substantial reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Solar and wind energy are past the research and development phases. We have been subsidizing actual generating facilities for three decades. They now produce about 2 percent of our electricity. There will be more, but the easy, affordable conservation strides have already been made.

Nuclear plant subsidies ended in the early 1960s. The talk now is only of loan guarantees if our reformed licensing process should fall victim to court challenges that tie up major construction projects.

If letter writers really believe global warming is a threat to our environment, they can start now by urging their constituents to learn the facts about nuclear power, stop trying to delay the Yucca Mountain waste repository and think about real, long-term energy needs.

In the 1970s, activists called for stopping nuclear power as a way to force energy conservation. They weren't considering the serious risks of not having enough energy. The inconvenient truth is that the most dangerous kind of energy is not enough energy.

A. David Rossin
University Park

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