Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, February 1, 2008

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, February 1, 2008
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 31, 2008

Timetable announced for layoffs at Yucca Mountain

Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The managing contractor for the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain on Wednesday announced a schedule of layoffs totaling between 140 and 180 people through June.

Between 70 and 80 employees will receive 30-day job notices early next week, said Ted Feigenbaum, president and general manager of Bechtel SAIC Co. Another 40 to 50 will be notified in early March and 30 to 50 more will receive layoff notices from April through June, he said in a message to employees.

Bechtel SAIC is the largest contractor on the Department of Energy nuclear waste program based in Las Vegas. The layoffs are the result of a $108 million cut in the project's 2008 budget.

The company earlier sent notices to 63 workers. Spokesman Jason Bohne said about 20 avoided layoffs by accepting transfers to facilities in other states.

Layoff notices that will be issued next week will go largely to administrative personnel such as accountants, procurement personnel and computer technicians, Bohne said. Later rounds will involve technical workers, he said.

DOE spokesman Allen Benson said the agency still anticipates that Yucca Mountain layoffs will total around 500 through later in the year and will involve other firms on the project.

The budget cut was arranged in Congress by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a bid to kill the Yucca project. Reid and other Nevada lawmakers said they want to help laid-off workers find new jobs.

"We'll continue working together to achieve that goal," Reid said in a prepared statement.

"Unfortunately, layoffs come with the territory of killing the dump," he added.

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

Platts
January 31, 2008

Nevada lawmakers seek US help for laid off Yucca Mountain workers

Washington (Platts)--30Jan2008 Nevada's US congressional delegation has asked the Department of Labor to help find jobs and provide transition funding for the more than 500 employees expected to be laid off this year from the US Department of Energy's high-level nuclear waste disposal project at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

In a Tuesday letter to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, Democratic Senator Harry Reid, Republican Senator John Ensign, Democratic Representative Shelley Berkley, and Republican Represenatives Dean Heller and Jon Porter said that while they want to kill the Yucca Mountain project, but they want to alleviate some of the unintended consequences of the effort to stop the project.

Earlier this month, DOE's program director said at least 500 workers would be laid off from the Yucca Mountain project this year because of steep cuts to the program's fiscal 2008 budget.

DOE said most of the 500 layoffs would occur at facilities in Nevada, while others would affect Yucca-related jobs at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and other states. The project employs about 2,400 people in Nevada, New Mexico, California, Washington state and Colorado.

The lawmakers asked Chao to "make the necessary resources available for rapid response to this situation and to ensure that these hardworking individuals receive appropriate assistance for transitioning into new jobs."

They said Nevada has one of the country's highest unemployment rates at 5.8% and the state has been hit hard by problems in the US housing market.

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

Senator Harry Reid
January 29, 2008

Fighting for Nevada in 2008

New Yucca Proposal: Dead on Arrival

In a desperate, last-ditch effort to revive the Yucca Mountain Project, some of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate have introduced a bill that would fast track the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada. Let me be perfectly clear: this bill is dead on arrival. This dangerous bill would speed up the licensing process, leaving Yucca Mountain to hold the waste for 300 years before any radiation standard whatsoever is applied to the dump. I pledge to you, that as the Senate Majority Leader, I will ensure that this bill never becomes law.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 29, 2008

Letters:

Her own fault

To the editor:

Bonnie S. Ballard's Saturday letter "Blame Harry," in which she blamed Sen. Harry Reid for cutting back the Yucca Mountain Project, resulting in her layoff, made me wonder about her rationale.

All construction jobs end at some time, and most workers are paid well while the job lasts. The probability, as she states, that she will have to sell her house and move to a lower-cost, Midwestern state just means that she didn't plan ahead.

There were more than enough indications over the past few years that the project was in trouble, and she should have made some provision for being laid off at some time.

Let's stop blaming politics and politicians for every event that affects our lives, shall we? Take some responsibility for your own life and future.

Glen Kaner
Las Vegas

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

KSWO 7
January 29, 2008

Majority Leader calls Inhofe bill 'ridiculous'

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate's Majority Leader says a bill introduced by Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe to revive the crippled Yucca Mountain project has no chance of passage.

Nevada Democrat Harry Reid called the measure to shorten the licensing period for the proposed nuclear waste repository dangerous and ridiculous.

Reid says the measure Inhofe introduced yesterday would have nuclear waste shipped to the site 90 miles outside of Las Vegas and be stored there for 300 years before any radiation standard is applied to the dump.

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

redOrbit
January 29, 2008

New Chairman of Georgia's Public Service Commission Has Big Decisions

By Margaret Newkirk
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

When Chuck Eaton joined the state Public Service Commission last January, he knew he would be chairman the next year.

It didn't quite dawn on him that it would coincide with one of the PSC's biggest decisions in decades.

Assuming Georgia Power doesn't back out, the PSC will likely decide this year whether the utility should expand its nuclear fleet in Georgia.

The commission will have to determine whether two new reactors are the best way to meet the state's voracious future demand for power.

There will be protests, crowded meetings and passionate pleas from both sides of the nuclear power debate as the PSC makes a call that will drive electric bills for years.

Eaton, who seems to be torn about the nuclear issue, will hold the chairman's gavel during the process.

So what kind of commissioner sits in the PSC's center chair?

A newish one, among other things.

The 38-year-old Republican took office just a year ago, after beating incumbent Democrat David Burgess in a runoff.

He took up part of Burgess' legacy from the get-go.

Like his predecessor, Eaton tends to be a swing vote on the five-member commission, where Stan Wise and Doug Everett typically squared off against members Angela Speir and Robert Baker.

The two factions still oppose each other more often than not. But the divides aren't as predictable as they used to be.

That may be partly because of something new that Eaton brought to the table during his first year.

Eaton talks to anyone who will listen.

In an agency where the regulatory opponents didn't talk to each other, his habit of shuttling from office to office to office in search of fellow commissioners' opinions and arguments is both notorious and new.

It's the pinball-like process by which Eaton makes up his mind.

"I talk to the different commissioners all the time," Eaton said.

A lot to learn from staff Coming into the job, "I tried to recognize the fact that I was new, that I'm not a know-it-all," Eaton said.

"After I hear one side of things, I hear another, and another," he said, talking to not only fellow commissioners, but to PSC staff and to utility lobbyists.

"There's a lot to learn," Eaton said. "It's very in-depth. We have a very strong and experienced staff."

If two sides are opposed on something, "I'm happy. I can learn a lot."

Eaton sees himself as a bit of a diplomat, too. That role was prominent during last year's debate over a new "ex parte" rule.

The rule limits behind-closed-doors conversations between commissioners and lobbyists.

Eaton's support of a Speir proposal to pass a rule was key to getting one approved.

His support of a compromise proposed by Everett helped that new rule pass by a decisive four-to-one vote.

The nuclear issue isn't the only big decision on the PSC's 2008 docket.

The commission will also decide on a Georgia Power fuel charge, arbitrate territory disputes between Atlanta Gas Light and municipal gas companies and possibly hear an old-fashioned telephone case for a small phone company in rural Georgia.

But the biggest decision by far will be the nuclear certification, which would give Georgia Power the green light on building two new reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta.

The commission will have to decide whether new reactors are a better option for meeting power demand in 2016 than other options -- like building a new coal-fired plant.

The information needed to make that decision isn't in yet. It won't be until at least May.

But like the rest of the commission, Eaton has been thinking about the decision.

So far, he's of two minds.

"There is -- and we established this through [the PSC planning process] -- there is a need for more baseload capacity," Eaton said, referring to the kind of big power plants that run 24-7.

"There are only two fuels, arguably, that can do that, coal and nuclear," he said.

Then again, Eaton said, "I've been upfront about this with everybody, I've got concerns about costs spiraling out of control."

"What we have to do is make sure that we get a contract that assigns a minimum risk to consumers," he said.

"What really concerns me is what happened last time," when Georgia Power built Plant Vogtle in the 1980s.

The company went from estimates of "$680 million for four reactors up to $8.4 billion for two." (Georgia Power uses the figures of $975 million and $9 billion, respectively.) "In fairness, there are a lot of reasons why what happened then shouldn't happen now," he countered himself.

The PSC's involvement in the decision on the front end is one of them, he said. Regulators had no such early involvement in Vogtle.

On the one hand, he said, there's the issue of nuclear waste. "I'm not optimistic about Yucca Mountain," he said, referring to the long-delayed nuclear waste repository in Utah. "There's not a single presidential candidate that's come out for it."

And on the other hand, there's global warming and the possibility that Congress might address it with carbon emission caps, Eaton said.

"If carbon emissions are going to be regulated, then coal is not the solution. It will be expensive and it will continue to go up."

There are risks to building reactors, he said. There are risks to building coal plants. "You could have construction costs spiral out of control on a coal plant, too."

"There are risks to doing something else," he said. "There are risks to doing nothing."

Source: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

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

New Scientist
January 29, 2008

Fred's footprint: Should we welcome nukes back?

Nuclear power is making a comeback round the world - rebranded as the new clean, green, low-carbon energy source for the 21st century.

It's in George Bush's latest state of the union address. After two decades, the Brits are all fired up to resume building. Canada, China, South Africa, Egypt, India, Italy, the Gulf states, and the Philippines all have plans.

Living in the UK, I don't have much choice but to get a fifth of my electricity from nukes ??? thanks to an old generation of nuclear plants nearing the ends of their working lives. Should that continue?

You wouldn't have caught me saying this even 5 years ago, but I am now so concerned about climate change that I suspect even nuclear energy has to be dragged out of the attic to help combat it.

But I have one big concern. What to do with nuclear waste, and especially the hot, highly radioactive stuff like spent fuel, which will stay dangerous for thousands of years?

Here the proponents of nuclear power are their own worst enemies. Scared, no doubt, by the greens, they have been putting off coming up with burial grounds.

In the US, the planned giant repository for spent reactor fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was supposed to open for business in 1998. But it is still at least 13 years from completion.

The situation in the UK is if anything even worse.

Many years ago, one of my big, early exclusives for New Scientist ??? 24 February 1983, since you asked ??? was a report on secret British plans to build a giant nuclear dump reached by a railway tunnel, probably beneath the sea close to Sellafield in Cumbria. An industry spokesman told me a planning application was only months away.

It made top story on the national evening news. But the plan was dropped soon after. And nothing has replaced it. The waste is still accumulating around the nuclear facilities of Britain.

Back in 1976, a Royal Commission said no new British nuclear power stations should be built until there was somewhere to put the waste. Last May, the chief scientist at the environment department, Howard Dalton, told me that rule still held. And with the government planning a nuclear revival, he said there would be announcement on waste before the end of 2007.

This was shortly before he retired ??? and before his sad death in recent days.

Yet January's government announcement about building new power stations came and went with no firm statement on waste. Frankly, it is pathetic. And dishonest.

If there are no plans, then it is nigh on criminal to starting pushing nukes. If there are secret plans, then it is dishonest not to reveal them and to try and win over a sceptical public.

And no, ministers cannot pretend that planning for waste disposal is a job for private industry. Not when thousands of years of safe keeping will be needed.

Not even George W Bush has tried to pull that one.

--Fred Pearce, senior environment correspondent

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

Aiken Standard
January 28, 2008

Open the doors to Yucca Mtn.

Yucca Mountain has been scrutinized in every way possible, yet Savannah River Site and other facilities that have high-level nuclear waste have not been able to send some of the most noxious materials known to this permanent repository.

It is time that the will of a nation outweigh the political ploys of the state of Nevada.

Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has lent his support to a Senate bill that would give Yucca Mountain a temporary license regulating its radiation standard for 300 years rather than the 1 million years now in place.

Yucca Mountain is already a dozen years late in opening and is now scheduled to be open in 2017. Meanwhile places such as SRS which were never designed for permanently housing nuclear waste, are being forced to keep dangerous nuclear materials in temporary storage.

Sen. DeMint's action to support the bill for Yucca Mountain is appreciated. Not only SRS but a number of other sites have a similar problem with storage of waste. Congress must act decisively to find a permanent solution to nuclear waste. And once it has arrived at that decision, it must have the courage to stand by its choice.

Scientifically Yucca Mountain has been shown to be an ideal place for storage of nuclear waste. Congress must get away from the game of politics to ensure that the best choice for waste consolidation and disposal is accomplished in a reasonable time.

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

Winston-Salem Journal
January 28, 2008

Nuclear Waste

Nuclear power was sold as the perfect fuel in the 1950s, one so cheap to produce, its promoters said, that utilities would give it away.

Today, promoters of nuclear power are back. This time they note that a nuclear-power plant doesn’t release climate-changing gases and that the United States doesn’t have to import the fuel from sometimes hostile oil-producing countries. The latest generation of nuclear technology is safer than ever, they say.

While North Carolina’s two major utilities, and many others around the country, consider whether to build new nuclear plants, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is traveling the world selling French nuclear technology. France is the world’s leader in dependence on nuclear power.

All of this enthusiasm, however, overlooks a problem with nuclear power that still must be solved: Nuclear-power plants may not produce climate-changing gases, but they produce nuclear waste that will be dangerous for thousands of years. And the United States has no place to store the stuff permanently.

Right now, utilities store their nuclear waste in above-ground facilities on power-plant sites. While the industry says that this is a safe interim approach to storage, it wants a permanent underground storage site, preferably at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

Environmentalists say that the waste should stay right where it is. It’s as safe there as anywhere and keeping it on site avoids potential disaster in moving it to Nevada. While it is being stored on site, the environmentalists argue, methods should be developed for treating the waste that has already been generated.

There’s a third option - processing the waste. France, Russia and Japan already do this. By doing so, they greatly reduce the amount of waste and also create new fuel. But reprocessing also creates plutonium, and the United States, worried about the potential for proliferation of plutonium for use in weapons, bans it.

The Yucca Mountain site was supposed to open 10 years ago but now appears to be in a political coma. The nation’s most powerful Democratic politicians oppose the site. And, during the recent campaign leading to the Nevada caucuses, the Democratic candidates for president jousted over who could wear the title of most opposed to the site.

If there is an answer to the waste problem, it lies with science and engineering. The French have a vested economic interest in solving the waste problem through chemical or other processes, and they have a head start. The U.S. government, if it feels that a permanent site is not workable, should join the charge to find a solution.

The waste problem must be solved before any new generation of nuclear reactors is built in this country.

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 27, 2008

Sun Editorial:

A real nowhere bill

Latest Republican tactic to revive Yucca Mountain gives irresponsibility a new meaning

One reason the federal plan to bury high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is moribund is because the science proving that it would be safe does not exist.

That presents a major problem for the Energy Department, which is intent upon submitting a license application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30.

Six Republican senators introduced a bill Thursday that would solve that problem for the Energy Department by essentially taking science off the table.

Under the bill, Yucca Mountain could be licensed for the first 300 years if the NRC “determines that there is a reasonable expectation that the health and safety of the public will be adequately protected.”

Only after 300 years have elapsed would scientists have to set a standard for how much radiation could escape the mountain for the duration of the waste’s lethal life, which would be at least 300,000 years.

We anticipated such a bill in 2004, after a federal court ruling.

The court found that the Energy Department had been obligated to follow the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences in setting a radiation standard. The Academy had said the waste should be shielded enough, from the moment of burial, to protect the outside environment during the peak life of its deadly radiation — several hundred thousand years.

At the time, however, the Energy Department was trying, unsuccessfully, to prove the waste would be safe for 10,000 years. But the court left the department an out — it would withdraw its ruling if Congress would lift the requirement that the department take direction from the Academy.

That’s what this bill is intended to accomplish — substitute the Academy’s scientific ruling with a judgment call by the NRC. The bill, whose main sponsor is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, gives the words “reckless” and “irresponsible” new meanings.

Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the state’s leader in the fight against Yucca Mountain, is the one who will see that this bill goes where it belongs, which is nowhere.

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

Carlsbad Current-Argus
January 27, 2008

This area could be nation's best nuclear option

The logic goes something like this:

1) The nation needs more energy and is likely going to have to turn more and more to nuclear.

2) As the nation goes more nuclear, it is also likely to become more interested in nuclear recycling.

3) Waste from reprocessed nuclear fuel needs a final destination.

4) The Department of Energy's plan calls for a second repository to Yucca Mountain even if Yucca Mountain were open, which it isn't.

Local officials are presently trying to convince the nation that they can offer a solution. They believe salt beds near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant would be an ideal location for a repository for waste from reprocessed fuel. A nearby reprocessing center, they argue, would also be appropriate. They think such an expansion would naturally be an asset to Carlsbad's economy.

It certainly isn't the first effort by local officials to expand Carlsbad's nuclear footprint. It isn't even the only effort going on right now. But what makes this particular effort interesting is the fact that Carlsbad may very well be the nation's best option. Other nuclear ambitions have set Carlsbad against Idaho National Laboratory, Savannah River and other "historic nuclear" regions.

The tactics of how officials will pursue these goals are still being worked out.

Quietly conduct background research, so as to not ruffle any feathers, or quickly begin a campaign for public and political support? Mention or don't mention Yucca Mountain? Talk about the Land Withdrawal Act or avoid the issue? Shoot for a reprocessing facility near Carlsbad, or just aim for a repository?

What's the best strategy for approaching Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Gov. Bill Richardson? How do you address Not-In-My-Backyardism, especially in a state-bound political situation where people as far away as Farmington and Raton get to consider Carlsbad to be their backyard?

Such tactics are likely best left to the experts.

However, it does not seem premature, at this point, to take two clear stances:

1) The county's nuclear interests are going to expand, and the role southeastern New Mexico's salt beds might be able to play deserves a very serious look.

2) A great deal of such an examination, even in the early stages, needs to involve the public as much as possible.

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

Dallas Morning News
January 27, 2008

Nuclear plants become a factor in elections

Democrats soften their stances on traditionally GOP-backed solution

By Elizabeth Souder
The Dallas Morning News
esouder@dallasnews.com

Barack Obama says nuclear power should be explored as an energy option. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she's "agnostic" on whether more nuclear plants should be built.

As climate change rises to the top of voters' minds, many Democrats are reconsidering their anti-nuclear stance. The party front-runners' refusal to rule it out may indicate a big shift in U.S. environmental politics, coming at a time when Texas power companies want to build up to six new reactors.

Nuclear power plants can generate massive amounts of cheap electricity without emitting any greenhouse gases. Republicans have long advocated nuclear power, in contrast to many Democrats.

"They've gone from 'no' to 'yes, but,' and some even describe themselves as agnostics, and that's a big improvement," said Derrick Freeman, senior director of legislative programs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which supports the nuclear industry.

Still, Mr. Freeman is nervous about a Democratic president delaying or halting the building of plants.

"It's 'yes,' and the smile comes on their face with a 'but,' " he said.

Until last year, no one had filed plans for a new nuclear plant in the U.S. since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Now the industry is poised for what many are calling a renaissance.

Power companies have proposed around 30 new reactors across the country, taking advantage of new building technology as Americans are demanding more juice.

Republican presidential candidates say nuclear power promotes energy independence and offers a solution to global warming. A Republican president would probably continue policies of the Bush administration to support new reactors.

"We have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel and biomass," Republican candidate Mike Huckabee says in his energy platform.

But Democrats still worry about nuclear accidents, storing waste safely and the possibility that fuel could land in terrorists' hands. Those concerns could slow plans to build reactors or even halt them.

John Edwards opposes nuclear power. He has said there's no safe way to dispose of the waste, and reactors take a long time – and a lot of money – to build.

Mr. Obama is in the opposite camp.

"We should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix," he said during last summer's CNN-YouTube debate. Nuclear plants can cut greenhouse gas emissions, he says.

Mrs. Clinton articulates both views. She worries about climate change, as well as nuclear waste spills. But American technology can address those worries, she said during the debate last summer. She doesn't state explicitly whether she supports building new plants.

Voters reconsider

Democratic voters haven't come to a consensus either.

"It's clearly a mixed bag," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, head of the Texas office for Public Citizen, which opposes nuclear power. "Even people who were strong anti-nukers are beginning to have that conversation again."

Dean Rindy, head of Rindy Miller Media, a Democratic political consulting firm in Austin, said most people, including the presidential candidates, haven't been forced to choose a position on nuclear power yet. So even the most connected politicos can't predict which way the party will go.

"There hasn't been a lot of passionate debate on this in Democratic caucuses. The debate is just beginning, really," said Mr. Rindy, who opposes nuclear power and worked on environmental efforts surrounding Barton Springs in Austin.

It's difficult to categorize the liberals who support nuclear power and those who do not. It's not necessarily young students conscious of climate change vs. aging anti-nuke hippies. And it's not always environmental activists vs. business types.

Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for Environmental Defense, said his group reconsidered its anti-nuclear stance a few years ago. Now the environmental advocacy group says nuclear power is an important low-carbon energy option, though members still worry about safety.

The dividing line seems to be between people who are motivated to compromise with the energy industry and those who want to devote resources solely to renewable power. Uranium used in nuclear plants isn't a renewable fuel.

"Members of the political class, particularly senators and congressmen who have those nuclear facilities in their districts, are customarily supportive of nuclear power," said Mr. Freeman of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

All three top Democratic candidates have received donations from employees of nuclear power companies. The amount tends to match the candidate's acceptance of nuclear power and tends to be higher than what Republican candidates have received from the same companies.

Mr. Obama has gotten $197,950 in donations from employees of Chicago nuclear power company Exelon Corp. since 2003, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The senator represents Illinois, the state with the most nuclear reactors.

In 2007, Mrs. Clinton received $68,650 from employees of NRG Energy, a New Jersey power company that wants to build nuclear plants in Texas. In the past, she has received $2,500 from employees of Energy Future Holdings, $7,400 from Constellation Energy employees and $11,400 from Entergy Corp. employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

She also received $10,000 from an NRG Energy political action committee during the current election cycle.

Mr. Edwards received $1,450 from energy employees between 2001 and 2004.

Issues await

Experts say even the most pro-nuclear Democratic president might change the Bush administration's nuclear policies to make peace with the anti-nuke side of the party.

Under President Bush, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission created a plan to process reactor licenses faster. A new president might change the process or at least take some time to study it.

Anti-nuclear activists oppose the loan guarantees for nuclear plants that were part of last year's energy bill.

NRG Energy, which plans to build the first new reactor in the U.S. in South Texas, has said the loan guarantees are vital to persuade investors to finance the multibillion-dollar projects.

But perhaps the most crucial question for the candidates is whether to build the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada. That's where Congress – with the backing of Mr. Bush – propose storing spent nuclear fuel.

The Yucca debate heated up earlier this month ahead of the Nevada Democratic caucus, which Mrs. Clinton won.

The top Democratic candidates oppose building the repository, citing safety concerns. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton sound hopeful of finding a different solution for nuclear waste.

"A lot of the candidates have beat themselves up to see who can be more anti-Yucca," Mr. Freeman said.

Republicans

RUDY GIULIANI: Says "every potential solution" must be pursued, including nuclear power, increased energy exploration and more aggressive investment in alternative energy sources. Says energy independence can be achieved through a strategy that emphasizes diversification, innovation and conservation.

MIKE HUCKABEE: Wants to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil by pursuing "all avenues" of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel and biomass.

JOHN MCCAIN: Wants to limit carbon dioxide emissions "by harnessing market forces" that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster. Seeks to reduce dependence on foreign supplies of energy. Wants the U.S. to lead in a way that ensures all nations "do their rightful share" on the environment.

MITT ROMNEY: Wants to accelerate construction of nuclear power plants as part of a "robust, cleaner and reliable energy mix." Seeks energy independence not by halting all oil imports but by "making sure that our nation's future will always be in our hands."

Democrats

HILLARY CLINTON: Says she's "agnostic" about building nuclear power plants. Prefers renewable energy and conservation because of concerns about nuclear power's cost, safety and waste disposal. Wants to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years to cut oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, with some money going toward alternative energy.

JOHN EDWARDS: Opposes nuclear power because of cost and safety concerns. Favors creating a $13 billion-a-year fund to finance research and development of energy technologies; wants to reduce oil imports by nearly a third of the oil projected to be used in 2025.

BARACK OBAMA: Says the U.S. can't meet its climate goals if it removes nuclear power as an option but says such issues as security of nuclear fuel, waste and waste storage need to be addressed first. Wants to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop new energy sources. Seeks to reduce "oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent by 2030."

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

Atlanta Journal Constitution
January 27, 2008

PSC chief talks to all who'll listen

Momentous decisions on tap for state utilities

By Margaret Newkirk
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

When Chuck Eaton joined the state Public Service Commission last January, he knew he would be chairman the next year.

It didn't quite dawn on him that it would coincide with one of the PSC's biggest decisions in decades.

year whether the utility should expand its nuclear fleet in Georgia.

The commission will have to determine whether two new reactors are the best way to meet the state's voracious future demand for power.

There will be protests, crowded meetings and passionate pleas from both sides of the nuclear power debate as the PSC makes a call that will drive electric bills for years.

Eaton, who seems to be torn about the nuclear issue, will hold the chairman's gavel during the process.

So what kind of commissioner sits in the PSC's center chair?

A newish one, among other things.

The 38-year-old Republican took office just a year ago, after beating incumbent Democrat David Burgess in a runoff.

He took up part of Burgess' legacy from the get-go.

Like his predecessor, Eaton tends to be a swing vote on the five-member commission, where Stan Wise and Doug Everett typically squared off against members Angela Speir and Robert Baker.

The two factions still oppose each other more often than not. But the divides aren't as predictable as they used to be.

That may be partly because of something new that Eaton brought to the table during his first year.

Eaton talks to anyone who will listen.

It's the pinball-like process by which Eaton makes up his mind.

"I talk to the different commissioners all the time," Eaton said.

A lot to learn from staff

Coming into the job, "I tried to recognize the fact that I was new, that I'm not a know-it-all," Eaton said.

"After I hear one side of things, I hear another, and another," he said, talking to not only fellow commissioners, but to PSC staff and to utility lobbyists.

"There's a lot to learn," Eaton said. "It's very in-depth. We have a very strong and experienced staff."

If two sides are opposed on something, "I'm happy. I can learn a lot."

Eaton sees himself as a bit of a diplomat, too. That role was prominent during last year's debate over a new "ex parte" rule.

The rule limits behind-closed-doors conversations between commissioners and lobbyists.

Eaton's support of a Speir proposal to pass a rule was key to getting one approved.

His support of a compromise proposed by Everett helped that new rule pass by a decisive four-to-one vote.

Nuclear issue and more

The nuclear issue isn't the only big decision on the PSC's 2008 docket.

But the biggest decision by far will be the nuclear certification, which would give Georgia Power the green light on building two new reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta.

The commission will have to decide whether new reactors are a better option for meeting power demand in 2016 than other options — like building a new coal-fired plant.

The information needed to make that decision isn't in yet. It won't be until at least May.

But like the rest of the commission, Eaton has been thinking about the decision.

So far, he's of two minds.

"There is — and we established this through [the PSC planning process] — there is a need for more baseload capacity," Eaton said, referring to the kind of big power plants that run 24-7.

"There are only two fuels, arguably, that can do that, coal and nuclear," he said.

Then again, Eaton said, "I've been upfront about this with everybody, I've got concerns about costs spiraling out of control."

"What we have to do is make sure that we get a contract that assigns a minimum risk to consumers," he said.

"What really concerns me is what happened last time," when Georgia Power built Plant Vogtle in the 1980s.

The company went from estimates of "$680 million for four reactors up to $8.4 billion for two." (Georgia Power uses the figures of $975 million and $9 billion, respectively.)

"In fairness, there are a lot of reasons why what happened then shouldn't happen now," he countered himself.

The PSC's involvement in the decision on the front end is one of them, he said. Regulators had no such early involvement in Vogtle.

And on the other hand, there's global warming and the possibility that Congress might address it with carbon emission caps, Eaton said.

"If carbon emissions are going to be regulated, then coal is not the solution. It will be expensive and it will continue to go up."

There are risks to building reactors, he said. There are risks to building coal plants. "You could have construction costs spiral out of control on a coal plant, too."

"There are risks to doing something else," he said. "There are risks to doing nothing."

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 26, 2008

From Our Readers:

Blame Harry

To the editor:

In response to your Thursday article about Sen. Harry Reid finding jobs for the employees laid off on the Yucca Mountain Project: For the record, the Department of Energy and Bechtel SAIC -- not Sen. Reid -- are doing what they can to find jobs for the 500-plus people Harry has displaced.

I am a victim of his $100 million budget cut, but I am not a disgruntled employee. I just speak from experience and the truth. I am too young to draw full Social Security benefits and too old to find another position. My only recourse is to sell my house in the depths of a housing depression and move to a more affordable state in the Midwest.

Sen. Reid has taken my job, my house and most of my retirement. He is personally responsible for the hundreds of well-educated, skilled workers that will no longer be contributing to Nevada's economy.

Sen. Reid, likewise, has not told you how much the government's liability is every day for the lawsuits from the utility companies because their waste has not been removed as required by law. The money for the project, contributed by ratepayers (not taxpayers), is sitting in a nuclear waste fund that Sen. Reid has the power to make available for this pressing national need.

I will not argue here about whether you are for or against the project -- the science speaks for itself. I am just concerned and sorry that the voting public does not know about the havoc Sen. Reid has caused in hundreds of lives and to the economy -- and instead, probably believe what is printed.

Bonnie S. Ballard
Las Vegas

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

MWC News
January 26, 2008

We are all just hostages on a hostile planet...

There are currently over 400 operating nuclear power reactors around the globe, employing approximately one million people, and holding all seven billion people on the planet hostage.

Nuclear power is a very expensive way to provide electrons in wires. There are constant dangers from proliferation, terrorism, waste mismanagement, and accidents. There are NUMEROUS clean alternative energy solutions, but the cost of conversion is considered too high because we give nuclear power a free ride on most of its costs to society.

Unfair competition is not capitalism, and nuclear power could never have started, let alone continued, under equitable economic conditions. It is the most subsidized industry in history. Also the most secretive, the most poorly regulated (it's mostly self-regulated, which is to say, utterly UNregulated), the dirtiest (even compared to coal), and the most environmentally invasive, too -- it's radioactive byproducts get into EVERYTHING.

Nuke power plants are vulnerable to human error, and catastrophic natural events such as earthquakes, tornados, or even meteors from space. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? Absolutely not. Statistical calculations of the probability of a catastrophic accident at a nuclear power plant caused by it being hit by a meteor are complex and unreliable. No matter what number someone comes up with, a group of bright scientists will undoubtedly be able to argue that the estimate is off by several orders of magnitude one way or the other!

But NO MISTAKES are ever made when calculating the chance of a catastrophic accident caused by a meteor knocking over a bunch of windmills. The chance is zero. Such an accident would be tragic for those under the meteor's fireball, but it would not effect one millionth as many people as if a meteor hit a nuclear power plant, or if the power plant's radiation was released for any other reason.

Since there are safe alternatives which are cheaper and more reliable, I believe that even the small (some might call it "remote") chance of a meteor strike on a nuclear power facility or its waste is enough reason to reject nuclear power for humanity. Look at the moon. Those craters you see are meteor strikes. Our planet's dirt and wind and rain covers the evidence of these strikes, but the Earth is regularly hit by meteors, too.

And there are at least 1000 other reasons to reject nuclear power, all of them at least as good as the argument that meteors can and DO strike earth with some regularity, and no containment dome can seriously be thought to protect the power plant from such strikes (noting that the domes are not very thick on the top, anyway -- only the BASE of the walls is 8 feet to 12 feet thick, and also noting that most of the radioactive waste is stored outside the containment domes).

Assuming you've managed to operate your reactor successfully for 20 to 60 years (a big if), then there is STILL the problem of what to do with the radioactive waste. You have to keep it away from humans for about 20 times the half-lives of the elements. Before settling on Yucca Mountain, a government-appointed scientific team looked at, and then eliminated, every other possible solution, including deep-sea burial, sending the waste into outer space, and even just grinding it up and releasing the fission products into the environment (like what they do in France and England).

After rejecting every other possible solution ANYONE could come up with, they were forced to ASSUME that Yucca Mountain was going to be the actual solution, even if it wasn't a very good one, which it isn't for many reasons, including the following:

* Yucca Mountain is located in an earthquake-prone area. It's one thing to risk your own life by living in an earthquake region, or a tornado region, or a tsunami region, but to risk the health and safety of the whole planet by storing all your waste in such a place is another matter entirely.

* Water runs through the Yucca Mountain site more quickly and in greater volume than originally expected. Water degrades the metals, or can cause a steam explosion -- releasing a planet-killing quantity of radioactive waste into the atmosphere, perhaps thousands of years from now, perhaps sooner, and perhaps not at all (if we're lucky; but do we want an energy plan which REQUIRES us to be lucky?).

* The metals that were expected to be used to hold the waste have been corroding and degrading much more rapidly than anticipated -- this happens over and over in the nuclear industry, probably in part because the industry refuses to properly account for the destructive effects of the radiation itself! Sound's silly, but historically, they keep not realizing the extent to which radiation accelerates embrittlement. (Google "Davis Besse 2002" for a nearly-catastrophic example of the industry ignoring the warning signs of severe corrosion problems, also known as "Wigner's disease," "rust," and many other terms.)

* Transporting the nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain is not easy, safe, or cheap, but keeping the waste at nearly 40 separate sites around the country is ALSO extremely hazardous -- AND violates the promise made to the public when the plants were opened, which was that no waste older than about five years (the minimum amount of time needed for the waste to cool enough to be moved) would be kept on-site at the nuclear power plants. Instead, more than half a century into the nuclear age, the used reactor cores all remain onsite and very, very vulnerable.

* Perhaps the biggest problem for nuclear waste management is that the scientific community is becoming more and more aware of the extreme dangers of radioactive particles inside the human body. Permitted exposures continue to drop, and this author believes they will drop much, much more as the public realizes how bad a little polonium-210, or plutonium-239, or whatever, really is for you (especially for children).

The EPA ruled that the Yucca Mountain team's plan to create a massive radioactive blob, which, in 10,000 years (if not sooner), would begin escaping the mountain and contaminating the groundwater in Nevada for the next million years or so, was not adequate. EPA told the scientists and engineers that they have to extend the predictions out to at least a million years, which is just that much more impossible to do considering that the average nuclear engineer cannot accurately predict corrosion even a few MONTHS in advance (see "Davis Besse 2002" again, or consider the many problems with steam generator corrosion throughout the nuclear industry).

Most of this year's Presidential candidates proclaim their opposition to "Yucca Mountain" but it's just a political football they are tossing around to each other, and have been for about 20 years. Yucca Mountain is a scientific boondoggle for the reasons given above and many, many others. But the presidential candidates talk about it as if we could just abandon Yucca Mountain and come up with something better.

Yucca Mountain ALREADY is a "last resort," so if you oppose Yucca Mountain, you really should oppose nuclear power too, since there is no other solution to the waste problem on the horizon. And even if Yucca Mountain is built and filled, the following day each nuclear power plant would have a dangerous amount of waste on hand which would need to be guarded, protected, etc. for millions of years. So being FOR Yucca Mountain doesn't mean you've actually solved anything!

But tell that to six Republican senators who recently introduced legislation to relax the safety requirements for Yucca Mountain. The bill would eliminate ALL safety requirements for the facility after 300 years -- in order to take advantage of (imagined) future technological breakthroughs! In announcing the proposed legislation, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) made the specious claim that opposition to Yucca Mountain was based on "politics, not sound science."

It is not "sound science" to base the nation's energy policy on completely uninvented future technological breakthroughs -- especially ones that we've already been looking for intensely for more than 60 years, and have already put tens of billions of dollars into trying to find.

The only real politics involved in nuclear power is the combined politics of greed and ignorance. Congressional and White House promoters of nuclear power have NEVER studied the facts -- they've always let nuclear industry insiders tell them the "facts."

Shutting all the nuclear power plants down now would save lives, money, and global storage space. There is no time to wait -- every day, another 50 tons of spent reactor cores becomes waste -- deadly, solidified poisonous gas.

There is no time to debate, and nothing left TO debate -- the facts are clear, including the fact that radiation is as much as 100 to 1000 times MORE dangerous (especially to fetuses and infants) than the current standards admit to -- standards specifically designed to ALLOW THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO OPERATE, NOT TO PROTECT YOUR LIFE!

There is no place to hide, the world is finite and crowded.

Nuclear power plant executives quiver at only one thing: The truth getting out to the public.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
January 26, 2008

Reid to soften unemployment jolt

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- After promoting a deep budget cut to the Yucca Mountain Project that will push hundreds of Nevadans out of work, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid said he wants to cushion the blow.

Reid said helping laid-off Yucca workers find new jobs will be a priority in 2008. Most of them are losing their old jobs after the Senate majority leader arranged for a $108 million slash through the Department of Energy nuclear waste program.

The job losses raise a potentially awkward situation for Reid and other Nevada leaders who have pledged to do whatever is necessary to kill the government's plan to bury highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel in the state.

Caught in the crossfire are roughly 1,500 Nevadans who collect paychecks from the Department of Energy or its Yucca contractors. It is unusual for elected officials to seek the demise of a federal program that employs so many constituents.

Reid and others who have fought Yucca Mountain for years say a nuclear waste repository could pose catastrophic health and safety threats to Nevadans and along shipping routes in other parts of the country.

DOE officials maintain the program would be safe.

Reid said Wednesday he is taking steps to form a worker transition strategy as he continues to cut away at the project. The strategy also would cover workers at the Nevada Test Site.

"My staff and I are looking at all options." Reid said. "Killing Yucca is good news for Nevada, but the people who work there have families to feed and I want to make sure they can do that.

"We're talking to the Energy Department, Test Site officials, and leaders in the community to come up with ways to ensure that people who have lost their jobs at Yucca can find other jobs, and mitigate the number of layoffs at the Test Site as a whole," Reid said.

"This is in the fairly early stages," Jon Summers, a spokesman for Reid, said.

Reid aides and Energy Department officials were scheduled to meet yesterday to discuss the impact of the budget cuts in the state.

"We are talking to DOE to get a better idea of the types of workers who are facing layoffs," Summers said. Reid also will meet with labor organizations to assess where new jobs might be found.

Reid similarly is monitoring the Nevada Test Site labor situation where about 200 positions were lost last fall to cuts in the National Nuclear Security Administration, aides said. About half the Nevada reductions were attained through attrition and early retirements.

But Reid is paying particularly close attention to the workers who will lose their jobs at Yucca Mountain "since he is the one who is responsible for cutting so much funding," said a Senate aide familiar with the issue.

For the workers, the timing is not great. They are being let go into the teeth of an economic downturn. Nevada's unemployment rate was 5.8 percent in December, the highest in more than five years and higher than the 5 percent national average.

In neighboring California, the jobless rate was 6.1 percent in December.

Bechtel SAIC Co., the Energy Department's managing contractor at Yucca Mountain, announced earlier this month it was laying off 63 workers. They include 27 union metalworkers, electricians, miners and pipefitters, and 36 people in administrative, environmental safety and health and property management positions.

The contractor, a partnership of two large engineering companies, is attempting to place workers in divisions outside the state, spokesman Jason Bohne said.

"The people getting laid off are highly educated and highly skilled," Bohne said. "There is market demand for people willing to relocate. But some of these people are tied to Nevada and want to live in Nevada."

Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told a Nevada legislative committee last week at least 500 people would be removed form the program in the next few months.

Most will be from Nevada while others are employed in New Mexico by Sandia National Laboratories, another contractor.

Sproat said the Yucca program staffs about 2,400 fulltime positions. He said work toward a nuclear waste repository license would continue but at a reduced level of activity and under new schedules that have not yet been formed.

It was expected the estimated 22 percent budget cut would force more delays in the program that is already more than a decade behind schedule.

Gary Hollis, a Nye County commissioner who is supportive of the project, said he welcomed Reid's effort but wondered if Reid thought ahead when he took the axe to Yucca.

"I really hope that Senator Reid thought about this when he cut the funding, maybe he didn't," Hollis said. "I knew if we cut the program by $100 million that we wouldn't be able to keep the place open and work on the license at the same time."

As far as seeking to assist laid off workers, "This is admirable for Senator Reid. I take my hat off to him," Hollis said.

Reid has suggested that Yucca workers, who include skilled technicians and engineers, could find new homes in the growing renewable energy field in Nevada.

Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association, said his member companies are hiring.

"Everyone knows two or three companies advertising for skilled positions as well as lower skilled construction and trade jobs," Gawell said. "In Nevada right now, you have a great resource and a lot of state support and a lot of federal support."

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

Senator Harry Reid
January 25, 2008

A Message From U.S. Senator Harry Reid

Putting Nevada First

Dear Friends:

As you may have already heard, some of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate have introduced a bill to fast track the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Let me be perfectly clear, this bill is dead on arrival. I will use every ounce of my power to ensure that this irresponsible bill never sees the light of day.

Allow me to share with you some of the worst aspects of this last ditch effort to revive the Yucca Mountain Project. First, this bill would allow Yucca Mountain to operate as an interim storage facility for 300 years without requiring an environmental radiation standard in place. We already know that they cannot build a waste dump at Yucca Mountain that would permanently isolate waste from the environment, so this bill instead says that we should put off environmental standards for 300 years, thus ensuring that radiation leaks into Nevada’s environment even sooner than it would under current law.

This bill would completely gut the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) process for reviewing a license application for Yucca Mountain. The NRC’s process is already stacked against Nevada. Under this proposal, the Department of Energy (DOE) could receive a license from the NRC with even less scientific evidence for health and safety protection than under current law.

This dangerous bill also takes away the NRC’s authority to consider operation of a rail line for transporting nuclear waste in its decision to approve or disapprove the Yucca Mountain license application. This is in spite of the NRC’s responsibility to regulate the safety and security of spent fuel transportation. The authors clearly don’t want experts to scrutinize the DOE’s transportation plans because they know how risky they are.

I haven’t fought against this ill-fated project for more than 20 years to see something like this happen to our state. I pledge to you, that as the Senate Majority Leader, I will ensure that this bill never becomes law.

Thank you for standing by my side in this fight. We have made a great deal of progress together, and if we continue to stand strong, we will overcome any effort to force this awful project on the state of Nevada.

Sincerely,
Harry Reid

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 25, 2008

Republicans sponsor Yucca rescue measure

Bill already dead, Reid promises

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Seven Republican senators announced a bill Thursday to revive the crippled Yucca Mountain Project. Senate leader Harry Reid of Nevada declared it dead on arrival.

"It is going nowhere," Reid said of the measure introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. As majority leader, Reid has had the last word on nuclear waste bills.

Inhofe said his bill aims to move the stalled project forward. Managers are trying to rework the program, already years behind schedule, in the face of budget cuts and personnel layoffs.

"I've visited the site," Inhofe said. "I have a question for those who want to abandon Yucca Mountain: If you can't build a repository in the middle of a mountain in the middle of a desert, where should it be?"

The bill alters the government's strategy for storing highly radioactive nuclear waste at the Yucca site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The bill allows the Department of Energy to build an underground repository and store waste there after proving to regulators it could be operated safely for 300 years. Every 50 years during that period, DOE would seek license amendments to incorporate new research and technology.

At 300 years, the government would be required to show whether the repository could meet radiation standards to ensure the waste can remain shielded for as long as 1 million years. If so, the repository would be sealed.

Current law requires DOE to show up front whether Yucca Mountain can prevent radioactive materials from leaking and poisoning residents over the longest periods of time.

Energy Department officials said they were reviewing the bill.

Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the bill is based on a "phased licensing" idea that has been floated before but rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"This appears to be more of a political document than a serious piece of legislation," Loux said.

Nevadans have said that the Yucca site is not suitable and that nuclear waste should remain stored at power plants until another solution is found.

The sponsors "are trying to fast-forward a project that should be stopped," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

Besides Inhofe, sponsors included Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Kit Bond, R-Mo.; Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, both R-Idaho; and Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

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

E&ETV
January 25, 2008

Nuclear Power:

Former NRC head Curtiss discusses future of Yucca, expansion of nuclear in U.S.

(OnPoint, 01/24/2008)

With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) staunchly opposing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project, and funding for Yucca being dramatically cut, is there hope for this project? What impact does the future of Yucca have on the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States? During today's OnPoint, James Curtiss, chair of the energy practice at Winston & Strawn and a former commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, previews the year ahead for nuclear and Yucca Mountain. He discusses the challenges facing the nuclear industry in convincing Wall Street to invest in new projects and explains why international support for nuclear is rapidly increasing.

Transcript

Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is James Curtiss, chair of the energy practice at Winston & Strawn and a former commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jim, thanks for coming on the show.

Jim Curtiss: Thank you.

Monica Trauzzi: Jim, Senator Harry Reid has vowed to kill the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. Earlier this month DOE had to fire about 63 employees at Yucca Mountain. All things considered, what are the prospects for this project in the year ahead?

Jim Curtiss: Well, it's clearly an important project for the industry as a whole. We have spent 25 years focused on the science of Yucca Mountain. In fact, this month is the 25th anniversary of President Reagan signing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, so we've been at this for a long time. Fully funded by utilities and the spent nuclear fuel is continuing to accumulate at plants around the country. And I think the consensus in the scientific community, in the public policy community, is to find a permanent location for the deep and safe disposal of this material. And that's what Yucca Mountain is all about and it's important to this industry, both today and in the future. At the same time, everyone recognizes that there has been significant controversy around Yucca Mountain, including the views of Senator Reid, which presents a very real challenge. What I expect in this coming year, based upon the funding level that's been authorized, is that at some point during 2008 the Department of Energy will move forward with an application to the NRC for the licensing of this project, which several years ago was found suitable by the Congress, not withstanding the opposition of some members of Congress including most of the Nevada delegation. And that will be an important step as the NRC then determines whether this is a safe location for disposal of spent nuclear fuel from our commercial nuclear plants.

Monica Trauzzi: If the Yucca Mountain project doesn't survive, what does that mean for nuclear in general?

Jim Curtiss: Well, I think nuclear clearly is focused on moving forward with Yucca Mountain, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also said that in the interim it's safe to store used fuel on site at our 103 operating nuclear plants for an extended period of time. So this isn't a safety issue. At the same time, as we look at the future of this industry, which is very exciting at this point, there are 18 companies that have proposed to go through the permitting process for 32 new nuclear plants as we look at responding to the challenges of increased energy demand and global warming. And as those companies are looking at the possibility of building new nuclear I think they'd like to have a long-term solution to the waste disposal issue. And Yucca Mountain is where we've invested a lot of time and attention and the NRC will now determine whether the site is acceptable from a safety standpoint. But those plants are moving forward understanding that the government has committed to a solution to this problem and those companies expect it and are paid for it.

Monica Trauzzi: But there still remains a lot of opposition, not only to Yucca Mountain, but the expansion of nuclear in the United States. And obviously we're heading into a year where we're going to see presidential elections and there are several candidates who do not support both Yucca Mountain and the expansion of nuclear, some who do. How closely are you watching this race to see who gets into the White House in 2009 and what that's going to mean for the nuclear industry?

Jim Curtiss: Well, it's clear I've been involved in this industry for almost 30 years and in my experience this industry, which is controversial in some respects, has been controversial in years divisible by four. And as you note, this is a presidential election year and statements are made and positions taken. I think most of the candidates in the race, on both the Republican and Democratic side, recognize that nuclear needs to be a part of our solution going forward and particularly as candidates look at the impact of global warming and responding to that. The interest in nuclear is driven by several things, including about 25 years of safe and increasingly reliable operation since Three Mile Island, where the industry has performed from a safety and reliability standpoint very effectively and very efficiently. That in turn, has led to a level of confidence in the American public that in the surveys that have been taken show strong support, particularly in areas around plants that are being proposed, for building new plants. So the public confidence in nuclear is increasing as we see both a safe and reliable history of our 103 operating plants, but also as the Congress and others grapple with the future in a climate change context.

Monica Trauzzi: There still remains a lot of public opposition to this though, because a lot of people remember back to three decades ago and they remember the bad of nuclear. So how do you convince those people who are still opposed to it?

Jim Curtiss: I think there's still going to be a core group of opposition to any construction at all of any energy source. One only need to look off the coast of Massachusetts where the wind farm has been proposed or to look elsewhere in the country at any energy project, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, all of the energy options are going to be controversial. I do think as you look at nuclear as an option that has to be part of an overall mix of nuclear, clean coal, and renewables, there is a recognition that's starting to emerge with the public generally, members of the environmental community, Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, who has been very supportive of nuclear. So we see a noticeable move in the direction supporting nuclear as an important way to supply our energy in the future and in a climate change context going forward.

Monica Trauzzi: The story is a bit different internationally though. The IAEA estimates nuclear energy could double within the next 20 years and countries are seemingly flocking towards nuclear. France has gotten a lot of attention for their use of nuclear. Why is there such a disparity between the U.S.'s approach and the international approach?

Jim Curtiss: Well, you look at some countries that have, as you point out, France relies for 80% of their electricity on nuclear, Japan, Finland, a whole range of countries that have relied to a significant extent on nuclear. In a sense, we've had an abundance of resources in this country that have allowed us to look to other alternatives, hydropower, coal, options that countries like Japan simply don't have. Having said that, I think the move in the direction that we're seeing internationally with the plans of China and India and many of the major countries that are going to expand significantly in the nuclear arena is really a significant shift in what we've seen over the years. Other countries that haven't relied on nuclear historically are also looking at the option and, again, I think in the context of global warming and the safe history of this program. The United States has really been at the core of all of that because we pioneered the use of commercial nuclear power. We got away from it for several years with the controversies of the late 70s and early 80s. And fortunately we're coming back to recognize, as many of the companies that are now looking at the permitting process say that nuclear has to be part of their solution.

Monica Trauzzi: But what about the countries that are new to nuclear? How much of a risk do they pose because of the learning curve associated with this form of energy?

Jim Curtiss: Well, it's clearly an important issue. There are countries that are examining the nuclear option that haven't had any history with nuclear. And it's important that from the standpoint of that option, that those countries recognize the challenges associated with nuclear, including having an independent and forceful regulatory process to ensure that the operation and construction of those plants is done safely, what you see in many of the advanced countries, from Japan to France to the United States to Canada, countries that rely on nuclear. So the regulatory framework is an important component. In addition, countries that haven't used nuclear in the past, haven't relied on nuclear and are just starting out, need to be able to rely on designs that are certified around the country for use in other countries. You mentioned the design in France; the EPR design is being pursued by a number of countries around the world. So there are designs that are available for use and those countries are, with the care and attention that they'll require on the regulatory side, I think looking seriously at new nuclear.

Monica Trauzzi: So, let's follow the money trail in the U.S. How hopeful are the financial prospects for the expansion of nuclear, looking towards what's being offered right now for research and development?

Jim Curtiss: Well, I think there are a number of dimensions of that. The financial community, in terms of funding new nuclear, has in recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently. Thirty years ago I don't think you would have had that kind of view right after Three Mile Island until we saw the improved operation of the plants. But from a financial standpoint, the ability to bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants. Of the 18 companies that have announced plans to go through the permitting process for 32 plants none of those companies has yet decided to build a plant. So there's a lot of attention with Wall Street talking with the industry about the importance of some of the things that Congress has done, the establishment of the loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an important piece of this. The Department of Energy recently published guidance on how they're going to implement that program that's very positive and has a loan guarantee program that will provide for the risk support that we're going to need as we get back into nuclear construction. The U.S. Congress just in the appropriations process, here before they left town in December, authorized $18.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear projects. So there's a lot of support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward.

Monica Trauzzi: So do you see it as an uphill battle when it comes to Wall Street and encouraging investors to invest in this form of energy?

Jim Curtiss: I wouldn't characterize it as an uphill battle. I think it's a significant challenge, particularly in the environment that we have now. The sub-prime credit challenges that we've seen make it difficult for any major, new construction activity and in fact more generally for any general merger activity, the type that we've seen before the relies on those credit markets. A nuclear plant that's going to cost in the range of $4 billion or $5 billion is not an insignificant investment. The combined market capitalization of the companies that are looking at new nuclear, by way of example the 18 companies, which are large companies within the utility business constellation and Excelon and Entergy and Southern, Duke, those companies, by comparison they're less than one half the market cap of an Exxon Mobil. So they are relatively small companies and to undertake a project that in some cases may be as large as the market cap of those companies in a $4 billion to $5 billion project needs to be appropriately financed and the risks need to be allocated in a way that I think we're seeing a lot of progress on. The financial community is coming around to understand that this is an important option that's available to us and that discussion, I think, this year will lead to some interesting structural arrangements.

Monica Trauzzi: All right. Well, it will be interesting to watch. We'll end it right there. Thanks for coming on the show.

Jim Curtiss: Thank you, Monica.

--Monica Trauzzi: This is OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Thanks for watching.

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

WBIR-TV
January 25, 2008

Anderson commissioners question DOE payments

By: Anthony Welsch,

Anderson County's commission wants more cash in exchange for land used by the Department of Energy.

The DOE pays the county about $500,000 each year in lieu of property taxes.

The governments of Oak Ridge, Roane County, and Anderson County all receive checks. In all, it comes out to about $2.5 million.

That's well below what some other governments with DOE facilities in their area get.

For example, the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada pulls in about $12 million total in what are known as P.I.L.T. and P.E.T. funds, according to Anderson County Commissioner Tracy Wandell.

"We appreciate what we do get," Wandell said. "I'm just asking, and I do think the citizens in the communities are asking, for a larger portion."

Wandell and many other commissioners say it's not that they question other economic benefits of the DOE facilities in East Tennessee. It's just they think the deal could be bigger.

The DOE says that, while the payments may not be as big in East Tennessee as they are in other places, they do use the same set formula to determine the payments.

The two biggest factors that determine the worth of East Tennessee's 33,000 acres of DOE land are the property size and land value in that area.

Yucca Mountain in Nevada has a facility that sits on about 150,000 acres, according to the DOE. That's about five times the size of the Oak Ridge DOE sites.

But commissioners say part of the problem in Anderson County is that the land value is still zoned and paid for as if it were agricultural land.

That's what it was in the 1950s. Wandell says if it were residential, they'd be getting about double what they receive now.

The DOE says contributing to the local economy is a big goal of their facilities, and they feel they've done a good job in East Tennessee.

The DOE's 2004 payments to state and local government in Tennessee came to $51.5 million, but members of local governments say they'd like to see more.

"There is no greed on our part, but I think it's deserved," Wandell said.

Earlier this week, the commission still voted to accept the payment from the DOE as is. Some say it's part of a political strategy that could end up getting more money for East Tennesseans in a different way.

"The reason we approved it, in my mind, we would like to see the pension fund addressed," Wandell said.

Some commissioners feel by accepting what they call a low offer for the property, there is a better chance they can convince the DOE to increase the pension for thousands of retirees who now make their homes in Roane, Anderson, and Knox Counties.

Wandell says there is roughly $800 million in the pension fund that isn't being touched.

"If they were to meet what the CORRE group (retiree's group) is asking for in Anderson County alone, it would be the equivalent to creating 500 jobs, according to information provided by the University of Tennessee," Wandell said.

Now, the focus shifts for Oak Ridge, Roane, and Anderson Counties.

This week, the three government bodies drafted a letter to Senator Bob Corker and Senator Lamar Alexander asking for their support in their fight to increase the pension.

"Most communities with federal facilities have had issues with the levels of government funding dating, back to the time when Senator Alexander was a legislative aide to Senator Howard Baker," said Alexander's Press Secretary Lee Pitts in a written statement to WBIR. "Since coming to the Senate in 2003, Senator Alexander has made funding for the Oak Ridge complex one of this highest priorities. Oak Ridge has made budgetary gains in the face of very tight federal budgets, and Senator Alexander will continue to work with Senator Corker and Congressman Wamp to see that Oak Ridge is treated fairly."

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

The State
January 25, 2008

DeMint pushes Yucca storage of nuclear waste

By James Rosen
jrosen@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint and five other Republican senators introduced legislation Thursday to break the deadlock over the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump and ease limits on opening new nuclear power plants.

Progress on the stalled waste depository, designed to be built deep within Yucca Mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is critical for South Carolina:

More than half of S.C.’s electricity comes from nuclear power, and millions of pounds of highly radioactive waste are in temporary storage around the state at seven commercial reactors and the Savannah River Site nuclear weapons complex near Aiken.

“Without a permanent storage facility for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, our country will become more dependent on foreign sources of energy and pollute our environment even more,” DeMint said.

David Wright, a South Carolina public service commissioner, said South Carolinians have paid $1 billion in federal utility surcharges intended to fund the Yucca depository but used for other purposes as part of $28 billion collected nationwide.

The Yucca waste site was first proposed in 1982 and projected to start operating in 1998. But Congress didn’t approve it until 2002, and lawsuits, funding shortfalls, environmental concerns and fierce opposition from Nevada politicians have caused further delays.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has ridiculed the Yucca project as a “dead beast” and vowed to block it in every possible way.

GOP Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kit Bond of Missouri, Mike Crapo of Idaho and John Barrasso of Wyoming joined DeMint in crafting the new Yucca measure.

“Continuing delays in opening our nation’s repository at Yucca Mountain will hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States,” said Inhofe, senior Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

While the senators presented the bill as clearing the political impasse over the Yucca waste dump, it could help kill the controversial plan.

The Yucca dispute has held the development of new nuclear power plants hostage because federal law requires a permanent and safe waste disposal site before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can issue a new operating license.

There are 104 commercial nuclear reactors in 39 states, but none has opened since 1996. Dozens of applications are on hold.

Meanwhile, tens of millions of pounds of highly toxic waste are being held in temporary storage at the reactors, including about 4 million pounds at the seven reactors in South Carolina.

SRS, one of three central temporary storage sites for waste from nuclear weapons production, has an additional 9 million pounds.

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