Nuclear Energy
Can We Talk?

US Nuclear Energy Foundation
“Evangelizing Nuclear Advocacy by Bringing Science to Citizens”
A Non-Profit 501(C)(3) Nevada Foundation
PO Box 2867, Sparks, NV 89432 (775) 224-2089 / Email:


Nuclear Energy     Can We Talk?     Bringing Science To Citizens     Let's Re-Visit Nuclear Energy     Think About It!

All information and research on this website is gathered and used with written permission from the
participating authors, contributors & advisors concerning nuclear science, energy and waste repository data!
US Nuclear Energy Foundation is an independent foundation and not supported exclusively by any industry or
nuclear association but by individual and/or business support in order to retain our independence of educational materials.

Our mission is to influence change in public opinion towards
knowledgeable citizens about nuclear energy and waste repository issues.

The single most destructive trend in modern humanity . . . is the absence of TRUTH & INTEGRITY

Join Mail List


“Our freedoms can only
be maintained by the advancement of technologies that serve mankind—
not advancing technology puts Freedom at Risk and
our freedom is
threatened because we
don't take the time to
participate in it” GJD

Below are letters we have submitted to our political representatives and
government agencies providing our position on nuclear technology and repository issues

The following letters are posted with permissions from the respected authors. We have begun submitting letters to our government officials concerning our "position statements" per our review of nuclear technology, nuclear waste storage and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. These are the results of our positions along with the opinions of others.

To Governor Brian Sandoval 06-30-13 Cover

Commentary to Governor Brian Sandoval 06-30-13 PG-1

Commentary to Governor Brian Sandoval 06-30-13 PG-2

U.S. District Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit 02-10-12

We were notified that we needed to file an Amicus Brief but were to late to file in the court process.


The U.S. Court of Appeals today granted 2 to 1 a mandamus petition that will force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository. "The Commission is simply flouting the law," Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. "In light of the constitutional respect owed to Congress, and having fully exhausted the alternatives available to us, we now grant the petition for writ of mandamus against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." The long-awaited opinion comes more than a year after oral arguments in the case, which was filed by parties including the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; Nye County, Nev.; the states of South Carolina and Washington; and Aiken County, S.C. The Court put the case on hold for several months last fall to give Congress a chance to weigh in, but so far Congress has made no change in policy.

To Senator Dean Heller 11-21-11

This letter in PDF format

This letter in PDF format

Below is the beginning of a letter to Judge David B. Sentelle, U.S. District Court of Appeals, Washington concerning the legal issues on the Yucca Mountain application submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This letter was sent with 21 other signatures from Nevada citizens.

US Nuclear Energy Foundation
“Evangelizing Nuclear Advocacy by Bringing Science to Citizens”

A Non-Profit 501(C)(3) Nevada Foundation
PO Box 2867, Sparks, NV 89432 (775) 224-2089 / Email:


Honorable David B. Sentelle
U.S. District Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit
Room 5108
333 Constitution Ave NW
Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Judge Sentelle:

The citizens of Nevada and this country have never been adequately apprised that the scientific analysis of the Yucca Mountain facility has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a safe permanent geologic storage facility for high-level spent radioactive nuclear waste.

The NRC, DOE, NEI and others having evaluated the Yucca Mountain facility over the years have failed at providing an adequate understanding of this facility to Nevada grassroots citizens and this should be the mandate of government responsibility. The bureaucratic screw-up’s of the congressionally approved nuclear storage facility have only served to undermine the NRC and DOE agencies and their ability to demonstrate cost effective clean energy advancement to the citizens of this country for which their agencies were originally commissioned. Nevada's anti-Yucca Mountain “Agency for Nuclear Projects” has never had a qualified administrator in that appointment which is an insult the intellectual capacity of Nevada’s citizens. Political appointments of unqualified people are an insult to the science, engineering and nuclear community nationwide.


US Nuclear Energy Foundation
“Evangelizing Nuclear Advocacy by Bringing Science to Citizens”

A Non-Profit 501(C)(3) Nevada Foundation
PO Box 2867, Sparks, NV 89432 (775) 224-2089 / Email:


Hon. Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Member
Science and Technology Committee
2405 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C.  20515-0001

Dear Gentlemen:

We are writing this letter to applaud your recent letter to NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko, and the NRC Commissioners, Ostendorff, Apostolakis, Svinicki, Magwood, IV and DOE Secretary Dr. Steven Chu.

Enclosed you will find our letters to these government officials asking them to provide some consideration to the grassroots citizens of this country. The Yucca Mountain Project has never been about serving the safety and citizens of Nevada. It has been about self-serving political bulldozing by bureaucrats completely disrespectful of the actual science.  We and other groups who share the general precepts of nuclear technology and technology in general are black listed by the media, ignored by the agencies who serve us, chastised for speaking the truth and Washington is wondering why more and more citizens are adopting the philosophy, “throw them all out”.

I sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our communications to Washington concerning “the nations” Yucca Mountain Project. Many, many citizens of Nevada believe that Yucca Mountain should be built as passed by law and Congress must legislate the directive of engaging reprocessing technology. Much more available at:


Gary J. Duarte, Director

US Nuclear Energy Foundation

Honorable Ralph M. Hall                   Science & Technology Committee
Honorable Jim Sensenbrenner           Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming
Honorable Paul Broun, M.D.             Subcommittee on Investigations & Oversight
Honorable Andy Harris, M.D.            Committee on Science, Space & Technology
Honorable Doc Hastings                     Natural Resources Committee
Honorable Joe Barton                         Energy & Commerce Committee

US Nuclear Energy Foundation
“Evangelizing Nuclear Advocacy by Bringing Science to Citizens”

A Non-Profit 501(C)(3) Nevada Foundation
PO Box 2867, Sparks, NV 89432 (775) 224-2089 / Email:

The Honorable Governor Brian Sandoval                                                                      03-29-11

Office of the Governor
Nevada State Capitol
101 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701

Dear Governor Sandoval:

As you know, our foundation has been advocating nuclear energy and the Yucca Mountain facility since 2006. Without reservation, including the current status of the Japan Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant issues we continue our support for nuclear development.

In validating our data and statements, the majority of our information is reviewed by nuclear scientists and engineers who serve on our advisory board, and other specialists in their particular fields of study.

There are some current unofficial polls indicating that the “people in Nevada” are more than 70% in favor of a Yucca Mountain facility reassessment. This informed position is growing in number due to efforts by our foundation, individuals speaking out, and a growing awareness of the economic, ecological and social benefits of nuclear energy.

For nearly the entire life-cycle of the Yucca Mountain deliberations, nuclear topics have been demonized in Nevada media outlets and this undeniably cheats the citizens of Nevada from a fair representation of nuclear energy information that has not been represented, and resulted in an ill-informed public concerning the Yucca study by the DOE, NRC or the State of Nevada’s Commission on High Level Waste.

There is also speculation that the political positions of both parties and the gaming industry are worried that the construction of Yucca Mountain could bring a scientific and educated workforce into Nevada. This informed populace could “change the playing field” of the business, economics and “industrial landscape” of the state. We feel that the gaming industry and Yucca Mountain could harmoniously exist and complement each other if given the right attitude by the gaming industry.

Since the inception of the DOE, NRC and other related agencies, a number of scientists have indicated that several government nuclear programs have been “started and stopped” for political rather than scientific reasons. Yucca is NOT the first. Other projects such as nuclear waste reprocessing have been side tracked for political reasons. It is grossly unfair to the citizens of Nevada and this country that self-serving politics design one delay after another to stop Yucca. However, another bright light for jobs in Nevada is the possibility of reprocessing technology.

There may also be interest in nuclear technology from other grassroots groups such as the Tea Party supporters. Many want to make Energy Independence (including nuclear) a national initiative in 2012 and grassroots citizens will be the voice for elected officials and our business community to hear.

We ask that you, as Governor, communicate to our Nevada political delegations, that the citizens of Nevada want a re-assessment of the Yucca Mountain facility and the needs of our citizens be prioritized.

Gary J. Duarte, Director

US Nuclear Energy Foundation                         cc: Lt Governor Krolicki

US Nuclear Energy Foundation
“A Viable Alternative-Think About It”
A Non-Profit 501 (C)(3) Nevada Foundation
PO Box 2867, Sparks, NV 89432 (775) 224-2089 / Email:

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy                                                                                                        07/04/2010                        
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585

Dear Dr. Chu:

In regards to:The NRC panel of judges has ruled that the administration does not have the authority to withdraw the Yucca Mountain Project application without permission from Congress”.

There are many grassroots “citizens” in Nevada and across the country now calling for Nevada to re-consider the Yucca Mountain facility. Senator Harry Reid seems totally opposed to nuclear power and nuclear waste reprocessing or storage in Nevada. Sharron Angle, also a Senatorial candidate is a nuclear energy advocate and supports Yucca Mountain for a reprocessing facility. Many across the state and the country share an understanding for our need for carbon free nuclear energy expansion. Irrespective of Nevada’s government “position”, its “citizens” have never been “adequately informed” about the truth of Yucca Mountain’s capability to store nuclear waste. Unfortunately underhanded politics have been dictating the Yucca Mountain fate and not honoring the law passed by Congress to be carried out by the U. S. Department of Energy.

The DOE, NRC and many other organizations have failed in the public relations advocacy for the Yucca Mountain facility to the citizens of Nevada and the country. The study, plans and application for Yucca Mountain have been passed by Congress. As a citizen I believe that it is the duty of the agencies who serve this country that they follow the law of the land and scientific proof “over” political maneuvering by our representatives.

I and many Nevada and U. S. citizens are joining in the following letter of request.

1)      That our agencies follow the “laws” as established by Congress and “not in any way” hinder those laws from implementation unless reversed by Congressional “vote”.

2)      That our national scientific laboratories be managed and guided by their “science” to serve America’s citizens and Congressional law and not political maneuvering by any administration or elected official.

3)      We therefore are asking that the entire process for the Yucca Mountain facility be put back on track such that the study, plans, application and full congressionally approved funding are restored immediately.

USNEF is an independent non-profit 501 (c)(3). We are not managed by the nuclear industry or any nuclear associations of the industry. We encourage direct citizen participation with our educational mission about nuclear advocacy.

Our mission is to influence change in public opinion towards
knowledgeable citizens about nuclear energy and waste repository issues.


Gary J. Duarte, Director
US Nuclear Energy Foundation
PO Box 2867
Sparks, NV 89432

We are asking that any citizen with an interest and who shares the content of this letter
to participate In this effort by writing this letter or your version of it to the agency addresses on this page

If you do join this statement please acknowledge your participation via return email.


Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy       
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585

The Honorable Dean Heller, Congressman
US House of Representatives
400 S. Virginia St., Suite 502
Reno, NV 89501

The Honorable Jim Gibbons       
Office of the Governor
Nevada State Capitol
101 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701

The Honorable Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

The Honorable Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

The Honorable George Apostolakis, Commissioner
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

The Honorable William D. Magwood, IV, Commissioner
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

The Honorable William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

The Honorable Senator John Ensign
119 Russell Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

David K. Zabransky
Acting Principal Deputy Director
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585

Christopher J. Jacobsen
U.S. Navy Nuclear Submarine Service


US Nuclear Energy Foundation

To whom it may concern,

I am sending this letter as a concerned Nevada resident, and as a future military retiree who hopes one day to see nuclear power come to the state of Nevada.

I am a Navy submarine officer with 23 years of military service and 19 of commissioned service.  I am nuclear trained, and was the chief engineer on one of our nuclear submarines about ten years ago.  I also inspected reactor and propulsion systems for the Navy on the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV). 

I am a strong proponent of nuclear energy, and believe it is the key to divesting ourselves of oil.  Nuclear energy is actually a very safe form of energy (though somewhat expensive), but unlike windmill or solar projects, does not take up enormous amounts of real estate (and damage the ecosystems in that real estate).  I believe the energy industry is only going to grow as our need for energy increases (it will likely never decrease), and Nevada can greatly profit from this.  The YUCCA MOUNTAIN site is an opportunity to seize in that Nevada could safely store the spent fuel and other nuclear waste, while the state of Nevada takes in enormous revenue. 

The Navy has been operating nuclear reactors in many port cities of the US for over 50 years without a significant incident, and the US public does not even realize that these reactors are operating successfully in their back yards.  I do not believe that the industry makes a very strong case to the public, because the sentiment about nuclear reactors is so negative, when in reality it is extremely safe, and much CLEANER than most other forms of energy.

Why hasn't any stronger push been made for nuclear energy in my home state?  I have already had an offer for a job interview at the TVA site (they are building a new reactor) near Oakridge, TN, and it occurred to me to ask why Nevada is not expanding into this area.  The world's oil reserves will be depleted in 50 years, and solar and wind energy will not be the answer.  Generating bio-diesel is very expensive, and real-estate intensive, and will not meet our energy needs as well. I believe that Nevada has a chance now to look at the long-term investment in the energy industry, and be a leader in the energy industry.

Thank you in advance for any insight and information you can give, and also about the prospective job market out in Nevada, in the nuclear industry - particularly near Reno-Sparks.  Are there any plans for a facility in the near future?

Very respectfully,

    Christopher J. Jacobsen

Sustainable Fuel Cycle Task Force
1718 M Street, NW #237
Washington, DC  20036 Telephone: 202.262.6236

October 7, 2009

The Honorable Steven Chu
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest
Washington, DC 20585

Dear Secretary Chu:

The undersigned organizations are writing to advise you of our growing concern over reports that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will decline to seek funding in Fiscal Year 2011 for continuation of the Yucca Mountain license application now pending before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

We believe that termination of the Yucca Mountain license application would be premature and unwise as well as deleterious in general to the Nation's energy independence, environmental progress, economic competitiveness, job creation and national security.  

Among other things, this defunding action may:

·         Leave the Nation with no path forward or "Plan B" for the Nation's nuclear waste management while conflicting with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, as well as Public Law 107-200, which approved Yucca Mountain as the site for the national repository -- a measure that was adopted in 2002 by decisive, bipartisan majorities of the U.S. House and Senate. The recent deferral by the NRC with respect to the pending Waste Confidence Rule is but one manifestation of the serious repercussions inherent in this policy vacuum and a harbinger of things to come; 

·         Potentially strand a minimum of over 140,000 metric tons of spent commercial fuel and defense waste at 121 sites in 39 states for over 100 years creating a logistical backlog that would take an additional 50 years to relocate or recycle;

·         Exacerbate the current breach-of-contract with respect to the Government's longstanding failure to meet its legal obligation to begin collecting spent nuclear fuel -- resulting in damages estimated by some at in excess of $50 billion;

·         Unravel the Nuclear Waste Fund now reflecting an aggregate electricity consumer investment of nearly $31 billion in receipts to date, including collections and interest;

·         Disproportionately impact defense waste states and erode public confidence in the Department by undermining the DOE's own agreements with states and local governments to remove defense-related high-level waste, as well as the U.S. Navy's nuclear fuel management operations.  The U.S. Navy has purportedly designed its entire fuel disposal system entirely for Yucca Mountain and any violation of the 'Batt Agreement" will create yet another complexity with respect to the Navy's program for de-fueling and refueling of the nuclear fleet;

·         Re-open site investigations for a national geologic repository in up to 28 states, as identified by the DOE in its 2008 report to Congress;

·         Unnecessarily abandon the pending Yucca Mountain license application as well as more than 40 years of scientific investigation and $10 billion of taxpayer funding toward development of a national repository while terminating up to 700 jobs and evaporating decades of institutional knowledge;

·         Remove funding of cooperative agreements with regional transportation organizations which have worked effectively with DOE on transportation planning and other organizations representing stakeholders involved with nuclear waste disposal issues;

·         Contradict the President's Memorandum on Scientific Integrity as issued on March 9, 2009, stating that "political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions

·         Needlessly undercut full trust and confidence in the independence of the proposed Blue Ribbon panel and any ensuing recommendations; and

·         Create an unnecessary hurdle and uncertainty for new nuclear generation in the United States, which is diametrically opposed to the Administration's emphasis on reducing carbon emissions and stimulating jobs.

While we understand that it is the Administration's intent to charter a new strategy for nuclear waste disposal and form a blue ribbon commission to study and recommend alternative waste management strategies, as summarized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a recent report, Yucca Mountain is currently the "safest and best option" for managing spent commercial fuel and high-level waste "given the parameters of U.S. law."  Cancelling this program without providing a bona fide alternative path forward is unacceptable and troubling, particularly to future generations that bear the full burden of this action.

Accordingly, we encourage you to continue with the current approach of providing "costs necessary to answer inquiries from the 'NRC', while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal," as stipulated in the President's budget submission to Congress in February.

Please note that -- while these views represent the consensus viewpoints of the undersigned organizations -- they do not necessarily represent the specific views of every individual member of these organizations.


Sustainable Fuel Cycle Task Force
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
United States Chamber of Commerce United States
Nuclear Infrastructure Council
Partnership for Science and Technology Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition
United States Nuclear Energy Foundation
Institute for 21st Century Energy
Idaho Chamber Alliance
South Carolina Chamber of Commerce
Tri-City Industrial Development Council
Coalition 21
Alliance for Nevada’s Economic Prosperity Economic Development
Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
Greater Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce
INL Retired Employees Association
Commissioner Gary Hollis, Nye County, NV
Fuel Cycle Science Panel


US Nuclear Energy Foundation
PO Box 2867, Sparks, NV 89432
775 224-2089

Our mission is to influence change in public opinion towards
knowledgeable citizens about nuclear energy and waste repository issues.


President Barack Obama                                                             
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

The tasks you are facing are incomprehensible to most Americans. We can only hope that you are able to chip away at them.

We would like you to know that thousands of people in Nevada are in favor of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. We understand your political position but we are asking that you review the scientific position. Every country in the world has decided on deep geologic storage before and after reprocessing many citizens understand our need for more nuclear energy development. Nevada only produces 50% of its energy, purchases 50% and 10% of that is from nuclear sources. Wind and solar are amicable efforts the reality, nuclear wholesales for about 9 cents per kilowatt hour, the best German solar technology is trying to reach 22 cents per kilowatt hour. Average Americans cannot afford these costs even subsidized.

Nevada citizens have been misled concerning the science and safety of Yucca Mountain. Harry Reid is in the process of killing any budget funding for Yucca, we want you to know that this does not reflect the position of Nevada citizens. Several years ago Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in order to fund, construct and maintain a nuclear waste repository.  Your campaign was run on the basis of protecting average Americans. Senator Reid’s personal campaign is not that of Nevada citizens–not to mention the government’s responsibility by law to “build” a permanent nuclear waste site for all states.

In an op-ed Lake Barrett, former Deputy Director, (OCRWM). “After more than 30 years of studies, there has been no credible scientific or technical evidence found that would disqualify the Yucca Mountain from being a suitable repository site”. “Hopefully House, Senate and Administration leadership will realize what is happening and not allow Senator Reid to just "air drop" the "killing" Yucca budget cut right into the Omnibus Appropriations bill without a chance for House and Senate members to have a vote on Senator Reid's Yucca budget cut”.

“This is not the type of change that the Obama administration promised Americans in terms of bipartisanship, transparency and attention to science.   While Senator Harry Reid may very well be the Senate Majority Leader, nobody elected him as Scientist-in-Chief. Congress has established a process under the independent NRC to review the science underlying the Yucca Mountain project”. 

The Yucca Mountain project is exactly what you’re looking fora large public works project that would put people to work. It must be based on good science and let's allow the nation's policy to be seen through, let's allow the scientific experts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review the Department of Energy's license application and judge the site's suitability. Estimated at $100 billionif the science is proven let's move forward.

We urge you Mr. President to please keep the separation of science to science and politics to politics. “Our freedoms can only be maintained by the advancement of technologies that serve mankind—not advancing technology puts Freedom at Risk and our freedom is threatened because we don't take the time to participate in it” GJD.


Gary J. Duarte, Director

US Nuclear Energy Foundation

P.S. A similar letter to this was also sent to: Congressman Dean Heller, DOE Secretary Dr. Steven Chu

The White House Responds!

7 Feb 2009

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy
US Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave. SW
Washington DC 20585

Dear Dr. Chu,

I would ask that you keep an open mind concerning Yucca Mountain for use as a nuclear Waste Repository for the following reasons:

-       Over seven billion dollars have been spent to study and prepare Yucca Mt for storage of nuclear waste. There has been no credible scientific or technical evidence found that would disqualify Yucca Mountain from being a suitable repository site.

-       National security concerns would be reduced with nuclear waste stored in a secure site vs spread throughout the country.

-       I applaud your leadership on finding cleaner energy sources and nuclear energy must be a part of this and with that a repository to store and convert used fuel is essential.

-       Over the past 15 years I have attended numerous discussions on Yucca Mountain and found discussions to become very emotional and drift from scientific evidence. I feel Senator Reis’s effort to cut funding is based on emotional and personal opinion and not what is best for the United States of America or for the State of Nevada. One person should not have such power and discussion of Yucca Mountain needs to be on the table for the entire legislation to discuss and make decisions.

You have many important issues to consider but I feel that the Yucca Mountain Repository is one of the crucial links in solving our clean energy problems and reducing global warming. Please do what you can to get this issue before the legislature for discussion on a scientific and technical evidence.

Thank You

John Genasci

P.S. A similar letter to this was also sent to: President Obama, NV representative Dina Titus, and Shelly Berkley

February 9, 2009

Dr. Steven Chu
Secretary of energy
US Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave. SW
Washington DC 20585 

Dear Dr. Chu:

As a 43 year veteran of nuclear energy, I strongly encourage the new administration to reconsider reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel. Over 40 years ago the USA nuclear industry had active programs to demonstrate the viability of reprocessing, but this was prematurely terminated during the President Carter Administration.  The USA has idly sat and watched the European community, Asia, China, India and other countries continue developing and implementing reprocessing programs. By reprocessing, the volume of nuclear waste can be reduced by more than 90% and this renewable resource can be utilized in present commercial operating nuclear plants. I’d say that’s a pretty renewable return.

Whether we reprocess or not, we still need Yucca Mountain operational; to dispose of the accumulated spent nuclear fuel and any remaining should we embrace reprocessing. And again, I encourage the new administration to assure support for both programs.

Nuclear power remains a proven, safe and reliable source of producing electricity and must be an important element of the Administration’s energy plan. Sure we need to pursue all forms of energy, clean coal, wind, solar, etc, but for powering the US electrical grids, many of these are currently not viable for base loading these grids. Nuclear plants today can run at 100% capacity for over two years without refueling and the industry has achieved incredible safety and operational performance levels in the past decades. Newer, simpler and standardized nuclear plant designs, currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are likely to exceed these performance goals. There are currently over 17 applications for building over 30 new nuclear plants under review by the USNRC; two designs have already been certified and three are currently under review with certification very shortly. The Utilities that have submitted these applications need assurances from this Administration that nuclear energy is an important component in our country’s energy plans and that the Energy Policy Act for 2005, which provides a stimulus for the construction of new clean energy, includes nuclear power plants. There is some discussion that the new Administration is challenging the latter stimulus application.

Please support and endorse nuclear energy as a must-have in our new energy independence plans, reprocessing to fully utilize this important renewal energy source, the Yucca Mountain project, and the Energy Act of 2005 as it applier to nuclear energy.


Gary Sozzi

Nuclear Consultant and
University of California Graduate 1969


Senator Reid:

Let me begin by thanking you for all the hard work you have done for Nevada over your many years representing us in the Senate, and as a registered Democrat who has voted for you since my wife and I moved to Carson City in 2002, I am generally pleased with your performance. I want to especially congratulate you for the recently announced $100M you are working on to address numerous issues here in the Silver State. Also, take a bow for the Energy Transmission legislation you introduced.

I'm sure you sense a "but" coming, so brace yourself :-).

Senator, I'm afraid we part company when it comes to your position on Yucca Mountain. I just watched the video of your 2/25/09 testimony, and frankly, wonder about the source of some of your information. Space does not permit a point by point discussion, and there appear to be no provisions on this site for attaching files, but I do want to direct you to this press account of the position of the Nuclear Energy Institute and their advocacy of a Blue Ribbon Panel to do a top to bottom review of our country's nuclear energy position:

Senator, I'm very troubled by your recent removal of $100M from the Yucca project; you have stated that Yucca is not a "jobs" program, but I'm sure the economic consequences to those who will be joining the ranks of the unemployed weighs heavily on your mind. But consider also the loss of "institutional memory" those people represent and the implications for Plan A if no Plan B is forthcoming to deal with spent fuel...and no, leaving it where it is, is not a plan.

Senator, let's start with a clean piece of paper and do a top to bottom review of the Nuclear Energy program. In 24 months, an objective, non-partisan commission of our nation's best and brightest in science, industry and government may provide us with the knowledge and guidance we need to go forward. Much has changed since Chernobyl and TMI...let's take another look.


Steve Waclo
Carson City, NV

 Put science ahead of politics In Nevada
  Our "Opinion" in Print! 
 Nevada Appeal 02/24/09


This letter in PDF format


This letter in PDF format



A Sincere effort of Major importance to America-Nuclear Energy!
Send mail to with questions or comments about this website.
Copyright © 2005-2013 US Nuclear Energy Foundation
Last modified: 05/10/14