Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 29, 2003
Nuclear repository hits new legal snag
Ruling forces Energy Department to take time, respond to law firm's contract challenge
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department's bid to establish a nuclear waste repository in Nevada became further mired on Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled in favor of a New York law firm passed over for a lucrative contract.
Attorneys said the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could keep energy officials in court for six months or more while a judge sorts out issues raised in the case filed by LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae LLP.
Joe Egan, who has filed multiple lawsuits against the Yucca Mountain Project for the state of Nevada, said the ruling opens the project to further scrutiny and signals that courts may not look favorably on the Energy Department's handling of the program.
The ruling "is a very important decision for the state of Nevada because it establishes that the courts are not going to tolerate things that DOE just takes for granted," Egan said.
But Egan and other attorneys who follow the Yucca program said it was not clear what impact the ruling may have on the federal government's short-term goal of filing a repository license application by December 2004.
Mike Bauser, associate general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute, described the court's action as procedural. "It goes to simply whether or not the department dotted all the 'i's' and crossed all the 't's,'" in its contract process.
As to whether the ruling could lead to project delays, he said, "It certainly could, but I haven't set any odds."
Energy Department lawyers "are reviewing the court's decision. Our plan remains to submit a license application to the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) by the end of 2004," spokesman Joe Davis said in an e-mail.
A three judge panel ruled unanimously the Energy Department "failed to conduct an adequate examination" before awarding a $16.5 million legal services contract in 1999 to Winston & Strawn LLP, a Chicago-based firm that had done earlier work on the Yucca program.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae, whose bid was $3.6 million higher, sued in 2000. It charged Winston's prior work amounted to a conflict of interest that should have been grounds for disqualification.
Later, it was reported that Winston & Strawn had registered with Congress to lobby for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the leading industry organization promoting the Yucca Mountain Project, while it was working for DOE.
Winston & Strawn left the Yucca program in 2001 in the midst of conflict allegations. DOE since then has been without a legal services contractor to help form its complex license application.
The case was remanded to U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina. He was told to determine whether the Energy Department complied with federal procurement law and department regulations when it awarded the contract.
Urbina also was directed to decide whether DOE should be directed to award a new legal contract to LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae.
The court decision renewed attention on Winston & Strawn, which had been the subject of an ethics complaint filed by Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., with the District of Columbia Bar Association. Berkley said Tuesday the appeals court ruling "adds even more evidence to allegations that there was a conflict of interest in (Winston & Strawn) work for DOE on Yucca Mountain."
A Winston & Strawn spokeswoman had no immediate comment.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
October 29, 2003
Letter: No nuke waste at Yucca; no tower at Summerlin
Your Sunday editorial opposing the Yucca Mountain repository for nuclear waste was both well considered and articulate. I can't imagine a more dangerous environmental disaster than housing nuclear waste in a seismically active mountain above an ancient aquifer. Never mind the problems in getting the waste to the site; once it arrives the environmental ramifications are far beyond conventional government "science."
It is the lack of vision that is most disturbing to me. First, we engage a form of energy (nuclear) without fully thinking through how to handle its waste. Then we allow our Washington "leaders" to force upon us a solution so riddled with danger that it is no solution at all.
And since the editorial staff at the Sun has been able to see a bad idea when it presents itself, perhaps its concern for the environment could extend itself to opposing the building of a 300-foot eyesore in the vicinity of Red Rock Canyon, one of Las Vegas' most visually attractive environmental preserves.
I am no environmentalist but I do possess a little common sense and community courtesy. Summerlin has as much use for a 300-foot casino tower as Yucca Mountain has for nuclear waste. Bad ideas abound when we elect people without long-term vision. Perhaps we can change that come our next elections.
Lance T. Weil
---------------------------
New York Times
October 29, 2003
National Briefing: West
NEVADA: LAW FIRM IN CONFLICT The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that a law firm that the Energy Department hired to prepare a license application apparently had a conflict of interest, because it was simultaneously lobbying Congress to approve Yucca Mountain, a proposed nuclear waste repository 90 miles north of Las Vegas. The ruling, by a three-judge panel, could delay plans for the site. The court ordered that a lower court determine whether the firm, Winston & Strawn, had been properly reviewed and suggested that a competing firm could be awarded the work.
Matthew L. Wald (NYT)
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 29, 2003
'I've seen the light' on nuclear waste, Dean tells Las Vegans
By Erin Neff
Review-Journal
When Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, he urged his senator to support the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain because "I wanted to get that stuff out of my state."
But, he told about 200 supporters Tuesday night at a fund-raiser in Las Vegas, "now that I'm running for president, I've seen the light."
Dean stopped short of saying he was against burying the nation's nuclear waste 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, vowing, as numerous politicians including President Bush have before him, to "review the science."
"There's been some suggestion that the science at Yucca may be faulty," Dean said earlier during an interview at the North Las Vegas Airport. "My position is that it's not safe to leave the nuclear waste in 100 locations across the country, and before we put it at Yucca we had better review the science very carefully.
"Nevada will vote Democratic this time simply because President Bush tried to turn you into a nuclear waste state," Dean told about 25 supporters who gathered to greet him at the airport.
Later, at the fund-raiser at a home in the gated Ten Oaks community, Dean told the crowd that, if elected, he would stop construction of the repository until a complete safety review is conducted.
Yucca Mountain was but one issue that Dean highlighted in attacking Bush.
In his stump speech, he spoke of his opposition to the war in Iraq, urged a repeal of Bush's tax cuts, and proposed health insurance for all Americans.
Organizers of the reception and a $1,000-a-person dinner that followed said Dean would raise more than $200,000 by night's end.
"The amount of donations will never touch what Bush has," said Clark Adams, founder of the grass roots Nevadans for Dean. "But he's raising money and relying on volunteers around the country like no other candidate has before."
Paolo and Sybil Scianna, who have lived in Las Vegas for 30 years, said they have never actively supported any candidate, but went to the airport to greet Dean.
"He's brought the campaign to the average middle-class person," Paolo Scianna said.
Democratic Party turnout at the fund-raiser was high, with elected officials, grass-roots organizers and a strong contingent of gay Democrats joining in support.
"I like him more every time I hear him," said Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates, who also is chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee's Black Caucus.
Mel Pohl, a doctor who hosted the cocktail reception with his partner, Rand Young, said he got chills listening to Dean speak last year at a small fund-raiser in Las Vegas for the Stonewall Democrats.
Gays and lesbians are following Dean's campaign closely because, as governor of Vermont, he signed the nation's only civil union law.
Pohl said Dean "simply stated it was the right thing to do. When was the last time somebody in the White House did something because it was the right thing to do?"
Dean is the fourth presidential candidate to visit Las Vegas this year, but the first to provide access to the media and meet the public, as he did at the airport.
Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., and retired Gen. Wesley Clark all have come to Las Vegas for private fund-raisers this year.
Vice President Dick Cheney already has raised money in Las Vegas, and Bush is expected to come by year's end.
Many in the crowd said they still were undecided about which of the Democratic candidates they preferred, but most said their support would go to "anybody but Bush."
Dean has tailored his message around tax cuts and foreign policy.
Dean said that, although he would repeal all of $1.3 trillion of Bush's tax cuts, he would put money back in the pockets of the middle class by restoring funding for other programs.
"The middle class in this country did not get a tax cut," Dean said. "They got $304 and it was eaten up by tuition increases and property tax increases."
Dean said he would fully fund programs like Pell Grants and some aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires success for all demographic groups taking the test. Dean said he opposes most of No Child Left Behind, however.
On foreign policy, he said he supported the first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan, but has never agreed with the Bush administration over the current war in Iraq.
He said his plan for health care insurance would cost $87 billion and could be accomplished by repealing the tax cuts.
"It's not a liberal plot concocted in Vermont," he said. "It will work."
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
October 28, 2003
Presidential hopeful Dean questions nuclear dump on Vegas visit
By CHRISTINA ALMEIDA
Associated Press
NORTH LAS VEGAS (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean called for a more extensive review of the plan to locate the nation's nuclear waste dump in Nevada, but stopped short of opposing the Yucca Mountain repository Tuesday.
"We still need some kind of central repository," Dean said as he arrived in Las Vegas for two private fund-raisers.
Dean said the scientific studies that led President Bush to adopt Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's recommendation to store nuclear waste in Nevada require scrutiny.
"There has been some suggestion that the science at Yucca may be faulty," he said. "Before we put it at Yucca it better be reviewed very carefully."
Dean suggested the process that would have 77,000 tons of nuclear waste stored in tunnels 90 miles from Las Vegas would hurt Bush in next year's presidential election.
"Nevada will vote Democratic this time simply because George Bush tried to make you into a nuclear waste state," Dean said.
"Given President Bush's record in Nevada, he has clearly written off Nevada," Dean said.
The former governor of Vermont and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq arrived at the North Las Vegas Airport shortly before 5 p.m. and spoke for about 15 minutes with reporters on a variety of subjects before heading to a $100-a-person reception at the home of Las Vegas resident Mel Pohl. About 200 were expected to attend.
Dean cited the state's strong labor base and its vibrant tourism economy but said Nevada needs help with health insurance and infrastructure.
Dean also responded to criticism Tuesday from rival Al Sharpton who resurrected a 1995 Dean comment that affirmative action should be based "not on race, but on class."
"I made it clear I support affirmative action," Dean said.
Dean said he was pleased with news that Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., D-Ill., planned to endorse him for president.
"He is one of a group of up-and-coming African-American leaders in this country and to have him endorse me, I think verifies I am a strong supporter of the things the African-American community really has to have.
"Affirmative action and opportunity are two of those things," he said.
Dean was scheduled to attend a $1,000 a plate fund-raising dinner later in the evening at a private residence. He was expected to raise about $82,000 at the two fund-raisers, a spokesman said.
Dean is the fourth Democratic presidential candidate to visit southern Nevada this year. The state, which went to Bush three years ago, is expected to be key in the 2004 presidential election.
Nevada Republicans have begun mobilizing. They have outlined plans to build a network of grass-roots support, focusing on fund-raising and targeting Hispanics who could prove critical to the president's re-election efforts.
Dean arrived in Las Vegas after attending a Tuesday morning rally at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He was scheduled to leave late Tuesday for San Francisco, where he is to attend a labor rally and another fund-raiser Wednesday afternoon.
Dean is in a crowded race for the Democratic nomination, competing with a field that includes retired four-star Army Gen. Wesley Clark, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, and Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
Polls show Dean leading by double-digit margins in New Hampshire, the nation's first primary state. Dean and Gephardt are the front-runners in Iowa.
A self-described "commonsense" moderate, Dean has successfully used the Internet to mobilize national support. His list of supporters has grown to 478,000.
Dean recently picked up his first major union endorsement for the 2004 campaign from the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.
Dean has said he would have voted against the Iraqi war resolution in Congress because President Bush did not make the case that war was justified. Dean says the war has distracted the nation from pursuing al-Qaida. He has also criticized the Bush administration for failing to address the threat of North Korea becoming a nuclear power.
---
On the Net: http://www.deanforamerica.com/
---------------------------
Capital Times
October 29, 2003
Margaret Krome: Nuke power still bad option
By Margaret Krome
Sometimes perceptions build on statements built on assertions built on, well, wishes and frustrations. At such times it's wise to review basic facts. The current resurrecting of interest in constructing nuclear power plants in Wisconsin is a perfect example.
Wisconsin is unquestionably facing a growing need for energy, and it's not surprising or inappropriate that one option to consider should be nuclear power. But a thorough review will remind us why Wisconsin, wisely, chose 20 years ago to eschew the overdependence on nuclear power that so many other states pursued and for which their citizens have been paying through higher rates for years.
First, nuclear power plants are phenomenally expensive to build. When promoters talk about inexpensive nuclear energy, they refer to energy produced after a plant has been built. In fact, the last several plants completed around the country all cost far more and took much longer to build than projected, and more than their utilities could bear. One of these plants cost $6.8 billion, another $9.1 billion and another $6.5 billion, with at least one plant taking more than two decades to complete. When built, ratepayers were socked with all the "stranded costs" associated with building nuclear plants that the utilities couldn't afford to cover.
Wall Street has been profoundly uninterested in the nuclear industry precisely because of these costs. Even though new and purportedly cheaper nuclear facility designs have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nobody knows whether they'd really be less expensive to construct, and investors have remained firmly unconvinced. In fact, the foundation for the current revival in nuclear energy presumes billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for up to half the costs of plant construction.
Second, nuclear power creates environmental concerns, including potential damage from accidents as well as hazards associated with transportation and storage of radioactive wastes. While Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has been designated the first national repository for nuclear wastes, Wisconsin's extensive Wolf River batholith was scored by the federal government as one of the best candidates east of the Mississippi for a second nuclear waste storage site, which concerns many who believe that the process of rating such sites was flawed. Many experts believe that the heavily worn rock at the Wisconsin site and its proximity to communities makes it unsuitable and could place the state's ground water in permanent jeopardy.
Third, since the nuclear heyday in the 1970s, the nation's vulnerability to security breaches has exploded. Daily we are reminded of global vulnerability to terrorists despite careful plans to thwart them. How astonishing to propose organizing our energy production around an industry widely recognized to be vulnerable in its transportation, operating and radioactive waste disposal systems.
There's a reason the private insurance industry has been unwilling to gamble on nuclear power: They perceive it as unsafe. The resurgence of interest in nuclear power would not be possible without a government subsidy, in the form of an artificial $10 billion cap placed on industry's liability, whereas many estimate potential real damages in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Yes, the state has growing energy demands, as does the nation. Several studies conclude that the nation could recover as much as 47 percent of our energy capacity through conservation and efficiency measures such as utility conservation incentives for residential, commercial and industrial customers. Despite negligible government investment, wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy technologies are growing. These technologies offer safer, cheaper energy alternatives, and some offer farmers and their rural communities economic development opportunities around small, locally controlled bio-energy plants.
Like the nation, Wisconsin is at an energy crossroads. This state's ratepayers have been well served for not previously overinvesting in costly, environmentally compromised, vulnerable nuclear plants. Wisdom continues to argue instead for actively pursuing cheaper, less vulnerable, environmentally more desirable options.
Margaret Krome of Madison writes a semimonthly column for The Capital Times. E-mail: mkrome@inxpress.net.
---------------------------
Casper Star-Tribune
October 29, 2003
Mayor and challenger oppose proposed radioactive shipment to Envirocare
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Both Mayor Rocky Anderson and his re-election challenger, fellow Democrat Frank Pignanelli, oppose federal legislation that would reclassify highly concentrated radioactive waste from an Ohio Superfund cleanup so it could be shipped to Envirocare's hazardous and radioactive waste landfill in Utah.
Congressional conference committees should not manufacture new law without consideration by both houses of Congress, Anderson said in urged Utah's congressional delegation to pursue ''every available measure'' to remove the provision from the energy bill.
He is contacting members of Congress who are finalizing the energy-policy bill for a possible vote this week or next.
''Over the last four years, we have aggressively fought the shipment of high-level waste through Salt Lake City to Yucca Mountain, the storage of nuclear waste on the Goshute Reservation, and made clear our opposition to the storage of class B and C wastes at Envirocare,'' Anderson said. ''Now, Utah and Salt Lake City, through which the majority of this waste would pass, are being targeted by back-room politicking that leaves the public and their elected representatives completely out of the decision-making process.''
Pignanelli also wants Congress to drop the reclassification.
Last year Pignanelli ran the unsuccessful Initiative 1 campaign to ban hotter radioactive waste from Utah.
''This is contrary to our right as a state to decide what waste comes in and doesn't come in,'' Pignanelli said.
The reclassification provision would allow the U.S. Energy Department to circumvent state law, he said.
''This is going to be imposed on us,'' Pignanelli said, ''and we are never going to have a discussion.''
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, requested that the reclassification be included in the energy bill last summer.
Bishop, a former Envirocare lobbyist whose district includes the Envirocare site, contends it would be cheaper and safer for the waste to be shipped by rail to the Utah landfill than for it to be trucked through Utah to the Nevada Test Site.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, has asked conference committee members to strip the provision from the final bill.
---------------------------
Salt Lake Tribune
October 29, 2003
Mayor, Pignanelli decry bill's change in hot-waste standard
By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake City's mayoral candidates Tuesday called on Congress to remove wording in pending energy legislation that would clear the way for highly contaminated waste from an Ohio Superfund cleanup to be disposed of at a Tooele County hazardous and radioactive waste landfill.
Saying members of congressional conference committees should not manufacture new law without consideration by both houses of Congress, Mayor Rocky Anderson urged Utah's congressional delegation to pursue "every available measure" to remove the provision from the energy bill so the waste would not be allowed at Envirocare of Utah. He also is contacting members of Congress who are finalizing the energy-policy bill for a possible vote this week or next.
"Again, the federal government is behind schedule and over budget, and wants to saddle Utah with the burden of being the nation's dumping ground for hazardous radioactive waste," said the mayor, who faces Frank Pignanelli in next week's mayoral election.
"Over the last four years, we have aggressively fought the shipment of high-level waste through Salt Lake City to Yucca Mountain, the storage of nuclear waste on the Goshute Reservation, and made clear our opposition to the storage of class B and C wastes at Envirocare," Anderson added. "Now, Utah and Salt Lake City, through which the majority of this waste would pass, are being targeted by back-room politicking that leaves the public and their elected representatives completely out of the decision-making process."
Pignanelli also wants Congress to scrap the reclassification.
Last year Pignanelli ran the Initiative 1 campaign to ban hotter radioactive waste from Utah, including Envirocare's facility. Although a multi-million-dollar opposition campaign financed by Envirocare helped defeat the measure, Pignanelli said the campaign succeeded in generating a debate about radioactive waste disposal in Utah.
"This is contrary to our right as a state to decide what waste comes in and doesn't come in," Pignanelli said.
The reclassification provision effectively allows the U.S. Energy Department to circumvent state law, he said.
"This is going to be imposed on us," Pignanelli said, "and we are never going to have a discussion."
The Ohio waste represents the worst contamination left over from a uranium mill that used highly concentrated ore to make fuel for bomb-making plants. The waste contains unusually high levels of radium -- radioactive waste so concentrated that, in addition to the reclassification by Congress, Envirocare must win the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval to accept waste that contains 25 times more radium than allowed by the company's current federal license.
U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, requested that the reclassification be included in the energy bill last summer, and the three other Utah Republicans in Congress have not stepped up to call for the provision's removal. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, a Democrat, has asked conference committee members to strip the provision from the final bill.
fahys@sltrib.com
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
October 28, 2003
Federal appeals court ruling could further delay Yucca work
Associated Press
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A federal appeals court ruling Tuesday could delay the Energy Department's plan to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump after conflict of interest charges were leveled at the law firm that worked on the government's permit application.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. sent the case back to U.S. District Court to determine if the Energy Department had ruled out any conflict of interest before it hired its legal counsel, Chicago-based Winston & Strawn,
The law firm, which spent two years preparing the department's application for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit, withdrew as counsel in November 2001 after the allegations were raised. The firm had done work for a Yucca Mountain contractor and also lobbied for a pro-nuclear group.
If a judge finds the Energy Department didn't consider the potential conflict, it could award the contract to another law firm, the Las Vegas Sun reported.
That could mean a delay in the project because all of Winston's work could be reviewed, said Washington attorney Joe Egan, who works for Nevada on its opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
"This is amazing," Egan said. "This is a blow-out victory for Nevada."
The court's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green and MacRae, a law firm that had bid and lost the contract.
The appellate court rule the Energy Department must provide evidence that the law firm was qualified to bid despite the conflict. If it cannot, the court could award the contract to LeBoeuf, the judges said.
The Energy Department, which has been without a legal counsel since the law firm left, plans to submit its application by the end of 2004, and hopes to open Yucca Mountain by 2010.
Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis declined comment on the ruling, but said it should not delay the Yucca Mountain project.
"We are reviewing the court's decision," Davis said. "Our plan remains to submit a license application to the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) by the end of 2004."
Information from: Las Vegas Sun
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
October 28, 2003
Conflict could further delay Yucca work
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas SUN
WASHINGTON -- An appeals court ruling today could delay the Energy Department's plan to open a high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain because of conflict of interest charges leveled at the law firm that worked on the department's permit application.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sent the case back to U.S. District Court to determine if the Energy Department ruled out any conflict of interest before it hired its legal counsel, Chicago-based Winston & Strawn.
The law firm, which spent two years preparing the department's application for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit, withdrew as counsel in November 2001 after allegations were raised. The firm, which had done work for a Yucca Mountain contractor and lobbied for a pro-nuclear group, has not admitted any conflict existed.
If a judge finds that the Energy Department didn't consider the potential conflicts with the law firm, it could award the contract to another law firm.
That could mean a delay in the project because all of Winston's work may need to be reviewed, said Washington attorney Joe Egan, who works for Nevada on its opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
"This is amazing," Egan said. "This is a blow-out victory for Nevada."
The court's ruling today came in response to a lawsuit filed by LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green and MacRae, a law firm that had bid and lost the contract.
LeBoeuf argued that Winston & Strawn had a conflict of interest that should have disqualified it because the firm had previously represented TRW Environmental Safety Services, the former main contractor for Yucca Mountain.
Winston & Strawn withdrew from the $16.5 million contract in 2001 after the Energy Department's inspector general concluded the firm did not tell the DOE it had lobbied for the pro-Yucca Nuclear Energy Institute.
The appellate court ruling said the Energy Department must provide evidence that the law firm was qualified to bid despite the conflict. If it cannot, the court could award the contract to LeBoeuf, the judges said.
Egan said if that happens, the work the law firm did was tainted. The only way to remove tainted work would be to redo it, Egan said, so the two years of work Winston did on the project would have to be revisited.
The Energy Department, which has been without a legal counsel since the law firm left, plans to submit its application by the end of 2004, and hopes to open Yucca Mountain by 2010.
Energy Department officials did not return a call asking about the issue this morning.
Steven Davis, co-chairman of LeBoeuf said he is "very gratified by the court's decision," but he would not comment further.
The appeals court disagreed with a July 2002 decision by the U.S. District Court, which had ruled that the case was moot since the old contract no longer existed and the department did not indicate it still wanted outside counsel.
"The department knew or should have known that awarding the Yucca Mountain contract to Winston created an apparent conflict of interests for Winston that required further scrutiny," according to the opinion filed by Judge Judith Rogers.
Rogers wrote that some facts were missing from the record that would have clearly shown how the department evaluated the contract. The lower court's opinion was not adequate for the appeals court to issue its own decision or award the contract to LeBoeuf, Rogers wrote.
She said just accepting Winston's statement that it did not have a conflict of interest is "inconsistent" with federal requirements.
The appeals court said the district court "shall" address whether awarding the contract to Winston violated Nevada's Code of Professional Responsibility, as set out in the Energy Department's own guidelines.
"The courts are a very different forum than the political arena," Egan said. "They are willing to apply the law."
He said that the despite "enormous repercussions" for the department, this is the second time courts have ruled against the Energy Department in a Yucca case. The same court ruled against the department when nuclear power plants sued over missing the 1998 deadline to take the nuclear waste.
Egan pointed out that appellate Judge David Tatel, who sat on this case, will also hear Nevada's oral arguments set for January on several cases against the site.
"He will have a deep understanding of DOE's lack of legal competency," Egan said.
Meanwhile, the court said the department's continuing need for a legal expert on the NRC licensing process was confirmed by a April 30 letter from Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham telling House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that the Energy Department was looking for an expert law firm for the project.
The Energy Department will not confirm if it has selected a new firm.
The district court would determine if a direct award of the contract would be suitable, according to the opinion.
An attorney familiar with the case said the department has 45 days to ask that the court rehear the case and 90 days to file with the Supreme Court.
After the 45 days the court will formally send the case back to the District Court in Washington to be heard and a court date could be set anytime after that.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
WEEKEND EDITION Oct. 24 - 25, 2003
'60 Minutes' tackles Yucca Mountain issue
By Kirk Baird
<kirk@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas SUN
The story's components:
•••A multibillion-dollar central repository for nuclear waste 90 miles northwest of the fastest-growing city in the United States.
•••Major cities including Chicago, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Salt Lake City, where the nuclear waste will pass through, either on highways or railways.
•••Proponents who maintain the transportation of the 77,000 tons of hazardous waste is safe, while opponents worry about the potential for disaster.
It all adds up to a classic "60 Minutes" report, as the long-running investigative news program tackles the Yucca Mountain saga today at 7 p.m. on CBS (Channel 8).
"This is a weighty issue that the whole country has to deal with, something ongoing since the dawn of the nuclear age: What do we do with this?" Kevin Tedesco, spokesman for "60 Minutes," said in a phone interview Thursday from New York.
"It's coming to a head now and the battle ground seems to be Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as the highways and railways of the cities."
The story, as reported by Steve Kroft, offers a look at Yucca Mountain and the transportation of nuclear waste to the facility, Tedesco said.
"Our job in this case is to let people know this is the byproduct of your electricity for many of you and that the government is planning to move it along railroads to this city," he said. "People should know this and that it's going to be coming to Nevada on the railroad tracks and highways near their homes."
Among those interviewed for the piece include Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Las Vegas Sun Editor Brian Greenspun.
In the report, Greenspun recalls watching nuclear testing with his father and Las Vegas Sun founder, Hank Greenspun.
"He would take us up to the top of Mount Charleston when we were little kids so that we could watch the blasts. You could see the mushroom clouds go off and we thought that was the neatest thing in the whole world," Greenspun says. "And then minutes later, or what seemed like minutes later, this pink cloud would come over and we would get sprinkled with dust. No one ever thought anything of it. Thirty, forty years later, we are the thyroid cancer capital of the world."
Greenspun also states his belief that Nevadans are being forced to accept the waste because of a lack of political clout.
"Congress started looking around and said ... 'Who has only two senators and one representative? ... And who lives in a place that is perceived, at least, to be nothing but desert and wasteland?' " he says.
Meanwhile, Reid asks: "How are you going to haul the most poisonous substance known to man ... though cities, towns, past farms, businesses, churches, schools, residences? This is the big secret that (Department of Transportation) has."
Abraham, however, maintains that the transportation of the nuclear waste, which will remain hazardous for 10,000 years, will be safe.
"I think there's a general understanding that we move hazardous materials in this country ... an understanding that federal government knows how to do it safely," he says.
This isn't the first time "60 Minutes" has broadcast a report on Yucca Mountain.
On Feb. 18, 1996, the show aired a piece reported by Morley Safer, titled "The $12 billion Piggy Bank."
Tedesco said the focus of that story was that billions had been spent on the Yucca Mountain project but no one was sure when, if or how it would be used.
"This is really not an update," he said.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
October 28, 2003
Letter: Yucca report on '60 Minutes' may wake up nation
Sunday's "60 Minutes" report about Yucca Mountain was balanced and accurate, giving viewers a snapshot look at this critical national issue.
Although it was reported that the Energy Department claims rail as the preferred mode of transportation, it is well known, at least in Nevada, that rail transportation is unlikely. It may take up to five years just for the permits and approvals needed; plus, about a third of the nation's existing reactor sites cannot ship directly by rail.
This means shipping by truck is probable by 2010, with 6 to 11 trucks a day for at least 24 years.
I'm quite sure that people in places like Chicago and Atlanta, which are in the direct path of the projected 53,000 truck shipments, were surprised to learn they are unwitting participants in the nuclear waste drama about to be played out in the Nevada desert.
Perhaps the rest of the country will wake up and support Nevada's continued opposition to this nightmare in the making.
Sharon Rorman
---------------------------
KLAS
October 27, 2003
Battle Over Yucca Mountain
Casey Roebuck, reporter
Yucca Mountain may have been in the national spot-light Sunday night, but it has been an issue for Nevadans for the past 20-years. Now that the opening date for the facility has been set for the year 2010, advocates on both sides of the issue are digging in their heels.
Mayor Oscar Goodman played a big role in the 60 Minutes expose about the dangers of Yucca Mountain. That appearance set off a strong reaction from viewers in Las Vegas.
"I've been out and about all day long to different places, schools, speeches and everybody is coming up and they are saying you're right on mayor," said Mayor Goodman.
Las Vegas Sun Editor Brian Greenspun also sounded off about his opposition to the project. Greenspun's office has also been inundated with calls and emails from viewers who appose the storage of nuclear waste just 90-miles northwest of Las Vegas.
If Yucca Mountain is granted it's license to operate, 77-thousand tons of radio-active nuclear waste will make it's way down highways and railways -- right through the heart of Las Vegas. That idea scares concerned residents like Trisha Zybrowski who feels the project was forced on Nevada. "They did not concern themselves with the transportation of that nuclear waste," said Zybrowski.
Although she's concerned, she and others fear the project will become a reality. So if Nevada residents must bear the burden they want to capitalize on the $60 billion project. "If they are going to shove it down our throats they better pay for it," continued Zybrowski.
Jay Campanili, another concerned citizen stated, "60-billion dollars is a lot of money for the state of Nevada to aquire. So it has it's ups and it's downs."
Goodman says there is no room for negotiatations. "There was a time when the conversation was -- They said let's see what we can get in exchange for it. And to me, that is a waiver of our position. And Idon't believe that it will ever come through Las Vegas.. Not as long I am the mayor, I can promise you that," Goodman stated.
Nevada has five lawsuits in the works to try and prevent Yucca Mountian from opening. Giving advocates like Bob Loux hope that it won't come to fruition. "I think it's shows like this that demonstrate it's not a done deal. I think the rest of the country does not think it's done deal," Loux told Eyewitness News.
The same view is not shared by former Nevada Governor Bob List. List said, "The political decision has been made." List says Yucca Mountian is going to happen. If our state must bear the burden, we should begin the process of negotiation so that we can profit from $60 billion project.
"It's an enormous amount of money that is being spent right here in Southern Nevada. So we ought to capitalize on the monitory end of it; on the payroll, on the purchasing, and the supplies.
Loux's counterpoint, "This is an idea that angers those still fighting the nuclear waste dump. "They produced a game plan in the 90s that said the way we win Yucca Mountain is to convince Nevada leaders that it's inevitable. By doing that try to get them to negoicate, which is code words for giving up."
List says it's not a matter of giving up. It's a matter of being realistic. "I think it's a serious mistake for the state of Nevada, or the elected officials to sit back and say we're going to win it and ignore the fact that we ought to be looking at the benefits," commented List.
Those still fighting the battle against Yucca Mountian say it's simply too soon to give up the fight. The Department of Energy must still conduct several studies before the Yucca Mountain Project can be granted a license to operate. Right now right nuclear waste is being stored at smaller facilities in 39 states across the United States.
If theYucca Mountain Project is granted a license to store nuclear waste, the DOE could start shipping waste here by the year 2010.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
WEEKEND EDITION Oct. 24 - 25, 2003
Editorial: Fatal flaws not halting Yucca push
The on-site areas that the nation's nuclear power plants use for storing their radioactive waste should be looking pretty good right now, even to people who have aggressively supported Yucca Mountain.
Adding to the already voluminous evidence that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable as a burial site was a letter circulated in Washington, D.C., last week by nuclear-waste specialists. In it, the specialists, who are members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, cited research showing that current burial plans will pose severe safety risks. This is because the casks in which the waste is to be sealed would inevitably corrode, according to laboratory experiments that replicated conditions inside the mountain. Corrosion could lead to contamination of the aquifer 1,000 feet underneath Yucca Mountain that sustains the Amargosa Valley, an agricultural region. It also could lead to the contamination of the air around Yucca Mountain, as no study has yet shown that the mountain alone could protect the outside environment from the waste's radiation.
In contrast, the on-site nuclear waste storage areas have been safe for decades and could remain safe for decades longer until such time as a safer alternative is found. But the Energy Department refuses to acknowledge that Yucca Mountain poses a problem for Nevada, the West and the whole country. It remains hell-bent on opening Yucca Mountain somewhere between 2010 and 2015. The CBS show "60 Minutes" will do a segment on this issue tonight at 7.
Nevada, of course, is fighting the opening with full support from most Las Vegas Valley residents. Our valley's 1.5 million residents live a scant 90 miles southwest of the mountain that sits on the western edge of the Energy Department's Nevada Test Site. Our proximity makes us acutely aware of Yucca Mountain's dangers. We hope as the state's fight progresses against this future threat to human safety that the rest of the country learns what we have learned and joins in the fight.
Here are just a few facts to consider:
The record shows that Yucca Mountain was selected for political reasons, not scientific reasons. Nevada's four electoral votes (now five) were considered expendable.
The location is all wrong. The area of Yucca Mountain is susceptible to earthquakes -- it's the third-most seismically active area in the country.
There are seven now-dormant volcanoes within 27 miles. What will happen if one of the volcanoes becomes active after tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste are buried there?
The skies over Yucca Mountain are used by pilots out of Nellis Air Force Base for training -- more than 20,000 missions using live ordnance are flown a year. God forbid, but a plane could crash into the tons of waste that will necessarily and forever be piled up outside the mountain, awaiting entombment.
And why build such a site so close to Las Vegas, the fastest-growing city in the country?
During a U.S. Senate hearing in Las Vegas this summer, a General Accounting Office representative testified that the Energy Department has been unsuccessful in addressing "recurring quality assurance problems" at Yucca Mountain.
Researchers with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission report that tunnels where the waste is to be buried are expected to degrade over time. No one has yet been able to answer what the effects of rock falls and dust will be on the casks or the waste inside.
Dozens of questions surround the safety of transporting the waste cross-country to Yucca Mountain. No matter what plan is proposed, there can never be a guarantee against accidents as the waste is moved through hundreds of cities and towns, through tunnels, and over highways, railroads and bridges. There can never be a guarantee against domestic or foreign terrorist attacks.
We cannot understand how the government, knowing these risks, can continue its steadfast push to open Yucca Mountain. The government should admit that burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would be a disaster and bring the project to an immediate halt.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------