Nuclear Safety News

Nuclear power provides 78% of France's electricity, 58% of Belgium's, 50% of Sweden's, 40% of South Korea's, 37% of Switzerland's, 31% of Japan's, 27% of Spain's and 23% of the UK's.

Overall, 30% of the entire European Union's electricity is generated by nuclear power.
In the U.S. nuclear power produces 20% of our electricity.

VermontNames NewState Nuclear Engineer

Department of Public Service - Media Release

Montpelier, VT: Commissioner DavidO'Brien announced the appointment of Uldis Vanags as the new State Nuclear Engineer. Mr. Vanags has a strong academic background including an MS Degree in Radiological Science, and held numerous responsible positions in both the nuclear industry and government sector over his 30 year career. While Maine Yankee Atomic Plant operated, Uldis served as the Maine State Nuclear Safety Advisor (1989-2000). Currently, Uldis serves as a Senior Policy Energy Analyst in the Maine Energy Office.

"I'm very pleased that Uldis Vanags will be our next State Nuclear Engineer. The role of the State Nuclear Engineer is vital to the State. With his addition, our abilityto represent the public interest is strengthened. His extensive nuclear safety and operations experience will serveVermonters well aswe continue to keep a close watch on our nuclear power plant," Commissioner O'Brien said. "In addition, Mr. Vanags' energy policy experience will be useful. Responding to the energy needs of the future in a balanced fashion is a key role for the Department." he added.

Southern States Energy Board Resolution

3. POLICY POSITION IN SUPPORT OF NUCLEAR POWER AND REFORM AND FULL FUNDING OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY PROGRAM

BACKGROUND

Currently, the U.S. generates 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. In the Southern States, nuclear power makes up 19.3% of energy generation. The Southern States Energy Board recently adopted the position that new, emission-free nuclear power plants are essential to help meet growing demand for electricity and to preserve the fuel and technology diversity that is the strength of the U.S. electric supply system. No other source of electricity can provide the combined benefits of nuclear energy: large amounts of reliable and low-cost electricity, long-term price stability, and clean air benefits.

Nuclear power generates electricity to serve one in five homes and businesses in the U.S. The Department of Energy (DOE) forecasts electricity demand in the U.S. will increase by 50% by 2025.

The South is the fastest growing region of the country. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 24 of the 25 expected applications for new reactor licenses will be in the 16 member states of the Southern Legislative Conference.

In 2002, the U.S. Congress approved, and the President signed into law, legislation establishing Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada, as the site for the development of a repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level waste (HLW).

Nationally, there are 121 sites in 39 states which are currently storing SNF and HLW destined for geologic disposal at Yucca Mountain. Regionally, there are 45 reactors at 25 sites, in 13 of the 16 Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) states. According to 2002 population figures, in those states, 24.4 million people live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires DOE to build and operate a specially designed disposal facility SNF and HLW from commercial and defense activities. The federal Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) was established by Congress in 1982 and is funded by electricity customers to pay for the disposal of used nuclear fuel from commercial power plants. Since 1983, electricity consumers have committed more than $26B in fees to the NWF and, as of May 14, 2007, residents of the SLC states have cumulatively paid $6,714B into the fund.

Congress current budgetary process takes the consumer money from the NWF and uses it for unrelated programs with an IOU chips in the till.

The federal government has defaulted on its obligation to begin moving used fuel from plants in 1998 as required by federal law.

In addition, over the past 11 years, Congress has provided $1.23B less than the program has requested.

This year the U.S. House approved full funding of $494.5M for the Yucca Mountain in FY08. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $446.1M for FY08, almost $50M less than what was requested by the DOE, charged with building and operating a repository for the safe and secured storage of high-level radioactive waste.

While government remains in default, electricity consumers are paying millions of dollars for additional on-site storage in addition to the $26B already committed to the program.

RECOMMENDATION

The Southern Legislative Conference/ Council of State Governments (SLC) urges the federal and state policymakers to espouse regulatory, legislative, and fiscal policies that support:

Reaffirmation of support for the development of Yucca Mountain, as the national repository for the disposal of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel disposal;
The abolition of the 77,000 metric ton limit to allow use of the mountain's full capacity, as determined by technical experts;
Support management of land in an around the repository that is most advantageous to the proper operation for the safety and security of the general public of the Yucca Mountain program;
Mitigation of regulatory risks associated with the deployment of new advanced reactors;
Investment stimulus to support new nuclear plant construction;
Funding for nuclear energy research and development, including engineering and design work for advanced reactor designs;
Passage of the House-approved $494.5M for FY08 in order for the Department of Energy to submit a docketable license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30, 2008; and
Reform of the Nuclear Waste Fund by restoring the fund to its original budgetary status; thus ensuring that fees paid by electricity customers are used solely to pay for the used fuel management program, and enabling the Department of Energy greater use of the monies in the Nuclear Waste Fund, so that they can effectively manage the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste without jeopardizing funding for other critical initiatives.

The SLC/CSG forwards its position to the President of the United States, members of Congress and the Secretary of Energy.

Sponsored by Representative Chuck Martin, Georgia

Approved in the City of Williamsburg, VA July 17, 2007

July 20, 2007

Clinton wants Senate hearing for Yucca Mt. alternatives

By SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer

RENO: Repeating her vow to kill Yucca Mountain if elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton called for an immediate halt to the federal licensing process and for Senate hearings to consider alternatives to the proposed nuclear waste repository in southern Nevada.

"It is past time to start exploring alternatives to Yucca Mountain," the presidential hopeful from New York told reporters during a teleconference.

"Once again the Bush administration is ignoring science and pushing forward recklessly with this license application without having protective standards in place," Clinton said.

Clinton, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said she will ask the panel's chairman, California Democrat Barbara Boxer, to schedule the hearing.

The committee has jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency, which is setting radiation standards for the project, and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, which will decide whether to approve the Energy Department's application for a license to operate the waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"I have not been persuaded that it is a suitable location for long-term storage. There are too many unanswered questions about the geology of the site and the integrity of the science done to support the decision to store waste there," Clinton said.

Originally scheduled to open in 1998, the dump has been set back repeatedly by lawsuits, money shortfalls and scientific controversies. DOE's current best-case opening date for the dump, which would hold 77,000 tons of waste, is 2017, though DOE has said 2021 is more likely.

The senator said she agrees the nation must devise a "safe, secure, long-term waste storage solution." "As president, I will work with the scientific community to address this problem and come up with alternative solutions. But for now, what we need to do is turn our attention to laying the groundwork for making a better, smarter decision," she said.

Clinton said she long has opposed the project and is working with Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to make sure it is not built.

"As president, I will not go forward with Yucca Mountain. My administration will not proceed with Yucca Mountain," she said.

"I'm not going to be president for 18 months. If we don't try to slow it down now, it may become a fait accompli."

In addition to the geology of the site, she has concerns about transporting waste across the country to Nevada and the "potential threat of terrorism."

She said a Senate hearing would focus on public health and safety and make sure the DOE halts any further progress on the proposed project until EPA formally adopts rules for radiation standards at the site.

"EPA has promised to put out a final rule by the end of 2006, but they still have not done so," Clinton said. "In the meantime, the DOE is continuing to develop a license application ... that would move forward on Yucca Mountain and intends to do so within the next year," she said.

She says the EPA and DOE have been unaccountable to Congress about the project. They have "not had to answer questions up until now because the Republican Congress has not been willing to ask the hard questions," she said. "We are going to ask the hard questions."

DOE officials did not immediately return a telephone message left at their Las Vegas office seeking comment Friday evening.

Commentary -Charles P. Pray, MSNSA:It's easy to oppose the National Geological Repository for high-level radioactive nuclear waste. The problem is no one has an acceptable alternative. Even Nevada's Executive Director of Nuclear Projects Agency, Bob Loux, the lead State advocate fighting the siting of a nuclear repository on federal lands, adjacent to the defunct nuclear weapons test site in Nevada, says,"… a geological repository is thesafest wayto protect the public... just not in Nevada."

For candidates to express opposition is one thing, to offer sound alternative solutions, is leadership.

Duration of spent fuel storage at Vermont Yankee depends on Yucca Mtn. approval

BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff, BrattleboroReformer, 7/3/07

BRATTLEBORO, VT: Two years ago, the state Legislature gave Entergy permission to store spent fuel in above ground dry casks at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

During hearings to allow the facility, Entergy warned the state it would run out of storage space by 2008 if it wasn't allowed to pull its oldest fuel out of the spent fuel pool and put it into containers of steel and concrete. Spent fuel from the plant, which has operated since 1972, has been stored in deep pools of cooling water as a temporary measure until a federal repository for the waste can be established.

Such a facility at Yucca Mountain, which would be operated by the Department of Energy, (DOE) has been held up for years, subject to litigation from the state of Nevada, environmental groups and anti-nuclear organizations.

In 2002, Congress approved and President Bush signedthe YuccaMountain Development Act, whichcompleted the site selection process and authorized the construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain.

After Bush approved the site in 2002, Nevada formally objected to the Court of Appeals. Most of its objections were tossed out but the court did rule in favor of one of the state's complaints related to radiation standards at the site.

The NuclearWaste PolicyAct of 1982 and 1987 required the U.S. Department of Energy to locate and build a deep, mined geologic repository for high-level waste and, with the Department of Transportation, developa systemto move the waste from nuclear power plants to the repository. To pay for the repository, electric utility customers have been paying a surcharge of 1/10 of a cent for every nuclear-generated kilo-watt-hour of electricity consumed. Through mid-2006, the fund had reached more than $28B.

Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the DOE has indicated it will submit a proposal for the Yucca Mountain facility to the NRC for approval within a year. The process couldtake threeto four years, he said. DOE has said it would like to open Yucca Mountain between2017 and 2020.

The NRC trusts "there's a reasonable assurance a federalrepository for spent fuel will be available in the first-quarter of this century," said Sheehan. According to the Waste Confidence Rule by the NRC fuel can be stored safely at Vermont Yankee for at least 30 years after the shut down. Though the spent fuel eventually belong to the DOE, "dry cask storage falls under our jurisdiction," he said.

Sheehan called the dry casks "very large robust structures" with steel reinforced concrete similar to the containment vessel that wraps around Vermont Yankee's boiling water reactor. "They have a permit to store waste that is generated by the end of 2012," said SarahHoffman, adding a misconception in Vermont is that the waste won't be stored in Vernon for more than 20 years. "There's no outside date for how long."

At one time, because of its granite formations, Vermont was on a short list of sites for a nuclear waste repository, said Hoffman. Because it was on the list, the state legislature passed a law requiring its approval to store any waste in the state.

Entergy, which currently has a 20-year license extension request before the NRC, needs to receive approval from both the state Legislature and the state's Public Service Board to extend that license to 2032, said Hoffman, even if the NRC approves it. "With the plant come the waste," she said, which could become a sticking point for Entergy's re-licensing effort. "When the Legislature is looking at the issue of re-licensing, it will also look at new waste created by any kind of extension or certificate of public good."

As far as DOE's promise to take possession of the spent fuel in the next decade, Diana Sidebotham, president, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, said she has heard it before and doesn't believethe federalgovernment's assurances. "This waste will be on the site for a very long time," said Sidebotham. "We think fuel can be safely stored on site for up to 30 years after the plant ceases operation," said Sheehan, adding "we are confident that there will be a repository" before then.

But one nuclear waste expert called dry cask storage at Vermont Yankee"de factopermanent." KevinCamps, with Nuclear Information & Resource Service, said even the commissioners of the NRC are split on whether Yucca Mountain should be the place for nuclear waste.

"Yucca Mountain is looking ever more likely not to open," he said, meaning waste could be stored in Vernon for much longer than the public may think. And the nuclear industry can't be trusted, he said. In Minnesota, a nuclear plant operator was given permission to install 17 dry casks. In 2003, it came back and asked for more than 60 more storage containers.

"If you let them start, they're not going to stop," said Camps. "Especially with a company like Entergy," which knows that "there are federal laws that would give the federal agencies the right to override a state's authority."

Dry cask storage construction in Vernon is currently underway, said Larry Smith, spokesman for Vermont Yankee. Sometime in the fall, he said, technicians will begin to move spent fuel from cooling ponds into the storage containers.

As far as when the spent fuel will be removed from the site in Vernon, said Smith, "we can't speculate on when the DOE will take the fuel."

"Our responsibility is to be good stewards of the fuel that is on site now and have it ready to be taken whenever that is," he said.

As part of its dry cask agreement with the state, Entergy agreed to pay $2.5 million into the state's clean energy development fund.

Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273

From The NuclearWaste News A biweekly publication

Mothers for Peace Challenges NRC's Diablo Canyon Terrorism Review

Skeptics of a plan to store radioactive waste above ground at Diablo Canyon, CA, have officially challenged a Nuclear Regulatory Commission conclusion that a terrorist attack on the facility is: "not reasonably expected to occur."

In an 18-page request for a hearing on the matter, the San Luis Obispo-based anti-nuclear group Mothers for Peace argues the NRC's investigation was not thorough enough and that the agency failed to consult outside experts and agencies. "NRC staff's review is so poorly documented that it is hard to tell what they reviewed," said Mothers for Peace spokeswoman Jane Swanson.

"But what little information is given shows that they didn't look at a very broad range of threats to the Diablo Canyon spent-fuel storage facility or measures for avoiding or mitigating the impacts of attacks."

The Mothers for Peace petition to NRC insists on "a formal adjudicatory hearing on the adequacy of the [terrorism review] to consider the environmental impacts of intentional attacks on the proposed Diablo Canyon [storage facility]."

Last month, NRC under court order to review the effects terrorist attacks might have at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant concluded that Diablo operator Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Co's $118M plan to store radioactive waste above ground would be safe.

As a result, NRC decided not to prepare a full-fledged environmental-impact statement that would provide a more detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of an attack and the comparative costs and benefits of plans for avoiding or mitigating those impacts.

NRC, which must now formally respond to the Mothers for Peace petition, stated in an order to its staff earlier this year that the court order to review the potential for a terrorist attack "explicitly left to our discretion the precise manner in which we undertake" the terrorism review, "with respect to both our consideration of the merits and the procedures we choose to apply."

Its analysis, NRC argued, "may rely, where appropriate, on qualitative rather than quantitative considerations" and on "information already available in agency records."

If the Mothers for Peace regulatory challenge doesn't succeed, NRC won't require PG&E to change its plan to build large steel-and-concrete canisters that each can hold 32 spent-fuel assemblies bolted to a thick concrete pad. The company is building the storage facility because its below-ground storage pools are almost full.

The new storage site, expected to open next year, will be able to hold 138 dry casks: enough storage for all the fuel assemblies the plant will produce for the next 18 years.

Meanwhile, other critics are filing separate comments critical of NRC's finding, including the state of Nevada, Public Citizen, Beyond Nuclear and Riverkeeper. Also, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility have gathered support from more than 150 statewide and nationwide organizations for comments criticizing NRC's finding.

"A terrorist attack on high-level radioactive waste storage containers at the Diablo Canyon atomic reactors could unleash catastrophic amounts of deadly radioactivity downwind and downstream for long distances," said NIRS nuclear waste specialist Kevin Kamps. "These storage containers must be fortified against terrorist attacks, but NRC is derelict in its duty to protect public health, safety and the environment."

Attack 'Not Reasonably Expected'

In San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace vs. NRC, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that NRC must consider the environmental effects of a terrorist attack on the dry-cask storage project. Mothers for Peace argued successfully that NRC wrongly ignored National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by failing to address the environmental consequences of a terrorist attack on the storage site.

In its court-ordered analysis, NRC concluded that "a terrorist attack that would result in a significant release of radiation affecting the public is not reasonably expected to occur." Even if an attack did release radioactive materials, the report said, the public would likely encounter radioactive doses below the maximum that a nuclear plant worker is allowed to receive yearly.

The recent Mothers for Peace petition says that NRC's evaluation "completely fails to demonstrate that [it] made a 'fully informed and well considered' determination of no significant impacts," the petition states. NEPA "requires the NRC to go back to the drawing board and provide an analysis that is understandable and scientifically supported."

NRC Beefs Up Terrorism Precautions

Interestingly, the dust-up between Mothers for Peace and NRC over terrorism reviews at reactors comes at the same time NRC is trying to upgrade plant safety and security, with a special emphasis on preparing for "the effects of large fires and explosions that could result from a terrorist attack, including the impact of a large commercial aircraft."

A recent announcement, NRC said it's building on the safety steps it took in early 2002, following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The NRC ordered a sweeping series of security upgrades at nuclear plants around the nation, including bolstering physical security and taking steps to mitigate the possible effects of a large fire or explosion on spent fuel pools, reactor cores and containment buildings.

While power plant operators have been introducing those measures since NRC issued that order, the agency is now sending each reactor operator a letter indicating that inspections of the safety precautions will become routine.

"From the outset," NRC Chairman Dale Klein writes in the letter, "we set very high standards for plants to meet."

To read Mothers for Peace petition, visit http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/Case Details.cfm?cID=407.

Donald A. Grant: U.S. needs to act on storage of nuke waste

7/13/07 - Bangor Daily News

Nuclear waste from the generation of electricity is stored at centralized sites in Great Britain, France, Sweden and other countries with nuclear power plants. But no comparable interim site for waste storage exists in the U.S. Such a site needs to be set aside now if we're to make use of carbon-free nuclear power in combating global warming. The best place for interim storage would be near the planned Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada.

Although an operational repository is not essential for construction of new nuclear plants, utility regulators, and investors, need confidence that a workable plan for long-term spent-fuel storage is in place.

How soon can this be done? This is no small question. There is some dispute about the severity of the nuclear waste problem, but in those parts of the country where it is a problem, mostly near large cities, the impact is so unsettling that state officials are demanding help from Washington.

Some 57,000 metric tons of spent fuel is stored at scores of nuclear power plant sites in different parts of the United States. Here in Maine, 550 metric tons is stored safely and securely at the site of the decommissioned Maine Yankee plant.

Because spent fuel is a byproduct of electricity production, the amount keeps increasing at operating nuclear plants. But there is a limit to how much of the highly-radioactive material can be added at local sites. Most storage pools are either at full capacity and cannot take any more spent-fuel rods or are running out of space. Some dry casks stand on unsettled ground near lakes, rivers and other waterways. Security costs are mounting.

Congress needs to address the nuclear waste problem and it should direct the Department of Energy to transport the spent fuel to an interim site in the Nevada desert. It also should provide full funding for licensing and construction of the Yucca Mountain repository, at the budget level requested by the Bush Administration - $494.5 million for the 2008 fiscal year.

Before dismissing this as fantasy, consider that the senior Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, is a strong advocate of shipping spent fuel to an interim site in Nevada. And the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to provide nearly the full budget request for the Yucca Mountain project.

Electricity consumers have a stake in seeing some progress on waste storage. Since 1982, users of nuclear-generated electricity nationally have contributed $29 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund for construction of the Yucca Mountain facility. About $65 million has been paid by electricity users in Maine alone. Even these numbers understate the true cost of nuclear waste management, since consumers also pay for storing spent fuel at local nuclear plant sites.

Those who think we can continue to store spent fuel at nuclear plant sites indefinitely should think again. Sure, the spent fuel poses no immediate threat to public safety. But in the end, there is almost nothing we can do that will enable us not to care about the buildup of spent fuel at so many sites around the country. Nor is there much relief in sight from reprocessing spent fuel, not unless a way can be found to separate plutonium for recycling without contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation.

This leaves us with one overriding imperative: We must establish a centralized storage site for spent fuel and complete the construction of a permanent repository. This may be a difficult policy to pursue in view of the opposition to a repository from vocal anti-nuclear groups and some Nevada politicians, but that doesn't make planning for it any less necessary.

Donald A. Grant, Ph.D., P.E., is chair and professor emeritus of the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Maine

CANADA

District says no nuclear waste

Jacqueline Lawrence Jul 11, 2007

The District of Muskoka is opposed to any proposal that would result in the dumping of nuclear waste within its borders, now or anytime in the future. That was the message the upper-tier municipality delivered to the federal government Monday night in response to a recent report highlighting Muskoka and northeastern Ontario as a suitable dumping ground for waste from Canada's nuclear reactors.

The report, prepared by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), was meant to address Canada's long-term disposal needs when it comes to nuclear waste. It recommended through its Adaptive Phased Management (APM) plan that waste could be buried deep within the Canadian Shield, possibly in Muskoka. The phased process is said to take as many as 30 years to implement, with the assistance of willing and informed communities.

Greener thinking, and a nuclear path

By JOE FOLLICK, H-T CAPITAL BUREAU

jfollick@earthlink.net
TALLAHASSEE: Gov. Charlie Crist's push to be green could mean more nuclear plants in Florida.

The word "nuclear" does not appear in any of the three executive orders Crist signed at the close of his global warming summit Friday ordering tighter vehicle emission standards and a reduction of greenhouse gases. But he, as well as power utilities are planning for more nuclear energy in the future. And the sweeping greenhouse gas reductions Crist embraced this week may solidify more nuclear power as a cornerstone of Florida's energy policy.

When Crist discusses renewable energy, he inevitably mentions "solar, wind and nuclear." "I think it's just as important," Crist said Friday of nuclear power. "It's clean, it produces a lot of juice."

Among efforts Crist enacted Friday to reduce greenhouse gases will be a requirement that 20% of energy supplied by utilities in the state come from renewable sources.

While that most commonly means solar and wind power, Crist has mentioned nuclear energy as an option as well.

Utility leaders said Friday that achieving that 20% goal could require more nuclear energy, especially if it is>

"If nuclear power is not included in that mix, it may become a big challenge to meet those goals," said Mayco Villafana of Florida Power & Light.

Jeff Lyash, the president of Progress Energy in Florida, said the company is committed to developing solar, wind and biomass fuels in the future. "Those are critically important," he said. "But it is not going to be enough to be able to turn the tide on CO2 and reduce it. You must also find ways to generate bulk electricity to support growth. The one thing that's available to us today that's safe, cost-effective and emits no (greenhouse gases) is nuclear."

Lyash said he hopes to include savings generated by energy efficiency efforts as a renewable source. "How more renewable can something get than not using it?" he said.

Efforts to build more nuclear plants may not be evident for decades.

It takes about 10 years and billions of dollars to obtain the necessary state and federal approval and construct a plant.

Progress Energy is building a plant in Levy County and hopes to have it operating by 2016. And FPL has discussed expanding its existing nuclear operations at Turkey Point in Miami-Dade by 2020.

Crist has already pushed Florida toward a nuclear future. With pressure from the governor, the state's utility commission denied an FPL permit to build a coal-burning plant in Glades County. Another power group later cited Crist's opposition in ending plans for a coal plant in Taylor County west of Gainesville.

One of the two members Crist has appointed to the Public Service Commission said Friday that the apparent demise of coal as a future fuel option in the state makes nuclear energy likelier.

"I think nuclear will come into play more and more," said Nancy Argenziano, a former state legislator from Dunnellon. "I like nuclear far better than coal."

She said the PSC may travel to Nevada to explore how nuclear waste is stored at the Yucca Mountain Repository.

And a study group, the Florida Energy Commission, said earlier this month that the state should not only consider building more nuclear plants, but also study construction of a facility to recycle nuclear waste.

Environmental groups that have swooned at Crist's energy policies are not likely to agree with him on the future of nuclear energy.

"If you spend all the money that you have to develop global warming options on nuclear, you're going to do the least you can possibly do to solve the problem by spending the most money," said Dale Bryk, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Holly Binns, field director for Environment Florida, said most of the state's future energy needs could be met largely by more efficient use of energy and increased use of solar and wind power.

More critical for many environmentalists is the lingering issue of disposing of nuclear waste safely.

"We've had 30 years to figure out what to do with this highly dangerous waste," Binns said. "And if we haven't solved it yet, to think we're going to in the next year or two is pretty absurd."

No New Nukes for California

The nuclear power business is resurgent, re-energized by billions in Congressional subsidies and its reincarnation as a relatively greenhouse-gas free source of electricity. But the industry can pretty much write off global warming-fighting California, the world's 8^th largest economy, as a market, according to a new state government report assessing nuclear power's prospects in the Golden State. Three existing nuclear plants provide 15% of California's electricity, but in 1976 the state banned the construction of new nuclear power stations until the California Energy Commission determines technology exists for the permanent disposal or reprocessing of radioactive waste. "Commercial nuclear power is riding a wave of renewed interest and support," notes the 302-page report from the California Energy Commission. But the authors conclude the lack of a permanent radioactive waste disposal site - such at the long-delayed facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada - will continue to doom industry's prospects in California.

SITE INFORMATION