Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, March 28, 2008
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
March 27, 2008
Gold prices add to proceeds; auditor sees sales tax drop
By Mark Waite
PVT
Accountant Dan McArthur reported Nye County showed an 18 percent increase in property tax collections, thanks to the net proceeds of mining in the last fiscal year, but he warned county commissioners about declining sales tax revenues due to the overall economy this go-round.
The annual fiscal year 2006-2007 audit -- a snapshot of the Nye County financial picture as of June 30, 2007 -- showed property taxes leaped from $16.6 million in the 2005-2006 fiscal year to $19.8 million.
"We've had a significant increase in property tax revenue from '06 to '07. One reason is inside the property taxes is where the net proceeds lies," McArthur said during his annual audit presentation.
The price of gold rose to over $1,000 per ounce, contributing to the increase in net proceeds.
Consolidated tax, which includes sales tax collections, increased from $14.3 million to $15 million. But McArthur predicted there could be upcoming shortfalls of $1 million to $2 million in revenues from sales tax collections.
The Nevada Department of Taxation released a report last month which show taxable sales dropping 13.5 percent in Nye County for the second half of 2007.
Payment equal to taxes the county receives from the U.S. department of Energy for the land value of Yucca Mountain amounted to $11 million last fiscal year, a major, third component of the $77 million in total revenues.
The audit showed that as of last June 30, the county had $8.8 million in a PETT education endowment fund, $13.3 million in a PETT special projects fund and $11.1 million in a PETT capital projects endowment fund.
Interest revenues jumped from $1.9 million to $3.3 million as the federal government increased interest rates last year, McArthur said.
McArthur scolded commissioners again this year about various budget categories in which the county spent more than what was appropriated -- a violation of Nevada Revised Statutes.
That included special revenue funds for the law library, a town of Amargosa Valley community center, the emergency special revenue fund, impact fees, the town of Manhattan capital projects fund and an agricultural extension special projects fund.
The $3 million grant the U.S. Economic Development Administration has asked to be returned is reflected in the audit. McArthur assumed a $325,333 liability in the general fund this year.
For just the general fund, the audit showed $34.3 million in actual revenues, almost $1 million more than the $33.4 million in budget revenues and $3.48 million over fiscal year 2005-2006.
But general fund expenditures jumped $5.6 million from $30.1 million to $35.7 million. McArthur said that's due to a large, one-time expenditure for a Motorola radio system for the sheriff's department, where capital outlays skyrocketed from $46,657 to $3.47 million.
McArthur's management letter, which makes recommendations on improving county financing methods, listed the following:
Ambulance billings are finally being prepared electronically.
A list of capital assets was prepared according to state law.
The county comptroller needs to have monthly reconciliation of capital outlays and accounts payable.
There continue to be unsigned time sheets and some payroll expenses are listed under the budget for service and supplies.
Manhattan water system funds were mistakenly commingled with the general fund but need to be kept separate for U.S. Department of Agriculture requirements.
Two financial positions he recommended are still unfilled.
There should be better control of surplus assets available for auction.
Impact fees paid by developers and through development agreements haven't been accounted for in a timely fashion. The county has a $4.25 million fund balance in the impact fees special revenue fund.
The county should consider storing data in a proper off-site location in case of a natural disaster.
Finance department employees should be cross-trained, as turnover causes problems with a continuity of operations. McArthur noted a number of skilled employees with specialized knowledge are reaching retirement age.
The county public works department should use computer software programs to monitor expenditures on a project by project basis.
There are improvements in grant administration, with an employee assigned to monitor grants, but there are still errors being detected.
There were some errors in the tax rates used to levy property taxes.
Nye County is moving to a paperless system of approving expenditures, but a hierarchy needs to be established to exercise security over this system.
The county overpaid the Nye County School District in property tax collections due to a lack of communication.
Court facility fees were only supposed to be spent on remodeling or constructing a court facility.
The county recorder's technology fund is only supposed to be used on technology.
Nye County Commissioner Peter Liakopoulos indicated he was overwhelmed by the audit presentation. He asked for an advance copy in the future and an opportunity to review the audit with county staff before the annual presentation.
Commissioner Butch Borasky told McArthur, "I would like to have an hour or two with you in the near future to go over some of these items."
"It might be beneficial for us to do that when we have our corrective action done," Assistant County Manager Pam Webster said. She jokingly pulled out a bulletproof vest loaned by the Nye County Sheriff's Office prior to the audit presentation.
---------------------------
St. Cloud Times
March 27, 2008
Letter: Nuclear energy a viable source for United States
This week ... England and France will announce a joint effort to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, which they will export. At the same time the leaders of Germany's two largest utilities have announced that Germany faces power blackouts without more nuclear power.
Germany is the world's largest wind power user, but it is unable to get more than about 6 percent of its electric power from wind. In addition, Germany's largest utility has to back up at least 90 percent of its installed wind power facilities with conventional natural gas plants.
The U.S. once dominated the nuclear power industry with its high-paying technical jobs. We still have a fourth of the world's more than 400 nuclear plants. But we have surrendered our technology and manufacturing lead to Europe and Asia. ...
Nuclear power plants have an injury rate one-fifth that of industry as a whole, and they emit no CO2 or other pollutants. The spent fuel storage issue is significant, but it is not as difficult as most believe. The most radioactive fission products have short half lives and decay fairly quickly. Yucca Mountain is a practical solution for those storage casks.
Nuclear energy is the one power source available today with the energy capacity to replace coal power. The new Minnesota law requiring Xcel to get 25 percent to 30 percent of its grid power from wind is an impractical dream. Wind, like corn-based ethanol for cars, is a useful supplement only. Neither of them will save us from global warming or OPEC.
Rolf E. Westgard
St. Paul
---------------------------
Ely Daily Times
March 26, 2008
MX may be long gone, but it still vexes rural Nevada
By Henry Brean
Stephens Media
In 1979, the U.S. military began work on a short-lived scheme to hide a mobile arsenal of nuclear missiles in the Nevada desert.
The MX missile project quickly collapsed under the weight of its own cost and scale, but not before hundreds of exploratory wells had been drilled across the region in search of water for the effort.
Now these Cold War relics have become key components of the Southern Nevada Water Authority's plan to tap groundwater across the eastern part of the state.
The authority has teamed with the U.S. Geological Survey and Nevada Division of Water Resources to take periodic measurements from about 40 MX wells.
A few of the holes have been fitted with equipment to monitor them continuously.
The authority is using data from the old wells as it presses for federal and state permission to build a massive pipeline network into rural areas of Clark, Lincoln and White Pine counties.
Last month's state hearing on the Lincoln County portion of the water project included groundwater readings made possible by the MX project.
So did a 2006 hearing on the authority's plans in White Pine County's Spring Valley.
"I think it's cool. No data goes to waste," said Jeff Johnson, division manager for the authority's surface water resources department.
The notion is reminiscent of a certain Bible passage about beating swords into plowshares. But many rural residents don't see much difference between nuclear missiles and SNWA pipelines; to them, both look like attempts to exploit their quiet corner of the state.
"There is a strong sense of powerlessness," said Louis Benezet, who lives in the mountains east of Pioche.
On Feb. 8, he spoke out against the water authority's pipeline plan during a public input session held as part of the most recent state hearing on that project.
Benezet's family roots in Lincoln County date back to 1910. He became a full-time resident of the county in 1980, just as early work on the MX project was gearing up.
He said he protested the work back then because it was "indiscriminately tearing up the fragile desert landscape."
Since then, he and his neighbors have battled against plans for a hazardous waste incinerator in one nearby valley and rail routes in another that one day could carry radioactive cargo to Yucca Mountain.
"There have always been people who have wanted to put things here that other people won't put up with other places," Benezet said.
Steve Bradhurst understands the links between the pipeline and MX missile project as well as anyone.
In 1980, Nevada Gov. Robert List appointed him to head up the state office established to assess the MX project.
Bradhurst now serves as executive director of the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority, a coalition of eight rural counties launched in 2005 to study and protect water resources in those areas.
"It's sort of like we're back to the argument we had in '80 and '81 ... when it looked like rural
Nevada was going to be a sacrifice area for the rest of the country," he said. "(Now) it looks like rural Nevada is going to be a sacrifice area for growth and development in Southern Nevada.
"It raises the same principal question: Doesn't this area have a right to a future?"
Then-President Carter pressed for the MX project, which military planners dreamed up as a way to protect the nation's nuclear missiles from a Soviet first strike.
The $30 billion plan involved the construction of up to 4,600 underground launch sites and a 200-mile "racetrack" on which rockets mounted horizontally would be shuttled from site to site. With no way to know which site had a missile in it at any given time, the Soviets would be forced to target them all.
"It was a shell game," Bradhurst said. "The idea was the rest of the country would be able to respond while Nevada and Utah disappeared. We would be the sponge to absorb Russia's nuclear arsenal."
The project would have affected 35,000 square miles in Nevada and Utah. Its proposed footprint took in seven Nevada counties and drew staunch local opposition.
"Before Yucca Mountain there was MX," said State Archivist Guy Rocha. "The overwhelming number of Nevadans opposed MX."
They needn't have worried so much. Carter's plan faded quickly. Ronald Reagan saw to that. Nine months after he was sworn in as president, he announced he was scrapping the plan.
By then, though, some 219 exploratory wells already had been drilled in 26 Nevada watersheds.
The U.S. Geological Survey eventually assumed control of the superfluous MX wells, including an especially large one that has proved important to the water authority.
The hole known as MX-5 is located on the Pahranagat Wash in the Coyote Springs Valley, about 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas. When the Air Force drilled it to a depth of 626 feet in 1981, it produced what Johnson called "an incredible amount of water," nearly 4,000 gallons a minute.
Then the missile project petered out, and the federal government traded the well and the 42,800 acres surrounding it to defense contractor Aerojet in 1988.
Eight years later, the company sold the still-vacant land to high-powered Nevada lobbyist Harvey Whittemore.
In 1998, he persuaded the water authority to buy the well and about half of his water holdings in the Coyote Springs Valley for $25 million, the same amount he is said to have paid for the entire property.
Today, MX-5 is easy to miss. It's little more than a rust-covered pipe jutting a few feet from the ground just off state Route 168, a few miles east of U.S. Highway 93.
That will change in the coming weeks, though, when work begins on a 16-mile, $21 million pipeline that will allow the authority to use water from MX-5.
The water will be treated at the well site for elevated levels of arsenic and piped east to the distribution system for the Moapa Valley Irrigation District. From there, it will flow into the Muddy River and then into Lake Mead, where the authority will capture it using existing intake pipes.
"We anticipate moving water in late '09, early 2010," Johnson said.
When that occurs, it will mark the first time groundwater from outside the Las Vegas Valley has flowed from local taps.
If authority officials have their way, it won't be the last.
By 2015, they hope to tap billions of gallons of water a year from Eastern Nevada and pump it to Las Vegas through a pipeline that is expected to cost well over $2 billion.
The authority's case for its pipeline relies on data from the MX wells, particularly in Spring Valley where the agency plans to tap more groundwater than anywhere else.
The 1 million acre basin in eastern White Pine County is home to 17 monitoring wells from the missile project. Only Railroad Valley in Nye County has more MX wells.
"These wells are the only view we have into the ground. We need to see as many views as possible," Johnson said. "Anything out there that can be monitored, we're monitoring it. We're leaving no stone unturned."
Water authority General Manager Pat Mulroy compared her agency's use of the wells to another wartime project that has found a "peaceful application," the water line built from Lake Mead to the chemical plants in Henderson during World War II. That straw continues to supply lake water to Nevada's second largest city.
The MX project could prove almost as valuable. "Look at all the science we got out of it," Mulroy said.
"It has also saved the authority a little bit of money because drilling wells isn't cheap," Johnson added.
Rocha said, "Without taking a position on whether this water importation plan is good, bad or indifferent, I think it is a good use of something. If I was the Southern Nevada Water Authority, I would use this resource."
Bradhurst agreed.
"It's a credit to the water authority," he said. "They should be using any information that's available."
As for which project is worse, the pipeline or the missile array, Bradhurst said it's almost too close to call. Although a swath of land would have been closed off from public access had the MX been constructed, it "wasn't going to take a lot of water out of the ground," he said.
But as far as Benezet is concerned, the choice between well heads and warheads is no contest.
"The MX was totally outlandish. It was totally insane," he said. "I don't have anything good to say about the pipeline, but at least I can understand it."
---------------------------
Daily Cardinal
March 26, 2008
Today in Science: The Green Bomb
By Deborah Seiler
Is nuclear power part of a sustainable energy future?
It was fitting, as I began to write this column, to be distracted by playful shadows of steam cutting across the sun from Madison’s east side coal plant, laden with the carbon emissions that are the price of running my laptop. It’s just one more reminder of our carbon-captured economy. From Al Gore’s Academy Award to the homeland security orations of John McCain—where nuclear energy takes precedence to oil imports—clean energy has entered the American conscience in a big way. Nuclear power, with its zero factory emissions and hyper-efficiency, looks to become the political darling of sustainable energy.
Nuclear power plants run on uranium, a finite resource like oil, except with much more land destruction and waste as well as longer timeline before affordable sources tap out. Already supplying 20 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, nuclear power may be the key to keeping up with energy demands as we attempt to shift from belching coal plants (providing 49 percent of U.S. energy in 2006) toward efficiency, conservation and renewable resources (2.4 percent and rising) such as solar, wind and geothermal power. Nuclear power provides the highest baseload capacity—the ability to produce power at all times—of any existing energy source, a bonus trait as engineers figure out how to effectively store energy from the fickle presence of wind and sun.
McCain isn’t the only one who thinks nuclear energy sounds great. The uranium market has been booming, jump-starting the proliferation of mines everywhere. Between 2001 and 2007, prices rose over 1,000 percent to levels not seen since the market collapsed with Berlin’s wall. The change is driven purely by speculation on where the carbon-conscious future is headed, rather than demand (at 180 million pounds of processed uranium annually for power plants), setting the stage for a crash should plant expansion get politically bombed.
Political blockades are easy to come by, since nuclear power creates a hazardous waste nightmare. Although spent uranium can be preprocessed to fuel plants, the United States has stood firm (and alone) in refusing to do this since President Carter, because it can result in weapons-grade plutonium. Nuclear weapons’ fuel proliferation in a terror-spooked world could create a lot of weak points to build very big bombs.
Communities near nuclear plants are more likely to be concerned about accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Such events are rare, and likely to become even more rare with the new generation of super-safe plant designs but equally alarming in their magnitude.
If our country had somewhere to concentrate and guard spent fuel, things might be easier, but the proposed storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., remains closed as a geologic and political nightmare only after several billion dollars have been poured into its construction. Planning continues despite site weaknesses in groundwater seepage and earthquake and volcano vulnerability. Nevada flat out doesn’t want it, but Congress overrode these objections in a 2002 resolution—because there is no plan B.
But it’s uranium mining that may be the main health threat, argued public health researcher Doug Brugge before a packed hall at UW’s Nelson Institute this February. Community effects of uranium mining have been devastating in the past, something Brugge studied first hand on the Navajo Nation in Arizona, where over one thousand uranium mines were operated from the 1940s to 1980s.
“There is no process,” Brugge said of government cleanup efforts. “They just left a mess.” Miners were never protected from or informed of the health risks of radiation, leaving a host of health problems from lung cancer to kidney disease. Aside from the tailings of uranium, there remains “a whole toxic soup” that includes radon, arsenic and radium. Investigation into the effects on surrounding communities is just getting underway. Although regulatory standards have improved since, “We still haven’t cleaned up the mess from the first round of uranium mining,” Brugge said.
For all its problems, nuclear power may still be a necessary part of our future, but we must approach it eyes wide open to fix the past and plan a safer future. Maybe someday I’ll be writing columns without the carbon shadows, waving to national guards at the neighborhood plant. Nuclear power is just one part of the less-evil-than-coal solution to tide us over until something better comes along.
---------------------------
UW Badger Herald
March 26, 2008
Letters to the Editor
Dismiss anti-nuclear myth
Nuclear energy’s role in Wisconsin is the subject of heated debate. With respect to safety and disposal, many opponents use arguments high on rhetoric but lacking in facts, such as in Monday’s letter to the editor (“No new nukes: Use solar, wind power,” March 24).
For instance, nuclear plants are not “disasters waiting to happen.” Historically, no deaths in the public are attributable to U.S. commercial nuclear power. Our worst accident, Three Mile Island, resulted in no injury.
Analysis of current designs — vetted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — shows a reactor would melt down at a rate of about once every million years and even then likely have no consequence for anyone off-site. You are about as likely to be struck by a meteor as you are to be harmed by nuclear power.
Those that point to Chernobyl are using a straw man argument. The plant had a poor design, was poorly managed and was unregulated. Such a plant could not be licensed here in Wisconsin. Chernobyl is to nuclear power as the Ford Pinto is to the automotive industry: It’s a now-extinct design mistake.
But what of the byproducts? The perceptions overshadow the reality. Used fuel from all U.S. reactors over 40 years could fit in Camp Randall up to the goal posts. It is solid, compact and insoluble, not a green ooze that can leak.
Nuclear is the only power source that accounts for and has plans to dispose of all its byproducts. The industry has already funded Yucca Mountain and a working repository for defense nuclear waste is already operational near Carlsbad, N.M. Further, techniques exist to recycle and significantly reduce its volume and toxicity. The solutions are technologically available.
At the end of the day, all technologies have risks — wind can have blade ejection accidents and solar-PV plants can leak toxins.
While concerns are real and caution justified, we need a proper assessment of risk to objectively weigh costs and benefits and not appeal to fear when making judgments.
Brian Kiedrowski
Graduate Student, nuclear engineering
Public Outreach Coordinator
American Nuclear Society, UW-Madison Chapter
bckiedrowski@wisc.edu
---------------------------
Lake Country Echo
March 26, 2008
Westgard: Losing our edge in nuclear power
This week, prime ministers Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy of England and France will announce a joint effort to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, which they will then export to the world.
At the same time, the leaders of Germany's two largest utilities have announced that Germany faces power blackouts without more nuclear power ("we need more nuclear plants to avoid blackouts," say German power chiefs, Guardian, 3/24).
Germany is the world's largest wind power user, but it is unable to get more than about 6 percent of its electric power from wind.
In addition, Germany's largest utility, E.ON, has to back up at least 90 percent of its installed wind power facilities with conventional natural gas plants.
The United States once dominated the nuclear power industry with its high paying technical jobs. We still have a fourth of the world's more than 400 nuclear plants. But we have surrendered our technology and manufacturing lead to Europe and Asia, while we create low paying service jobs.
Nuclear power plants have an injury rate one fifth that of industry as a whole, and they emit no CO2 or other pollutants. The spent fuel storage issue is significant, but it is not as difficult as most believe. The most radioactive fission products have short half lives and decay fairly quickly. Yucca Mountain is a practical solution for those storage casks.
Nuclear energy is the one power source available today with the energy capacity to replace coal power. The new Minnesota law requiring Excel to get 25-30 percent of its grid power from wind is an impractical dream. Wind, like corn based ethanol, is a useful supplement only. Neither of them will save us from global warming or OPEC.
Rolf E. Westgard,
Deerwood and St. Paul
(Professional member of Geological Society of America and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.)
---------------------------
Union Leader
March 26, 2008
NRC gives Seabrook plant high marks for 2007
By Clare Kittredge
Union Leader Correspondent
SEABROOK – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given the Seabrook nuclear plant a clean bill of health for 2007.
"Seabrook's performance has been very good," Arthur Burritt, chief of Reactor Projects Branch 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said yesterday at a meeting with state, local and plant officials at Seabrook Town Hall.
Burritt, who oversees four of the nation's 104 nuclear plants, says the NRC's annual performance review found plant safety at the highest level last year, needing no extra NRC oversight.
"Overall, Seabrook operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and fully met all cornerstone objectives," wrote Burritt in a March 3 letter to plant officials.
Seabrook plant officials said they were happy with the high marks.
"Overall, we're pleased with the report from the NRC, but it's really just another opportunity for us to continually improve," said Alan Griffith, spokesman for FPL Energy Seabrook Station.
Yesterday, Gene St. Pierre, site vice president of the plant, told a visiting NRC team that challenges for the plant include the aging of experienced workers, training young replacements and inculcating the plant's "culture" into both contract workers and staffers. During this spring's refueling outage, for example, the plant's workforce of 700 to 800 will swell to almost 2,000, Griffith said.
Seabrook has been building a "culture of healthy dissatisfaction" and self-improvement at the plant, St. Pierre told the NRC. "We want to have safety zealots all levels," he said.
On a more technical level, the NRC this year plans to make sure Seabrook has taken "corrective actions" to deal with certain pressurizer welds and other changes Griffith described as industry-wide.
The NRC also plans to test the plant's new dry spent fuel storage facility before it starts receiving spent fuel assemblies later this year.
With spent fuel pools at the nation's nuclear plants and delays opening the centralized waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nev., individual plants have been moving into dry fuel storage.
---------------------------
Legal NewsLine
March 25, 2008
Masto takes on flimflam artists in Silver State road trip
by Chris Rizo
CARSON CITY -- Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto jumped into a minivan Monday to begin a four-day rural road trip to discuss some "hot button issues" in the Silver State, including mortgage fraud and identity theft.
"Our intent is to get out there and let them know who we are and educate them as to how we can help them," Masto told LegalNewsLine in an interview from her Carson City office. "Because they don't have as easy of access to my office as some of the urban areas, I wanted to make sure I was out in those communities, talking to those individuals and bringing my staff to those areas."
The Democratic attorney general, along with a team of state attorneys and outreach workers, will crisscross southern Nevada, traveling hundreds of miles this week to outlying communities in sprawling Clark and Nye counties.
Among those on the road with Masto are two officials from the attorney general's office Consumer Protection Bureau to tackle issues relating to telemarketing fraud, mortgage rescue scams and identity fraud.
Nevada, which is among states leading the nation in mortgage fraud cases, is attracting flimflam artists, who prey on homebuyers, particularly the elderly, who financed their home purchase using adjustable-rate subprime mortgages.
In fact, Nevada is the No. 2 state in the nation in terms of residential mortgage fraud, according to the Mortgage Asset Research Institute's Fraud Index.
"It's amazing to me how people prey on other people," Masto said. "If there is a way to make a quick buck and take advantage on somebody they'll do it. There are more and more of these people coming into our state."
To help protect homebuyers, Masto, a former federal prosecutor, said three attorneys and two investigators in her office are working closely with federal authorities to prosecute high-dollar fraud cases, while her office is pursuing lower-level cases for state prosecution.
Masto's four-day trip, dubbed the "Putting Nevada's Families First" tour, includes stops in Boulder City, Searchlight, Laughlin, Overton, Logandale, Moapa, Pahrump and North Las Vegas.
As for building a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in the remote Nevada desert as a storage space for nuclear waste from dozens of states, Masto said she will continue to fight the controversial project.
"This is a concern for everyone in this state," Masto said, noting that polls indicate that about 70 percent of Nevadans are opposed to the project, which is decades behind schedule.
"There's been no proof that it is safe; there is concern about the health and welfare of the people who live here based on the contamination to the environment," she said. "The majority are opposed to it and rightfully so."
---------------------------
Business Wire
March 25, 2008
27th Annual IABC/Las Vegas Bronze Quill Awards Honor More Than 30 Organizations for Business Communication Excellence
LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The International Association of Business Communicators Las Vegas (IABC/Las Vegas) 27th Annual Bronze Quill Awards honored more than 30 businesses and organizations at an awards luncheon held at the Four Seasons Las Vegas on Feb. 26.
The Bronze Quill Awards, which recognizes business communication excellence, is the longest running communication program of its kind in Nevada and the only one to welcome entries from all business communication disciplines, including public relations, advertising, graphic design, and marketing.
Pete Codella, APR, was named 2007 IABC/Las Vegas Communicator of the Year. The Best of Show award went to Aztec Communication, Clark County Nuclear Waste Program and Patchin Pictures for their video entitled “Indian Perspectives on Yucca Mountain.”
Organizations receiving awards of merit, awards of excellence, and Bronze Quills included: Ad Emphasis; ALTF Photography; Aztec Communication; Black Gaming; Bridge; Brown & Partners; City of Henderson Parks and Recreation Department; City of Las Vegas; Clark County Nuclear Waste Program; College of Southern Nevada; Copywrite, Ink.; Cox Communications; Eurie Creative; Faiss Foley Warren PR; Graphics West; Hunter Productions; Insight Communications; KCLV Channel 2; Las Vegas Color; Las Vegas Valley Water District; MassMedia; MGM Grand; Patchin Pictures; Public Lands Institute; Regional Flood Control District; Regional Transportation Commission; Restrepo Consulting Group; Southern Nevada Water Authority; Southwest Gas; Star7; The Idea Factory; 3rd Degree Burns Advertising & Design; UNLV; UNLV Foundation; UNLV William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration; Vertical Media; WG Communications Group; and Wiener Communications Group.
Event co-sponsors include the Division of Educational Outreach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Southwest Gas; Boyd Gaming; Graphics West; MGM Mirage, Nevada Contractor; BLVDS Las Vegas; and Business Wire.
IABC/Las Vegas is a premier network of professionals engaged in strategic business communication management. Founded in 1978, it is affiliated with the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), an international network comprised of more than 14,000 business communication professionals in 70 countries.
For a list of companies receiving awards and their levels, please visit http://iabclasvegas.com/blog/?p=9.
Contacts
IABC/Las Vegas
Kim Becker, 702-341-7135
---------------------------
American Chronicle
March 24, 2008
Basic American Energy Ignorance Continues to Hurt the U.S.
Gary Ater
A modern Nuclear Plant in Europe
A good friend recently sent me an article published in Canada that was based on a recent college lecture by award winning veteran journalist and author, William Tucker. The focus of the lecture was based on his forthcoming book entitled: Terrestrial Energy: How a Nuclear-Solar Alliance Can Rescue the Planet.
Okay, okay, don't get all upset. I'm not going to bore you to death with a long article on green power or nuclear energy. (Or as our cowboy president would say; "nuke-que-ler" energy.) What I will do however, is explain how and why the US has become such a backward and ignorant nation regarding nuclear energy. And how nuclear energy went from initially being an important "American Technology" to most of the American public being falsely trapped in a "Three-Mile Island" disaster mentality.
Today, nuclear energy in the US has all but been ignored as being an option for helping the country to begin weaning itself off of the current dependence on fossil fuels. How did it all come to this? First, there were 3 separate occurrences between 1979 and 1986 that securely planted the seeds of the current "anti-nuclear attitude" in the American public's mind.
The first 2 "happenings" occurred in 1979. At about the same time that a major motion picture was being released called the "China Syndrome", an accident occurred in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station. The China Syndrome movie staring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas was a major hit and it dealt with a fictional story about government cover-up of a lack of safety precautions at an American nuclear plant. The "China Syndrome" was a real, unproven theory that during a nuclear reactor core melt-down, the excessive heat could allow the molten nuclear fuel to escape from the containment facility and potentially melt through to the center of the earth. Once the escaped molten debris hit the local ground water source, it would then explode spewing radioactive debris around the local region and eventually around the world. A totally untrue theory, but good movie and screen writing material.
Within weeks of the movie's release, in the real world, a valve stuck in a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania that led the operators to think the core was overflowing. Actually, the reactor was short of cooling water and when the operators mistakenly drained the core even further, a third of the core melted from excess heat. Hysteria erupted in the local area and the news media went crazy with the disaster speculation. Actually, even though it was a major industrial accident and it eventually did bankrupt the local utility company, no one was injured. The nuclear fuel stayed within the reactor containment area and the only radioactive material that was released to the public had the equivalent effect of a single chest x-ray. Unfortunately, the damage was done and the mind-set of the American public was established.
To set the final stage for the "no more nukes" American mentality, there was the real nuclear disaster seven years later at the nuclear generating plant in Chernobyl, USSR, in April of 1986. This was the classic case of human error and not having the proper concrete containment structure around the reactor's structure. During its construction, the Russian scientists and engineers decided that it was too expensive to build a concrete containment facility, so there was none. In addition, the Russians used what was referred to as a "carbon moderator" which eventually facilitated a nuclear chain reaction when the core accidentally overheated. (American, European and Japanese reactors do not use "carbon moderators". ) Unfortunately, this massive melt down of a reactor that should never have been built, did explode and did spew radio active debris around the local region and the world. (More fall-out eventually fell on Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, from Chernobyl than from the near by Three Mile Island accident.)
It is estimated that between 600,000 and 1,000,000 people have been effected by or will die due to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. And once again, the American public received more hype and mis-information regarding nuclear energy. This negative media exposure has prevented any additional new US power plants from coming on-line since 1996. In addition, a number of US nuclear generating facilities were shutdown prior to the end of their operational life due to public pressure or to the restrictions regarding the outlawing of US recycling of nuclear waste.
What Are the Real Objections, the Truths and the Myths?
Most of the objections about nuclear energy can be answered in a way that shows that the current use of fossil fuels is more dangerous and detrimental to the environment than the proper use and handling of nuclear materials.
Concern: A Nuclear Reactor Might Explode:
Reactor grade uranium is only at 3% U-235. In order for there to be an explosion , the uranium must be enriched to 90% U-235. Therefore, it is impossible for a nuclear generating reactor to "explode".
"But, could there be a melt down?" Yes, it's possible, but today it's highly improbable. As with the Three Mile Island accident, the worst case scenario says a nuclear reactor accident today would still be much more safe for the public and the environment than an oil or coal fire accident at a conventional fossil fuel power generator facility.
Concern: Disposal of Nuclear Waste Materials:
A spent fuel rod is 95% U-238. This is the same material we can find in a shovel full of dirt from most American's back yards. Of the remaining 5%, most is useful for recycling or if necessary, a small amount could be stored at the secure repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, near Las Vegas. Unfortunately, US federal regulations require ALL radioactive by products of nuclear power plants to be disposed of in the Yucca Mountain Depositary. This is because back in the 1977, President Carter decided to outlaw "any and all" US nuclear recycling. This was due to the fear that other countries could possibly steal US plutonium to make nuclear bombs. This was a false alarm.
Other countries have since built their bombs from their own plutonium, as Iran is trying to do today, by enriching their power plant's own uranium. Canada, Britain, France and Russia are also recycling their nuclear fuel. 80% of France's power is currently from next-generation nuclear power and due to recycling, it is able to store the remaining small amount of its high-level "nuclear waste" in a single, secure room.
Conclusion:
Contrary to the public's perception, the entire fleet of 103 US nuclear reactors have turned around and are currently fully operational over 90% of the time. The reactors are making big money to the point that the attorney general of Connecticut recently proposed a windfall tax profit tax on their state's nuclear reactors. The industry is poised for new construction with proposals for four new reactors being submitted to the regulatory commission and 30 possible new reactors waiting in the wings.
The rest of the world is also rapidly moving to nuclear power. France, Russia and Japan are not only going ahead with their own nuclear programs, they are also selling their technology in the developing world.
America, which once dominated this technology, is being left behind. Today 50% of the power generated in the US is still from coal and only 20% from nuclear reactors. The main culprit is public fear and nuclear power is regarded by many un-informed individuals as an illegitimate child of the atom bomb. Reversing the 50/20, coal / nuclear percentages should be a goal for all US citizens for both helping with the global warming issues and for America having less dependence on foreign oil.
However, this attitude change will probably take the next US President and the next generation of American citizens as the current administration and the general public today still seem to brand nuclear power as something to fear.
The real truth is exactly the opposite of that unreasonable fear.
---------------------------
UW Badger Herald
March 24, 2008
Letters to the Editor
No new nukes: Use solar, wind power
Recently, columnist Sam Clegg wrote about nuclear power plants and the good that they could do for Wisconsin’s economy (“Nuclear plant ban ridiculous” March 14). While a well-stated argument, there are some factors Mr. Clegg neglected to mention in his article. There is a reason the ban is in place right now and there are other, usable resources of energy that would be better for the environment and the residents of Wisconsin. In addition, there are the dangers that disposing of the radioactive nuclear waste has.
Nuclear power plants have not had the best history, which is why some people are skeptical of building more. The meltdowns of Chernobyl in Russia in 1986 and Three Mile Island in New York in 1979 should make people aware of the possible dangers nuclear power plants hold and why there is currently a ban in place to open more plants. Wisconsin’s own ban is in place to protect Wisconsin; the restriction stated in the ban is that there needs to be a waste disposal site nearby the nuclear power plants. Currently, there is not a site by the plant in Wisconsin, which is why there are no more plants being built.
If lifting this restriction will be helpful to Wisconsin’s economy, there should be more effort put in to establishing a safe way to dispose of the waste. Traditionally, huge amounts of water have been used to cool waste. The idea of cooling with more chemicals, like the liquid sodium, seem to be questionable. According to the Georgia State University HyperPhysics website, liquid sodium can burn if exposed to air or water and would need to be kept sealed at all times. This does not seem to be the best solution; we will be spending more money to build containment units for the liquid sodium and risking safety if the sodium is exposed.
Once the waste is cooled, the question remains as to where to store it. Since there is no such place in Wisconsin, the waste must be shipped elsewhere. Currently, this is Yucca Mountain in California. Though the dangers of travelling with radioactive materials have become less due to technologies, there are 2,017 miles to go across. Much could happen to cause a spill and damage the environment.
I do agree that there needs to be more resources found to help power Wisconsin. Fossil fuels are not renewable and will continue to go up in price because of that reason. Biofuels are becoming a lot more popular in research, but according to a 2008 “Energy Policy” article, biofuel prices are actually higher than fossil fuel prices and cost more in land usage due to the fact that there is less land for people to grow crops and live on. There are, however, more options being explored that are both renewable and cost less money.
Two options of which I found are solar and wind energy. Both of these power sources have become more popular in recent years. Wind energy especially has been getting a lot of press because of the wind farms that are being built right now. These wind turbines look like huge windmills that are a part of converting wind, a free renewable resource, into clean electric power. Renewwisconsin.org states there are already wind farms up and in use, supplying 6,000 people around Montfort, Wis., with power.
Solar power panels have become more popular as well. These panels are more individually placed on homes or businesses and can provide lighting and heating for a building at a cheaper rate than nuclear power plants and wind farms, simply because the sunlight is free. Solar panels store energy in them, so even on cloudy days there is enough stored energy to last.
There are many feasible reasons why nuclear power plants may not be the best solution to helping Wisconsin’s economy. They are practically disasters waiting to happen. If the Democratic Senate does not accept the proposal to lift the ban, it is not a ridiculous notion that the Democrats have no way of supporting. The reason would lie within the dangers of nuclear power plants and the new technologies that are being studied and used that would be better for the environment and cheaper for the residents of Wisconsin.
Sandy Bemis
UW senior, education
bemis@wisc.edu
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
March 23, 2008
Letter from Washington:
Nuclear industry to push stopgap waste sites
By Lisa Mascaro
Washington — The lobby of the headquarters of the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington features the organization’s name glowing in an artsy blue and white light projected on the floor.
Walking over the glow to the receptionist’s desk gives an Austin Powers vibe, a mix between what someone thought the future was supposed to look like and what really happened, which may be the predicament the industry finds itself in today.
The last nuclear plants were built 30 years ago, but as the nation hungers for new power sources — particularly those that do not increase the carbon footprint — nuclear energy emerges as an increasingly attractive option.
But what to do with the nuclear waste is still a problem.
Nevadans have fought for more than 20 years the government’s proposal to build the nation’s nuclear waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Odds are they are winning.
The dump was supposed to open 10 years ago, and now isn’t projected to open until after 2017. Patience is wearing thin. The industry wants new nuclear power plants and wants a solution for the waste.
Now, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main trade group representing the industry, is trying a new approach. The institute is quietly talking to communities across the nation to see if they are interested in hosting a temporary waste storage site — perhaps not just a dump, but a nuclear industrial park that could support ancillary businesses and bring in jobs.
The institute envisions two, maybe four, sites in rural communities that might see something in it for them. These sites wouldn’t replace the need for a long-term repository at Yucca Mountain, the institute is quick to add, but would be caretakers of the waste for the next 100 years.
Since fall, the institute’s new point man on the project, Marshall Cohen, has visited a few communities and is trying to reach out to more. He has spoke publicly at about a half-dozen industry events. He gave a printout of his 12-slide PowerPoint presentation to the Sun.
The sign taped to Cohen’s office door reads: “Think outside the Beltway.” He must be reading that sign every day because what he’s about to say next doesn’t sound like the old nuclear industry Nevadans know so well.
“It is our belief that this only works if there are some communities who express interest and would be willing to consider and discuss and host this kind of facility,” Cohen says.
The bill Congress passed in 1987 that singled out Yucca Mountain as the sole site under consideration for the repository became known as the “Screw Nevada Bill.”
When President Bush signed legislation in 2002 that determined the Nevada site would become the dump, he did so over the objections of the state’s governor. Much of Nevada’s antagonism with the government over Yucca Mountain stems from how the deal went down: The small state couldn’t stop what was being forced on it.
Cohen wasn’t involved back then. His career was making its own arc, from working on Robert Kennedy’s presidential campaign — he was with him in California the day before the candidate was shot — to becoming a media-turn-around expert.
“We’re in the very, very, very preliminary steps saying, ‘How should we do this? Where can we find communities that would be interested in having us come and talk to them?’?” he said. “That’s what we’re doing.”
He uses words like “comfort level” as he describes his efforts to find what might make a town want to volunteer as a host site.
“It’s going to vary by community,” he said. “Again, that’s the key to it: community.”
His own belief: An interim site could be on line and accepting waste within a decade.
---------------------------
Augusta Chronicle
March 23, 2008
A much-needed nuclear power renaissance is sweeping the world
By Dr. Susan Wood and Mal McKibben
Guest Columnists
There is no doubt that a renaissance of nuclear power is under way in the United States and around the world.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses and regulates commercial nuclear activities, has received expressions of interest for building 32 new reactors. They have received four license applications for combined construction and operation, and several utilities have submitted Early Site Permits, including Southern Nuclear (Georgia Power) and Duke Power. Many countries are building new reactors or plan to, including Canada, Brazil, England, France, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Finland, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and others.
THE REASON IS clear. People have become aware that for several decades, nuclear power has had an incredibly good record of safety, environmental protection and low costs, and everyone wants a way to produce electricity that does not pollute. A wise person once said, "Facts are stubborn things." Here are some pertinent facts:
- Safety. No one has died from the radiation from power reactors, spent fuel or radioactive waste except in the Chernobyl accident, which could not happen anywhere else -- yet the only competitors of nuclear power, coal and natural gas, each cause several thousand deaths each year, worldwide, from coal-mining accidents, gas explosions and fires. Also, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have estimated that 30,000 people die prematurely each year in the United States from the emissions of coal-powered plants. Nuclear is safer by a huge margin, and the next generation of nuclear plants, already being built, will be even safer.
- Environment. The outstanding environmental record of nuclear power plants is becoming legendary. They have no emissions that make acid rain, smog, global warming, ozone depletion or heavy-metal pollution. Many professional environmentalists and ecologists support nuclear power. A partial list includes: Dr. Patrick Moore, founder and past president of Greenpeace; Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue; James Lovelock, considered the founder of the environmental movement; Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore; Friends of the Earth; and Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute.
Global warming is indeed occurring, and the principal human contributor is carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from the burning of trees, coal, oil, and gas. Fortunately, we can do something about that without reducing our standard of living by going to nuclear production of electricity and using hydrogen for transportation. It is likely that the cheapest way to make hydrogen will be in nuclear plants.
- Cost. The operating cost for making electricity in nuclear plants is lower than any of its competitors. In 2006, nuclear plant operating cost in the United States averaged 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, coal 2.37, natural gas 6.75 and oil 9.63. Since then, the cost advantage of nuclear over coal has grown in part because coal plants are spending money to reduce their emissions. If construction costs are included, nuclear is already competitive, and is expected to gain an advantage as the price of new nuclear plants comes down, and the cost and time to get licenses is reduced.
- Public support. Americans have become aware of these advantages, and are supportive of nuclear power. Several national polls show that 68 to 70 percent of adult Americans support building more to meet our growing need for electricity. Support among people living near existing nuclear plants is 87 percent, and among college graduates with a technical degree is 85 percent.
IN SPITE OF this, a small minority of anti-nuclear zealots are mobilized to oppose all things nuclear. They claim that even a tiny amount of radiation is dangerous. If that were true, we would all be dead from the 370 millirem annual "background" radiation that we all receive, without harm, from natural sources plus medical and dental x-rays. There is no evidence that our background radiation is harmful.
The anti-nuclear community also exaggerates the problem of used nuclear fuel. When nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor, it is stored in cooling ponds at the reactor site until its radioactivity had decayed enough to be stored dry at the site in large shielded casks on concrete pads. These operations are quite safe, and well protected from terrorist attack.
Ultimately, used fuel will be recycled. That will do several important things -- recover the remaining 95 percent of the energy value that is still there, greatly reduce the radioactivity in the final waste, and allow all of the waste for the next 100 years, or longer, to be disposed of in Yucca Mountain.
Anti-nukes incorrectly claim, based on a couple of epidemiological studies, that people living near nuclear plants have an increased risk of developing leukemia. The incidence of leukemia varies widely with location. When a location with high incidence happens to be near a nuclear plant the anti-nukes say "Aha! The nuclear plant did it!" This ignores the hundred of independent and scholarly studies that have concluded the opposite.
The nuclear renaissance is real. It already is occurring. And folks who want cheap electricity and a clean environment are happy about that.
(The writers are, respectively, the chairwoman of the board of directors for Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness in Aiken, S.C.; and the executive director emeritus and a consultant for CNTA.)
---------------------------
Buffalo News
March 22, 2008
Another Voice / Environment
Producing nuclear energy is anything but green
By Judith Einach
Government administrators and industry loyalists call nuclear power a green alternative. They fail to admit that the entire fuel cycle, including mining and milling uranium, producing fuel rods, building nuclear power plants and dealing with nuclear wastes is anything but green. These processes use so much fossil fuel that the words describing the amount are outside our common vocabulary.
Nuclear power is the most dangerous way to boil water. Nuclear fission produces heat that boils water that in turn powers generators that produce electricity. Everything leading up to and following that process is fossil fuel intensive or a threat to health and safety.
That ugly word “reprocessing,” associated with extraction of usable weapons- grade uranium and plutonium from nuclear wastes, is now “recycling.” The industry claims untested technology will “recycle” some of the wastes by turning them into reusable material to produce more nuclear power. Let’s hope so because there is a limited amount of uranium and only some of it is suitable for energy production.
Green is supposed to mean sustainable. Nuclear power relies on a limited resource that will disappear faster as more nations build more reactors. In the wake of nuclear energy production we find horrible environmental damage that no one willingly takes responsibility for. What color is this?
Western New Yorkers ought to be especially conscious of the devastation caused by nuclear waste. The West Valley nuclear site near Buffalo houses this nation’s most complex mix of nuclear and hazardous wastes. The site is governed by a federal statute that requires the high-level wastes be moved to a national repository.
Yucca Mountain is the only site under consideration. But if Yucca opened tomorrow, the wastes stored in West Valley would not move to the front of the queue for 40 years. By then, it is expected Yucca will be full.
Yet every day more nuclear wastes are created. With the push to expand nuclear power there will be even more wastes with improper storage, monitoring and maintenance. Where in the world can all these wastes go? Where do we put the rubble from demolished nuclear plants and waste sites? There are no answers and no political will to resolve the problems.
Nuclear power is neither reliable nor economical. It produces base-load power, lacking the flexibility to meet peak demand. It’s dangerous to power up a nuclear plant quickly. Without this flexibility, nuclear power is primarily useful during the night when there is little demand for electricity.
Nuclear plants depend on fresh water to cool reactors. We see water diversions in the South taking water from people and thirsty crops to avoid a nuclear plant meltdown. Nuclear power has huge negatives, yet $150 billion of taxpayer money was given to the nuclear industry. The choice to do this is about power, not about green energy.
Judith Einach is director of the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes.
---------------------------
Nuclear Engineering
March 22, 2008
Recycling uranium and plutonium: where's it heading?
The availability of recyclable fissile and fertile materials able to provide fresh fuel for existing and future nuclear power plants is a key characteristic of nuclear energy. By Steve Kidd
Programmes for the recycling of plutonium were developed in the 1970s when it appeared that uranium would be in scarce supply and would become increasingly expensive. It was originally proposed that plutonium would be recycled through fast breeder reactors, that is, reactors with a uranium ‘blanket’ but which would produce slightly more plutonium than they consume. Thus it was envisaged that the world’s ‘low cost’ uranium resources, then estimated to be sufficient for only 50 years’ consumption, could be extended for hundreds of years.
As things transpired, the pressure on uranium resources was very much less than expected and prices remained low in the period up to 2003. This was caused by the discovery of several new extensive and low-cost uranium deposits, the entry onto the world market of large quantities of uranium from the dismantling of nuclear weapons and the slower growth of nuclear power than was expected back in the 1970s. There became little incentive to develop fast breeder reactors, particularly as these present major engineering challenges, which could prove expensive to resolve. Nevertheless, since the late 1970s, around 30% of spent fuel arisings from commercial nuclear reactors outside the former Soviet Union and its satellite states have been covered by reprocessing contracts with plants in France and the UK. Without fast breeder reactors, there has been an accumulation of separated plutonium stockpiles.
Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel was introduced mainly to reduce the stockpiles of plutonium, which were building up as spent fuel reprocessing contracts were fulfilled. MOX was therefore an expedient solution to a perceived problem, which had been created by changed circumstances. The MOX programmes have demonstrated that plutonium has some advantages as a nuclear fuel and so the stockpiles have economic value. The MOX era, however, may pass relatively quickly, even if plutonium stockpiles worldwide are not substantially reduced. Revived interest in nuclear power in the 21st Century, as a clean air solution which contributes to world sustainable development, is encouraging the development of new materials and technologies. In addition, the substantial rise in uranium prices since 2003 and the difficulties with commissioning waste repositories have prompted the beginning of a revaluation of recycling.
Currently 12 of the countries with nuclear energy programmes are committed to a closed nuclear fuel cycle but there are signs that the number will soon increase. In particular, the USA is reassessing its previous policy, set strongly against reprocessing with subsequent recycling of recovered materials. The decision to introduce MOX fuel from ex-weapons plutonium in civil reactors was an important factor in that country’s change of policy and the first assemblies are now in use in reactors operated by Duke Power. In November 2005 the American Nuclear Society released a position statement saying that it “believes that the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors based on fast neutron fission technology is important to the sustainability, reliability and security of the world’s long-term energy supply.” This will enable “extending by a hundred-fold the amount of energy extracted from the same amount of mined uranium.” The statement envisages onsite reprocessing of used fuel from fast reactors and says that “virtually all long-lived heavy elements are eliminated during fast reactor operation, leaving a small amount of fission product waste which requires assured isolation from the environment for less than 500 years.”
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) programme, announced by the US Department of Energy in early 2006, fits in closely with this. A major issue addressed is the efficiency of the current nuclear fuel cycle. The ‘once through’ cycle only uses part of the potential energy in the fuel, while effectively wasting substantial amounts of useable energy that could be tapped through recycling. While European countries and Japan have recycled some of the residual uranium and plutonium recovered from the spent fuel in light water reactors through MOX utilisation, no one has yet employed a comprehensive technology that includes full actinide recycle. In the USA this question is pressing since significant amounts of used nuclear fuel are stored in different locations around the country awaiting shipment to the planned geological repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This project is much-delayed, and in any case will fill very rapidly if it is used simply for used fuel rather than the separated wastes after reprocessing.
An early priority in GNEP is therefore the development of new reprocessing technologies to enable recycling of most of the used fuel. One of the concerns when reprocessing used nuclear fuel is ensuring that elements separated are not used to create a weapon. The Purex process, used in all existing reprocessing plants, has been employed for over half a century and has resulted in the accumulation of 240 tonnes of separated reactor-grade plutonium around the world (though some has been used in MOX). While this is not viable for weapons use, it is no longer seen as appropriate and future reprocessing will result in the plutonium being combined with some uranium and possibly with minor actinides. GNEP creates a framework where states that currently employ reprocessing technologies can collaborate to design and deploy advanced separations and fuel fabrication techniques that do not result in the accumulation of separated pure plutonium.
Several developments of Purex which fit the GNEP concept are being trialled in different countries, notably Urex+ in the USA and Coex in France. The latter separates uranium and plutonium (and possibly neptunium) together as well as a pure uranium stream, leaving other minor actinides with the fission products. The central feature of these variants is to keep the plutonium either with some uranium or with other transuranics which can be destroyed by burning in a fast neutron reactor – the plutonium being the main fuel constituent. Trials of some fuels arising from Urex+ reprocessing in the USA are being undertaken in the French Phenix fast reactor.
The second main technological development envisaged under GNEP is the advanced recycling reactor – basically a fast reactor capable of burning minor actinides. Thus used fuel from light water reactors would be reprocessed at a recycling centre and the transuranic product transferred to a fast reactor onsite, which both produces electricity at a capacity of perhaps 1000MWe and incinerates the actinides. A key objective of this programme is to obtain design certification of a standard fast reactor from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Related to this, nearly all the new reactor models being developed under the Generation IV and the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (Inpro) projects have closed fuel cycles recycling all the actinides. Although part of the motivation remains making savings in the use of the (now more expensive again) natural uranium resource, the key today is saving on used fuel arisings and developing ways to deal with the existing volumes of used fuel created by commercial nuclear power to date.
Looking at the more immediate term, Electricité de France (EdF) will continue to send for reprocessing 850 tonnes of its 1,200 tonnes of used fuel discharged each year. The remainder is preserved for later reprocessing to provide the plutonium required for the startup of Generation IV reactors, the prototype of which is envisaged by 2020. In Japan, the Rokkasho-mura reprocessing plant should be commissioned soon. European reprocessing of Japanese used fuel ended in 2005 and it is envisaged that 16-18 reactors will eventually be loaded with MOX fuel. Aomori prefecture in 2005 also approved construction of a MOX fuel fabrication facility but this is not expected to open until 2012 at the earliest – until then, fabrication of MOX for Japan will take place in Europe.
In the UK, the plant reprocessing Magnox fuel will close in 2012, following the permanent shutdown of all the reactors it serves and there continue to be uncertainties surrounding the future of the Thorp reprocessing plant and the associated MOX fuel fabrication facility. Nevertheless, the UK has a substantial inventory of both separated reactor-grade plutonium (over 100 tonnes) and a substantial amount (about 60,000 tonnes) of depleted uranium. This could form the foundation of an advanced reactor programme but a Royal Society report in September 2007 recommended that the plutonium be used in MOX fuel. This will depend on persuading reactor operators in the UK (including those running any new reactors) to adopt this as a fuelling strategy – it is by no means certain that they will. Russia may eventually achieve its stated aim of closing its fuel cycle, although it has so far achieved very little in this direction. Plans for expanding the Mayak reprocessing facility or building a second plant, as well as a fuel fabrication facility, have so far come to nought, but the revival in the Russian nuclear industry and its interest in playing a similar role to what the USA envisages for itself in GNEP, suggest that there will soon be some new developments.
Finally, the strong upward movement in uranium prices suggests that utilities owning inventories of reprocessed uranium (RepU) will look once again at utilising these. The greater expense at the conversion and enrichment stages may now be outweighed by the substantially increased prices for fresh fuel. EdF is at centre stage here, owning significant quantities of RepU as a strategic asset. A few years ago, these could fairly be viewed on the other side of the balance sheet, as a long-term liability, but such an assessment is now outdated. Certainly many European utilities (and maybe also some in the USA) are looking at RepU in a new light and possibly seeking to add to those who have already gone down this road (albeit in relatively small quantities).
To summarise, it seems clear that recycling remains a very live issue in the nuclear sector, indeed with an apparent push from several quarters to pursue it more vigorously in the future. Used fuel management is a huge and still growing business and options are being sought that hit a variety of requirements, certainly not merely economic but also considering environmental, resource sustainability and non-proliferation objectives.
--Author Info: Steve Kidd is Head of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, where he has worked since 1995 (when it was the Uranium Institute). Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the World Nuclear Association and/or its members
---------------------------
High Country News
March 20, 2008
The Longest Walk 2
Marty Durlin
On a chilly day in March, two dozen weary walkers are resting at the Ute Indian Museum in Montrose. In the shadow of western Colorado’s Shining Mountains, surrounded by relics of the tribe who once inhabited the area, the group is taking a two-day break on its five-month journey from California’s Alcatraz Island to the nation’s capital.
After 1,000 miles and a month on the road, the Long Walkers seem to enjoy relaxing in the comfortable atmosphere of the museum, eating pizza as they watch a film about Western Shoshone efforts to reclaim traditional lands. The walkers are young and old, Indian and white. There’s a core group of approximately 30, along with an ever-changing group of supporters, whose ranks ebb and flow as the walk heads east.
Their trek commemorates the Longest Walk of 1978, which began with 17 participants in San Francisco and ended five months later with 30,000 in Washington, D.C. The original Longest Walk halted a congressional effort to abrogate treaties that protect Native sovereignty. It also helped spur the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in August 1978.
The 2008 walk, which began Feb. 11, is “a cry out to all native people for unity and solidarity,” according to Jimbo Simmons, a Choctaw. It’s split into two different routes. Simmons is leading the northern one, which follows the same trail used by the walkers 30 years ago. And American Indian Movement co-founder Dennis Banks, now in his 70s, is leading the southern route, which passes through Indian land. Both Simmons and Banks are veterans of the original walk.
“Nothing’s changed,” Simmons says. “There’s still a systematic violation of human and natural rights.”
Despite the passage of the Religious Freedom Act, Simmons says threats to Indian sacred sites have intensified. He mentions 15 sites that are threatened or already compromised: Mount Shasta in California, for example, where tribes and environmentalists are fighting geothermal development, and Bear Butte in South Dakota, where bikers, chainsaws and a shooting range have desecrated Lakota sacred areas. At Yucca Mountain in Nevada, sacred to Shoshone and Paiute people, tribes have played a prominent part in protesting a long-planned nuclear waste dump.
Simmons emphasizes that “all life is sacred, all places are sacred. The survival of indigenous people depends not on just one area, but on the entire life system. Our cultural survival is at stake.”
There are as probably as many reasons for walking as there are walkers. For Willie Lone Wolf, a Navajo/Ute who left his construction job in Oakland, Calif., to join the walk as bus driver and drum keeper, the walk is “for our ancestors … our mother, the earth, all life that is sacred, for future generations.”
The hardest part so far, he says, was through Nevada, “the loneliest highway in America.” They were encouraged in this desolate stretch by the local Shoshones and the Paiutes, “who walked with us, fed and housed us, and took care of us.”
For Washoe Chris Fred, who joined in Carson City, the walk is a spiritual journey he undertook to cleanse himself from drinking.
Along the route, Simmons says, the walkers have received “many many medicines, representative of the support and need to protect the earth that people feel.” The medicines include feathers, staffs, medicine bundles and sage. Some of them are arranged on the dashboard of the “media bus,” which contains an audio studio for daily streaming and archiving (www.earthcycles.net), powered by a mix of solar and wind energy and heated with a wood stove.
“When we get to D.C., we’ll create one huge altar,” says Simmons, who predicts that 1 million people will turn out by the end of the march in July, when the walk’s two routes converge.
Simmons expects to see people from around the world, in support of the U.N.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly in September 2007. The United States joined New Zealand, Canada and Australia in voting against the declaration.
As for the apology to Native peoples recently issued by the U.S. Senate, Simmons says it’s “just words. If they were sincere, they’d give back the land and the livelihoods they destroyed.”
Simmons says the 1978 walk gave him, as an Indian youth, “a sense of identity and direction.” The younger people on the current walk, and those they meet along the way, participate in “holding the vision and moving forward with intention,” he says. “We’re investing in and trusting the younger generation, and depending on them for their advice and skills.”
After Montrose, the walkers move on to Gunnison, then to Pueblo, covering between 20 and 80 miles each day. The act of walking “brings back into focus the traditional knowledge that’s been locked away for generations,” says Simmons. “All of our traditions and ceremonies are based on nature. The walk itself is a prayer.”
--The author is the Online Editor for High Country News.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------