Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, July 11, 2003

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, July 11, 2003
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 11, 2003

Agency revisits plan to move nuclear material to test site

Cost of relocating plutonium, uranium from New Mexico triples

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is reconsidering plans to transfer weapons-grade nuclear material from an aging New Mexico site to Nevada after estimated costs tripled for the move.

An administrator for the DOE's nuclear weapons agency on June 20 ordered a halt to relocation of about two tons of plutonium and enriched uranium from Los Alamos National Laboratory to a high-security area of the Nevada Test Site.

Everet Beckner, deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, said projected costs have grown to more than $310 million, triple an initial $100 million estimate.

"I consider the cost estimate for relocating these missions to the Device Assembly Facility excessive and unsupportable," Beckner said in a memo made public by the Project on Government Oversight, an organization that monitors security at the nuclear weapons complex.

Two cost studies of the proposed move will be reviewed at a July 28 meeting, Beckner said in the memo sent to NNSA site managers in the two states and Bechtel Nevada, manager of the Nevada Test Site.

NNSA spokesman Brian Wilkes said Thursday costs developed by Los Alamos officials and the laboratory's management contractor "were a heck of a jump."

"The decision is under evaluation as to which direction to go," Wilkes said. "We need to find out more about the estimates that were given to us."

The NNSA has been considering the closure of the TA-18 Critical Experiments Facility at Los Alamos and moving its stockpile, equipment and programs to the Device Assembly Facility in Nevada, a largely unused complex in the test site.

The Critical Experiments Facility is the only place in the U.S. weapons complex where high-level nuclear materials are used for hands-on emergency response training.

Security concerns have grown at Los Alamos, where the TA-18 facility has failed security exercises and mock attacks launched by Army Special Forces. In 1997, "terrorists" made off with more than 200 pounds of nuclear material, taking it away in a Home Depot garden cart.

The Device Assembly Facility is a 100,000-square-foot desert bunker about 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas that has been touted as the most secure facility in the weapons complex.

The facility was completed in 1998 at a cost of $180 million and is used to assemble nonnuclear tests.

NNSA officials plan engineering modifications to house the projects being imported from New Mexico, and costs for those improvements are contributing to the new estimates, officials said.

According to the Project on Government Oversight, the plan to close TA-18 was expected to be completed by 2005. But Wilkes said any move was being planned for later in the decade.

Wilkes said the upcoming review probably will produce a new timeline, depending on what decisions are made.

Peter Stockton, a senior investigator at the Project on Government Oversight, said managers at Los Alamos oppose the move and are stalling it.

During the Clinton administration, Stockton was a special assistant to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and participated in plans then to move TA-18 to Nevada.

That plan stalled, Stockton said, because of similar resistance. "Essentially the bureaucracy outwaited Richardson," he said.

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

Las Vegas Business Press
July 10, 2003

Supreme Court invalidates two-thirds rule for taxes

By Ian Mylchreest

Staff Writer

The Nevada Supreme Court horrified some players and delighted others with its decision last week that allows the Legislature to pass taxes by a simple majority so that education will be funded as the state constitution requires.

The decision appears to break the impasse that has plagued the Legislature most of the year, but its exact significance has to be played out in some kind of legislative compromise on taxes to fund the budget.

State officials were clearly delighted to have won even more than they had hoped for in the 6-1 ruling. "I am pleased with the Court's decision and thank the Justices for their very quick and decisive action," said Gov. Kenny Guinn in a statement.

State Treasurer Brian Krolicki was jubilant. Speaking immediately after the decision was announced, he said it would break the logjam in the legislature. "Nevada has become a much less risky place to invest than it was an hour ago. Compromise is much more likely with a simple majority," he said. The initial feedback from analysts indicated that they had taken the decision as a very positive sign, he added.

The high court's interventionist action surprised the experts who had been anticipating an order simply telling the Legislature to get back to work. "It's very surprising," said UNLV political scientist Michael Bowers. "This is not traditionally an activist court. It's not a court that has staked out new constitutional ground."

Boyd Law School Professor Joan Howarth said it was hugely significant because the Court had put itself right into the middle of the political process. Despite the political controversy that is likely to surround the decision, Howarth said, the decision will be hard to change because state supreme courts are supreme in interpreting their own constitutions.

Bowers sees the struggle now moving to the Legislature where Democrats will have to decide whether they will fund the education budget quickly with a formula that the Senate will accept or take advantage of this one-time opportunity to push through a business tax with a simple majority.

Congressman Jim Gibbons who authored the two-thirds provision for tax increases when he was in the Legislature immediately issued a statement denouncing the Supreme Court's "invalidation of the will of the people." It had, he said, "willfully ignored the wishes of more than 70 percent of Nevadans."

The impasse on taxes in Carson City had led a few commentators to reach for circus metaphors to describe the state Legislature, and particularly, the Assembly Republicans who have been holding out against a business tax and demanding that the budget be cut.

John L. Smith accused them of "throwing pies in the faces of their colleagues in a circus that had more clowns than Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey." UNLV historian Hal Rothman denounced them on KNPR as smirking clowns who were "doing damage to the fabric of the state." Wall Street investment advisors and bond rating analysts would certainly take note of Nevada's lack of responsible government which, he declared, was not worthy of a self-respecting banana republic.

A number of experts and players say, though, that such a Chicken Little, sky-is-falling view of the tax tangle is unwarranted. Nevada Commission on Economic Development Executive Director Bob Shriver says his agency has not noticed any drop-off in inquiries from large corporations seeking to do business in Nevada.

"For large multinational corporations, the tax issue is relatively insignificant. They are looking much more at the cost of labor," he says. So far, the lower cost of labor gives Nevada a strong competitive advantage that will not he hurt by the delay in balancing the budget or the proposed tax increase. "It is probably an issue for smaller businesses, but the large ones are not really concerned."

Corporate relocation consultant John Boyd agreed. He heads The Boyd Company, which advises Fortune 500 companies on the best national and international sites for relocation or expansion. For his clients the issue is the cost of doing business and that makes labor costs the pivotal issue. "Eighty percent of business costs are labor, and the continued in-migration of workers gives Nevada a strong advantage." In other words, the continued growth of the population provides plenty of workers which keeps wages or labor costs both stable and lower than the national average.

Other costs such as real estate and taxes are also favorable and likely to remain favorable compared to our most immediate business competitor, California, according to Boyd.

He sees a cloud hanging over Nevada's business outlook, but it is not the delay in balancing the budget. Ohio, New Jersey, Kansas and California are a few of the states that have struggled to balance their budgets, and they will eventually be resolved.

Boyd thinks the real problem is the possibility of a business tax. The business taxes that are being discussed are not burdensome in themselves, he says, but large companies are wary of relocating to any state with a business tax regime.

"It's a slippery slope," he says. "The tax may not be large, but once it is in place there is always a possibility that it will be increased and that makes companies nervous. You will lose the historical advantage that you've had. It will put you at a disadvantage against states like New Mexico and Texas."

One of the most outspoken of the Assembly Republicans, Bob Beers, agrees. The issue, he says, is no longer about the size of the tax increase but the kind of tax we have. "The difference between the two sides is $1.1B and $1.25B. That's a 30 percent increase or a 33 percent increase in revenue," he says.

As Beers sees it the Assembly was holding out against a business tax because Nevadans would ultimately pay the business tax included in the package. "What is at issue," he says, "is whether we will maintain the traditional balance between taxes paid by visitors and taxes paid by residents, or whether we will make residents pay more."

The Assembly Republicans have strong support in the business community. "The Assembly Republicans are doing exactly the right thing," says Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business Executive Director Frank Tussing. He argues the tax impasse will make no difference because the fight against a business tax is much more important for a strong business investment climate.

'"We have a lot to thank Congressman Jim Gibbons for with the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes," he says, alluding to the amendment launched by then Assemblyman Gibbons to require any tax increase to receive a supermajority in both houses of the legislature. Tussing says the Assembly Republicans tried to cut the budget during the regular session but did not have the numbers. "They couldn't get a hearing until the tax issue came up which required the two-thirds," he says.

Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Director of Government Affairs Christina Dugan also backs the Republicans in fighting any kind of business tax. "It's unfortunate that business is taking a second look at Nevada because of the tax impasse, but a good business climate is very important." She regrets the negative publicity in publications like The Wall Street Journal which has compared Gov. Kenny Guinn to the beleaguered California Gov. Gray Davis.

Rothman has heard those arguments and is unrepentant. Our recent bond ratings have been strong, he says, but historically the state has paid a high price for raising capital. "That's how the mob got institutionalized," he says.

At the moment, he argues, we have 15 mainly rural legislators holding the whole process hostage and that hurts the state's image badly, making us look unstable and undependable. "If I'm a California businessman weighed down with taxes and thinking of moving elsewhere, Arizona or Idaho are looking pretty good right now," he says. Beyond that, Rothman fears the impasse has left Nevada open to bribes from Yucca Mountain. In fact, he sees the Nuclear Energy Institute's recent poll suggesting that three-fourths of Nevadans are ready to negotiate financial benefits in exchange for the repository as an early sign that the industry is trying to take advantage of the impasse.

Wells Fargo Economist Sung Won Sohn sees very little for Nevada to worry about. "I don't think there is any problem with the tax impasse at all," he says, "because the problems in other states are so much worse. Even if the percentage increase is large, what economists call the 'tax effort' will still remain low in Nevada because taxes are so low."

The low tax rate will continue to make Nevada very attractive to outside investors, he says, and the proof of that is the continued movement of people to the state. Sung says Nevada should be thankful we don't have the budget-balancing problems of traditionally high-tax states like California and Minnesota.

"In Minnesota they did it all with cuts, which is much more painful," he says.

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

Salt Lake Tribune
July 11, 2003

Goshute dissidents ask courts for help

By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune

Outspoken members of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians say tribal leaders are bent on stripping them of their civil rights over bogus treason charges, and they are asking the federal courts for help.

Rex and Mary Allen this week asked U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell to block a tribal treason prosecution that could go forward as soon as next month and cause them to lose their rights as Goshutes. At least one similar suit has been promised by other dissidents who say they have been targeted for criticizing the way leaders have handled the multibillion-dollar venture to store high-level nuclear waste on the Goshute reservation.

"It is an attempt by the Allens to obtain their due process and their rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution in light of what they think is an unwarranted prosecution," said Randall Gaither, the Allens' attorney.

The latest round in a bitter fight over the tiny band's leadership, the lawsuit claims the dissidents have been refused a complete description of the charges against them from the tribal executive committee, made up of Leon Bear, Lori Skiby and Shareen Wash. Their suit also points out there is no court or constitution to protect their civil rights and retain their citizenship.

Bear, who serves as tribal chairman, did not respond to a request for comment. But tribal attorney Scott York dismissed the dissidents' claims as premature and unfounded. He likened the suit to going to federal court over a speeding ticket that has not -- and may not -- be written.

"It seems to me there are no prosecutions going on," said York, insisting that nobody's civil rights have been violated. "I'm not sure what they are so excited about."

At the direction of the executive committee, York prepared a report that described the offenses against those accused of insurrection or treason. The report, passed around during a tribal meeting in April, amounts to little more than factual information requested by the executive committee, he said.

York said it was wrong for the dissident lawsuit to single out the three Executive Committee members because any treason charges would have to be acted upon by the Goshutes' governing tribal council, which is made up of about 60 adult members of the tribe. He predicted the court will throw out the request.

Attorney Paul EchoHawk disputed the suggestion that no harm has been done to the dissidents, including his clients, Margene Bullcreek and her two daughters. EchoHawk, noting that he has not received an official copy of the treason allegations, said his clients will be filing a lawsuit similar to the Allens' today or early next week.

"They [the Executive Committee members] have filed allegations that are false, and they have threatened to strip tribal members of their citizenship based on their political opposition," said EchoHawk. "They continue to deny members a meaningful voice in tribal government and tribal services and the benefits of the lease money" from the proposed reactor waste storage facility.

Much of the trouble began for the 121-member band back in 1996, when tribal leaders signed an agreement with a consortium of nuclear utilities to turn about 100 acres of their reservation into a long-term storage facility for up to 44,000 tons of nuclear reactor waste that reportedly will cost more than $3.1 billion. The Allens, a brother and sister whose roots in Skull Valley are generations deep, co-signed the lease agreement with Bear in a deal that has never been publicly disclosed.

In the years since then, the Allens and other Goshutes have accused Bear of corruption, but the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and the courts have refused to get involved in the dispute. However, a federal grand jury is looking into the allegations.

Meanwhile, the state of Utah has been the waste-storage project's bitterest opponent. It has helped pay the attorneys who represent the dissidents.

fahys@sltrib.com

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 09, 2003

Lawmakers hope to trim record budget for Yucca

By Benjamin Grove
<grove@lasvegassun.com>

Las Vegas SUN

WASHINGTON -- A House panel has approved what would be the biggest annual Yucca Mountain budget ever -- a proposal to spend $765 million next year on the 20-year-old nuclear waste repository project.

But the annual process of wrangling over the project budget has just begun, and Nevada lawmakers expect the budget will be trimmed significantly before Congress finalizes it.

The budget proposal approved Tuesday by the House Appropriations Committee on energy and water would be a 29 percent increase from what the Energy Department requested for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

The proposal is about $308 million more than the current year Yucca budget and more than restores the $131 million that was cut from the current budget during negotiations last year.

Yucca is one of the top priorities of new subcommittee chairman Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, according to a committee news release. The money will give the Energy Department the boost it needs to keep the project on track to open by the 2010 target, the release said. The budget puts a "particular emphasis" on developing a rail line in Nevada that would carry waste to Yucca and avoid Las Vegas, according to the release. The rail line has been estimated to cost as much as $1 billion.

Energy Department officials were pleased with the panel vote. "It's an obvious indication that that Congress believes it is high time to get moving forward on Yucca Mountain," department spokesman Joe Davis said.

The money would help the department accomplish its most immediate goal: to submit an application for a license to construct Yucca, Davis said. The department aims to submit the application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by December 2004.

Nevada lawmakers, long opposed to Yucca, said the $765 million proposal gave them sticker shock.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said it would be "ludicrous" to spend so much when Congress is cutting education and veterans programs and is struggling to pay for homeland security projects and the war on terrorism.

"This is nothing short of ignorance," Berkley said.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., was surprised by the bold budget proposal, spokesman Jack Finn said. "At the same time, he is confident that it will not remain at that level," Finn said.

Setting a Yucca budget follows a familiar path in Congress each year. Typically the House approves a larger budget than the Senate, and ultimately Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., negotiates to slash it in an effort to slow the project's development. Reid plans to do the same this year, spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said.

"This is the largest number we have seen, but it doesn't come as a surprise to Sen. Reid that the Republican House is doing the President's bidding," Hafen said.

Nuclear industry officials have said urging lawmakers to approve the Energy Department's budget request is a lobbying priority this year. Pro-Yucca lawmakers have done some lobbying of their own, urging their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to approve at least $591 million, the Energy Department request presented in President Bush's federal budget.

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

Nevada Appeal
July 10, 2003

Yucca Mountain money down the drain

By Nevada Appeal editorial board

We respectfully disagree with the congressman from Ohio.

Storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain has never been about national security, and the events of Sept. 11, 2001, changed nothing except to give proponents a ruse to distract people from the real issues.

U.S. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee wants to pump up the Yucca Mountain project budget for 2004 to $764 million -- even more than President Bush had requested.

"My top DOE priority is Yucca Mountain. The money is here to make the program work," he said.

As disturbed as we are at the way nuclear storage has been thrust on Nevada, we're equally dismayed by Hobson's reasoning that throwing enough money at the project will make it safe.

That's how we got where we are. The fundamental reasons for choosing Yucca Mountain for storage were its geography and geology. But now that research has shown those factors provide no advantage -- and may even be a disadvantage -- the Department of Energy is trying to engineer its way out of a corner.

We'll count on Nevada Sen. Harry Reid to knock down that funding request, as he has in years past. Nevertheless, it was another comment from Hobson that raised our bile.

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "changed everything," he said. "This is not just an energy issue. This is a homeland security issue."

His argument that nuclear waste is more vulnerable scattered at reactor sites around the country than a central site overlooks two obvious facts. Most of the waste will have to be shipped from the East to Nevada, and the method for shipping it hasn't yet been determined.

Until the Energy Department and congressmen in waste-producing states like Ohio realize the Yucca plan is deeply flawed and begin working on alternatives, most of the taxpayers' money spent there is simply going down a very deep hole.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 10, 2003

Poll: Most favor negotiations on `inevitable' dump

Nuclear Energy Institute conducted survey

By Jane Ann Morrison
Review-Journal

There is increasing belief among Nevadans that Yucca Mountain will eventually be home to the nation's nuclear waste and that it's time for the state's politicians to seek benefits in exchange, according to a new poll conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The poll by the lobbying arm of the nuclear energy industry showed that 88 percent of those asked believe the repository will be built.

Half of those said it "probably" will be built in Nevada, and the other half said it's "inevitable" that Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, will host the repository.

The poll also found support for negotiating for benefits, a position still strongly opposed by the state's political leaders.

Seventy-six percent of those polled said political leaders should begin dealing with the federal government, a surge from prior polls, including those commissioned by the Review-Journal.

In 1990, a Review-Journal poll showed that only 23 percent wanted to deal; by January 2002, that figure had risen to 33 percent.

But six months after the January 2002 poll, after the Senate voted to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 43 percent favored negotiations.

The Review-Journal's 1990 poll found 52 percent of respondents felt the facility would end up at Yucca Mountain "no matter what the scientific research shows."

In January 2002, that figure had increased to 68 percent.

Former Nevada Gov. Robert List, now a lobbyist for the NEI, said the results are not a signal that Nevadans "like or want waste at Yucca Mountain, but a reluctant acknowledgement that it's probably coming, and we ought to make the best of it."

Two steadfast opponents of a repository, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Robert Loux, director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, rejected both the poll's results and the idea that the repository is a done deal.

"The fact is, the dump is not inevitable," said Reid, a notorious skeptic of polling.

Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Reid said, Americans "are not going to allow this stuff to be shipped."

Loux is confident the state's opposition to the federal effort to place the repository in Nevada will succeed either in the courts or in the licensing process.

Loux questioned the credibility of the NEI poll, saying it is "wishful thinking on their part and nothing more."

The poll of 680 registered voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points and was conducted June 9 through June 15 by Voter/Consumer Research from Washington, D.C.

List credited the change in attitude regarding inevitability to the congressional failures of Yucca Mountain opponents.

President Bush on July 23 signed into law a resolution overturning Nevada's veto and designating Yucca Mountain as the site for nuclear waste storage.

"The huge zenith of public attention on the subject has also waned from one year ago," said List, a Republican governor from 1979 through 1983.

List hopes that the new poll results will soften the resistance of some elected officials, particularly legislators, and they will consider negotiating for benefits.

Nevada's congressional delegation, as well as Gov. Kenny Guinn, have steadfastly opposed that approach and the state has lawsuits pending challenging the Yucca Mountain Project.

Loux said the lawsuits will be argued Oct. 3 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and a decision is expected in January.

List said most elected officials have "probably sensed" the change in public attitudes.

He declined to name names, but said "there are a lot of legislators, veterans and newcomers, who feel Nevada should begin to negotiate. This (the poll) makes it easier for them to commence that, and not get tarred and feathered."

List called it "a tragedy" that Nevada hasn't asked for significant benefits. The budget woes lawmakers are now grappling with could have been resolved if the state had asked for benefits earlier, he added.

Few lawmakers have publicly supported negotiations. Exceptions include State Sen. Joe Neal, D-North Las Vegas, and Sen. Ray Shaffer, R-North Las Vegas.

However, Loux did say he thought there might be "one or two of the Assembly conservatives who might be in that camp as well."

Reid, who just spent a week at his Searchlight home over the Fourth of July holiday, said fewer people are talking to him about nuclear waste.

He recalled just one person during the Searchlight Fourth of July parade bringing up the topic. More people express concerns about employment, education issues and health care, Reid said.

"It's always amazing to me that the nuclear power industry is so convinced of this dump happening," Reid said. "Now they run a poll saying it's inevitable. If it's inevitable, why hire List and why run the poll?"

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 10, 2003

EDITORIAL: The problem is the spending

Metastasizing Yucca budget one more example of dementia spendaholia

The founding fathers were well aware of the teachings of Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, who observed that, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Those who created America's republican form of government tried to limit that effect of direct democracy, of course. They created a Senate -- a small body of senior statesmen not subject to popular election -- to ride herd on the predictable tendency of the popularly elected politicians in the lower house to spend, spend, spend their way to re-election.

The 17th Amendment changed that dynamic, demanding that senators stand for popular election, as well.

And so we have reached that very precipice about which professor Tytler warned us. Government budgets now consist of any and every shiny object to which the delegates take a liking. Yet doubts still remain that "spending is the problem"?

Take the new, 2004 Yucca Mountain spending bill proposed by Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio.

Please.

President Bush is already spending more money than Democrat Bill Clinton ever did. In fact, even the rate of growth in federal spending has now increased, under a president of the supposedly "more conservative" party.

But what does Rep. Hobson, another of those skinflint Republicans, now propose to do to the Bush administration's requested $593 million allocation to continue development of Yucca Mountain ... along with a northern rail route to feed it?

Why, the good congressman wants to increase that spending by 29 percent above even the administration's request, to $765 million.

Mind you, this comes as part of a $21.7 billion Energy Department programs budget -- $21.7 billion to fund a department no one even dreamed we needed 70 years ago, that had its birth in the "temporary, wartime emergency" Manhattan Project of 1942 -- that wasn't even a cabinet level department, at all, until 1977.

These are the people who brought us the Colorado oil shale extravaganza. The people who brought us the hydrogen car. A wasteful, counterproductive, make-work federal department that Ronald Reagan rode to a landslide victory in 1980 promising to eliminate.

Yucca Mountain is already a black hole. "Until the licensing process is complete, whistle-blower allegations are settled and the lawsuits are finalized, there is no Yucca Mountain," points out Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "Why they would want to spend taxpayer money and put it in that hole in the ground is beyond me."

Because there are still checks in the checkbook, of course.

The problem is the spending.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 9, 2003

State officials block nuclear waste shipment

By Tim Molloy

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES — A plan to ship nuclear waste from Nevada to New Mexico through Southern California was canceled Wednesday because of opposition from state officials, the Department of Energy said.

It marked the first time shipment plans have been halted because of a state´s resistance, DOE spokesman Joe Davis said. There were no immediate plans to reschedule the truck shipments of medium-level waste on the circuitous 300-mile route through California. They were to have started as early as today.

“The waste that we ship to New Mexico for storage, we have never had a state that I´m aware of not agree to let us use a route,’ Davis said. “This sets a very dangerous precedent for the future of radioactive waste shipments.’

He noted that much of the waste that would have been shipped originated in California before it was moved to Nevada.

The material would have been trucked from a site northwest of Las Vegas across the California line, where it would travel 90 miles south on Highway 127 to Baker. There, the trucks were to cut southwest on Interstate 15 and travel 65 miles to Barstow before heading 140 miles east on Interstate 40 into Arizona.

DOE had not indicated how much waste would have been trucked, nor had it said exactly when the shipments would have been made.

The DOE decision came after the Western Governors´ Association notified the agency that California did not concur on the route. The agency´s protocol is to get a state´s agreement before shipping, Davis said.

“This is not a delay,’ he said. “We´re canceling the shipments until the Western Governors´ Association and the state of California and state of Nevada can engage together and propose a meaningful compromise.’

The primary objection was the roundabout route, from Nevada through California and Arizona to a disposal facility in New Mexico. Part of the trip was along state Highway 127, a former wagon road that authorities said was not designed for heavy trucks, is poorly maintained in places and is popular with tourists heading to Death Valley.

The dispute over the low-level waste could be a run-up to a larger fight over highly radioactive material that is supposed to be transported from nuclear power plants to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump that could open as early as 2010.

California Highway Patrol spokesman Tom Marshall said the agency didn´t necessarily object to moving low-grade material through the state, but didn´t want the state to become the primary route for shipping higher-grade material.

“We didn´t feel the road was adequate to handle the bulkier, the heavier, the more dangerous stuff,’ Marshall said.

The first shipment was initially scheduled for the last week of June but that was postponed at the request of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and state officials.

“This is good news,’ Feinstein said in a statement. “I would hope that the Department of Energy and the states involved can take advantage of this postponement to determine an appropriate route that does not risk the health and safety of people along the route.’

The Department of Energy was going to ship the waste through California´s high desert to avoid sending it through the crowded Las Vegas area.

Officials say the California route was used 259 times in 2002 and this year to carry radioactive waste from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California to the Nevada Test Site.

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 09, 2003

House panel proposes increased funding for Nevada nuclear dump

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A congressional panel wants to add millions of dollars to a 2004 spending plan to help the Energy Department's plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada.

The $765 million being set aside for the Yucca Mountain project in the U.S. house is 29 percent more than President Bush requested. It restores $134 million cut last year and adds more to segments that have been shelved for lack of funding.

"My top DOE priority is Yucca Mountain. The money is here to make the program work," Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, said Tuesday in Washington, D.C. Hobson wrote the legislation as chairman of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee.

The repository budget must be passed by the House and then by the Senate before becoming final. Tuesday's action promises a new confrontation with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the program's leading critic in Congress and the architect of budget cuts in past years.

"Yucca Mountain may be a priority for House Republicans, but Sen. Reid will use his leadership to significantly cut back that number just as he has done in the past," spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said.

Energy Department officials have found an ally in Hobson, 66, a seven-term Republican from Springfield, Ohio, who this year became chairman of the House energy and water subcommittee.

Hobson convened his 13-member panel Tuesday to review and approve a 2004 spending bill totaling $21.7 billion for programs operated by the Energy Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and smaller agencies.

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Democrats probably will support the bill.

Hobson said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "changed everything." Until a Yucca repository opens, nuclear waste will remain scattered and vulnerable at reactor sites around the country, he said.

"This is not just an energy issue. This is a homeland security issue," he said.

Hobson said the $765 million would help the Energy Department meet its December 2004 goal to submit a repository license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The DOE wants to open the repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas by 2010.

Further, he said, it will allow the department next year to begin developing a Nevada railroad corridor to the repository, a waste transfer station within the state and other features for waste acceptance at Yucca Mountain.

DOE officials had faced steep budget reductions in recent years, and had been planning layoffs and other cost reductions in trying to stay on schedule.

Noting that the spending bill won't be finalized until later this year, Allen Benson, an Energy Department spokesman in Las Vegas, issued a cautious reaction.

"We'll wait to see what the final numbers are," Benson said.

Nevadans in Congress said the project's flaws make it unworthy of support.

"Until the licensing process is complete, whistle-blower allegations are settled and the lawsuits are finalized, there is no Yucca Mountain," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "Why they would want to spend taxpayer money and put it in that hole in the ground is beyond me."

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., "will certainly join with Sen. Reid in reducing (budget allocations) as much as humanly possible," Ensign spokesman Jack Finn said.

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 09, 2003

Lawmakers hope to trim record budget for Yucca

By Benjamin Grove
<grove@lasvegassun.com>

Las Vegas SUN

WASHINGTON -- A House panel has approved what would be the biggest annual Yucca Mountain budget ever -- a proposal to spend $765 million next year on the 20-year-old nuclear waste repository project.

But the annual process of wrangling over the project budget has just begun, and Nevada lawmakers expect the budget will be trimmed significantly before Congress finalizes it.

The proposal is about $308 million more than the current year Yucca budget and more than restores the $131 million that was cut from the current budget during negotiations last year.

Nevada lawmakers, long opposed to Yucca, said the $765 million proposal gave them sticker shock.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., was surprised by the bold budget proposal, spokesman Jack Finn said. "At the same time, he is confident that it will not remain at that level," Finn said.

"This is the largest number we have seen, but it doesn't come as a surprise to Sen. Reid that the Republican House is doing the President's bidding," Hafen said.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 09, 2003

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Panel adds millions for project

Nuclear waste facility gets boost

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department's financially struggling effort to bury nuclear waste in Nevada got a boost Tuesday when a congressional panel outlined a 2004 spending plan that adds millions to the project's coffers.

The $765 million being set aside for the Yucca Mountain Project in the U.S. House is 29 percent more than President Bush requested. It restores $134 million cut last year and adds even more to begin work on segments that have been shelved for lack of funding.

"My top DOE priority is Yucca Mountain," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who wrote the legislation as chairman of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee. "The money is here to make the program work."

The repository budget must be passed by the House and then by the Senate before becoming final. Tuesday's action sets in motion a new confrontation with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the program's leading critic in Congress who has engineered budget cuts in past years.

"Yucca Mountain may be a priority for House Republicans, but Senator Reid will use his leadership to significantly cut back that number just as he has done in the past," spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said.

Energy Department officials have found an enthusiastic ally in Hobson, 66, a seven-term Republican from Springfield, Ohio, who this year became chairman of the House energy and water subcommittee.

Hobson convened his 13-member panel Tuesday to review and approve a 2004 spending bill totalling $21.7 billion for programs operated by the Energy Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and smaller agencies.

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Democrats probably will support the bill.

"This is not just an energy issue. This is a homeland security issue," he said.

To illustrate his commitment, Hobson said he planned to enlarge and frame a photo of Yucca Mountain and hang it on the wall alongside pictures of dams and other projects his panel supports.

Hobson said the $765 million set aside would enable the Energy Department to meet a December 2004 goal to complete a repository license application and remain on a path to open a repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas by 2010.

DOE officials had postponed all those segments in the face of steep budget reductions in recent years, and in fact has been planning layoffs and other cost reductions in trying to stay on schedule.

Noting that the spending bill won't be finalized until later this year, Allen Benson, an Energy Department spokesman in Las Vegas, issued a cautious reaction.

"We'll wait to see what the final numbers are," Benson said.

Nevadans in Congress said they were astounded at the committee's generosity. They said the project's flaws make it unworthy of any support.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., "will certainly join with Senator Reid in reducing that as much as humanly possible when it comes over to the Senate side," Ensign spokesman Jack Finn said.

Hobson said he intends to be an aggressive champion of the nuclear waste project and plans to weigh in from his leadership position on how the program should proceed.

For instance, the new spending bill directs DOE officials to abandon two proposed railroad corridors that would carry nuclear waste through parts of Southern Nevada en route to the repository, according to Hobson.

One of them would originate at a Union Pacific siding near Apex and pass north of Las Vegas and Indian Springs before entering the southwest corner of the Nevada Test Site. The second route would ship waste north from Jean.

A Hobson aide said DOE instead would be given 60 days to choose among one of three remaining routes that originate at Carlin and Caliente.

Hobson said the bill contains other instructions for the Energy Department, but he would not release a full copy until it could be reviewed by members of the House Appropriations Committee. The committee is scheduled to take up the measure next week.

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

Newsday
July 08, 2003

House nears approval of $368.7 billion defense spending bill

By Ken Guggenheim
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- The House was ready to approve a $368.7 billion defense spending bill Tuesday that would support the Pentagon's goal of developing a more mobile, high-tech fighting force while preserving older weapons systems that proved their value in the Iraq war.

The bill for the year beginning Oct. 1 represents an increase of about 1.3 percent over the amount approved for this fiscal year without taking into account a $62.4 billion midyear spending bill that paid for the war in Iraq. The 2004 bill also excludes military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which probably will be financed by another spending bill.

A similar bill was approved with bipartisan support Tuesday by the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Most details of that bill will be withheld until the full committee considers it Wednesday, but senators described it as supporting President Bush's defense spending priorities.

Both bills are about $3 billion below Bush's request. Lawmakers are expected eventually to make up this gap this year.

The House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said the House bill "reflects very much the direction of the commander in chief as well as the Department of Defense regarding the war on terrorism that we are pursuing in the Middle East at this point but also recognizing its great threat around the world."

Those priorities include Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's desire to transform the military into a sophisticated, lighter force able to mobilize quickly in response to crises around the world.

But the House Appropriations Committee, in a report accompanying the bill, warned against cutting existing programs too severely to pay for new ones.

"Accelerating transformation by reducing current force structure to pay for future systems may undermine the readiness and capabilities of the forces we rely on today," it said.

The House bill denies some money for new programs in favor of older ones. It includes $458 million not sought by the Bush administration for 144 upgraded Bradley fighting vehicles, 43 Abrams tanks and other equipment to modernize the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment.

The House included $11.5 billion for building ships, a $2.4 billion increase, including one Virginia-class submarine, the Navy's most advanced attack submarine. It rejected an administration request for authorization to buy seven of the submarines through 2008. Lawmakers have expressed frustration over the submarines' rising costs and delays. The submarines are being built by the Groton, Conn.-based Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corp. and Newport News Shipbuilding.

The Senate subcommittee's bill would authorize five submarines through 2008, said Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. It does not include heavy equipment for the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment.

The subcommittee also would provide the $9.1 billion sought by the Bush administration for missile defense. The House bill included $8.9 billion.

The House also cuts $65 million in funding for the LHA amphibious assault ship replacement program, which the Senate bill includes.

Both the House and Senate bills would cut $161 million from the administration's request for $3.7 billion for F/A-22 Raptor fighters for the Air Force. The long-delayed fighters have been plagued by cost overruns and software problems. Pratt & Whitney, based in East Hartford, Conn., makes engines for the F/A-22.

A Republican lawmaker, Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana, sought to include an amendment the White House would certainly oppose: denying money for a round of base closings scheduled for 2005.

The Pentagon says the billions of dollars that could be saved by closing unnecessary bases could pay for vital defense programs. Many lawmakers fear, however, that closing the bases could devastate their communities economically.

Though the defense bill accounts for about one-sixth of federal spending, it has generated little debate. After the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, lawmakers have been reluctant to deny the Pentagon the equipment it says it needs to defend the country.

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war Democratic presidential candidate, said the bill does little to make America safer. He wants money shifted to improve education and strengthen homeland defense.

"The only thing this Congress will take care of today are the profit-gouging defense contractors," he said.

Separately, a House panel approved $27.1 billion for the nation's nuclear weapons and water and energy projects for next year. The Senate has yet to write its energy-water bill.

The bill would provide more than Bush wanted for nuclear waste disposal and energy research. It trims Bush's proposal for securing the nuclear stockpiles of Russia and other countries in what lawmakers called a protest over inefficiency, and cuts his request for maintaining the U.S. nuclear inventory.

"We have a Cold War footprint," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of a House Appropriations subcommittee, complaining about the number of U.S. nuclear weapons.

The bill includes $765 million to step up work on the Yucca Mountain, Nev., repository for nuclear waste _ $174 million more than Bush requested. There is also $4.5 billion for local water projects prized by lawmakers _ $288 million more than Bush sought.

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., said the bill was good news for Connecticut defense contractors.

"The defense programs that are critical to Connecticut and our armed forces are fully funded," Larson said.

Also included in the bill is $940 million for Army Black Hawk helicopters, made by Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford, Conn.

___P>

The defense bill number is H.R. 2658; the energy-water bill has no number yet.

__P>

On the Net:

Bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov

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