Using nuclear energy means we have an obligation to safely dispose of the waste – delays have resulted in

lawsuits with financial penalties

Dr. Charles D. Ferguson [adjunct assistant professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University;
adjunct lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University; former scientist-in-residence at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Monterey
Institute of International Studies], “Nuclear Energy – Balancing Benefits and Risks,” Council on Foreign Relations, April 2007,
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NuclearEnergyCSR28.pdf [PB]

“Countries that have derived benefits from nuclear-generated electricity have an obligation to future generations to
safely and securely dispose of nuclear waste. In the United States, the government is legally bound to remove this
waste from reactor sites and store it in permanent repositories. Delays in storing spent nuclear fuel in a permanent
repository have already resulted in lawsuits with financial penalties.”

Further growth of nuclear energy requires the building of a nuclear waste repository

Dr. Charles D. Ferguson [adjunct assistant professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University;
adjunct lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University; former scientist-in-residence at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Monterey
Institute of International Studies], “Nuclear Energy – Balancing Benefits and Risks,” Council on Foreign Relations, April 2007,
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NuclearEnergyCSR28.pdf [PB]

“More than 50 years of commercial nuclear energy use has left the world with a legacy of tens of thousands of tons
of highly radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. If nuclear power production expands
substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal will also significantly
increase. Although several countries are exploring various long-term disposal options, no country has begun to store
waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories. Industry officials generally believe that further
growth of nuclear energy depends on establishing these repositories.”

A waste storage facility is the key to a successful increase in nuclear power in the U.S.

Representative Ralph Hall [Representative of Texas; ranking minority member of the House Committee on Science &
Technology], “Technology Key to Nuclear Renaissance,” June 17, 2009, http://gop.science.house.gov/PressRoom/Item.aspx?ID=166
[PB]

“The Science and Technology Committee today heard from a panel of expert witnesses who discussed the benefits
and risks associated with nuclear waste recycling, reprocessing and storage and the research, development and
demonstration needed to address the technical challenges and policy objectives of a nuclear waste management
strategy that could include recycling spent nuclear fuel. All of the witnesses agreed that if domestic nuclear power is
going to expand, the U.S. government needs to have a strategy to manage growing volumes of spent nuclear fuel. ‘I
believe that finding some sort of a solution of how to handle our used nuclear fuel is critical to the continued
successful contribution of nuclear energy to our country’s electric generation,’ said Representative Vernon Ehlers,
the Committee’s Vice Ranking Member. ‘As the industry is facing a resurgence in the interest to build new nuclear
plants, the issue of nuclear waste is prevalent – even more so with the decision by the Obama Administration to
abandon a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada after over 20 years of research and billions of dollars of
carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work.’”

Nuclear power is the only option for avoiding the worst risks of global climate change

Richard K. Lester [director of the MIT Industrial Performance Center; professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT],
“Clearing the path toward a nuclear renaissance,” Boston Globe, October 21, 2008,
www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/21/clearing_the_path_toward_a_nuclear_renaissance/ [PB]

“The reality is that the world has little chance of avoiding the worst risks of global climate change unless we build
many more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power has a unique place in the global climate-change debate. It is the
only carbon-free energy source that is already contributing on a large scale and that is also expandable with few
inherent limits.”
Funding for any type of waste repository would come from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is supplied by a
governmental fee, and currently amounts to $29.6 billion

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, “Budget and Funding,” U.S. Department of Energy, 2009,
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/budget/index.shtml [PB]

“Customers who use nuclear power pay for the disposal of spent fuel. The federal government collects a fee of [one-
tenth of a cent] per kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from utilities. This money goes into the Nuclear
Waste Fund. As of December 31, 2008, payments and interest credited to the Fund totaled $29.6 billion. The
Department of Energy receives money from the Nuclear Waste Fund through congressional appropriations.”

Nuclear energy is profitable, clean and green

Alan J. Steinberg [former Regional Administrator of Region 2 of the EPA during the administration of former President
George W. Bush], “Obama, Corzine, and the Politics of Nuclear Energy,” February 15, 2009, http://www.politickernj.com/alan-
steinberg/27387/obama-corzine-and-politics-nuclear-energy [PB]

“Nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases and absolutely negligible amounts of soot, smog, and any other air
pollutants. Although the cost of constructing a nuclear power plant is high, the ultimate operation of such a facility is
most profitable, given the relatively low cost of nuclear fuel. Europe has already opted for the nuclear energy option
– in fact, France now generates 80% of its energy through nuclear power. In short, nuclear energy is green, both in
terms of the economy and the environment.”

We’re on the verge of a nuclear energy renaissance

James A. Lake [associate laboratory director for the nuclear program at the Idaho National Laboratory; president of
the American Nuclear Society (2000-2001)], “The Renaissance Of Nuclear Energy,” U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International
Information Programs, May 9, 2008, http://www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/May/20080520182724WRybakcuH0.2896387.html [PB]

“We stand at the verge of a renaissance of nuclear energy, founded in the continued safe and economical operation
of America’s 103 nuclear power plants and signaled by the expected near-term announcements of several orders for
new nuclear power plants to be constructed and operated in the next 10 years. In the longer term, our national
laboratories are working with the nation’s universities, U.S. industry, and the international community to develop
the next generation of advanced nuclear power systems, which will be even more economical, safer, and sustainable
with a closed fuel cycle that burns up substantially more of the nuclear fuel to extract much more of its energy
potential while minimizing the quantities of nuclear waste.”

Public supports nuclear power and U.S. is on the verge of resuming nuclear plant construction

James A. Lake [associate laboratory director for the nuclear program at the Idaho National Laboratory; president of
the American Nuclear Society (2000-2001)], “The Renaissance Of Nuclear Energy,” U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International
Information Programs, May 9, 2008, http://www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/May/20080520182724WRybakcuH0.2896387.html [PB]

“Public trust in the operation of nuclear power plants has steadily improved with better understanding of the
economic and environmental benefits and with improved safety performance. Some polls show that 70% of
Americans favor continued operation of the existing plants, and more than 50% support building new plants. Today,
440 nuclear power plants generate 16% of the world’s electricity needs. Aggressive new nuclear plant construction
programs have begun, particularly in East Asian countries, Russia, and India. The United States itself is on the verge
of resuming construction of new nuclear power plants, a process that has been dormant for more than 25 years. This
is the beginning of the third era, the renaissance of nuclear energy.”
Nuclear power is cost-competitive and safe

James A. Lake [associate laboratory director for the nuclear program at the Idaho National Laboratory; president of
the American Nuclear Society (2000-2001)], “The Renaissance Of Nuclear Energy,” U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International
Information Programs, May 9, 2008, http://www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/May/20080520182724WRybakcuH0.2896387.html [PB]

“Throughout the 1980s, the nuclear electric utilities completed many of the remaining plants, brought them on line,
and devoted their attention to improving cost effectiveness and operations performance, which simultaneously
improved safety. By the mid-to-late 1990s, the 103 nuclear power plants in the United States were producing 20% of
America’s electricity at a cost that made them highly competitive with those fired by coal and other fuels – less than
2 cents per kilowatt- hour. Furthermore, their safety performance has improved by more than a factor of 10, to a
point where nuclear power is a leader in industrial safety performance today.”

Next-generation nuclear power being developed: It is cleaner, produces less waste and is more proliferation-
resistant

James A. Lake [associate laboratory director for the nuclear program at the Idaho National Laboratory; president of
the American Nuclear Society (2000-2001)], “The Renaissance Of Nuclear Energy,” U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International
Information Programs, May 9, 2008, http://www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/May/20080520182724WRybakcuH0.2896387.html [PB]

“In 2001, the U.S. government issued a new National Energy Policy (NEP) that set the nation on a course to expand
the use of nuclear energy in the near term by making more efficient the processes of obtaining extensions of licenses
to operate existing nuclear plants and of obtaining licenses to build new nuclear facilities. The NEP further sought to
encourage nuclear energy use through the development, demonstration, and deployment of next-generation nuclear
power technologies. Importantly, it aimed at achieving this goal through research and development of advanced fuel
cycles that might prove to be cleaner, more efficient, less waste intensive, and more proliferation resistant than a
single-use nuclear fuel, which requires geologic disposal of the used fuel.”

There are radioactive terrorism risks of keeping waste on-site

Dr. Charles D. Ferguson [adjunct assistant professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University;
adjunct lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University; former scientist-in-residence at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Monterey
Institute of International Studies], “Nuclear Energy – Balancing Benefits and Risks,” Council on Foreign Relations, April 2007,
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NuclearEnergyCSR28.pdf [PB]

“Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the site slated for a permanent geologic repository, has not received approval to store this waste. Even if the license application is approved within the next few
spent fuel is accumulating in
years, the Department of Energy does not anticipate starting to store waste there until 2017, and, more realistically, not before 2020. Meanwhile,
pools at nuclear power plants, increasing the risk of radioactive release from sabotage or attack at these facilities. A
recent U.S. National Academy of Sciences study has concluded that ‘successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools,
though difficult, are possible.’ Zirconium cladding provides a protective barrier around the spent fuel, but the cladding could catch fire under some attack scenarios. According
to the National Academy study, ‘If an attack leads to a propagating zirconium cladding fire, it could result in the
release of large amounts of radioactive materials.’”
A2: “Shipping risks” – 3000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have already occurred without any radioactive
release

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers [a non-profit professional organization that promotes the art,
science and practice of mechanical and multidisciplinary engineering and allied sciences throughout the world],
“Speaker at ASME/IEEE Conference to Discuss the Yucca Mountain Rail Project,” February 8, 2007, http://www.asme.org/about/ [PB]
[brackets added]

“‘The walls of the casks enclosing the nuclear material are constructed of metal more than a foot in thickness,’
explains [manager of the Nevada Rail Project Eugene C.] Allen. ‘We believe the containments provide a stable
environment for the material within, even in the very unlikely case of a train derailment.’ According to DOE estimates, 23 years will be
required to transport and deposit all of this country’s spent nuclear fuel, with trains as long as 12 cars in length moving back and forth between Yucca Mountain and the electric utilities.
Since the early 1960s, the U.S. has conducted more than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel, without any release
of radioactive material into the environment.”

Nuclear safety: Chernobyl can’t happen anywhere else, and the 3 Mile Island had no injuries or deaths

Dr. Donald W. Miller Jr., M.D. [cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle], April 14,
2004, “Advantages of Nuclear Power,” http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller13.html [PB]

“Chernobyl is unique. That kind of accident will not happen in any other nuclear power plants because all the
reactors currently in operation around the world are placed inside a containment building (Chernobyl was not). The
reactor core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, which happened when its core cooling system failed, also
produced a lot of radiation; but the containment building the reactor was housed in kept it from being released into
the atmosphere, and there were no injuries or deaths.”
Sub-seabed formations accessed from land would not be blocked by treaties – empirical evidence shows that
this is feasible

Ian G. McKinley [], W. Russell Alexander [] & Petra C. Blaser [], “Development of geological disposal concepts,”
Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Volume 9, 2007 [PB]

“[M]ost sub-seabed disposal options are also now banned by international convention (McCombie and Chapman, 2003a). An
exception to this seems to be sub-seabed formations which are accessed from land. Although the legal situation here is certainly
ambiguous, the existence of such repositories (e.g., Fig. 5.2a) indicates that they are, de facto, acceptable, although the recent EU ‘COMPASS’ study (Dutton et al., 2004) is rather disingenuous
Basically, a coastal
in this regard – distinguishing only ‘on-shore disposal’ and ‘offshore disposal in deep-sea sediments’ – thus avoiding any discussion of coastal disposal options.
sub-seabed repository could be developed in a completely analogous way to an equivalent facility on land and hence
will be implicitly included within the category of geological disposal. On the short term, such an option may have
distinct advantages (as noted above) but, given the long timescales of interest, the effect of sea-level change on such coastal facilities needs to be considered very carefully.
Advantages in ease of making a safety case over shorter timescales may be well compensated by much greater complexity at later times. Operationally, the safety concerns
associated with massive construction projects below the sea also need to be carefully considered, but the existence
of sub-seabed mines (e.g., the Durham (UK) coalfield under the North Sea) shows that this is feasible.”