Letters We Get

Mr. Gunn,

Please find attached a letter from Paul Golan, in response to Bob Loux's article in the Observer. I would request that his response receive the same prominent placement as Mr. Loux's and be printed in its entirety. While Mr. Golan's letter is in response to Mr. Loux's, it is more informative on the facts and is less argumentative than Mr. Loux's "Feature Article".

Thanks, Craig Stevens Press Secretary U.S. Department of Energy 202.586.4940

__________

December 1, 2005

Editor The Nevada Observer

To the Editor:

The following is provided in response to the November 15, 2005 article written by Bob Loux, “Yucca Restructuring, Again, Or, Back to the Future DOE Style.”

Mr. Loux is correct when he says that the canister concept is not new and had been looked at in 1992 as the Multiple Purpose Canister initiative. But he is incorrect when he says that “it was rejected then as being too costly and too logistically difficult to implement.” According to a report prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in 1997, the canister concept was both technically and economically feasible. The State of Nevada also expressed its support for the disposable canister in 1990 when it said, “OCRWM should also aggressively investigate the concept of storage/ transport/ disposal casks (the so-called “universal cask”) using generic disposal site criteria.” The State believed then that use of dual purpose casks should be considered “as soon as possible.”

Many in the nuclear power industry view the clean/canister approach not only as a credible plan, but an improvement to Yucca Mountain operations. Since only a small percent of the spent nuclear fuel backlog has been packaged, we are clearly at a point where this approach makes sense. Additionally, the plan to eliminate the majority of bare spent nuclear fuel handling at Yucca Mountain represents a positive step forward. Worker risk will be significantly reduced as they face less contamination and a less complex fuel handling process prior to disposal.

Mr. Loux poses a good question about the timing of the clean/canister approach when the Department should be preparing a license application to the NRC. If we were committed to a path rather than an objective, Mr. Loux’s concern would be valid. But we should remember our objective. Senator John Kerry said, “Nuclear power can play an essential role in providing affordable energy while reducing the risk of climate change.” Today, nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of America’s electricity production, providing 5 hours per day of electricity to every home and business in the country. Nuclear power has proven to be clean, reliable, and safe, and does not require daily replenishment from tankers coming across the oceans from foreign lands to keep the fossil fuel generating stations fed. While nuclear power is an emission-free energy source during power production, it does leave a waste product that must be dealt with. Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 and Congress approved the Yucca Mountain Repository for development in 2002. As we prepare our License Application for Yucca Mountain, if the clean/canister approach is approved, it will result in a better design and will make our operations safer, simpler, and more reliable. If it makes technical and economic sense, why wouldn’t we choose such path forward?

Lastly, I am a career Federal servant and was asked to work on the Yucca Mountain project by the Secretary of Energy. He has made his expectations clear in that we are going to do this right and I am taking steps that focus on quality and safety. While I understand Mr. Loux’s position against the project, I find it in very bad form to go after me when he said it would be “appropriate, for now, to rename Yucca, the ‘Golan Heights.’” For that, I think Mr. Loux owes me an apology and a commitment to stick to the issues.

Sincerely, Paul Golan Acting Director Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy