Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - News

Wednesday
Mar 17, 2010
Mostly Clear
Mostly Clear 65° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

sponsored by
News


Nuclear industry calls for fallback plan for Yucca Mountain

Blue ribbon panel could look at alternatives to burying waste in Nevada




WASHINGTON -- The government affairs arm of the nuclear industry on Monday called for President Barack Obama to convene a blue ribbon nuclear waste commission, a move that could be a first step toward forming alternatives to burying radioactive power plant fuel at Yucca Mountain.

With the future uncertain for the Nevada project, the Nuclear Energy Institute is endorsing a fresh look at nuclear fuel management, an NEI official told an audience of state utility regulators. Under the proposal, the Department of Energy would be allowed to continue pursuing a license to build the Yucca repository while the study was being conducted over a 12- to 24-month period.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Mom: Jogger hit by plane was excited to head home
  2. Arrest report details officers' actions to catch suspects
  3. Agassi, Sampras get sorry reviews
  4. Search warrant served on Hells Angels clubhouse
  5. Anti-Reid ads draw criticism
  6. 10-hour days in works
  7. Las Vegas police officer who created 'One Cop's Journey' hangs up holster
  8. Crash that wounded Reid's wife so violent it "broke her seat belt," senator says
  9. Chamber poll: Voters favor Titus changing health bill vote to no
  10. Wal-Mart probing racist NJ store announcement




"We believe it is necessary for the administration, the states, industry and other key stakeholders to develop a forward-looking used fuel management strategy, one that supports the continued future use of nuclear energy in this country," Paul Genoa, NEI policy development director, said at a meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

In short, Genoa said afterward, such a commission could start developing a fallback that could take shape if the Yucca Mountain Project is set aside by the Obama administration.

"Others are raising the issue that they want to end this current program, so then what is Plan B?" Genoa said. "I would expect any politician responsible for this would have to put forward a Plan B before they take away Plan A, and how do you do that without some consultative process?

"I don't know how we turn back from a 26- or 27-year policy that is in law without doing some analysis and some stakeholder effort to chart a new path forward," he said.

The idea of forming a blue ribbon commission has been floating quietly around Washington for several months as Obama during the presidential campaign and Steven Chu, his energy secretary, have said it is necessary to revisit the management and disposal of used nuclear fuel currently stored at power plant sites.

The Nuclear Energy Institute is reported to have advanced the idea in paperwork submitted to Obama's transition team. Draft legislation to create a bipartisan panel has been written in Congress but has not emerged so far, industry consultants said.

Genoa's remarks in a brief presentation to the utility commissioners were the first public airing of the idea. He said afterward that a commission could be established by Obama or by Congress and could include governors, regulators, industry executives, environmentalists and others.

Genoa maintained the nuclear industry was not walking away from Yucca Mountain, which he said remains a cornerstone of its long-range waste strategy. But, he said, "the truth is there has been enough change to think about new things," such as advances in waste reprocessing and recycling technologies.

NEI would want the current Nevada burial strategy to be evaluated alongside other possible options, Genoa said, and for the Yucca project to remain active in the meantime. It may be that the Nevada site might someday end up as a disposal site for recycled material rather than used fuel assemblies as currently planned, he said.

"We have all this incredible talent that has been studying this (site) forever, and they now have it in a licensing context where we can test not only the science but the licensing process itself," Genoa said. "And we are not alone. Repository programs around the world want to see how it works. It would be important in my opinion that it continue if this study goes forward."

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


Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Leave Your Comment 28 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Current Word Count:

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

Report abuse

yucca_insider wrote on February 18, 2009 08:11 PM: @davelv, that 2 to 4 year delay will cost up to $3 Billion in damages paid to utilities, who have legal contracts saying the government would begin accepting waste in 1998.

Partial damages are already being paid out for this breach of contract. Google "Court of Federal Claims" and "spent nuclear fuel".

And guess what? These damages cannot come from the Nuclear Waste Fund-- that money collected from ratepayers (above and beyond the taxes they pay, patrick).

By law it comes from the government's general fund.

So those ratepayers get to pay twice. Once for the cost of disposal, and again for the government's failure to dispose.

Largely because one man chooses to ignore the law while the rest of Congress is busy bailing out carmakers and gobbling up every infrastructure and cleanup project they can get their hands on.


Report abuse

davelv wrote on February 18, 2009 07:59 PM: The problem is that most people are like uglyamerican - totally misinformed by false propaganda made just for reelection.

The next administration will be free to restart Yucca since the law obviously won't be changed. Sadly, the country will waste 2 to 4 years before progress is made again on the safest public works project in history. Worse will be if terrorist successfully attack a storage site before the waste is moved and kills thousands of people. What will the Democrats say if this happens? Sorry, it was just local politics? When will adults start to lead America again and follow Kennedy's edict - ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?


Report abuse

To Ugly American wrote on February 18, 2009 02:10 PM: You say that “The USGS found there is water running though Yucca” as if it were some kind of shock or surprise. Are you trying to suggest that the USGS expected to find NO WATER running through volcanic tuff? Get a grip! Geologists are well aware of the porosity and fracture characteristics of volcanic tuff, and how it generally reacts to the presence of water. They fully expected to find water. What they wanted were the specifics: How much water, the manner in which it flows, its chemical composition, the extent it travels, etc.

The same can be said for your portentous announcement that “There are earthquakes at Yucca” and “There is a dormant volcano near Yucca.” My only surprise is that you didn’t include exclamation points.

So, please. “Go look it up” yourself. The mere presence of earthquakes or dormant volcanoes in no way disqualifies Yucca Mountain as the site for a potential repository, which you might understand if you looked up the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or 10 CFR Part 63.

You might also understand that seismicity and volcanic activity are only two of many other considerations addressed in the relevant statutes and regulations.

Apart from invoking the mere presence of a natural phenomenon without quantifying the relative risk it poses, people like you seem to think you can isolate a couple of elements in a complex picture and argue on the basis of their alleged inadequacy, usually with the conclusion that “There are better places.” Well, the fact is, determining the best place requires analyzing more than just seismic and volcanic activity. An alternative site may pose fewer risks in those terms, but then present greater risks in other terms (e.g., location relative to a water table that actually feeds a population center).


Report abuse

Hey, Patrick! wrote on February 18, 2009 01:43 PM: Taken as a whole, the content of your blog posts seems to suggest that you prefer fiction to fact.

I would therefore suggest that you read Sterne's Tristram Shandy, for in it you will find a character named Uncle Toby who bears a resemblance to you.

Uncle Toby's traumatic experience in war leaves him obsessed with battlements and fortifications, much in the way you harp on the funding arrangement for Yucca Mountain.

It is your hobby horse (that's how Sterne describes Uncle Toby's equally irrational and unhealthy fixation).

On other occasions, you and I have gone round and round on this issue, and today many other bloggers have repeated or amplified my past arguments.

You'll remember, for example, that I called your attention to the fact that all ratepayers are taxpayers, but not all taxpayers are ratepayers, so you seem to have learned that lesson. Though to what point you are using your new-found knowledge escapes me, as I'm sure it does most sensible people.

If you really are as concerned about the poor American taxpayer as you seem to be (i.e., your hobby horse), where is your outrage about the hundreds of millions taxpayers will have to pay due to delays in opening Yucca Mountain?

The one thing you seldom mention is the fact that the law (the NWPA) obligates DOE to take receipt of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear utilities by 1998, and that those utilities have been suing the pants off of the federal government ever since. The money to settle those lawsuits (running from about $200 to $500 million per year) comes from the Justice Department's legal fund -- in other words, from the taxpayer (as opposed to the Nuclear Waste Fund, which only gets funds from those who directly consume electricity from nuclear power).

So, again, where's your outrage on that score?


Report abuse

letsciencedecide wrote on February 18, 2009 10:15 AM: Don Pointer, exactly what "stuff" do you believe has been buried in Yucca Mountain for years?

Why don't you show some integrity and not waste everyone's time with stupid postings?


Report abuse

letsciencedecide wrote on February 18, 2009 10:11 AM: Let's set the record completely straight.

Who pays? It is absolutely correct that the Nuclear Waste Fund (money collected as part of utilitiy bills - i.e., rate payers) pays for the portion of Yucca Mountain for disposal of commercial spent fuel.

However, 10% of the capacity of the repository has been set aside for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from defense activities. This disposal cost will be paid by taxpayers as part of the defense budgets.

Regarding some other non-truths. No waste that is planned for Yucca Mountain would be liquid. Some of the high-level waste that exists today is liquid but it would all be solidified into a glass matrix before going to the repository.

Navy fuel is not "all reprocessed" and is planned for the repository. It is stored in Idaho.

There has been accidents during transportation. There has never been a breach of containment as a result of those accidents.

Nuclear waste can be deadly - but is not the most deadly substance on earth - that distinction goes to lead bullets which have been responsible for more human death than any other substance.

Nuclear waste decays (albeit slowly), the same cannot be said for other hazardous materials and chemicals.

More people have died in Ted Kennedy's cars than in commercial nuclear power accidents in the US, lets ban Teddy!


Report abuse

Don Pointer wrote on February 18, 2009 09:52 AM: Who's fooling whom? They've been burying stuff in Yucca Mountain for years.


Report abuse

Pete Wilson wrote on February 18, 2009 08:24 AM: Dear Ugly American,

No one would dispute your right to oppose Yucca Mountain. However, when you go making up facts, you start to lose your credibility and integrity.

For about the hundredth time:

"Customers who use nuclear power pay for the disposal of spent fuel. The federal government collects a fee of one mil (one-tenth of a cent) per kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from utilities. This money goes into the Nuclear Waste Fund."

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/about/budget/index.shtml

Now, try Googling this:

§ 10222. Nuclear Waste Fund

This is the formal name for the United States Code known as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Notice that none of these documents make any reference to using taxpayer money. All the costs are paid for from fees collected from "any person who generates or holds title to high-level radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel."

Now, you show me where Yucca is paid for with income taxes.

Again, feel free to protest your heart out against Yucca Mountain. But, please, don't make up stuff about how it's funded.


Report abuse

Mrs. H wrote on February 17, 2009 09:55 PM: @Ugly American

Google "vitrification" NOT "reids talking points"


Report abuse

Ugly American wrote on February 17, 2009 08:47 PM: Do you guys just make stuff up and hope nobody will check it in these days of Google?

Yucca is paid for by income taxes. It is part of the DOE budget. It is NOT paid for by the utilities who pocketed the profits and created the waste.

Some of the waste already has passed though Vegas. More of it will.

There have already been accidents.

Some of the waste IS liquid.

Most nuclear fuel waste today in the US is stored on site. The exception is spent Navy fuel which is reprocessed in a totally separate supply chain.

All of these issues could be fixed with existing technology but what the utilities are trying to do is skim the highest margin off the top and push all the costs off onto us tax payers and we're sick of it.

If we get the risks & costs then we should own it and keep all the profits.

That goes for the banks and everything else too.


Read All Comments