Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, March 7, 2008
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 07, 2008

Letters:

Lousy rhetoric

To the editor:

I was disappointed to read Scott Peterson's Saturday letter in support of the Yucca Mountain Project. Not because I disagree with him that anti-Yucca rhetoric is often overblown, but because his rhetoric is no better.

He notes that "last week's earthquake ... was a greater distance from the Yucca Mountain site than Cleveland, Ohio, is from Washington, D.C."

I see no reason why this distance helps us in deciding about Yucca Mountain. Is there an appropriate distance for earthquakes -- perhaps that from Roanoke, Va., to Washington? Or from five miles east of Cleveland to Washington? More importantly, did we as a society discuss and agree to what that distance should be?

Until advocates and opponents of nuclear power (including nuclear waste management) talk meaningfully about what we should assess, no amount of science, however good, can inform our decisions.

David M. Hassenzahl
Las Vegas

--The Writer is Chairman of UNLV's Department of Environmental Studies.

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

Louisville Courier-Journal
March 07, 2008

Senate committee approves lifting nuclear power ban

The Courier-Journal

A bill that would overturn a nearly quarter-century ban on nuclear power in Kentucky was approved by a Senate committee yesterday.

Senate Bill 156, sponsored by Sen. Bob Leeper, I-Paducah, would allow nuclear power plants in Kentucky as long as they have a waste-disposal plan that complies with federal law, such as one that secures the waste at the plants.

The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee voted 8-1 to approve the bill.

The existing law effectively puts a moratorium on nuclear power in Kentucky by requiring there be a permanent disposal facility for the waste, which can remain dangerous for thousands of years.

The federal government has been studying locating such a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for more than two decades.

Leeper said the bill, which now goes to the full Senate, would allow Kentucky to be on an equal footing with other states as energy companies roll out any new nuclear power plant proposals.

--Comment:

Let me see if I have this right....Our wonderful politicians, who are supposed to represent the peoples' needs, wants, and safety, are passing this but they have issues with passing a booster seat law for small children? I am smart enough to use a booster seat for my kids regardless of what politicians decide, but I cannot protect their air, water, soil, etc. with such ease. Have they not read the papers or watched the news regarding the fiasco with the nuclear power plants in Florida?

This is just asking for trouble.

If the politicians could really have their way they would put a nuclear power plant in the middle of a casino that they built on top of "reclaimed" mountaintop removal site where they used the excess dirt and rock to fill up the local streams. Can our politicians get any more careless and uncaring about the people who they should be representing? Maybe if the marijuana growers could pad the politicians pockets with a little more cash, the employees of the nuclear power plants could smoke medical marijuana on their breaks!

Wake up Frankfort! Get out and talk to the people who you should be representing. I don't mean have big rallies and photo ops. Don't wait until it's re-election time. Don't preplan it. Just drive around your areas and stop and talk to farmers, moms playing with their kids in their yards, police officers, construction crews, people in the mom and pop stores, or the waitress who just served your lunch. Regardless of their political affiliation, this is who you represent, not the multi-million dollar companies who whisper sweet words in your ear!

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:29 pm

--Comment:

"The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky, is the only operating uranium enrichment facility in the United States. Owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, it is leased and operated by the United States Enrichment Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of USEC Inc. The plant employs about 1,400 people and produces low-enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants in the United States and around the world." USEC

"A uranium processing plant in Paducah, Ky., spread plutonium farther around the facility than was previously known and even contaminated ground water in the area, according to newly released documents.

Maps drawn last summer but not released to federal investigators reveal that plant officials had taken hundreds of measurements over 10 years showing plutonium in soil and water more than a mile from the plant's fence. Most disturbing was the discovery of elevated levels of the highly dangerous metal in dozens of ground-water tests.

The results of these tests suggest that government contractors knew far more about the extent of the contamination than was previously acknowledged, and the spread of plutonium was much more extensive than Energy Department officials reported after an investigation last fall." (Washington Post, Oct 1, 2000)

~Scientists believe the Paducah contamination spread, by river, all the way to New Orleans.

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:26 am

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

South Bend Tribune
March 07, 2008

We must renew our commitment to nuclear power

Michiana Point of View

Fortifying our nation's energy supply is an urgent matter of national security. We are currently at a crossroads, with our energy needs predicted to increase by as much as 50 percent over the next two decades. The climate change debate, coupled with our growing energy demand, has put a premium on technology and emissions-free energy sources.

Through a greater commitment to nuclear power, we have a unique opportunity, and a responsibility, to simultaneously cut greenhouse gases and provide stability to our electricity supply.

As the national dialogue focuses on energy independence and climate change, it is imperative that nuclear power is part of the conversation. Nuclear power today provides 20 percent of our nation's energy supply (coal supplies 49 percent; natural gas, 20 percent; hydroelectric, 7 percent; and other renewables such as wind and solar account for just 2.4 percent). While supplying just 20 percent of our electricity, nuclear power accounts for an extraordinary 70 percent of our nation's emissions-free electricity. It defies common sense to ignore nuclear power as a reliable solution to addressing climate change, as it already plays a commanding role in the cutting of greenhouse gases.

If we were to maintain the current power supply ratios to meet future demand over the next 20 years, we will have to construct 747 new coal plants, 52 new nuclear plants and 1,994 new hydro-electric plants. In light of the current debate on climate change, it is unlikely that more than 700 new coal plants will be constructed over the next two decades. We must rely upon new technologies to help meet growing demand with a greater emphasis on clean coal technologies, carbon capture and storage, efficiency, renewable energy sources and increased nuclear capacity.

With the Cook and Palisades nuclear plants literally just miles from my doorstep in southwest Michigan, I know firsthand the vital role nuclear power plays in Michigan and throughout the nation. Currently there are 103 nuclear reactors in 31 states. But we have not built a new reactor in three decades, and the window to renew our commitment to nuclear is upon us.

I am pleased that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and the Bush administration have signaled support for expanding nuclear power, and now Congress has a responsibility to step up to the plate and provide assistance by establishing loan guarantees, streamlining the licensing process and reprocessing spent fuel.

Not only will nuclear power lead the way in our efforts to cut greenhouse gases, but a commitment to nuclear power over the next few decades will also be the engine driving our economic recovery. As a consequence of not having constructed a new nuclear facility in over 30 years, an entire manufacturing sector has literally been shuttered. Through a renewed commitment to nuclear power, and the construction of dozens of new plants on American soil, we will foster the rebirth of the nuclear manufacturing industry and the creation of tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs.

While we have seen a majority of the component-construction and manufacturing jobs in the nuclear industry migrate overseas, we have a unique opportunity to bring those jobs back home. And with many nations throughout the world including China pursuing a robust nuclear portfolio, we have the potential to solidify a stronger manufacturing base for decades to come.

The benefits of building just one plant are remarkable -- creating well over 2,000 jobs for construction and then employing between 600 and 1,500 individuals for plant operation. An equivalent number of indirect jobs are also created within the surrounding community, and each new plant adds more than $500 million per year to the economy. However, when one takes into account that we will need to construct 52 new plants (at a minimum) to maintain nuclear power's 20 percent share of U.S. electricity production, the benefits to our nation's economy will be staggering, all the while providing a tremendous stabilizing force.

But as we renew our commitment to nuclear power, it is equally imperative that we fulfill our commitment to permanently and safely store nuclear waste deep inside Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Spent nuclear fuel should be located at one site, deep within the bedrock of the Nevada desert for thousands of years rather than in temporary stockpiles scattered throughout 31 states.

I have introduced bipartisan legislation to expedite the construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site and remove a barrier in the licensing process. The measure will facilitate funding for the licensing and construction phase of Yucca Mountain and grant the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a sufficient level of confidence to approve new licenses, knowing the spent fuel will have a permanent repository. Removing this burden from the licensing process will help expedite the construction of new nuclear plants as well as the expansion of existing sites.

As we await the completion of the Yucca repository, steps must be taken to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel. I applaud the state-of-the-art dry cask technology being employed by plants across the nation, including the Palisades plant in my own backyard, to safely store its spent nuclear fuel on-site for the time being.

There is also great promise in the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Through advanced technologies that reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of used nuclear fuel, it is possible to separate the uranium from the spent fuel to once again power commercial nuclear reactors. It is my hope that we can take advantage of these exciting technologies that will allow us to not only extract more power from uranium, but also dramatically reduce the amount of spent fuel across the nation.

It is imperative that clean, safe nuclear power is at the forefront as we seek to solidify our nation's energy supply and foster a new era of energy independence and reduced emissions. As applications for 32 new nuclear plants are expected over the next three years, we are on our way to fulfilling our commitment to safe, clean nuclear power. Not only will our environment be better for it, our national security will also be bolstered. Millions of households will be powered by clean (zero-emission) nuclear power and our nation's economy will be powered by nuclear as well. Nuclear energy is the right course and we'll all be better for it.

--U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, is a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He represents the 6th congressional district in Michigan.

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

Lake County News
March 07, 2008

Nuke fuel may stay in Zion indefinitely

Exelon proposes on-site storage for hot power plant leftovers

By Dan Moran
dmoran@scn1.com

ZION -- If all goes as planned, the cooling towers that served the Zion nuclear plant will be gone from the Lake Michigan shoreline in 10 years.

But that current plan also calls for the plant's spent fuel to remain near the shore indefinitely, in a new dry-storage building surrounded by security fences and landscape berms. And that is a concern to local resident Chad Anderson.

"We want it to get to a point where it's like it wasn't even there -- 100 percent, zero-radiation land," Anderson said Thursday at a public hearing on the plant's decommissioning, scheduled to commence later this year.

"When this is done in 2018, there'll still be some radioactivity," Anderson added. "It's a danger to anybody who drinks water out of Lake Michigan."

Tom O'Neill, vice president of new plant development for Exelon Nuclear, told Anderson that the storage building -- technically known as an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation -- is not intended to be a permanent solution.

According to O'Neill, Exelon hopes to move the fuel to a planned federal repository for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But he acknowledged to Anderson that there is no forecast about when or whether that might happen.

"I can't give you a straight-up, definitive answer as to when that will be," said O'Neill, though he noted that federal law calls for the U.S. Energy Department to ultimately remove the spent fuel from Zion.

O'Neill added that the dry-storage concept "is the only option we realistically have right now," and Exelon is also committed to leaving a field of switch yard towers on-site that serve regional electricity needs.

"We understand that the residents are going to have some concerns about the way the site looks," O'Neill said. "We just don't have a lot of leeway right now."

According to John Christian of EnergySolutions, the company tackling the $900 million job of dismantling the plant, the storage facility will be about 400 feet from the cooling tower land, and will be about 15 feet high.

"We'll put a berm around it, and unless you're in a helicopter, you won't be able to see it," Christian said. "If you're boating, you won't be able to see it."

All plans for decommissioning of the plant are pending approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is expected to issue a finding later this year.

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

Heritage Foundation
March 06, 2008

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008: Modernizing Spent Fuel Management in the U.S.

by Jack Spencer

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982[1] attempted to establish a comprehensive disposal strategy for high-level nuclear waste. Regrettably, that strategy has failed miserably. The government has spent bil­lions of dollars without opening a repository, has yet to receive any waste, and is amassing billions of dol­lars of taxpayer liability.

On January 24, 2008, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008 (S. 2551) to help to provide the flexibility, clarifications, and authorizations that would allow the United States finally to set a rational policy for man­aging spent nuclear fuel.

Wasting Ratepayer and Taxpayer Money

The strategy codified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act seemed straightforward and economically sound when it was developed back in the early 1980s. It charged the federal government with the responsibil­ity of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and created a structure through which nuclear energy users would pay for the service. These payments would go into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which the federal government could access through congressional appropriations to pay for disposal activities.

The federal government has since accumulated approximately $27 billion (fees plus interest) in the Nuclear Waste Fund and has spent approximately $8 billion to prepare the repository for operations. The fund currently has a balance of approximately $19 billion. Utility payments into the fund amount to about $750 million annually. That is nearly a $27 billion surcharge on electricity bills for which rate­payers are in danger of receiving nothing.

The story is no better for the taxpayer. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 set January 31, 1998, as the deadline for the federal government to begin receiving spent fuel. Yet the repository has never opened, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars. The federal government's refusal to take possession of the spent fuel has created a huge tax­payer liability to the nuclear power plant opera­tors. The courts have confirmed this liability. As a result the taxpayer has already paid $94 million in lawyer expenses and $290 million in damages. The government is appealing another $420 million award. Long-term liability projections are astro­nomical, reaching $7 billion by 2017 and $11 bil­lion by 2020.[2]

The federal government's inability to fulfill its legal obligations under the 1982 act has often been cited as a significant obstacle to building additional nuclear power plants. Given nuclear power's poten­tial to help to solve many of the nation's energy problems, now is the time to break the impasse over what to do with the nation's spent nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008 would begin that process.

A Lot Has Changed Since 1982

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was written and amended under the assumption that nuclear power was a declining industry. This assumption is no longer valid.

Approximately 20 companies and consortia from around the world have recently released plans to build around 30 reactors in the United States. Some of these planned reactors may never be built. On the other hand, many more may be built. The U.S. is facing a 40 percent increase in electricity demand over the next 25 years. The pressure to reduce CO2 emissions and dependence on foreign energy, com­bined with the inability of wind or solar power to meet the energy demand affordably or reliably, cre­ates huge potential for nuclear power.

This potential growth in nuclear power will have significant ramifications for how the nation man­ages nuclear waste. More nuclear energy will lead to more spent nuclear fuel. The best way to manage spent fuel is determined by two factors: how much is being produced, which is a function of the amount of nuclear energy produced, and what dis­posal options are available.

The current strategy provides only one option: placing the spent fuel in the Yucca Mountain geo­logic repository. This would be a rational option if the United States was moving away from nuclear power. Absent a broad expansion of nuclear power in the U.S., Yucca's 120,000-ton physical capacity would probably be adequate to store America's cur­rent 56,000 tons of spent fuel as well all as future waste from the current fleet of plants, but the grow­ing likelihood that the United States will expand its nuclear capacity, perhaps dramatically, brings this approach into question.

However, spent fuel can be both an asset and a liability. Relating spent fuel policy to future growth in nuclear power is essential for a sustainable strat­egy. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act would add flexibility to America's policy by provid­ing for the time needed to develop a new spent fuel management regime that is more conducive to expanding nuclear power in the U.S.

A More Reasonable Approach

The key provision in the Amendments Act would institute a phased licensing regime. The ini­tial phase would last for 300 years. During this time, spent fuel would be placed in the Yucca repository, remain retrievable, and be actively monitored. The license could be amended through a process that would take place at least every 50 years to take advantage of operational improvements, technolog­ical advances, and safety innovations. The reposi­tory would then be permanently sealed, thus concluding the second and final phase.

Keeping Yucca open for an extended period before final closure is not technically precluded by current statute. It allows for implementation of a phased approach. Extending the time between opening and final closure would largely eliminate the risk of premature closure. This is an important distinction given the long-term safety concerns over permanent radioactive waste storage and the vast energy resources that could be extracted from spent nuclear fuel.

One serious concern is the million-year licensing standard that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed for radiation safety at Yucca Mountain. This standard means that the Depart­ment of Energy must guarantee that the EPA's safety standards, including those for radiation release, can be sustained for that length of time.[3] Beyond the dubiousness of any million-year guarantee, this approach is filled with weaknesses. First it assumes technological stagnation. By allowing the repository to be filled and permanently sealed, the plan pre­vents applying any future technological innovations at Yucca.

The proposed phased approach would also pro­vide additional time to gauge how best to integrate fuel-cycle technologies like recycling (fuel repro­cessing) into the overall nuclear program. Until the future of nuclear power is better defined, it is impossible to know what will be the best technolog­ical solutions for managing spent nuclear fuel, but recycling spent fuel should clearly be considered.

Securing a Future Resource.The current U.S. policy is to dispose of all spent fuel permanently. This is a monumental waste of resources. To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3 percent to 5 per­cent enriched fissionable uranium (uranium-235). Once the enriched uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. Yet this "spent" fuel generally retains about 95 percent of its original content, and that uranium, along with other byproducts in the spent fuel, can be recovered and recycled.

Many technologies exist to recover and recycle different parts of the spent fuel. The French have most successfully commercialized a process. They remove the uranium and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using that method, America's 56,000 tons of used fuel stored across the nation contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. house­hold for 12 years.[4]

Other technologies show even more promise. Indeed, most of them, including the process used in France, were developed in the United States. Some recycling technologies would leave almost no high-level waste at all and lead to the recovery of an almost endless source of fuel. However, none of these processes has been successfully commercial­ized in the United States, and they will take time to develop. Until the future of nuclear power in the U.S. becomes clearer, it will be impossible to know which technologies will be most appropriate to pur­sue in this market.

Ultimately, these are decisions that the private sector should make in consultation with govern­ment regulators. Valuing spent nuclear fuel against the costs of permanent burial is a calcula­tion best done by the companies that provide fuel management services. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act would give all of the involved parties the time needed to evaluate the market and the state of technology and to make the best deci­sions accordingly.

Removing Artificial Capacity Constraints.The United States has 56,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste stored at over 100 sites in 39 states,[5] and America's 104 commercial nuclear reactors are producing approximately 2,000 tons of spent fuel annually. Putting aside the problems of opening the Yucca repository, its capacity is statutorily limited to 63,000 tons of commercial waste and 7,000 tons of Department of Energy waste. As currently defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Yucca will reach capacity in about three years unless the law is changed. Thus, even if Yucca was operational, it is not a permanent solution, and the nation would soon be back at the drawing board.

However, the repository's actual capacity is much larger than the current limit. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act would repeal the 70,000-ton limitation and instead use technology, science, and physical capacity as the primary limiting fac­tors. Recent studies have found that the Yucca repository could safely hold 120,000 tons of waste. Some believe the capacity is even greater. According to the Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain could likely hold all of the spent nuclear fuel produced by currently operating reactors.[6]

Yet even with the expanded capacity, Yucca Mountain could hold only a few more years of America's nuclear waste if the U.S. increases nuclear power production significantly. According to one analysis, America's current operating reactors would generate enough spent fuel to fill Yucca's current capacity by 2010 and fill a 120,000-ton Yucca over their lifetime. If nuclear power production increased by 1.8 percent annually after 2010, a 120,000-ton Yucca would be full by 2030. At that growth rate without recycling any spent fuel, the U.S. would need nine Yucca Mountains by the turn of the century.[7]

With the right mix of technologies, such as stor­age and recycling, Yucca could last almost indefi­nitely. The Amendments Act would give the U.S. adequate flexibility to solve this problem as technol­ogy permits.

Setting a Deadline to Ensure Progress.The act would establish a deadline for the Secretary of Energy to submit a repository license application, which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must approve before the Department of Energy can begin constructing the repository and begin receiv­ing spent nuclear fuel. This deadline is critical because it starts the clock moving on the NRC's con­sideration of the application. While this may seem arcane compared to some of the other provisions, it could be the most significant provision in the end.

NRC commissioners serve five-year terms and are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Submitting the application by the June 30 deadline would allow the current NRC commis­sioners to place the application on the NRC docket for consideration. This assures that, at a minimum, the NRC will have the opportunity to consider the Yucca Mountain construction application.

Waiting to submit the application would provide the opportunity to seed the commission with anti-Yucca political appointees who could choose not to place the application on the docket, thus avoiding its consideration and leaving the U.S. with no set policy for dealing with spent fuel.

Modernizing Spent Fuel Management

To modernize spent fuel management in the U.S. and provide the flexibility, clarifications, and autho­rizations needed to move nuclear power forward in the United States, Congress should:

* Set a deadline requiring the Secretary of Energy to submit a repository license applica­tion for the Yucca Mountain repository within the next few months.

* Provide for a phased licensing regime for the Yucca repository that would store spent nuclear fuel, but actively monitor it and keep it available for retrieval. This would allow the U.S. to take advantage of operational improve­ments, technological advances, and safety inno­vations in managing the repository. It would also give the private sector the option of recycling and reusing the spent fuel, which would also signifi­cantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste that would need to be stored permanently.

* Remove artificial capacity restraints on the repository. Technology, science, and actual physi­cal capacity should be the primary limiting fac­tors with respect to Yucca's storage capacity.

Conclusion

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 does not provide the clarifications, authorization, and flexi­bility needed to move nuclear power forward in the United States. However, Congress is currently con­sidering the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008, which would take some significant steps in addressing these problems.

In the end, the nation may need a complete over­haul of its approach to spent nuclear fuel. Congress should give full and prompt consideration to this important issue.

Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

---

[1]Public Law 97-425.

[2]U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, "Ten Years Overdue: January 31, 2008 Marks the 10th Anniversary of DOE's Deadline to Dispose of Nuclear Waste," Fact of the Day, January 31, 2008, at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=d1891 f7e-802a-23ad-459d-26b0cbf6b04f (February 28, 2008).

[3]For a full analysis of the EPA's million-year standard, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, "EPA's Proposed Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain," EPA Yucca Mountain Fact Sheet No. 2, October 2005.

[4]This figure is an extrapolation based on the French experience with recycling.

[5]Samuel W. Bodman, letter to The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, March 6, 2007, at www.energy.gov/media/BodmanLetterToPelosi.pdf (March 3, 2008).

[6]Ibid.

[7]Phillip J. Finck, Deputy Associate Laboratory Director, Applied Science and Technology and National Security, Argonne National Laboratory, statement before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, June 16, 2005, at http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/energy05/june15/finck.pdf (January 17, 2008).

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

Louisville Courier-Journal
March 06, 2008

Committee approves nuclear power bill

by James Bruggers
jbruggers@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

A bill that would overturn a nearly-quarter-century ban on nuclear power in Kentucky was approved by a Senate committee today.

Senate Bill 156, sponsored by Sen. Bob Leeper, I-Paducah, would allow nuclear power plants in Kentucky as long as they have waste-disposal plan that complies with federal law, such as one that secures the waste at the plants.

The existing law effectively puts a moratorium on nuclear power in Kentucky by requiring there be a permanent disposal facility for the waste, which can remain dangerous for thousands of years. The federal government has been studying locating such a permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for more than two decades.

The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee voted 8-1, according to the Legislative Research Commission.

Leeper said the bill, which now goes to the full Senate, would allow Kentucky to be on an equal footing with other states as energy companies roll out any new nuclear power plant proposals.

--Comment:

~Then put the darn thing IN Paducah.

After all, they already face the massive gaseous diffusion plant cleanup.

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:46 pm

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

Atlanta Journal Constitution
March 06, 2008

Nuclear power is safer than ever

By Nolan E. Hertel
For the Journal-Constitution

One of the best hopes for nuclear power's revival is also the least appreciated: the outstanding safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants.

Safety improvements have been spectaular. While there were 26 shutdowns of more than a year for safety reasons from 1987 to 1997 and 21 in the decade before, there has only been one over the past decade. With the improvement in safety, insurance premium costs for nuclear plants have gone down.

Nuclear plants today are up and running more than 90 percent of the time, up from 50 percent in the 1970s.

Today nuclear power offers large quantities of electricity that is cleaner than coal, cheaper than natural gas and more reliable than wind.

Despite continuing efforts by anti-nuclear organizations to stop its growth, the tide is turning in nuclear power's favor. Electric utilities are gearing up to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, employing advanced versions of the same light water reactor technology used in today's plants, but with a difference. They are using simpler, standardized designs so they can order critical components, such as customized steel casings for the reactor core, for more than one project at a time, and thereby hold down construction costs. Utilities will be able to operate the plants more efficiently. Handling nuclear waste will be easier. Between four and eight units, mainly in the Southeast, are expected to begin operating by 2015.

Regarding nuclear waste, Greenspan acknowledged that the United States must continue to work toward a successful program for spent-fuel management. But it is a "resolvable problem," he said. "The French seem to have taken care of it . . . and we can, too."

France takes care of its spent-nuclear fuel by storing all of it in a centralized facility, then reprocesses it into new fuel for electricity production. The remaining nuclear waste is being stored until it can be permanently disposed of in a geologic repository.

France obtains about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and largely because of it emits fewer greenhouse gases per capita than any other European country.

Here in the United States, the problem of nuclear waste disposal is more political than technical. Despite opposition from Nevada politicians and insufficient funding from Congress, the Department of Energy is moving ahead with licensing and construction of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. As it has been for decades, the spent fuel is being stored safely and securely at nuclear power plant sites. In fact, all the spent fuel that has resulted from nuclear electricity production could be stored on one football field to a depth of 7 feet. In time, reprocessing will extend uranium supplies and significantly reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste.

For the nuclear industry, the mantra is diligence and accountability. That's the key to the extraordinary safety record of the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers. On daily patrols, a submarine captain bunks just a few feet from the vessel's reactor. Likewise, the workers at nuclear power plants typically live near the plants, and are understandably proud of the industry's stellar safety record.

--Nolan E. Hertel is a professor of nuclear and radiological engineering at Georgia Tech.

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 05, 2008

Editorial: 'Alarmist and extreme'

Some left-wingers and greens don't like the state's new chief of Agriculture.

Tony Lesperance, a rancher and former Elko County commissioner, took over the agency Monday at the request of Gov. Jim Gibbons.

The 72-year-old Mr. Lesperance, who turned down an earlier offer for the post, said he'll be on the job for about 18 months to see the agency through the state's current budget crunch and the next legislative session.

But Launce Rake, a spokesman for the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, questioned the interim appointment, calling Mr. Lesperance's views "alarmist and extreme."

What is it that has Mr. Rake and his "progressive" friends in such a lather?

Mr. Lesperance has been a vocal critic of the federal government's land-use policies in Nevada, where it controls 90 percent of the real estate. He played a pivotal role in the controversy that erupted in the late 1990s after the Forest Service -- operating at the behest of hard-core environmental groups -- refused to allow Elko County to rebuild a washed out road near Jarbidge that had been used for decades to access campgrounds and a wilderness area.

The standoff became heated and resentment toward heavy-handed federal regulation was palpable in many parts of rural Nevada. But Mr. Lesperance and the "Shovel Brigade" eventually prevailed; the road was repaired and reopened.

In Jarbidge, "What happened was that the position people took was so radical and anti-government that discussions broke down and there could be no compromise," Mr. Rake complained.

Would Mr. Rake also describe as "extreme" and "radical" those Nevadans now fighting the federal government over a little land-use issue called the Yucca Mountain Project? We didn't think so.

There is one outcome better than a "compromise." It's called a "victory."

For his part, Mr. Lesperance maintains he will be able to work with federal agencies in his new job, but "won't take a lot of excitement with the federal government running over me. ... I will stand up."

Sounds good to us.

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

Las Vegas SUN
March 05, 2008

Looking in on: City Hall:

By Joe Schoenmann

Mayor Goodman — editorial writer?

It appears the mayor now has to consider himself part of the media, a group he takes pleasure in vilifying as some lower rung of humanity.

Goodman has won an award for a column he wrote for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

His opinion piece about Yucca Mountain, “Nuke Dump Is Dead?” was published April 15. The column won the Bronze Quill Award from the International Association of Business Communicators. Las Vegas also won a Bronze Quill, the group’s highest award, for its public outreach work related to the “Speak up on Yucca Mountain” information campaign designed to generate public interest.

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

Wisconsin State Journal
March 05, 2008

Letter: Stored nuclear waste could provide needed power

Dear Editor: Phil Johnson's letter, "Conservation is only sound 'alternative' energy source," does a good job of explaining the limitations of many of the proposed "alternative energy sources," especially biofuels, wind and solar. From this he concludes that conservation is the only viable alternative.

But realistically, if the U.S. were to take greenhouse gases and climate change seriously (not likely, but pretend), we would need to generate much more electricity, and do that while closing down all of those coal power plants that now produce 50 percent of our power. And conservation alone just can't get us there.

Why would we need to shut down the coal plants? Because they produce the most carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity, and the various sequestering plans just aren't realistic.

Why would we need more power? Because of population growth. Add to that the need to replace gasoline and liquid-fuel cars with electric-powered ones.

If, as Johnson claims (correctly), biofuel, wind and solar can't do the job, is there another choice? Yes. Not a new or untried technology, but one that has produced 20 percent of U.S. power for 40 years.

If the U.S. ban on recycling the so-called "waste" from the first pass were repealed, we could generate about 60 times as much energy as all of our nuclear plants have produced thus far just from the "nuclear waste" we now have stored in temporary locations waiting for Yucca Mountain to open.

Jim Blair
Madison

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

Baltimore Sun
March 04, 2008

The energy answer

While the governor and others in Annapolis are demanding cuts in electricity consumption, there's a better way: increasing the supply through nuclear power

By Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris

Maryland's Allegheny Energy recently mailed two compact fluorescent light bulbs to each of its customers. Imagine the indignation when those customers noticed a $12 charge for the unsolicited mailing.

Despite promises that the bulbs would save money, help the environment and prevent blackouts, Allegheny's customers were peeved. They wrote letters to editors and lit fires under local politicians. Allegheny relented and agreed to pay for the bulbs.

Why was a power company compelled to pull a stunt that predictably raised the ire of its customers? Because utilities are faced with a serious problem. Electricity demand is projected to increase by 40 percent by 2030, according to government estimates. Meanwhile, efforts to expand energy capacity are hindered by overzealous regulators and an unreasonable fear of the most promising source of power: nuclear energy. As a result, power companies are left with few options.

Unfortunately, instead of loosening regulations to encourage building or expanding power plants, state and federal governments are moving toward rationing electricity. Gov. Martin O'Malley, for example, wants a 15 percent reduction in electricity use by 2015 (based on 2007 usage rates) and for state utilities to produce 20 percent of their energy from solar, wind and other renewable fuels by 2022.

Proponents make it sound so simple. Just buy a new dishwasher, build a couple of windmills, put some solar cells on the roof and - voila! - energy problem solved.

Not really. Maryland would have to reduce its electricity consumption by about a fifth of today's use to meet Mr. O'Malley's objective. Since Maryland produces only 1.3 percent of its electricity from renewables, increasing that to 20 percent in the next 14 years would be daunting, to say the least.

Some may ask: What's wrong with some aggressive conservation? Well, there's a lot wrong when it's unjustifiably forced upon consumers.

Think about it. The legitimacy of these draconian efforts is rooted in the notion that there is an energy shortage. Conservation, after all, makes sense when there is a shortage of something.

But energy is not in short supply. There are fossil fuels, and lots of them, right here in America. Yet America is one of the few nations that chooses to leave much of its own reserves untapped. Yes, wind and solar power are options. But the technology hasn't advanced yet to the point where these are affordable enough or reliable enough to satisfy our growing energy demands.

Then there's nuclear power. It is emissions-free, affordable, proven and safe. It already provides the U.S. with 20 percent of its electricity, and it has the advantage of being recyclable.

To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3 percent to 5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this "spent" fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium and other components can be recycled, making it essentially limitless.

Nuclear power has the added benefit of solving many of the problems used to justify faulty conservation plans. It's abundant, environmentally friendly (when properly stored), CO2-free and domestically produced. Yet officials continue to ignore its advantages.

If they're genuinely concerned about the threat of greenhouse gases or America's dependence on foreign energy, they should seek ways to expand nuclear energy. A few simple policy changes would do it.

Licensing the Yucca Mountain repository for nuclear waste storage, recycling spent fuel, ensuring regulatory certainty and protecting nuclear-power operators from overzealous litigators would all facilitate the near-term construction of nuclear power stations. If we started now, the first plants would come online in about eight years (three years for licensing, five for construction) and would last six to eight decades. This life-span makes nuclear energy a true long-term solution.

Yet there are too few politicians clamoring to advance such an agenda. While nuclear energy is coming back, it is not quite back yet. The old days of anti-nuclear fear-mongering may be over, but we haven't fully recovered from 30 years of such propaganda. As a result, many continue to distance themselves from the technology. But U.S. interests are best served by an energy mix that includes fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewable energies.

In Maryland, planners are itching to build a nuclear power plant that would solve the state's energy supply problem and help meet its CO2-reduction goals. Unfortunately, obstructionists in the General Assembly and the state's Public Service Commission are getting in the way.

The nation needs a brighter idea than light bulbs in the mail. Officials should step aside and allow American ingenuity to finally solve our energy problems.

--Jack Spencer is a research fellow in nuclear energy and Nicolas Loris is a researcher at the Heritage Foundation.

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

Miller-McCune
March 04, 2008

Nuclear’s On the Road Again, But It’s Uphill

By Frank Nelson

Opposition in America to nuclear energy appears to be thawing and, though many concerns remain, the industry is gearing up to take advantage of this new willingness to reconsider nuclear power.

Mounting concerns over global warming, soaring fossil-fuel prices and a pressing need to tap all available sources of energy have combined to make it politically and economically expedient to at least put nuclear energy back on the table.

That small step marks a huge advance for nuclear power after decades of being treated by many as a pariah, especially among environmentalists.

Evidence piling up about the causes and effects of climate change is the primary motivation behind this newfound readiness to resurrect nuclear power, now regarded by some former opponents as perhaps the lesser of two evils.

On the plus side, nuclear generation does not emit the key global warming ingredient carbon dioxide. But critics point to other eco-faults, among them a huge thirst for precious water resources and, of course, radioactive waste that needs to be safely stored, effectively forever. Fears about proliferation, security and accidents also dog the industry.

Old Foes as Friends, and Foes

A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists added a twist to the debate by raising the prospect that even if we can get past our nuclear phobia, we may still not have found the solution to surging global energy demand.

“The risks posed by climate change may turn out to be so grave that the United States and the world cannot afford to rule out nuclear power as a major contributor to addressing global warming,” the group states in its 82-page report.

“However, it may also turn out that nuclear power cannot be deployed worldwide on the scale needed to make a significant dent in emissions without resulting in unacceptably high safety and security risks.”

The Keystone Center, a Keystone, Colo., nonprofit that seeks solutions to pressing environmental, energy and health issues, has also closely examined this issue.

In 2007, the center brought together environmental and consumer advocates, academics, state and federal government officials, and representatives from the nuclear industry to discuss the costs, benefits and risks associated with nuclear power.

The group found that while plants have become safer since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, public concern over security has risen since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“Principal concerns for U.S. nuclear power plants will continue to include aging equipment and materials, and potential terrorist threats,” The Keystone Center wrote in a summary of its findings. Participants were also concerned over the potential theft of material for nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, nuclear plant builders, owners and operators, buoyed by what they see as inklings of consensus over a renewed role for atomic power, are dusting off plans for new facilities.

The U.S. has 104 nuclear power plants, scattered across 31 states, generating close to 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. However, no new licenses have been issued in 30 years and the last plant opened was Watts Bar, Tenn., in June 1996.

But that’s all changing, said Mitch Singer, senior media relations manager for the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute, a policy organization for the industry. Helping boost the industry was the Energy Policy Act of 2005, legislation that set aside $20.5 billion for nuclear power, including federal tax credits and loan guarantees for up 80 percent of the cost of building a plant.

Singer said 17 companies have announced plans to file license applications for about 30 reactors, and six have already done so.

He said it takes about three years for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review an application and issue a license and around another four years to build the plant. Accordingly, he expected it would be at least 2015 or 2016 before the nation’s next nuclear reactor is up and running.

In December, Duke Energy, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., filed to build a facility in Cherokee County, S.C. Company spokeswoman Rita Sipe said the earliest that plant could come on line is 2016, more likely 2018.

She said Duke already operates three plants and is investigating two other sites as it explores ways to meet soaring demand from 40,000 to 60,000 new customers annually over the next 15 years.

While acknowledging the wider debate over nuclear energy, Sipe casts Duke's plans as just business as usual. “What’s driving us is our customer needs,” she said, adding that the company is also considering increased capacity from coal, gas and renewables.

Duke will be buying the cream of current technology for its new plant, according to Sipe, where less piping, fewer valves, more gravity feed and fewer moving parts means a safer and more secure operating system.

Singer believes nuclear plants today are safer than ever thanks to what he calls “evolutionary” advances in technology plus a sharper, self-policing focus through the industry’s Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

Nuclear power already provides 15 percent of global electricity — the figure is close to 80 percent in France, the poster child for nuclear energy — and the quest for acceptance and expansion in the U. S. seems to be running a parallel course in Europe.

The U.K. government, for example, recently gave the green light to a new generation of nuclear power plants, with Business Secretary John Hutton describing nuclear energy as a "tried and tested, safe and secure" source of power.

That decision upset some governing Labour MPs, who apparently share many of the doubts and reservations expressed in a 2005 survey of the British public.

In a new paper on a survey taken in the fall of 2005, three British academics found that while people have problems with the risks of both climate change and nuclear power, they only reluctantly accept nuclear as a mitigating "solution."

This acceptance is "highly conditional" and the study, Climate Change or Nuclear Power — No Thanks! A Quantitative Study of Public Perceptions and Risk Framing in Britain in the February 2008 issue of Global Environmental Change, shows that very few people, given the choice, prefer nuclear over renewable energy sources.

The survey estimated that 15 percent to 25 percent of people remain opposed to the renewal of Britain's aging nuclear power facilities "even when climate change arguments are taken into account."

The academics note that this "relatively large, highly concerned and motivated sub-section of the population ... would be sufficient to create a genuine opposition movement to any change in policy ..."

Technology Offers an Assist

Researchers and scientists are also studying the safety of reactors, the best ways to decommission the world’s many aging nuclear facilities, and the perennial topic of how best to manage, safeguard and store highly toxic nuclear waste.

The solution may one day be to reprocess or recycle more of that waste. This is already happening to a limited extent in England, France, Japan and Russia, but the process is not cost-effective and still leaves residues that need to be securely stored, perhaps for millions of years.

The preferred storage medium is “glassification,” a process in which high-level radioactive liquids bind with molten glass; once cooled, the resulting blocks render the radioactive waste much more stable and manageable.

Even so, says Edwin Karlow, professor of physics at La Sierra University, in Riverside, Calif., transportation and storage remain key issues.

Karlow believes nuclear power should be included among future energy sources and thinks the industry’s safety record in this country — “a few accidents but no human fatalities” — needs to be given its due.

Spent fuel is stored at nuclear plants and other secure facilities across the U.S. But Karlow, like many experts, does not see above-ground storage as a viable long-term solution; instead he prefers an underground repository like that proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nev., where glassified waste, heavily encased in nickel alloy and concrete, would be buried in a deep, dry space. Scientists believe that even if radiation were to leak out over many thousands of years, surrounding rock and other geological material would prevent it reaching the air or underground water.

However, Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, is among a number of academics and environmentalists with serious reservations about Yucca.

“If the containers leak, the Yucca geology will be useless,” he said. “We’re just kicking the problems down the road to our kids.”

Makhijani, whose Maryland-based nonprofit provides scientific and technical studies on a range of energy and environmental issues, senses the shifting sympathies toward nuclear energy but remains deeply skeptical.

He is one of many who question the economics of nuclear power, challenging plant construction and operating costs used by the industry to calculate the eventual “competitive” price of nuclear energy.

Instead he proposes a carbon-free and nuclear-free solution, arguing that wind and solar power, combined with greater energy efficiency, can meet our energy needs within 30 to 50 years.

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

OpEdNews
March 04, 2008

Nuclear Power will not solve the Problem of Global Warming

by Jay Miller

Nuclear power reactors use a rare isotope of uranium 235 as a power source. This isotope occurs naturally as a small quantity in rock formations. The first step in mining this uranium uses large loaders and trucks, the wheels on which are likely taller than you are and could no doubt pick up your car in one scoop. These vehicles use diesel fuel and because of their size and weight get a fraction of one mile per gallon. The broken rock is transported to a diesel slurping crusher. Next comes a series of milling and refining and enrichment activities that occur primarily in Tennessee and Kentucky. Entire mountain tops are removed to strip mine coal which is burned to produce electricity. This electricity runs the milling and enrichment process. A common error is the idea that nuclear power causes no green house emissions. In fact the diesel and coal burned to mine, refine, mill and enrich uranium to produce the pellets in fuel rod is actually substantial.

The nuclear power industry is the most heavily subsidized industry in the history of the United States. The nuclear industry was developed to produce atom bombs during World War Two. Following the war some in the industry promoted the idea of the "peaceful atom"- that atomic energy could and should be used to produce electricity. After extensive debate the U.S., which had spent billions of dollars to produce 2 atomic bombs and was the sole nuclear power in the world, made the mistake of subsidizing the development of civilian nuclear power. Other countries followed the lead. Unfortunately this rush had little to do with producing electricity and everything to do with producing nuclear weapons. Before long there were a half dozen countries with nuclear weapons - many of which were developed from enriched uranium siphoned off what were supposed to be civilian nuclear power generators.

The use of nuclear power to produce electricity is not particularly efficient or economical and so it requires vast governmental subsidies. So why did so many other countries invest in nuclear powered electrical generation? They used nuclear power as a guise to obtain enriched uranium or plutonium for weapons production. This trend continues today with countries like North Korea and Iran stating that they need to develop nuclear power for electricity when in fact the real unstated goal is probably obtaining fissionable material for weapons production. This proliferation of nuclear weapons to more and more countries will continue until the governments with nuclear arsenals ( and those seeking to build such arsenals in the future ) admit the fact that their commercial reactors exist for the purpose of providing weapons grade materials and end the facade that nuclear reactors can be an economical or benign source of electrical power. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is probably the single greatest danger facing the United States and someday if a terrorist succeeds in sneaking one of these devices into the country and detonating it in one of our major cities the terrorist will likely have the nuclear power industry to thank for providing the material.

Due to the inefficient, uneconomical nature of civilian nuclear power generation the entire industry has been subsidized by American taxpayers from the initial development, to the construction, monitoring and insuring of the reactors, to the disposal of the highly radioactive waste produced. In a country supposedly founded on the principal of free enterprise and free markets the nuclear industry stands out as a monument to government subsidy and interference. When it comes to the danger of these power reactors, consider the fact that no private insurance company would provide inclusive insurance to a single one of the 103 reactors in the U.S. and the government had to step in and pass the Price-Anderson Act making taxpayers liable for much of the damage from a nuclear power reactor accident.

The possible bill for irradiating hundreds of square miles of land runs into the hundreds of billions. As we have seen with the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, the results of a nuclear accident are devastating - huge territories rendered useless and uninhabitable due to radioactive contamination. While such an accident is unlikely with today’s safeguards it still could happen. Do we really want to take the risk when clean, renewable alternatives exist?

Another understated danger of nuclear power is the highly toxic, radioactive waste produced. This waste is currently stored in holding pools at the reactors. These pools are aged and deteriorating, many are leaking waste into soil and groundwater. The problem is there is no fool proof way to dispose of this radioactive waste safely. Just one component of this waste, plutonium, is an alpha emitter that causes cancer at a 100% rate when inhaled or ingested and remains toxic for thousands of years. No matter how many tax dollars the government throws at this problem, no solution has yet been found and when a design is even considered, such as the facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the public outcry is that people do not want this danger in their state or community. Considering the serious danger of nuclear waste products who can blame them.

The nuclear industry produces the fewest jobs per tax dollar spent of any industry. Many of the people who have gotten jobs working with these materials, from Navaho miners in the Southwest to workers in the weapons industry, have payed with their lives and health. Industry officials proudly point out that the use of nuclear power is high in France. It is true that France produces almost all of its electrical power from nuclear reactors. France is an interesting country known for monumental blunders, almost always caused by putting all of their eggs in one basket - one can recall their idea of the impenetrable "Maginot Line" during WW II as an example. France cuts corners. For example they have "solved" the problem of what to do with some of their nuclear waste - they load it on ships and dump the waste into the ocean. This practice spreads radioactive substances into the earth’s environment endangering virtually every living thing on the planet. When confronted on the issue France basically replies that they will do whatever they want. They consider their small nation a superpower on par with the U.S. and attempt to achieve this status by maintaining a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and a string of reactors to provide electricity. Other countries in Europe are phasing out nuclear power plants. Many are investing heavily in wind power.

The electric utility industry is a highly centralized industry. Centralization allows the industry to control production. Because of the scale of investment it is a natural monopoly. In other words it does not make economic sense to have numerous companies all stringing electrical wires in the same area and competing with one another. So we have interstate commissions and governmental regulation. The problem with this system is that it eliminates competition, entrepreneurship, free market incentives and concentrates control into the hands of a few executives and away from consumers. The greatest fear of these well paid electric industry executives is the creation of a single, nationalized grid. In other words a grid that anyone can sell energy to or buy from. This would encourage free enterprise, smaller scale producers and entrepreneurs. It would lead to the eventual elimination of huge, subsidized, monopolies which now run the electric industry and profit excessively from consumers vulnerabilities and limited choice of providers.

The large electrical monopolies love nuclear power, coal and oil fired plants. These plants are far too technical and require far too much investment for the average citizen or small business to undertake. The large monopolies do not favor the wide spread use of solar photovoltaic cells, wind generators or other de-centralized production because it would undermine their monopoly.

If one considers the U.S. Dept. of Energy budget one could really call it the Dept. of Oil, Coal and Nuclear Subsidies. Beyond a few demonstration projects to make it look like the Dept. has funded solar, wind and other alternatives there has been no effort to promote alternatives. Oil, coal and nuclear receive an ocean of funding, while alternatives receive a drip. That is because the huge energy monopolies control the energy debate in Congress through their campaign contribution largess. Any representative who promotes nuclear as a solution simply has not heard both sides of the story. I think there is a problem in that the nuclear industry provides one-sided shows and information for governmental representatives and if these representatives are not careful to study the issue and hear all sides they will likely make decisions which are not in the best interest of the citizens they represent.

Another issue is the decommissioning of nuclear plants. Many people do not realize that these plants have a life span of 30-60 years. Basically the plant itself - reactor, containment vessel, buildings, etc. become contaminated with radioactivity and must be disposed of. The NRC estimates this cost at $325 million for each nuclear power plant. Of course the power companies could never afford all of this so again taxpayers will pick up much of the tab. It is interesting how they do this decommissioning. There are two plans. The first plan is to have people in protective suits dismantle everything - buildings, equipment, etc. and then load it onto trucks and haul it all away to a radioactive waste disposal facility. They still haven't come up with a long term disposal facility even after pumping millions of tax dollars into the Yucca Mountain trail. But they have a second contingency plan. They would bury the entire nuclear power plant in asphalt and "entomb" it in place.

Government representatives need to make a distinction between "renewable" energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc., and terminal sources such as nuclear. In other words the supply of uranium 235 will run out in about 70 years at the current rate of use. So nuclear power is a stop-gap source. In comparison the sun will always shine, wind will always blow, and the grass will always grow. It makes sense to invest in clean, renewable resources we have right here in the USA in stead of importing so much oil. Eventually oil, coal, natural gas and uranium will all run out. I think it makes sense for humanity to start investing in clean, renewable sources. I prefer that the free market is finally allowed to run its course in the energy field. The billions and billions of federal pork barrel tax dollars poured into nuclear have made it difficult for other energy sources to compete. Also the energy monopolies that have been established favor massive, centralized production at the expense of smaller scale facilities and free market competition. We need to either subsidize energy sources equally or we need to end the massive pork barrel trough the nuclear companies feed from.

The centralization of the energy monopolies makes the energy supply less redundant and subject to large scale back outs during storms, etc. This centralization would be a disaster if this country is ever involved in a shooting war. It would make it easy for an enemy to knock out electrical supplies here ( just hit a few big plants ). Also if there is ever an actual shooting war in the future strategically I can guess where the first 103 conventional bombs will land on U.S. soil. An enemy could just drop a conventional bomb on the 103 nuclear power plants here and have the effect of a nuclear attack in that radioactivity would be spread across the nation making much of our land uninhabitable.

These nuclear power plants are potentially extremely dangerous and that is why they have extensive security measures to prevent a terrorist or accident from occurring. Still the danger will always be there and on 9-11 it was demonstrated that terrorists can slip by security. We could find ourselves fleeing the radiation in our cars with a few hastily packed suitcases abandoning our homes, property and belongings essentially forever as people did in the Ukraine after Chernobyl. Then there will be no use second guessing. We need to think this through now.

In conclusion there are many problems associated with nuclear power. There is the security danger of a melt-down type incident or terrorist stealing nuclear material for a dirty bomb. Fossil fuels are currently being consumed in the mining, milling, processing and enrichment process to make nuclear fuel rods. The waste produced is extremely toxic and difficult to dispose of. The use of nuclear power to produce electricity around the world has lead to the proliferation and spread of nuclear weapons to many countries, including unstable dictatorships like Pakistan. Nuclear power creates the fewest jobs of any energy source.

I think that those who call for "steam-lining" and "fast-tracking" the licensing of nuclear plants are creating a risk wherein necessary measures to protect against terrorists, natural disasters, to dispose of waste carefully and prevent accidents are not given proper consideration. I think that in a nation founded on the principal of freedom and free enterprise the massive pork barrel subsidies given to nuclear power are out of place. Tax payers paid to develop nuclear power, they subsidize the building of nuclear plants, they subsidize the fuel cycle where uranium is processed using fossil fuels, they subsidize the disposal of waste and eventual decommissioning, they insure the plants and tax payers will assume the cost of damages in the event of an accident, they pay for regulatory enforcement, etc. I mean at some point with nuclear it seems we would be ahead to just shovel tax dollar bills into a furnace by the train load and burn them to produce energy.

--I am a 51 year old male. I work as a high school educator. I live in a solar house down by a river.

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

Spartanburg Herald Journal
March 03, 2008

Editorials

Italian waste

States should cooperate to stop the importation of nuclear waste

South Carolina authorities should work with officials in other states who are objecting to a plan to import nuclear waste from Italy and dispose of it in this country.

U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to stop a plan to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste from Italy. The waste is to be processed in Tennessee and disposed of in Utah.

The nuclear material is supposed to enter the country through Charleston and then travel through South Carolina. It isn't supposed to spend much time in this state, but the company planning to import the waste also operates the low-level nuclear waste disposal site at Barnwell.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asked for public comment on the plan and the positions of states that would be affected. Tennessee, South Carolina and Wyoming have already expressed their opposition.

Authorities in these states should work together to push the commission to deny an application for the plan. They should also lobby Congress to ban the importation of nuclear waste outside of the fulfillment of disarmament treaties.

This country has enough trouble taking care of its own nuclear waste without taking on the unwanted atomic refuse of other nations.

Italy has no disposal site for high- or low-level nuclear waste, so it is looking for some other nation to take its radioactive garbage off its hands. This nation shouldn't sign up. The Italian government has tried to establish a disposal facility, but the people there have opposed it. Americans shouldn't do for Italians what they are unwilling to do for themselves.

This country isn't much more prepared than Italy is. We have a very limited disposal capacity for low-level waste at just a few sites. We are running out of this capacity and have no facility at all for disposing of high-level nuclear waste. Like Italy, we let the high-level waste pile up at nuclear power plants.

The nation has built a suitable high-level nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but as in Italy, political pressure keeps the government from using it.

This whole process impacts South Carolina. We not only have one of the few low-level disposal sites at Barnwell, the federal government uses the Savannah River Site to store highly dangerous surplus plutonium because the nation has no active high-level disposal site.

The situation here is bad enough without letting other countries send us their nuclear garbage. Washington should be forced to address the problem here, and states should utilize every opportunity available to force the issue.

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

All American Patriots
March 03, 2008

Senator Specter Testifies on Importance of Nuclear Safety

At Congressional Hearing Following Peach Bottom Security Lapse

February 28, 2008 - Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) today testified at a congressional hearing on nuclear plant safety held by the Energy and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. The hearing was held at the request of Senators Specter and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) after recent security lapses at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power station in York County, PA.

Senator Specter’s testimony is below:

I would ask consent that my full statement be made a part of the record, and I will summarize it in a brief way.

I think there is no doubt that we need to develop nuclear energy in America because of the great problems associated with the dependence on foreign oil. The issues about safety, I think, are in pretty good shape as long as people stay awake.

I recall the days very vividly back in 1979, March 28th when there was the Three-Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania. There was really a lot of worry that day. I was in Philadelphia at the time and reports were being given as to how long it would take the air to come back in a contaminated form and what the risks were. I think we are a long way from that, with that kind of a mechanical breakdown or Chernobyl, but I think we need to look to nuclear.

Also, in the context on the issues of global warming which we’re talking about, legislation has been proposed to this committee. Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, Senator Bingaman and I have proposed legislation. Nuclear has a lot to offer because it is clean, so that it would ease up on our problems with global warming as well. We have problems in Yucca Mountain which we have not solved and waste matters have to be taken care of. But there’s nothing as fundamental as safety.

I have made it important to visit the facilities in my state - and I couldn’t make the last one because we were at a Republican Convention in Harrisburg at the same time and we had to endorse a presidential nominee. But what happened at Peach Bottom is inexcusable, inexcusable. That is especially problemsome, not only because of the inherent dangers in nuclear, but because of the terrorism factor. That’s a prime target in a prime location.

I commend the Chairman and others, Senator Casey, for focusing attention on the issue. We can’t emphasize too strongly the importance of adding to the security operation. Especially when you have a professional organization and the issue in the area where the guards were located was very bad and they have to stay awake. That is an issue not only for the contractor but for the principal.

We are dealing here with matters that are so serious that they are really in the non-delegable category. The law makes a sharp distinction depending on the nature of the danger as to what can be delegated. These are really non-delegable items.

My distinguished colleague, Senator Casey, has taken the lead on legislation which I expect to join him on, and I am very glad to see this committee very much on top of this issue.

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

Source: Senator Arlen Specter

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 02, 2008

Nuclear Waste: A Toxic Scenario

By Valerie Miller
Review-Journal

The potential risk posed by shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, just about 90 miles outside of Las Vegas, is something even emergency planners don't know if they can prepare for.

The site is scheduled to begin receiving radioactive waste in 2012. A 2002 Department of Energy report estimated 6.9 nuclear waste shipments a day would go through Las Vegas. That's far above the 3.8 shipments scheduled to travel through the second-most traveled urban area, Salt Lake City.

If the Department of Energy stays on track, 2,525 annual shipments of nuclear waste -- one spilled shipment can contaminate 43 square miles -- will traverse the Las Vegas Valley.

"There's certainly a concern about the impact on our community," said Carolyn Levering, planning and operations coordinator for the Clark County Department of Emergency Management.

"Nuclear waste is a whole different ballgame. We have to have a whole different level of preparedness and there's not a whole lot we can do, short of a 20-foot lead-lined wall."

Opponents of burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, including the environmental activism group Greenpeace, cite the risk of creating a prime target for terrorists by having only one radioactive waste dump, instead of 131. The waste would be stored for 240,000 years.

Understandably, Levering is weighing the risks. For example, she said, the casks, vessels that would contain the nuclear waste, could be attractive, and vulnerable, targets for terrorists.

"That's why the danger was looking at a cask," she said. "And a terrorist strike on those casks would be very hard to handle."

Even if a radioactive spill never touched the Las Vegas Valley, the economic fallout would be severe, she said.

"Anything that even said 'near Las Vegas' would deter people from coming," she said.

The fight rages on between the Department of Energy and Nevada lawmakers about the dump.

"The Department of Energy seems to be on track for getting shipments in 2012," she said. "We are trying to push it back."

Valerie Miller/Las Vegas Business Press

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

Dallas Morning News
March 02, 2008

Sunday letters: Nuclear power

The success story of nuclear plants

Re: "Nuclear is not the right alternative – New plants are risky, costly and unnecessary, says Arjun Makhijani," Tuesday Viewpoints.

The truth is that we have 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States. The electricity they produce is greater than 20 percent of our total and is generally cheaper than the electricity produced by any other energy source, including coal.

That is a success story, not a "miserable failure." The truth is that the average wind plant in the United States generates about 5 percent of its rated capacity. The wind does not always blow, it blows in a random pattern and the gears wear out. Wind is not reliable enough for base load production.

The truth is that solar is still more than five times as expensive as nuclear to produce electricity, after an expenditure of billions of research dollars over many years.

The truth is that the Yucca Mountain repository is fully qualified to accept the nuclear power plant waste, the volume of which is relatively small. The U.S. has a political problem with Nevada, but no real technical problem with nuclear waste disposal.

Philip E. MacDonald, Cedar Hill

---

The benefits of generating nuclear power

Arjun Makhijani's column has it exactly backward: the facts are that nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest and least expensive source of energy that we currently have available.

He fails to mention that not even one single American has died as a result of an American nuclear reactor incident. He fails to mention the fact that France generates about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors and not one single Frenchman has died as a result of it. He fails to mention that Great Britain delivers electricity from nuclear power at a cost of around 6 cents per kilowatt-hour – even less than what it costs using coal or natural gas.

He fails to mention that the waste heat from a nuclear power plant can be used to liquefy our own coal and turn it into oil, so that we would not be dependent on foreign sources of oil. And he fails to mention that spent nuclear fuel can be recycled into new nuclear fuel.

The United States and the rest of the world are suffering due to the high cost of oil and electricity. These high costs affect us directly in gasoline prices and in our electricity bill, but they also affect us indirectly, since virtually everything we buy uses energy in its production.

Nuclear power provides inexpensive, safe, pollution-free, and greenhouse gas-free energy and can be used to make our own oil. Let's build them right now so that all Americans can benefit.

Tim Farage, Richardson

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 01, 2008

From Our Readers:

Yucca Mountain safety

To the editor:

Readers would have been better served if your Feb. 22 editorial, "Nevada quake," had sought to enlighten readers about seismic issues rather than simply alarm them.

Scientists studying Yucca Mountain have found that the risk of damage to surface and underground facilities from faults "is small because the amount of movement on local faults has been small, with possibly many thousands of years between movements," according to their environmental report.

Earthquake damage is a surface phenomenon. Scientific research on seismic issues at and near Yucca Mountain, including even nuclear explosions underground at the Nevada Test Site, show that underground structures can withstand ground motion greater than that anticipated from earthquakes.

Last week's earthquake in northeast Nevada was a greater distance from the Yucca Mountain site than Cleveland, Ohio, is from Washington, D.C., though details like that seem to pale in the face of the opportunity your newspaper seized to rattle Nevadans' cages.

Scott Peterson
Washington, D.C.
The Writer is Vice President of The Nuclear Energy Institute.

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

Chief Engineer
March 01, 2008

Where Will All The Deadly Waste Go?

BEAUMONT-HAGUE, FRANCE (AP) - Thousands of canisters of highly radioactive waste from the world’s most nuclear-energized nation lie, silent and deadly, beneath this jutting tip of Normandy. Above ground, cows graze and Atlantic waves crash into heather-covered hills.

The spent fuel, vitrified into blocks of black glass that will remain dangerous for thousands of years, is in “interim storage.” Like nearly all the world’s nuclear waste, it is still waiting for the long-term disposal solution that has eluded scientists and governments in the six decades since the atomic era began.

Industry officials hope renewed worldwide interest in nuclear energy will break a long-awkward silence surrounding nuclear waste. They want to revive momentum for scientific and political breakthroughs on waste that stalled after the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, which raised worldwide fears about radioactivity’s risks to human and planetary health.

So far, though, recent talk of a nuclear renaissance has focused on the “front end,” or reactor construction. Engineers are designing the next generation of reactors to be safer than today’s - and they’re being billed as a solution to global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, blamed for heating the planet.

Few people have been talking about the “back end,” industry-speak for the hundreds of thousands of tons of waste that nuclear plants produce each year, and the lucrative, secretive business of storing it away.

Waste “is the main problem with this so-called nuclear rebirth,” said Mycle Schneider, an independent expert who co-authored a recent study for the European Parliament casting doubt on a global nuclear resurgence. He ways government efforts to revive nuclear energy will stall without a “miracle” solution to waste disposal.

Workers at this waste treatment and storage site on France’s Cherbourg peninsula, run by industry giant Areva, don’t see a problem.

Though much of the technology here dates from the 1970s and 1980s, they point to a strong safety record and the 26,000 environmental tests conducted every year as evidence that the public has nothing to fear from their activity.

The tests routinely find crabs, cows and humans living nearby to be healthy. One longtime plant employee gestured toward her pregnant abdomen, holding her third child, as proof that there’s nothing to worry about. Plant officials say strict security measures, tightened since the Sept. 11 attacks, rule out terrorism risks.

Greenpeace questions state-run Areva’s safety figures, and accuses the government of playing down accidents and soil and water contamination. A group called Meres en Colere, or Angry Mothers, was formed in the region after a 1997 study showed higher than usual local rates of child leukemia, a malady linked to radiation exposure.

Now the “pros” are on a new mission to dispel a generation of scares and suspicion, saying nuclear power is less dangerous to humans and the Earth than burning oil or coal. The “antis” say nuclear energy can never offer 100 percent protection from its radioactive ingredients.

The splitting of uranium atoms in a nuclear reactor creates the exceptional heat that drives turbines to provide electricity. The processes also create radioactive isotopes such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 that take about 30 years to lose half their radioactivity. Higher-level leftovers include plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,000 years.

Direct exposure to such highly radioactive material, even for a short period, can be fatal. Indirect exposure, through seepage into groundwater, can lead to life-threatening illness for those living nearby and environmental damage.

For now, the best scientific solution for getting rid of the most lethal waste is to shove it deep underground.

Yet no country has built a deep geological repository. Governments meet protests each time one is proposed. The Yucca Mountain waste site in Nevada was commissioned in 1982 and is still awaiting a license.

Another option is recycling. Countries such as France, Russia and Japan reprocess much nuclear waste into new fuel. That dramatically reduces the volume: Forty years’ worth of France’s highly radioactive waste is stored under just three floor surfaces, each about the size of a basketball court, at Beaumont-Hague.

Recycling, though, produces plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons - so the United States bans it, fearing proliferation.

And not all waste can be reprocessed. The deadliest bits - such as fuel rod casings and other reactor parts as well as concentrated fuel residue containing plutonium and highly enriched uranium - must be sealed and stored away.

That’s what lurks 10 feet underground at this Normandy plant: More than 7,000 cylindrical steel canisters, each about the height of a parking meter, stacked and sealed upright in holes beneath the slick floor. Some contain compacted radioactive metal, the others hold spent fuel that has been vitrified into glass.

Among other ideas once floated for disposing of nuclear waste have been shooting it into space (deemed too risky because of the volatile rocket fuel) or injecting it in the ocean floor (stalled because testing its feasibility is too costly), or shipping all the world’s waste to a collective nuclear dump.

The last idea proved too diplomatically delicate. But Greenpeace and Norwegian environmental group Bellona say European nations have for years been illegally shipping radioactive waste to Russia and leaving it there.

Current research in industry leader France - which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its electricity, more than any other country - is focusing on new chemical processes that would shrink nuclear waste and cool it faster.

It will be at least 2040, though, before these might be put to use, scientists estimate. Schneider says scientists are “creating work for themselves” be researching methods that may never be commercially feasible or do much to solve the long-term waste quandry.

The World Nuclear Association, an industry group, disagrees, citing increasing interest in waste research by governments. The managers at the Normandy plant say long-held taboos about the industry are fading.

“ We have the best scientific solution for treating waste,” deputy director Eric Blanc said, referring to the plant’s vitrification process and network of cooling pools. “Others are coming all the time to study it.”

The plant used to have Webcams and “open house” days for people from nearby communities, but both practices were stopped after 9/11. Now the Defense Ministry regularly monitors the plant.

The French fuel stays in Normandy indefinitely, while bulkier, lower-level nuclear waste is piling up in dumps worldwide.

Nuclear scientists’ dream is a wasteless reactor, and some sketches for the next crop of reactors, the Generation IV, include those that recycle 100 percent of their refuse.

Both nuclear fans and foes agree, however, that it will take a few more human generations for that dream to come true.

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