Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, May 2, 2008
---------------------------

KLAS-TV
May 01, 2008

Extension Requested to Challenge Yucca Mountain

Nevada's congressional delegation wants more to time to prepare challenges to the application for the nation's nuclear waste dump being built at Yucca Mountain -- about 90 miles from Las Vegas.

Right now, the state and other Yucca Mountain repository opponents would only get 30 days to review and challenge Department of Energy documents used to justify the project.

Nevada is asking for an extension to 180 days, saying the paperwork and research could take much longer.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May. 01, 2008

Yucca corrosion data found to be suspicious

Findings fuel further criticism

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Government scientists raised questions in recent weeks about Department of Energy experiments on how long it will take canisters containing highly radioactive nuclear waste to corrode after being placed within Yucca Mountain.

The discovery led DOE to replace the data that were part of its license application to build a repository at the Nevada site, a project official said Wednesday.

At the same time, DOE has launched a review of the challenged research, which involved the nickel-based Alloy 22 that will be the outer cover of waste-containing packages. In the experiments, Alloy 22 samples were subjected to a solution of corrosive chemicals and then weighed to determine how much they had degraded.

Technicians reviewing the results reported "documented, repeated and potentially significant excursions" from the American Society for Testing and Materials standard for handling corrosion test specimens, according to a March 5 document that surfaced this week.

The activity is taking place weeks before the department has said it plans to apply for a construction license. It fueled further criticism from Nevada critics of Yucca Mountain who charge DOE is rushing unduly to file for a license.

Russ Dyer, the chief scientist for the Yucca Mountain Project, said the suspicious corrosion data "was roped off" and is not part of the Yucca application.

Dyer said DOE initiated a corrective action to determine "what exactly happened in this experiment and the results that came out of it and the processes we used."

In the meantime, DOE is using corrosion rates resulting from a separate set of experiments that sought to determine how corrosion might develop in canister welds and other crevices of the waste package.

"What is the potential impact on total system performance, and the answer is none," Dyer said. To gain a license, DOE must show that the canisters together with other features of the repository can prevent radioactive material from leaking for periods close to a million years.

Steve Frishman, technical policy coordinator for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, maintained DOE was "papering over" a problem. He said the state may challenge DOE on the corrosion data during license hearings.

The discovery came as scientists from Sandia National Laboratories were reviewing corrosion data. They said they uncovered a "vulnerability" in the data that were collected over five years.

The Sandia findings were contained in a March 5 Power Point presentation that became available on a Yucca Mountain public document database.

After emerging from the corrosive bath, the Alloy 22 "coupons" were cleaned of corrosion before being weighed. Sandia reported the cleaning process "may have been incomplete."

As a result, salts and other residue may have skewed the weight of the samples, raising questions about how much corrosion had taken place. A heavier piece might suggest the metal could last longer.

Sandia said there is "less than a 50 percent chance" the corrosion data were invalid. "But given the critical nature of this parameter (it) must be confirmed."

"The corrosion rate is the core of the total system performance analysis," Frishman said. "When they are talking about containers that don't fail for hundreds of thousands of year, it is possible they are off by orders of magnitude."

The corrosion experiments were conducted at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. In 2006, DOE issued a stop work order on a separate set of corrosion experiments after Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors reported the work was based on humidity gauges that were not calibrated.

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

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

Platts
May 01, 2008

More time needed to review Yucca application: Nevada lawmakers

Washington (Platts)--30Apr2008

Nevada's congressional delegation has asked the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend the filing deadline for petitions and contentions related to the licensing of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

The lawmakers said Wednesday in a letter to the agency that parties to licensing should have up to 180 days after an application is docketed, or accepted for review, to file. NRC regulations now have a 30-day deadline for filing.

The lawmakers, all of whom oppose the Department of Energy's plan to dispose of utility spent nuclear fuel and defense high-level waste at Yucca Mountain, said that DOE has generated more than 30 million pages of data, studies and analyses that it considers relevant to licensing.

"Even if these documents were 'quick reads,' like novels, a person would need over 400 days, at eight hours per day, just to read them once-through," the letter said. "We are asking for less than half of that."

If licensed by NRC, DOE would be authorized to construct a repository deep within the mountain, roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas, that would be used to dispose of up to 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste.

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

E&ETV
May 01, 2008

Power:

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

(OnPoint, 01/24/2008)
Transcript

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

Jim Curtiss: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Curtiss: Thank you, Monica.

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

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

Heritage Foundation
May 01, 2008

Yucca Mountain Remains Critical to Spent Nuclear Fuel Management

by Jack Spencer and Nick Loris

The recent push to build new nuclear power plants in the United States is forcing some to con­sider alternatives to the Yucca Mountain geologic repository, located in Nevada, for spent nuclear fuel. These options include recycling nuclear fuel and opening interim storage facilities. Both options could play critical roles in any American nuclear power renaissance, but they simply cannot eliminate the need to open the Yucca Mountain repository.

The United States generates about 20 percent of its electricity from 104 nuclear power reactors, and these reactors in turn have generated over 56,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. Commonly referred to as waste, this spent fuel is in fact a potentially valuable resource.

Although politicians and the public have begun to accept that nuclear power is a clean and afford­able source of energy, questions remain about how to manage spent fuel. There are at least three solu­tions to this problem.

First, the spent fuel could be put directly into Yucca Mountain for permanent storage. While politics has made this impossible to date, no scientific, safety, or technological reason prevents it. Volumes of data attest to the repository's safety.[1] These data have been generated by numerous sources, including both pri­vate and public entities, and more studies are being conducted.

Second, the U.S. could recycle (reprocess) spent nuclear fuel, which still contains usable fuel that could be recovered and "used again" for future power gener­ation. This could be achieved through numerous methods. Some technologies have already been commercialized abroad, and others are being researched and developed. These technologies will enable more efficient use of uranium resources and could drastically reduce the amount of high-level nuclear waste. In the end, however, some byprod­uct will still need to be placed in permanent geo­logic storage.

Finally, the spent fuel could be stored on an interim basis at shorter-term storage facilities. This option also has advantages. Simply allowing the spent fuel to decay over time decreases its heat load, making it easier to store for the long term. Shorter-term storage would also provide time to develop new technologies that would improve long-term management of spent fuel.

Both recycling and interim storage would pro­vide flexibility, but geologic storage in Yucca Moun­tain will still be necessary.

A Comprehensive Approach

The United States is on the verge of a nuclear renaissance. U.S. demand for electricity is expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 25 years.

However, recent pushes to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will make it especially difficult to meet this demand with traditional energy sources, such as fossil fuel, which releases CO2 when burned. Despite the alleged promise of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, the current real­ity is that only nuclear power can provide large amounts of emissions-free electricity. If the nation is serious about reducing CO2, it must significantly expand nuclear power.

The extent of that expansion will determine the best mix of spent fuel management options. How­ever, two constants will be common to any work­able approach: It will be fundamentally different from the current strategy to manage spent nuclear fuel, and it must include the Yucca Mountain repository.

The Role of Yucca Mountain

In every scenario, the Yucca Mountain repository is critical to the long-term success of nuclear power in the United States. The reality is that some of the byproducts of nuclear fission will last a long time. Therefore, the U.S. needs a place where it can be safely stored and remain under the control of an enduring institution like the U.S. government after the facility is closed. If properly managed, Yucca Mountain should be adequate for that purpose.

While the current direct deposit scenario—in which spent fuel will be taken directly from the reac­tor and placed into storage—dictates that numerous Yucca-like repositories be developed, other scenarios that include processing and recycling spent fuel could ensure that Yucca alone would be adequate to store America's nuclear waste indefinitely. Either way, the Yucca Mountain repository must remain the final destination for America's nuclear waste. Maxi­mizing Yucca Mountain's potential requires that any new spent fuel management regime focus on mini­mizing waste volume and heat content.

Regrettably, the Yucca Mountain repository is already over a decade behind schedule and proba­bly will not open until about 2020. The primary reason is politics. Opposition, especially from anti-nuclear activists and the Nevada congressional del­egation, has slowed progress at Yucca. While the U.S. was not building new reactors, the need to open Yucca was not as pressing, but it is still critical in the long term, and the emerging recognition that nuclear energy is critical to meeting U.S. energy and environmental objectives has made the need seem even more urgent.

The next step toward opening Yucca is for the U.S. Department of Energy to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as soon as possible. While this may seem arcane, it is critical. NRC commissioners serve five-year terms and are appointed by the President and con­firmed by the Senate. Submitting the application by mid-2008 will allow the current NRC commission­ers to place the application on the NRC docket for consideration.

This ensures that, at a minimum, the NRC will have the opportunity to consider the Yucca Moun­tain construction application. Waiting to submit the application would give the next President and Con­gress the opportunity to seed the commission with anti-Yucca appointees who could choose to leave the application off the docket, thus avoiding its con­sideration and leaving the U.S. with no set policy for dealing with spent fuel.

Yucca Is Not Enough

The United States has approximately 56,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste stored at over 100 sites in 39 states.[2] Furthermore, America's 104 com­mercial nuclear reactors are producing approxi­mately 2,000 tons of spent fuel annually.

The first problem with Yucca Mountain is that the applicable statute artificially constrains Yucca's capacity to 70,000 tons of waste. This was decided nearly three decades ago when most believed that nuclear power had little future in the U.S., but with nuclear power likely to expand in coming years— perhaps dramatically—the current program for managing America's nuclear waste is infeasible.

The actual capacity of Yucca Mountain is much larger. Numerous bills have been offered in recent years to repeal the artificial 70,000-ton capacity restraint and replace it with a more scientifically cal­culated cap.[3] The Department of Energy believes that the Yucca repository could safely hold 120,000 tons of waste.[4] Some believe the capacity is even greater. According to the Department of Energy, the expanded capacity of Yucca Mountain would likely be adequate to hold all of the spent nuclear fuel pro­duced by currently operating reactors.[5]

Yet even with the expanded capacity, Yucca Mountain could not hold all of America's spent fuel if the U.S. adds nuclear capacity. According to one analysis, assuming 1.8 percent growth in America's nuclear capacity after 2010, the U.S. would fill a 120,000-ton Yucca by 2030. At this growth rate, the U.S. would need nine Yucca Mountains by the end of the 21st century.[6]

The possibility of carbon constraints and other anti–fossil fuel restrictions raises the prospects of much more nuclear power in the United States. While Yucca Mountain will play an extremely important role in America's spent fuel management system, a more practical approach would use recy­cling, interim storage, and other tools to manage spent fuel.

Interim Storage

Spent fuel is highly radioactive when it is removed from the reactor. All radioactive materials decay, but while some lose their radioactivity within fractions of a second, others take billions of years. However, most stabilize within an intermediate period. The radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel falls to about 1 percent of its original levels within a year and to 0.1 percent within 40 years.[7] This character­istic makes interim storage an important element of spent fuel management.

Although the United States has a de facto interim storage system because the federal government has not fulfilled its legal obligation to take possession of and dispose of America's spent fuel, it does not fully integrate interim storage into its spent fuel regime.

Interim storage could be integrated in a number of capacities. It could be done on-site. Under this system, the fuel would be removed from a nuclear reactor's cooling pools and placed in an on-site facil­ity before it is moved to another location for perma­nent storage for further processing, as is done in some other countries, such as Finland.

Spent fuel could also be collected and stored at one or multiple off-site locations. These locations could be co-located with other spent fuel processing facilities. Yucca Mountain could be an optimal loca­tion for an interim storage facility. Either way, interim storage has some advantages that spent fuel managers may find attractive.

First, permanent geologic storage is a scarce resource. Although a geologic storage facility's capacity is often expressed in terms of volume, the primary limiting factor is heat load. Radioactive material gives off heat as it decays. The more it has decayed, the less heat it will give off, allowing more to be stored in any one place. Thus, allowing the fuel to decay for a few decades at an interim storage facility would ultimately allow storage of more spent fuel in a long-term geologic storage facility, even without further processing.

Introducing interim storage would allow far more flexible use of Yucca Mountain. However, adding interim storage to the U.S. spent fuel man­agement regime cannot eliminate the vital role of the Yucca Mountain repository. Opening Yucca must remain a top U.S. priority.

Second, interim storage frees cooling pool capac­ity. When spent fuel rods are removed from the reactors, they are placed in cooling pools. After a reactor's pools are full, it would essentially be forced to shut down because there is nowhere else to put spent fuel rods.

This is a problem in the United States, where plants were built with spent fuel pools under the assumption that the spent fuel rods would be removed and stored off-site. However, the politics of Yucca Mountain has prevented the U.S. from exe­cuting its spent fuel management strategy as planned. U.S. plants are facing the real possibility of filling their cooling pools. Interim storage should be an option in the U.S. as part of a comprehensive spent fuel management regime along with perma­nent geologic storage and recycling.

Many types of interim storage regimes are used in other parts of the world. For instance, Germany operates multiple interim storage facilities that are independent of the German reactor sites, whereas Finland has on-site interim storage operations. In the U.S., interim storage would likely be applied in multiple ways due to the diversity of U.S. nuclear power plants.

Recycling

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 (U-235). Once the enriched fuel 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 been successful in commercializing a process. They remove the uranium and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using this method, America's 56,000 tons of spent fuel contains roughly enough fuel to power every U.S. household for 12 years.

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 would 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, the private sector should make these decisions 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.

What the U.S. Should Do

To meet the growing demand for electricity and to satisfy public desires for clean, safe, and afford­able energy, the U.S. government should establish a practical, comprehensive, and sensible regime to manage spent nuclear fuel. Specifically:

The U.S. Department of Energy should submit a license application for the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by mid-2008.

Congress should replace the artificial 70,000-ton cap on Yucca Mountain with a more scientif­ically calculated cap.

Congress should acknowledge that the current regime for managing spent nuclear fuel is broken and engage in a process to develop a new ratio­nal, market-based approach to managing spent nuclear fuel that can support a broad expansion of nuclear power in the United States.

Conclusion

The public desires energy that is clean, safe, and affordable, and nuclear energy can meet all three of these criteria. Managing spent nuclear fuel has been a political sticking point for the advancement of nuclear energy in the United States. Yucca Moun­tain is crucial to resolving the issue of spent nuclear fuel, but a more practical and comprehensive approach would include a combination of interim storage, recycling, and geological storage.

--Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy and Nicolas Loris is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] U.S. Department of Energy, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, October 2007, at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/seis/docs/

001_summary.pdf (April 14, 2008), and U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologic Survey, Yucca Mountain as a Radioactive Waste Repository, 1999, at http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/circular/c1184/C1184.pdf (April 14, 2008).

[2] Samuel W. Bodman, U.S. Secretary of Energy, letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, March 6, 2007, at http://www.energy.gov/media/BodmanLetterToPelosi.pdf (April 24, 2008).

[3] Two recent examples are the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008 (S. 2551) and the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act (S. 2589, 109th Congress).

[4] Bodman, letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

[5] Ibid.

[6] 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).

[7] Posiva Oy, "Spent Nuclear Fuel," at http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/ydinjate_kaytetty.html (February 25, 2008).

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

Long Beach Press-Telegram
May 01, 2008

Nuclear power? Not so fast

Thomas D. Elias

Ever since former Vice President Albert Gore won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for his fight against expanding climate change, there have been claims that nuclear power plants are the easy solution. They give phenomenal amounts energy, after all, without much carbon production.

Some who seek facile solutions say it's about time to dump the safeguards first proposed in the 1976 Proposition 15, then signed into law by ex-Gov. Jerry Brown, which essentially put a stop to atomic power construction in this state after completion of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the central coast.

One example: Last fall, Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Orange County introduced a bill aiming to permit construction of a new nuclear power plant if 20 percent of the power were used for desalination facilities. That bill went nowhere, despite rampant threats of a drought.

It met that fate because building and maintaining new nukes is no simple matter, if California's experience means anything. And if California's own experience with nuclear power doesn't matter in this state, something is wrong.

Take the very latest glitch, revealed last winter by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission after examining the record of the San Onofre nuclear generating station near San Clemente, whose reactors produce power for 2.75 million households served by Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the city of Riverside's municipal utility.

The NRC found numerous violations of rules and falsified records perpetrated by employees at San Onofre, including one worker who faked records for more than five years to show operators made hourly fire patrols when they had not.

There were also two unspecified security lapses, whose details were not unveiled publicly because of what they might reveal to possible terrorist attackers.

No one suggested these incidents represented a "serious threat" to the safety of San Onofre or its neighbors. But they might be. For if an uncontrolled fire broke out in a nuclear facility, one consequence could be radiation leaks. And security lapses could have all manner of unknown ill effects.

Then there was the "mirror image" problem during the construction of Diablo Canyon, which saw workers essentially build that plant backward and then have to do it over again, costing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. an overrun of more than $3 billion in 1970s-era currency. Make the same kind of mistake today and the costs might be triple or more.

There's also the problem of nuclear waste, for which there is no answer in the offing. For decades, spent fuel from most American nuclear power plants went to points in South Carolina and Washington state. But those dumps are at or near capacity and most waste both in this country and around the world is now stored at or near the places where it is produced.

So far, no country has built a deep geological repository for radioactive waste, and there is certainly no American site in prospect anytime soon. For a while, Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush eyed a space beneath southern Nevada's Yucca Mountain, but once California elected Barbara Boxer to the U.S. Senate, that was pretty much out. Boxer bought into the theory that radioactivity from Yucca Mountain might trickle into underground water supplies that eventually flow to the Colorado River, and thus pollute much of California's and Arizona's water supply for generations to come.

Yucca Mountain is also highly unpopular in Nevada itself, and every Democratic presidential candidate this year pledged it would not be used for spent fuel. Republican John McCain was less definite about that, even though water earmarked for his home state of Arizona could be affected.

The upshot is that there can be no absolute guarantees of either environmental purity, protection from employee negligence or safety from terrorism at any new nuclear power plant. All of which means politicians like DeVore who seek facile ways to solve both energy and water problems need to look elsewhere. It is not yet time to give up the protections Californians have long enjoyed. Far better to look toward more emphasis on renewable energy sources like wind, sun and geothermal than to bank on the uncertainties of the atom and the people associated with it.

--Thomas D. Elias is a syndicated columnist who covers California issues (e-mail: tdelias@aol.com).

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

Rutland Herald
May 01, 2008

Wikipedia distorts nuclear history

By Eesha Williams

There are only seven Web sites that more people use than Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that lets anyone edit most of its articles. None of the sites that are more popular than Wikipedia have as their main purpose producing information about the world. The top sites, Google and Yahoo, mainly function as links to other sites. Facebook and Myspace, which people use to keep in touch with their friends, are third and fifth most popular, respectively. The other sites that are more visited than Wikipedia are YouTube (a kind of online TV), eBay (a virtual flea market), and Microsoft's version of Google.

For high school and college students researching their papers, Wikipedia is indisputably source number one.

Wikipedia was founded in 2001. It now has 16 employees. For such a young and small organization, it has made its share of headlines. The New York Times covered the story when Wal-Mart employees were found to have anonymously modified Wikipedia's article on Wal-Mart's labor practices, and ExxonMobil employees were caught anonymously changing the section on their company's disastrous oil spill in Valdez, Alaska. None of these editors disclosed who they worked for; a grad student created a program that ferreted out the names of the companies that owned the computers used to make the changes. More recently, one of Wikipedia's board members was criticized for freezing the site's article about his girlfriend, a conservative Fox TV commentator.

While Wikipedia lets anyone edit most of its articles, some can only be modified by Wikipedia staff. It is often hard or impossible to find out the identity of the people who wrote and/or modified an article.

It's likely that any college student who was assigned to write a research paper on nuclear power would do a Google search for those two words. A person who recently moved to an area near a nuclear power plant might do the same thing. The first result is Wikipedia's article on the subject. The article's introduction is locked, so only Wikipedia staff can edit it.

Printed out, Wikipedia's "Nuclear Power" article runs to about 20 pages. It serves as a good example of the famous Web site's flaws.

Nuclear power provides almost a fifth of the nation's electricity. The industry's two biggest problems are what to do with nuclear waste and the risk of a Chernobyl type accident.

Wikipedia bends over backwards to downplay these problems. And it fails to mention that there are much cheaper, safer and more environmentally friendly alternatives to nuclear power. The article also fails to mention the taxpayer subsidies that created the nuclear power industry in the 1950s and 1960s, that allowed the industry to grow and that keep it alive today.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 effectively created the nuclear power industry. The government provided the industry with millions of dollars of free research, heavily subsidized fuel, discounted waste disposal, tax breaks, and, perhaps most significantly, taxpayer-subsidized insurance in case of an accident. The insurance was provided by the Price Anderson Act of 1957. Congress has renewed the act approximately once every 10 years, and it's still in effect.

Between 1974 and 2005, the federal government spent (in 2005 dollars) on research and development $48 billion on nuclear power, $20 billion on fossil fuels, $12 billion for renewable energy like wind and solar, and $12 billion on energy efficiency.

A 1982 study performed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Congress predicted that a serious accident at the Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City would kill 50,000 people and result in 100,000 "radiation injuries" and $300 billion in property damage. This study has never been updated. The Wikipedia article "Nuclear Power" does not mention it.

Former federal prosecutor Kenneth McCallion wrote in his 1995 book, "Shoreham and the Rise and Fall of the Nuclear Power Industry" that "James Asselstine, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has concluded that there is at least a 45 percent chance of a meltdown of a nuclear reactor somewhere in the United States in the next 20 years."

If a plane hit the so-called "spent fuel pool" (the water-filled nuclear waste storage area) at a nuclear power plant, a catastrophic nuclear emergency could ensue, according to a 2004 report by the National Academies of Science. On Sept. 11, 2001 one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center had minutes earlier flown almost directly above the Indian Point plant.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Soviet Union in 1986 has killed or will kill (by cancer) an estimated 9,000 people, according to a United Nations report. The Wikipedia article wrongly puts the number at 4,050.

President Jimmy Carter's Department of Energy agreed in 1977 to take all the industry's "high-level" nuclear waste. It wasn't until 1987 that Congress decided where the federal government would dump the nuclear waste that Carter had offered to take: Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain still has not opened. The U.S. Department of Energy estimated in 2001 that the total cost of the dump would be about $58 billion. The waste is still being stored around the nation near the 103 reactors where it's created.

In 1995 the National Academies of Science issued a report that said nuclear waste kept at Yucca could still be deadly in 1 million years. The waste needs to be protected by armed guards around the clock.

The Wikipedia article repeats a claim that the industry has been making with no evidence for the past 60 years: "The current waste may well become a valuable resource in the future."

Spending one dollar on energy efficiency programs like Efficiency Vermont saves approximately three times as much energy as spending one dollar on nuclear power generates. That's according to a 2005 study by Amory Lovins in the journal Nuclear Engineering International. The dollar spent on energy efficiency also creates more jobs than the dollar spent on nuclear.

In other words, if Americans took the money they now give to corporations like Entergy Nuclear for electricity from nuclear power plants and instead spent it on programs like Efficiency Vermont, the nation's 65 nuclear plants could be closed, electricity bills would go down, and there would be a net increase in jobs.

Wind power is cheaper than nuclear power. Wind power and energy-efficiency programs are at least twice as cost-effective as nuclear power at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's because of the fossil fuel emissions caused by construction of nuclear power plants, mining and transporting nuclear fuel, and transporting, guarding and storing nuclear waste. Nuclear power causes global warming.

On May 2, 1977, police arrested 1,414 protesters at the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. In June 1978, some 12,000 people attended a protest at Seabrook. In August 1978, almost 500 people were arrested for protesting at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. In May 1979, in Washington, D.C., about 70,000 people, including the governor of California, attended a march and rally against nuclear power. On June 2, 1979, about 500 people were arrested for protesting construction of the Black Fox nuclear power plant in Oklahoma. The next day, 15,000 people attended a rally at the Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island, N.Y.; about 600 were arrested. On June 30, 1979, about 38,000 people attended a protest rally at Diablo Canyon. On August 23, 1979, in New York City about 200,000 people attended a rally against nuclear power. On September 23, 1979, about 167 protesters were arrested at Vermont Yankee. On June 22, 1980, about 15,000 people attended a protest near the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California.

No new nuclear power plants have been ordered in the U.S. since 1978.

Protests preceded the shutdown of the Shoreham, Yankee Atomic, Millstone I, Rancho Seco, and Maine Yankee nuclear power plants. A 2007 article in the Journal of American History did not hesitate to give protesters credit for the decline of the nuclear power industry: "The protestors lost their battle [when Diablo Canyon opened in 1984], but in a sense they won the larger war, for nuclear plant construction ended across the country in 1986."

The Wikipedia article says, "[P]olitical resistance to nuclear power has only ever been successful in New Zealand, and parts of Europe and the Philippines."

--Eesha Williams is a graduate student in history at the University of Massachusetts and author of the book "Grassroots Journalism." He lives in Dummerston.

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

Las Vegas SUN
April 29, 2008

Roll Call looks at Reid as GOP target in 2010

By Jon Ralston

The capital publication Roll Call takes a look today at Harry Reid’s prospects in 2010:

Reid’s Next Act Tests His Skills Here, Home

By Erin P. Billings
Roll Call Staff
April 29, 2008

For most Congressional Democrats, 2009 holds the promise of stronger majorities in the House and Senate, and control of the White House for the first time in nearly a decade. But for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the 111th Congress is shaping up to be the most taxing period of his political life as he prepares to navigate the challenges of a re-election campaign, the demands of his leadership post and the wants of a new president.

Reid will begin next year as a top Republican target in an unpredictable state that is solidly in the swing category. He also will be facing his second two-year stint as the Majority Leader against a rookie administration that will either tap him to be its top lieutenant or force him to be its chief adversary to a time-consuming legislative agenda.

Reid will have to maneuver carefully, and even his staunchest allies acknowledge they might have to pinch hit on the floor, in crafting policy or taking on the Democratic fight against the GOP. Senate Democrats also uniformly say their top priority next cycle is ensuring their leader’s political survival.

“They will try to target him,” Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said. “But I am sure he will take his re-election seriously and devote a proper amount of time to it. And there are good people on our side to pick up the slack if he needs us.”

“It will be all hands on deck,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who also is up for re-election next cycle. “Every single week, Senate Democrats will find ways to be helpful and supportive of him on the schedule, on legislative issues, whatever he needs. We understand the huge number of hours it takes when you are in a race.”

Reid is one of 15 Democrats up in 2010, but his goal of securing a fifth term has unique complications because of the political landscape in his home state and his status as one of the Democrats’ most prominent figures. Republicans have already promised to take on Reid, aiming to re-create their historical 2004 toppling of Reid’s predecessor, then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and one of Reid’s closest Senate confidants, said he’s well aware of the difficulties confronting Reid during the next two years. Still, Schumer argued confidently that Reid will have no trouble securing another term, while also simultaneously guiding the Senate through another demanding Congress.

“It’s not going to be a problem,” Schumer said. “First, he’s very capable of doing many jobs very well at the same time. Second, he’s already working very hard in Nevada. I am not worried at all.”

Subordinate Support

Worried or not, most Senate Democrats concede Reid will have to carefully parse his schedule in 2009 and 2010 given the premium he’ll be putting on Nevada politics and the time he’ll have to devote to a new administration. Inevitably, a new president –– regardless of party –– will require Congress to spend more days in session than President Bush did in his final two years in office.

“He’s going to have to delegate –– there’s no way he’s going to be able to do it all,” one Democratic Senate strategist said of Reid. “He can spend one weekend here, but he can’t spend more than that.”

With that in mind, many Senate Democrats say Reid probably will have to lean more heavily on his top surrogates, such as Schumer, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Conference Secretary Patty Murray (Wash.) to help carry the load during the 111th Congress. The situation is familiar territory for Reid, who not only took over many of Daschle’s floor duties while the then-Minority Leader was running in 2004, but who also has never shied away from spreading out the workload to the rest of his leadership lineup.

“His handling of the floor has got to change; that will be difficult for him,” a senior Senate Democratic aide said. “The good news is he trusts his leadership team. That will make it easier to divvy up those responsibilities and delegate responsibilities to them.”

These days, Reid primarily makes the time-consuming trek home to Nevada during the Senate’s recess periods, about once every month or two. Reid’s staff insists that his Senate leadership role and his travel schedule will remain the same during the next Congress, even as they concede that he might be heading toward a tough re-election.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said his boss knows what’s ahead, and while he may not be showing it now, he “is concerned about his re-election.” Manley said Reid “has always had to balance his role as a leader and as a Senator,” and the 111th Congress will be no different.

Presidential Pitfalls

The X-factor next year will be in which Senator secures the presidency this November. Democrats and Republicans alike say they expect each of the three remaining contenders, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), will present sweeping plans for Congress to enact. Yet, many also anticipate the trio to show greater deference for their one-time employer, and former colleagues, than did Bush.

Reid’s particular challenge will be working with the Senator turned president to rack up voter-magnet accomplishments, while keeping an eye squarely on Nevada. Reid will have to be mindful of appearing too liberal in siding with a Democratic president, or too ideological in opposing a new Republican executive.

“He’s going to either be carrying the water for Hillary or Obama, or constantly fighting McCain,” a senior Republican Senate aide said.

But an ex-Reid staffer said that if the next president is inclined to negotiate, Reid will be in his element –– helping to cut deals and reach compromise. This one-time aide said that either way, “it won’t be as complicated or as difficult as it has been with the current administration.”

Manley said Reid knew coming into the top Democratic post in 2005 –– first in the minority and now in the majority –– that Republicans would target him. Daschle ended up spending $19 million to try to beat back a challenge from now-Sen. John Thune (R), whose successful campaign was built on charges that Daschle –– as a liberal party leader –– was an “obstructionist” to Bush’s agenda and was out of touch with conservative South Dakota values.

“He vowed when he became leader that wasn’t going to happen to him,” Manley said. “The war room was a small but important demonstration of the fact that he recognizes that Democrats as a whole need to do a better job at managing an aggressive press operation.”

Manley is referring to the Democratic leader’s 3-year-old communications center, dubbed the “war room,” which serves as ground zero for Reid and the Senate Conference’s messaging efforts. The strategic hub is home not only to his national press team but also a home state press secretary, who looks to navigate the tricky waters of keeping Reid’s leadership message in line with Nevada politics.

Daschle never had a similar message operation, which might have led to some of his difficulties reconciling his Minority Leader duties with his South Dakota re-election bid.

Reid’s and Daschle’s political circumstances are far from identical. Reid’s state is centrist, while Daschle’s is firmly Republican. Reid’s personal politics on issues like guns and abortion rights are right of his party, while Daschle’s politics were sometimes out of line with his conservative electorate. Perhaps most importantly, the bench of GOP candidates to field against Reid next cycle is relatively thin, whereas Daschle faced the challenge of a well-known and well-financed rival.

So far, the leading contender to take on Reid in 2010 is third-term Nevada Republican Rep. Jon Porter.

Thune said it is difficult to predict Reid’s political fate, saying: “It depends on if the leader is not in sync with his constituents. Then you face a greater danger of becoming a target like that.”

“The trick is to take your leadership post when you get into cycle and use it to your advantage,” said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist and former top aide to then-Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.). “Make sure you are staying on the right issues. I don’t see any sign that Reid is out of touch with Nevada.”

Not surprisingly, Reid’s allies and detractors disagree on whether the Majority Leader’s politics have changed since he became the top Senate Democrat three years ago.

Reid has long enjoyed praise for his home-state positions on issues involving water, transportation and the environment, particularly his steadfast opposition to making Nevada’s Yucca Mountain a nuclear waste repository. Yet, the Nevada Democrat has attracted his share of criticism, including for his off-the-cuff remarks, like calling Bush a “loser” or a “liar,” or saying that the “war is lost,” or for his decision last year to oppose the development new coal energy plants in eastern Nevada.

Either way, Republicans will be gunning for a Daschle replay, just as Democrats have done this cycle in going after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). McConnell is by no means assured his re-election but has the benefit of serving a conservative state and having amassed an $8 million war chest.

Asked whether he believes Reid will be a target next cycle, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said: “Just ask Tom Daschle or Mitch McConnell –– that’s the best evidence. Leaders are always high on the opposition’s target list.”

Money and Staff Preparations

Reid has made little secret of his re-election plans, going to great lengths last fall to dispel rumors that he was considering retirement after this, his fourth term. It was around that time that Reid hired back his one-time chief of staff Susan McCue as a political consultant, a move that was billed as a 2010 ground-laying maneuver.

Since then, however, Reid has kept much of his re-election politicking at bay. While his personal staff recently has been instructed to make time in Nevada a higher priority, Reid has yet to assemble a formal campaign apparatus nor has he started to raise money in earnest for his race. Those close to Reid predict that McCue will become Reid’s top campaign strategist, either officially or unofficially, while his fundraising machine will kick into higher gear later this year.

“If you start too early, you would show you are nervous,” a former Daschle aide said. “If Reid starts showing signs he’s in trouble, the noise machine is going to pop.”

Reid, who is expected to raise at least $10 million for 2010, had $2.4 million in the bank as of March 31. Reid raised $7 million for his re-election in 2004, which he won 61 percent of the vote –– a more comfortable margin than his some 400-vote victory in 1998 over then-GOP Rep. and now-Sen. John Ensign.

Manley said Reid will be well-funded when his election comes near, saying now his focus is on 2008 and making sure he doesn’t “step over the fundraising operations of his colleagues.”

“It’s not like he’s going to have a problem raising money,” Manley said.

Democrats in Washington and Nevada argue that Reid has some built-in advantages, including that he helped register 50,000 new Democratic voters this year during the state’s January presidential caucuses. That move was viewed as a critical boost for Reid, whose poll numbers dipped to new lows last fall in a state that President Bush carried with 51 percent in 2004.

Yet Reid still has the major hurdle of connecting in Nevada, where the population is transient while growing. There could be a new electorate to which Reid is going to have to make his case, a reality that means having to spend more time in the state and paying greater attention to paid and earned media.

“The challenge for Sen. Reid is the level of growth Nevada has experienced. He’s going to have to do a fair amount of reintroduction so they can get to know him once again or get to know him for the first time,” Reid’s ex-aide said. “He’ll probably be back there more often.”

Ensign, Reid’s one-time rival and chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, tried to deflect questions on whether he thinks Reid –– now a friend –– can be beat. Instead, Ensign referred to recent Nevada polling that showed Reid’s approval ratings at just more than 30 percent.

“It’s difficult being in a swing state and being a leader, especially in the Senate and especially if you don’t have the White House,” Ensign said. “You have to convince voters back home that you’ve worked for them.”

A ‘Nevada Guy’

Reid acknowledges that during his first two years as Majority Leader, he’s had to take a more partisan bent against an uncompromising Bush administration. Reid told Roll Call in December that his drop in the polls is largely a reflection of Nevadans’ disdain for that political conflict, which he had hoped to pass off by now to the Democratic presidential nominee.

“I’m the face of the Democrats,” Reid said in December. “Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and I share that, and I take a lot of arrows … a lot of the things that I do are very partisan. It’s hard for the people of the state of Nevada to accept me as a partisan person.”

And that could be Reid’s greatest burden, according to one Republican Senator, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity. This Senator said Reid has enjoyed strong support from Nevadans even through his mistakes, but the tone he’s had to take as Majority Leader has started to wear on them.

“People in Nevada are disappointed,” this GOP Senator said.

Billy Vassiliadis, a Reid ally who heads the consulting firm R & R Partners in Las Vegas, said Reid has “had to carry the national water for the party, and Nevada is not an extremely partisan state. I think that’s probably one of the issues he’s had to and will have to contend with, but people recognize Harry as being a real Nevada guy.”

But Vassiliadis said Reid has played his cards wisely and is sensitive to Nevada’s priorities. Plus, he said, Nevadans understand and appreciate Reid’s Majority Leader status and what that position can mean for them.

“I do think there is a feeling that nobody in Washington gets us,” he said. “But there is a certain comfort in having Harry Reid back there. There’s a sense of protection.”

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

Reno Gazette Journal
April 29, 2008

Nevada ranks last in federal money

By Steve Timko
stimko@rgj.com

Nevada ranked last in federal money returned per capita to the state in 2006-07, according to a recently released U.S. Census Bureau report.

The Census Bureau said Nevada got $5,852 per capita that year, with the biggest discrepancy in Medicare and Medicaid. The national average was $1,891 per resident while Nevada got $1,001 per resident.

The reasons included the state's tight purse strings and demographics.

It often takes a commitment from the state to give money to get federal money, and Nevada isn't spending the money, administrators said. Because Nevada's percentage of senior citizens isn't as high as the rest of the nation, there's less Social Security and Medicare money flowing to the state.

The state also gets few grants from the National Institutes of Health, which does medical research, and Food and Nutrition Service spending, which handles food stamps; Women, Infants and Children and the school lunch program.

Nevada has a historically low participation rate in the food stamp program, said Jeff Brenn, chief of eligibility and payments for the Nevada Welfare Division.

"We have a very low participation rate compared to the rest of the country, so we don't get as many federal dollars coming in," Brenn said.

The low participation rate could be cultural, Brenn said. The state attempts outreach programs to increase participation and has made partnerships with groups such as the Food Bank of Northern Nevada to take applications outside welfare offices, Brenn said.

Angela Dazey, agency relations program manager for Food Bank of Northern Nevada, said the state is eligible to receive $292 million in food stamp benefits each year but $170 million goes unused.

"We're not really sure why," Dazey said. "We think part of it might be access."

While the welfare division has formed partnerships to make food stamps more readily available, the offices are open when many people might be working, Dazey said.

Nevada also has a 12-page application for food stamps that can be difficult to fill out, Dazey said. The California application is two pages. Other states allow for filing online. Nevada does not, she said.

"Our low income families and the low income seniors miss out of a product they need and, as a state, are missing out on our tax dollars coming back into the state. They're already paid," Dazey said.

While Nevada lags in spending by the Army and Navy, Air Force spending is higher. The Bureau of Land Management, which owns two-thirds of Nevada, spends a lot of money in Nevada. And the biggest surplus in spending comes from the Department of Energy, which is overseeing the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository program.

Nevada's Medicaid program -- which provides medical insurance for people who don't have health insurance -- is close to having only the coverage required by federal law, said Charles Duarte, administrator for the Nevada Division of Health Care Financing and Policy.

"The bottom line is that we have a relatively basic program," Duarte said. "When you look at spending per capita on Medicaid services, we routinely rank near the bottom or at the bottom."

For instance, 28 other states have the Medically Needy Program for people not eligible for Medicaid to deduct what they spend for medical treatment to qualify for Medicaid. The federal government requires state governments to match Medicaid contributions, and Nevada does not have money set aside to do that, Duarte said.

Nevada's lack of Medicaid programs shows up in higher health insurance premiums, said Dwight Hansen, director of financial services for the Nevada Hospital Association.

When people have no medical insurance, their health worsens and they seek treatment in emergency rooms. That care is more expensive and the uninsured can't pay, so the hospitals have to look for other places to recover the costs for their more expensive treatment, Hansen said.

"That cost then gets shifted over to the only people the hospital can shift it over to and that's the insured population," Hansen said.

And as health insurance costs rise, fewer employers can afford it, leaving a higher percentage of the population without insurance, he said.

"You get into this cost spiral that makes things worse," Hansen said.

Medical research

Nevadans also aren't getting the same money as people in other states in medical research grants from the National Institutes of Health. In 2006, the NIH disbursed about $26 billion in research money, which worked out to about $86.75 per U.S. resident. In Nevada, there were $22.7 million in NIH grants, working out to about $9.10 per resident.

Grants are awarded on the basis of peer review, NIH spokesman Don Ralbovsky said.

Nevada has only two research institutes using NIH money, said David Lupan, senior associate dean for research at the University of Nevada School of Medicine.

"There just isn't a large number of investigators involved in NIH research in Nevada," Lupan said. "We're one of the smallest medical schools if not the smallest medical school in the United States in terms of its size."

Of 75 researchers in the medical school, only 20 are using NIH money, he said.

The school is opening a new center for molecular medicine, the first new research facility on campus in 25 years, he said.

"As we're growing with new space, we'll also grow new investigators and NIH dollars will follow," he said.

Social Security, food stamps

For Social Security, the average benefits for Nevada are slightly higher than the national average, said Leslie Walker, a spokeswoman for the Social Security Administration.

But in Nevada, 14.7 percent of the population receives Social Security benefits, as senior citizens, through disability or as family members of seniors or people on disability, Walker said. That compares to 16.2 percent nationally.

Nevada has a historically low participation rate in the food stamp program, said Jeff Brenn, chief of eligibility and payments for the Nevada Welfare Division.

“We have a very low participation rate compared to the rest of the country so we don’t get as many federal dollars coming in,” Brenn said.

The low participation rate could be cultural, Brenn said. The state attempts outreach programs to increase participation ­— the state expenses are for administration only and unlike Medicaid there’s no matching funds needed — and has made partnerships with groups such as the Food Bank of Northern Nevada to take applications outside welfare offices, Brenn said.

Angela Dazey, agency relations program manager for Food Bank of Northern Nevada, said the state is eligible to receive $292 million in food stamp benefits each year but $170 million goes unused.

“We’re not really sure why,” Dazey said. “We think part of it might be access.”

While the welfare division has formed partnerships to make food stamps more readily available, the offices are open when many people might be working, Dazey said.

Nevada also has a 12-page application for food stamps that can be difficult to fill out, Dazey said. The California application is two pages. Other states allow for filing online. Nevada does not, she said.

She would like to see greater accessibility.

“Our low income families and the low income seniors miss out of a product they need and as a state are missing out on our tax dollars coming back into the state. They’re already paid,” Dazey said.

Another issue in Nevada’s lack of federal money is geographic. Spending on agricultural subsidies is low in the nation’s driest state. The national average is $76.33 per person. For Nevada, it’s $1.71.

“One of the things that is evident in Nevada is we are primarily a ranching state,” said Roger Van Valkenburg, state executive director of the Farm Service Agency.

And among farmers the No. 1 crop is alfalfa, Van Valkenburg said. Crops that receive federal subsidies like corn and soy beans aren’t grown much in the state.

The census figures excluded loans and Van Valkenburg estimates about one in 10 to one in 12 of the state’s approximately 2,300 farmers and ranchers take advantage of the federal loan program, which he said is a high participation rate.

There’s also programs for which the Silver State receives no money, like out of the U.S. Mint’s $1.1 billion budget.

It’s not all bad news for Nevada, though, when it comes to federal money. While Nevada lags in spending by the Army and Navy, Air Force spending is higher. The Bureau of Land Management, which owns two-thirds of Nevada, spends a lot of money in Nevada. And the biggest surplus in spending comes from the Department of Energy, which is overseeing the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository program.

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

Scientific American Magazine
April 28, 2008

Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth

Plans are afoot to reuse spent reactor fuel in the U.S. But the advantages of the scheme pale in comparison with its dangers

By Frank N. von Hippel

Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S., there are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs of natural gas and oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly objects to the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and insurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want?

Just one thing: a place to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed, the lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging over the entire enterprise. The projected opening of a federal waste storage repository in Yucca Mountain in Nevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest) has already slipped by two decades, and the cooling pools holding spent fuel at the nation’s nuclear power plants are running out of space.

Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks, each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S. nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.

Under pressure to start moving the fuel off the sites, the DOE has returned to an idea that it abandoned in the 1970s—to “reprocess” the spent fuel chemically, separating the different elements so that some can be reused. Vast reprocessing plants have been running in France and the U.K. for more than a decade, and Japan began to operate its own $20-billion facility in 2006. So this strategy is not without precedent. But, as I discuss below, reprocessing is an expensive and dangerous road to take.

The Element from Hell

Grasping my reasons for rejecting nuclear fuel reprocessing requires nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and a dollop of common sense. Power reactors generate heat—which makes steam to turn electricity-generating turbines—by maintaining a nuclear chain reaction that splits (or “fissions”) atoms. Most of the time the fuel is uranium, artificially enriched so that 4 to 5 percent is the chain-reacting isotope uranium 235; virtually all the rest is uranium 238. At an enrichment of only 5 percent, stolen reactor fuel cannot be used to construct an illicit atom bomb.

In the reactor, some of the uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and becomes plutonium 239, which is also chain-reacting and can in principle be partially “burned” if it is extracted and properly prepared. This approach has various drawbacks, however. One is that extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth. Another is that recycling the plutonium reduces the waste problem only minimally. Most important, the separated plutonium can readily serve to make nuclear bombs if it gets into the wrong hands; as a result, much effort has to be expended to keep it secure until it is once more a part of spent fuel.

These drawbacks become strikingly clear when one examines the experiences of the nations that have embarked on reprocessing programs. In France, the world leader in reprocessing technology, the separated plutonium (chemically combined with oxygen to form plutonium dioxide) is mixed with uranium 238 (also as an oxide) to make a “mixed oxide,” or MOX, fuel. After being used to generate more power, the spent MOX fuel still contains about 70 percent as much plutonium as when it was manufactured; however, the addition of highly radioactive fission products created inside a reactor makes this plutonium difficult to access and make into a bomb. The used MOX fuel is shipped back to the reprocessing facility for indefinite storage. Thus, France is, in effect, using reprocessing to move its problem with spent fuel from the reactor sites to the reprocessing plant.

Japan is following France’s example. The U.K. and Russia simply store their separated civilian plutonium—about 120 tons between them as of the end of 2005, enough to make 15,000 atom bombs.

Until recently, France, Russia and the U.K. earned money by reprocessing the spent fuel of other nations, such as Japan and Germany, where domestic antinuclear activists demanded that the government either show it had a solution for dealing with spent fuel or shut down its reactors. Authorities in these nations found that sending their spent fuel abroad for reprocessing was a convenient, if costly, way to deal with their nuclear wastes—at least temporarily.

With such contracts in hand, France and the U.K. were easily able to finance new plants for carrying out reprocessing. Those agreements specified, however, that the separated plutonium and any highly radioactive waste would later go back to the country of origin. Russia has recently adopted a similar policy. Hence, governments that send spent fuel abroad need eventually to arrange storage sites for the returning radioactive waste. That reality took a while to sink in, but it has now convinced almost all nations that bought foreign reprocessing services that they might as well store their spent fuel and save the reprocessing fee of about $1 million per ton (10 times the cost of dry storage casks).

So France, Russia and the U.K. have lost virtually all their foreign customers. One result is that the U.K. plans to shut down its reprocessing plants within the next few years, a move that comes with a $92-billion price tag for cleaning up the site of these facilities. In 2000 France considered the option of ending reprocessing in 2010 and concluded that doing so would reduce the cost of nuclear electricity. Making such a change, though, might also engender acrimonious debates about nuclear waste—the last thing the French nuclear establishment wants in a country that has seen relatively little antinuclear activism.

Japan is even more politically locked into reprocessing: its nuclear utilities, unlike those of the U.S., have been unable to obtain permission to expand their on-site storage. Russia today has just a single reprocessing plant, with the ability to handle the spent fuel from only 15 percent of that country’s nuclear reactors. The Soviets had intended to expand their reprocessing capabilities but abandoned those plans when their economy collapsed in the 1980s.

During the cold war, the U.S. operated reprocessing plants in Washington State and South Carolina to recover plutonium for nuclear weapons. More than half of the approximately 100 tons of plutonium that was separated in those efforts has been declared to be in excess of our national needs, and the DOE currently projects that disposing of it will cost more than $15 billion. The people who were working at the sites where this reprocessing took place are now primarily occupied with cleaning up the resulting mess, which is expected to cost around $100 billion.

In addition to those military operations, a small commercial reprocessing facility operated in upstate New York from 1966 to 1972. It separated 1.5 tons of plutonium before going bankrupt and becoming a joint federal-state cleanup venture, one projected to require about $5 billion of taxpayers’ money.

With all the problems reprocessing entailed, one might rightly ask why it was pursued at all. Part of the answer is that for years after civilian nuclear power plants were first introduced, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) promoted reprocessing both domestically and abroad as essential to the future of nuclear power, because the industry was worried about running out of uranium (a concern that has since abated).

But that was before the security risks of plutonium production went from theoretical to real. In 1974 India, one of the countries that the U.S. assisted in acquiring reprocessing capabilities, used its first separated plutonium to build a nuclear weapon. At about this time, the late Theodore B. Taylor, a former U.S. nuclear weapons designer, was raising an alarm about the possibility that the planned separation and recycling of thousands of tons of plutonium every year would allow terrorists to steal enough of this material to make one or more nuclear bombs.

Separated plutonium, being only weakly radioactive, is easily carried off—whereas the plutonium in spent fuel is mixed with fission products that emit lethal gamma rays. Because of its great radioactivity, spent fuel can be transported only inside casks weighing tens of tons, and its plutonium can only be recovered with great difficulty, typically behind thick shielding using sophisticated, remotely operated equipment. So unseparated plutonium in spent fuel poses a far smaller risk of ending up in the wrong hands.

Having been awakened by India to the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation through reprocessing, the Ford administration (and later the Carter administration) reexamined the AEC’s position and concluded that reprocessing was both unnecessary and uneconomic. The U.S. government therefore abandoned its plans to reprocess the spent fuel from civilian reactors and urged France and Germany to cancel contracts under which they were exporting reprocessing technology to Pakistan, South Korea and Brazil.

The Reagan administration later reversed the Ford-Carter position on domestic reprocessing, but the U.S. nuclear industry was no longer interested. It, too, had concluded that reprocessing to make use of the recovered plutonium would not be economically competitive with the existing “once-through” fueling system. Reprocessing, at least in the U.S., had reached a dead end, or so it seemed.

Rising from Nuclear Ashes

The current Bush administration has recently breathed life back into the idea of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel as part of its proposal to deploy a new generation of nuclear reactors. According to this vision, transuranics (plutonium and other similarly heavy elements extracted from conventional reactor fuel) would be recycled not once but repeatedly in the new reactors to break them down through fission into lighter elements, most of which have shorter half-lives. Consequently, the amount of nuclear waste needing to be safely stored for many millennia would be reduced [see “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste,” by William H. Hannum, Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford; Scientific American, December 2005]. Some scientists view this new scheme as “technically sweet,” to borrow a phrase J. Robert Oppen­heimer once used to describe the design for the hydrogen bomb. But is it really so wise?

The proposal to recycle U.S. spent fuel in this way is not new. Indeed, in the mid-1990s the DOE asked the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to carry out a study of this approach to reducing the amount of long-lived radioactive waste. The resulting massive report, Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separation and Transmutation, was very negative. The NAS panel concluded that recycling the transuranics in the first 62,000 tons of spent fuel (the amount that otherwise would have been stored in Yucca Mountain) would require “no less than $50 billion and easily could be over $100 billion”—in other words, it could well cost something like $500 for every person in the U.S. These numbers would have to be doubled to deal with the entire amount of spent fuel that existing U.S. reactors are expected to discharge during their lifetimes.

Why so expensive? Because conventional reactors could not be employed. Those use water both for cooling and for slowing down the neutrons given off when the uranium nuclei in the fuel break apart; this slowing allows the neutrons to induce other uranium 235 atoms to split, thereby sustaining a nuclear chain reaction. Feeding recycled fuel into such a reactor causes the heavier transuranics (plutonium 242, americium and curium) to accumulate. The proposed solution is a completely different type of nuclear reactor, one in which the neutrons get slowed less and are therefore able to break down these hard-to-crack atoms.

During the 1960s and 1970s the leading industrial countries, including the U.S., put the equivalent of more than 50 billion of today’s dollars into efforts to commercialize such fast-­neutron reactors, which are cooled by molten sodium rather than water. These devices were also called breeder reactors, because they were designed to generate more plutonium than they consumed and therefore could be much more efficient in using the energy in uranium. The expectation was that breeders would quickly replace conventional water-cooled reactors. But sodium-cooled reactors proved to be much more costly to build and troublesome to operate than expected, and most countries abandoned their efforts to commercialize them.

It is exactly this failed reactor type that the DOE now proposes to develop and deploy—but with its core reconfigured to be a net plutonium burner rather than a breeder. The U.S. would have to build between 40 and 75 1,000-megawatt reactors of this type to be able to break down transuranics at the rate they are being generated in the nation’s 104 conventional reactors. If each of the new sodium-cooled reactors cost $1 billion to $2 billion more than one of its water-cooled cousins of the same capacity, the federal subsidy necessary would be anywhere from $40 billion to $150 billion, in addition to the $100 billion to $200 billion required for building and operating the recycling infrastructure. Given the U.S. budget deficit, it seems unlikely that such a program would actually be carried through.

If a full-scale reprocessing plant were constructed (as the DOE until recently was proposing to do by 2020) but the sodium-cooled reactors did not get built, virtually all the separated transuranics would simply go into indefinite storage. This awkward situation is exactly what befell the U.K., where the reprocessing program, started in the 1960s, has produced about 80 tons of separated plutonium, a legacy that will cost tens of billions of dollars to dispose of safely.

Reprocessing spent fuel and then storing the separated plutonium and radioactive waste indefinitely at the reprocessing plant is not a disposal strategy. Rather it is a strategy for disaster, because it makes the separated plutonium much more vulnerable to theft. In a 1998 report the U.K.’s Royal Society (the equivalent of the NAS), commenting on the growing stockpile of civilian plutonium in that country, warned that “the chance that the stocks of plutonium might, at some stage, be accessed for illicit weapons production is of extreme concern.” In 2007 a second Royal Society report reiterated that “the status quo of continuing to stockpile a very dangerous material is not an acceptable long-term option.”

Clearly, prudence demands that plutonium should not be stored at a reprocessing facility in a form that could readily be stolen. Indeed, common sense dictates that it should not be separated at all. Until a long-term repository is available, spent reactor fuel can remain at the sites of the nuclear power plants that generated it.

Would such storage be dangerous? I would argue that keeping older fuel produced by the once-through system in dry storage casks represents a negligible addition to the existing nuclear hazard to the surrounding population. The 10 kilowatts of radioactive heat generated by the 10 tons of 20-year-old fuel packed in a dry storage cask is carried off convectively as it warms the air around it. Terrorists intent on doing harm might attempt to puncture such a cask using, say, an antitank weapon or the engine of a crashing aircraft, but under most circumstances only a small mass of radioactive fuel fragments would be scattered about a limited area. In contrast, if the coolant in the nearby reactor were cut off, its fuel would overheat and begin releasing huge quantities of vaporized fission products within minutes. And if the water were lost in a storage pool containing spent fuel, the zirconium cladding of the fuel rods would be heated up to ignition temperature within hours. Seen in this light, dry storage casks look pretty benign.

Is there enough physical room to keep them? Yes, there is plenty of space for more casks at U.S. nuclear power plants. Even the oldest operating U.S. reactors are having their licenses extended for another 20 years, and new reactors will likely be built on the same sites. So there is no reason to think that these storage areas are about to disappear. Eventually, of course, it will be necessary to remove the spent fuel and put it elsewhere, but there is no need to panic and adopt a policy of reprocessing, which would only make the situation much more dangerous and costly than it is today.

Fear and Loathing in Nevada

The long-term fate of radioactive waste in the U.S. hinges on how the current impasse over Yucca Mountain is resolved. Opinion on the site is divided. The regulatory requirements are tough: the DOE has to show that the mountain will contain the waste well enough to prevent significant off-site doses for a million years.

Demonstrating safety that far into the future is not easy, but the risks from even a badly designed repository are negligible in comparison with those from a policy that would make nuclear weapons materials more accessible. From this perspective, it is difficult to understand why the danger of local radioactive pollution 100,000 or a million years hence has generated so much more political passion in the U.S. than the continuing imminent danger from nuclear weapons.

Part of the problem is the view in Nevada that the Reagan administration and Congress acted unfairly in 1987 when they cut short an objective evaluation of other candidate sites and designated Yucca Mountain as the location for the future nuclear waste repository. To overcome this perception, it may be necessary to reopen deliberations for choosing an additional site. Such a move should not be difficult. Indeed, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 requires the secretary of energy to report to Congress by 2010 on the need for a second storage facility. Given the disastrous record of the DOE in dealing with radioactive waste, however, consideration should also be given to establishing a more specialized and less politicized agency for this purpose.

In the meantime, spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor sites in dry casks. And even after it is placed in a geologic repository, it would remain retrievable for at least a century. So in the unlikely event that technology or economic circumstances change drastically enough that the benefits of reprocessing exceed the costs and risks, that option would still be available. But it makes no sense now to rush into an expensive and potentially catastrophic undertaking on the basis of uncertain hopes that it might reduce the long-term environmental burden from the nuclear power industry.

--Editor's Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Rethinking Nuclear Fuel Recycling"

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

Wall Street Journal blog
April 29, 2008

Going Nuclear: What To Do With the Waste?

Posted by Keith Johnson

Nuclear power’s renaissance in the U.S. faces plenty of hurdles. But one big stumbling block stands out—what to do with the spent fuel?

Reprocessing spent fuel has been on the front burner since the Bush administration’s launch of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which advocates recycling used fuel rods. There’s a steady groundswell of support from industry players like Areva of France to New Mexico Senator Pete Dominici, who touts the idea every chance he can.

Reprocessing the fuel rods used to run nuclear reactors is meant to cut down on the amount of high-level waste that eventually needs to be stuck in a cave like Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Popular at a time when people worried we were running out of uranium, reprocessing is also meant to conserve fuel. After several false—and expensive—starts, it fell out of favor in the U.S. even before the nuclear industry’s hiatus in the 1980s. It went gangbusters abroad, especially in France and Japan, but is also running out of steam there.

Dr. von Hippel (Princeton)

To revive reprocessing in the U.S. would be a terrible mistake, argues former Clinton science adviser and Princeton nuclear physicist Frank N. von Hippel in Scientific American’s big takeout on the ins and outs of fuel reprocessing. The three sins:

One is that extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth. Another is that recycling the plutonium reduces the waste problem only minimally. Most important, the separated plutonium can readily serve to make nuclear bombs if it gets into the wrong hands; as a result, much effort has to be expended to keep it secure until it is once more a part of spent fuel.

The Keystone Center, a non-profit science and environment group, last year highlighted the iffy economics as the worst part of reprocessing. Even though uranium prices have increased ten-fold this decade, it’s still cheaper just to refill part of the reactor pool every so often with fresh rods.

The Bush adminstration’s plan was to keep reprocessing again and again, which could make a dent in the amount of high-level waste that needs to be buried. But only at higher cost—and with even greater levels of low- and intermediate-level waste, which also has to be buried in concrete somewhere.

But it’s the proliferation argument that has folks worried. (Well, not everybody.) Reprocessing promises to create hundreds of tons of weapons-grade plutonium, many critics say. Japan tweaked its own reprocessing to make the plutonium less pure, and less useful for weapons, but the technology outlined in the U.S. plan wouldn’t apparently do that. This week, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation cheered Congressional Democrats who are fighting to strip reprocessing funding and urged Sen. Domenici to give up the ghost.

For now, even though Yucca Mountain is at least a decade away from opening, U.S. policy is to revive reprocessing as crucial part of the nuclear revival. EC readers, what’s your verdict?

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

Record-Searchlight
April 29, 2008

Elias: Nuclear power is no simple carbon fix

Thomas Elias

Ever since Al Gore won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for his fight against expanding climate change, there have been claims that nuclear power plants are the easy solution. They give phenomenal amounts of energy, after all, without much carbon production.

Some who seek facile solutions say it’s about time to dump the safeguards of the 1976 Proposition 15, which essentially stopped atomic power construction in this state after completion of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the Central Coast.

One example: Last fall, Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Orange County introduced a bill aiming to permit construction of a new nuclear power plant if 20 percent of the power were used for desalination facilities. That bill went nowhere, despite rampant threats of a drought.

It met that fate because building and maintaining new nukes is no simple matter, if California’s experience means anything.

Take the very latest glitch, revealed last winter by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission after examining the record of the San Onofre nuclear generating station near San Clemente, whose reactors produce power for 2.75 million households served by Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the city of Riverside’s municipal utility.

The NRC found numerous violations of rules and falsified records perpetrated by employees at San Onofre, including one worker who faked records for more than five years to show operators made hourly fire patrols when they had not.

There were also two unspecified security lapses, whose details were not unveiled publicly because of what they might reveal to possible terrorist attackers.

No one suggested these incidents represented a “serious threat” to the safety of San Onofre or its neighbors. But they might be. For if an uncontrolled fire broke out in a nuclear facility, one consequence could be radiation leaks. And security lapses could have all manner of unknown ill effects.

Then there was the “mirror image” problem during the construction of Diablo Canyon, which saw workers essentially build that plant backward and then have to do it over again, costing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. an overrun of more than $3 billion in 1970s-era currency. Make the same kind of mistake today and the costs might be triple or more.

Another problem is nuclear waste, for which no answer is in the offing. For decades, spent fuel from most American nuclear power plants went to points in South Carolina and Washington state. But those dumps are at or near capacity and most waste both in this country and around the world is now stored at or near the places where it is produced.

So far, no country has built a deep geological repository for radioactive waste and certainly no American site is in prospect anytime soon. For awhile, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush eyed a space beneath southern Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but once California elected Barbara Boxer to the U.S. Senate, that was pretty much out. Boxer bought into the theory that radioactivity from Yucca Mountain might trickle into underground water supplies that eventually flow to the Colorado River, and thus pollute much of California’s and Arizona’s water supply for generations to come.

Yucca Mountain is also highly unpopular in Nevada itself, and every Democratic presidential candidate this year pledged it would not be used for spent fuel. Republican John McCain was less definite about that, even though water earmarked for his home state of Arizona could be affected.

The upshot is that there can be no absolute guarantees of either environmental purity, protection from employee negligence or safety from terrorism at any new nuclear power plant. So far, none has ever produced a serious problem in this country, but that offers no guarantees for the future.

All of which means politicians like DeVore who seek facile ways to solve both energy and water problems need to look elsewhere. It is not yet time to give up the protections voters gave themselves via Proposition 15. Far better to look toward more emphasis on renewable energy sources like wind, sun and geothermal than to bank on the uncertainties of the atom and the people associated with it.

--Thomas Elias is a political columnist whose commentary appears in newspapers throughout California. His e-mail address is tdelias@aol.com.

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

The Tennessean
April 29, 2008

Critics: TVA bid process was flawed

Firm that led study won contract

By Anne Paine

When TVA wanted to know whether it should finish a nuclear reactor north of Chattanooga, it hired the private company Bechtel to oversee a $20 million study.

Based on that study, TVA decided to complete the reactor — and then contracted with Bechtel to do the job.

Critics say Bechtel had a clear conflict of interest in doing the study and casting the project in a favorable light, knowing that it would be able to bid on the multibillion-dollar construction work to finish Watts Bar Unit 2.

The question arises as TVA has renewed its pursuit to own more nuclear units, raising the ire of environmentalists and others who say the agency is setting itself up to waste ratepayers' money.

The study itself has not been made public.

TVA's directors would not comment, and the agency's chief ethics officer declined to talk about the accusations of conflict of interest.

However, TVA spokesman Gil Francis said, "The fact that we awarded the contract to Bechtel is not a conflict of interest. We did a competitive bidding process that looked at the best engineering firms that are out there. We made sure all had the same information."

Five companies, including Bechtel, were asked to submit bids. Two — Bechtel and Stone & Webster — responded. Bechtel was chosen six months ago as the major contractor for up to $1.1 billion of work to finish what's estimated as a $2.5 billion project.

"You don't have as many companies out there with expertise anymore," Francis said. "If you exclude Bechtel, you're excluding the best company for the work."

TVA Inspector General Richard Moore said he understood how someone might see the appearance of a conflict of interest but he didn't think there was one.

"If TVA had excluded Bechtel, it would have essentially resulted in a sole-source contract," Moore said. "It is our understanding that both bidders were provided the same information on which to bid."

The Tennessean asked that the entire study be made public under the federal Freedom of Information Act. TVA said Monday that it was still considering that request.

Francis said the information in the study Bechtel conducted — also on a contractual basis — could not be released because it is largely proprietary and could shed light on business practices of contractors. He provided the newspaper with a 12-page summary of it.

Stephen Smith, a longtime TVA watchdog, said the authority's ratepayers are losing. "Nobody's asking the tough questions about Watts Bar 2," said Smith, who is with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Knoxville.

Private utilities in many states have to go before state utility commissions, he said, and justify the need for building a new power plant, and the public can challenge them.

"They let Bechtel build its own case and then enrich itself by basically doing the work," Smith said. "We've pretty much hitched our wagon to the nuclear industry that left TVA with a $20 billion debt before."

Many projects scuttled

TVA once had projects under way to build 17 new nuclear reactors but scuttled most when they proved too costly and unneeded — as protesters had argued when the units were approved.

The agency was left with deep debt and rising rates. One of those units is Watts Bar 2, mothballed in 1985 after being more than half completed. About $1.7 billion has been spent on it, officials say.

The romance with nuclear power waned countrywide, and so did the number of possible contractors. Today, the industry is getting a boost from a bevy of federal incentives to build nuclear plants, including tax credits, loan guarantees and risk protections that Congress approved in 2005.

A Bechtel official had little to say about the conflict accusations:

"This was a fair, competitive bid process, and we are honored to be selected by TVA for this historic assignment," Bechtel spokesman Francis Canavan said.

But Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit advocacy group in Maryland, said it would be far better to separate the study and building phases.

"You do think you would try to find some company that has the nuclear expertise that would not be involved in the construction," he said.

Nuclear power is favored

TVA, the nation's largest public power provider, is self-financing and is an economic pillar of the state, offering reasonable rates when compared nationally.

The agency creates the electricity sold via distributors, including Nashville Electric Service, throughout virtually all of Tennessee and parts of six adjacent states.

Nuclear power is favored as an energy source in some quarters because it doesn't have smokestacks that emit pollutants that add to climate change.

Over the last 14 years, demand for TVA's electricity has grown 2.4 percent, and the only answer is a coal or nuclear plant, Francis said.

When the costs were compared, nuclear won out "because it was the safest, least costly, environmentally friendly option," he said.

"We knew Bechtel would probably want to bid on the project," Francis said.

TVA has specialized staff that analyzed the Bechtel information and stayed closely involved in the process, he said.

The Tennessean sought to contact all seven sitting members of the nine-seat TVA board of directors, calling or e-mailing each of them. Only one replied.

The messages left with the other six board members yielded only a return call from Francis, who said the board members declined to be interviewed.

Director Skila Harris was the only one who took the newspaper's questions.

She said the board looked at the contracts in both cases with care to make sure ratepayers would get the best deal and Bechtel wouldn't have an edge.

"It's not as if those people who bid on that did not have an incentive to put together the best package at the lowest feasible price, given the scope of the work," said Harris, a native of Bowling Green, Ky.

Mariotte said TVA might have a point about the number of companies available to bid. And he said a consultant might come up with the same information "but then you don't have the apparent appearance of a conflict," he said.

"We're seeing with TVA that they really haven't done that initial work of what's the best way to get electricity to consumers. The cost estimates we're seeing for new nuclear plants now are rising stratospherically."

Official defends TVA

TVA's inspector general said he didn't have a problem with what the agency had done.

Moore quoted federal acquisition regulations on conflict of interest, saying a level playing field is needed among bidders on a project.

The U.S. Department of Energy has taken a somewhat different tack as it pushes to build at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, where the department proposes that nuclear plants send their highly radioactive waste for disposal. It announced this month that whatever company does the scoping, preparation and design work will not be allowed to bid on building it.

Bechtel holds the current operations and management contract for the facility, which the Energy Department says it will rebid.

Moore said he didn't know whether the Yucca Mountain and TVA situations were comparable.

--Contact Anne Paine at 259-8071 or apaine@tennessean.com.

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

AP Google
April 29, 2008

Bush rhetoric on energy strays from the facts

By H. Josef Hebert

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush put politics ahead of the facts Tuesday as he sought to blame Congress for high energy prices, saying foreign suppliers are pumping just about all the oil they can and accusing lawmakers of blocking new refineries.

Bush renewed his call for drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, but his own Energy Department says that would have little impact on gasoline prices.

THE SPIN:

Asked what he is doing to try to get Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, Bush didn't answer directly. "We've got to understand there's not a lot of excess capacity in the world right now," he said. Blaming "the lack of refinery capacity" for high energy prices, he said Congress has rejected his proposal to use shuttered military bases for refinery sites.

FACT:

Global oil supplies are tight, in part because OPEC nations including Saudi Arabia are refusing to open their spigots. But Saudi Arabia has considerable additional production capacity. It's pumping a little over 8.5 million barrels a day, compared to about 9.5 million barrels a day two years ago and has acknowledged the ability to produce as much as 11 million barrels a day.

On refineries, Congress has ignored Bush's proposal to use closed military bases. But the oil companies haven't shown much interest in building refineries either and have dismissed suggestions that military bases might be of use. They note, for example, that few bases are near pipelines needed to bring crude in and move finished product out.

When top executives of the country's five largest oil companies earlier this month were asked at a House hearing whether they wanted to build a new refinery, each said no.

While no new refinery has been built in more than 30 years, companies have been adding on to existing refineries. The Energy Information Administration estimates an additional 800,000 barrels a day of production will be added to existing refineries in the next three years. A joint venture between Shell Oil Co. and the Saudi Arabian oil company is expected to double capacity at a Port Arthur, Texas, refinery.

Even the industry's refinery expansion plans have been scaled back over the last few years because companies anticipate less demand for gasoline since the government now requires a huge expansion of ethanol as a motor fuel. They ask: Why should refiners make more gasoline if ethanol is to be used?

THE SPIN:

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development, and on Tuesday he chastised Congress for repeatedly blocking the proposal.

"If Congress is interested, they can send the right signal by saying we are going to explore for oil and gas in U.S. territories, starting with ANWR," said Bush, adding that opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies "likely will mean lower gas prices."

FACT:

Strongly opposed by environmentalists, most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans, drilling in the Arctic refuge indeed has been blocked, as the president complained.

Energy experts believe ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil — pumped at just under 1 million barrels a day — would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production. However, in the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. And it likely would have little impact on today's prices.

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration estimated that it would take about 10 years before oil would flow from ANWR if drilling were approved. By 2025, it said, the additional oil would have only a slight impact on global oil prices and cause a decline in gasoline prices of less than a penny a gallon, using constant 2003 dollars. Oil imports would drop from an expected 68 percent of U.S. demand to 64 percent, the EIA said.

THE SPIN:

Bush said "it is in our national interest" to continue pumping oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve — about 70,000 barrels a day — "in case there is a major disruption of crude oil around the world."

FACT:

While some Democrats argue that halting the SPR fill would lower prices, most energy experts agree with the president that it likely would not. But the assertion that continued deliveries to SPR, which already holds 701 million barrels, is needed as a safeguard against a possible supply interruption may be a stretch.

"We have today a three-month supply of oil for emergencies," noted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who would like to see the deliveries stop. And that would assume a total cutoff of oil imports, an unlikely occurrence even if there are major supply disruptions. In the meantime, said Hutchison, "over the next four months we will deposit over 8 million barrels into the SPR at a very high price."

THE SPIN:

The president said Congress was "demanding emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants" and criticized lawmakers for hindering the expansion of nuclear power.

FACT:

His remarks about coal were an apparent reference to climate legislation that would cap carbon dioxide emissions to address global warming. While such caps would significantly affect coal-burning power plants, the legislation also envisions having emission allowances, many of which would be used by utilities to keep coal plants running, though electricity prices would increase. And the emission limits also would spur development of carbon capture technologies from power plants.

On the nuclear issue, Congress has provided the industry loan guarantees, a streamlining of reactor permitting and other measures, all aimed at spurring construction of power reactors. It has shown little interest in a Bush plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing, or in pressing ahead with the Yucca Mountain underground waste dump in Nevada.

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

Scottsboro Daily Sentinel
April 28, 2008

TVA, DOE agreement may lead to lower rates

By Ken Bonner
The Daily Sentinel

Thursday's announcement that the Department of Energy and TVA will cooperate to develop new technology to reprocess nuclear waste could result in a cleaner environment and lower electricity rates.

Other countries, in particular France, have been recycling spent nuclear fuel for several decades. Japan, England and Russia also reprocess nuclear waste.

Reprocessing technology and the plants that employ it recycle low-level nuclear waste into a more stable form for further use, storage or disposal. The process was first developed by U.S. scientists during World War II.

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a long-time supporter of TVA, a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and a leading proponent of efforts to recycle nuclear material, applauded the agencies' decision to work together.

Under the agreement, DOE and TVA will research advanced nuclear recycling technology to include the possibility of recycling nuclear fuel for use in commercial reactors, which could one day lead to a reprocessing facility being built in the Tennessee Valley. Recycling plants were announced for gaseous diffusion plants at locations in Ohio and Kentucky in 2004.

Nuclear recycling uses physical and chemical processes. In some instances more than 90 percent of the unused energy in spent nuclear fuel (a combination of unspent uranium and plutonium, the waste product) is recaptured and can be used by commercial plants to create electricity.

"This agreement represents an important step forward for the future of nuclear power in our country," Senator Sessions (R-Ala.) said in an interview with The Daily Sentinel. "TVA should be congratulated. It has positioned itself as the world leader in the development of advanced recycling technology."

The agreement places TVA in a position of leadership in developing the latest nuclear recycling technology and in line to develop and host a next generation reprocessing facility.

Nuclear reactors leave behind a small amount of solid, low-yield waste that must be stored or recycled. Proper disposal of nuclear waste has been among the biggest objections to expanding the use of nuclear power in the U.S. A proposed long-term nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been slowed for years by opposition to the plan.

"Nuclear energy is our best source of clean, safe and reliable base load electric power," Sessions said. "Development of this recycling technology is important because it would simultaneously reduce the waste product and increase the amount of usable nuclear fuel, which could lead to the generation of electricity at a lower cost. We are many years away from using this advanced technology on a commercial scale, but other countries have had great success safely reprocessing fuel."

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

Grand Forks Herald
April 27, 2008

The nuclear question

By Rick Montgomery
McClatchy Newspapers

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Save the polar bear? Go nuclear.

That is one way to beat climate change, or so says the Nuclear Energy Institute. When the industry group posted on its Web site poll results reflecting shifting opinions about nuclear power, it tossed in a picture of a polar bear traipsing across the tundra.

But industry opponents see a more threatening beast in their midst, like a hungry grizzly emerging from the woods after decades of hibernation.

The nuclear question is back. And this time the environmental front is divided — a victim of its own success in sounding alarms about global warming.

Even in Pennsylvania, home to the Three Mile Island fright of 1979, Democrats in the lead-up to last week’s primary signaled a willingness to consider nuclear power as an alternative to carbon-coughing electric plants fueled by coal.

Few voters even pressed them on it.

“A whole generation has grown up here knowing nothing about Three Mile Island,” said Judith Johnsrud, an adviser to the Pennsylvania Sierra Club. The plant’s partial meltdown put proposals for new U.S. nuclear reactors on ice for a quarter-century.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York, who calls herself “agnostic,” or uncommitted, on the issue, blends urgent warnings about shipping and storing radioactive waste with pledges to put the option on the table.

“We do have to look at it because it doesn’t put greenhouse gases into the air,” she has said.

Similar remarks come from Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois, which has the most nuclear reactors of any state. Both candidates have received donations from nuclear companies’ employees.

The office of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, also a Democrat, recently outlined her views on national energy policy in the wake of rejecting a coal-fired plant’s expansion in western Kansas:

She “recognizes that diversifying our energy portfolio is important .?.?. and all options should be considered, including nuclear power.”

President Bush on Wednesday announced a goal of stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 2025. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, Arizona, has proposed billions of dollars worth of tax breaks and federally backed loans for nuclear development.

The nuclear industry, which produces most of France’s electricity, faces many unresolved obstacles to its growth in the United States.

Wary insurers and enormous construction costs — roughly $8 billion per reactor — demand federal aid and loan guarantees.

Plans to store waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain Repository remain in legal and political limbo. The Energy Department was slated to begin accepting spent fuel there a decade ago.

Still, eight power companies have applied for federal licenses for new reactors. About two dozen sites have been pitched for new nuclear facilities. Currently, 104 reactors provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.

“What’s held us up in the past,” said Derrick Freeman, who directs legislative efforts for the Nuclear Energy Institute, “is that America took on a sour mood about nuclear power after Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disaster” in the Soviet Union in 1986. The Chernobyl blast directly caused at least 50 deaths, and some areas around the plant remain off-limits.

“That (mood) has changed,” Freeman said.

A few years ago the group Environmental Defense reconsidered its opposition to nuclear energy and now considers it a “low-carbon option.”

While the public remains split, surveys show opposition to nuclear energy is slowly shrinking as concerns about climate change and energy dependency mount.

In a March survey by the Pew Research Center, 48 percent of respondents said they were opposed to “promoting the increased use of nuclear power,” down from 53 percent in 2005.

Last year, a Gallup poll found 50 percent of Americans favored nuclear expansion, and 46 percent opposed it. In 2001, the results were flipped: 44 percent favored it, and 51 percent were opposed.

Some polls show that support for nuclear power rises or falls with oil prices. That puzzles experts, who note, with rare exception, the two energy sources serve different functions. Nuclear fission makes electricity, powering lamps and TVs. Oil is refined into gasoline and for making petroleum-based products.

“You ask people where energy comes from, and it’s the proverbial switch on the wall,” said Ann Bisconti, who conducts surveys for the nuclear industry. “The public isn’t analyzing these issues in great detail.”

As the industry tries to capitalize on fears of global warming (its lobbyists say the nation has avoided 8 billion metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions, thanks to nuclear plants), some anti-nuke groups are shifting their case away from the environment and toward economics.

“We’re not foolish enough to blow all our money on nuclear energy” when cheaper alternatives such as solar and wind power exist, said Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace International.

But Riccio also recognizes the attraction, even among his staff, to nuclear plants over coal-fired ones. For people younger than 35, melting icecaps trump possible meltdowns, he said.

“The kids in my office, what they’re really concerned about is global warming. It’s the Vietnam of their generation,” he said. “But for all the time and money we’d need to commit to more nuclear plants, it may cost us the opportunity to stop global warming.”

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

Climate change was the stated reason that a Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, joined nuclear interests and became a co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which receives money from the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Moore now attacks Greenpeace and other nuclear opponents as being “stuck in the ’70s.”

In the 1970s, global warming wasn’t a worry. Activists at the time linked nuclear power to the Cold War arms race and mushroom-cloud imagery.

The anti-nuke film “The China Syndrome” topped the box office in March 1979, just weeks before the Three Mile Island accident.

Pumps at the Pennsylvania plant stopped running, and the No. 2 reactor overheated, resulting in the release of some radioactivity. Unlike the deadly and highly toxic explosion at Chernobyl, however, a worst-case scenario was averted at Three Mile Island, and reactors still operate there.

The threats are different for University of Kansas student Brian Sifton, who said he was “certainly open to nuclear.”

A coordinator for the green group KU Environs, Sifton acknowledged his concerns about how the country would handle the extra waste. But he cited a distinction between the “localized” fears of nuclear mishaps and the “globalized” effects of greenhouse gases.

“We’re a much more globalized world today,” and one nation’s gases may alter the planet for lifetimes to come, he said.

“The environmental movement is fractured down the middle on this. ... Given everything, unfortunately, I think you have to be open to nuclear.”

Then again, Sifton was only 3 when Three Mile Island became a rallying cry. He doesn’t remember the Chernobyl tragedy, either.

Pros

- Electricity can be generated without the greenhouse-gas emissions of coal-fired plants.

- No major accidents have occurred at U.S. nuclear plants since the near-meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979.

- Nuclear plants already produce one-fifth of the nation’s electricity.

Cons

- Construction costs and delays in obtaining permits discourage private investment. The last U.S. reactor to open — Tennessee’s Watts Bar, which went on line in 1996 — cost $8 billion and took 23 years to complete.

- What to do with radioactive waste? U.S. storage sites already hold more than 50,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.

- Terrorists can target plants and storage areas.

The candidates

- John McCain, Republican: “We have to go back to nuclear power. Why can’t we look at what the French have done? About 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear power.”

- Hillary Clinton, Democrat: “I don’t have any preconceived opposition. I want to be sure that we do it right, as carefully as we can, because obviously it’s a tremendous source of energy.”

- Barack Obama, Democrat: “I don’t think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store waste properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism.”

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

Mother Jones
April 25, 2008

Will America's nuclear waste repository ever open, and, more important: should it?

By Judith Lewis

High-level nuclear waste, the detritus of a half-century of civilian nuclear power in the United States, was supposed to have someplace to go by now. It was supposed to have a designated hole in the ground to contain it, according to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, with infrastructure to transport and store it, staff to secure and protect it. In 2008, we were not supposed to still be debating where to put the fuel rods from nuclear reactors once they could no longer fission efficiently.

But we are.

In 1987, after narrowing the sites for a geological repository for nuclear waste down to three, Congress settled on a dusty stretch of Nye County, Nevada, known as Yucca Mountain. With full faith that the repository would open in 1998 as mandated by law, the Department of Energy (DOE) forged ahead, drilling a five-mile tunnel out of the mountain and building a rail line through it. It brought in scientists from the country's top nuclear laboratories to study the rock; it began conducting tours of the site for media, legislators, and scientists; it even printed up T-shirts and coffee mugs for visitors to purchase at lunchtime.

But as the years went by, Yucca Mountain began to seem less like a grand public-works project than a colossal mistake. The latest opening date for the repository—which has cost $11 billion to date—was set for 2017, bu