Yucca Mountain News ClipsFriday, January 11, 2008

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, January 11, 2008
---------------------------

KLAS-TV
January 10, 2008

Public Comment for Yucca Mountain Ends at Midnight

The public comment period for Yucca Mountain will end Thursday at midnight. The Department of Energy is submitting a license application and public comment is part of that process.

It's a contentious issue. Some people say the repository will be nothing more than a toxic waste dump, others believe the government's proposal at Yucca Mountain will lead us to energy independence. The debate has been going on for more than 20 years.

The D.O.E. will accept online comments until midnight on Jan. 10, 2008.

The public comment period began in Oct. The D.O.E. held several public hearings.

The public can view the documents to be discussed online

You can also send comments by fax to: 1-800-967-0739, or to an independent e-mail account: yuccaopinions@aol.com. They must be received before midnight.

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 10, 2008

Las Vegas quits group that backs a nuclear Yucca

Dump foe cheers split from ‘rogues’ gallery’

By Jeff German

In an about-face, Las Vegas has given up its membership in a pro-Yucca Mountain group that critics say has undermined the state’s fight against the high-level nuclear waste dump.

Bob Loux, the state’s top Yucca Mountain watchdog, hailed the city’s decision to pull out of the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business, an organization he describes as a “rogues’ gallery” of dump supporters.

“Groups like the Nevada Alliance are trying to weave themselves into the fabric of Southern Nevada like they’re ordinary businesses, which of course they’re not,” said Loux, executive director of the state’s Agency for Nuclear Projects. “It’s good to see the city has taken action to terminate its relationship with them.”

The Sun reported in August that Las Vegas and North Las Vegas were listed on the Nevada Alliance’s Web site as associate members of the nonprofit group, which advocates Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a way to bring economic benefits to the state.

More than two dozen companies, mostly government security and high-tech contractors, are listed on the group’s Web site as members.

They include Bechtel SAIC Co., the contractor hired to build the dump, and the consulting company run by former Gov. Bob List, who is paid by the nuclear industry to promote Yucca Mountain. The Nevada Alliance shares office space with the public relations firm run by Ace Robison, an industry operative hired to weaken Nevada’s opposition to the dump.

Las Vegas spokesman Jace Radke said the city’s membership did not produce any significant development opportunities.

“In addition, the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business has a pro-economic development position on Yucca Mountain, while the city has taken a very strong position against Yucca Mountain,” Radke said.

Clark County refused to join the organization, funded in part through a $100,000 Energy Department grant, because of the group’s pro-Yucca stance.

North Las Vegas still is listed as an associate member on the group’s Web site.

City Manager Gregory Rose said North Las Vegas remains opposed to Yucca Mountain but sees its membership with the Nevada Alliance as a means to attract business to the city.

Loux, though, said the Nevada Alliance tries to “trick Nevadans into supporting the dump through some sort of illusionary economic development options.”

“I don’t think there is any analysis done by any organization in the state that shows any economic benefits from the dump whatsoever,” he said.

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 10, 2008

Editorial: Yucca tie rightly cut

Las Vegas cancels its membership in a business group that supports nuclear dump

Las Vegas has dropped its membership in a business group that promotes the federal plan to bury the nation’s high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

This is a welcome change from last summer, when it defended its association with the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business.

Writing Wednesday about the city’s change of heart, Las Vegas Sun reporter Jeff German quoted Las Vegas spokesman Jace Radke, who said the group has a “pro-economic development position on Yucca Mountain, while the city has taken a very strong position against Yucca Mountain.”

The city’s director of administrative services, Chris Knight, responding to inquiries from the Sun, staked out the opposite position last summer. “We don’t pick and choose who we do business with because there’s a single issue in which we have a disagreement on,” Knight said.

That was a strange comment coming from an official whose city has a long record of opposing the Yucca Mountain project, which poses multiple safety, transportation and environmental risks.

The Sun’s article last summer disclosed that the alliance’s Web site touts the group’s position that Southern Nevada could benefit economically from the Yucca Mountain project. The article also disclosed that the group’s membership includes paid supporters of the project as well as industries that would be involved in building it.

Bob Loux, the state’s point man on nuclear waste, described the alliance as a “rogues’ gallery” of Yucca Mountain supporters.

The city had justified its membership on the ground it would attract more businesses associated with federal projects. But high on the group’s project list is Yucca Mountain, just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The city’s membership starkly contradicted Nevada’s resolve to never regard the proposed multibillion-dollar nuclear dump as an economic bonanza.

Although Las Vegas has seen the light about this group, North Las Vegas remains a member, even though its City Council has passed a resolution condemning Yucca Mountain. It should honor that resolution and the state’s need for unity on this issue by also canceling its membership.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 10, 2008

Letter: Nuke dump

To the editor:

In October, I toured Areva's used nuclear fuel recycling facility at LaHague, France, where the French have proved that recycling used nuclear power plant fuel is safe, routine and friendly to the environment.

The French commissioned the plant in 1966. The utilities that recycle their used nuclear fuel come from Europe, Scandinavia and Japan. The Italian government, which shunned nuclear power for years, has come to the wisdom of recycling fuel.

The fuel that I saw had 4 percent waste and 96 percent that was being recycled. The 96 percent was converted into new power plant fuel and is returned to the utility. That is correct: After a full run, typically six years in a reactor, the "used" fuel still retains better than 90 percent of its energy potential.

Moreover, the recycling process drastically reduced the amount of material requiring long-term storage. Now France is storing the vitrified waste underground in a temperature-controlled room 60 feet deep.

If we recycled our "used" nuclear fuel, would we need Yucca Mountain?

If we are going to use nuclear fuel to generate clean, reliable energy, we must have a plan for recycling our used fuel. The Areva plan is being used safely today.

Bill Gordon
Reno

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

Seattle Post Intelligencer
January 10, 2008

Make energy resolutions for 2008

Karen Harbert
Guest Columnist

Over the holidays, we saw Rockefeller Center twinkle with energy-efficient bulbs powered by a solar-paneled roof. We celebrated the New Year with a new LED ball in Times Square that equaled the amount of energy used by 10 toasters.

We also saw rapidly growing international demand for energy and insufficient investments in production leading to record prices for traditional energy sources. As we close the door on one year, and ring in another, it seems appropriate to reflect on 2007 and make some "energy" resolutions for 2008.

In 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The bill responds to the president's challenge to reduce America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent over 10 years. This represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and confronting global climate change. The administration's initiative will increase energy security, expand consumer choice and make the U.S. stronger, safer and cleaner for future generations.

In 2008, we resolve to strengthen our energy security by incentivizing alternative and renewable fuel production, continue research on alternative feedstocks for ethanol, develop new battery technologies for hybrid cars, produce more solar-power generation and continue to work with Congress to open access to domestic energy sources such as the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and double the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

In 2007, we reported that our annual greenhouse gas emissions declined 1.5 percent in 2006, while our economy grew 2.9 percent. The U.S. also hosted representatives of 17 world leaders plus the United Nations in the first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change to further the shared objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing energy security and promoting strong economic growth.

In 2008, we resolve to continue to add to the $37 billion this administration has invested since 2001 on climate science and technology-based innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and complete the Major Economies process, developing a new international framework on climate change that can contribute to a post-2012 global agreement.

In 2007, we tripled the size of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which totals 19 nations committed to expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including enhanced safeguards, international fuel service frameworks and advanced technologies.

In 2008, we resolve to welcome many more countries to this partnership, providing a proliferation-resistant framework for the expansion of nuclear power. We also resolve to open the doors to at least one new nuclear power plant in the U.S., and to continue to work with Congress to finally license Yucca Mountain as a nuclear materials repository to protect our national and homeland security interests.

In 2007, Americans switched more than 126 million incandescent light bulbs to energy-efficient Compact Fluorescent Lights, and bought more than 300,000 hybrid cars.

In 2008, we resolve to continue making good personal choices that increase energy efficiency, save us money and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

In 2007, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed that energy security is inextricably intertwined with national security.

In 2008, we resolve to expand and diversify our energy supply and suppliers, promote the use of cleaner and more efficient technologies, modernize and expand infrastructure and improve our nation's environmental stewardship with bipartisan support and leadership.

May you have a happy, safe, clean and energy-efficient year.

Karen Harbert is assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the U.S. Department of Energy.

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

Toledo Blade
January 10, 2008

FirstEnergy plans $2.5B upgrade of its facilities

Aim is to boost output at 4 nuclear plants

By Tom Henry
Blade Staff Writer

OAK HARBOR, Ohio - FirstEnergy Corp. is making plans to spend $2.5 billion over the next decade to upgrade its four operating nuclear plants - the Davis-Besse station in Ottawa County, the Perry plant east of Cleveland, and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley station west of Pittsburgh - while also boosting their power output.

"We're [essentially] building a power plant without building a power plant," Danny Pace, senior vice president of fleet engineering for the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., said yesterday in telling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the scheduled improvements.

The work outline was provided during a three-hour meeting at the Davis-Besse administrating building, in which FirstEnergy officials gave the NRC their annual update of the utility's efforts to operate its nuclear plants as a fleet.

Nothing new was revealed about what led to the crack in Davis-Besse's decay heat suction line Friday, an event in the plant's containment area that resulted in seepage of radioactive coolant water in the presence of workers. None was harmed.

The utility said it expects to do ultrasonic testing of the cracked pipe tomorrow.

The fleet concept, used by some other utilities for years, is one that FirstEnergy started using in the fall of 2004 to help cut costs and operate more efficiently. Employees were cross-trained and some programs were consolidated.

The NRC cannot intercede in how utilities manage their nuclear plants unless safety issues can be documented.

It expressed reservations upon learning of FirstEnergy's move toward a fleet concept, but yesterday acknowledged it was working fine - although agency officials continued to express some concerns about the Perry plant, which has been troubled by a number of performance and equipment issues.

"It's clear the fleet oversight has had a [positive] impact on the facilities," James Caldwell, the NRC's Midwest regional ad-ministrator, told The Blade.

During the meeting, he told FirstEnergy officials the utility has "come a long way" with it.

FirstEnergy's plans for $2.5 billion in work nearly equals the investment that DTE Energy plans to make if the latter follows through with its plans to build a new nuclear plant at its Fermi complex north of Monroe. That project, announced last year, is estimated to cost $3 billion.

DTE is spending $300 million to analyze the pros and cons before deciding this fall whether to submit an application to the NRC.

The biggest-ticket item for Davis-Besse will be the replacement of the plant's existing steam generator, a $500 million job tentatively planned for 2014.

At the same time, the utility will install a new reactor head, the third in that plant's history. It already has been made, Mr. Pace said.

Davis-Besse went online in 1977 and is licensed to operate through April 22, 2017. The utility yesterday told the NRC it plans to apply for a 20-year extension in 2010. If approved, the plant's license would be extended until 2037.

Mr. Pace said Davis-Besse's 898-megawatt capacity will be increased by 12 megawatts later this year without major modifications to the plant. Each megawatt produces enough power for almost 1,000 homes.

A 90-megawatt upgrade at Davis-Besse is being planned for the future, a job that would require intensive work. The earliest that will happen is 2014, Mr. Pace said.

FirstEnergy also plans to upgrade its Beaver Valley Unit 2 by 45 megawatts this year, and its Perry plant by 21 megawatts in 2011. The Perry site also is under consideration for a massive 140-megawatt upgrade in the future, he said.

As one of the older operating units, Davis-Besse has been tight on storage space for its spent nuclear fuel.

Toledo Edison, now a FirstEnergy subsidiary, spent $5 million in the mid 1990s to have some of the waste removed from the plant's spent fuel pool and transferred into dry cask storage units it had built on a concrete pad outdoors. The pool is in a building adjacent to the reactor.

Transfers were halted shortly after FirstEnergy acquired the site. Yesterday, the utility said it likely will start moving more waste into dry cask vaults in 2022 if the U.S. Department of Energy does not have Nevada's Yucca Mountain or another national repository open for the waste by then.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 09, 2008

Las Vegas quits group that backs a nuclear Yucca

Dump foe cheers split from 'rogues' gallery'

By Jeff German
Las Vegas Sun

In an about-face, Las Vegas has given up its membership in a pro-Yucca Mountain group that critics say has undermined the state's fight against the high-level nuclear waste dump.

Bob Loux, the state's top Yucca Mountain watchdog, hailed the city's decision to pull out of the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business, an organization he describes as a "rogues' gallery" of dump supporters.

"Groups like the Nevada Alliance are trying to weave themselves into the fabric of Southern Nevada like they're ordinary businesses, which of course they're not," said Loux, executive director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects. "It's good to see the city has taken action to terminate its relationship with them."

The Sun reported in August that Las Vegas and North Las Vegas were listed on the Nevada Alliance's Web site as associate members of the nonprofit group, which advocates Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a way to bring economic benefits to the state.

More than two dozen companies, mostly government security and high-tech contractors, are listed on the group's Web site as members.

Las Vegas spokesman Jace Radke said the city's membership did not produce any significant development opportunities.

"In addition, the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business has a pro-economic development position on Yucca Mountain, while the city has taken a very strong position against Yucca Mountain," Radke said.

Clark County refused to join the organization, funded in part through a $100,000 Energy Department grant, because of the group's pro-Yucca stance.

North Las Vegas still is listed as an associate member on the group's Web site.

City Manager Gregory Rose said North Las Vegas remains opposed to Yucca Mountain but sees its membership with the Nevada Alliance as a means to attract business to the city.

Loux, though, said the Nevada Alliance tries to "trick Nevadans into supporting the dump through some sort of illusionary economic development options."

"I don't think there is any analysis done by any organization in the state that shows any economic benefits from the dump whatsoever," he said.

--Jeff German is the Sun's senior investigative reporter. He can be reached at 259-4067 or at german@lasvegassun.com.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
January 09, 2008

Yucca workers laid off

DOE says Nuclear Repository Site 'Closed for All Intents and Purposes'

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy disclosed Monday it is dramatically scaling back at Yucca Mountain, laying off dozens of workers and virtually shutting down activity at the nuclear waste site in response to deep budget cuts.

"The tunnel is closed for all intents and purposes," DOE spokesman Allen Benson said.

Barriers may be placed at the mouth of the 25-foot-diameter exploratory tunnel that represented more than a decade of activity at the nuclear waste site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

DOE officials described a new round of layoffs as a "restructuring" forced by budget shortfalls and a way to conserve money. They told members of Congress they will continue to work in Las Vegas offices to move forward in building a construction license for a waste-handling complex and underground repository.

But officials did not rule out other layoffs and delays, including possible decisions to put off plans to file for a license by the end of June.

"We are still evaluating what this latest reduction does to us," said Jason Bohne, a spokesman for Bechtel SAIC, the project's managing contractor. "The site is the first real impact and we are looking to see what else."

The Yucca repository, envisioned to store 70,000 metric tons of highly radioactive material, was originally planned for a 1998 opening. But a long series of DOE missteps, budget cuts engineered in Congress by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and legal challenges by the state have contributed to years of delay.

Sixty-three workers on the mountain ridge were told Monday they were being laid off, project officials said. They include 27 union metalworkers, electricians, miners and pipefitters, and another 36 people in administrative, environmental safety and health and property management positions.

DOE officials maintained research needed for licensing has been completed at the site, and the remaining workers were performing largely maintenance tasks. The job cuts are DOE's first response to budget cuts totalling more than $100 million for 2008.

More than 80 jobs were eliminated in earlier rounds of budget cuts last year.

DOE was given $386.5 million for this fiscal year, a 22 percent reduction from the Bush administration's request to stay on target. Managers say they are marshalling whatever money they have left to prepare a construction license application.

Bohne said the site is not being closed "but it is being greatly reduced."

Fewer than 10 DOE caretakers will monitor the site's access to water and electricity and take air quality readings as required by state permits. Security guards will be provided by the Nevada Test Site.

"We are not just locking the gate and walking away," Bohne said.

Reid said the cutbacks signal a continuing downhill spiral for Yucca Mountain.

"I am disappointed that people have to lose their jobs, but this is what this is all about," Reid said. "The only number that will make me happy will be zero" as far as Yucca Mountain spending.

Reid said the Bush administration "is playing a game" by characterizing the layoffs as a measure to conserve money for licensing. DOE should shore up safety studies with whatever money it has left, he said.

Bob Loux, a leading repository critic and executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said DOE had little choice but cut back, "and I don't think things get any better for them."

In its upcoming session, Congress is likely to be distracted by presidential politics and unlikely to pass an Energy Department budget, Loux said. The failure to pass a budget until the final week of this year's session contributed to DOE's woes.

"Until DOE makes up its mind what it is going to do about filing and defending a license application, this was probably the only thing they can do in the short run," Loux said of the layoffs.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
January 09, 2008

DOE wants to hear Nye schools' comment

By Christina Eichelkraut
PVT

The Nye County School District has been invited to add its comments to those of the county on a U.S. Department of Energy environmental impact study on Yucca Mountain and a proposed rail line to it.

The comments are due to the county by Jan 10. (See related article this page.)

The county disagrees with some of DOE's assessments about the socioeconomic impacts the rail line and repository could have on Nye County.

"As far as Nye County goes, the environmental impact statement still has a few things that Nye County disagrees with," Darrell Lacy, Nye County Nuclear Waste Project Office director, explained.

DOE estimates that 80 percent of the employees at the repository would live in Clark County.

That estimate was based on historical data that no longer accurately reflects conditions in Pahrump, Lacy said. "That's based on historic data primarily from the Nevada Test Site, primarily from the 1950s," he said.

Back then Pahrump was much smaller and did not have many of the housing opportunities which exist today.

Lacy said the county estimates 80 percent of the employees would actually live here.

The construction and beginning operation phases, Lacy said, could bring about 2,000 people into the county.

"Schools are needed to support that kind of increase in population," Lacy said.

In addition, some issues that would need to be handled, such as improvement of infrastructure in repairing roads to get construction material to the site, would need to start at least five years prior to the repository receiving its first shipment of nuclear waste.

"I think it's a way to get our oar in the water for the whole process, and we ought to participate in it to the extent that we can," Vice President J.E. "Doc" McNeely said. "I don't know that any of us have any comments right now, tonight, on this particular document, but we are aware that whatever the scenario is that unfolds, it's going to impact us not only with infrastructure but with capital expenditures as well."

McNeely requested that, as the office acquires more information and statistics on the possible impact on Nye County, that the school board be kept up to date on their discoveries.

"It's critical that the DOE take very seriously the comments of the county on where people will live," Superintendent Rob Roberts said.

He added that if the assessment of 2,000 employees living in Nye County is correct, statistically there would probably be at least half a student per household.

That could mean 1,000 additional students for the county.

And that could mean more schools would be needed in Pahrump, Beatty or Amargosa. And with more schools would come the need for staff, buses and infrastructure.

"The DOE has a responsibility to the citizens of the county to build that infrastructure," Roberts said.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
January 09, 2008

The crime of switching positions

During the presidential candidate debates last weekend, there was an issue (if it can be called that) that showed up in both Republican and Democratic debates.

In the Republican debate, moderator Charles Gibson asked the following question (if it can be called that) of Rudolph Giuliani:

"Because with all due respect, many of your fellows here on this stage have said you've had to moderate an awful lot of your views to get within the mainstream of the Republican Party and that you don't believe now what you believed when you were mayor.

Gov. Huckabee, you've been accused of having been a tax-and-spend governor when you were in Arkansas and changing your beliefs now. Gov. Romney, I don't have to go into how many times they've called you a flip-flopper in terms of issues and what you believed as governor of Massachusetts. Congressman Paul, respect to you, I don't know that you've changed much except your party because you were a Libertarian when you first ran for president. Senator Thompson has been accused of running on a more conservative record for president than when he was in the Senate. And Senator McCain, you've been accused of moderating your views on the Bush tax policies in order to get into the mainstream of the party and on immigration to moderate your views."

In the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton said, "You know, Senator Obama has been - as the Associated Press described it - he could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care. Then he proposed a health care plan that doesn't cover everybody." Barack Obama replied, "I have been entirely consistent in my position on health care."

When did it become an indictable offense for a politician to change his or her mind? For instance, if there's anyone in public life who should understand the need to be flexible on health care, it's Hillary Clinton.

Granted, no one should be promiscuous in changing positions, since it raises a question about whether there is any fixed star in his universe. This is what Mitt Romney has been accused of, because of the sheer number of positions he has switched. (John McCain got one of the big laughs of the night when he said, "I just wanted to say to Governor Romney, we disagree on a lot of issues, but I agree, you are the candidate of change.") Nevada once had a governor named Robert List who changed his mind about the Beatty nuclear waste dump, a sales tax hike, the need for a state consumer advocate, whether Nevada should host the MX missile system, and numerous other issues. Not surprisingly, List served only one term.

There are changes of mind and there are changes of mind. Some may reflect a lack of principle - some would put the abortion issue in that category. But others, usually involving programs rather than principle, simply reflect a learning curve. Do we really WANT politicians who don't change their minds?

John Kennedy changed his mind about the U.S. policy of belligerence in the cold war, Lyndon Johnson changed his mind about civil rights, Richard Nixon changed his mind about China, Ronald Reagan switched from Democratic to Republican, George Bush the Elder changed his mind about raising taxes to pay off the deficit.

There may also be legitimate reasons to change positions when changing constituencies. Howard Dean supported the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada when he was governor of Vermont and needed to do something about the wastes at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon. But as a presidential candidate he said he needed to represent a broader constituency and changed his position.

One of the frustrations of citizens during the Vietnam war was that politicians on both sides of the issue dug in their heels and were unwilling to change when both they and the public learned more about the conflict. Not until the nation was torn apart by bitter divisions did the Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, reexamine his policies. Today a Republican president is equally unbending.

There can be a fine line between conviction and dogmatism.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
January 09, 2008

Pahrump numbers slipping

By Mark Waite
PVT

The population of Pahrump continues to edge closer to the 40,000 mark, according to Nye County Planning Department estimates.

But figures from the third quarter of 2007, ending Sept. 30, continue to show a slower growth rate last year than in 2006.

Nye County as a whole gained 335 residents in the third quarter, county planners estimate, to 46,762 people. Pahrump accounted for almost all the growth, growing by 367 residents in those three months, to 38,798 residents.

That's close to the 363 residents Pahrump gained in the second quarter, but well below the 847 residents the valley added in the first quarter, and it may possibly be a sign of the construction slowdown due to the economy.

Pahrump grew by 2,334 residents in 2006. If the growth rate in the second and third quarter of 2007 continues into the last quarter, Pahrump would add only 1,469 residents in 2007, down over a third from 2006.

During the boom year from the first quarter of 2005 to the first quarter of 2006, Pahrump's population grew by 3,636 people.

Almost everywhere else in Nye County, population figures were down in the third quarter of 2007. Despite a heavy parceling of lots during the year, Amargosa Valley lost three residents and dropped to 1,383 residents. Tonopah lost four residents, to 2,613 people, while the population went down in Beatty by 42 residents in the third quarter to 1,091.

Smoky Valley had two fewer residents, with an estimated 1,765. Gabbs however added 17 people, to finish the quarter with 401 residents.

The population estimates are based on the number of residential customer accounts serviced by electrical utilities, multiplied by the average number of persons in each household as determined by the 2000 census. People living in group housing, like nursing homes, are estimated using population trends, which are checked in annual telephone interviews.

The population estimates are used for baseline projections for Nye County for the Yucca Mountain project and other planning purposes.

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

IEER
January 09, 2008

Science for Democratic Action: Nuclear Power: Costs, Alternatives, France, and Yucca Mountain

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/15-2.pdf
pdf-2.4M

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

New York Times
January 09, 2008

Nevada: A Shift at Yucca Mountain

By AP

The Energy Department is cutting operations at the desert site where the government plans to build a national nuclear waste repository and the chief contractor is laying off many of its staff members, officials said, as planners shift from exploring and evaluating the site to preparing a license application. Officials with the main contractor, Bechtel SAIC Company, said all but about 15 “caretaking” employees would be laid off at the Yucca Mountain repository, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Edward F. Sproat, the Energy Department official in charge of the project, has vowed to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30. Mr. Sproat has projected 2017 as the earliest the site could open, with a price tag now topping $77 billion.

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

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
January 09, 2008

Where the presidential candidates stand on nuclear issues

By Lawrence Krauss

With primary season upon us, the presidential candidates have been busy debating and making policy presentations so that we can begin to glean some ideas of their views on everything from the economy to national defense. As is often the case, the media haven't focused on the candidates' views on technical issues, but in the end, these may be among the most significant issues that the next president will face.

On nuclear defense and disarmament, there are stark differences between the views of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, and the Democratic candidates. When it comes to nuclear proliferation, the differences narrow slightly--although only the Democrats stress the need for the United States to consider its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). When it comes to nuclear power, most candidates are in favor of incorporating it into the energy mix, but there remains confusion about its safety and efficiency.

Ballistic missile defense. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who claims to have the greatest experience with national security and defense, joins former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in vociferously demonstrating their lack of understanding of the realities of missile defense. They both stress the urgent need to deploy effective missile defenses without seeming to recognize that no such defenses actually exist at present; there isn't a clear, near-term threat against which even marginally workable defenses would be needed; and missile defense encourages proliferation.

Interestingly, with the exception of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the Democratic candidates who speak out eloquently on proliferation and disarmament issues haven't made equally strong statements on missile defense. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has said she voted to redirect funds from the existing missile defense appropriation for other purposes, but earlier, she supported missile defense funding.

Disarmament. Both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee have openly stated their opposition to reducing the U.S. nuclear weapon arsenals. They did so without explaining what threat 10,000 nuclear weapons are supposed to address, why the billions of dollars needed to maintain these arsenals is worthwhile, and whether the complicated logistics of command-and-control of such vast arsenals enhances or reduces our net security. Meanwhile, McCain seems to at least recognize the logic of reducing the size of our nuclear stockpile--although he hasn't pushed for severe reductions. Paul firmly stresses the need to reduce the stockpile's size.

As for the Democrats, they've universally adopted the goal of reducing our stockpile to a fraction of its current size. The three Democratic front-runners (Clinton, Edwards, and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama) stress the ultimate goal of removing nuclear weapons from the planet; Clinton and Obama explicitly adopt the eminently sensible recommendations of former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn for near-term reductions in the size of our arsenal, the need to take ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and lessening our reliance on nuclear weapons.

The reliable replacement warhead, new weapons, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The Democratic candidates speak explicitly and strongly about their opposition to building a new generation of nuclear missiles--the reliable replacement warhead and Complex 2030 programs in particular. They correctly point out the lack of need for such programs and their destabilizing influence. Clinton also specifically opposes the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or "bunker-buster."

The Republican candidates have avoided significant discussion of this issue. McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson openly oppose the CTBT. Opposition to this treaty only makes sense if they feel there's a need for possible testing of nuclear weapons, which suggests they are in favor of developing new types of weapons that need to be tested.

Nonproliferation. Here, the situation is complex and convoluted. The Democratic candidates express a clear understanding that in order to reduce proliferation pressures the nuclear weapon states need to abide by their NPT commitment to reduce their stockpiles, as well as the need to focus on securing existing nuclear materials and the need for a worldwide ban on the production of fissile weapons materials.

To the extent that they talk about proliferation, the Republican candidates place the complete burden of the NPT on the non-nuclear weapons states, without discussing our obligations under the treaty.

Regarding peaceful nuclear technologies, McCain goes so far as to suggest that we should consider the possibility that a non-nuclear weapon state shouldn't have rights to any nuclear technology. But Romney joins Clinton in the sensible proposition that we need an international partnership to guarantee low-cost nuclear fuel to non-nuclear weapon states so they won't need to develop fuel-enrichment facilities within their countries.

No matter party affiliation, all the candidates, save for Paul, adopt an implicit two-tier notion of proliferation: It's okay for our friends, but bad for our enemies. As a result, they fixate on Iran and North Korea, while not discussing our own encouragement--either explicit or implicit--of proliferation in India, Pakistan, and Israel.

However, the candidates do differ in their approach to Iran and North Korea. As expected, the Democratic candidates emphasize the need to enter into diplomatic dialogues with these countries, while the Republicans generally focus on the need to develop credible threats, including military threats to Iran in particular.

Terrorism and no first use. The Democratic candidates explicitly emphasize the need to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in offensive strategic planning. Clinton has ruled out the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against countries such as Iran, and Obama has said that we shouldn't threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons. As far as I can see, only Richardson has ruled out first use of nuclear weapons as a general principle.

Nuclear power. McCain, Huckabee, and Paul love nuclear power, declaring it both safe and efficient. McCain says no one has died from nuclear power, but presumably, he doesn't count the numerous fatalities associated with Chernobyl because U.S. lives weren't lost. As far as the efficiency of nuclear power, the candidates seem to focus more on the intrinsic efficiency of nuclear reactions producing heat energy, rather than the numerous practical economic difficulties--including the costly infrastructure that must be created as utility companies have chosen to back off from commitments to nuclear power over the past 20 years.

Aside from these enthusiastic endorsements, the rest of the candidates, sans Edwards, have argued that we need to increase, at least incrementally, our reliance on nuclear power as we attempt to reduce our reliance on oil and our greenhouse gas emissions. While the candidates have differing views on the issue of safe fuel storage in Yucca Mountain, only Edwards has argued that safety issues associated with nuclear power need to be addressed more explicitly before we commit to an increased reliance on this energy alternative.

It's important to consider all alternative energy production technologies as we address the severe challenges of global warming and the rising worldwide energy demand--with the industrialization of China and India in particular. But at least to me, the extent to which nuclear power provides a cost-efficient, safe alternative to other technologies, including conservation, solar power, and wind power, isn't yet clear. In this regard, Clinton's expressed agnosticism toward nuclear power--recognizing the public's resistance to nuclear power plants in their own neighborhood and the unresolved waste issues, while at the same time recognizing that we already rely heavily on nuclear power and therefore will need to include it in our energy mix for the near term--seems both realistic and reasonable.

These are key issues, and I wish the press would take them seriously enough to focus on them, which would force the candidates to flesh out their responses. Doing so would help us all assess their understanding of these scientific issues, and it would also help inform the electorate about key technical challenges that will affect our safety and security in the near term and the long term. Who knows, it might even prompt the election of candidates who are scientifically literate.

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

Nevada Appeal
January 09, 2008

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley endorses Clinton

Nevada's Congressional Representative Shelley Berkley said today she will lend her experience, knowledge, and influence to Sen.Clinton’s historic run for the White House.

“When I first met Hillary years ago I was struck by the depth of her caring and knowledge of the concerns of my fellow Nevadans. And I have always been impressed that she is ready, able, and willing to take action. Her record against Yucca Mountain is 100% on the side of Nevada. I know first hand her tenacious advocacy for family health care, veteran’s services, education, and affordable housing. – and have no doubt Hillary Clinton has the strength, knowledge, courage, and vision to be a president who will lead by action to solve our great challenges at home and abroad.”

Representing Nevada’s first Congressional district, Rep. Shelley Berkley is currently serving her fifth term in Congress, where she serves on the House Committees on Ways and Means and Veterans’ Affairs.

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

Arizona Daily Star
January 09, 2008

U.S. needs to stop dawdling, find permanent site for nuclear waste

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 01.09.2008

advertisementOpinion by Robert and Susanne E. Vandenbosch

The high cost of fossil fuels and their contribution to global warming has led to renewed interest in nuclear power. In the United States a desire for energy independence is contributing to governmental incentives for new nuclear plants. One aspect of nuclear power that remains unresolved is the disposal of the highly radioactive waste contained in spent reactor fuel.

Arizona has a particular interest in the problem of nuclear waste. The state has three reactors at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station and all of the highly radioactive spent fuel still resides there in a temporary storage site.

The nuclear waste problem must be addressed before nuclear power can and should achieve widespread public acceptance. The more than 100 operating reactors in the United States produce approximately 2,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel every year.

There are two principal strategies for handling spent fuel from nuclear reactors. One is underground geological disposal of the intact fuel rods without further processing. The other approach involves chemical reprocessing to isolate the unburned uranium and the plutonium from the spent fuel. A reprocessing approach to the handling of spent fuel is not, however, a waste-disposal strategy. The fission products and the transuranic elements still must be disposed of.

In the United States, the waste-disposal strategy that has been pursued is permanent geological disposal of spent fuel without reprocessing. Legislation passed in 1982 laid out a plan for identifying a geological site. By 1987, the site-identification process had not been resolved and Congress acted unilaterally to select Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the only site to be further studied for the first waste repository.

In the years since 1987, both technical and political issues have slowed development of the repository. On the political side, Nevada has aggressively resisted its selection. On the technical side, water intrusion and earthquake and volcanism issues have arisen.

Nevertheless the Department of Energy in 2002 recommended that the Yucca Mountain site was suitable for a repository and President Bush accepted this recommendation. An objection by Nevada was overridden by Congress.

So what should be done about the nuclear-waste problem?

It is clear that a permanent geological repository is required for much of our existing nuclear waste, independent of any reprocessing development. The responsibility for disposal of this waste should not be deferred to later generations.

Sufficient funds should be made available for the Department of Energy to conclude its technical evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site and to prepare a license application. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should then make the final judgment as to whether the proposed repository adequately protects the public.

In parallel, the Department of Energy should reopen a search for the most geologically suitable sites. This process is necessary both as a backup in case Yucca Mountain is found to be unacceptable and as preparation for a second repository that will be needed within a few decades even if a Yucca Mountain repository is built.

--Write to Robert Vandenbosch at bobvanden@aol.com. Write to Susanne E. Vandenbosch at suevanden@aol.com.

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

AP Google
January 08, 2008

Deep Layoffs Announced at Yucca Mountain

By Ken Ritter

LAS VEGAS (AP) — The Energy Department is cutting operations and the chief contractor is laying off its staff at the desert site where the government plans to build a national nuclear waste repository, officials said Tuesday.

"The tunnel is closed," Yucca Mountain project and Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson said, attributing the moves to cuts in congressional funding for the repository, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Entry to the site's underground tunnel will be restricted to a skeleton staff of technicians and maintenance workers, Benson said.

Officials with Bechtel SAIC Co., the main project contractor, said 63 contractors had lost their jobs, leaving about 15 "caretaking" employees while project planners complete a shift from exploring and site evaluation to preparing an application for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to operate the repository.

"We're not locking the gate and walking away," said Jason Bohne, spokesman for Bechtel SAIC in Las Vegas. "We're putting it on standby status. We got the data we need."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat who is a staunch opponent of the Yucca project and orchestrated the cut in funding, said he was sorry for the contractors losing their jobs but won't be happy until the Yucca budget is cut to zero.

Edward F. "Ward" Sproat, the Energy Department official in charge of the Yucca project, has vowed to submit an application to the NRC by June 30. He has projected 2017 as the earliest the dump could open, with a price tag now topping $77 billion.

Bechtel SAIC has undergone several rounds of layoffs since 2004-2005, when it had a peak of about 250 workers at the site.

The project has seen a series of setbacks since Congress in 2002 approved entombing as much as 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive military, industrial and commercial waste in tunnels 1,000 feet below the ancient volcanic ridge. The Energy Department last year proposed doubling the volume to almost 150,000 tons, citing continuing production of waste at nuclear power plants.

Quality assurance questions, opposition from Nevada lawmakers, court fights and a judicial order for the federal Environmental Protection Agency to revise project radiation safety standards have contributed to delays.

Congress last month allocated just under $386.5 million for the project in fiscal 2008. The amount was $108 million less than President Bush sought and the least the project has ever received. In fiscal 2007, the dump received $444.5 million.

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

KLAS-TV
January 08, 2008

Yucca Mountain Contractor Lays Off Workers

The Energy Department is cutting operations and laying off contract workers at the Nevada desert site where it plans to build a national nuclear waste repository.

A project official declares "the tunnel is closed" at the Yucca Mountain project site. He says cutting down to a skeleton staff is necessary after Congress cut funding for the Yucca project, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

But he says staffers are working on an application for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating license and still plan to submit it by June 30.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid engineered the deep congressional funding cuts. He says he feels sorry 63 Bechtel SAIC contractors are losing their jobs. But he says it's becoming more and more clear that the Energy Department plan to open the repository is in trouble.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 08, 2008

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: DOE lays off 63 workers

Almost all site activity stopped

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy on Monday disclosed it was dramatically scaling back at Yucca Mountain, laying off dozens of workers and shutting down nearly all activity at the nuclear waste site in response to deep budget cuts.

"The tunnel is closed for all intents and purposes," DOE spokesman Allen Benson said. Barriers may be placed at the mouth of the 25-foot-diameter exploratory tunnel that represented more than a decade of activity at the nuclear waste site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

DOE officials described a new round of layoffs as a "restructuring" forced by budget shortfalls and a way to conserve money. They told members of Congress that they will continue to work in Las Vegas offices to move forward in building a construction license for a waste-handling complex and underground repository.

But officials did not rule out other layoffs and delays, including possible decisions to put off plans to file for a license by the end of June.

The Yucca repository, envisioned to store 70,000 metric tons of highly radioactive material, originally was planned for a 1998 opening. But a long series of DOE missteps, budget cuts engineered in Congress by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and legal challenges by the state of Nevada have contributed to years of delay.

More than 80 jobs were eliminated in earlier rounds of budget cuts last year.

Bohne said the site is not being closed, "but it is being greatly reduced." Fewer than 10 DOE caretakers will monitor the site's access to water and electricity and take air quality readings as required by state permits. Security guards will be provided by the Nevada Test Site.

"We are not just locking the gate and walking away," Bohne said.

Reid said the cutbacks signal a continuing spiral for Yucca Mountain.

"I am disappointed that people have to lose their jobs, but this is what this is all about," Reid said.

"The only number that will make me happy will be zero" as far as Yucca Mountain spending, the senator added.

Bob Loux, a leading repository critic and executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said DOE had little choice but cut back "and I don't think things get any better for them."

"Until DOE makes up its mind what it is going to do about filing and defending a license application this was probably the only thing they can do in the short run," Loux said of the layoffs.

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

Hampton Union
January 08, 2008

Nuclear debate rises in primary campaign

By Sue Morse
smorse@seacoastonline.com

Nuclear power is being touted as a way to create energy without greenhouse gases and to decrease reliance on foreign oil.

In this "nuclear renaissance," said Al Griffith, a spokesman for FPL Energy Seabrook Station, the federal government has received applications to build an estimated 30 new reactors, most at existing nuclear power plants. None is proposed for New England.

Until recently, nuclear power was off the table as a new energy source. The last plant went online in Tennessee in 1996, six years after FPL Energy Seabrook Station. In the 2008 presidential campaign, all of the top Republican candidates and all but two Democrats — John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich — appear open to nuclear energy.

"We've had the second coming of nuclear power. It's been dead in the water for 30 years," said Guy Chichester, a founding member of the Clamshell Alliance, which protested Seabrook Station. "No one would finance it, no one had answers to ongoing problems of radioactive waste; no one was interested except those stuffing their pockets with very big paychecks. No one but the same people give a damn about it now."

Nuclear power is not green, say opponents, and it's costly.

Chichester, now on the board of directors of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, believes the 30 new reactors will be stalled by lack of funds. There's little investor confidence on Wall Street, he said, and Congress recently voted down $50 billion in federally guaranteed loans to go along with the new power plants.

Locally, nuclear watchdog group C-10 out of Newburyport, Mass., has concerns Seabrook's second planned reactor, shelved three years ago, will come back as an option.

In 2006, state Senate Republican leaders Bob Clegg and Ted Gatsas suggested building Seabrook's second reactor was a good idea.

"I think if the opportunity surfaces, they would consider it, why wouldn't they?" said C-10 Executive Director Sandra Gavutis. "There were plans for a Unit 2 when it was first built."

Griffith has said there are no plans by FPL Energy Seabrook Station to open the second reactor. It is more likely the company would build a different kind of power plant on site, he said, such as one that runs on natural gas. FPL Group, Seabrook's parent company, has submitted applications to build two additional reactor units at its Turkey Point facility in Florida, Griffith said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission created a new division to review license approval for the 30 applications, said Griffith. Also, the federal government is looking to combine the issuing of the construction and operating licenses in a one-step procedure that would prevent the kind of delay that held up Seabrook from opening for four years.

Seabrook was proposed in the early 1970s and the plant was ready to begin operations in 1986, yet lawsuits and other issues delayed it from receiving its operating license until 1990.

Its license expires in 2030 with officials expected to ask for a 20-year extension.

In the 1970s and early '80s, protesters stormed the fence of the Seabrook Station site. Gavutis said the reaction would be the same today should plans for the second reactor go forward.

"I think if we talk about a second unit at Seabrook we would see a whole new generation of concern," she said.

Chichester said he's aware of no planned local protest against the 30 applications for new reactors. The Clamshell Alliance is disbanded except for some former members who have gotten together to write a retrospective book. Yet, he said, more people now than in the '70s and '80s are concerned with nuclear power. The plants do produce greenhouse gasses, he said, in that they are built in the ordinary way.

"Our biggest concern has always been the waste, knowing nuclear power plants are now a waste dump, Seabrook included," Gavutis said.

Beginning with its next refueling outage this year, Seabrook Station will store spent reactor fuel rods in concrete modules on site. The procedure is already in place in the majority of nuclear plants nationwide, as lawsuits hold up the federal government from opening Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a waste facility.

Mining and refining fuel for nuclear plants is extremely carbon intensive, said Kurt Ehrenberg, field representative from Rye for the New Hampshire Sierra Club. "We believe the huge investment made in nuclear energy is much better spent in renewable energy that does not create a waste problem," Ehrenberg said.

The nonprofit agencies of the Sierra Club, SAPL and C-10 publicly support no presidential candidate. Instead, said those interviewed, they are promoting renewable energy, such as wind power.

Congress recently approved $21 billion in production tax credits for solar and wind power initiatives, Chichester said. Five states in the west produce electricity with wind farms, he said.

"I understand we have an opportunity that's clear," he said, "dealing with global warming and the destructive downside of nuclear power to the economy and to worldwide ecology."

"Nuclear energy is this county's cleanest and most reliable source of electricity that we have," Griffith said. "The environment benefits of nuclear energy verses other forms of energy are well documented. That's why you see the recent reinvigoration of the industry."

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
January 07, 2008

Yucca Mountain is important but not only issue in Nevada

Editorial

Reno Gazette-Journal

It's now taken for granted that, in the words of the late Massachusetts Congressman Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, all politics is local.

That's undoubtedly why television ads for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that have been appearing recently in Northern Nevada highlight her opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Raising the Yucca Mountain issue isn't likely to garner a candidate many votes outside of Nevada, after all.

It would be a mistake, however, for any of the candidates who will be looking for votes in the state's Jan. 19 party caucuses to think that they can win simply by promising to kill the plan to dump the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada.

Yucca Mountain is an important issue in Nevada. The decision to locate the depository 100 miles north of the state's largest metropolitan area was strictly political. Well before the promised scientific evaluation of proposed sites in Nevada, Louisiana and New Mexico was completed, Congress directed that the waste from dozens of nuclear power plants, none of them in Nevada, be sent to the Silver State. The federal government long ago gave up on its pledge to let science guide the decision on where to store the radioactive waste.

But it's taken for granted that few candidates will tell Nevadans that they intend to move ahead posthaste with the Yucca Mountain plan, so the real question will be what they would do with the waste that's been piling up at power plants for several decades.

Yet, for the average Nevadan, like the average Iowan or South Carolinian, there are far more pressing concerns. The issues that will drive Nevadans' decisions at the caucuses and the Nov. 4 election will be primarily the issues that are driving voters in every other state: the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, illegal immigration, health care, the general ugliness of the politics they've witnessed in Washington, D.C., in recent years and the deteriorating U.S. economy.

Just Friday, for instance, the federal government announced that unemployment hit a two-year high in December as employers stopped hiring new workers. Home sales, a prime component of the American economy, have tumbled, which in turn affects employment, retail sales and state and local government revenues. The word "recession" is even being heard in some quarters.

How do the candidates propose reversing the troubling economic trends? That's what Nevadans will want to know, just as they'll want to know how the candidates propose to end the war in Iraq without making the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorists, how they'll tighten the borders without destroying an economy that relies heavily on immigrants to do the heavy lifting, or how they'll slow the rising costs of a system that threaten to leave many Americans without medical care.

The candidates who campaign in Nevada in the coming two weeks will be wise to remember that there's more to the state's concerns than just the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

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

Nevada Appeal
January 07, 2008

Letters to the editor

Consider the source when it comes to Yucca Mountain

Columnist Chuck Muth takes Bob Loux to task for opposing the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump. Writes Muth, "He (Loux) also launched into his patented anti-Yucca "Chicken Little" routine, breathlessly pleading "What's the going price these days for an ecosystem contaminated by radioactivity?"

I don't take that question as breathless pleading, any more than I take Mr. Muth's written thoughts as ignorant grunting; I take both Mr. Loux and Mr. Muth as proponents of their points of view about the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository.

When I weigh their arguments I note that Mr. Muth credits Mr. Loux with more than 20 years' involvement opposing the dump, while he himself stopped in at the site for a tour and a sandwich 10 years ago. "So consider the source," as Mr. Muth ends his commentary. Enough said.

David W. Toll
Gold Hill

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

The Tennessean
January 07, 2008

Disposal of nuclear waste uncertain

By Anne Paine
Staff Reporter

The uncertainty in long-term planning for nuclear waste is the focus of discussions by scientists gathered today and tomorrow at Vanderbilt University.

The timing is right since the country may be “at a tipping point” on this issue, according to Frank L. Parker, Distinguished Professor of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

A confluence of events includes an attempt to license Yucca Mountain in Nevada to take highly-radioactive remains from commercial nuclear plants and concern over the pollution that results from coal-fired creation of electricity. The carbon dioxide from coal burning is pointed to by many as speeding up global warming.

The nuclear industry, also, has gotten a recent boost through federal incentives, which could spur building of new commercial nuclear plants.

A look ahead - not behind - is needed to plan for nuclear waste disposal, Parker said.

Congress years ago had required the federal government to provide a long-term site to dispose of nuclear waste from commercial nuclear plants. Yucca Mountain was chosen but amidst court and other challenges, it has never been opened.

The process of choosing and building at Yucca Mountain bumped up against practical and political problems, but those have been worked through and it's come out the other side as a workable site where the wastes could safely go, said Edward F. Sproat III, director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Thomas B. Cochran, senior scientist in the Natural Resources Defence Council nuclear program said the Nevada site was selected by "politics unfettered by science." When Yucca Mountain didn't meet the scientific site selection criteria, the criteria was thrown out, he said, adding there is still no criteria.

He suggested Yucca Mountain be used as a research and development site to one day ensure a sound solution for the radioactive remains from old nuclear fuel.

Companies with nuclear plants could continue to keep the dregs of the nuclear process on site, as they are now doing, he said.

Adam Levin, director of spent fuel and decommissioning for Exelon Nuclear, said his company is storing wastes on site, but it's no answer. The plants will turn into long-term waste storage sites, which isn't fair to neighbors.

The cost, also, is high and the storage is "an operational distraction," he said. The company is ready and capable of shipping the materials safely to a federal site, he said.

So long as they're no place to send it, the chances of the company building and opening new nuclear plants are small, he said.

Parker spoke this morning of the unknowns in trying to plan decades or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years into the future for long-lived radioactive materials.

A lot cannot be accurately predicted, he said.

The uncertainties include what happens during the next major climate shift, advances in medicine that could eliminate or reduce the effects of cancer, the impact of nuclear wars or the importance of the few people affected by radioactive materials relative to much greater societal needs.

He charged participants with coming up with a solution through strategies that include consideration of risks, responsibility to future generations and legislative changes needed.

The symposium is in part a celebration honoring Parker, a pioneer in nuclear waste management.

One of the first American troops into Nagasaki after the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb in 1945, he later received a PhD from Harvard and worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, heading the Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Section.
He also has done work to assess and help other countries dispose of and treat hazardous materials.

Participants in the symposium include federal, private and university scientists from around the country. Many of the speakers and those in the audience were once students of Parkers.

--Anne Paine can be reached at 615-259-8071 or apaine@tennessean.com.

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

Southtown Star
January 07, 2008

Nuclear power solves old problems, creates new ones

The year was 1979, not 2008.

We old folks remember viewing the scary towers on the TV screen after Three Mile Island sprung a leak on the scenic Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. There hasn't been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since.

Ah, but time makes people forget, and new voters arise, who knew not of TMI. Or Chernobyl, for that matter - an even scarier nuclear disaster in Ukraine in 1986.

That was so two decades ago.

Today, we must concern ourselves with "energy security." (The quotes mean you should not pass quickly over these words; their meaning is dubious.)

The "energy security" buzz usually is about ending our dependence on foreign oil. You never know when a crackpot like Saddam Hussein will gain control of a whole country and start pulling power plays with the rest of the big boys o' oil. Regime change can be such a political nightmare!

Never mind that nuclear plants produce for a different set of energy needs than oil; this argument is too popular to leave out, whether it applies or not.

Nuclear power is touted as clean energy that will reduce global warming. All you see is that big steam cloud coming up from the cooling towers. It's as clean and free as the clouds in the sky.

Except for the stuff in those rods inside the reactor, of course. And the cleverly camouflaged pools of radioactive waste sitting around your town.

Three applications for permission to build new nuclear power plants were boldly submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007. A dozen or two more are expected during the next two years.

It's a happy time for the industry, with a friendly administration pushing for "energy security." What will also be pushed for, desperately, is a permanent place to store - for 10,000 years - the radioactive fuel leftover from our existing 30-some plants in 39 states.

About 100 temporary sites hold the homeless radioactive waste today. The federal government was legally bound to provide a permanent "repository" when it approved those plants decades ago.

How can we possibly approve the construction of new plants when the waste from the existing plants has no home? And what about the whopping lawsuits against the fed for not coming up with the dump?

The soonest the proposed dump site at Yucca Mountain, outside Las Vegas, might be ready for waste storage is 2017.

That's a problem. The 77,000-ton heap of homeless radioactive waste grows by the day, in your back yard.

Meanwhile, "energy security" advocates scramble and scrounge for a way to make Yucca Mountain the nation's nuke dump - against the protests and resistance of the state of Nevada and those darned Western Shoshone, who own the land. It's so inconvenient.

It takes years and lots of money to build a nuclear power plant, too. Of course, the federal government is getting behind the industry and guaranteeing loans.

Yes, we all know Exelon can use a subsidy here and there. Legislation in 2005 gave the nuclear power industry billions in tax breaks and other favors.

And did you know, the industry's liability, in the event of a nuclear accident, is capped at $10 billion? Thanks to Christian Science Monitor for that tidbit.

I wish I could offer answers to this quandary.

Unfortunately, it appears that a surge in nuclear power production will create new environmental problems even as it seems to solve old ones.

--SouthtownStar columnist Marlene Lang can be reached at blackbird lang@yahoo.com

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

The Nation
January 07, 2008

New Hampshire's Nuclear Primary

Harvey Wasserman

The Granite State horse race between John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could turn on an issue that's topped the primary agenda here ever since the bicentennial--atomic energy.

Two reactors sit in this tiny seacoast town just north of the Massachusetts border. One is licensed to operate. The other is a rotting shell, stopped before it could be completed by America's first wave of mass anti-reactor civil disobedience arrests, which began in August 1976.

Republican candidates Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Rudolph Giuliani all support a "nuclear renaissance," the massively funded push by the nuclear industry to build a fleet of new reactors. Thompson lobbied for a proposed Westinghouse nuclear plant that was killed in 1984. Giuliani has been employed by Entergy, which owns the Indian Point nuke, thirty-five miles north of Manhattan. Huckabee says anti-nuke arguments are "unfounded."

Over the years in the struggles at Seabrook, more than 2,000 people have been arrested, many of whom still live in New Hampshire. According to Arnie Alpert of the state's American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), "very few" of them are likely to be voting on the GOP side of the primaries, where the issue invariably arises every four years. The Democrats' longtime anti-nuke stalwart is Dennis Kucinich.

As mayor of Cleveland in the 1970s, Kucinich saved the city's Municipal Light System and fought construction of the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants on Lake Erie, both of which have proven extremely expensive and problematic. Kucinich also helped Ohioans defeat a planned regional radioactive waste dump, and has long advocated a thorough conversion to renewable energy and increased efficiency.

This year he's been joined by John Edwards. Along with Kucinich, Edwards says there is "no place" for nuclear power in his plans for America's energy future. In 2002 Edwards voted in favor of a national waste repository proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but has since strongly opposed that project and all federal funding for the expansion of atomic power.

Edwards' anti-nuclear stance helped him win the endorsement of one of atomic energy's seminal opponents, Ralph Nader, along with Friends of the Earth and musicians Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne. According to one Edwards aide working in Iowa, his anti-nuke position may have been crucial in helping him tip the balance over Hillary Clinton. This past weekend, according to Erin Placey of the New Hampshire AFSC, Edwards has reconfirmed his opposition in his public speeches and to her personally.

In her signature statement during a You Tube debate on June 23, Hillary Clinton said she was "agnostic" on nuclear power. "Until we figure out what we're going to do about waste and the cost, it's very hard to see nuclear as part of our future," she said. "But that's where American technology comes in. Let's figure out what we're going to do about the waste and the cost." At a rally in South Carolina, Clinton added that "I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution.... I don't have any preconceived opposition. I just want to be sure that we do it right, as carefully as we can." The Washington-based Nuclear Information Resource Service has reported that Clinton has taken substantial campaign contributions from Entergy, whose Indian Point nukes are not far from her home in upstate New York.

In that same YouTube debate, Obama said, "I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix." As a US Senator from Illinois, Obama maintains deep ties with the giant Exelon utility company, which operates eleven reactors around Chicago. According to NIRS, he has taken substantial campaign contributions from Exelon. "I don't think we can take nuclear power off the table," says Obama. "If we can resolve the waste and safety issues, then we should pursue it, and if we can't, we should not."

Alpert says the nuclear power issue may resonate more strongly in southwestern New Hampshire this year than in the rest of the state, because of a tough grassroots campaign to shut the Vermont Yankee reactor, just across the Connecticut River, where a cooling tower recently collapsed.

But an intense Congressional battle over federal loan guarantees for new reactor construction is certain to rage all through 2008, as will nationwide struggles over re-licensing of old plants like Indian Point and Vermont Yankee. So all indicators are that the issue of nuclear power will continue to be a factor long after tomorrow's New Hampshire vote and, indeed, all the way through the one nationwide in November.

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