Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Coverage
Sun Archives
- Small space no problem for anti-Yucca Mountain stand (10-16-2009)
- Late attempt to revive Yucca Mountain plan falls short (10-1-2009)
- $10 million approved to continue fighting Yucca (8-11-2009)
- Reid writes obit for Yucca, pointing to new Obama vow (7-31-2009)
Beyond the Sun
Anti-nuclear groups are fighting the Obama administration’s nomination of a pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear industry insider to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On Oct. 9, President Barack Obama nominated Bill Magwood to the commission, which is charged with regulating and licensing all civilian use of nuclear materials, including the stalled nuclear waste dump proposed for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Critics of the choice say Magwood has a history of nuclear boosterism that is incompatible with the role of a regulator. He also has repeatedly been quoted as saying Yucca Mountain is the best solution to the nation’s nuclear waste storage issues, most recently in May.
Spokesmen for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Obama say their fellow Yucca Mountain opponents need not worry, that Magwood’s a changed man who won’t go against the administration’s vow to prevent the mountain near the California-Nevada border from becoming the storage site for the nation’s most radioactive material.
That’s not enough assurance for many of the opponents, however.
“There are a lot of people who wish someone else would have been nominated,” said Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, a consortium of anti-Yucca groups.
The Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group, sent a letter Oct. 14 to the Senate committee that will oversee Magwood’s November confirmation hearing, urging the senators to reject him.
Representatives of about 100 anti-nuclear or anti-Yucca organizations, including Treichel’s, have signed on to a petition making similar demands.
Nevada’s other senator is noncommittal for the time being. Rebecca Fisher, spokeswoman for Republican Sen. John Ensign, said Ensign doesn’t know enough about Magwood yet. Ensign has “a long history of supporting nominees who oppose Yucca Mountain” and wants to talk to Magwood about the issue before deciding whether to support the nomination, Fisher said.
Bruce Breslow, executive director of Gov. Jim Gibbons’ Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said he is reserving judgment until he hears Magwood’s confirmation hearing testimony.
“They absolutely need to ask him about his positions on Yucca. He needs to address that,” Breslow said. “And they should ask about any comments he’s made about the nuclear industry, either pro or con.”
Magwood worked for years at the Energy Department and the Office of Nuclear Energy, rising to be the top government nuclear technology official and advancing the agencies’ plans for Yucca Mountain.
But the White House and Reid’s office on Tuesday said Magwood had changed his mind on Yucca. Reid spokesman Jon Summers said Magwood had personally assured the senator that he would not pursue the Yucca dump.
White House spokesman Adam Abrams said, “Bill Magwood recognizes the Obama administration’s clearly stated policy that Yucca Mountain is not an option for storage of nuclear waste. He is committed to the administration’s goal of developing a responsible, long-term solution to our nuclear waste storage needs.”
Magwood did not return the Sun’s calls for comment.
Prior to his government work, Magwood was employed by the Edison Electric Institute, an association of shareholder-owned electric companies, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a nuclear technology company with permits for new technology currently pending before the Commission.
Breslow said just because somebody has industry experience, that doesn’t mean he’ll be a bad regulator. There are only three sources for commissioners: industry, academia and government, so it’s difficult to find a qualified commissioner without some perceived conflict of interest. But that perception of a conflict is toughest to beat when you’ve been working in the industry you’re charged with regulating, he said.
“The most important quality I look for in a good regulator is fairness — the ability to set aside your friends and business influences and make an objective decision based on facts and not relationships,” Breslow said. “Certainly the president and members of the president’s inner circles would have vetted these issues out with Mr. Magwood before his nomination, so I’m sure he’ll do the best he can to avoid a conflict.”
Obama and Reid cut the money for YUCCA so why does Reid and Breslow care.
Obama has always support commerical Nuclear power as does Magwood so why should Reid and the LV Sun be upset.
I thought Reid and the LV Sun were fighting global warming.
Under Harry Reid's watch the Obama administration nominates a pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear industry insider to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Another example of Harry Reid looking out for our 'best' interests in Washington DC
VOTE HARRY OUT IN 2010
In the movies, this guy would be vaporized and words would just be words.
The pulling of the Yucca funds was just a favor to get harry re elected. As soon as the 2010 election is over, the administration is planning on full speed ahead at Yucca. Politics in the big city and favors done for appearance. Just more of the same.
All Nuclear power and Hydro electric power plants should be shut down and dismantled for the sake of our environment and the children.
Signed; Obamas Clean Coal Coalition.
Here's a thought. Our Nuclear Navy has been running for 50 years on Nuclear Power name me one death that was nuclear caused?????? France and Canada also heavy Nuclear show me the deaths from it????? The big mistake that this country made was going away from Nuclear in the 1970s due to a bunch of ignorant idiots. We will never recover from that huge mistake and pay the price daily. I built them and repaired them and like that sailor I do not glow or have I never had a dosimeter badge ever go overexposure.
I guess I'll reserve full judgment until we hear from him directly, but I just don't get why Obama would nominate someone with a pro-Yucca Mountain history to this board. At least Harry Reid cut off the funding, otherwise we would have been in real danger.
cignettis-
You're lucky... At least for now. It's been proven that exposure to so much radiation can cause serious health problems. Read the research from trusted scientists like Dr. Helen Caldecott who have seen first-hand the danger posed by nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and nuclear waste.
And btw, nuclear power is NOT "eco-friendly". It takes electricity to generate nuclear power (how again does one split an atom?), so behind the "clean" nuclear lies the same ol' dirty oil and coal. I'm just disappointed that President Obama won't admit that coal and nuclear will never be "clean".
1. exposure to so much radiation can cause serious health problems - true. however, commerical nuclear power does not expose people to "so much radiation." how many DIED in coal mines globally last year ? compare to uranium mining, fuel processing and power generation combined.
2. split an atom, or fission, is a natural spontaneous process by isotopes that have the inherent ability to spontaneously fission. you can turbocharge it in uranium (and others) by bombardment with neutrons. neutron radition is caused by spontaneous disintegration of various isotopes (and by fission as well). not 'lectric powered at all. use neutron source to get it all started, then neutrons from fission keep it going. called a chain reaction or criticality.
3. All Nuclear power and Hydro electric power plants should be shut down and dismantled for the sake of our environment and the children. - great idea. electric rates through the roof, burn more dirt to keep the lights on in schools and hospitals. i can go on and on. great idea.
Right on duckdad67!
It's sad hearing people who have been completely misinformed and terrorized by groups harping on the dangers of nuclear power. There have been 0 deaths due to radiation from commercial nuclear power plants in the US. That INCLUDES Three Mile Island, where the worst injury to date was caused by a pickup backing into a port-a-pottie with someone in it.
As for the 'dangers' of radiation. Of course radiation is dangerous, so is a car, or bleach, it calls for responsibility in use. Talk to all the cancer survivors who wouldn't be around if it weren't for the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
As far as Magwood goes, it is not a regulators job, it is in fact antithetical to the entire regulatory process to start off biased. That's why the split the Atomic Energy Commission into the DoE and NRC originally. A regulator needs to look at the SCIENCE behind a proposal and determine whether the science is sound and protects the public health and safety and the environment. No regulator should bring a political view in the door.
Speaking of protecting the environment, does anyone realize that Yucca Mountain is IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEVADA TEST SITE? Thats right, we are going to put our nuclear waste in the ONLY place in the country where we have consistently detonated nuclear weapons above and below ground. It will take thousands to tens of thousands of years for the first traces of radioactivity to reach the nearest area inhabited by humans currently (that happens to be a gas station). We'll probably all have killed eachother by then.
My last soapbox item is this, Harry Reid can't "turn the money off" on Yucca Mountain, the Nuclear Waste Fund, set up after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted has collected $32 billion dollars for the express purpose of selecting, determining and building a nuclear waste repository. The entire time that Harry Reid has been fighting nuclear waste disposal at Yucca he has been accepting billions of dollars of rate-payer money for studies, jobs, buildings and development of Yucca Mountain. There's honest dealing for you, you dont want Yucca, give the money back.
/rant off
Funny...an article about a guy being put up for a job and no discussion as to whether or not he's qualified for the job, just what his political views are. I guess that's the Obama way, not qualified at all, but holding the right opinions and you can write your own ticket.
Lotsa people on here claiming that nuclear energy is safe...
Have they talked to the folks living down wind of Chernobyl?
To those that believe nuclear power is not eco-friendly, they need to realize that, if nuclear power is not eco-friendly, then neither is wind power (birds), solar power (hazardous waste by-products) or hydroelectric (fish). Nuclear power generated electricity has less real environmental impact than any of these "green" options. It is also reliable year round, year after year, whereas wind and solar are the most unreliable. For example, a weather front can cause sudden loss of almost all wind power over a large area. If too much power is wind driven, large scale blackouts could result. All methods of producing electricity are needed to meet demand and all have some environmental impact. There is no more eco-friendly choice than nuclear. I've been an environmentalist from childhood. That's exactly why I'd choose nuclear power over wind and solar.
All this grief because one Senator, J. Bennett Johnston of La. didnt want the repository in his state. I think our Senators at the time were Reid and Hecht. I bet he couldnt stop laughing while he wrote up the screw nevada bill.
pmmart, read SOMETHING other than pro-left comic books. Chernobyl was a minor problem that mishandling turned into a major problem.
Science has made many improvements since then, why there are even places with flush toilets now.
atdleft, sorry to hear your "hero" has visibly let you down. Maybe you can put down the Obama glasses (Shelley Berkley) and see things as they really are.
pmmart,
Emissions from coal-fired power plants kill far, far more people EACH YEAR than Chernobyl ever did. Read the studies for yourself.
Furthermore, coal plants emit more radioactivity to the air (from the natural uranium contained in the coal being burned) than nuclear plants.
You are either 1. uninformed 2. informed, but opposed to a society with electricity or 3. both.
If this country is to ever solve this problem, the perceived risks of nuclear power and Yucca Mountain MUST be compared to the actual risks of things we happily take for granted every day.
6 mile island was a one time only event also ... right?
How long will it be before the terrorists decide to 'test' the security at a nuclear plant?
In spite of you'll accusing me of being anti-nuclear I have not stated such .. I am merely pointing out that nuclear energy isn't the child proof method you claim it to be.
Wait until countries like Iran and N Korea become 'nuclear' and let's see what new songs we will hear from the pro-nuke folks.
There might be a few folks in Japan that can educate you about the risks involved with nuclear energy.
atdleft - nuclear energy is the only clean energy source that can supply the demand in the USA. it takes very little energy to get a nuke plant started. so, either stop using energy from computers, to cars, to air conditioning, or realize that the natural resources cannot support the demand in the USA. A SINGLE Google search uses as much energy as an 11-watt light bulb for ONE HOUR. eventually, we have to build more, much more, nuclear plants.
pmmart, how many people died at Three Mile Island? (there is no nuclear plant at "6 mile island") ZERO.
How many people have died of nuclear accidents at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants, EVER? Zero.
How many people die because of coal emissions every year? 20,000 plus. Check it for yourself. And check an atlas before you post.
I didn't accuse you of being anti-nuclear, I accused you of being uninformed. And judging from your first sentence, I rest my case.
pmmart wrote "There might be a few folks in Japan that can educate you about the risks involved with nuclear energy."
It wasn't a nuclear power plant that blew up in Japan, it was two nuclear war heads. Nuclear power plants do not make nuclear bombs or have the capacity to detonate like bombs. Big difference.
pmmart wrote: "Wait until countries like Iran and N Korea become 'nuclear' and let's see what new songs we will hear from the pro-nuke folks."
Both of these countries are already nuclear and N Korea has already detonated three nuclear bombs in underground tests. In fact, the UN has approved and made it legal to build nuclear power plants, in ANY country, as long as the country signs the NPT.
How can you post comments when you are clearly so ill-informed. Go back to your job at McDonalds.
"pmmart, how many people died at Three Mile Island? (there is no nuclear plant at "6 mile island") ZERO."
Oops! nailed for an extra 3 miles ... my bad .... but.. when did you see an autopsy that claimed death was caused by coal fired electrical plant emissions?
Former.yucca. insider ... Your name pretty well sums up your ability to rationalize about nuclear energy .. loss of your paycheck doesn't give you the right to demand others in the field of energy production lose theirs also.
As I stated in an earlier post .. I'm not opposed to nuclear energy , just opposed to the idea that we need to produce all of our electrical comsumption from that source and I am also opposed to having the 'leftovers' stored in my backyard .. which happend to be in one of the most unstable earthquake areas in America.
I read [and will no doubt have you 'expurts' correct me] that the 'spent' fuel slated for Yucca mountain COULD be reduced through use at these nuclear plants to FIVE PERCENT of the current total ... Why isn't that under consideration?
And Vegasfun... I don't work at Mickey Dees I work at Jack in the box.
Shows what you aren't as smart as you think you are!
Many of the pro-nuclear people I know (including me), don't want nuclear power to be the only power supply. To even keep the current 20% of the electricity supplied by nuclear (70% of the emmission free electricity in the US) we need to build more nuclear plants. Especially if we start driving plug-in cars. They are only as clean as the power source that the electricity is coming from, which is currently 70% coal nationally.
We are never 'getting rid' of coal, we have too much of it and too many local economies depend on coal for it ever to be phased out. We are never going to be able to run the country solely off renewables. I would love to see cleaner coal, nuclear and hydro (where available) able to take most of the baseload energy demand with renewables supplying with solar, wind and geo-thermal being deployed where they are most effective.
As for why we aren't considering reducing the current spent fuel inventory through reuse... thats called recycling and is currently also a no-no due to nothing beyond politics and fear-mongering regarding proliferation. We have the technology available and several plants used MOX (mixed oxide) fuel to produce some of their power. If you want spent fuel recycling tell your congresspeople!
Don't worry though, as soon as the 'Blue Ribbon Panel' gets off double secret probation we will be exactly were we were in 1988 again (the blue ribbon panel performs exactly the same function as the expert panel required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which selected Yucca Mt. and the other alternatives).
How safe is the nuke industry, again?
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the commercial nuclear power generation sites in America have either constructed or are in the process/planning/construction phases to facilitate long-term high-level waste storage facilities upon their sites.
Understand such power generation sites are seismically qualified, posses armed security forces, qualified technical personnel, safe handling capabilities to forego the economic expensive, political, security and safety issues surrounding high-level waste transport.
Thus, commercial nuclear power generating facilities in America will more than likely be storing their spent fuel on site however, the Yucca mountain repository is the only facility commissioned in America to store high-level nuclear waste generated by the military, while the House of Representatives recently voted 388 to 30 NOT to remove Yucca funding from the FY2010 budget.
Although it is every American's right to question and protest their government's actions it is illegal to obstruct such actions, while criminal obstruction tactics have been the long history of the anti-nuclear protesting movement.
The fact of the matter is that America's aging nuclear power generation fleet is near or has exceeded its initially licensed life-expectancy. Understand that America's fleet was designed and built upon technologies now 30 to 50 years old. Although up-graded technologies and modifications have been incorporated, the basic components i.e. reactors, piping, condensers, etc. have not and will eventually need to be replaced, component replacements of these major components is economically impractical.
Thus it is vital for America's foreseeable electrical energy needs to re-initiate nuclear power plant construction utilizing modern technologies but more importantly a political and regulatory atmosphere economically conducive and viable for private industry construction.
Try to imagine America without the ability to generate electricity via the nuclear process while the rest of the world is not only utilizing the process but depending upon it.
I would contend that continued nuclear power production in America is not as much of a political issue as it is one of national security.
: )
There would be a danger in transporting it.
Nevada does have earthquakes.
Would you like it to travel by your house?
Sure you would.
NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!!
OK, where to start?
Deaths from coal fired power plants:
MSNBC, June 2004-- "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study released Wednesday."
Spent fuel reprocessing: is indeed under consideration. If it happens, you'd likely never have to expand Yucca Mountain. However, some spent fuel cannot be recycled (Navy fuel, for example) and neither can certain solidified defense wastes. I'm all for reprocessing; stopping it was a stupid mistake made in the Ford / Carter days.
The same wastes the government is legally bound to remove from states like Idaho and Washington.
Transportation of spent fuel: Way Way Way less dangerous than chlorine, ammonia, or gasoline-- which are transported daily in relatively think-walled tanks.
I say again: let's compare the REAL risks to things we happily do every day.
Any my paycheck is just fine. I just don't spend it in Nevada any more.
I am much more concerned about North Korea, Iran and maybe a few terrorist organizations getting nuclear weapons and using them against the U.S. then storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.
Again it's not just storage, but you have to transport it to Yucca. Would you care if they travel through your back yard?
@DGM:
You should maybe try reading the article a little more closely. Magwood is astoundingly qualified: DOE NE, Edison Institute, and Westinghouse. Contrast that to, say, Bush's choice for director of FEMA. The Obama Administration, in fact, though I disagree with it on the nuclear energy/Yucca Mountain issue, has been pretty consistent in choosing qualified appointees.
@Nevada Scandalmonger:
You can trundle out TMI and Davis Besse and various other greenie fearmongering all you want, but you will ALWAYS be stopped short by one simple statistic: number of deaths attributable to nuclear power. Even if you factor in non-radiological accidents, nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than any other form, not to mention the vastly greater danger from common CHEMICALS we live with every day without protest or even awareness.
To those who worry that Magwood doesn't share Harry Reid or Nevadans' views on Yucca Mountain:
You should be ashamed of yourselves. Think of what you are wishing for. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created to be a non-partisan independent oversight agency. Its decisions are based on objective science and adherence to regulations, irrespective of what a particular politician or his constituents might want. The NRC is, in essence, the "High Court" on matters nuclear.
How many of you Democrats (and I am one myself) would want the Congressional Budget Office to be staffed by Republicans hired on the basis of their willingness to analyze proposed budgets through the lens of "Reaganomics"? The Republicans might say, "That would be great," but Democrats would howl and bleat and insist that CBO remain politically neutral. How would we, as citizens, get an unbiased and objective view of government spending if we didn't have an unbiased and objective CBO?
Well, NRC is supposed to function in the same manner, but Harry Reid left his characteristically corrupting fingerprints on the agency when he pressured the Administration to name his former aide and Yucca opponent, Greg Jazcko, as Chairman at NRC.
@atdleft:
You should be deeply ashamed of yourself for suggesting that Helen Caldicott is a credible scientist. Your own credibility just suffered a fatal blow for even using her name in the same sentence as the word "trusted." She may be trusted by the profoundly irrational neo-flat-earther fringe of the environmental movement, but survey after survey of her peers (radiological health physicists who are actually qualified) ranks her scant body of work in the absolute basement of credible research. She is, in short, a bad joke in a discipline where scientific consensus and peer review are everything.
And bear in mind that this in not merely a matter of personal opinion. If you would bother to do a Google search, you would find ample criticism of Caldicott's scholarship, such as it is, which she has devoted entirely to anti-nuke propaganda. Compare, for example, her claims of the effects of low-level ionizing radiation against the results of the BEIR reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, an independent and objective organization with an impeccable scientific reputation.
More generally, try reading some studies that contradict your own views before wasting your time and ours with empty, unsubstantiated rhetoric. I support nuclear power and I support the Yucca Mountain Project, but not only have I taken the time to read extensively on this subject, I have also read much material from the opposition, including Caldicott, Lovins, Sternglass, and many others.
I have EARNED my opinion, in other words, by attempting to test it against opposing views. I may not have done so as rigorously as I could have, and I may approach opposing views with a certain predisposition, but at least I have tried.
@atdleft:
Holy cow! I just read your breathtakingly absurd belief that nuclear power requires coal- or gas-fired electricity to generate electricity! I can't believe I just wasted time formulating a thoughtful response to one of your other posts. You are truly a lost soul: what I consider the flip side of the Birthers, Truthers, and other Reality Deny-ers whose beliefs and assertions become more and more irrational when confronted by truth.
@pmmart:
I hesitate to address your ill-informed commentary as well, for the same reason I gave to atdleft. Waste of time, like a giraffe trying to communicate with a monkey. Two different species: Rational and fact-bearing versus irrational and myth-bearing.
In any case, you need to read a credible study about reprocessing, for you have surely got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Frank von Hippel wrote a good article on reprocessing for Scientific American, and you might consider looking into the French study done by Mycle Schneider and Yves Marignac.
That "five percent" figure is deeply deceptive, for reasons you may be unable or unwilling to understand. Reprocessing actually increases the volume of radioactive waste by separating out the elements of the spent fuel. It's true that around 90% of the unused uranium is separated out and recovered, along with the small percentage of plutonium produced in the reactor. But the process to accomplish this separation leaves behind the rest of the byproducts in liquid solution, millions and millions of gallons of it (see Hanford).
The difference is, some of this solutionized radioactive waste byproduct can be "reclassified" downward as intermediate-level or low-level waste -- as opposed to our "once through" system, in which spent nuclear fuel is used once and then stored. It remains, in other words, high-level nuclear waste and is subject to the much stricter regulation regarding its handling and storage. In France, by contrast, which uses reprocessing, the byproducts in solution are stored in carbon steel drums at places like Marcoule. In the late 1960s, the French even dumped thousands of these barrels into the sea!
Long story short: radionuclides in solution are far more mobile, and therefore far more dangerous, than radionuclides in solid ceramic pellets. I don't care if you separate out the most dangerous elements (U and Pu) and solidify them for reconditioning into new nuclear fuel. Apart from the risk of having tons of relatively intert, safe-to-handle weapons-grade plutonium lying around, the consequences of dealing with the byproducts in solution are too dire at this point without a viable breeder reactor program.