Comments (57) | Add a comment
Yucca Mountain shutdown criticized
Tools
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- A departing leader of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the Yucca Mountain shutdown, saying it has damaged the government's credibility on nuclear matters.
Commissioner Dale Klein made his remarks in a speech Tuesday at a conference attended by more than 2,700 industry officials, academics and scientists.
Klein announced his resignation last fall and will step aside in the coming weeks when a successor is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
But on his way out the door, Klein said he found the Obama administration's handling of the proposed Nevada nuclear waste repository to be "unfortunate" in that it has caused new uncertainty over how the nation will manage highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
"The administration's handling of the matter has already led to the filing of a number of lawsuits and clouded the path forward in a number of significant ways for years to come," Klein said.
Klein said although Obama has the right to change course, he did not think the administration gave a fact-based reason to set aside the plan to build an above-ground industrial complex and a below-ground warren of tunnels in which the waste would be stored and eventually buried.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is in the midst of multiyear safety review, while panels of the commission's administrative judges are hearing legal challenges to the project. Both would come to an end if the Department of Energy is given permission to withdraw a construction application.
"In my opinion, the administration's stated rationale for changing course does not seem to rest on factual findings and thus does not bolster the credibility of our government to handle this matter competently," Klein said.
His criticism echoes others that have been aimed at Obama and the Department of Energy in the last few weeks by a handful of lawmakers, and organizations representing the nuclear industry and state utility regulators.
The Obama administration has stood firm in declaring it is done with Yucca Mountain, where the proposed repository was the nation's preferred waste management strategy for close to 30 years. The site drew opposition from some scientists, environmental activists and a majority of Nevada residents as potentially unsafe and certainly undesirable.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said the repository program was outdated, and there is promise that emerging technologies might be able to wring more energy out of used nuclear fuel while reducing its toxicity. But those could be decades away, while the radioactive waste would remain stored at reactor sites either in pools or in above-ground casks.
Obama promised to shelve the repository program during the 2008 presidential primary campaign in which the support of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was crucial to securing Nevada, an early caucus state. Since then, Reid has had Obama's ear on nuclear waste matters and has declared Yucca to be dead.
A commission formed in January will be given two years to develop recommendations on a path forward, with Chu and White House officials saying Yucca Mountain will not be on the table for consideration.
Klein, a former Department of Defense official and nuclear engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin, was nominated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by President George W. Bush, and was its chairman from July 2006 to May 2009. At that point, Obama named fellow commissioner Gregory Jaczko, a former Reid science aide, to replace him as chairman.
In his speech, Klein criticized "those who would distort the science of Yucca Mountain for political purposes." He noted Obama a year ago issued a memo stating, "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions."
"I honestly cannot say if Yucca Mountain could ever meet the stringent tests that would allow it to be licensed," Klein said. "But I do know that, under the law, that licensing determination and the technical evaluation of the science is the NRC's responsibility."
Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal 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 use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
In regard to Hanford being an option for HIGH level waste, its soils arent as secure as are the TUFF soils at YMP.
They already are dealing with some minor leaching issues into the Columbia River.
And, Hanford is buring certain categories of waste into hillside tunnels; trucks, equipment, etc.
As to running out of nuclear fuel, I can only refer to the changing of PEAK OIL over time and newer technologies that can access different fields and depths.
About STATES RIGHTS, maybe Alaska wants to keep THEIR oil, or sell it to higher foreign bidders! Instead, they get a kickback to each state resident annually.
If lil reid were looking out for state residents...
BOTTOM LINE: Congress voted overwhelmingly for YMP. Why are a few political characters allowed to derail it???
PS As proof that Congress has failed looking out for US, just look what happened when our economy was on the verge of collapse in summer '08: They took off for Labor Day vacations!
@ Patrick
Thank you, Patrick. I can only add that it takes a minimum of two people to have a rational, adult conversation. No single person can do it by themselves.
I think you and I agree on most things. I will even agree that Senator Reid deserves some credit for having brought up alternative energy at all. But that's as far as I will go for now. I guess we will have to "agree to disagree."
If Reid actively supports the blue ribbon panel, and they come up with some sort of effective alternative to Yucca Mountain, then I will be happy to change my opinion of him. Otherwise, all he has done so far is to pay lip service to the idea of alternative energy, and kick the "nuclear waste can" farther down the road. While blatantly ignoring a whole lot of other, urgent problems facing Nevada.
In that sense, the choice between the Democrats and the Republicans seems sadly like a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. WHILE, I might add, both are trying to assassinate each others' character and convince the voters that they are totally different!
The only people that lose are the ordinary citizens of Nevada.
Tom:
If only the people in charge of the actual decision making communicated as rationally; we might not be in this fix.
Identify the problem and solve it I say. If nuclear power is found, on balance, to be necessary and safe(enough), then let the smart guys figure out the best solution to the waste issue. I know it can be done cause I have faith in science. The problem is that politics plays such a gigantic role in all this and some of those "powers that be" responsible for making the decisions about our energy future are so economically vested in their own particular industry, that they distort the science.
This has always been my biggest problem with the dump. Not necessarily that the science can't be resolved, but that we never get to that point because the basis for the decision was skewed by the industry and the politicians who were beholden to that industry.
Given the political divides in the country seem only be be getting larger, I don't know if I can even say I see a way out despite being a true optimist.
Alternative energy is THE future and it is a chance for our politicians to show REAL leadership, and so far I ain't seeing much. But when I do, no matter how relatively insignificant, I gotta think recognizing it, and promoting it is our best hope that it gets better.
I don't see any members of the republican party making even these efforts and so when I see Sen. Reid step out and do it, and really regardless of the reasons, or even of the initial impact of the alternative energy, I think the guy deserves some credit.
@ Patrick
I agree with you in principle, that switching entirely from hydrocarbons to ANY other non-renewable mineral energy source, not limited to uranium, is a waste of time in the long run. ALL non-renewables run out eventually. The only question is when. Whether it takes 20 or 100 or 200 years doesn't really matter.
So to hypothetically say we should all immediately switch ENTIRELY to nuclear power is not a practical idea. But neither is immediately switching ENTIRELY to solar and wind and hydrogen power. The technology just simply isn't there yet.
Instead of talking radical extremes, what we as a society should be doing is planning an orderly, gradual TRANSITION from fossil fuels to renewables. This will take a long time, like it or not, and nuclear power has an important role to play in that transition. Like Abe said recently, for example, I can easily see using nuclear stations to make hydrogen!
But, as we have discussed before, that isn't going to happen if the "powers that be" flatly refuse to solve the nuclear waste problem. The uncertainty is as much a problem as the technology. It's just common sense. Would YOU invest millions of dollars in setting up a manufacturing business if all you had was a vague promise that SOMEONE might design a product for you to make and sell SOMEDAY?
You sound like a smart guy. Of course you wouldn't.
br63:
I totally agree with you; as far as you went.
Reserves are tied to economic factors, BUT what I said was that IF uranium, or even thorium had to power the ENTIRE demand for electricity in the world (which I will admit is really impossible) the known reserves, and possibly even the "we really aren't sure but we think it might exist reserves", would be used up in 20 years.
Doubious:
I appreciate that you have an opinion, and yet you spend your entire post attacking me rather than pointing out where anything I said was incorrect; not much of a reasoned argument I gotta say.
Facts are facts, and arguments are arguments, and the facts are that uranimum is a finite quantity. Much smarter people than me have determined that at present rates of energy usage (this doesn't even take into account that energy usage will undoubtedly increase, but that's for another day) IF nuclear power were the ONLY source of electricity then we have "x" amount of years before the supply of uranium would be exhausted. Now, you MAY have some figures that show the supply would last longer (How would we know) but it is a fact that there is a limit. Smart people have produced figures showing that the supply would run out in less than 20 years, but "apparently" you disagree; ok where did you get this information from and what is it based on?
And, when it comes to rational discussions Dubious, I am happy to have them; I ain't always right and regardless of what you may think, I am open to being convinced by FACTS. Fortunately, I am rarely offered any; you are a prime example. So I get to do something else; blast back at the providers of nonsense with the same irrational nonsense that they come to these boards with; its nothing but fun.
So, even though you came with nonsense, I refrained from a quid pro quo and am giving you the chance to convince me, or at least offer up some real facts which are contrary to the information I posted.
Good luck with that!
@ Dubious "Research"
Which ought to tell you something right there: that neutrality begets cordiality and vice versa.
How do I know that Patrick ISN'T only pretending to be sincerely cordial? I don't. How do I know that he DIDN'T fabricate or exaggerate or cherry pick all his references in the way you said? I don't.
But then, on the other hand, how do I know YOU are telling the truth? I don't. How do you know you can believe ME? You don't. All any of us can do is proceed forward with a small amount of cautious, skeptical trust, together with a very LARGE amount of critical thinking and independent, autonomous judgement.
That is, assuming we want to have a conversation at all, and maybe learn something. Or even change our minds, Heaven forbid. As opposed to just amusing ourselves venting hatred and hurling insults at each other.
Me, I'll take my chances. If Patrick wants to talk, then I'll talk. If he turns out to be just another troll, then I'll know and respond appropriately. I didn't exactly fall off the turnip truck yesterday, you know...