Author Archive

Hill, president support power source, but economy lags

Sunday, November 14, 2010

By David Eldridge
The Washington Times

With political support now on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill, nuclear energy’s long-awaited American "renaissance" is lacking one positive factor: the economy.

"The business environment is the principal driver," said Alex Flint of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a Washington-base trade group. "How long is the recession going to last? When are we going to see the demand forecast pick up?"

The NEI’s Steve Kerekes added: "The asterisk there is the impact of the recession. Electricity demand is still well below where it was in 2007."

After GOP takeover of the House, President Obama zeroed in on nuclear energy as an issue about which Democrats and Republicans "can move forward." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, agreed.

The president’s backing of industry initiatives – earlier this year, he offered federal loan guarantees for the first new reactor projects in the U.S. in more than 30 years – combined with support from powerful returning Republicans like Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas and Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, have nuclear officials optimistic.

"I thought it was indicative of the times that, in their talks immediately after the election, the president, [incoming House Speaker John A.] Boehner and Sen. McConnell all mentioned nuclear energy," Mr. Flint said. "That is because nuclear energy is now … at the center of the debate about energy policy. We do believe it is the middle ground on which both parties can compromise."

The industry, which currently generates about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, has worked hard to present itself as a cleaner alternative to coal- and natural gas-fired plants and as an energy source that could ease the country’s dependence on foreign oil. Those efforts have helped the industry rebuild public and political support that dissipated in the wake of 1979’s Three Mile Island meltdown.

In the first two years of the Obama administration, the White House has backed the loan guarantees, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb has called for doubling nuclear capacity, and even liberal Democrats like California Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. John Kerry have expressed support for a greater role by the industry.

Now, with pro-nuclear Republican allies set to ascend to key committee leadership roles in the GOP-controlled House, the industry is hoping for bipartisan support for nuclear energy initiatives.

Mr. Upton, the Republican expected to take over for California’s Henry A. Waxman as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, has made it clear that nuclear energy is a priority.

Despite nuclear power’s tremendous potential, the nation is lacking a coherent policy as we look toward the future. Nuclear was largely ignored as the job-killing cap-and-tax scheme made its way through the House last June," Mr. Upton wrote in an editorial published in April.

"The world’s leading emitters understand the importance of nuclear power in reducing emissions. It is well past time we do the same or risk being left behind," he wrote.

Mr. Upton’s rival for that key leadership post is Mr. Barton, long a vocal supporter of nuclear energy and the oil industry – he most recently drew notice for his apology to British Petroleum after the Gulf Coast oil spill.

Both congressman criticized the failed cap-and-trade legislation co-sponsored by Rep. Waxman – with Mr. Barton going as far as to say cap-and-trade is "not just endangered, it’s extinct."

The nuclear industry is expected to get a boost no matter which congressman wins the chairmanship.

"The new Congress will be more pro-nuclear than any … we’ve seen in decades," said Don Gillispie, chief executive officer of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., a Boise, Idaho-based company that seeks to build new nuclear power plants and desalination systems. "We should see a resurgence of the industry, the likes of which we haven’t seen in 30 years."

There are skeptics.

Anti-nuclear power activists are already sounding the alarm about the costs of taxpayer-guaranteed loans and the environmental dangers of the "nuclear renaissance."

In Vermont last week, Democrat Peter Shumlin won a close race for governor after promising to shut down the state’s troubled Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.

And fiscal conservatives, especially those among the "tea party" candidates sweeping into Congress, will have to decide which they find less objectionable: ongoing dependence on foreign oil or the federal subsidies sought by the nuclear industry.

"There are a lot of new faces coming to Congress," said the NEI’s Mr. Kerekes. "So it’s a little difficult to handicap at this point. But if we want to have a meaningful impact on reducing greenhouse gases, there has to be a substantive role for nuclear energy going forward, just based on our track record."

December 14, 2010

John Dillon – Montpelier, VT
Vermont Public Radio -NPR

(Host) The dry plains of west Texas are supposed to be the final resting place for tons of low-level nuclear trash. Vermont and Texas have exclusive rights to the proposed waste site under an agreement reached 16 years ago.

But the commission overseeing the dump wants to open up the site to 36 other states.

That possibility worries Governor-elect Peter Shumlin. As VPR’s John Dillon reports, Shumlin says Vermont could get squeezed out if other states have access to the nuclear waste site.

(Dillon) Back in the 1990s Vermont and Texas planned ahead and signed an interstate compact for low level nuclear waste. The deal says Texas will host the dump, and Vermont is supposed to get 20 percent of the space.

But just days after the November election, the commission overseeing the project voted to propose a new rule that would open up the site to other states. It was a controversial decision, with some on the panel warning that the vote was being rushed.

(Gregory) "I am convinced this is too much, too soon, too fast."

(Dillon) That’s Texas commissioner Bob Gregory speaking out against the proposal at meeting in Midland, Texas, last month.

Gregory told the two Vermont commissioners that Vermont could lose its space in the dump if it was made available to nuclear plants in other states.

(Gregory) "I want you all to know that these things are being discussed and they’re being said, and one day ifVermont comes up and says: ‘Where’s our volume, where’s our capacity?’ And it is no more, that at least it was discussed."

(Dillon) Steve Wark was also in Midland that day. Wark is deputy public service commissioner and is one of two Vermonters who serve on the eight-member Low Level Waste Commission.

Wark and the other Vermonter on the panel – state nuclear engineer Uldis Vanags – were the swing votes in favor of the proposal to allow waste from other states. Wark told the November meeting that he’s aware of the implications for Vermont.

(Wark) "We definitely appreciate raising these issues for Vermont. We see them as important to Vermont. We wanted to protect our space. However, we do believe the rule meets all of Vermont’s needs."

(Dillon) But Governor-elect Peter Shumlin is not convinced. Shumlin says Vermont will need the Texas dump when Vermont Yankee is decommissioned.

(Shumlin) "There’s going to be a race for space, and the first in wins."

(Dillon) And Shumlin questions the timing of the vote – which came two months before he gets to replace the Douglas administration appointees on the panel.

(Shumlin) "My view is that the folks who are voting and scrambling before I become governor, frankly, to ensure that all the other states get access to our waste site are not thinking of Vermonters."

(Dillon) But Wark said in an interview that Vermont has a solid guarantee to the space under the new rule.

(Wark) "Our space is protected first, regardless of what else comes in from any other state."

(Dillon) Wark said allowing other nuclear plants to use the site will lower the cost overall. He said the proposal was under discussion for months, and that the vote was not rushed through before the change in administrations.

But a final vote on the rule could take place before Shumlin takes office on January 6.

Shumlin wants a delay and so do leading Democratic lawmakers.

For VPR News, I’m John Dillon in Montpelier.

Friday, December 10, 2010

By Karen Hadden/Guest Column
San Antonio Express News

Texas is at risk of becoming the nation’s radioactive waste dumping ground. The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission is pushing forward a rule that essentially invites 36 or more states to dump radioactive waste in Texas. It would go to the Waste Control Specialists’ site in Andrews County in West Texas.

The commission should instead limit the site to waste from the Compact states — Texas and Vermont. Financial and safety risks are being ignored in the rush to approve the rule, which has no limits on volume or curies of radiation. Texas has liability for imported radioactive waste and 15 state legislators have asked for time to review the increased financial and environmental risks, but the Compact Commission is trying to vote on the import rule right away.

Radioactive waste could travel by rail and on major highways throughout our state and no one has analyzed whether emergency responders throughout Texas are equipped to deal with accidents involving radioactive waste.

Everything but the fuel rods from nuclear reactors can go to a "low-level" radioactive waste dump, including nuclear reactor vessels, poison curtains that absorb core radioactivity, and radioactive sludges and resins. No radioactive element is excluded. Exposure to radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects and the materials remain hazardous for hundreds to millions of years.

Staff at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality recommended denying the Compact site license. They said "groundwater is likely to intrude into the proposed disposal units and contact the waste from either or both of two water tables near the proposed facility."

The Compact site is already pressed for space. It’s licensed for 2.3 million cubic feet of waste, but Texas and Vermont need three times this space to dispose of five nuclear reactors when they’re decommissioned. Why bring in waste from around the country and force expansion of the site?

Is Waste Control Specialists trying to create a "volume discount" rate for dumping radioactive waste on Texas? A private company headed by Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons would profit while Texas’ taxpayers would bear increased financial and safety risks. Existing U.S. radioactive waste dumps have leaked and clean up will cost billions of dollars. Why increase the risks of contaminating Texas’ soil and water by bringing in waste from around the country?

It’s not too late. Other compacts have excluded "out-of compact" waste and Texas could close the gate too. Citizens can urge elected officials to insist on limiting the radioactive waste coming to Texas. Comments on the Compact Commission Import rule can be sent to www.tllrwdcc.org/rule675.html until Dec. 26. The import rule vote should be halted until waste limits are assured and the legislature has a chance to analyze financial, health and safety risks to Texans. If you don’t want Texas to become the nation’s radioactive waste dump, the time to speak up is now.

Karen Hadden is executive director of the SEED Coalition.

December 7,2010

By MATTHEW L. WALD
New York Times

The federal aid now in place for new nuclear plants is far from sufficient for the so-called "nuclear renaissance" that backers are seeking, a panel made up of members of Congress, high-ranking federal officials and leaders of major nuclear companies agreed on Tuesday.

Ground has been broken on only two new nuclear plants with a total of four reactors, and some companies have withdrawn their applications for licenses to build. "We can’t make the numbers work," said Chip Pardee, chief nuclear officer of Exelon, the nation’s largest operator of civilian nuclear reactors, who sat on a panel of 25 at a conference organized by the Idaho National Laboratory of the Energy Department and a private group called the Third Way.

Read more at the New York Times web site….

December 10, 2010

Media Release – For Immediate Release
Download this press release in pdf format for printing.

Contacts: Karen Hadden, Executive Director, SEED Coalition, 512-797-8481
Tom "Smitty" Smith, Director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, 512-637-9455

Austin, TX The only hearing on a proposed radioactive waste rule that would open Texas up to becoming the nation’s radioactive waste dumping ground was held yesterday in Austin. The rule would let waste from around the country go to Waste Control Specialists’ Andrews County site in West Texas instead of limiting waste to the Compact states of Texas and Vermont.

The Import Rule 30-day public comment period ends Dec. 26th so comments can still be sent to rule.comment@tllrwdcc.org.

A videotape of the Dec. 9th hearing will be online at http://www.texasadmin.com/tceqs.shtml and more information is available at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.

Speakers requested:

• a comment period extension

• that the vote be postponed until the legislature can examine Texas’ financial risks and ability to respond to accidents or contamination.

• that hearings be held in all major Texas cities since radioactive waste could travel down highways throughout the state and

• that Compact Commissioners to vote no to bringing in more radioactive waste.

"Many people are concerned that more radioactive waste means increased financial, health, environmental and security risks," said SEED Coalition Director Karen Hadden “They spoke of broken promises, environmental justice, protecting the land they love and preventing radioactive contamination of water. Some questioned whether anything prevents contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer that lies beneath eight states in the breadbasket region of the nation.”

Speakers included Craig Adair from Rep. Lon Burnam’s office, who brought a letter signed by fifteen House members. Farmers, ranchers, academics, scientists, artists, environmentalists and health advocates participated, coming from as far away as Dallas and Houston. One woman spoke on behalf of farming families in West Texas. Participants represented the League of Women Voters of Texas, NAACP, Texans for Public Justice, Environment Texas, Austin Center for Peace and Justice, SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, Lone Star Sierra Club, and Save Our Springs.

Nuclear reactor vessels, "poison curtains" that absorb reactor core radioactivity, and radioactive sludges and resins could all be sent to the West Texas site. No radionuclide would be excluded. Exposure to radioactive materials can cause cancer, birth defects, reduced immunity and even death, depending on the type of radioactive material and the level of exposure.