Gibbons fuels nuclear debate

By J. Patrick Coolican (contact)

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 | 7:23 a.m.

Rep. Jim Gibbons again announced his opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository last month, predicting the demise of the nuclear energy industry for failing to adequately solve its waste problem.

But legislation, which was intended to speed the construction of new nuclear plants and was supported by the Nevada Republican and signed by President Bush, appears to be having an effect with a wave of new nuclear plants possible.

"It is no longer a matter of debate whether there will be new nuclear plants in the industry's future," a March report by Fitch Ratings, a financial research firm, said.

"Now, the discussion has shifted to predictions of how many, where and when."

For instance, Duke Energy of Charlotte, N.C., is moving forward with a construction and operating license application for a site in Gaffney, S.C., spokeswoman Rita Sipe said. The emergence of new nuclear plants was reported in Monday's New York Times.

The issue is likely to come into focus with a visit to Yucca Mountain this week by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who will be pushing the Bush administration's latest plan on Yucca.

Some Yucca opponents believe Gibbons, who also leads the polls in this year's governor's race, is being inconsistent by supporting new nuclear plants while opposing Yucca.

"What's the 10,000-year solution to the problem?" asked Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, an environmental group that opposes Yucca. "What are we going to do with this stuff? We don't have the science that is affordable and will make the waste safe."

Gibbons, who as governor would have a significant bully pulpit at his disposal, said in an interview Monday that he favors technological fixes to the nuclear waste problem. Specifically, he advocates reprocessing spent fuel and a technology called transmutation.

In reprocessing, a chemical process separates out plutonium and fissionable uranium from spent fuel rods. Although the process will leave less waste than before, there's still a high-level waste byproduct that has to be stored, according to the Energy Department.

Gibbons said the remaining waste could be stored at nuclear plants and wouldn't have to be shipped to Nevada. Environmentalists say that's still a short-term fix.

Transmutation is an experimental technology that would reprocess spent fuel and then reduce the time some of the elements in spent fuel would remain radioactive.

The technology is decades away, according to the Energy Department.

Opponents of nuclear weapons proliferation also oppose reprocessing, as it is a common method for turning waste from nuclear power plants into plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear bombs.

Plutonium is not highly radioactive and is stored in a concentrated powder form, making it easier to steal, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Also, the organization noted in a position paper on reprocessing that if the United States turns to reprocessing, other countries are likely to follow.

"The United States cannot credibly persuade other countries to forgo a technology it has newly embraced," the paper said.