Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, August 1, 2008

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

KRNV
July 31, 2008

Reid: Yucca Mountain dump site has history of seismic activity

Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke today about the potential for grave consequences at Yucca Mountain if an earthquake ever struck in the area of the proposed nuclear dump site.

In light of yesterday's California earthquake felt in southern Nevada, Reid highlighted the fact that the Yucca Mountain site has a history of major seismic activity, increasing the already serious risk of a deadly radioactive release from containers not proven to be safe.

Reid also noted that the Department of Energy still has no emergency response plan in place for Yucca Mountain, which could prove tragic if an earthquake occurred.

He said this is another reason why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not docket for review the DOE's proposal.

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

Platts
July 31, 2008

Search finds two potential sites for spent nuclear fuel storage

Washington (Platts)--30Jul2008

Two US communities are exploring the possibility of becoming the site of a commercial interim storage facility for utility spent nuclear fuel, according to the official leading the industry's site search.

Officials from each of the small, rural communities wanted to continue looking at a commercial storage facility after touring dry storage installations at two nuclear plants in June, Marshall Cohen, the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior director of legislative programs, said in an interview Wednesday.

He added that community officials will also meet with top-level nuclear fuel services executives in August to explore how a business plan might come together. Cohen would not name the communities but indicated they are in rural areas of states that already have nuclear power plants or nuclear businesses.

Ideally, the nuclear industry would like to see two interim storage sites -- one in the east and one in the west -- come out of this volunteer process, he said.

The fuel would be stored at the interim facilities until it could be moved to a repository now planned for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for disposal. Each of the storage sites would be about 1,000 acres, he said.

More than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel are now in storage pools or casks at the US' 104 licensed reactors after the Department of Energy failed to begin disposing of that fuel by a 1998 contract date.

Discussions have not yet gone to the state level, Cohen said. Some six or seven communities were initially involved in the industry search, he added.

Under legislation that Senator Pete Domenici, Republican-New Mexico, introduced June 27, communities that notify DOE they are willing to be have a privately owned and operated storage facility would receive $1 million a year for up to three years. If a storage facility is licensed, the community would receive up to $25 million each year the facility operates and $20 million when it is closed.

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

Business Wire
July 30, 2008

Discover Lessons From Canada on Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel & High-Level Radioactive Waste in a Comprehensive Comparative Report

DUBLIN, Ireland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/c2c492/nuclear_waste_on_i) has announced the addition of the "Nuclear Waste on Ice: Lessons From Canada on Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel & High-Level Radioactive Waste" report to their offering.

U.S. Nuclear Power is Stymied:

The United States has spent more than $6 billion on the Yucca Mountain repository, and debate still rages over when — or whether — it will open. In contrast, Canada is close to settling on a course for burying its nuclear waste that promises none of the divisiveness that the Yucca Mountain project has spawned.

What can we learn from Canada?

This exclusive report compares and contrasts Canada’s central waste depository plan with that of the United States. You'll find out how Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization has built incentives and flexibility into its plan, and how it plans to overcome the political resistance to a central nuclear waste depository that has plagued the Yucca Mountain project for so long.

This useful report gives you the tools to:

* Understand thoroughly one of the most current solutions to the nuclear waste disposal problem.

* Learn about the pros and cons Canada has faced in its approach.

* Apply the lessons from Canada's approach to strategies used in the United States that affect your organization.

Who will benefit from this report?

* Power plant owners and operators

* State and regional policy makers

* Environmental law attorneys

* State and regional regulators

* Energy consultants

Order your copy today!

Executive Summary:

The battle over Yucca Mountain in Nevada has dominated the nuclear waste picture in the United States for years. Even supporters of burying U.S. nuclear waste in this high-level mountain repository note that limited funding leaves the project in a vulnerable state. Opponents are cherishing the slowdown. Yucca Mountain is “a dying beast,” according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has fought locating the repository in his home state for years. “I hope that this cut in funding will help drive the final nail into its coffin.”

In contrast to the fiery battles in the United States, Canada’s debate on the long-term disposal of nuclear waste is a more measured exercise. In summer 2007, after years of study, Canada’s national government settled on a process for longterm management of nuclear waste. Known as “adaptive phased management,” the process is viewed as both a technical and a management framework to gradually make tough decisions about the location of spent nuclear fuel. Moreover, supporters note that the Canadian government embarked on the process after extensive public debate with everything from public hearings to online electronic dialogues. The goal is “to develop a process that is open, transparent, inclusive and that is built on a solid foundation of trust, integrity and respect for Canadians and their environment,” said Gary Lunn, Canadian minister of natural resources, in announcing the 2007 decision.

Nuclear Waste on Ice explores Canada’s more successful strategies for handling nuclear waste and explains how these strategies can be applied to other countries.

Key Topics Covered:

* How the U.S. & Canada’s Nuclear Industries Differ

* Adaptive Phased Management: What Is It?

* How NWMO Is Dealing With Opposing Views

* Next Steps: What the Future Holds for APM

* Afterword: NWMO’s Annual Report Shows Progress

Companies Mentioned:

* Nuclear Waste Management Organization

* Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

* University of British Columbia in Vancouver

* Energy Probe

* Northwatch

* Ontario Power Generation

* Hydro Quebec

* U.S. National Academy of Sciences

* U.S. National Research Council

* Royal Roads University in British Columbia

* Canadian Nuclear Association

* Sierra Club of Canada

* Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

* Assembly of First Nations

* Greenpeace

* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 30, 2008

STUMPING IN NEVADA: McCain focuses on energy

Republican urges more domestic drilling

By Sean Whaley
Review-Journal Capital Bureau

SPARKS -- Sen. John McCain said Tuesday the United States needs to open up its coastline to oil drilling, build more coal-fired plants and build nuclear power reactors to help wean itself off foreign oil.

In a town hall meeting with about 1,250 frequently cheering attendees, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also expressed views that are at odds with some in the GOP: that climate change is a reality that must be addressed by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain said the country should use its expertise to develop and improve alternative energy technologies, from hydrogen-powered vehicles to solar-powered electric plants.

But in the short term, the country needs to use all of its energy resources, from coal and offshore oil, to move toward energy independence as quickly as possible, he said. But because of global warming concerns, the country should invest $2 billion a year in research and development in clean coal technology.

"We are sending $700 million dollars a year to countries that don't like us very much," McCain said of the nation's oil purchases. "Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. America cannot do this."

In remarks to the crowd and in a 20-minute interview afterward, McCain spent several minutes on the energy issues facing the country, contrasting his views with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

"Senator Obama says he wants energy independence," McCain said. "But he's opposed to new drilling at home. He's opposed to nuclear power.

"He believes that every domestic energy source has a problem," McCain said. "I believe every energy source needs to be part of the solution."

The Democratic National Committee criticized McCain's comments on alternative energy, saying he has "consistently voted with (President) Bush and Big Oil and against renewable energy and new energy jobs."

McCain has voted against the kind of tax incentives that would promote investments in renewable energy and create new energy jobs consistently, the committee said in a release. The party also criticized McCain's support of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository.

In response to a question about Yucca Mountain during an interview after his town hall meeting, McCain said a waste repository must be part of the nation's energy plan in part because of national security issues.

But the Arizona senator repeated that Yucca Mountain should be approved only if it can meet all environmental requirements. And the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, as is now done in France, must be part of the equation, he said.

McCain said he wants 45 new nuclear power plants built by 2030.

He told the Nevada crowd that during a previous campaign stop in California, petroleum producers told him there are offshore oil supplies next to existing oil rigs that could be tapped quickly to help with the high price of gasoline, not the five or 10 years that have been suggested by critics of the idea.

Such supplies are needed as a bridge until the county develops its alternative technologies, he said.

Alternative energy sources are the long-term solution to the nation's oil dependence, McCain said, and investment in the technologies will create jobs and help the economy.

During the question-and-answer period of the one-hour campaign stop, a speaker told McCain he was concerned about the senator's stand on several issues, including his view that global warming is a legitimate scientific fact.

McCain said that if he is wrong about global warming, the investment in green energy still will result in a cleaner world for future generations. But McCain said if he is right and the country does nothing, the consequences could be severe.

"Climate change is real, it's taking place, and the question is how do we address it," he said.

McCain said that he believes Nevada will be a battleground state on Election Day and that his knowledge of Western issues, from water to federal lands issues, will serve the state well.

McCain also said he is opposed to the idea of any tax increases as a fix to the federal deficit or Social Security. It is the wrong thing to do during tough economic times, he said, and the solution is to rein in runaway spending, a situation that McCain acknowledged has occurred with support from some in the GOP over the past several years.

After the stop at Reed High School in Sparks, McCain traveled to Incline Village for a fundraiser and then departed for Colorado.

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

Nevada Appeal
July 30, 2008

McCain stumps at town hall meeting in Sparks, meets supporters in Incline

By Geoff Dornan

SPARKS — Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain told an audience of 1,250 in Sparks on Tuesday he will not support new or increased taxes on a nation struggling with a damaged economy.

The Arizona senator said that if he is elected president, he will sit down with the Democrats in Congress and work out solutions to the nation’s problems and that he has faith they can do it.

“Americans want us to sit down together and put things together for the benefit of this country,” he said at a speech at Reed High School.

In those negotiations, he said, “everything has to be on the table.” But he avoided answering whether “everything” includes tax increases.
McCain held a town hall meeting in Sparks, his second in Washoe County this campaign season.

During the meeting and in a roundtable with local reporters afterward, he touched on several Nevada issues including Yucca Mountain and the 1872 mining law.

McCain repeated his support for nuclear power, saying he wants to build 45 nuclear plants in the U.S. by 2030. And he said he still supports the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump but for “storage and reprocessing” rather than just as a dump site. He said Yucca Mountain “has to go through the requirements so environmental and safety concerns are met.”

McCain said he believes the 1872 mining law needs to be updated. A bill to update the law, sponsored by Democrat Nick Rahall of West Virginia, has been stuck in the Senate. The bill would place an 8 percent royalty on current and future mining operations on public lands.

“Hello. Times have changed,” he said adding that the act should be reviewed thoroughly and brought up to date.

“I’m not saying that would automatically have them paying more,” he said.
He was challenged at one point by a man who identified himself as a Douglas County conservative who said, “I have to say I’m not very excited about this election.”

“Me and a lot of conservatives are voting against Mr. Obama more than anything else,” the man said.

McCain defended his positions raised by participants at the forum, including immigration — saying the U.S. needs an effective temporary- worker program — and global warming. He said he believes global warming is real but that, if it isn’t, “we end up with a cleaner planet.”

“Suppose I’m right and we do nothing. What kind of planet are we going to hand off to our kids?” he asked.

He said nuclear energy, “clean coal” and renewable resources are the nation’s way to escape the nation’s dependence on foreign energy. He wants $2 billion worth of scientific research to clean up coal-fired plants so the nation’s huge coal resources can help with the energy problem.

At the same time, he called for approval to drill for more oil in the U.S., Alaska and along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. President Bush has already called for lifting of the ban on offshore drilling.

McCain said the nation can recover economically and from the housing market’s woes. And he said the federal government’s runaway spending can be reined in and the deficit reduced.

And he repeated his pledge to veto pork barrel projects stuffed into legislation if he is elected.

“We’re sick and tired of the 3 million dollars we spent to study the DNA of bears in Montana,” he said.

“I’ll veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk,” he said.
Yet McCain, when asked about helping those who have lost jobs, proposed a subsidy.

He said if an older worker loses a job and has to take a lower-paying job, “I would supplement that worker’s pay until he gets retraining.”

“We have to help people who cannot help themselves.”

For people in trouble with the mortgages, he called for 30-year FHA guaranteed loans “at the new value of their house.” But he said that would only be for a primary residence because “most Americans are not interested in rescuing the speculator.”

McCain followed the town hall meeting in Sparks with a private fundraiser at Incline Village before leaving for Denver and another fundraiser Tuesday night.

• Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.com or 687-8750.

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

Nevada Appeal
July 30, 2008

Letters to the editor

In favor of recycling nuclear waste

Commenting on Chuck Muth’s defense of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, consider that the whole nuclear waste issue is unique to the United States.

William Tucker is a syndicated columnist and expert in this field. He has pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, on Fox Business Channel, and elsewhere that Jimmy Carter got a law passed in the ‘70’s preventing nuclear material recycling. He feared terrorists would somehow steal the waste to make bombs. He worried about thieves cracking Fort Knox and killer rabbits, too.

France has safely generated the vast majority of its power from nukes, the waste from which is stored in a room size vault. That’s because even some of the “waste” after recycling can be used in industry or medicine, which doesn’t leave much to get hysterical about.

I support Mr. Muth’s idea, but it would make as much sense to get rid of Jimmy Carter’s misguided law as it would be to ship boxcars of waste to Yucca Mountain. Then we’d get to see if the Greens are really serious about seeking out alternative forms of energy.

Lynn Muzzy
Minden

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 30, 2008

McCain defends himself to conservatives

By Anjeanette Damon
adamon@rgj.com

In his first campaign appearance in Sparks, U.S. Sen. John McCain spent an hour Tuesday fielding questions from Nevada voters on immigration, the national debt, taxes and stem cell research, before defending his conservative credentials to a voter who said he is more excited about "voting against Barack Obama" than voting for McCain.

The crowd of more than 1,200 drew skeptics and supporters alike, from worried conservatives anxious that McCain choose a solid running mate, to undecided Democratic voters and even a disaffected supporter or two of U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's failed presidential bid.

McCain's swing through Northern Nevada was his third trip to the state since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. He attended a private fundraiser at an Incline Village home Tuesday evening before leaving for Colorado.

Identifying Nevada as one of his top swing states in the November election, McCain positioned himself as a fellow Westerner who isn't afraid to go against Washington politics.

"I've heard pundits and pollsters warn me my position on this or that would cost me the presidency," he told the crowd. "But I don't answer to them, I answer to you."

"It's hard doing the Lord's work in the city of Satan, believe me," he then joked.

Doug Englekirk, who identified himself as a conservative voter from Douglas County, brought a list of McCain's past positions that had antagonized conservatives, reading it to the crowd at McCain's request. It included McCain's support for a comprehensive immigration bill, campaign finance reform and the fight against global warming.

McCain went point-by-point, explaining some positions and refusing to back away from others.

"I've stood up against my party many times because I've done what I believe is right," McCain said.

A Sparks business owner who said she was in danger of going bankrupt because she cannot continue to do business with an important partner in Belarus under recent U.S. trade sanctions, asked McCain how he would keep his foreign policy from hurting American interests.

McCain said he supports U.S. sanctions against what he described as the oppressive rule of President Alexander Lukashenko.

"I am deeply sorry for what is happening to you as a result of our efforts," McCain said. "Everything I know about Belarus is Lukashenko is a brutal dictator. I believe America must stand up to dictators."

While McCain is well-practiced at responding to concerns from his conservative base, he became defensive during a

20-minute interview with local reporters when asked to explain his recent comments on being open to discussing a tax increase as part of a fix for Social Security.

"The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" he said.

But he repeated his assertion that "everything has to be on the table" in the event that he works with Democratic leaders to fix Social Security.

McCain brushed aside criticism that the two positions conflict and are making fiscal conservatives wary of his tax policy.

"I have never heard a single conservative say to me, 'Sen. McCain, I'm worried about you raising taxes,'" he said.

"Now maybe you have. And maybe you're one of that conservative group," he said to the reporter who asked the question. "But I haven't, so I'm not concerned about it."

The conservative Club for Growth political action committee issued a letter Monday criticizing McCain's comments on Social Security.

Also in the interview, McCain:

* Declined to detail his position on reforming the 1872 hard rock mining law, saying it's antiquated but needs to be studied before any royalties are increased.

"Any law that was passed in 1872 is going to have to be updated. Hello, times have changed. Duh."

* Reiterated his support for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository but said reprocessing the waste must also be part of the equation.

* * Said he understands Western issues of water, public lands and Indian gaming, "although Indian gaming is not as big an issue (in Nevada) as it is, say, in a state like Arizona, New Mexico, even California."

* Stressed his proposals to save qualifying homeowners from risky loans on homes with deflated values as his priority in helping the Nevada economy recover.

* Proposed spending $2 billion a year on "clean coal research" so America can use its abundant coal resources without contributing to global warming.

McCain sprinkled criticism on Obama during his hour-long remarks. He accused Obama of opposing policies to wean America off of foreign oil dependence, such as offshore drilling along the U.S. coast and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

He called Obama to task for "refusing to recognize the (troop) surge has succeeded" in Iraq. And he said Obama is bent on raising taxes on both the rich and the middle class.

"Pretty much anything you can tax, he wants to tax it more," McCain said, saying Obama's policies "would make our problems harder, not easier to solve."

Kirsten Searer, Obama's spokeswoman in Nevada, said he is committed to a "clean energy future," and supports exploring existing oil leases instead of opening up new areas for drilling. She also touted Obama's proposal for a $1,000 tax credit for most taxpayers.

"Sen. Obama clearly recognizes that Americans, not oil companies, are hurting in this economy," she said. "Sen. McCain is an honorable man running an increasingly dishonorable campaign. We look forward to when the McCain campaign is ready to engage in an honest policy discussion based on facts, not smears and vague implications."

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 30, 2008

Sparks event shows McCain still has coalitions to build

Republican Sen. John McCain admitted Tuesday in a public forum in Northern Nevada that he's the underdog in the presidential race against Democratic Sen. Barack Obama this year.

When compared to the rock-star trappings of the Obama campaign stop in Berlin, Germany, last week, McCain's low-key visit to Reed High School in Sparks certainly lent some credence to the claim that he faces an uphill battle.

In fact, there has been a whiff of desperation about the McCain campaign in recent weeks -- in the constant complaints about "unfair" press coverage and an unfortunate TV commercial blaming not just Democrats but Obama himself for the high cost of gasoline.

Yet, beyond the admission that he's behind in the race, McCain did not look like a man afraid of losing the biggest campaign of his political career this week. Instead, he appeared confident and at ease in the signature town-hall event, making self-deprecating jokes and answering questions -- including occasionally hostile questions -- with the down-home calm of a politician at home pressing the flesh.

In Sparks, McCain repeated his call for more domestic oil drilling and for the construction of new nuclear power plants. Yet, absent from his public discussion of energy was any mention of Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository in Nevada that he has supported but many Nevadans -- including the entire congressional delegation, Democrats and Republicans -- oppose. Without Yucca Mountain or some alternative solution to the growing piles of waste at the nation's nuclear facility, there can be no new nuclear power plants. It's a subject that needs to be discussed.

But McCain showed no fear of disagreeing with those whose votes he'll need in the November election. Although he has backed off his insistence on the need for a comprehensive immigration package, he stuck to his call for a guest-worker program to help farmers and ranchers in the West. When a questioner suggested that the solution to the lack of farm workers was to change the child-labor laws, McCain said he would respectfully disagree. He also expressed sympathy for a business owner hurt by sanctions imposed on the government of Belarus, but he also insisted those sanctions were needed.

The toughest questions during the one-hour meeting came not from McCain's left but from his right, from conservative Republicans not yet convinced that he's on their side. For instance, they pressed him on his immigration policy that included, according to the questioners, "amnesty" for lawbreakers.

That may be the irony of McCain's visit to Nevada. The state Republican Party is entering the campaign season in disarray because of a conflict between its leaders and a minority contingent of supporters of Rep. Ron Paul who have elected their own dissident delegates to the national convention in September.

If McCain is to shed the underdog label in Nevada, he's going to need a strong party organization. His town hall event may have eased some concerns about his candidacy, but it also demonstrated that he still has coalitions to build.

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 29, 2008

McCain says mining law should be updated

The Associated Press

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain says the nation's 136-year-old mining law needs to be updated, but that doesn't necessarily mean he supports increasing fees paid by mining companies operating on public lands.

McCain, speaking with reporters after a town hall meeting Tuesday in Sparks, reiterated his support for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository north of Las Vegas, but added that he believes reprocessing nuclear waste needs to be a part of the nation's energy policies.

The Arizona Republican said Nevada again will be a battleground state in the fall election, and said his strategy will be to stress his knowledge and understanding of Western issues, including mining, public lands and water.

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

MarketWatch
July 29, 2008

DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senator John McCain today will bring his promise of four more years of President Bush's failed energy policies back to Nevada. The last time he was in the Silver State, McCain gave a 3,000 word speech on energy that didn't mention Yucca Mountain or solar power once. Instead, McCain focused on his newfound support for offshore oil drilling, which even he and President Bush admit will have only a "psychological" impact on gas prices. McCain's support for offshore drilling may not provide economic relief for working families, but it did open a flood of new support for McCain's campaign from the oil and gas industry.

McCain may be reluctant to detail his record on Yucca Mountain, but the facts are clear. Except for some election-year hedging during his two presidential campaigns, McCain has repeatedly been a champion of Yucca Mountain. In fact, despite his admitted concern about shipping nuclear material through Arizona McCain wants to build at least 45 new nuclear power plants and says dealing with spent nuclear fuel is a "NIMBY" problem that we must have "guts and the courage" to address. See the DNC's web video "NIMBY: Not In McCain's Back Yard: http://youtube.com/watch?v=h29B--3vBbg

"During his 25 years in Congress, Senator McCain has been a part of America's energy problem by repeatedly voting against the kind of policies that would create green jobs in Nevada and break our dependence on fossil fuels," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney. "Now, McCain is promising more of the same by pandering to his new friends in the oil and gas industry and promising to store tons of spent fuel in Nevada, even though he's not comfortable shipping the material through Arizona on its way there. America's working families deserve new energy ideas, not more of the same failed policies that have cost us jobs, driven energy prices through the roof, and done nothing to make America less dependent on foreign oil."

The following is a fact sheet on McCain's support for Yucca Mountain:

MCCAIN HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED YUCCA...

McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996. [2002 Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2002; The Arizona Republic, 7/10/2002; 2000 Senate Vote #88, 5/2/2000; 1998 Senate Vote #148, 6/2/1998; 1997 Senate Vote #42, 4/15/1997; 1996 Senate Vote #259, 7/31/1996; 1996 Senate Vote #256, 7/31/1996]

McCain: "I Am For Yucca Mountain." The Las Vegas Sun reported that in 2007 McCain told the Deseret News, "I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America." [Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, NV), 5/28/08]

McCain: "I Believe That Yucca Mountain Is A Suitable Place For Storage." At a campaign event in Springfield, Pennsylvania, McCain said, "I believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage and I know that there's controversy about it and lawsuits and all that. But shouldn't America, a country as smart and as wise as we are, be able to find a place to store spent fuel?" [CNN Live Feed (Springfield, PA), 3/14/08]

McCain Senior Adviser Holtz-Eakin Called Political Opposition To Yucca Mountain "Harmful To the U.S. Interests." "McCain criticized both Democrats for their opposition to Yucca Mountain. 'The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized,' McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin said." [Reuters, 5/6/08]

McCain: "We Will Build At Least 45 New Nuclear Plants." In a speech in Denver, Colorado, McCain said, "We will develop more clean energy. Nuclear power is the most dependable source of zero-emission energy we have. We will build at least 45 new nuclear plants that will create over 700,000 good jobs to construct and operate them." [CNN Live Feed, Speech (Denver, CO), 7/7/08]

...EXCEPT WHEN HE HEDGED IN CAMPAIGNS

2008: Campaigning In Nevada, McCain Said He Could Be Compelled To Reverse Support For Storage Of Nuclear Waste At Yucca Mountain. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that "On the nuclear dump site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which most Nevadans oppose, McCain stressed the importance to national security of finding somewhere to store spent nuclear fuel currently at power plants across the country. But he indicated he could be persuaded to end his support for Yucca as the site. 'I will respect scientific opinion,' he said. 'The scientific opinion that I had up until recently was that Yucca Mountain was a suitable storage place.'" [Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV), 3/29/08]

1999: McCain Made Same Vague Promise To Consider Other Sites For Disposal To Nevadans Prior To His 2000 Run. On a trip to Nevada in February 1999, McCain met with key supporters in the gambling industry and the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Associated Press reported that McCain's votes to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could hurt him among Nevada voters. According to AP, "McCain said he is willing to hear arguments on the issue of whether Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is suitable as the nation's nuclear waste repository, but he said the storage problem must be resolved." McCain also said, "I'm not expert enough to know if that's the place or not, but it's unconscionable to leave nuclear waste sitting around in facilities forever." [Associated Press, 2/17/1999]

MCCAIN HAS HIS OWN NIMBY PROBLEM.

MCCAIN 2008: Dealing With Spent Nuclear Fuel Is A "NIMBY" Problem, US Must Have The "Guts And The Courage." At an energy briefing in Santa Barbara, CA, McCain spoke about spent nuclear fuel and said, "But it's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken. It's a, it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody." [CNN Live Feed, Briefing (Santa Barbara, CA), 6/24/08]

MCCAIN 2007: Just Don't Ship it Through My Back Yard. "Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not." [Nevada Newsmakers, May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPlaHQCKc34]

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.

This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

SOURCE Democratic National Committee
http://www.democrats.org

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

Joliet Herald News
July 29, 2008

Argonne not in running to recycle nukes

Search Stopped

By Christina Chapman
cchapman@scn1.com

At the beginning of the year, the Department of Energy announced it was ceasing its search for a nuclear fuel recycling site, but it was continuing research for the recycling process and a laboratory. Now, the DOE says it is not searching for a lab anymore either.

In February 2007, the DOE announced a proposal to design, build and operate three facilities: an advanced fuel cycle research laboratory, a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor, which would destroy long-lived radioactive elements while generating electricity.

The proposal is part of President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The facilities would recover about 95 percent of the energy available in spent nuclear fuel and reduce radioactive half-lives, shortening the time the material is dangerous.

The plan was to research the environmental impact on 13 possible sites for the recycling center and reactor. Among the sites wasGeneral Electric Co. in Morris.

In October, the decision on the site was delayed and, by January, the environmental impact research on the sites was stopped. A lab site was still part of the plan, and Argonne National Laboratory, near Lemont, was on the list. The labs were to devise the technology for the fuel recycling.

Earlier this month the DOE announced it has "eliminated the project-specific proposals for the siting, construction and operation of a nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced recycling reactor and an advanced fuel cycle research facility (lab)," according to a press release for the DOE.

This is a result of more than 14,000 comments the DOE received its public hearing process.

The next step

Robert Rosner, director of Argonne, stated in a letter that the lab will continue its research on the technology needed to recycle the fuel. He said today's high-performance computers allow them to create new models simulating the operation of a reactor and recycling center.

Now the DOE is focusing only on whether the United States should recycle spent fuel at all or just dispose of it at Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada. It will finish a programmatic environmental impact statement in August and hold public hearings again on the results of the impact statement. Hearing dates will be announced.

"It's almost as though they were trying to get community support first so it was harder to cancel the process," said David Kraft, director of Nuclear Energy Information Service, which actively protested the proposal.

"Generally speaking, the technology is a failure, the process is a failure and the budget has been slashed repeatedly. Really, it is time to wrap this thing up and move on," he said.

Depending on the results of the impact statement, the DOE may select sites in the future for a lab, fuel recycling center and a reactor, said Brian Quirke, DOE spokesman, in a press release. If it reaches this stage, more public hearings will be held.

A DOE spokesperson did not return a call before press time Monday.

Modern science

In the 1970s, nuclear-recycling research was stopped because of fears that terrorists could acquire the plutonium left over from processing spent nuclear fuel. Plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons.

Modern procedures no longer isolate plutonium, but turn it into a material that can be disposed of in a geologic repository such as Yucca Mountain. The difference is that instead of storing it in the mountain for thousands of years until the waste becomes less hazardous, the processed fuel becomes relatively safe in just hundreds of years.

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

Minneapolis Star Tribune
July 28, 2008

No protests as Xcel ramps up nuclear plans

Worries about climate change and energy prices may be eclipsing concerns about storing fuel and expanding in Monticello.

By Herón Márquez Estrada
Star Tribune

As Xcel Energy makes plans to begin storing spent nuclear fuel in dry casks at its nuclear power plant in Monticello next month and pursues hopes of launching a $100 million expansion of the generating capacity at the 38-year-old facility next year, one element is missing:

Protests.

Xcel's plans have not triggered the superheated attacks from critics that usually accompany attempts to increase nuclear power production. There's been none of the outcry that occurred in the early 1990s, when the power company sought to increase radioactive waste storage at its Prairie Island nuclear facility.

One reason, some observers say, is that concerns about global warming, high energy prices and increasing demand for electricity are producing something of a global nuclear renaissance. As a result, even some lifelong environmentalists are starting to wonder if being anti-nuclear is such a clear-cut choice anymore.

They remain concerned about the potential for a dangerous accident. But in Merrillville, Ind., last week for the annual meeting of the Izaak Walton League of America, Bill Grant, Midwest director of the conservation organization, said he would not be surprised if the group revises its policies to include a nuclear option in its vision of how to fuel the nation's future energy needs.

Supporters say the main attraction of nuclear plants is that reactors do not produce the carbon emissions that are being linked to global warming.

Also, while alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power are more palatable to nuclear opponents, they are immature technologies and cannot come close to satisfying the nation's growing thirst for energy.

"I think it's fair to say that concerns about global warming and the fact that nuclear power has very low or some would say no emissions of global-warming gases ... had a part in muting the response to this," Grant said.

Fears remain

Still, environmentalists remain concerned about the potential dangers they have always feared with nuclear power.

Chuck Laszewski, communications director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the group remains opposed to Xcel's plans to store waste at Monticello and is also opposed to expanding the capacity of the plant, in large part because of the increase in radioactive waste that will be produced.

"There's no sign that it is going away anytime soon," he said. "Somebody has to be there monitoring that stuff for 100 years. ... Who handles this if Xcel goes out of business in 100 years?"

What worries environmentalists most is that there is not yet a permanent storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.

Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 and named Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the choice for permanent storage of nuclear waste. But the U.S. Department of Energy has indefinitely delayed the facility's opening, which was supposed to take place in 1998, because of costs, legal challenges, concerns about its geology and questions about the transportation of the nuclear waste over long distances to the site.

Until Yucca Mountain opens, the roughly 72,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste produced by the 110 nuclear reactors in the United States are being stored at more than 120 sites around the country.

While Xcel also would like to have a permanent storage site for the waste, company officials maintain that the storage facility it will build at Monticello is safe and will be able to stand up for decades.

"There is very low risk," said Terry Pickens, Xcel's director of nuclear regulatory policy. "We are set up to go quite a while."

Company officials also believe that the expansion of the plant is safe and economical because of technological advances in the past 40 years. "Monticello became operational in 1970," Pickens said. "We now have 38 years of experience."

The renaissance?

Evidence of the nuclear renaissance can be found in the number of new plants that are being proposed by utilities around the country.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently reviewing applications for 15 new nuclear reactors and expects to be weighing as many as 34 applications within the next two years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Also this year, the NRC has been approving "uprate" permits at a near-record pace. The permits allow companies such as Xcel to upgrade the generating capacity of their existing nuclear reactors at a fraction of the cost of building all-new facilities.

Xcel estimates that expanding the capacity of the 600-megawatt Monticello plant by 71 megawatts will cost $100 million to $135 million. That compares with $270 million to $650 million to build a natural gas, coal or biomass plant to meet the needs of its more than 3 million customers, the company said.

The NRC has approved nine such uprate permits this year, and four more are pending approval. If all 13 are OK'd, that would be more than the previous three years combined, when the NRC approved 12 such uprate permits.

"A lot of plants are taking a look at this," Pickens said, "and taking advantage of advanced analytical techniques and equipment."

Another sign of nuclear energy's growing popularity is that as many as 90 new reactors are in the planning stages worldwide, most of them in Europe. France, which already gets most of its energy from more than 50 nuclear reactors, is planning on adding plants.

And in Minnesota, which has a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants, there is talk that the ban might be lifted next year by the Legislature.

Just an illusion?

But Grant and others believe the renaissance could be more illusory than real -- and the reason might be financial. Submitting an application for a reactor is not cheap, but it pales in comparison to the $4 billion to $9 billion it costs to build one.

"The costs of such projects are extraordinarily high and going higher all the time," he said. "Very few investors have shown interest in being part of any renaissance."

Another factor against nuclear energy as a quick fix is the fact that it can take 10 or more years for a nuclear plant to be built, so the earliest energy relief from nuclear would not happen until about 2020.

"I don't think we're heading into any big uptick in construction of any new nuclear power plants," Grant said. "I don't see that changing anytime soon, at least in Minnesota.

"What's happening now is that companies with large balance sheets are getting in line because they know how long it can take. But that doesn't mean that they have made a firm commitment to build."

Still, that could make projects like the one at Monticello -- squeezing more power out of an existing plant for a tiny fraction of the cost of building a new facility -- all the more attractive to the industry.

Heron Marquez Estrada • 612-673-4280

Still, environmentalists remain concerned about the potential dangers they have always feared with nuclear power.

"There's no sign that it is going away anytime soon," he said. "Somebody has to be there monitoring that stuff for 100 years. ... Who handles this if Xcel goes out of business in 100 years?"

What worries environmentalists most is that there is not yet a permanent storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.

"There is very low risk," said Terry Pickens, Xcel's director of nuclear regulatory policy. "We are set up to go quite a while."

The renaissance?

Evidence of the nuclear renaissance can be found in the number of new plants that are being proposed by utilities around the country.

"A lot of plants are taking a look at this," Pickens said, "and taking advantage of advanced analytical techniques and equipment."

And in Minnesota, which has a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants, there is talk that the ban might be lifted next year by the Legislature.

Just an illusion?

"The costs of such projects are extraordinarily high and going higher all the time," he said. "Very few investors have shown interest in being part of any renaissance."

"I don't think we're heading into any big uptick in construction of any new nuclear power plants," Grant said. "I don't see that changing anytime soon, at least in Minnesota.

"What's happening now is that companies with large balance sheets are getting in line because they know how long it can take. But that doesn't mean that they have made a firm commitment to build."

Heron Marquez Estrada • 612-673-4280

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

Las Vegas SUN

Where I Stand:

Brian Greenspun knows which side of Yucca they’re on

For Nevada, Obama is good, McCain bad

By Brian Greenspun

There you go again.

President Reagan loved to use that phrase as a put-down of whatever was being said and whoever was saying it. As in, we’ve heard all this before and it still makes no sense so tell us something new or try silence. He was a very effective communicator.

I am reminded of our former president during this election season because, as we all struggle to find reasons — good and bad — to support either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama, it seems as if we are hearing the same old thing from the politicians.

I refer specifically to the candidates’ positions on the federal government’s long-held desire to shove 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste down Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. This has been a decades-long process that had its beginnings in the minds of the political delegations from Texas and Louisiana, with an assist from the nuclear power industry.

When there was a semblance of scientific and political fairness, the government was studying multiple sites across the country in which to bury radioactive waste that would live hot and dangerous for hundreds of thousands and, perhaps, a million or more, years. When it appeared Texas or Louisiana might win the sweepstakes as the safest place to bury this stuff, politicians jumped into action.

They looked for the one state under consideration that had a weak or virtually nonexistent congressional delegation and a geographic area that posed no threat to an existing population. For one, they couldn’t afford public outcry and, more important, they couldn’t handle a vocal and powerful delegation dead set against putting Nevada in the middle of the radioactive bull’s-eye.

That’s how Nevada’s Yucca Mountain won the lottery. And, if it ever gets built, that’s how Nevada will lose its future.

The question is, will it ever get built? Thanks to Nevada’s senior senator, Harry Reid, the funding for the project keeps getting cut every year, so that what should have been a 2006 opening of the dump site is now closer to 2020 or further away. In fact, had it not been for Reid, we would probably be talking about the effects of Yucca Mountain on our health and welfare because it probably would have been open by now.

But I digress. Back to the future and this year’s candidates and their positions on Yucca Mountain. And make no mistake about it, if there is a high-level accident in or near Las Vegas, what is happening here economically will be child’s play compared with the death of tourism that will result from the first day’s headlines. Not to mention the impact on this community’s short- and long-term health.

A number of issues distinguish Obama and McCain from each other, but one is so clear and so unambiguous that we ignore it at our peril.

McCain believes Yucca Mountain must open. Obama believes it must never open.

In 2000, candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush told Nevadans what they believed and what they would do regarding the dump site. Bush said he would open Yucca only if science supported it. Gore said science didn’t support it so he wouldn’t open it. Nevadans voted for George Bush, in part believing his promise to rely on science and deciding their tax bill was more important than their medical bills.

We all know what happened. President Bush wouldn’t know science if it hit him, so his decision was based on what was best for the power companies. And, Al Gore never got the chance to keep his promise but his subsequent actions regarding the environment give us every reason to believe he would have been good to his word.

McCain, while saying he believes in Yucca Mountain, has said he would prefer to send tens of thousands of tons of the deadliest poison known to man to Siberia, presumably on planes that don’t crash and boats that don’t sink.

Obama is more of a realist, choosing to rely on science to make his decision. In that regard, I am reminded of an article I read almost four years ago in Technology Review, a magazine published by MIT. Under the title “A New Vision for Nuclear Waste,” the article argued that “Storing nuclear waste underground at Yucca Mountain for 100,000 years is a terrible idea. A better approach may be to buy some time — until new containment technologies mature.”

In the article, Matthew Wald wrote that the government must accept that its Yucca plan is a failure.

Based on what science knows today, the waste can be safely stored for 100 years right where it is made. No transportation, no accidents, no burying in someone else’s back yard and no susceptibility to terrorist attacks along the nation’s highways and byways. Just leave it where it is — safe and secure.

Science, he argued, would catch up to the challenge within the next few decades and then there would be an answer that would be not only safe and secure but feasible and affordable.

It is obvious to me that Obama was cognizant of this scientifically supportable position and McCain, if he was cognizant, didn’t let on. The simple result of either man’s position could be the difference between life and death — both economic and human.

There is still plenty of time to decide who is best for our country, our state and ourselves as president of the United States. That is a process most of us will undertake through the summer and fall. For now, though, it would serve each of us well to consider where the candidates are on Yucca Mountain.

It may not mean much to others, but the economic and physical well-being of Nevada should mean a whole lot to us.

--Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

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

Nevada Appeal
July 27, 2008

There’s still no pot of gold at the end of the Yucca Mountain rainbow

By Guy W. Farmer

A few of my Republican friends, including prominent Reno blogger/columnist Ty Cobb and fellow Appeal columnist Chuck Muth, continue to lobby for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump even though they must know that the highly toxic project is dead or dying. Although I admire their persistence, I think they're advocating for a lost cause.

Muth fired the latest salvo in the Yucca wars on Friday with a column urging “constructive engagement” with the federal government. I'd call his approach “capitulation” but that's only my opinion for what it's worth, if anything.

As for my good friend Ty Cobb, in mid-July he proposed a “grand compromise” with the Feds in an op-ed piece in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Under his plan, Nevada would accept the Southern Nevada site as a temporary nuclear waste repository providing that the U.S. Energy Department (DOE) would agree to reprocess the waste as part of a new national energy policy. “It's time for ... Nevada to undertake a neutral, unbiased assessment (of the Yucca project),” he wrote. “I'm not advocating that Nevada suddenly accept Yucca Mountain ... (but) I do argue that a thorough examination of the dangers, concerns and finances of the issue would best serve (our) interests.”

“This is a unique opportunity for the Silver State,” Cobb continued. “It could propose a grand compromise” by accepting Yucca Mountain if the Feds “would support reprocessing in order to significantly reduce the volume of waste coming to Nevada.”

Although the proposals by Cobb and Muth sound reasonable, many of us simply don't trust DOE to carry out its part of the bargain. After all, this is the same sprawling bureaucracy that has been unable to meet federal safety standards or construction deadlines, resulting in huge cost overruns and legitimate questions about safety concerns. Just last month, DOE announced that the repository would cost taxpayers $90 billion, a startling 55 percent increase over the 2001 cost estimate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the leading opponent of the waste dump, called the new price tag “both brazen and ridiculous,” and U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Las Vegas Democrat, said “the cost only goes up and the delays only grow longer.”

On the other hand, Yucca proponents argue that the $90 billion price tag represents an “opportunity” for Nevada. Yes, it's an opportunity if you're willing to sell out your children and grandchildren for that amount of money, which most Nevadans won't do – more than 70 percent of us, according to recent opinion polls.

A POT OF GOLD?

Bob Loux, the outspoken but well-informed director of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, says “Cobb's premise is one that Nevadans have been hearing, and soundly rejecting, for two decades: If only the state would see the light, open its arms to the beneficent federal government and embrace Yucca Mountain ... the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow would be ours.” In an e-mail exchange, Loux told me that “Cobb's suggestion that Nevada would be able to dip into the $27 billion collected so far in the Nuclear Waste Fund is nothing if not absurd. The fact is that the Waste Fund won't even be sufficient to cover program costs if Yucca should go forward.”

“This isn't the time for Nevada to be playing footsie with the federal government,” he continued. “(Those) who claim to want what's best for Nevada should be joining the state's efforts to finally end this bloated and unnecessary project and let the country get on with finding real solutions to the nuclear waste problem.” Amen!

Yucca Mountain advocates always mention “sound science,” which was the catch phrase President Bush used before betraying us by approving the dump over the strenuous bipartisan objections of Sen. Reid, then-Gov. Kenny Guinn, the state's entire congressional delegation and the vast majority of Nevada voters. This is democracy?

Noting that the proposed dump site is located in a major earthquake zone only 90 miles northwest of fast-growing Las Vegas, Loux asserted that “it would have been difficult for (DOE) to find a less suitable location.” When Congress passed the infamous “Screw Nevada Bill” in 1987, however, the Silver State had much less political clout that it has today. “Nevada is a desert and no one lives there,” congressmen said 21 years ago, but that's no longer true because the Silver State has become a key “battleground” state in this year's presidential election.

The so-called “father” of the Screw Nevada Bill, ex-Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), a nuclear energy industry lobbyist (surprise!), has modified his stand on Yucca Mountain, now believing that it should be designated as one of several temporary monitored, retrievable storage sites rather than as the nation's only permanent waste dump.

In this election year we should pay close attention to what the presidential candidates are saying about Yucca Mountain. The Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, echoes President Bush by urging Congress and the DOE to turn our state into the nation's nuclear waste dump. But the Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has vowed to kill the Yucca project if he becomes president next January. It's our choice.

--Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.

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

Nevada Appeal
July 27, 2008

Letters to the editor

The true costs of nuclear energy are astronomical

Those who support nuclear energy claim it is inexpensive. The reason that they can claim that is that they only figure in the cost of generating the energy. If they figure in the cost of taking care of nuclear waste, then the cost is astronomical! But the developers only figure the cost of developing it and assume that the rest of us will pay the cost of ‘disposing’ of the waste. (It can’t be disposed of.)

Nuclear reactors create radioactive waste that will remain radioactive for 240,000 years. The half life of plutonium 239 is 24,000 years, which only means that it will only be half as radioactive in 24,000 years. It will remain dangerous for 240,000 years. It has to be monitored for 240,000 years. There has never been a government in the history of humanity that has lasted 240,000 years. Mankind has barely been on the planet that long.

Bury it in Nevada they say. 240,000 years ago Nevada was in the Pleistocene Age (ice age) and there were Mammoths and saber toothed cats. Mankind was in the Stone Age. How can we even begin to imagine what it will be 240,000 years in the future? One clue: if we accept all of the nuclear waste for those 240,000 years there won’t be any life forms here in Nevada.

You may say of course we won’t be doing it for 240,000 years. How long will we be doing it? How much is too much? I would say any at all is too much.

Until a clean method of recycling nuclear waste is in common use (not trying to stuff it somewhere, but actually making it safe), nuclear energy should not be used. If we don’t stop it, the developers will have a nuclear reactor in every state in the union, the waste will pile up exponentially. The developers will rake in billions of dollars. The rest of us will pay the real cost of their profit.

Please support clean renewable sources of energy. Like wind, solar, geothermal, ocean wave action, use of the water cycle (evaporation, rain, river flow). Even use of human muscle. And please support the development of machines that use these clean renewable sources of energy. Lets not get into another disaster by burying ourselves in pollution.

Pat Hunter
Carson City

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

Nevada Appeal
July 27, 2008

Letters to the editor

Likes nuclear, but not Yucca

I agree with Chuck Muth on the need for nuclear energy, but in mentioning France’s efforts in this field, he neglects to mention that the French "recycle" their nuclear rods. He is also aware that Yucca Mt. is 90 miles from Las Vegas, and close to Clark County with it’s 2 million population, and that the trains loaded with nuclear waste would currently travel through Vegas. I’ll go along with Mr. Heller's plan to store the waste at the plants, but will not agree, as Sen. McCain has, to bury this dangerous stuff at Yucca.

Richard Mundy
Las Vegas

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

Salem-News
July 27, 2008

Irvine, California Threatened by Contaminated Water From El Toro Marine Base (VIDEO REPORT)

What happens when wealthy Republicans suddenly find out that the home they invested so much in, could be sitting on top of one of the most dangerous, polluted places in the nation?

(IRVINE, Calif.) - A number of government agencies deny that the city of Irvine has big, big problems from TCE, Trichloroethylene; a toxic chemical used in the maintenance of Marine Corps jet fighters at the former at the Marine Corps Air Station. They reject the notion that the TCE has penetrated the groundwater here and as a result, is a serious health hazard for residents in Irvine, California.

But large amounts of evidence tell another story.

Reports from the U.S. Navy indicate that TCE contamination stemming from the Marine base at El Toro is in fact a huge issue in this part of Orange County.

The El Toro Marine Corps Air station was built during WWII and was closed in 1999 under BRAC; the Base Realignment and Closure process, enacted by the U.S. government as an effort to save money during the Reagan years.

As the process to close the base and establish a public park under the “Great Parks Corporation” moved forward, several Orange County residents began paying increasing attention to inconsistencies and what they now call outright fabrications by the various agencies that all stood to make a profit from the deal.

The same group maintains the position that almost nothing is being done to let the public in this high dollar community know what types of serious health conditions they could eventually face from TCE, and other hazardous chemicals moving through the water table here.

Orange County residents Bill Turner and Mike Jansen, have been working behind the scenes for years, gathering evidence that tells a story of encroaching environmental devastation in one of America's richest neighborhoods. The Woodbridge area in Irvine is built among beautiful lakes and walking paths. Many homes here are in the several thousand dollar range.

Encroachment is a word that has been used a lot around this area. Orange County, California is comprised of people with a lot of money, and it is traditionally considered a strong, conservative and Republican area. This is not the type of community in American that generally deals with environmental sneak punches. We've all heard of poorer communities being overlooked or taken advantage of, and there is the nuclear waste issue that the U.S. government wants to dump at Yucca Mountain, a Native American community. But what happens when wealthy Republicans suddenly find out that the home they invested so much in, could be sitting on top of one of the most dangerous, polluted places in the nation?

It just might get interesting; that would be my bet.

To add to the tension and disagreements, a large number of people who live here say the base never should have been closed in the first place. After the closure was certain, residents splintered into groups that both opposed and supported using the former air station as a new airport for Orange County. All the while, responsibility seemed to take a back seat to the pursuit of the dollar.

Bill Turner says several things have to take place, beginning with the mass notification of residents in this area. The other nagging problem is the fact that most Marines who served here are totally in the dark about the contamination they once lived and worked around.

The worst contamination site on the base at El Toro is the former Marine Wing Support Group area, known as MWSG-37. This is where I was stationed as a Marine in the early 1980’s.

In addition to the Marines and others who lived and worked at the Marine base, the TCE contamination at El Toro affects many people today because it has spread many miles from El Toro. The underground TCE plume, accompanied by a perchlorate plume, reaches into some of Irvine’s most expensive neighborhoods. Yet most residents are unaware. Proof of all of this is available right in the center of Irvine, at a public library.

Mike Jansen says it is all a matter of just looking at the facts. "The information is all backed up and published by the U.S. navy and then placed in the public library here in Irvine and at the El Toro records office. All people have to do is open an eye to see, and it all happened over one simple thing: money.

The problems stemming from the toxic water at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station are getting worse by the day, as the TCE plume moves three feet further into Orange County every day. It is important for Marines and former Marines to be aware of, as well as their family members and former civilian base employees. Residents in other parts of Orange County need to be aware also. TCE causes cancer and many other health problems.

This report was slated to be published July 24th 2007; it has been delayed from significant technical problems. Today in a last ditch effort to save this particular video report, we were able to render this low quality version. This video report brought to you courtesy of YouTube, is part two in our ongoing series on TCE contamination and the resulting toxic and hazardous chemical pollution it left behind, at the closed El Toro Marine base and in neighborhoods of Irvine, California.

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

Philadelphia Inquirer
July 27, 2008

A Phila. law firm gone nuclear

Countering the fallout over new generation of reactors.

By Chris Mondics

Inquirer Staff Writer

Philadelphia-based Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., one of the nation's largest and most influential law firms, has become a major player in the resurgent movement to build the next generation of nuclear reactors.

After a decades-long hiatus, surging interest among utilities in construction of commercial nuclear power plants has produced a windfall of work for Morgan, which has quietly built the nation's largest practice dealing with nuclear reactors.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it expects to receive applications for 34 new reactors through 2010, and Morgan lawyers are representing some two-thirds of the utility companies involved in those projects.

Because of a long fallow period for the industry, only a handful of firms nationwide have deep experience navigating the technically complex realm of nuclear regulation. Morgan, with a commercial nuclear practice of 32 lawyers established in 1995, was well positioned for the upturn.

Last fall, the firm won its biggest nuclear engagement, a five-year $47.7 million contract with the Department of Energy to shepherd the DOE's application to build a high-level radioactive waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las Vegas, Nev.

The contract could be renewed for another five years, for a like amount, when the initial phase is complete.

"It is exciting; it is the largest and most complex licensing action that the NRC has ever undertaken," said Jay Matthew Gutierrez, the leader of Morgan's energy practice.

For decades, the nuclear power industry had been in a state of suspended animation brought on in large measure by catastrophes at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which galvanized political opposition and turned public opinion decisively against the industry.

Its resurgence - and the consequent benefits for a handful of national law firms steeped in its complex regulation and technology - stems from a confluence of factors.

Surging power demand caused the Bush administration to call for increased reliance on nuclear power. Then in 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which established tax and other financial incentives for power companies seeking to build new reactors.

The three commercial nuclear sites in the Philadelphia region, Three Mile Island, Salem and Oyster Creek, do not have plans to build new reactors.

Gutierrez, who worked from 1983 through 1989 as the NRC regional counsel in King of Prussia, where he focused on the restart of the Three Mile Island reactor, says the ongoing public concern over greenhouse gases also has helped make the political climate more favorable.

Starting in September of last year, a spate of new applications had been filed with the NRC and more are expected.

The last time the NRC had received an application for a plant that was subsequently built was in 1974. That meant a long dry spell for the industry and the lawyers who worked for it.

During that period, Gutierrez and his colleagues composed one of the few practice groups that focused on the industry, representing about half the existing plants in the U.S.

Until 1995, they represented utilities as a separate boutique-style firm based in Washington named Newman & Holtzinger P.C., when that company was recruited to join Morgan. At Morgan, the nuclear regulatory lawyers are part of a larger energy-practice group with 52 lawyers.

Morgan has 1,455 lawyers overall.

Despite the nation's changing energy needs, it is a practice that still is buffeted by political controversy.

Shortly after the Energy Department announced last year that it had awarded its legal contract to Morgan, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, and other members of the Nevada delegation urged the DOE to drop Morgan as counsel on the Yucca Mountain project.

Reid alleged that Morgan was embroiled in insurmountable conflicts of interest because it had represented energy companies in a dispute with the Department of Energy over the storage of nuclear waste pending construction of the long-term facility at Yucca Mountain.

The DOE rejected the complaint, as did the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the DOE's Inspector General's Office. Morgan, for its part, said it would take care to strictly separate lawyers working on the Yucca project from lawyers involved in the litigation against the DOE.

But the Department of Justice soon weighed in, voicing concern that the DOE had not properly addressed the issue. The Justice Department has asked Morgan for more information about how it plans to overcome the conflict issues and Morgan has responded, according to Gutierrez.

The matter in effect pitted Morgan, and its client, the DOE, against one of the country's most important political figures, Reid, the leader of the Senate and an avowed foe of the Yucca Mountain project, with a little help from the Justice Department.

Given the DOE's finding that Morgan had properly handled the conflict issues, it is highly unlikely that Morgan will be forced from the Yucca project.

Whether that project will ever be completed, however, is another matter. Congress first identified Yucca as the nation's likely disposal site for highly radioactive nuclear waste in 1987. That decision was reaffirmed by President Bush and Congress in 2002.

The application to the NRC to build the disposal site was finally submitted in June. Yet most experts say that given the controversy surrounding the project, its completion is more than a decade away - if it is even built at all.

--Contact staff writer Chris Mondics at 215-854-5957 or cmondics@phillynews.com.

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

Monterey County Herald
July 26, 2008

Letters: Nuclear plants sitting targets

Nuclear plants sitting targets

John McCain thinks that by the year 2030 the U.S. should build 45 nuclear-powered terrorist targets.

The United States already has more than 100 nuclear-powered terrorist targets, and not one of them could withstand the impact of a falling airliner. In addition, they have all produced tons of high-level radioactive waste, much of which is stored on site, ready to be splattered to the far winds. John McCain wants to solve that problem by loading the high-level radioactive waste onto trains and shipping it to Yucca Mountain, creating a steady stream of slowly moving "dirty bomb" terrorist targets.

And Yucca Mountain? Well, some of the people who want a nuclear waste repository there wanted it so much that they were willing to falsify reports in order to facilitate the licensing process. What else would they lie about? How long it will take the radioactivity to percolate into groundwater?

If you want national security, John McCain is not the right man.

Deanne Gwinn
Soledad

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

Tri-City Herald
July 26, 2008

Digging begins at Hanford's H Reactor

By Annette Cary
Herald staff writer

Work has begun to dig up the waste burial grounds around H Reactor, a relic of the Cold War near the Columbia River at the Hanford nuclear reservation.

The start of work meets a legally binding Tri-Party Agreement deadline to begin cleanup of the burial grounds by Oct. 31 with three months to spare.

H Reactor irradiated fuel to produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program and also tested new processes and equipment. Much of the waste from the reactor was disposed of in unlined trenches, starting during the reactor's construction in 1948 and continuing through its closure in 1965.

To meet modern environmental standards, the Department of Energy expects to retrieve an estimated 276,000 tons of waste from sites near the reactor and the river. The work is being done by Federal Engineers & Constructors under a $9 million subcontract awarded by Washington Closure Hanford, which holds the DOE contract for Hanford cleanup along the Columbia.

With at least some cleanup work done at burial grounds near seven other reactors, workers have an idea of what to expect. They will dig up waste and soil contaminated with radioactive isotopes and with hazardous chemicals, which could include lead, asbestos, mercury, PCBs and acid. Items could include reactor hardware, process equipment and waste, laboratory equipment and waste, metals and construction debris.

Thorough records of what was disposed of in burial grounds near the reactor were not kept.

But "we're ready to safely handle any anomalies we may encounter or items not on existing inventory logs," Mark Buckmaster, project manager for Washington Closure, said in a statement.

That includes being prepared to find pieces of irradiated fuel which will be too radioactively hot for workers to get near.

The first pieces of spent fuel found when excavation of reactor burial grounds began were a surprise, since fuel was supposed to be carefully inventoried. But Hanford workers now have found about 66 whole and partial fuel pieces. The pieces, which are up to eight inches long, have radiation levels up to 200,000 times the exposure limit set by the Department of Energy, according to the Washington State Department of Ecology, a Hanford regulator.

To protect workers, the pieces are identified and handled by remotely operated equipment.

Most of the debris and contaminated soil to be unearthed near H Reactor will be sent to the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, a lined landfill in central Hanford for low-level radioactive waste. Any fuel pieces will require disposal at a federal repository, likely Yucca Mountain, Nev.

With work that started this week to dig up the clean soil above the H Reactor burial grounds, DOE is working on retrieval of waste in two reactor areas -- the 100 H Area and the 100 D and DR Area.

"We're happy they are working on two at the same time," said John Price of the Department of Ecology. "The concurrent work should allow DOE to increase the rate of waste being shipped."

DOE is required by the Tri-Party Agreement to have the first burial ground near the H Reactor excavated by the end of 2009, three excavated by the end of 2010 and all five by the end of 2011.

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

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
July 26, 2008

Pittsburgh may be a way station on nuke rail

By Carl Prine

A Department of Energy study details how the federal government might ship 7,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through Pittsburgh to Nevada's proposed Yucca Mountain repository.

Buried deep inside the recently released study, maps show that Pittsburgh for 24 years beginning in 2018 would be the rail corridor through which 1,107 massive casks containing spent nuclear fuel from nine commercial reactors would pass.

The department proposes using 372 trains to transport atomic waste from reactors at Three Mile Island, Susquehanna and Limerick facilities in Pennsylvania; Salem and Hope Creek in New Jersey; North Anna in Virginia; and Calvert Cliffs in Maryland.

That breaks down to about 15 or 16 "glow trains" moving through Pittsburgh every year through 2042. If Congress approves it, the number of shipments could double through 2067.

Why some are concerned: In an age of terrorism and following non-nuclear accidents in recent years that unleashed deadly gas along the rails in Graniteville, S.C. and Bexar County, Texas, critics fear that cities like Pittsburgh -- dubbed "high threat urban areas" by the Department of Homeland Security -- could become cancer zones killing tens of thousands of people in the wake of a derailment or sabotage.

"The bottom line is that it can be done safely, but that doesn't mean it will be done safely, whether we're talking about accidents or terrorism," said Robert Halstead, transportation director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects.

Others, however, believe such fears are overblown and only impede a program designed to sweep nearly a half-century's accumulation of atomic debris out of 72 commercial reactors and five government labs nationwide.

"The facts speak for themselves. A staggering amount of spent fuel has been shipped, not only in this country but around the world, for 40 years. No one has ever been killed by anything released from these nuclear packages," said Robert H. Jones, a California engineering consultant to federal nuclear agencies and one of the designers of atomic shipping containers designed to withstand major accidents.

Jones believes the chance of anyone in Pittsburgh ever being harmed by a nuclear fuel shipment is equal to "being hit by a meteor, in the range of possibilities."

Tasks for casks

Tilting the scales at about 125 tons each, nuclear casks look like enormous spools turned on their sides. To prevent radioactive rays from escaping and killing everyone around them in less than two minutes, they're lined with steel, concrete, lead and exotic materials. The federal government wants to transport up to five casks at a time on a "dedicated train" hauled by two locomotives and protected by armed guards.

If the plan is approved, up to 12 percent of all nuclear casks destined for shipment nationwide would travel through Allegheny County. One out of every four of the nation's nuclear casks would go through Pennsylvania, and 43 of the state's 67 counties would witness the freight pass-through.

According to the report, Erie would receive 827 casks of nuclear waste in 272 shipments from 12 sites as far east as the Maine Yankee commercial reactor. Interstate 90 would carry 313 trucks bound from New York's Ginna reactor. Another 344 trucks laden with nuclear canisters would drive Interstate 80 from the Pilgrim, Mass., reactor through Clarion County.

The report's proposed paths through Pennsylvania largely were determined by the quality of railroad tracks and the fact that traffic signals and switching levers can be controlled mainly from secure headquarters. Those features won't force conductors to make long stops or rumble down poorly maintained lines. According to the study's maps, the bulk of Pennsylvania's nuclear freight would be toted by rail giants CSX and Norfolk-Southern.

"Unfortunately, as common carriers, we have the obligation to haul the stuff. We're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place," said spokesman Tom White of the Association of American Railroads.

The trade group represents CSX, Norfolk Southern and other large rail corporations that control about 97 percent of track freight nationwide. These carriers advised the feds to ship nuclear cargo on dedicated trains using the latest safety technology and the highest security, and they're pleased to see their recommendations finally accepted. Federal law protects railroads from any legal liability from radioactive spills during transport.

"The routes choose themselves," said Scott Palmer, an Oregon Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen representative on the federal task force addressing Yucca Mountain transportation issues. He's planning a conference for the nation's major rail labor leaders so that they can begin to coordinate education and certification of workers, with the goal of ensuring that only the best trained and most experienced personnel handle atomic cargo.

In a written response to questions posed by the Tribune-Review, Department of Energy spokesman Allen Benson insisted final routes won't be selected until a "collaborative process" unfolds that includes the major railroads, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Pennsylvania officials said they have monitored proposed nuclear shipment plans for years.

"It's been moving slowly, but it's coming along. Do we still have some issues? Yes," said Rich Janati, nuclear safety chief for the Department of Environmental Protection. "Our major issue is the fact that Pennsylvania is going to experience so many shipments, and we've also been looking at how we select the right routes, the training of emergency responders, funding for local communities for their emergency responders.

"I'd say those are our issues, but there is time to work that out."

Killer cancers?

The shipments in 2018 won't be the first time Pittsburgh has hosted nuclear material. Waste from the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island's Reactor 2 traveled sporadically until 1990 through Allegheny County to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy and the Federal Railroad Administration told the Trib that the public outcry over those shipments helped sculpt the long-term plans they're developing today.

Local officials said Pittsburgh is better prepared than most cities to contain a potential calamity. Emergency crews get specialized training and equipment to mitigate fallout from a meltdown at Beaver Valley's reactor in Shippingport. Federal money was used to teach local responders how to deal with a terrorist "dirty bomb" triggered by terrorists.

"We know the Yucca Mountain shipments will probably be coming through here. We knew from our experiences at TMI and because of the way the railroads go that it would all probably be coming Downtown," said Raymond DeMichiei, Pittsburgh's deputy director of emergency management. "But that makes sense. They want the shipments to go on the best maintained tracks. The best maintained tracks are those that carry passengers. Passengers get on and off in big cities."

City Council President Doug Shields said there's enough time for the mayor or council to investigate whether they can prod the federal agencies and railroads to reroute atomic shipments around Allegheny County, avoiding highly populated neighborhoods entirely. The concept is modeled on an attempt by Washington officials to force railroads to move toxic gas cargo away from potential terrorist targets in the nation's capital.

"It was a matter of concern before, during the Three Mile Island shipments, and it still is. Washington, D.C., tried to enact an ordinance to restrict hazardous cargo moving through areas terrorists would want to target. If we can't do that at the local level, where is the federal and state government on this issue?" said Shields.

Federal officials say there might be no need to reroute because the nuclear casks are "robust," and the procedures designed to pack and ship them are safe and secure.

The process: Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste will be loaded while underwater into the large rail or truck containers. Workers will drain liquid from the casks and refill them with pressurized gases, such as helium. Then they'll weld or rivet shut the vessels and load them onto the trains or onto trucks with beds up to 60 feet long and capable of hauling more than 115,000 pounds of nuclear cargo.

Federal agencies believe these containers can withstand nearly any punishment, including a fiery jetliner crash. They predict less than a 1 in 333 million chance annually of any "incident" spewing the radioactive guts of a container, and if the innards do spill out no more than nine deaths from latent cancer exposure would follow, according to the federal study.

"Even severe rail and truck accidents are highly unlikely to breach the casks. In the rare instance in which an accident would be so severe that its contents would be released, the latent cancer fatality rate would be indistinguishable from the normal cancer incidence rate in the general population," said the Department of Energy's Benson.

In a report prepared by Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, however, physicists said up to 40,868 people could die of cancers caused by a ruptured container, perhaps by terrorists smart enough to use different types of bombs to free the radioactivity.

"They've ignored the science they didn't like. And they assumed that the bad guys would use only one explosive. If you assume they use two explosives, their estimates go out the window. All the military experts we've talked to said it would be much, much worse, but their nuclear engineers have disagreed with them," said Halstead of the Nevada agency.

His gravest fear: What the federal study termed "a long-duration, high-temperature fire that would engulf a cask," like the 2001 Baltimore Rail Tunnel fire. He and other critics worry that flames would melt the lead shields separating deadly gamma rays from human flesh, and smoke would churn the skies with atomic particles, the wind spreading cancer and causing up to $10 billion in cleanup costs, or the abandonment of whole neighborhoods.

Both the federal Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which designed and tested the casks, say the containers would survive, intact, and that any cleanup costs likely would involve only the damage to trains or trucks.

--Carl Prine can be reached at cprine@tribweb.com or 412-320-7826.

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

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
July 26, 2008

U.S. Department of Energy nuclear shipment Q&A

By Carl Prine

U.S. Department of Energy spokesman Allen Benson answers questions posed by the Trib about the transportation of nuclear materials to Nevada.

Question: What safeguards are put in place to ensure safe transit of spent nuclear fuel or other atomic shipments through heavily populated areas, such as Pittsburgh?

Answer: All shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a repository at Yucca Mountain will only be conducted in packages that have been certified for such purposes by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, a recent rulemaking by the U.S. Department of Transportation requires the railroads to conduct an annual safety and security assessment of routes for hazardous materials shipments and to select the safest and most secure practicable route. Once routes and shipment schedules are established, advance notification will be provided to individuals that have appropriate security clearance in each governor's office in compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. All shipments will be accompanied by armed escorts and will be continuously monitored and tracked via satellite. Rail shipments will also be conducted on dedicated trains, meaning no other materials will be transported on the same train, allowing for greater operational control of such shipments. Highway and rail shipments will be thoroughly inspected in accordance with standards of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance or the Federal Railroad Administration, as appropriate, prior to departing from their points of origin.

Q: Although DOE distanced itself a bit in the report by suggesting that these routes are not final, they certainly are the fastest and safest lines available for the transportation of nuclear waste material, and in the case of the CSXT/Norfolk-Southern lines that converge in Allegheny County, the pathway used before for similar shipments. Is there a possibility that DOE could change these routes? What input would be needed from Pittsburgh, where the city council president has said he would like to explore ways to reroute the material around Allegheny County?

A: Final routes that would be used for shipments to Yucca Mountain have not been selected. Representative routes were studied in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS), but actual routes will be selected in a collaborative process with the railroads and key stakeholders, including a representative from the State of Pennsylvania. DOE is currently discussing the issue of routing with stakeholders including the Council of State Governments-Eastern Regional Conference through DOE's Transportation External Coordination Working Group. The Pennsylvania representative on the Council is Rich Janati, the Chief of the Division of Nuclear Safety in the PA Department of Environmental Protection.

A recent rulemaking by the U.S. Department of Transportation, as noted above, requires railroads to conduct annual safety and security assessments of routes for these and other hazardous material shipments and to select the safest and most secure practicable routes based on the consideration of a variety of factors including time and distance in transit, population density, emergency response capability, availability of practicable alternatives and many other factors.

Q: DOE proposes the use of trucks that will carry cargo that's heavier than normal, perhaps between 80,000 and 115,000 lbs. Some states have questioned whether they would sign off on such heavy truck-bound freight due to concerns about potential safety and road damage problems. What is DOE's perspective on this?

A: Overweight shipments in the weight range considered in the Repository SEIS are commonly licensed in all states for a wide range of commodities. The use of overweight shipments would reduce the number of truck shipments by a factor of four compared to a standard 80,000 pound highway shipment. The overall impact to road systems is actually reduced more by reducing the number of shipments than by limiting the weight of each shipment. The vast majority of the weight in these shipments is for the transport cask itself. A slight increase in overall cask weight allows an increase from one to four pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies in each cask. Overall safety is increased by reducing the number of shipments and thereby the potential for traffic accidents.

Q: Adding up the amount of nuclear fuel and highly radioactive waste to be shipped out of the facilities that feed, by rail, into the Pittsburgh train corridor, it would seem that DOE plans to ship about 7,000 metric tons of the stuff over a 24 year span, perhaps doubling this amount if the program continues into 2067. What is the risk of sabotage, accident or background radiation affecting the citizens of Allegheny County as these shipments roll through?

A: The risks to the public from routine incident-free shipments, potential accidents and sabotage events are analyzed thoroughly and presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the Repository SEIS. DOE found that the probability of a severe accident in which radioactive materials would be released in an urban area would be about 3 in 1 billion per year. The Department's analysis corroborates the findings of the National Academy of Sciences that these shipments can be conducted safely and with minimal impact to the public or the environment when conducted in accordance with existing standards and regulations.

Q: Critics have speculated that the costs of cleaning up an accident involving one of these shipments could top $10 billion. What is a more likely price-tag?

A: The casks that will be used to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste will be extremely robust and when tested have maintained their integrity. Due to the robust nature of the casks, the cost of accident cleanup in most cases would be expected to be limited to repairing the physical damage caused by the collision.

In the Repository SEIS, the Department found that, in more than 99.99 percent of the accidents that could occur, no radioactive material would be released. In the 0.01 percent of accidents severe enough to cause a release, a number of interrelated factors, such as the severity of the accident, the initial level of contamination, type of affected land area, and the weather at the time of the accident, would affect the costs of clean up, making it highly speculative to predict the likely cost.

Q: The State of Nevada's nuclear people suggest that an incident involving one of these shipments could create anywhere from 13 to 40,868 latent cancer deaths. What is DOE's perspective on these numbers? What is a more realistic number, in your opinion, of latent cancer deaths in a highly urbanized environment due to a rail or truck incident?

A: The Repository SEIS studied the impacts from a range of normal and accident scenarios. Even severe rail and truck accidents are highly unlikely to breach the casks. In the rare instance in which an accident would be so severe that its contents would be released, the latent cancer fatality rate would be indistinguishable from the normal cancer incidence rate in the general population.

Q: Some critics believe that a "worst case scenario" for a SNF container would be to submit it to "a long-duration, high-temperature fire that would engulf a cask." Something, perhaps, like the Baltimore Rail Tunnel fire of 2001. What would happen to one of these casks should it endure conditions akin to that described above? Is it possible to test, redesign and manufacture a different sort of cask before it is time to begin shipping the materials to Yucca Mountain?

A: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission establishes the performance requirements for casks used to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The NRC studied the Baltimore Tunnel and the Caldecott Tunnel fires extensively. Following their analyses, the NRC determined that a cask certified to their existing performance requirements would have survived the fire intact, and therefore no changes to the cask performance requirements were warranted.

Q: Critics have suggested that the best safety measure DOE could take would be to ship the oldest fuel first and to transport only that fuel which has passed its half-life (depending, of course, on the materials being sent). What is FRA's perspective on this?

A: The NRC regulations provide the performance requirements for safely packaging spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste for transport. It is the Department's view that any shipment conducted in accordance with these requirements is safe.

Q: The TMI shipments that passed through Pittsburgh until 1990 engendered a great deal of concern, even public protests. What lessons did FRA learn from the shipments from TMI to Idaho? Were they incident free? Did the public outcry change the way you have approached the Yucca Mountain transportation strategy?

A: TMI was the first spent nuclear fuel campaign that drew widespread public attention and led to development of the current model of working with States, tribes, local governments and other stakeholders on transportation plans. DOE developed a lessons learned package regarding those shipments that has been incorporated into ongoing shipment planning. DOE continues to carefully review past shipments to inform future shipment planning, including the Department's foreign research reactor shipments and shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. There have been a number of changes in spent fuel shipping standards and regulations since the TMI campaign, and shipment protocols are continuously evolving in order to ensure safety and security. The DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is committed to continuing our ongoing collaboration with key stakeholders in the planning for Yucca Mountain shipments.

--Carl Prine can be reached at cprine@tribweb.com or 412-320-7826.

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

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
July 26, 2008

Federal Railroad Administration nuclear shipment Q&A

By Carl Prine

Federal Railroad Administration spokesman Steven Kulm answers questions posed by the Trib about proposed nuclear shipments through Pennsylvania.

Question: What safeguards are put in place to ensure safe transit of spent nuclear fuel or other atomic shipments through heavily populated areas, such as Pittsburgh?

Answer: Extensive regulations currently exist that address the safe and secure transportation of radioactive materials. U.S. DOT regulations contained throughout 49 CFR Parts 100 to 185 already address hazard communication, the type of packaging allowed for the transport of this material, proper preparation of the package for transport, radiation level limitations and recently, even rail routing requirements for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLRW). These regulatory requirements are largely based on International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety standards. In addition, taking a proactive approach to railroad safety, FRA recognized the need to enhance its inspection policy and procedures for the transport of SNF and HLRW by rail to ensure that the railroad industry's outstanding safety record for moving nuclear material shipments continues unabated despite the significant increase in nuclear materials shipments. In regard to the shipments of SNF from the Three Mile Island (TMI) reactor in the late 1980's, FRA developed and applied an inspection policy focusing available resources for the TMI shipments to ensure safe and secure rail transportation of them. In 1998, FRA updated this already existing policy and developed the Safety Compliance Oversight Plan (SCOP) for transportation of SNF and HLRW, which set forth enhanced FRA procedures to specifically address the safety of these rail shipments. FRA believes this policy is necessary to ensure the safety of future rail shipments of SNF and HLRW which are predicted/expected to increase significantly irrespective of the use of Yucca Mountain to permanently store such materials.

Click here to read the April 25, 2002 testimony by former FRA Administrator Allan Rutter before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that describes in more detail the role of FRA in overseeing rail shipments of SNF and HLRW and the measures included in the SCOP.

A: SNF and other high-level radioactive material shipments are covered by the new Interim Final Rule on Rail Hazmat Routing issued by the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and published on April 16, 2008 (see attached summary document and full text). Under these regulations, railroads are required to perform a comprehensive and methodical safety/security risk analysis to determine the safest and most secure route to move the most dangerous hazardous materials and then implement that selected route by September 1, 2009. In collecting the relevant data for analysis, each railroad will seek to obtain information from state and local officials regarding security risks to high-consequence locations along or in proximity to those routes. Under the rule, railroads are to collect this and other data starting July 1, 2008, to be used to conduct a safety/security risk analysis of the preferred route(s) currently used, and the potential hazards and risks affecting potential alternate routes. In addition, the rule requires railroads to use a minimum of 27 specific risk factors as part of their safety/security risk analysis.

Q: Adding up the amount of nuclear fuel and highly radioactive waste to be shipped out of the facilities that feed, by rail, into the Pittsburgh train corridor, it would see that DOE plans to ship about 7,000 metric tons of the stuff over a 24 year span, perhaps doubling this amount if the program continues into 2067. What is the risk of sabotage, accident or background radiation affecting the citizens of Allegheny County as these shipments roll through?

A: We recommend you speak with DOE, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations regarding your interest in the risk of sabotage. However, it is worthy to note that the Interim Final Rule on Rail Hazmat Routing includes a provision to guard against the possibility that an unauthorized individual could tamper with rail cars containing hazardous materials to precipitate an incident during transportation, such as detonation or release using an improvised explosive device (IED). Starting July 1, 2008, railroads are now required to include as part of their standard pre-trip inspections of placarded hazardous material rail cars an inspection for signs of tampering with the rail car, including its seals and closures, and an inspection for any item that does not belong, is suspicious, or may be an IED.

FRA believes that the risks to the general public anywhere along a rail route used is extremely low given the high degree of integrity of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certified packaging used to transport this material, the extremely safe and secure transportation history of shipments of this material by rail over the past 50 years, the high level of ongoing attention and coordination among the parties involved (State/Federal/Railroads) for the preparation and eventual transport of this material in the future using Dedicated Trains, and the commitment of the federal agencies involved to apply stringent and comprehensive safety and security standards to the planned shipments.

Q: Critics have speculated that the costs of cleaning up an accident involving one of these shipments could top $10 billion. What is a more likely price-tag?

A: FRA does not estimate 'clean up' costs and is not in a position to evaluate the accuracy or veracity of the $10 billion figure you cite from thus far unidentified critics. We assume you are speaking with these critics and are asking for their supporting materials and are diligently reviewing all of their assumptions and methodology.

Q: The State of Nevada's nuclear people suggest that an incident involving one of these shipments could create anywhere from 13 to 40,868 latent cancer deaths. What is FRA's perspective on these numbers? What is a more realistic number, in your opinion, of latent cancer deaths in a highly urbanized environment due to a rail or truck incident?

A: This question is directed to DOE, not FRA. However, the March 2005 FRA report entitled Use of Dedicated Trains for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel discusses the types of trains that could be used to transport the SNF and the potential risks associated with four different rail accident scenarios.

A: The DOT regulations require the use of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certified packages for SNF or other high-level radioactive materials for transportation. We recommend that you contact the NRC Office of Public Affairs for additional information.

A: FRA has no role in that deliberation and takes no position on the subject.

A: The FRA first developed and applied its focused inspection policy for the TMI shipments to ensure safe and secure rail transportation of them and that policy, in its updated and expanded form (the SCOP) has been and will continue to be applied by the FRA to rail shipments of SNF and HLRW, including those planned to be transported to Yucca Mountain. The SCOP is a "living document" that the FRA will continue to periodically update and modify as new developments occur and this process includes solicitation of comments and feedback from States, other Federal agencies, rail carriers and rail unions.

Q: The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) has a number of issues with the proposed plans to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. They include the fact that rail workers won't have a choice of these assignments, leading to concerns that a pregnant woman either in the yard or on a train would be forced to handle this material. BLET believes that there should be a formal certification process in place so that only well-trained trainmen end up hauling or directing the movement of this freight. What is FRA's perspective on this?

A: Under existing provisions of federal rail safety regulations, locomotive engineers are trained and certified to perform the most demanding service their job requires and already operate trains hauling SNF, HLRW, and other types of hazardous materials. If BLET believes some of its members do not meet current federal certification requirements, FRA is interested in having them identified for us so we can take appropriate action.

Furthermore, some of the federal regulations and policies that will govern Yucca Mountain shipments include: safety briefings for train crews to ensure they implement basic ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) radiation protection principles of time (minimizing), distance (maximizing) and shielding; the use of buffer cars to increase distances between the locomotive or other personnel cars and the rail cars holding the SNF or HLRW packages to render radiation levels in those occupied locations to below normal background radiation; and the use of Dedicated Trains to provide virtual run-through service to greatly minimize stop and dwell times along the selected route.

--Carl Prine can be reached at cprine@tribweb.com or 412-320-7826.

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

Nevada Appeal
July 25, 2008

Why I support nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain

By Chuck Muth

Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nevada) said this week that “he supports nuclear energy as long as its highly radioactive waste is stored where it is produced,” not at Yucca Mountain. Meanwhile, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday that “About 74 kilograms of uranium leaked two weeks ago from a nuclear waste plant ... at the site behind (Sophie Delmas’) mother's home in Bollene (France).” The report noted that 14,000 people live in Bollene.

Some observations

1.) Nuclear energy must be a part of the mix in solving America’s energy problems. Relatively speaking, it’s cheap, dependable, and better overall for the environment. In this regard, the French — who openly embraced nuclear energy as a means of achieving energy independence decades ago — are way ahead of us.

2.) There are 104 power plants located in and near residential communities throughout the United States; communities that have far more than 14,000 residents living in the shadow of the on-site nuclear waste storage “ponds” at those plants.

3.) There is no one living in the shadows of Yucca Mountain. Yes, there are some cows grazing in some fields in Amargosa Valley, but the population of the “big” town there — formerly known as Lathrop Wells — is only a tenth of the size of little Bollene, France. And it’s located about 25 miles away from the proposed storage facility. Yucca Mountain simply isn’t located behind anyone’s mother’s home.

Increased use of nuclear energy in the United States is inevitable, and storing the waste is risky no matter where it’s stored. But storing the waste on-site is potentially far more dangerous to far more people than storing it at Yucca Mountain — a stone’s throw away from the very area where the government once exploded nuclear bombs.

It only takes a little common sense to recognize that the risk of radioactive contamination in the ground is far greater when you explode a nuclear device than storing nuclear waste in state-of-the-art casks in a state-of-the-art storage facility nowhere near a major population center. And it only takes a little common sense to recognize that it would be far easier to monitor and control nuclear waste storage at one state-of-the-art high-tech facility than at 104 separate on-site facilities. So from a common-sense perspective, Yucca Mountain is a far better option than on-site storage.

Which naturally then raises the question of transporting the waste to Yucca Mountain. But the fact is it’s far more dangerous to transport chlorine gas and such throughout the United States than it is to ship nuclear waste — and we ship chlorine gas throughout the United States every day. And truth be told, nuclear waste is, and has been, shipped throughout the United States to other waste facilities for years without incident.

Is transportation of nuclear waste a serious concern? Absolutely. But does it deserve all the hysteria emitted by the anti-Yucca crowd? Hardly. Let’s face it, the transportation issue was invented by anti-Yucca politicians simply to get other states to join Nevada’s opposition to Yucca Mountain. Politically, a stroke of genius. But in reality, a major league red herring.

If Yucca Mountain is indeed to become the site of the nation’s nuclear waste repository — a fate which seems more and more likely now that the final licensing process is underway — then we need to minimize the potential risk to Nevadans while maximizing the offsetting benefits to our citizens for doing the nation this service.

Closing our eyes and hoping this whole nightmare will just go away — the preferred course of action for Nevada’s elected officials over the last 20 years — is no longer an option. It’s time to pull our collective heads out of the desert sand and begin some constructive engagement on this important issue before it’s too late. Let the negotiations begin.

• Chuck Muth, of Carson City, is president and CEO of Citizen Outreach and a political blogger. Read his views Fridays on the Appeal Opinion page or visit www.muthstruths.com. You can e-mail him at chuck@chuckmuth.com.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 25, 2008

In My Opinion: Dumb ideas, underground water storage, arsenic woes, foot-in-mouth disease & idiotic environmental concerns

Charles Lawson

Dumb ideas abound today, and the dumbest is utilizing corn as an alternative source of energy. Not only is that costing more nonrenewable energy to produce than it returns, the process is driving the cost of food through the roof. The newest brainstorm is going to be using sorghum instead of corn. This is not a technology proven to be cost efficient yet, but the rush is on. What's wrong with solar and wind technology, and why doesn't our brilliant Congress vote to subsidize these technologies?

Nuclear energy has been proven to be safe in Europe, so why are we still working up a sweat over imagined dangers? Why aren't we reprocessing nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain instead of stashing it all over the country? We're being governed by politicians who are playing politics, not governing.

I was given a book, "A letter to America" written by David Boren, a former U.S. Senator who resigned to become a University President. It's his contention our legislators have to take a deep breath and stop partisan politics in its tracks. While the book contains insights into the disappearance of middle America and our erratic foreign policies, I happen to think bipartisan politics is by far the most important issue we have to address today. How long has it been since you've heard a politician not say the other side is the cause of all the turmoil? Any legislator with enough intestinal fortitude to say, my party is wrong and I'm going with the other view, is immediately ostracized Politicians don't work for the public good; they simply spout the party line and blame any failures on the other side.

--Charles Lawson is a native Nevadan, retired contractor/project manager and longtime Lyon County resident. To contact Charles, e-mail him at cel@ableweb.net.

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

Lahontan Valley News
July 25, 2008

Reid seeks energy refuge in solar

Erica Werner

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has found a refuge in the nation's preoccupation with record energy prices.

While the push by President Bush and congressional Republicans for more oil drilling is resonating with voters, the Nevada Democrat is focused on solar and other renewable energy sources, which happen to be more abundant in his home state than almost anywhere else in the country.

At some political risk for the gold miner's son, Reid also is leading the opposition to new coal-burning power plants planned for Nevada, where unions and the energy-hungry casino industry wield far more political clout than environmentalists. He faces re-election in 2010 in a state up for grabs by both parties.

Reid briefly had the most-watched video on YouTube several weeks ago after the Drudge Report linked to a TV clip of him declaring that "coal makes us sick. ... it's ruining our world."

A conservative advocacy group, the American Future Fund, is using the comments in radio ads in Nevada and Washington, D.C., this week that claim, "Reid says 'yes' to higher energy taxes."

But Reid sees potential for jobs and economic benefits if he can advance his goal of transforming Nevada into "the Saudi Arabia of geothermal and solar energy."

"Nevada doesn't have a whole lot of oil or coal or gas. But it has a whole lot of sun and thermal," said Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association. "Senator Reid is an old-fashioned politician - he watches his constituency. He understands, with geothermal, how big the potential is for the state."

Nevadans now get about 9 percent of their energy from renewable sources, a number that under state law must rise to 20 percent by 2015.

Many energy experts say the potential is far greater. Despite its relatively small size, Nevada leads the nation in solar and geothermal resources, according to trade groups and government statistics, and has potential for wind energy development. Its fossil fuel stockpiles, by contrast, are negligible.

More renewable energy projects are coming online rapidly. As of early this year Nevada had 40 geothermal projects in development to squeeze energy from hot water and steam drilled from the earth - more than any other state. Agreement is near on a 100-megawatt solar-thermal project to be built by Johnson Controls near Mercury, just inside the Nevada Test Site's southern boundary, according to Reid's office.

And late last month Reid officiated at the formal opening of a solar parts manufacturing plant that he lured to Las Vegas.

Reid contends that growth of the renewable energy industry could provide a bonanza of new jobs for Nevada and reduce dependence on fossil fuel, much of it imported from out-of-state.

"It's too bad that it takes an energy crisis like we're having to cause a focus on renewables. It's a situation where we have these gas prices that are sky high, and it is an opportunity," Reid said in an interview. "Renewables are good for the economy, create lots of jobs and are very good for the environment. That's a pretty good combination of things."

In recent weeks Reid might have preferred a little less focus on renewables, a still infant industry which depends in part on $6 billion in tax credits that have stalled in Congress because of a dispute between Democrats and Republicans led by Nevada's other senator, John Ensign, R-Nev.

Reid pulled a major housing bill from the Senate floor last month after Ensign attached the renewable energy tax package to it, leading Ensign to complain - without naming Reid - that Democratic leaders weren't committed to renewable energy.

Reid said there was no point in passing the bill because it would fail in the House, where Democrats are insisting that it be paid for with tax increases that Ensign and other Senate conservatives reject. Both senators insist they support the energy tax credits, but the fate of the package is uncertain.

While maintaining their long-standing agreement not to criticize each other in public, the senators also have split ways on the issue of building more coal plants in Nevada, which Ensign supports and Reid opposes.

Though the government projects that coal use will grow to meet rising energy demands in Nevada and around the country, Reid is fighting the state's leading utility, Sierra Pacific Resources, over its plan to build a new coal plant in eastern Nevada. Two outside companies also are pushing coal plants in the state.

Last year Reid tried to block Sierra Pacific's plans by slipping language into a must-pass spending bill that would have changed the air quality designation at Great Basin National Park to essentially preclude any coal plants nearby. That gambit failed, and now Reid is pushing legislation that would help finance transmission lines meant to carry electricity produced mostly by renewable energy, potentially excluding coal.

Already, Sierra Pacific pushed back the timeline for its planned $5 billion coal plant at Ely.

Coal, Reid says, is "filthy, it's dirty stuff." The best way for the renewable energy industry to grow in Nevada is for coal plants to stay out, he contends.

It's a point coal advocates dispute. "You're not going to be able to provide enough power in the short term with renewables," said Frank Maisano, spokesman for Toquop Energy Project, one of the coal plants trying to come into Nevada. "Las Vegas, Arizona, places like that - they need more power now."

But Reid's sticking with renewables. Next month he's convening a National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas with oilman-turned-renewable energy advocate T. Boone Pickens as a featured speaker. Reid will preview the event Wednesday on a media conference call with another invitee, former President Bill Clinton.

Reid also talks every few days with former Vice President Al Gore, a clean-energy advocate who called last week for producing electricity from all-renewable sources within 10 years.

One low-pollution energy source Reid almost never mentions is nuclear, a sore subject in Nevada, the government's designated dumping ground for 77 million tons of radioactive wastes from the rest of the nation's 104 nuclear power reactors. Reid and the state's other political leaders have worked for years to block construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

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

CounterPunch
July 25, 2008

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deals De