Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, May 5, 2003
---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
May 05, 2003

Friendship runs deep in Nevada politics

Jon Ralston

Many times through the years in Nevada, friendship has trumped partisanship, with the personal ties strengthened and the party lines blurred.

When the news of the latest — and maybe greatest — example broke Friday, the shock was felt from Washington, D.C., to Nevada. Sen. John Ensign had nominated Sen. Harry Reid´s son for a federal judgeship. That´s right, Ensign, a Republican, had put Leif Reid, the son of the assistant Democratic leader, on a list for a lifetime appointment.

There are more angles to this only-in-Nevada story than in the average geometry textbook.

First, Ensign and Reid´s friendship once again has shown to be more than just a marriage of convenience. These guys must really like each other for Ensign to risk the wrath of the GOP — and the White House — by making such a move. Sure, maybe they made an agreement when Ensign was elected to let Reid have one of the nominees. But his son? I´m sure some Republicans consider this a greater sin than endorsing a Democrat in an election.

Second, consider the position president Bush is put in now. Sen. Reid is the same guy who called the president a “liar’ for breaking his promises on Yucca Mountain. Forget that Reid was just speaking the truth. How would you imagine Bush greeted the news that Reid the Younger was Ensign´s choice for a federal judgeship, should one become available?

Third, Reid the Younger, a Reno lawyer with Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, is only 35, which will prompt even more skepticism.

Then again, a Reno lawyer named Brian Sandoval was about the same age when Reid the Elder was willing to cross party lines to consider him for a federal judgeship. (Sandoval declined and now is attorney general.) Maybe Ensign thought he was getting a quid pro quo as Reid was when he tried to nominate Sandoval and take him out of the political game. But that hardly seems likely.

Fourth, imagine how GOP Rep. Jim Gibbons feels about this. On the same day, he put out a statement on judicial nominees that began thusly:

“It is appalling that liberals in the U.S. Senate continue to bow to extreme, left-wing interest groups when it comes to approving judicial nominees to the federal bench. While the backlog of cases continues to pile up, the President´s judicial nominees face unprecedented actions of obstruction from the most liberal wing of the Senate.’

Talk about unprecedented. So on the same day Nevada´s Republican congressman puts out a release decrying the judicial nominee filibuster, which is led by Nevada´s Democratic senator, Nevada´s Republican senator nominates the son of that Democratic senator to the bench. Did I mention this is an only in Nevada story?

Ensign surely will feel a backlash from the faithful on this. And while he has put his name — perfunctorily — on a fund-raiser for possible Senate hopeful Gibbons later this month, the congressman surely will see this as yet another sign of the Ensign-Reid axis.

What´s next? Reid endorsing Ensign for governor in 2006? And maybe this is catching: Will state Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno recommend Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas for a federal appointment? It might happen — only in Nevada.

Jon Ralston, who publishes The Ralston Report, works for Greenspun Media Group. He welcomes comments and questions. Write him at ralston@vegas.com. Or call (702) 870-7997.

---------------------------

LA Times
May 4, 2003

Nuclear Energy Industry Sees Its Fortunes Turning in Capital

By Richard Simon
Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The U.S. nuclear power industry — at a virtual standstill for more than 20 years and looking particularly bleak after Sept. 11, 2001 — could be on the threshold of a comeback.

Since 1973, no company has ordered a nuclear plant that it eventually completed. Now, energy legislation expected to clear the Senate within the next few weeks would provide federal loan guarantees for up to half the cost of building as many as six new nuclear power plants.

The federal loan guarantees would be just one part — although an important one — of a complicated economic and political puzzle that would need to be assembled before any nuclear plants are built. Wall Street still must be convinced of the economic viability of constructing such plants. And nuclear power remains controversial, with critics charging that the benefits aren't worth the risks of a catastrophic accident.

Security concerns spiked after Sept. 11. Doomsday scenarios envisioned a hijacked plane crashing into one of the nation's 103 commercial nuclear power plants, potentially causing radiation leaks. Government officials beefed up security at plants and distributed nearly 10 million potassium iodide pills, which can help protect the thyroid in case of an emergency, to residents near plants.

Supporters of nuclear power believe it is important that the industry move forward again.

The industry's fortunes have improved under President Bush, who has made expansion of nuclear power a prime goal of his energy policy. They brightened more after Republicans gained control of both chambers of Congress in last year's elections and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) became chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Domenici, whose home state was the site of the first test of an atomic bomb in 1945 and today is where two national nuclear laboratories operate, is the author of the Senate legislation. He is confident about the prospects for the measure, citing congressional approval last year for designating Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository.

Along with the loan guarantees, the Senate bill would authorize $1 billion for building an "advanced" nuclear reactor in Idaho that would produce hydrogen, a fuel that Bush has championed for cars. "If the demonstration [project] succeeds, it could well initiate a major nuclear reactor renaissance," said Jay E. Silberg, a Washington lawyer for nuclear utilities.

The Senate legislation and an energy bill approved by the House last month would extend a cap on the nuclear industry's liability in case of an accident. And both measures would authorize millions of dollars for nuclear research.

Although the House energy bill does not include the loan guarantees, the issue is likely to be on the table when House and Senate negotiators draw up a final measure.

"Suffice to say America needs a strong nuclear power industry if we're going to meet our energy needs in the 21st century," said Ken Johnson, a spokesman for W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Today, nuclear power generates about one-fifth of the nation's electricity. But high construction costs, as well as public protests after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, stopped the industry's growth.

Domenici has touted nuclear energy as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil. And he has argued that nuclear power is necessary to prevent the supply shortages and price spikes that occur from too much reliance on a single energy source.

Domenici has been one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the nuclear power industry, receiving more than $67,000 from January 2001 through early 2002 in individual and political action committee donations from companies that own or build nuclear power plants, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a political watchdog group. The industry gave nearly $9 million overall to congressional candidates and political parties, almost two-thirds of it to Republicans.

But the industry's expansion still faces political opposition.

"Until there's a [resolution] of the nuclear waste issue, it's ridiculous to even talk about" expanding nuclear power, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. For instance, legal challenges to the use of Yucca Mountain for waste disposal are pending.

Additionally, he said, the public remains "scared to death" about nuclear power. "Where you going to put one [a plant]? Not in my backyard — that's what everybody's going to say."

Lisa Gue, an energy analyst for Public Citizen, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group, decried the Domenici-drafted legislation. "Here we see a piece of legislation that continues to prop up one of the most expensive and potentially most lethal forms of electric generation," she said.

Under the measure, the government would provide loan guarantees or guarantee electricity purchases to spur the building of as much as 8,400 megawatts of production capacity — enough for up to 8 million homes. Last year, nuclear plants generated electricity to power 70 million homes, according to industry officials.

"I think there is a bright future for this industry," said John Kane, senior vice president of government affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based industry group. "We're safe. We're cheap. We're clean. I can't help but think we're going to begin to build a new plant in this country in the next five to 10 years."

Silberg, the utilities lawyer, said: "Utilities will certainly be in a better position to commit to new nuclear plant construction with the loan guarantees. But the utilities will ultimately have to be convinced that the construction of new plants makes economic sense."

Other experts say that ultimately it will be Wall Street — not Washington — that determines the industry's fate. Nuclear plants can cost at least two times as much to build as natural gas plants, though industry officials say nuclear plants are more economical to operate.

"Until the price of nuclear plants comes down, no one is likely to ask for the loans," said Geoffrey Rothwell, a Stanford University economist.

Some lawmakers remain concerned about the security of nuclear plants. A Senate committee this month is expected to consider legislation that would impose new security requirements at such facilities. Industry officials contend that nuclear plants are safe.

On Capitol Hill, the loan guarantees also face opposition.

Domenici's New Mexico colleague, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat who regards himself as pro-nuclear, said he has "great difficulty" justifying loan guarantees to a mature industry.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) warned that the loan guarantees could expose the Treasury to a risk of as much as $30 billion, a figure that the industry disputes. Wyden has pointed out that the Washington Public Power Supply System in 1983 defaulted on $2.25 billion in bonds — at the time the worst bond default in U.S. history — after cost overruns and construction snafus forced cancellation of four of five planned nuclear plants in the Pacific Northwest.

"Private investors have stayed away from nuclear power because nuclear-fired electricity is much more expensive than coal- or gas-fired electricity," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Supporters of the loan guarantees say the nuclear industry is only seeking the same kind of assistance that has been provided to other industries, such as the airlines and shipbuilders.

"The opponents of this just don't want to see nuclear plants built," Kane said. "Because I can't think of any other reasons why you wouldn't want to have emission-free [plants] that can produce great gobs of electricity very cheaply."

---------------------------

Traverse City Record Eagle
May 03, 2003

Radioactive matter sealed, stored

By Keith Matheny
Record-Eagle staff writer

CHARLEVOIX - Officials decommissioning the Big Rock nuclear power plant here passed a milestone Friday toward the site's restoration to a green field.

The eighth and final cask of radioactive material was removed and placed at a specially created storage area nearby. The cask contains various small materials recovered from the spent fuel pool within the former nuclear plant, which ceased operation in 1997 after 35 years of generating power.

The other seven concrete containers at the storage area house spent nuclear fuel, including 441 fuel-rod bundles.

The non-fuel materials recovered from the pool are too radioactive for disposal with the low-level radioactive waste the facility is creating as it is dismantled, Big Rock spokesman Tim Petrosky said.

Big Rock engineers and employees spent recent months perfecting and then demonstrating their ability to safely transfer the stainless-steel canisters containing radioactive waste from their concrete overpacks to other overpacks, Petrosky said.

This "Horizontal Transfer System" ability is necessary in the unlikely event an overpack on the storage area were ever to fail, Petrosky said. It is also how the spent nuclear fuel will be removed from the storage area to transfer casks, where it will then be taken to its permanent repository, a nuclear storage facility in the works at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Radioactive waste could be transferred from Big Rock to Yucca Mountain as early as 2010, he said.

Officials hope to completely revert the Big Rock site to a green field by 2012.

---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------