Panel told nuke plants should be built

Suzanne Struglinski

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 | 9:40 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The lack of a final resting place for nuclear waste creates a challenge when trying to build new nuclear power plants, the Energy Department told senators Tuesday, but it does not mean new plants shouldn't be built.

As he described the progress of the department's Nuclear 2010 program, Deputy Energy Secretary Jeffrey Clay Sell told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that nuclear power needs to be a part of the country's future energy plans. The goal of Nuclear 2010 is to have a company decide to build and operate at least one new plant by 2010.

Sell assured the committee that the government will live up to its promise made in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and take waste from nuclear power plants. The government plans to ship and store at least 77,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"The Yucca Mountain project is critical," Sell said. "We are very confident in the science that underpins our decision to recommend the Yucca Mountain site as the appropriation location for that.

"Let me be very clear. We do not believe that Yucca Mountain has to open before a new nuclear plant can be built. We do believe it's important that we continue to make progress so that license holders can have confidence that the federal government will fulfill its obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We believe we can make that progress and produce that confidence."

The government was supposed to take the waste in 1998 but the site was not ready in time. The department planned to submit the project's license application at the end of last year, but experienced more delays. The site is not likely to open until 2012 or 2015 if the department submits the application in the next year and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows it to move forward.

Nevada strongly objects to the project and plans to raise numerous objections during the licensing process, if the project gets that far. But objecting to Yucca Mountain does not equal an objection to nuclear power. Some lawmakers support nuclear power, just dislike the plans for the waste.

"Congressman Gibbons understands that nuclear power is an important component of our energy portfolio, however, before we increase the production of nuclear power we need a 21st century solution to the accumulating nuclear waste, and that is absolutely not burying it in a hole in the Nevada desert," Amy Spanbauer, spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., favors nuclear power, spokesman Jack Finn said and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has also said he is not against nuclear power, just Yucca Mountain.

The House Energy and Resources Subcommittee, which is part of the House Government Reform Committee, has a hearing scheduled Thursday examining the role nuclear power plays in the country's energy policy.

Marvin Fertel, senior vice president for Business Operations at the Nuclear Energy Institute; Donald Jones, vice president and senior economist of RCF Economic and Financial Consulting Inc.; and Patrick Moore, chairman and chief scientists of Greenspirit Strategies, are scheduled to testify.