Time to Avert a Disaster: Open Existing Secure Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities

The nuclear crisis in Fukushima, Japan shows, beyond a doubt, the time has come to open existing, secure nuclear storage facilities in the United States to avert a similar tragedy. Stored fuel is the biggest concern in Japan. We currently store spent nuclear fuel rods at power plants in above ground facilities in secure Transportation, Aging, and Disposal Canisters (TAD). These canisters can be shipped and stored without opening them. There are currently about 71,000 metric tons of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste stored at 121 nuclear power plants and non-military government sites. All of this waste, minus shipping containers, could be stacked forty-one feet high on one football field. Waste grows at a rate of 2,000 metric tons a year. It is time for Congress to authorize opening the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility on an emergency basis.

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requiring the federal government to provide a high security, permanent, underground storage site and began charging a fee of 1 tenth of a cent on every kilowatt-hour of nuclear power produced to pay for it. According to recent Department of Energy reports, the Nuclear Waste Fund totals $25 Billion and is increasing by $750 Million a year in payments and $1 Billion a year in interest.

The federal response to the act was to build the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, underground storage facility for $13.5 Billion. The initial facility is complete and ready to accept up to 70,000 metric tons of waste and only requires final licensing. The storage capacity of Yucca Mountain could be tripled. Despite being incredibly safer than current storage options, licensing has been stalled by complaints it is not secure enough. The site has passed every safety review and is called by some the most studied piece of real estate in the world. Transporting existing waste would require about 7000 tractor trailer and rail shipments. There have already been an estimated 9000 shipments of radioactive material without incident.

The Obama Administration has tried to close Yucca Mountain by executive order. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is suing to continue the licensing application as an executive order cannot overrule established law. There are elements of the environmental community who do not want this problem solved as they prefer to keep the lack of permanent storage as an argument against building new nuclear power plants. Delayed opening of Yucca Mountain could require refunds on the Nuclear Waste Fund totaling as much as $11 Billion.

We also have a second storage option, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located 25 miles east of Carlsbad, New Mexico used to store military grade nuclear waste. It is already open and the storage of a backlog of military waste is almost complete with only a small portion of the available space consumed. There is an existing list of civilian waste sites classified by their relative level of security. Congressional legislation should allow immediate use of WIPP for civilian waste starting with the most at risk waste until such time as Yucca Mountain is ready to receive waste.

An additional option would be to reprocess spent fuel rods as only one third of the uranium in a rod is used before re-fueling. Reprocessing is used in other countries, such as France, which produces 75% of its electricity at nuclear plants. Current EPA rules have made reprocessing impractical in the United States. There will be access to materials stored at Yucca Mountain for fifty years before the facility is backfilled.

http://www.caesarrodney.org/pdfs/Time_to_Avert_a_Disaster2.pdf

Electric power: Can't use it if you can't move it

By Dan Ervin

In order to continue the economic recovery in Maryland and the U.S., it is necessary to maintain a dependable supply of electricity. This will require three contributing factors: conservation, generation and transmission. Each of these factors is important in different and interrelated ways.

Unfortunately, while much attention has been paid in recent years to conservation and generation, little thought has been given to the equally crucial issue of transmission.

Energy conservation has enjoyed support by many groups for a long time. The EmPower Maryland Act, passed by the General Assembly in 2008, mandates electrical conservation through a variety of programs designed to meet a range of goals. These programs and goals continue to benefit from growth in public support.

In addition to setting conservation goals, the EmPower Maryland Act sets a goal that 20 percent of Maryland's electricity will come from renewable sources by 2022. Currently, most news related to generation is about renewable sources. Solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric and wind are the usual primary sources for renewable energy. Wind turbines have already sprung up on the mountains in Western Maryland. These will soon be followed by wind turbines off Maryland's coast.

Natural gas is the current traditional fuel of choice for electrical generation. Natural gas prices are at near-record low levels because of new extraction technologies. The Marcellus shale gas deposits, some of which are located in Western Maryland, have impacted the natural gas markets by increasing the regional supply. Even nuclear power is undergoing a revival, with more than 30 American nuclear plants in some phase of proposal.

And yet, amid all the enthusiasm and optimism for new generation sources, there is surprisingly little discussion about how the electricity produced by them will reach users. This omission brings us to the third critical element for reliable electrical power: transmission.

The issue of transmission struggles for respect. In 2007, PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission operator that serves 13 states (including Maryland) and the District of Columbia, directed the construction of additional transmission infrastructure to ensure the reliability of our electrical system. Planning began on two projects that PJM recommended: the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) and the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP).

The 2008-09 economic downturn forced PJM to reexamine the need for additional transmission capacity. Despite a temporary reduction in the consumption of electricity, PJM has twice reaffirmed the need for new investment in transmission, most recently in December. However, PJM recently put the PATH project on hold while it reviews its analysis of need. It is not clear how this affects MAPP.

Imagine the impact on the region if Friendship Airport had not expanded to become what we now know as BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport. The original terminal would be unable to meet the needs of today's traveling public. Likewise, consider the impact if the two beltways that encircle the major cities of our region had never evolved from their original design and capacity. In both cases, what would be the impact to our state's economy?

Similarly, the electrical transmission grid directly affects our economic well-being. But unfortunately, no major transmission capacity has been added in our state during the last 30 years. Yet, usage of electricity, by a population that has grown by nearly 1 million in the last 20 years, has increased by 300 percent. In part because of over-congested transmission routes, the cost of electricity to our consumers is higher than in many other Mid-Atlantic states. Furthermore, a bonus consequence of new transmission construction would be the creation of needed jobs at this critical time.

What can an individual do to help remedy this problem? Ensuring adequate transmission lines is the purview of the state government, specifically the Public Service Commission. The essential first step is for everyone to understand the need for transmission upgrades. The PSC, like all regulatory bodies, has an obligation to listen to all sides of an issue and to act in the public's interest.

As long as generation — particularly from renewable sources — and conservation are what the public is exclusively focused on, it makes for slow and arduous going for the issue of transmission. Public support for all the elements that combine to provide reliable electricity is essential to our state's well-being.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-transmission-20110314,0,3764404.story

How Washington Ruined Your Washing Machine

By Sam Kazman

It might not have been the most stylish, but for decades the top-loading laundry machine was the most affordable and dependable. Now it's ruined—and Americans have politics to thank.

In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as "often mediocre or worse."

How's that for progress?

The culprit is the federal government's obsession with energy efficiency. Efficiency standards for washing machines aren't as well-known as those for light bulbs, which will effectively prohibit 100-watt incandescent bulbs next year. Nor are they the butt of jokes as low-flow toilets are. But in their quiet destruction of a highly affordable, perfectly satisfactory appliance, washer standards demonstrate the harmfulness of the ever-growing body of efficiency mandates.

The federal government first issued energy standards for washers in the early 1990s. When the Department of Energy ratcheted them up a decade later, it was the beginning of the end for top-loaders. Their costlier and harder-to-use rivals—front-loading washing machines—were poised to dominate.

Front-loaders meet federal standards more easily than top-loaders. Because they don't fully immerse their laundry loads, they use less hot water and therefore less energy. But, as Americans are increasingly learning, front-loaders are expensive, often have mold problems, and don't let you toss in a wayward sock after they've started.

When the Department of Energy began raising the standard, it promised that "consumers will have the same range of clothes washers as they have today," and cleaning ability wouldn't be changed. That's not how it turned out.

In 2007, after the more stringent rules had kicked in, Consumer Reports noted that some top-loaders were leaving its test swatches "nearly as dirty as they were before washing." "For the first time in years," CR said, "we can't call any washer a Best Buy." Contrast that with the magazine's 1996 report that, "given warm enough water and a good detergent, any washing machine will get clothes clean." Those were the good old days.

In 2007, only one conventional top-loader was rated "very good." Front-loaders did better, as did a new type of high-efficiency top-loader that lacks a central agitator. But even though these newer types of washers cost about twice as much as conventional top-loaders, overall they didn't clean as well as the 1996 models.

The situation got so bad that the Competitive Enterprise Institute started a YouTube protest campaign, "Send Your Underwear to the Undersecretary." With the click of a mouse, you could email your choice of virtual bloomers, boxers or Underoos to the Department of Energy. Several hundred Americans did so, but it wasn't enough to stop Congress from mandating even stronger standards a few months later.

Now Congress is at it once again. On March 10, the Senate Energy Committee held hearings on a bill to make efficiency standards even more stringent. The bill claims to implement "national consensus appliance agreements," but those in this consensus are the usual suspects: politicians pushing feel-good generalities, bureaucrats seeking expanded powers, environmentalists with little regard for American pocketbooks, and industries that stand to profit from a de facto ban on low-priced appliances. And there are green tax goodies for manufacturing high-efficiency models—the kind that already give so many tax credits to Whirlpool, for example, that the company will avoid paying taxes on its $619 million profit in 2010.

Amazingly, the consensus also includes so-called consumer groups such as the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union. At last week's hearing, the federation touted a survey supposedly showing overwhelming public support for higher efficiency standards. But not a single question in that survey suggested that these standards might compromise performance. Consumers Union, meanwhile, which publishes Consumer Reports, claims that new washers can't be compared to old ones—but that's belied by the very language in its articles.

We know that politics can be dirty. Who'd have guessed how literal a truth this is?

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704662604576202212717670514-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwNjExNDYyWj.html

US life expectancy surpasses 78, a new record

ATLANTA – U.S. life expectancy has hit another all-time high, rising to about 78 years and 2 months.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the estimate Wednesday. It's for a baby born in 2009, and is based on nearly all the death certificates for that year.

About 2.4 million people died in the United States in 2009 — roughly 36,000 fewer than the year before.

More good news: The infant mortality rate hit a record low of 6.42 deaths per 1,000 live births, a drop of nearly 3 percent from 2008.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110316/ap_on_he_me/us_med_us_life_expectancy_1

Delmarva Power plans new high-voltage line

By Laura Dignan

MILLSBORO -- To avoid extended power outages on the Eastern Shore, Delmarva Power plans to construct a new, high-voltage transmission line between Delaware and Maryland.

"A transmission line is basically the backbone of the electric system, where a lot of high voltage is being disseminated and funneled into different areas," said Matt Likovich, spokesman for Delmarva Power.

The project has been in the pipeline since 2008, when the North American Electric Reliability Corp. -- an organization that develops and enforces reliability standards in the U.S. -- was identifying areas of the country that were in need of improvement.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. then directed PJM -- a regional transmission organization that coordinates movement of wholesale electricity in 13 states, including Delaware and Maryland -- to pass the information along to Delmarva Power.

The line will carry 138,000 volts about 12 miles between Millsboro and Bishopville, Md., in Worcester County.

"If there would be any kind of glitch in one part of the system, then there would be enough backup elements in the overall improvement of the system that we'd be able to keep the lights on and the energy flowing," Likovich said.

Likovich said construction is estimated at $15.7 million, and a series of similar projects will follow.

"We budget for things like this to improve infrastructure, and this is the first [project] out of the gate," he said.

A schedule of public meetings to provide more information is being compiled, and should be released within the next two months.

Construction is slated to begin in November. Estimated completion date is May 2012.

Judge throws out buffer regulations

http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/news/story/judge-throws-out-buffer-regulations/14881

Cape Gazette

Judge throws out buffer regulations

Graves: DNREC can’t make zoning regs

By Leah Hoenen | Mar 04, 2011

Share

Environmental officials overstepped their bounds issuing regulations requiring buffers between new development and waterways in the Inland Bays watershed, a Superior Court judge has found. The ruling overturns the buffer requirement in the Pollution Control Strategy for the Inland Bays, a document that was 10 years in the making.

In a ruling issued Friday, Feb. 25, Judge T. Henley Graves struck down a measure requiring vegetated buffers along Inland Bays waterways.

Sussex County and four private landowners sued the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control over the 2008 Inland Bays Pollution Control Strategy, charging the department was usurping county authority over land-use decisions.

In his decision, Graves wrote, “The ultimate question is whether Delaware’s General Assembly has granted DNREC the authority to implement regulations which create zoning laws regarding the land in the referenced watersheds.” He ruled it does not.

DNREC spokesman Michael Globetti said, “DNREC adopted these regulations, which apply only to new development, as a cost-effective way to improve water quality in the Inland Bays.” Nitrogen and phosphorus in waterways can cause overgrowth of algae and other plants, leading to unhealthy conditions for fish and shellfish, he said.

“We disagree with the court’s opinion and will be reviewing our options,” Globetti said.

Rich Collins, director of the Positive Growth Alliance, one of the groups that sued, said based on a simple reading of the law, it was obvious DNREC was breaking the law by overriding existing county zoning laws. He said based on Graves’ decision, DNREC has no grounds for appeal.

Chris Bason, deputy director of the Center for the Inland Bays, said the ruling is disappointing because buffers are very effective at reducing nutrient pollution, and they can also protect against flooding.

“We encourage DNREC to make up for this loss of pollution removal by actively enforcing the provisions of the Pollution Control Strategy that remain in effect. And, we are hopeful that the county recognizes its obligations to the cleanup plan for the bays by adopting a more comprehensive water-quality buffer ordinance,” Bason said.

Chip Guy, public information officer for the county, said in a statement, “The Superior Court ruled that the Delaware General Assembly has granted the primary land-use authority to the counties and municipalities, not state agencies.”

“The court’s decision affirms what was the central argument in this case – that local land-use decision rest with local governments,” the county’s statement said. Collins said, “I think the record is starting to be established that DNREC has been a bit abusive to landowners,” he said.


Buffers are zoning

Graves ruled zoning actions in the Inland Bays Pollution Control Strategy have no statutory authorization and come in direct conflict with Sussex County zoning ordinances.

The county requires 50-foot-wide buffers between development and waterways; DNREC’s strategy would have required 100-foot-wide buffers along primary waterways and 60-foot-wide buffers along secondary waterways. Under the strategy, if developers implemented other pollution-control measures, the width of the required buffers could be reduced by half.

The county argued that DNREC’s buffer strategy usurped county authority, extended that agency’s reach to waterways not previously regulated and changed building requirements.

Graves said the strategy established buffer zones and regulated land use, which amounts to zoning. The county has no inherent zoning authority on its own, Graves wrote, but the General Assembly does, and it has delegated zoning authority to counties and municipalities.

The Legislature could give DNREC the power to regulate land use in the bays’ watershed, but it hasn’t, he wrote.

Graves also wrote that in order to enact certain environmental zoning laws, DNREC must go through the county and its comprehensive land-use plan.

Clean Water Act

The secretary’s order issued by former DNREC Secretary John Hughes used the section of Delaware code that created the department to establish authority to promulgate the regulations.

Graves says nothing in that section gives the DNREC secretary power to issue regulations addressing how land is used in the Inland Bays watershed.

Hughes’ order also cited Delaware’s statutory authority to enforce the federal Clean Water Act; Graves writes, “I conclude no federal statute or regulation gives DNREC the power it exercised here.”

The decision states, “This court does not doubt DNREC’s good intentions in this case. It is clear DNREC is concerned about the future of this state’s resources and wishes to preserve those resources for future generations. However, DNREC’s expertise and good intentions do not give it power it does not otherwise have.”

Rehoboth Beach resident John Austin said, “I believe the decision will have very serious consequences that may not be to the liking of the development interests behind the challenge.” He said DNREC and Sussex County still must attain the pollution limits set for the Inland Bays.

“The responsibility rests with Sussex County now to show in its comprehensive plan how it will comply with these regulations,” Austin said.

Austin said without buffers, pollution reductions will have to come from costly increased water-treatment measures, zoning changes and potential permit and building moratoria in watersheds with too much nutrient pollution.

But, Collins said his group is certain the environment can be protected without a DNREC buffer requirement. He said the county already requires buffers, and there is little development happening now.

Bason said the strategy was a five-part plan designed to reduce pollution of the Inland Bays by certain amounts. He said buffers would have significantly reduced pollution; the center expects it will be difficult to meet clean-water goals without them.

Professional traders are apparently betting against the dollar. This is an ominous sign for the prospects of already high inflation getting even worse.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e050b72e-4823-11e0-b323-00144feab49a.html#axzz1FsPLWyVc