Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - News

Friday
Mar 19, 2010
Mostly Cloudy
Mostly Cloudy 60° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

sponsored by
News


Yucca rejection would prompt repeat, board told

Lawsuits possible if law not changed, energy policy expert says

With the Obama adminstration's stance that Yucca Mountain is not an option for disposing the nation's highly radioactive waste, Congress will revisit the process for choosing another repository site, one that probably will draw opposition similar to Nevada's wherever it is.

That was the upshot Thursday of a presentation to an independent review board by Mark Holt, a specialist in energy policy for the Congressional Research Service.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Police seize items at Hells Angels clubhouse
  2. Rhodes rides again at Red Rock
  3. 'Phantom' made it to Final Four
  4. Student arrested for bringing gun to school
  5. Tea Party activists say candidate uninvited
  6. Wal-Mart probing racist NJ store announcement
  7. Testing scandal ensnarls Agassi principal
  8. Northern Iowa guard's 25-foot 3-pointer KOs Rebels
  9. Northern Iowa guard's 25-foot 3-pointer KOs Rebels
  10. Republicans subpoenaed in Ensign probe

  • Brazen Conn. warehouse heist nets $75M in pills



  • During his talk to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Holt stressed that his agency, a branch of the Library of Congress, doesn't make policy recommendations.

    But given the direction from Energy Secretary Steven Chu to find alternatives to entombing 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and defense waste in Yucca Mountain, Holt predicts Congress will have to change the nuclear waste law, especially if the Energy Department permanently withdraws its license application from review by nuclear safety regulators.

    If the Yucca Mountain Project were halted without a change in law, the federal government probably would face more lawsuits from nuclear utilities that could trigger repayment of funds for the project from the ratepayers' account.

    Since 1983, the fund has raised $29.7 billion in fees and investment interest, of which $7.1 billion has been spent.

    In all, counting waste fund money and funding from government agencies, more than $10 billion has been spent on the Yucca Mountain Project over more than two decades.

    Rescinding the license application could trigger repayment of the ratepayers' nuclear waste money -- "either funds that haven't been spent, or all funds including those that have been spent plus interest and penalties," Holt said.

    With more years of disposal delays, the nuclear waste program's impetus is expected to shift toward long-term, above-ground storage and development of reprocessing to reduce the amount of waste and the duration that it is dangerous.

    Chu is enlisting a panel to explore alternatives, including long-term storage.

    "At what point does it become an unacceptable risk?" Holt asked.

    Industry experts later said they think spent fuel assemblies could be stored in dry storage casks at reactor sites for up to 120 years.

    Regardless, the Department of Energy is compelled by law to pursue a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

    A Nevada consultant, Victor Gilinsky, who served as a Nuclear Regulatory Commission member from 1975 to 1984, argued that plans by DOE to install expensive, titanium drip shields to prevent water from corroding waste containers inside the mountain is a flawed idea.

    What's more, DOE does not intend to install drip shields until after the repository has operated for a century.

    He views the drip shields as the project's "Achilles' heel" and "show-stopper."

    "Their own calculations show they couldn't meet the (radiation safety) standard without the drip shields," Gilinsky said during a break in the meeting.

    "Where in the world do we rely on the government to fulfill a promise in 100 years? It seems to me to be an unreasonable basis for handing out a license," he said.

    Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0308.

    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 3 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

    George Clare wrote on June 19, 2009 07:58 AM: Mr. Gilinsky is a very wise man to raise the question of whether or not the government will be responsible enough to meet its commitments for specific actions over a 100-year period. However, Gilinsky fails to ask the same question about the tens of lesser organizations (power generating companies, etc.)who will have equivalent burdens of custodianship, scattered over 100+ sites, over similar periods of time if the federal government doesn't develop and operate the Yucca Mountain repository, as currently required by law. Which do we trust more over a period of 100 years -- the federal government? or a mishmash of largely profit-centered companies, minor govenment offices, etc.?


    Report abuse

    Steve wrote on June 15, 2009 11:32 AM: Thirty-one states have commercial nuclear power plants. That comes to 62 senators -- plus the majority of the members of the House of Representatives -- who would have to vote to change the nuclear waste law to keep their waste onsite at their states' power plants for up to 120 years. Does anybody believe the constituents of those 31 states would be satisfied with that decision?

    Try not to fret too much over the money being spent on the Yucca Mountain license application, because this process is not going away anytime soon.


    Report abuse

    Free Nevada">
    Free Nevada wrote on June 12, 2009 07:17 AM: > Since 1983, the fund has raised $29.7 billion in fees and investment interest, of which $7.1 billion has been spent.

    $22.6bn is enough to buy India's blueprints and hire their project managers to come build a couple of breeder nuclear power plants near the Test Site as we start temporarily storing the fuel from around the country at Yucca while it is waiting to be reprocessed into the breeders... all on the condition that Nevada's civilian areas get normal amounts of electricity for free, forever.