By Benjamin Grove, SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU

Las Vegas Sun

Dec. 9, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The nation needs Yucca Mountain as part of a broad energy strategy, including expanded nuclear power -- but the government should also construct above-ground "dry cask" waste storage sites, a coalition of energy experts said today.

The nation needs at least two such storage sites, one on each side of the Mississippi River to provide an "interim, backup solution against the possibility that Yucca Mountain is further delayed or derailed -- or cannot be adequately expanded before a further geologic repository can be ready," according to the "Ending the Energy Stalemate" report issued today by a 16-member panel of experts from industry, environmental, academic and government backgrounds.

It was the first time an independent commission had called for such a proposal. A 2001 energy task force overseen by Vice President Dick Cheney backed Yucca Mountain but not additional above-ground sites.

The nation has put "all its eggs in one basket" in relying on Yucca Mountain as a sole solution to high-level nuclear waste, said John Holdren, co-chairman of the National Commission on Energy Policy and an environmental policy professor at Harvard University.

"It's proven technology," Holdren said of dry cask storage. "It's not expensive. It's safe -- it's even terrorist resistant."

But a high-profile nuclear industry executive was reluctant to offer explicit support for the proposal.

After a press conference today, commission co-chairman and Exelon Corp. chairman and CEO John Rowe said industry leaders would be reluctant to back the commission proposal because it might imply wavering support for Yucca.

"My company is committed to supporting the Yucca Mountain solution," he said. But he added that the industry in general supports any effort by the government to meet its obligation to solving the nation's waste problem.

The nation has 103 active commercial nuclear reactors that generate highly radioactive waste, which plants now store on site in waste pools, and increasingly, in above-ground dry cask containers. The containers can safely hold waste for 100 years or more, experts say.

But Congress promised the industry it would find a permanent solution to storing waste, and since 1987 that solution has been the proposed underground repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The project has been plagued by controversy, budget woes and delays, and Nevada officials have fought to kill it.

Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, generally oppose Yucca. The commission proposal offers an option worth considering, said Ralph Cavanagh, senior attorney and co-director of the defense council's energy program, who also served as a commissioner.

"I hope that this is welcome news to Nevadans who are tired of being the nation's dumping ground," said Cavanagh, a nuclear energy skeptic. "Under no circumstances can you assume that Yucca Mountain is a complete solution."

The National Energy Commission toiled for three years to assemble a 2,700-page compilation of research and recommendations available on CD Rom and in a 128-page report summary.

Commissioners said they plan to advocate their recommendations in Washington as Congress next year continues efforts to draft a comprehensive national energy policy. Commissioners acknowledged some of their findings are not new.

The commission supported proposals including:

• Renewing efforts to establish clean-coal technologies;
• "Increasing and diversifying world oil production," although the commission took no stance on the controversial proposal to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;
• Increasing federal funding for renewable technology by $360 million annually;
• Creating more incentives for auto makers to offer hybrid cars that are already popular with the public;
• Creating tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, which the auto industry has opposed.

The report recommended $2 billion in federal spending over 10 years aimed at establishing one or two new nuclear plants. It noted that nuclear power represents about 70 percent of "non-carbon" U.S. electricity generation, but no new nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978.

Expanding nuclear power would ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions that harm the environment and alleviate the nation's dependence on natural gas for electricity. Also, uranium is a relatively inexpensive and available nuclear fuel source, the report noted.

But nuclear industry leaders face big hurdles as they pursue plans to build a new generation of new-technology plants in the United States, the report said. Included are the competitive cost of constructing a new plant; the possibility, albeit remote, for accidents or terrorist attacks; and finding a viable waste solution, the report said.