Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, June 6, 2008
---------------------------
Congresswoman Shelley Berkley
June 3, 2008
Berkley: Yucca Mountain Still Broken, Price Tag Still Growing
Progress Claims Undercut by Lengthy Delays, Transportation Dangers Remain
(Washington D.C. – June 3, 2008) Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV) today responded to remarks by Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman touting the submission of a License Application (LA) for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump 90 minutes outside Las Vegas. The document was sent today by the Department of Energy (DOE) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review. Bodman spoke at a news conference in Washington, D.C. this afternoon.
“The real news here is that after more than 20 years, Yucca Mountain is still decades behind schedule and its price tag has grown to $80 billion,” said Berkley. “The Bush White House knows the sun is about to set on its dreams of turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump. As a result, they are desperate to show progress is being made, even as Yucca’s timetable has now slipped to 2020 or beyond. The clock is ticking on the future of Yucca Mountain and one thing is certain, come next January, there will be a new occupant in the Oval office. I hope that change will mark the end of this failed project once and for all,” said Berkley.
Berkley also responded to a call by Secretary Bodman for action on a so-called “fix Yucca” bill that would weaken regulations governing the dump and loosen Congressional controls over spending on the proposed repository.
“Secretary Bodman again called for action on a ‘fix Yucca’ bill that would gut health and safety standards for the dump and would tie the hands of Congress when it comes to oversight of spending. This reckless legislation has gone nowhere since being introduced and I will continue working with Senator Reid and my colleagues in the House to make sure it stays that way.”
Legislation cosponsored by Berkley would allow nuclear waste to be safely stored at power plant sites hardened for protection, eliminating the need for waste to be moved to Yucca Mountain.
“Nuclear waste can be safely stored on-site for the next 100 years. This solution costs a small fraction of the price tag for dumping this toxic garbage in Nevada and avoids the danger of an accident or terrorist incident involving shipments of radioactive waste,” said Berkley.
---------------------------
Congressman Jon Porter
June 03, 2008
Porter Condemns DOE Filing of License Application
Washington, DC- Congressman Jon Porter (NV-3) issued the following statement after the Department of Energy filed the License Application for Yucca Mountain:
“Nevadans, and the American public, clearly understand that Yucca Mountain is both a reckless waste of taxpayer dollars and a fatally flawed project,” Porter said. “The Nevada delegation has successfully swayed public conscious away from the antiquated repository model and towards more responsible solutions like nuclear recycling. The Department of Energy’s filing of the license application today shows a total disregard for the health and safety of Nevadans. Let’s stop throwing good money after bad and give the Nuclear Waste Fund ratepayers a better solution and Americans more of a say in domestic nuclear policy.”
---------------------------
AP Google
June 04, 2008
Nevada challenges nuclear waste dump license bid
By Ken Ritter
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A Bush administration bid to win approval for a national nuclear waste dump outside Las Vegas was challenged Wednesday by the state as too little and six years too late.
State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to register the license application or schedule it for hearings, calling it "legally deficient."
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman earlier declared that the application to build and operate the Yucca Mountain repository "will stand up to any challenges from anywhere."
The commission's primary job will be to determine whether the proposed design will protect public health, safety and the environment for as long as a million years.
Nevada's petition cites the law under which Congress set in motion a process to find a place to bury the nation's nuclear waste, and it calls the license application submitted by the Energy Department on Tuesday as overdue and "completely unauthorized."
"The Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorizes only one application for a high-level waste disposal facility, and that one application had to be filed with the NRC by October 2002," the state petition says.
The state argues that the facility the Energy Department told Congress in 2002 that it would build is "substantially different from the one now described."
"Moreover, parts of the (license application) are considered secret, and DOE takes the position that the NRC has no control over who may see the secret parts," the state's challenge said.
Commission spokesman David McIntyre said he could not immediately confirm the challenge had been received because of computer trouble after thunderstorms in the Washington area.
Yucca Mountain project spokesman Allen Benson declined to comment, saying the Energy Department had not seen the filing.
Commission Chairman Dale Klein has promised "an independent, rigorous and thorough examination ... based entirely on the technical merits."
Cortez Masto said the commission should refuse to docket the Yucca Mountain license application "until key components are available for review."
Docketing is the first step in what officials say could be a four-year review of the application to build and open the underground facility to bury 77,000 tons of spent, high-level commercial, industrial and military nuclear fuel.
An initial review by NRC officials is due to be completed within 120 days, followed by a 30-day period for potential challenges to be filed with a panel of NRC judges.
A 1982 law required the federal government to begin taking spent reactor fuel from commercial power plants and defense sites by 1998.
Yucca Mountain has been the only repository site under study since 1987. Planning has been beset by delays, funding shortfalls and questions about quality assurance since 2002. Meanwhile, utilities have sued the government for missing the 1998 deadline.
--Associated Press writer Brendan Riley in Carson City contributed to this report.
---------------------------
Deseret News
June 04, 2008
Energy Department moves ahead with its Yucca plan
By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret News
WASHINGTON — The Energy Department submitted an 8,600-page license application to build a nuclear waste dump in Nevada Tuesday, reaching an important milestone for the Yucca Mountain project but also opening the door for more controversy and legal action.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said he's confident the government's license application to build a nuclear waste dump in Nevada will "stand up to any challenge anywhere" but there is still a long process ahead before 77,000 tons of nuclear waste would potentially move through Utah to the Yucca site, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
"Issues of health, safety and security have been paramount during this process. ... (They) are the driving factors in the decisions we have made," Bodman said.
But Nevada officials, who have fought the waste dump more than a decade, vowed to launch hundreds of specific challenges to the proposed design of the facility, arguing the Energy Department has not proven it will protect public health, safety and the environment from radiation up to a million years.
"As long as I am governor, the state will continue to do everything it can to stop Yucca Mountain from becoming reality," said Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons.
The application itself covers 17 volumes, with 200 other supporting documents and studies, and does not contain a final public radiation exposure standard that establishes how protective the facility must be from radiation leakage. The EPA had issued a standard designed to be protective for 10,000 years but a federal court declared it inadequate. EPA must create a standard shown to be protective for up to 1 million years — the time some of the isotopes in the waste will remain dangerous but it has still not done so.
Bodman said he didn't think that was a problem. The NRC, which has three years to review the application, can accept it later as an amendment but must have it to make its final determination.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's primary job will be to determine whether the proposed repository's design will protect public health, safety and the environment for up to a million years.
NRC Chairman Dale Klein said the agency "will perform an independent, rigorous and thorough examination to determine whether the repository can safely house the nation's high level waste."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a vocal opponent, said in a statement he and other Nevada lawmakers "will continue working ... to kill the dump."
Views on the project within the Utah delegation are mixed. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, supports it, while Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, does not support it.
Reid, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Bennett, along with Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., introduced the Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007 in the House and Senate to keep nuclear waste at nuclear power facilities versus moving it to Nevada.
"I have long opposed this seriously flawed scheme to put the country's hottest nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain," Matheson said in a statement. "Transporting it through Utah's cities, towns and communities is unacceptable. Instead, I believe the federal government should not waste any more time on the Yucca repository and should instead consider interim on-site storage, as my legislation has proposed."
Edward F. Sproat, manager of the Yucca project, confirmed that the department now believes it may be 2020 before the waste site can be opened, assuming the NRC grants a license and Congress provides the project the money it needs to continue.
The site was supposed to open in 1998, but a series of legal, political and scientific controversies kept it from moving forward.
Yucca's delay forced Utah to fight its own battle over nuclear waste with the planned temporary storage site at the Goshute Indian Reservation in Tooele County. Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of companies looking for a place to store waste until the Nevada site opened, got a license from the NRC for temporary storage on the Goshute reservation. But the government voided the lease and did not give a right of way to land needed for a transportation hub, stopping the project.
President Bush and Congress gave Yucca the green light six year years ago. The Energy Department estimates the lifetime cost of the facility will be between $70 billion and $80 billion and about $6 billion has been spent so far.
This year Congress provided $386.5 million for the program, $108 million less than the Bush administration had wanted as it geared up for submitting its application for a construction license. In 2007 the project received $444 million.
Reid and other Nevada officials say the waste ought to stay where it is until the best long-term solution for dealing with it can be determined.
--E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 04, 2008
Petition filed to reject DOE's application to build Yucca
Attorneys for Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency filed a formal petition today asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject the Department of Energy's license application for constructing a repository for highly radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain.
Senior Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams confirmed that the petition had been submitted electronically to the NRC's headquarters in Rockville, Md.
The DOE's license application, filed Tuesday, lacks a final radiation safety standard that the planned repository will be evaluated against. In addition, Adams said, DOE failed to submit a final design for the repository and a multi-purpose canister system for transporting, aging and disposing spent fuel in the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Furthermore, she said, DOE’s plans for waiting up to 300 years to install titanium drip shields to retard corrosion of 11,000 waste containers can't be counted on to immediately protect public health and the environment "given the scarcity of titanium and the staggering costs involved" that far in the future.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 04, 2008
DOE files to build Yucca
Application a 'new phase'
By Steve Tetreault and Keith Rogers
WASHINGTON -- After years of setbacks and delays, the federal government's plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada took a significant step forward Tuesday when the Department of Energy applied for permission to build a repository at Yucca Mountain.
A moving truck pulled up to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 8:40 a.m. and dropped off 15 sets of the department's construction license application. Each set consisted of 17 binders and totaled 8,647 pages, with electronic copies on DVD.
The license application represents a milestone once thought out of reach for the project that was conceived more than 25 years ago to locate a resting place for 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants and highly radioactive waste generated by the U.S. military.
"Today's application begins a new phase for the Yucca Mountain Project," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at a news conference. "This is a filing that will put this project in a new frame of mind moving forward."
Long roads still lie ahead. The project faces NRC technical reviews that are expected to take four years or more, continued fights for funding, and anticipated legal and political challenges from Nevada officials and other critics who charge the project is flawed and unsafe and will never be built.
Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency and a longtime opponent of the project, said the license application is so "grossly deficient that a fair and unbiased NRC would reject it."
"Science fiction is what this is," Loux said from his office in Carson City.
Project chief Ward Sproat said the Yucca site could start accepting nuclear waste by 2020 at a cost of $70 billion to $80 billion under a best case scenario for DOE. Other experts think a more realistic goal might be the middle of that decade or later, if ever.
On Tuesday, Energy Department officials celebrated with cookies and punch at Washington headquarters. DOE also gave workers commemorative Yucca Mountain medallions that cost $3.75 apiece for 2,000 copies.
The licensing paperwork was drawn from decades of study into the geology of the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and a number of engineering add-ons. The project envisions storing radioactive waste in as many as 11,000 containers in a 41-mile warren of tunnels spaced 1,000 feet below the surface.
"There are a lot of emotional people today because some of them didn't think they would be around long enough to see this happen," Sproat said.
In recent years, the project was buffeted by an e-mail scandal, a series of deep budget cuts and management missteps. A target date of 1998 to start accepting waste at the site fell aside, as did a 2010 planned repository opening.
Sproat, who was installed in 2006 following a career as a nuclear industry executive, said Yucca Mountain managers "have turned around a program that was known for continually missing milestones into one that has met or beat every milestone set for them two years ago despite significant budget cuts."
Nevada's opposition
Still, DOE's application came under immediate attack Tuesday by top Nevada officials, who vowed to redouble their efforts to keep high-level nuclear waste out of the state.
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto planned to file a petition today with the NRC calling on the commission to reject the license application out of hand. Attorneys for the state have said they planned to prepare 250 to 500 challenges to be aired during license hearings.
Nevada officials were reviewing the application Tuesday to determine how many key elements were missing, which would provide the state with opportunities to challenge, said Marta Adams, deputy attorney general.
"It is our understanding there will be significant gaps," Adams said. "We anticipate challenging the completeness of the license application."
When NRC hearing boards convene, the state, Clark County and the rural counties surrounding the site will be formal participants, with the Nuclear Energy Institute and California.
The Timbisha Shoshone, the affected Indian tribe in the proceedings, reacted bitterly to the license application and said in a statement from tribal Chairman Joe Kennedy that the project "is moving ahead over the rights and need of the tribe to conduct our own planning, oversight and monitoring for the protection of all living things."
Loux argued that the application does not contain a final design of the repository and that there is no design covering transportation, aging and disposal canisters.
The Energy Department "relies on this 'drip shield' concept that they're not going to install for 300 years, yet they want credit for that" as a barrier to retard corrosion of the canisters, he said.
Also, the Environmental Protection Agency has not issued a final radiation safety standard that the NRC would have to adopt and to determine whether the license application conforms to it.
"Virtually on every front, the political, the technical and procedural fronts, this thing isn't going anywhere," Loux said.
That sentiment was echoed by members of Nevada's delegation.
"This latest attempt by the DOE is merely a last-ditch effort to breathe life into bad policy that is wrong for America. Yucca Mountain is dead, and it is time to move forward in a new direction with on-site waste storage," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the application includes designs that are "only 35 percent complete."
The document "lacks critical information that cannot simply be overlooked," he said. "For example, just how would the Energy Department respond in the event of an emergency? We can't answer that question because the department doesn't even know."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the license application "should be seen for exactly what it is -- an $80 billion goodbye present to the nuclear industry from President Bush at the expense of the health and safety of families in Nevada and nationwide."
'Start the review'
Officials from DOE and NRC contend a license review could be started without an EPA-finalized regulation setting public health limits on radioactive materials.
The materials would escape from the repository over periods stretching to a million years.
Having an EPA standard in hand "is not a requirement," Bodman said. "It is certainly possible and appropriate for us to file an application prior to EPA determining the standard. Let's get the review started."
"This application is a very high-quality, extremely detailed document," Bodman said. "It is our collective judgment that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conclude that this project can and will be completed in a safe and secure manner."
The NRC will undertake a 30-day initial review of the application for completeness, spokesman David McIntyre said. If the paperwork passes muster, the agency would formally docket the application and start in-depth safety reviews that could consume the next year and a half.
Nevada's congressional lawmakers scheduled to meet today to determine what actions to take now that the project will be under the umbrella of the NRC, which focuses on safety matters. A majority of Nevadans in polls oppose the repository on the belief it will be unsafe.
Nevada officials argue that delay has been a valuable ally against Yucca Mountain.
As time has worn on, new thinking has raised questions about whether a repository as designed still is the best approach for the United States to manage nuclear waste.
Some members of Congress have become interested in reprocessing nuclear fuel to draw out more energy.
"It is my belief that America needs a solution to the nuclear waste question, and I believe that reprocessing could in fact be the best way to meet our nation's needs. Nevertheless, it is important that the NRC begin work on its review process for Yucca Mountain so that all of our options remain on the table," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a leader on nuclear issues who is retiring this year.
DOE expects its application will be a confidence-booster for the program and for allies in Congress who have failed to act on bills to move the project along, Sproat said.
"I believe they will be energized and very supportive now that we have actually done this," Sproat said.
Sproat acknowledged that with DOE applying for a license now, NRC safety reviews could be well under way by the time a new president takes office next January and that Yucca Mountain could be shielded if there is a new critic in the White House.
Expected Republican nominee John McCain supports Yucca Mountain. A spokeswoman for probable Democratic nominee Barack Obama has said he would withdraw the application.
Sproat said a new president might find that easier said than done given a web of DOE contracts with utilities and states and lawsuits that are costing taxpayers millions of dollars in damages because the government has yet to open a waste site.
"Regardless of what the rhetoric is on the campaign trail, and regardless of who wins. ... I personally think they are going to say let's wait to see what the NRC does with the license application," Sproat said.
--Contact Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com, 202-783-1760, or reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com, 702-383-0308.
CORRECTION ON 06/05/09 - A story about Yucca Mountain in Wednesday’s Review-Journal incorrectly stated the amount of time available for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an initial review of the repository license application. The agency has 90 days.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 04, 2008
Commissioners plot repository opposition
By Scott Wyland
Review-Journal
It will take more than four years for the federal government to obtain a license to turn Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste storage site and more than 12 years before the project is finished, Clark County's nuclear waste expert told the Clark County Commission on Tuesday.
The predictions came on the morning when the Department of Energy applied for its license to create the repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The commission continued what has become a tradition: staunch opposition to Yucca Mountain being used to house as much as 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste.
"I think today makes clear that the single-most stubborn agency in the history of the federal government is the Department of Energy," Commissioner Rory Reid said. "They just trudge forward knowing this project has all the scientific and technical problems that it does."
Now that the Energy Department has filed for a license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the county has 30 days to submit a list of criticisms of the project, said Irene Navis, who manages the county's nuclear waste division.
Federal agencies have had "22 years to get here," Navis said. "We have 30 days."
Commissioners voted to have staffers compile the criticisms, study the project's potential effects on transportation and recruit outside counsel to represent the county.
Navis said that surveys consistently show 75 percent of county residents oppose the project. And 87 percent of those polled said they feared a Yucca Mountain repository would decrease their property values, she said.
One reason federal officials are pushing so hard to develop the Yucca Mountain site is because they are already so far behind schedule, Navis said. Initially, it was scheduled to start accepting waste in 1998.
The tardiness has led to the government owing $7 billion to utilities because it failed to comply with contracts when the storage site didn't materialize as promised, Navis said.
Instead of shipping the waste to Yucca Mountain, the material could be stored at the nuclear plants themselves, an option the industry has fought, she said.
Meanwhile, researchers could develop ways to convert nuclear waste into energy, Navis said, eliminating the need for long-term storage.
For now, Reid said, the county must resist the attempt to stockpile such a lethal substance less than 100 miles away.
"We need to keep doing what we've been doing as a county, and that is to fight," Reid said.
--Contact reporter Scott Wyland at swyland@reviewjournal.com or 702-455-4519.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 04, 2008
JOHN L. SMITH: County Commission's slings and arrows add little to anti-Yucca fight
If only Tuesday's County Commission meeting had been one of those summer blockbuster superhero action movies, the commission's collective criticism of the Yucca Mountain Project might have packed a bigger punch.
Zap. Boom. Pow.
Nevada saved from the forces of evil in two hours, including credits.
As it turned out, the commission's gesture was more like a good scolding from Ben Stein.
Sincere, but droning.
Granted, the marathon fight by featherweight Nevada against the behemoth Department of Energy's nuclear waste repository plan has gone on too long to provide us with many surprises. More than $6 billion has been dumped into the proposed facility 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas since that spot in the Nevada desert was singled out for study in 1987. Since then, Nevada politicians from Clark County to Capitol Hill have been unanimous in their vilification of the plan to bury more than 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. (Escalating cost projections set the final price tag at as high as $80 billion. I'm betting the over.)
Nevadans have won several rounds over the years, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has blocked its funding and stamped it one gigantic road kill, but its supporters march on. On Tuesday, the DOE submitted its Yucca license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has three years to review the 17-volume, 8,647-page monster weighing in at 110 pounds.
"This application represents the culmination of over 20 years of work by some of the nation's leading scientists, engineers and technical experts," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. "We have done our level best."
But the DOE's best will never be good enough for Nevada, where 75 percent of the citizens oppose the dump and many think it will be dangerous and -- dare it be said in this slumping economy -- lower property values. (Interestingly, those who oppose Yucca don't appear to dislike it so much they've ruled out voting for John McCain. Give or take a political waffle, he favors the project.)
The tireless anti-Yucca brigade counters that the process is riddled with hundreds of examples of flawed science and unfairly singles out Nevada. Even though a federal court ruled the DOE must develop a 1 million-year safety standard, a practical impossibility, that hasn't stopped the DOE.
While Reid and the rest of Nevada's congressional delegation have fought the political battle in Washington, Irene Navis of Clark County's Nuclear Waste Division has been busy stirring it up on the local level. At times it's hard to tell whether the county entity is more than a well-funded cheerleader for the underdog Yucca fighters, or plays a more important role; but through the years the Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee and the County Commission have never failed to throw pebbles at the giant.
Before voting Tuesday to continue fighting the good fight legally and with public relations, Commission Chairman Rory Reid remarked that through the years Clark County had issued seven resolutions criticizing the Yucca project.
Imagine. Seven tersely worded statements and still the DOE keeps coming.
What next, stern rebukes? Hard stares? The silent treatment?
Sorry for the momentary lapse of cynicism. I know sarcastic shrugs and ironic eye-rolling go generally unappreciated in the anti-Yucca camp. Their job is hard enough without smart alecks cracking wise from the cheap seats.
Commissioners Chris Giunchigliani, Chip Maxfield, and Susan Brager joined in the collective jeer as they listened to Navis mark the solemn occasion with a renewed vow to continue to fight.
But how best to do that from the sidelines of the debate? The county already has a division and a legal liaison with the district attorney's office. Navis suggested expanding the legal effort by adding an outside attorney while increasing public awareness of the dangers of the project.
She also noted that the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, which has slated 319 miles of railroad track to help move the spent nuclear fuel to its expensive hole in the ground, also was worthy of the county's federally funded time and attention.
And so it went on what a cynic would consider a dark day in Nevada's Yucca Mountain fight.
Except that, in Nevada, no one listens to cynics on this issue.
And the county never runs low on anti-dump resolve.
Take that, forces of evil.
--John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0295.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
June 04, 2008
Back and forth on Yucca dump
With the application filed, here’s a look at the likely arguments, responses
By Lisa Mascaro
Washington — In a legal proceeding like none the country has ever seen, Nevada and the federal government are about to begin what could be a four-year battle over whether Yucca Mountain should become the nation’s first nuclear waste dump.
The Energy Department on Tuesday submitted its long-awaited application to license the facility in the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will decide over the next 90 days whether the 8,600-page document is adequate for review. If so, the legal battle begins.
Here is a sampling of the key arguments attorneys for Nevada, which opposes the dump, will likely make as the process unfolds, as well as expected federal government responses.
Bad Actor
Nevada Says: E-mail showing allegedly falsified quality control work uncovered in 2005 severely threatened the project’s credibility. The Energy Department is an unfit applicant based on this and other lapses in quality control, outlined in reports from the Government Accountability Office and the department’s investigator general.
The Feds Say: The Energy Department released reports this year giving its quality control programs a clean bill of health, showing that improvements have been made.
Questionable science
Nevada Says: The government’s plan won’t adequately protect residents from ground water contaminated by 70,000 tons of radioactive waste stored inside the mountain. A key barrier being proposed by the government is the use of titanium drip shields that would shelter canisters of nuclear fuel from corrosive water drops. But the shields won’t be installed in the mountain until 100 years after the dump opens — and then, by robots.
The Feds Say: The Energy Department says drip shields cannot be installed until the end of the monitoring phase, which is estimated to be 100 years after the dump opens in 2020. The waste needs to be accessible in case it must be removed for recycling, scientific study or to prevent contamination from leaks.
Missing data
Nevada Says: Despite the thousands of pages of documents, the government is still missing key components, including standards that will establish how much cancer risk residents living near the site can be exposed to.
The Feds Say: Risks of cancer from Yucca Mountain will be less than what is allowed under the government’s draft standards. The project can proceed with the license review while the final standards are being prepared for release.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
June 04, 2008
Lyon should feel no impact from Yucca Mountain if repository came to be
Keith Trout
In a presentation by a State of Nevada official involved in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project, on the side of the state's interests, Lyon County Commissioners were told Lyon County shouldn't be directly affected and explained the state's opposition.
Joseph Strolin, administrator of the Planning Division for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Projects Office, in beginning his presentation said the main questions on people's minds is "will Lyon County be affected?"
He responded, "The only way Lyon County would be affected by Yucca Mountain would be by transportation of (nuclear) waste." And he continued the only way that would happen were if the proposal for the Mina rail spur, which goes south from Hazen, to be involved was utilized; but now it appears that transportation alternative, which could have brought nuclear waste on railroad tracks through part of the county were be used.
However, he said that alternative seemed to end when the Walker River Paiute Tribe in Schurz changed its mind and said it wouldn't grant permission for the nuclear waste to travel through its reservation by rail.
Strolin said initially the WRPT was agreeable in 2006 to allowing the rail line in the reservation to be used, but detoured around the town. However, he added about six months later the tribe canceled its prior agreements involving the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and withdrew from the rail transportation planning, saying they wouldn't allow the waste to cross tribal land.
As a result, now he said the DOE is only looking at the Caliente rail spur transportation option, which would bring nuke waste through southern Nevada, not northern Nevada.
Strolin said there was a possibility the nuclear waste could be transported by truck on I-80 but he said there wouldn't be nuke transports on 95-Alternate or 95, since the state could reject use of those roadways.
Regarding the state's opposition, Strolin said Nevada's position was based on one simple issue. "The number one issue from day one is Yucca Mountain is a bad site," and that's based on geology. He said if it were a good site it would be a different situation.
The Nevada official said the rock geology in that area is porous while it also is seismically active, with earthquakes having occurred in the past in that area, plus volcanic activity, and the water has a corrosive character. As a result of the latter, he said it would make the containers "corrosive in a matter of weeks," he said their studies have shown, although some dispute that information.
The Nevada Congressional delegation, led by Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has pushed to cut funding to Yucca Mountain each year in an effort to halt its use, Strolin explained.
The DOE has for years worked on a plan that would store hazardous nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in a repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
He noted Nevada was gearing up to oppose the DOE's application that was to be submitted to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in early June. He said the NRC has three months to accept the application or not. But he felt it would take three or four more years to license the project.
Nevada officials had attended a prior presentation by representatives of the U.S. DOE about the Yucca Mountain project and this presentation was in response to that report.
Strolin said the state offered 500 technical reasons the Yucca Mountain site wasn't a good one and he felt even if it reached the licensing stage they had ammunition to make that difficult.
He said the feds recognized it wasn't a good site but are apparently trying to fix it.
He said the project had "diminishing legislative and industry support and two of the three Presidential candidates oppose it. With diminishing support and budget cuts, it is likely the repository won't be built or used.
According to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects website, its mission "is to assure that the health, safety, and welfare of Nevada's citizens and the State's unique environment and economy are adequately protected with regard to any federal high-level nuclear waste disposal activities in the State."
---------------------------
Beyond Nuclear
June 04, 2008
Breaking News
DOE files final Yucca dump application; Obama, if elected, could kill project
Background: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted its final application on June 3, 2008 to license the proposed Yucca Mountain repository for high-level radioactive waste, situated in Nevada, 90 miles from Las Vegas. The dump, if opened, would predominantly house waste from the country’s civilian nuclear power plants in addition to some nuclear weapons waste. However, Democratic presidential candidate and now presumed nominee, Barack Obama, has publicly vowed to kill the Yucca dump if elected. Republican presumptive nominee, John McCain, told a Reno, NV audience last week that he supports the Yucca dump and has consistently voted in favor of Yucca. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has three to four years to review the proposal before giving it the final green light.
Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste watchdog at Beyond Nuclear, comments:
“The DOE statement on Tuesday that Yucca Mountain will ‘solve’ this country’s radioactive waste problem is just the latest delusion of a desperate agency that has failed to prove for more than 20 years that the flawed and leaky Yucca Mountain site is feasible. The DOE is already squandering one to two million dollars a day trying to make Yucca a reality. But a more probable – and desirable – outcome is that the Yucca dump will never open. Indeed, it could – and should – be killed swiftly by one stroke of the presidential pen, an outcome that looks likely if Barack Obama wins the November election.
“Radioactive wastes stored at atomic reactors across the country remain vulnerable to catastrophic accidents or attacks. But putting them on our roads, rails and waterways to Yucca Mountain only further risks attack or accident in major population centers whose consequences could be tantamount to a Mobile Chernobyl.
“At the very least, we must immediately begin to fortify radioactive waste at the reactor sites. But, most importantly, we must stop making more waste. This is the most obvious first step in attempting to solve our mounting radioactive waste problem and is made more imperative by the fact that the legal capacity at Yucca Mountain could only accommodate the first 63,000 metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, a target that will be met by 2010. If nuclear waste continues to be generated, the push will be on to find a second dumpsite, most likely in the eastern half of the U.S. where most of the country’s 104 reactors operate. This will simply provoke another protracted and futile political battle and a further needless squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars.”
---------------------------
PolitickerNV
June 04, 2008
Press Release
Nevada Congressional Delegation Responds to Energy Department Application for Yucca Mountain
By Joseph K. Cooper
Washington, DC - Nevada's congressional delegation responded today to the Department of Energy's submittal of an application for the licensing to begin construction of the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now has 90 days to review the application preliminarily to determine if it is complete. If the application is accepted, the NRC will take at least three years to determine whether to grant the license to begin building the dump.
"While the DOE is trying to spin this as though it has submitted the application early, the truth is that it was supposed to be filed years ago. Yet, even with the extra time, this application is shoddy at best," Reid said. "The application, which includes designs that are only 35% complete, lacks critical information that cannot simply be overlooked. For example, just how would the Energy Department respond in the event of an emergency? We can't answer that question because the Department doesn't even know. I urge every Nevadan to go to my website, reid.senate.gov, and sign the petition against Yucca Mountain. Meanwhile, I will continue working with the rest of Nevada's congressional delegation to kill the dump, which continues to lose any political support it once had in Congress."
"The Department of Energy is once again desperately trying to resuscitate Yucca Mountain," said Ensign. "Over the years, previous Yucca Mountain supporters have become more and more skeptical of the flawed project, and this latest attempt by the DOE is merely a last-ditch effort to breathe life into bad policy that is wrong for America. Yucca Mountain is dead, and it is time to move forward in a new direction with on-site waste storage."
"Nothing about this application changes the fact that Yucca Mountain is decades behind schedule or that its price tag is $80 billion and climbing. Nor does it erase the history of earthquakes and volcanoes at the site or the terrorist threat posed by ‘rolling dirty bombs' barreling down America's roads and railways. Nevadans know a bad bet when we see one and that is why we vehemently oppose the Bush-McCain Yucca Mountain plan and its decades of toxic radioactive waste shipments. Nevada is not alone in this fight and the lives of more than 50 million Americans will be at risk from trucks and trains hauling this nuclear garbage to the Silver State. That's why this submission should be seen for exactly what it is - an $80 billion goodbye present to the nuclear industry from President Bush at the expense of the health and safety of families in Nevada and nationwide," said Berkley.
"Nevadans and the American public clearly understand that Yucca Mountain is both a reckless waste of taxpayer dollars and a fatally flawed project," Porter said. "The Nevada delegation has successfully swayed public conscious away from the antiquated repository model and towards more responsible solutions like nuclear recycling. The Department of Energy's filing of the license application today shows total disregard for the heath and safety of Nevadans. Let's stop throwing good money after bad and give the Nuclear Waste Fund ratepayers a better solution and the Americans more of a say in domestic nuclear policy."
"The Yucca Mountain project has been plagued by poor management and faulty science from day one. Licensing this project would be a threat to the health and safety of every community nuclear waste would be shipped through. I will continue to fight along side the Nevada delegation to stop nuclear waste from being stored at Yucca Mountain," said Heller.
---------------------------
PolitickerNV
June 04, 2008
Press Release:
Berkley: Yucca Mountain Still Broken, Price Tag Still Growing
By Joseph K. Cooper
(Washington D.C. - June 3, 2008) Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV) today responded to remarks by Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman touting the submission of a License Application (LA) for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump 90 minutes outside Las Vegas. The document was sent today by the Department of Energy (DOE) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review. Bodman spoke at a news conference in Washington, D.C. this afternoon.
"The real news here is that after more than 20 years, Yucca Mountain is still decades behind schedule and its price tag has grown to $80 billion," said Berkley. "The Bush White House knows the sun is about to set on its dreams of turning Nevada into a nuclear waste dump. As a result, they are desperate to show progress is being made, even as Yucca's timetable has now slipped to 2020 or beyond. The clock is ticking on the future of Yucca Mountain and one thing is certain, come next January, there will be a new occupant in the Oval office. I hope that change will mark the end of this failed project once and for all," said Berkley.
Berkley also responded to a call by Secretary Bodman for action on a so-called "fix Yucca" bill that would weaken regulations governing the dump and loosen Congressional controls over spending on the proposed repository.
"Secretary Bodman again called for action on a ‘fix Yucca' bill that would gut health and safety standards for the dump and would tie the hands of Congress when it comes to oversight of spending. This reckless legislation has gone nowhere since being introduced and I will continue working with Senator Reid and my colleagues in the House to make sure it stays that way."
Legislation cosponsored by Berkley would allow nuclear waste to be safely stored at power plant sites hardened for protection, eliminating the need for waste to be moved to Yucca Mountain.
"Nuclear waste can be safely stored on-site for the next 100 years. This solution costs a small fraction of the price tag for dumping this toxic garbage in Nevada and avoids the danger of an accident or terrorist incident involving shipments of radioactive waste," said Berkley.
---------------------------
Los Angeles Times
June 04, 2008
U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump
Nevada officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain.
Ralph Vartabedian
The federal government applied for a license Tuesday to build a long-planned dump for the nation's radioactive waste in Nevada, but state officials vowed a renewed effort to block it, saying Washington has "lost track of reality."
After a quarter-century of scientific dispute and legal wrangling, the Energy Department officially launched what could be one of the most complex and costly engineering efforts in history. The Yucca Mountain repository, located 16 miles from the California border, would eventually store 70,000 metric tons of waste that has been accumulating since the first reactors went online.
And the amount of waste will grow at an increasing rate in future decades: In the last year, utilities have launched a nuclear power renaissance, announcing plans for 15 new commercial reactors.
The application "will further encourage the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, which is absolutely critical to our energy security, to our environment and to our national security," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday.
The license application, which is 8,600 pages long, was filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has up to four years to act. If everything goes unfettered, Bodman said, Yucca Mountain could be open for business by 2020 at a cost of about $70 billion.
Although the impetus for a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain may be greater than ever, the legal and political hurdles for the project are vast.
A sharp cut in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget has left it short of resources, Chairman Dale E. Klein said. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is years behind schedule in issuing a health standard for radioactive leakage from the dump. A previous standard was ruled illegal by a federal appeals court.
The issues that remain undecided could set off a frenetic pace of legal and regulatory scrambling in the closing days of the Bush administration.
Nevada officials said the administration was rushing forward with an incomplete application out of the belief that it would be more difficult to stop once it was in motion.
"They are just trying to get this on the plate while they still have a pal in the White House," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview. "All they want to do is get it out of their hands and give it to the next administration."
The dump has become one of the biggest geographic disputes in modern U.S. history, pitting Nevada against a nuclear power industry centered in the East. California's two senators, as well as others in the West, have supported Nevada's opposition to the dump.
Edward "Ward" Sproat, director of the Energy Department's office of civilian radioactive waste, disputed the idea of a geographic divide, saying the dump would relieve 39 states of stored nuclear waste.
"I don't see it as an East versus West issue," Sproat said. "I see it as a national issue."
The design of the dump will provide for safe storage of the waste and represents 20 years of work by the nation's leading scientists, engineers and technical experts, including eight of the national laboratories and the U.S. Geological Survey, Bodman said.
The Energy Department has long argued against critics who want to leave the waste in place until technology improves. It would be irresponsible to not deal with the problem, the department has said.
The delays in building the dump have complicated the problem. Sproat said the Energy Department would have to ask Congress to expand the capacity of the Yucca Mountain site because all of its 70,000 metric tons of capacity will be reached in the next 24 months.
The nation has been trying to resolve the issue since the late 1970s. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In his first term, President Bush, with congressional approval, selected Yucca Mountain as the designated site for what is mostly spent fuel from commercial reactors but also military nuclear waste.
Since then, Nevada has waged an effective legal, political and technical fight against it, drawing on the state's growing fiscal and political clout.
"The whole legal and regulatory process is corrupt," said Marta Adams, senior deputy attorney general in Nevada. "It would be very hard for Nevada to get a fair shake."
Only last year, Nevada blocked a federal effort to get access to 8 million gallons of state water to drill test holes at the site.
Nevada officials have a carefully laid out a plan to stop the project, said Robert Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. He said the state would immediately file to have the Energy Department's application thrown out, and if that fails, lodge more than 600 separate disputes or "contentions."
The notion that the dump would be safe is implausible, said Victor Galinsky, a former NRC commissioner and now a Nevada consultant.
The plan hinges on the use of titanium and palladium drip shields to protect waste canisters buried underground from water flowing through Yucca Mountain's porous rock. The Energy Department plans to install about 11,000 drip shields, each weighing five tons, using robots 100 to 300 years in the future when the repository would be sealed.
"It is pie in the sky," Galinsky said. "These people have lost track of reality."
--ralph.vartabedian@latimes.com
---------------------------
AHN
June 04, 2008
Nevada-D.C. Clash Over Nuke Waste Dump Heats Up With License Application
Windsor Genova - AHN News Writer
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Washington took another step closer to winning its battle against Nevada for a single nuclear waste dumpsite in the U.S., but state officials are not throwing in the towel yet.
The Department of Energy (DOE) celebrated Tuesday its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons responded by reiterating his promise to fight the waste dump which he told USAToday.com "threatens the life and safety of the people of Nevada."
Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman told reporters at the National Press Club that the underground desert storage facility 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas will pass scrutiny from the commission and challenges from critics.
The NRC will have three months to determine if the project will be subject to courtroom-like review by Nevada that will run for up to four years. If the dumpsite is approved, nearly 80,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants across the country will be transported to Yucca Mountain by train and truck while the facility is constructed.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed by Congress in 1982 required the transfer of spent nuclear fuel stored in 131 sites in 39 states to a single repository far from populated areas by 1998 as a safety precaution against possible terrorist attacks of such facilities and to clean up defense waste sites permanently.
---------------------------
EnerPub
June 04, 2008
Nuclear power needed to offset environmental laws
The United States will need substantially more nuclear power to economically survive new Big Green legislation
by Jack Spencer
Anxiety over human-induced global warming is driving the debate over energy policy. The Lieberman–Warner climate change bill (S. 2191) is the political manifestation of this fear.
Many who support the broader agenda of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), view Lieberman–Warner as a significant step forward and see the benefits of reducing carbon dioxide as outweighing the costs of the bill. Those who are more skeptical of global warming take an opposite view. A recent Heritage Foundation analysis, for example, estimates the costs to the U.S. economy at between $1.8 trillion and $4.8 trillion by 2030.[1]
While analyses differ, they have some common threads. For example, most show that Lieberman–Warner will have a significant negative economic impact. They also assume that some CO2-free technologies will be brought online quicker than many believe is technologically or economically feasible. Finally, most rely on a broad expansion of nuclear power to mitigate the bill's negative economic consequences and to help achieve the CO2 cap targets.
Although many supporters of Lieberman–Warner are quick to call attention to conclusions that show the least negative economic impact, they often fail to mention that the results depend on a massive expansion of nuclear power. For example, as noted by the Environmental Defense Fund, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis concludes that economic growth would be minimally affected by Lieberman–Warner but makes no mention of the fact that this conclusion depends on a broad expansion of nuclear energy.[2]
It is not just that nuclear power is needed, but that a massive amount of nuclear power is needed in a relatively short period of time. The EPA analysis assumes a 150 percent increase in nuclear power by 2050.[3] While meeting this demand would require a substantial industrial effort, it is miniscule in comparison to an Energy Information Agency (EIA) analysis that suggests that the U.S. must increase its nuclear capacity by 268 gigawatts of new nuclear power by 2030.[4]
These numbers must be put into perspective. The U.S. has 104 operating reactors today with a capacity of approximately 100 gigawatts. New reactors would likely be larger, on average, than existing reactors. Assuming that the average new reactor will produce about 1.3 gigawatts of electric power, the EPA analysis would require nearly 50 new reactors, while the EIA's analysis would require approximately 200 over the next 25 years.
The reality is that the United States has not ordered a new reactor since the mid-1970s and it does not have the industrial infrastructure to build even one reactor today. Its industrial and intellectual base atrophied as the nuclear industry declined over the past three decades. Large forging production, heavy manufacturing, specialized piping, mining, fuel services, and skilled labor all must be reconstituted in massive quantities.
Global supply is no more promising, especially when one considers that the rest of the world is coming to similar conclusions about the emerging role of nuclear power in meeting CO2 reductions. The global nuclear industrial base currently supports 33 reactors under construction (mostly in Asia and Russia) and the normal operation and maintenance of the world's existing 439 reactors (including those in the U.S.). Even under today's conditions, bottlenecks emerge within the global supply chain for items such as heavy forgings, piping, skilled labor, and manufacturing.
While building enough nuclear power plants to minimize the economic impacts of CO2 caps may be desirable, the reality is that the global industrial base could not support such a project in the U.S., much less the rest of the world. Thus, the amount of nuclear power required to sustain the optimistic Lieberman–Warner economic projections is impossible to achieve within the timeframes that they would require. This is especially true as the U.S. has yet to resolve many issues that continue to face the nuclear industry. Using such optimistic nuclear projections to support an analysis with minimal economic consequences of S. 2191 is therefore completely unrealistic.
It is ironic that support for Lieberman–Warner that is based on such unrealistic scenarios is often coupled with strong antagonism toward nuclear power. Passive support is no better. Given the role of nuclear energy in minimizing the economic impacts of CO2 reductions, those who support such cuts should actively support nuclear power.
Many politicians and organizations attempt to remain agnostic or tepid toward nuclear energy by arguing that nuclear power might have a role to play if certain conditions are met. They then ensure that their conditions are set in such a way as to be unattainable. To suggest that the nuclear industry must improve its safety record is an example of this. No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. How does one improve on this? To argue that the waste problem must first be solved, but then to stand in the way of building Yucca Mountain or reprocessing nuclear fuel (both of which are safe methods of waste management), is equally dubious.
If one views atmospheric emissions as such a threat that CO2 reductions should be made the central organizing tenet of America's economic and energy policy (and thus society), then the moral policy should be to achieve that objective in an economically rational way. The motives of anyone who denies society access to the technologies best capable of achieving its stated goals, either by explicit antagonism or through implicit passivity, must be questioned.
On the other hand, if CO2 reduction is truly the objective, then maximizing America's nuclear resources as quickly as possible should be a top priority. While doing so would still not likely allow the U.S. to meet the levels of nuclear power described in either the EIA or the EPA analyses, it could at least minimize the economic impact of Lieberman–Warner. But doing so will require long-term, sustained, bipartisan support for nuclear energy. Without this support, the billions of dollars of private capital needed to expand America's nuclear capacity will simply not be invested. Without this investment, even the rosiest Lieberman–Warner economic projections lose what little credibility they had at the outset.
Top 10 List for a Sustained Reemergence of Nuclear Power
The massive increases in nuclear power over the next 25 years on the scale described in some S. 2191 analyses might be unrealistic, but the right policies could at least move the nation in the right direction. Although the Energy Policy Acts (EPACTs) of 1992 and 2005 provide some reform and incentives to boost the nuclear industry, they do not provide the systemic overhaul that would be necessary to meet the demands required to satisfy Lieberman–Warner. Existing legislation assures that the U.S. will build six to 10 reactors, which does almost nothing to mitigate the consequences of CO2 caps.
If CO2 reductions are the goal, then the U.S. needs a sustainable nuclear energy industry that can be successful without government intervention. To assure that it is prepared to meet demand for nuclear energy beyond constructing the plants supported by EPACT 2005, the U.S. must:
1. Let the market work. The United States does not need the government to dictate how it produces energy. The federal government is making the same mistakes that it has made in the past. It is responding to volatility in the energy industry by consolidating power over its operations through mandates, tax policy, and other control mechanisms. Federal intervention has caused much of the volatility that consumers currently face. The vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, renewable portfolio standards, and increased ethanol mandate put in place by the Energy Independence and Security Act last December are recent examples. Instead of telling consumers and producers how to generate energy and what sorts of energy to consume, the federal government should step aside and allow energy producers to get to the business of meeting America's energy demands.
2. Limit government support to that provided by EPACT 2005. EPACT 2005 provides loan guarantees, production tax credits, and risk insurance to the first few nuclear reactors built. Given that the greatest risk to the nuclear industry is government itself, the burden of proof remains with the federal government to demonstrate that it will allow the nuclear industry to mature. Its support through EPACT 2005 should be adequate to achieve this goal so long as it is combined with commitments by Congress and future Administrations to assure political and regulatory stability for the nuclear industry.
3. Hold accountable those leading the charge to cap CO2. It is morally indefensible to put stringent caps on CO2 and then obstruct the only technology available to meet the mandates affordably. Yet that is exactly what many supporters of a CO2 cap are doing when they do not advocate for nuclear power. While wind, solar, and other renewable energies may contribute to CO2-free energy production, none can provide the vast amounts of electricity that is required to meet America's growing demand. Supporting nuclear power does not mean simply acknowledging that it has a role to play or that it could be part of the mix, as many CO2 cap supporters sometimes halfheartedly admit when faced with the facts. It means supporting the policies that are required to allow a massive expansion of nuclear power in this country. It means supporting regulatory relief, opening Yucca Mountain, recycling nuclear fuel, moving nuclear fuel around the country and the world, and explicitly acknowledging the critical role that nuclear power will play in meeting CO2 mandates and committing to long-term political support.
4. Put industry in control of fuel cycle management. The Energy Policy Act of 1982 created a framework for managing used nuclear fuel. The federal government took responsibility for managing the fuel, and nuclear energy producers were supposed to pay for the service through a fee. While the federal government has been very successful in collecting the fee, it has completely failed in collecting the waste. Indeed, it has not assumed formal responsibility for one atom of fuel, despite being legally obliged to do so beginning in 1998. If nuclear power is going to have a sustainable rebirth in the U.S., the nuclear waste problem must be fixed, but the federal government has proven incapable of providing that service. The nuclear industry should establish responsibility for spent fuel management. The federal government would still have roles to play in terms of providing oversight and taking title of the waste once the geologic repository is decommissioned, but what happens to the fuel between the time it leaves the reactor and the time it is permanently disposed should be in the hands of industry.
5. Open America's doors to legal immigration of skilled labor. While the nation debates the problem of illegal immigration, it too quickly ignores the benefits of legal immigration of skilled workers. These are the exact types of people the U.S. will need to build a 21st century energy infrastructure. One way to achieve this is to expand the H1-B visa program, which brings highly skilled and educated workers into the U.S.[5]
6. Remove commodity tariffs. Lifting tariffs on products like steel and cement would help to reduce construction costs. The U.S. would have the added benefit of gaining access to the resources needed to build the energy plants, of whatever source, to meet its energy demands.
7. Liberalize the global commercial nuclear market. Unfortunately, international commercial nuclear markets are some of the world's most regulated and tightly controlled. The U.S. must gain access to the potential boom in global nuclear business to rebuild its own nuclear industry and have access to the goods and services that are required to meet energy demands.
8. Increase supply.The United States needs to increase energy supplies. Like other energy sources, nuclear power needs fuel. While uranium and uranium services are largely in balance with demand today, the sort of growth envisioned by some of the Lieberman–Warner analyses could throw that supply and demand out of balance. One way to assure that the U.S. has access to the supplies of uranium that it needs is to begin expanding domestic uranium mining.[6]
9. Take the lead in developing a new international framework for managing the global growth of nuclear power. Because the United States has largely allowed its commercial nuclear industry to atrophy over the past three decades, it has little to offer on today's international market. However, it does have the power and prestige necessary to take the lead in developing a new framework to manage the growth of nuclear power around the world. If it does not undertake this role, other nations like Russia will. Indeed, the Russians are already establishing agreements to facilitate nuclear cooperation. These agreements will likely not embody American principles like free trade and transparency or adequately elevate non-proliferation objectives. That is precisely why the United States must lead the effort.
10. Reengage Nevada on Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain should not be viewed as America's nuclear waste dump. It should be viewed as a spent fuel repository that could coexist with other nuclear fuel management services. An expansion of nuclear power will require more than just a place to store waste. It will require interim storage facilities, recycling facilities, research and development complexes, and other capabilities. There is no reason that these facilities could not be located with Yucca in Nevada. Indeed, spent fuel should be viewed as an asset rather than as a liability.
Conclusion
Commitment to cutting CO2 should be equaled by commitment to nuclear energy. To deny the United States access to nuclear technology while mandating CO2 caps is hypocritical and indefensible.
The United States will need substantially more nuclear power to survive the Lieberman–Warner bill economically. While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 may have a near-term role in reestablishing nuclear power in the U.S, it does not bring about the fundamental changes that will be required to establish a sustainable, market-based nuclear industry. If the nation is committed to reducing CO2, then it must also be committed to the long-term success of nuclear power.
Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] William W. Beach, David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas D. Loris, "The Economic Costs of the Lieberman–Warner Climate Change Legislation," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA08-02, May 12, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm.
[2] Environmental Defense Fund, "EPA Analysis Forecasts Robust Economic Growth With Change Law," press release, March 14, 2008, at http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=7738.
[3] United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Analysis of the Lieberman–Warner Climate Change Security Act of 2008, March 14, 2008, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s2191_EPA_Analysis.pdf (May 22, 2008).
[4] United States Department of Energy, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.2191, the Lieberman–Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, April 2008, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/pdf/sroiaf(2008)01.pdf (May 22, 2008).
[5] James Sherk and Guinevere Nell, "More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA08-01, April 30, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/cda08-01.cfm.
[6] Jack Spencer and Nick Loris, "Uranium Mining Is Important for Securing America's Energy Future," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1866, March 25, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1866.cfm.
---------------------------
Xinhua News
June 04, 2008
White House applies for nuke waste storage license
BEIJING, June 4 (Xinhuanet) -- The Bush administration formally applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build the long-delayed underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain more than 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Nevada officials, who have fought the waste dump for years, vowed to launch hundreds of specific challenges to the proposed design of the facility, arguing the Energy Department has not proven it will protect public health, safety and the environment from radiation up to a million years.
Responding to the filing, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons reiterated his promise to fight the waste dump which he said "threatens the life and safety of the people of Nevada."
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman called the application submission "a big day" for moving the stalled project forward and said he's confident the scientific assessments demonstrate the 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from the country's nuclear power plants can be stored there safely.
"Issues of health safety and security have been paramount during this process. ... (They) are the driving factors in the decisions we have made," said Bodman.
Edward F. Sproat, manager of the Yucca project, confirmed the department now believes it may be 2020 before the waste site can be opened, assuming the NRC grants a license. And he said even that target may not be met if Congress does not provide a steady money stream.
But the application prepared for the NRC still lacks a final public radiation exposure standard that establishes how protective the facility must be from radiation leakage. The EPA had issued a standard designed to be protective for 10,000 years.
But a federal court said it was inadequate and that agency must establish a standard shown to be protective for up to 1 million years — the time some of the isotopes in the waste will remain dangerous. The EPA has yet to produce that document.
---------------------------
Longview Daily News
June 04, 2008
Editorial
Time to quit stalling on Yucca Mountain repository
The Bush administration is pushing ahead with plans to build a nuclear waste repository near Yucca Mountain in Nevada. On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Energy filed an application for a construction permit with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The administration’s determination to move this project forward in the face of stiff congressional opposition is praiseworthy. The government is contractually obligated to take possession of the more than 50,000 tons of radioactive waste piled up at commercial reactor sites around the nation. That number includes 4,700 of spent fuel rods currently stored at the idled Trojan Nuclear Power Plant near Rainier. Fulfilling that obligation is important for both strategic and practical reasons — reasons that Democratic congressional leaders have chosen to ignore in favor of political expediency.
Strategically, it’s important that the nuclear waste accumulating at commercial utilities be shipped to one centrally located, secure site. This radioactive waste now is scattered around the nation at 131 sites, raising theft and safety concerns. From a practical standpoint, the nation already has invested more than $6 billion and some 26 years in this project. Walking away from it now would leave the federal government liable to the utilities for an estimated $60 billion in damages. To date, the government has paid out $243 million in damages for having fallen a decade behind the contractual deadline for taking possession of the waste.
Additionally, how the Yucca Mountain project proceeds could impact the nation’s energy future. The rising cost of crude oil on the world market has prompted many in government to give nuclear power a new look. The administration has made the construction of new nuclear plants a priority. Several congressional initiatives to spur development of nuclear power have been put forward over the past year, including legislation that would authorize more than $3.7 billion in subsidies for new plants. But we’re unlikely to see the dawn of a new era of nuclear power until it’s clear that the federal government will honor its promise to take possession of radioactive waste left over from the previous era.
Congressional leaders purposefully ignore this connection between the Yucca Mountain project and the role of nuclear power in the country’s energy future. Even as they tout nuclear energy initiatives, they’re cutting budgets for Yucca Mountain in an effort, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “to drive the final nail into (the project’s) coffin.”
We take some encouragement from the administration’s dogged determination to advance the project — that and our belief that congressional opposition will soften following the November elections. Most lawmakers recognize the national interest in building a single, secure nuclear waste dump and understand that there is no alternative plan for one.
---------------------------
Victoria Advocate
June 04, 2008
Does Yucca filing affect Victoria’s nuclear future?
In December, Exelon Nuclear announced that Victoria is the primary site for a proposed nuclear power plant.
Top Exelon executives, however, have said they won’t build the plant without a viable, long-term solution for safely disposing of nuclear waste.
The Bush administration’s formal application, filed Tuesday, to build a waste dump at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain likely boosts chances a local plant will be built, a spokesman said.
“It’s a good thing,” said Craig Nesbit, an Exelon spokesman. “We need to address the waste solution problem. Yucca Mountain is important to that.”
Nesbit said the application process might take up to three years.
---------------------------
Augusta Chronicle
June 04, 2008
DOE applies to build Yucca Mountain repository
Rob Pavey
After two decades of often controversial debate, the U.S. Department of Energy on Tuesday delivered its formal application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the nation's first national repository for high-level radioactive waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.
The application is substantial -- more than 8,600 pages, not including more than 200 studies of supporting documents.
If the site is built, the radioactive material stored at 121 temporary sites in 39 states -- including Savannah River Site near Augusta -- would have a permanent resting place in Nevada.
"This application is one more step in the long process to bring Yucca to completion," DOE spokesman Jim Giusti said. "That's the key thing for SRS: It would be the ultimate disposition place for our vitrified high-level waste containers on site."
SRS has two glass waste storage buildings, where radioactive waste encased in glass is stored in steel cylinders that could be shipped to Yucca Mountain.
"From our standpoint, it further demonstrates the department's commitment to build a repository that we can remove waste to from SRS," Mr. Giusti said.
Yucca Mountain, a remote ridge on federal land in the Mojave Desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been under study for such a repository for two decades.
In 2002, the president and both chambers of Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the site for the nation's first permanent repository.
Tuesday's formal application will be reviewed over a three-year period.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford applauded the long-awaited application.
"While it certainly needs to be remembered that this is only the first step in the process, I'd thank the Department of Energy for taking this step on something that's been a long time coming for South Carolina," Mr. Sanford said.
"Over the years, South Carolina has become an increasingly large temporary home to nuclear waste, and moving forward on this application is an important part of the federal government keeping promises...
"We believe Yucca Mountain to be an important part of our nation's future both when it comes to energy policy and security, and we're hopeful that this process will continue without delay."
--Reach Rob Pavey at (706) 868-1222, ext. 119 or rob.pavey@augustachronicle.com
---------------------------
Earthtimes
June 04, 2008
DTE Energy Chairman Applauds DOE Filing of Yucca Mountain License
DETROIT, June 4 MI-DTE-Energy-DOE
DETROIT, June 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Department of Energy yesterday submitted its license application for the long-planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. The facility has been under review and heavy scrutiny for nearly two decades and was initially scheduled to be operational in 1998.
"I commend this milestone action by the Department of Energy," said Anthony F. Earley Jr., DTE Energy chairman and chief executive officer. "In order for the country to continue to rely on the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear power, a national repository for used fuel must be developed.
"This federal, deep geologic nuclear waste disposal facility was mandated by Congress in 1982. The site has been studied exhaustively for 20 years and those studies show that Yucca Mountain is suitable for use as the nuclear waste management facility. To date, Michigan residents have contributed $473.7 million to the federal government to fund construction and operation of a long-term disposal facility. Another $766 million in liabilities remain for the state's electricity users. Our customers now deserve to reap the benefits of their investment."
The country's 104 nuclear power plants provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Currently, nuclear spent fuel is stored at the individual plant locations. The repository would provide a central storage facility to serve the nation and support the continued use of clean, efficient nuclear power.
DTE Energy (NYSE: DTE) is a Detroit-based diversified energy company involved in the development and management of energy-related businesses and services nationwide. Its operating units include Detroit Edison, an electric utility serving 2.2 million customers in Southeastern Michigan, MichCon, a natural gas utility serving 1.3 million customers in Michigan and other non-utility, energy businesses focused on power and industrial projects, coal and gas midstream, unconventional gas production and energy trading.
Information about DTE Energy is available at www.dteenergy.com.
SOURCE DTE Energy
---------------------------
Bangor Daily News
June 04, 2008
State braces for possible battle over N-waste
By Mal Leary
Capitol News Service
AUGUSTA, Maine — State officials are reacting to the possible need for a second federal nuclear waste site by preparing for another battle like that of 20 years ago, when Maine was on the list of possible locations before Yucca Mountain in Nevada was chosen as the first repository.
"The federal government has not taken the action it needs to take in terms of the issue, and I don’t know when it ever will," Gov. John Baldacci said in an interview. "But you have to be prepared, and we are."
The governor noted that the nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain has yet to be built, and the latest estimate is that it will not be completed for another 15 years. The waste from nuclear power plants — along with contaminated soil from closed plants such as Maine Yankee and other low-level material, such as contaminated protective clothing — all add up to more than 70,000 metric tons now being stored at temporary facilities.
By law, Yucca Mountain, once it is constructed, is limited to 70,000 metric tons. Even though the Department of Energy has proposed doubling its size, Congress has not acted to change the law.
"We are concerned," Baldacci said Monday, "but there are two things happening nationally that may change all of this."
First is the need to establish a process to select a second site because one will be needed eventually, and the second is an effort in the nuclear industry to reduce the amount of waste by reprocessing much of it, including "spent" fuel from nuclear power plants.
"There needs to be a major effort to find a way to reprocess this material," Baldacci said. "We have the brain power in this country to come up with a way to make further use of this material and we should make it a priority."
He said making further use of the spent fuel slated for disposal would help both reduce the amount of waste that eventually has to be stored for thousands of years and provide for the energy needs of the nation.
"We have to look at everything as we get off our dependence on oil," he said.
The renewed concern among state officials occurred after Edward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in the Department of Energy, told members of the House Appropriations Committee last month that the department was looking at several waste disposal solutions — from a second repository like Yucca Mountain to several regional sites.
"[The Energy Department] taking title of waste at a storage site, or taking a site and naming it a federal site will eliminate … [the department] of its obligation to remove the waste," Sproat said.
Charles Pray, Maine’s nuclear safety adviser, raised the alarm in state government that such a move could make the temporary storage site at the former Maine Yankee plant a permanent waste site. Pray is a former lawmaker who served as Senate president and worked in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration.
"I think the states have to take an active role," Pray said. "If we are going to have interim storage sites, what’s the definition of interim?"
He said he is worried that several of the more than 100 temporary sites could end up as regional permanent sites. In a memo, he listed facts that should concern the state.
For example, he said, Maine had several sites identified during the initial search in the late 1970s, it has a licensed interim site on the grounds of the former Maine Yankee plant, it has a low population density, and it has several ways to move the waste in or out of the Maine Yankee site.
Public advocate Richard Davies said that while there is concern about the possibility of a permanent waste site in Maine under current law, he does not believe it will happen. He was a member of Gov. Joseph Brennan’s staff in the last round of siting and said he does not believe Maine would be chosen because there are many sites in other states far superior to those here.
"There were changes in the law as a result of what happened in the first search process," he said. "All that [the Energy Department] will be proposing in the next month or so is a series of options. They will not be proposing a site."
But he said that if the options include making the current interim sites permanent, the state is ready to argue against the Maine Yankee site as either a longer-term interim site or a permanent site.
"We have all the data from the first round we can use," he said. "The Maine Yankee site is just above sea level, about 12 feet, and we have a lot more information now about global warming than in the ’70s."
Davies said that even though there are many arguments against siting a nuclear waste dump in Maine, he is determined that the state will be ready to oppose such a proposal should it again be placed on the list.
---------------------------
Christian Science Monitor
June 04, 2008
Economic risks imperil climate bill
In the Senate, opponents focus on pump prices and tax consequences.
By Gail Russell Chaddock
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Washington - Seventy-four senators voted this week to begin debate on a sweeping bill to curb carbon emissions, but agreement on any point of law from now on gets tougher.
The terms of the debate have shifted dramatically from 2003 and 2005, when the Senate rejected previous moves to curb global warming.
Largely out of this week's debate are cries that global warming is a "hoax" or that claims that carbon emissions affect the climate are simply bad science. There's also broad agreement that Washington should increase investments in clean energy technology.
Instead, the fault line in this week's debate is the scope of the role for Washington in curbing emissions and its likely impact on the economy.
"Climate change is an issue that all of us are concerned about, but there's a right way and a wrong way to tackle the problem. And driving the price of gasoline even higher is clearly not the way to go," said Republican leader Mitch McConnell at a briefing on Tuesday.
GOP opponents say the proposed Senate bill will cost $6.7 trillion over the 50-year life of the bill and increase gas prices by anywhere from 53 cents to $1.40 a gallon by 2050, the result of which will be increased costs for American families and more manufacturing jobs sent to foreign countries.
"Unless we have the technology to make a steep and quick emissions cut that the sponsors want, this bill will do nothing but add $6.7 trillion, a tax increase on American families and workers," says Rep. James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, the leading opponent of global-warming legislation.
Supporters say the bill helps shift the US economy to a more diversified energy future and millions of "green jobs."
"Hundreds of thousands of new jobs in renewable energy have already been created by foresighted investors who see the need for clean energy that does not contribute to global warming," said Senate majority leader Harry Reid in the run-up to Monday's vote. The strong cap-and-trade system in the proposed bill could create millions more, he added.
But Democrats, too, face deep rifts within their caucus over how far Washington should move to address global warming. Lawmakers from states that produce or depend on coal for power worry that the technological advances may not come fast enough to meet the terms of the bill.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) of North Dakota is proposing an amendment to bump investment in new technologies from $17 billion to $37 billion to "unlock the mystery of carbon capture." "If we don't do this, this bill will fail," he said on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday.
While there's broad agreement on the need for more investment in solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energies, expected amendments on the needs to relaunch a nuclear power initiative could also further splinter support for the bill.
On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a long-awaited license application to build a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada – a move that supporters say is essential to revive the nuclear-power industry.
Nuclear-power advocates hope to use the global-warming bill as a vehicle for reviving the industry. They make the case that without a significant increase in nuclear power, it will be impossible to lower carbon emissions without a blow to US living standards.
"It's time we begin the nuclear renaissance in America and Yucca Mountain is a vital step," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, in a statement after the announcement. "If Congress is serious about reducing carbon emission, nonemitting nuclear energy must play an even larger role than it does today."
Many Democrats are wary of risking the support of some environmental groups over nuclear power. Majority leader Reid, a longtime opponent of a nuclear-waste dump in his state, charged that DOE filed the application with only about 35 percent of the work done to justify it.
"Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be," he said on Tuesday. Republicans say they are holding out for a wide-ranging debate over the global-warming bill, including many amendments. Democratic leaders worry that some amendments, including those over nuclear power, could undermine support for the bill.
Commenting on the diverse coalition of lawmakers now supporting the bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California said: "They need a certain amount to stay on it. I need a certain amount not to get off it. We're looking for that sweet spot."
Asked to clarify her position in nuclear power, Senator Boxer said on Wednesday, "Already in the bill there's a whole funding stream for these low-carbon, noncarbon energy sources and that's sufficient. I don't think you need more."
As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Boxer is leading the floor debate on the global warming bill, known as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 after cosponsors Sens.
Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut and John Warner (R) of Virginia.
"Some of my colleagues want to add more to it, and I have said to them that the only thing that would get me extremely upset and disturbed is if we did something that made nuclear power less safe, because my fears have to do with the safety of the waste."
Senator Warner and others have yet to release the text of proposed nuclear amendments. Boxer says that she would have no problem with additional funding to train workers in the nuclear power industry, to make plants safer or to have parts manufactured in America. "That kind of thing isn't a deal breaker for me," she says. But "there may be other amendments to 'streamline,' which I believe means [reducing] the time needed to make sure these plants are safe." That, she says, she would have to oppose.
---------------------------
CQPolitics
June 04, 2008
Nuclear Energy Votes Could Doom Senate Climate Change Legislation
By Avery Palmer and Coral Davenport, CQ Staff
Sponsors of the Senate’s climate change legislation have prepared a nuclear energy amendment that is designed to win crucial votes for the bill without destroying the delicate coalition that already supports it.
But the proposal, which includes noncontroversial nuclear science and education provisions, is unlikely to satisfy those who are looking for more sweeping action to expand the industry.
The nuclear issue will become a cornerstone of the debate on the bill (S 3036) as the Senate begins to consider amendments. Votes on some measures could happen Wednesday, but it is unclear when nuclear-related amendments will be debated.
A number of senators have signaled they cannot support the bill unless it contains incentives for nuclear plants, which do not emit the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
At the same time, the environmental groups that want the United States to control its greenhouse gas emissions — and whose Senate allies are the core of the bill’s support — are highly skeptical of the nuclear industry.
The legislation’s original sponsors, Joseph I. Lieberman , I-Conn., and John W. Warner , R-Va., as well as Thomas R. Carper , D-Del., have prepared an amendment that would provide funding for nuclear science education and workforce training. It also includes sense-of-the-Senate language stating that Congress should stimulate private investment in nuclear projects.
One of their targets is John McCain of Arizona, the presumed Republican presidential nominee. Although he has sponsored global warming legislation in the past, he has staked his support this year on expanded incentives for nuclear plants.
At the same time, major incentives for nuclear plants could siphon support from environmentalists concerned about the safety of the industry. Barbara Boxer , chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said this week that she would likely accept some amendments on nuclear power, such as provisions for worker training or plant safety.
“We’re looking for the sweet spot of legislation, and we’re very hopeful we can do it,” said Boxer, D-Calif., who is not a cosponsor of the Warner-Lieberman amendment.
Meanwhile, Johnny Isakson , R-Ga., is preparing an amendment to provide an investment tax credit for nuclear power facilities and incentives for domestic manufacturing of nuclear equipment. It would also encourage loan guarantees for nuclear technologies and align accelerated tax depreciation rules for nuclear power plants with those for renewable-fuels facilities.
A Struggling Industry
Despite the benefits of nuclear power in fighting global warming, the nuclear industry has struggled because of factors such as the cost of building new plants and concerns about safety. No new nuclear plant has been built in the United States since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979.
Lawmakers would also have to resolve the perennial question of how to deal with nuclear waste disposal. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy announced it had submitted a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for authorization to conduct a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Nuclear Energy Votes Could Doom Senate Climate Change Legislation
James M. Inhofe , R-Okla., may offer an amendment that incorporates his bill (S 2551) to overhaul the licensing process for Yucca Mountain. But Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., a longstanding opponent of the project, rejected such legislation out of hand: “Yucca Mountain is panting for air. It’s as close to being dead as any piece of any legislation can be.”
Even if the Senate does not pass climate legislation this year, the role of nuclear power will be a key question for the next Congress.
“I don’t see how you can possibly get to a world of significantly reduced CO2 emissions without more nuclear,” said Dr. Victor Reis, a senior adviser to the Energy secretary who has served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. “But I don’t see any way this can get through this Congress, so I am speaking in terms of the challenge for the next administration.”
The bill would cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists say contribute to global warming at 19 percent below current levels by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050. Utilities and other polluters could reduce their own emissions or buy allowances on a so-called carbon market. The government would distribute some allowances free and auction the rest, spending the money on compliance costs and investment in clean technologies.
When the Senate begins considering amendments, Reid said he does not plan to use a procedural tactic known as filling the amendment tree to limit the number of proposals offered by senators. Instead, he would like to work out a “gentlemen’s agreement” with Republicans, allowing about five amendments on either side.
The Senate is also likely to take up a number of amendments dealing with the cost of the bill to energy consumers. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., said he wants to address the bill’s effect on trucking companies that are struggling with high diesel prices.
Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has introduced alternative legislation (S1766) that sets less-stringent targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He plans to offer one amendment to include those targets in the current legislation, and another to include a “safety valve” that would limit the price of emission allowances.
Specter cited the need to deal with global warming “within the realistic bounds that technology is going to permit.”
Debbie Stabenow , D-Mich., is working with a bipartisan group seeking to expand the opportunity to comply with the bill through special projects, known as offsets. These reduce burdens on industrial sources and provide financial opportunities for the agricultural and forestry industries. The goal is to “involve agriculture more in the solution,” she said.
James M. Inhofe , R-Okla., may offer an amendment that incorporates his bill (S 2551) to overhaul the licensing process for Yucca Mountain. But Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., a longstanding opponent of the project, rejected such legislation out of hand: “Yucca Mountain is panting for air. It’s as close to being dead as any piece of any legislation can be.”
Even if the Senate does not pass climate legislation this year, the role of nuclear power will be a key question for the next Congress.
“I don’t see how you can possibly get to a world of significantly reduced CO2 emissions without more nuclear,” said Dr. Victor Reis, a senior adviser to the Energy secretary who has served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. “But I don’t see any way this can get through this Congress, so I am speaking in terms of the challenge for the next administration.”
The bill would cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists say contribute to global warming at 19 percent below current levels by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050. Utilities and other polluters could reduce their own emissions or buy allowances on a so-called carbon market. The government would distribute some allowances free and auction the rest, spending the money on compliance costs and investment in clean technologies.
When the Senate begins considering amendments, Reid said he does not plan to use a procedural tactic known as filling the amendment tree to limit the number of proposals offered by senators. Instead, he would like to work out a “gentlemen’s agreement” with Republicans, allowing about five amendments on either side.
The Senate is also likely to take up a number of amendments dealing with the cost of the bill to energy consumers. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., said he wants to address the bill’s effect on trucking companies that are struggling with high diesel prices.
Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has introduced alternative legislation (S1766) that sets less-stringent targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He plans to offer one amendment to include those targets in the current legislation, and another to include a “safety valve” that would limit the price of emission allowances.
Specter cited the need to deal with global warming “within the realistic bounds that technology is going to permit.”
Debbie Stabenow , D-Mich., is working with a bipartisan group seeking to expand the opportunity to comply with the bill through special projects, known as offsets. These reduce burdens on industrial sources and provide financial opportunities for the agricultural and forestry industries. The goal is to “involve agriculture more in the solution,” she said.
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid
June 03, 2008
Nevada Congressional Delegation Responds to Energy Department's Application for Yucca Mountain
June 3, 2008
Washington, DC – Nevada's congressional delegation responded today to the Department of Energy's submittal of an application for the licensing to begin construction of the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now has 90 days to review the application preliminarily to determine if it is complete. If the application is accepted, the NRC will take at least three years to determine whether to grant the license to begin building the dump.
"While the DOE is trying to spin this as though it has submitted the application early, the truth is that it was supposed to be filed years ago. Yet, even with the extra time, this application is shoddy at best," Reid said. "The application, which includes designs that are only 35% complete, lacks critical information that cannot simply be overlooked. For example, just how would the Energy Department respond in the event of an emergency? We can't answer that question because the Department doesn't even know. I urge every Nevadan to go to my website, reid.senate.gov, and sign the petition against Yucca Mountain. Meanwhile, I will continue working with the rest of Nevada's congressional delegation to kill the dump, which continues to lose any political support it once had in Congress."
"The Department of Energy is once again desperately trying to resuscitate Yucca Mountain," said Ensign. "Over the years, previous Yucca Mountain supporters have become more and more skeptical of the flawed project, and this latest attempt by the DOE is merely a last-ditch effort to breathe life into bad policy that is wrong for America. Yucca Mountain is dead, and it is time to move forward in a new direction with on-site waste storage."
"Nothing about this application changes the fact that Yucca Mountain is decades behind schedule or that its price tag is $80 billion and climbing. Nor does it erase the history of earthquakes and volcanoes at the site or the terrorist threat posed by 'rolling dirty bombs' barreling down America's roads and railways. Nevadans know a bad bet when we see one and that is why we vehemently oppose the Bush-McCain Yucca Mountain plan and its decades of toxic radioactive waste shipments. Nevada is not alone in this fight and the lives of more than 50 million Americans will be at risk from trucks and trains hauling this nuclear garbage to the Silver State. That's why this submission should be seen for exactly what it is – an $80 billion goodbye present to the nuclear industry from President Bush at the expense of the health and safety of families in Nevada and nationwide," said Berkley.
"Nevadans and the American public clearly understand that Yucca Mountain is both a reckless waste of taxpayer dollars and a fatally flawed project," Porter said. "The Nevada delegation has successfully swayed public conscious away from the antiquated repository model and towards more responsible solutions like nuclear recycling. The Department of Energy's filing of the license application today shows total disregard for the heath and safety of Nevadans. Let's stop throwing good money after bad and give the Nuclear Waste Fund ratepayers a better solution and the Americans more of a say in domestic nuclear policy."
"The Yucca Mountain project has been plagued by poor management and faulty science from day one. Licensing this project would be a threat to the health and safety of every community nuclear waste would be shipped through. I will continue to fight along side the Nevada delegation to stop nuclear waste from being stored at Yucca Mountain," said Heller.
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid
June 03, 2008
Reid Urges Nevadans To Sign Petition Against Yucca
June 3, 2008
Nevada Senator Harry Reid led the Nevada congressional delegation’s response today to the Department of Energy’s submittal of an application for the licensing to begin construction of the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now has 90 days to review the application preliminarily to determine if it is complete. If the application is accepted, the NRC will take at least three years to determine whether to grant the license to begin building the dump.
“While the DOE is trying to spin this as though it has submitted the application early, the truth is that it was supposed to be filed years ago. Yet, even with the extra time, this application is shoddy at best,” Reid said. “The application, which includes designs that are only 35% complete, lacks critical information that cannot simply be overlooked. For example, just how would the Energy Department respond in the event of an emergency? We can’t answer that question because the Department doesn’t even know. I urge every Nevadan to go to my website, reid.senate.gov, and sign the petition against Yucca Mountain. Meanwhile, I will continue working with the rest of Nevada’s congressional delegation to kill the dump, which continues to lose any political support it once had in Congress.”
Click here to sign the petition.
http://reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca_petition.cfm
---------------------------
AP Google
June 03, 2008
Nevada nuclear dump application filed Tuesday
By H. Josef Hebert
WASHINGTON (AP) — Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday he's confident the government's license application to build a nuclear waste dump in Nevada will "stand up to any challenge anywhere."
Bodman spoke at a news conference hours after the Bush administration submitted the formal application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build the underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain more than 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Nevada officials, who have fought the waste dump for years, vowed to launch hundreds of specific challenges to the proposed design of the facility, arguing the Energy Department has not proven it will protect public health, safety and the environment from radiation up to a million years.
Responding to the filing, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons reiterated his promise to fight the waste dump which he said "threatens the life and safety of the people of Nevada."
"As long as I am governor, the state will continue to do everything it can to stop Yucca Mountain from becoming reality," he said in a statement. Bodman called the application submission "a big day" for moving the stalled project forward and said he's confident the scientific assessments demonstrate the 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from the country's nuclear power plants can be stored there safely.
"Issues of health safety and security have been paramount during this process. ... (They) are the driving factors in the decisions we have made," said Bodman.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a vocal opponent, said in a statement he and other Nevada lawmakers "will continue working ... to kill the dump" which most Nevada's don't want in their state. In recent years Congress has repeatedly cut Yucca project funding in part because of Reid's strong opposition.
Edward F. Sproat, manager of the Yucca project, confirmed that the department now believes it may be 2020 before the waste site can be opened, assuming the NRC grants a license. And he said even that target may not me met if Congress does not provide a steady money stream.
A truck delivered tens of thousands of pages of documents to the NRC's office in Rockville, Md., earlier in the day. The application itself covers 17 volumes and 8,600 pages and is supported by more than 200 other documents and studies.
But a key document is missing.
The application prepared for the NRC still lacks a final public radiation exposure standard that establishes how protective the facility must be from radiation leakage. The EPA had issued a standard designed to be protective for 10,000 years.
But a federal court said it was inadequate and that agency must establish a standard shown to be protective for up to 1 million years — the time some of the isotopes in the waste will remain dangerous. The EPA has yet to produce that document.
Bodman said he didn't think that was a problem. The NRC, which has three years to review the application, can accept it later as an amendment but must have it to make its final determination.
The NRC's primary job will be to determine whether the proposed repository's design will protect public health, safety and the environment for up to a million years.
NRC Chairman Dale Klein promised a review "entirely on technical merits" and said the agency "will perform an independent, rigorous and thorough examination to determine whether the repository can safely house the nation's high level waste."
If the application is approved, it will take seven to eight years to build the facility, Sproat said.
President Bush gave the go-ahead for the Yucca waste repository six years ago. It is being designed to hold 77,000 tons of waste, mostly used reactor fuel from nuclear power plants.
About $6 billion has been spent in research and engineering at the Nevada site, including construction of a tunnel deep into the volcanic rock where the canisters of used reactor fuel are to be placed. The Energy Department estimates the lifetime cost of the facility will be between $70 billion and $80 billion.
The federal government under a 1982 law is contractually required to accept the spent fuel from commercial power plants and was to have had a central repository available for fuel shipments by 1998, a deadline already a decade overdue.
This year Congress provided $386.5 million for the program, $108 million less than the Bush administration had wanted as it geared up for submitting its application for a construction license. In 2007 the project received $444 million.
Reid and other Nevada officials say the waste ought to stay where it is until the best long-term solution for dealing with it can be determined.
--Associated Press writers Ken Ritter in Las Vegas and Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this report.
---------------------------
AP Google
June 03, 2008
Bush administration files nuclear dump application
By H. Josef Hebert
WASHINGTON (AP) — Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday he's confident the government's license application to build a nuclear waste dump in Nevada will "stand up to any challenge anywhere."
Bodman spoke at a news conference hours after the Bush administration submitted the formal application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build the underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain more than 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Nevada officials, who have fought the waste dump for years, vowed to launch hundreds of specific challenges to the proposed design of the facility, arguing the Energy Department has not proven it will protect public health, safety and the environment from radiation up to a million years.
Responding to the filing, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons reiterated his promise to fight the waste dump which he said "threatens the life and safety of the people of Nevada."
"As long as I am governor, the state will continue to do everything it can to stop Yucca Mountain from becoming reality," he said in a statement. Bodman called the application submission "a big day" for moving the stalled project forward and said he's confident the scientific assessments demonstrate the 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from the country's nuclear power plants can be stored there safely.
"Issues of health safety and security have been paramount during this process. ... (They) are the driving factors in the decisions we have made," said Bodman.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a vocal opponent, said in a statement he and other Nevada lawmakers "will continue working ... to kill the dump" which most Nevada's don't want in their state. In recent years Congress has repeatedly cut Yucca project funding in part because of Reid's strong opposition.
Edward F. Sproat, manager of the Yucca project, confirmed that the department now believes it may be 2020 before the waste site can be opened, assuming the NRC grants a license. And he said even that target may not me met if Congress does not provide a steady money stream.
A truck delivered tens of thousands of pages of documents to the NRC's office in Rockville, Md., earlier in the day. The application itself covers 17 volumes and 8,600 pages and is supported by more than 200 other documents and studies.
But a key document is missing.
The application prepared for the NRC still lacks a final public radiation exposure standard that establishes how protective the facility must be from radiation leakage. The EPA had issued a standard designed to be protective for 10,000 years.
But a federal court said it was inadequate and that agency must establish a standard shown to be protective for up to 1 million years — the time some of the isotopes in the waste will remain dangerous. The EPA has yet to produce that document.
Bodman said he didn't think that was a problem. The NRC, which has three years to review the application, can accept it later as an amendment but must have it to make its final determination.
The NRC's primary job will be to determine whether the proposed repository's design will protect public health, safety and the environment for up to a million years.
NRC Chairman Dale Klein promised a review "entirely on technical merits" and said the agency "will perform an independent, rigorous and thorough examination to determine whether the repository can safely house the nation's high level waste."
If the application is approved, it will take seven to eight years to build the facility, Sproat said.
President Bush gave the go-ahead for the Yucca waste repository six years ago. It is being designed to hold 77,000 tons of waste, mostly used reactor fuel from nuclear power plants.
About $6 billion has been spent in research and engineering at the Nevada site, including construction of a tunnel deep into the volcanic rock where the canisters of used reactor fuel are to be placed. The Energy Department estimates the lifetime cost of the facility will be between $70 billion and $80 billion.
The federal government under a 1982 law is contractually required to accept the spent fuel from commercial power plants and was to have had a central repository available for fuel shipments by 1998, a deadline already a decade overdue.
This year Congress provided $386.5 million for the program, $108 million less than the Bush administration had wanted as it geared up for submitting its application for a construction license. In 2007 the project received $444 million.
Reid and other Nevada officials say the waste ought to stay where it is until the best long-term solution for dealing with it can be determined.
--Associated Press writers Ken Ritter in Las Vegas and Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this report.
---------------------------
AP Google
June 03, 2008
Nevada nuclear dump application readied Tuesday
By H. Josef Hebert
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is moving a step closer to building a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada by filing a formal application for a construction license.
The Energy Department on Tuesday was sending the application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will have three years to review it, according to notifications sent Monday to members of Congress.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of one of the notices and several government officials confirmed the plans. An Energy Department spokeswoman said only an announcement about Yucca Mountain would be made Tuesday.
A truck was scheduled to deliver tens of thousands of pages of documents to the NRC offices in Rockville, Md., to back up the application, which itself covers 17 volumes. The NRC's primary job will be to determine whether the proposed repository's design will protect public health, safety and the environment for up to a million years.
President Bush gave the go-ahead for the Yucca waste repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, six years ago. It is being designed to hold 77,000 tons of waste, mostly used reactor fuel from nuclear power plants.
About $6 billion has been spent in research and engineering at the Nevada site, including construction of a tunnel deep into the volcanic rock where the canisters of used reactor fuel are to be placed.
But the Yucca project has seen years of turmoil as projected completion dates have been pushed back repeatedly and the project's license application — a critical step in the process — delayed. Department officials now say they hope to have the underground site completed by about 2020.
The application prepared for the NRC still lacks a key element: a final public radiation exposure standard that has yet to be completed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The standard will be added later when the EPA completes it.
In a notification sent to Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., the department called the license application "an important milestone for all Americans" and noted that a 1982 law on nuclear waste required the federal government to consolidate used reactor fuel being stored at commercial power plants.
Similar notifications were sent to other lawmakers.
Berkley and other Nevada politicians have been adamant in trying to block construction of the Yucca Mountain dump, arguing that the Energy Department has yet to prove that the waste can be kept there safely.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has made sure the Energy Department doesn't get the money it wants for the program. Reid has called the Yucca project "a dying beast" and said he hoped the budget cuts "will drive the final nail into its coffin."
This year Congress provided $386.5 million for the program, $108 million less than the Bush administration had wanted as it geared up for submitting its application for a construction license. In 2007 the project received $444 million.
The federal government under the 1982 law is contractually required to accept the spent fuel from commercial power plants. It was supposed to have a central repository available for fuel shipments by 1998.
Reid and other Nevada officials say the waste ought to stay where it is until the best long-term solution for dealing with it can be determined.
--Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
---------------------------
Earthtimes
June 03, 2008
Filing of Yucca Mountain Application Marks Historic Day in Global Use of Nuclear Energy
WASHINGTON, June 3 NEI-Yucca-nuke-energy
WASHINGTON, June 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Nuclear Energy Institute's president and chief executive officer, Frank L. (Skip) Bowman, made the following remarks today in response to the U.S. Department of Energy's filing of a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the planned repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., for used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste:
"This is a historic day for nuclear energy use worldwide. The filing of a license application for a geologic repository underneath a desert ridge at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, demonstrates that the United States is at the forefront of international efforts to safely manage used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the manner that the scientific community has recommended for decades.
"Symbolically, the significance of this undertaking of environmental stewardship cannot be overstated.
"The license application filing means that after two full decades of scientific study, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's independent technical evaluation of the repository site and the Department of Energy's repository design finally will begin. While the development of a geologic repository is national policy dating back to 1982, the fact remains that the planned repository cannot be built or operate without explicit permission from the NRC. The nuclear energy industry commends the Energy Department and its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for an endeavor of world-class science.
"This begins a licensing process that will be significant, unprecedented and transparent to the public, with the state of Nevada, several affected units of local government and Indian tribes among its active participants. The Nuclear Energy Institute plans to take part as well. Given the national importance of the safe disposal of the radioactive byproducts from used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and U.S. defense programs, all stakeholders should support the licensing process being carried through to its final conclusion so that the NRC decision is based upon a thorough and objective evaluation of the facts.
"The nuclear energy industry views the repository as a key element of an integrated used fuel management program. This integrated strategy also should include interim storage of used fuel until reprocessing of used fuel or permanent disposal is available, although even with advanced reprocessing technologies being developed, there still will be some quantity of final waste products that will require long-term geologic disposal.
"As this process unfolds, Americans can and should be proud of our international leadership with regard to management of used fuel. Nuclear energy has more than proven its worth to our society by reliably generating vast amounts of the baseload electricity that undergirds our economy and uplifts Americans' standard of living. The filing of this license application continues down a path to properly meet our obligation to future generations to safely and reliably manage the byproduct of this highly efficient form of electricity production."
The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's policy organization. This news release and additional information about nuclear energy are available at http://www.nei.org.
SOURCE Nuclear Energy Institute
---------------------------
Fox 5 News
June 03, 2008
County Renews Opposition To Yucca Mountain
Officials: County Will Participate In Licensing Process
LAS VEGAS -- In an effort to combat the construction of a nuclear waste dump, county commission officials are naming June Yucca Mountain Awareness Month.
Commission Chairman Rory Reid said the group has been against the program from the start, adding the commission has two decades worth of scientific, technical and socioeconomic information to back up its claims.
A license application for the site is ready, Department of Energy officials said, and will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this month.
County officials intend to participate in the upcoming DOE licensing proceedings, officials said.
If approved, Yucca Mountain will house the high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel from the U.S. for more than 20 years.
It is about 100 miles from Las Vegas.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
June 03, 2008
Quotes on DOE application to build nuclear dump in Nevada
The Associated Press
Reactions to the Energy Department submitting an application to build and operate a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada:
___
"I am confident that the application you see before you will stand up to any challenges from anywhere." _ Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.
___
"Probably the earliest Yucca Mountain could be open, based on the funding profiles we've received over the last couple of years, is probably 2020. (The cost is) in the $70-80 billion dollar range, somewhere in there." _ Edward F. "Ward" Sproat, Yucca Mountain project chief.
___
"We will perform an independent, rigorous and thorough examination. The NRC's licensing decision will be based entirely on the technical merits." _ Dale Klein, Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman.
___
"It's essential that Nevada maintain its unity in opposing this terrible encroachment on state's rights, and as long as I am governor, the state will continue to do everything it can to stop Yucca Mountain from becoming reality." _ Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons.
___
"Nevada believes the NRC ought to reject the application immediately. There's no reason to waste their staff time and the time and money of entities like Nevada on an obviously deficient application." _ Bob Loux, chief of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.
___
"The filing of this license application continues down a path to properly meet our obligation to future generations to safely and reliably manage the byproduct of this highly efficient form of electricity production." _ Frank L. "Skip" Bowman, Nuclear Energy Institute president.
___
"The whole thing is just infuriating. They just think they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes when they don't have any standard to meet, any design for the thing, and they don't have what it takes to build what they want to build." _ Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, an anti-nuclear advocacy group in Las Vegas.
___
"The application, which includes designs that are only 35 percent complete, lacks critical information that cannot simply be overlooked. For example, just how would the Energy Department respond in the event of an emergency? We can't answer that question because the department doesn't even know." _ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
___
"The Department of Energy is once again desperately trying to resuscitate