Yucca Mountain News Clips - Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
May 25, 2005

Columnist Jeff German: Good news for Nevada from D.C.

Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4067.

Now that the "nuclear option" is dead in the U.S. Senate, Nevada can breathe easier in its fight to stop nuclear waste from coming to Yucca Mountain.

An 11th-hour agreement has averted a constitutional crisis over changing the Senate's filibuster rules during the debate over President Bush's judicial nominees.

Had the Senate weakened the minority party's right to filibuster (prolong debate) in this instance, there's no telling what impact it would have had on other debates in Congress, including the Yucca Mountain debate down the line.

In a statement released by e-mail Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described the historic compromise as a "significant victory for our country, for democracy and for all Americans."

Reid easily could have added "for all Nevadans," too, because we clearly are among the winners here.

"This is a major victory for us," said former Sen. Richard Bryan. "The filibuster has been our salvation in the fight against Yucca Mountain."

Bryan said that he and Reid were able to use the threat of a filibuster on several occasions over the years to hold the pro-Yucca Mountain forces at bay.

"Because the threat of a filibuster was present, they knew they had to get the required votes to stop it, and they would abandon their efforts," Bryan said.

Preserving the time-honored rules of the Senate, it seems, has kept us in the Yucca Mountain fight on Capitol Hill.

"In a small state like Nevada, where you don't have many permanent friends on Capitol Hill, the rules are everything," one congressional insider says.

There are no guarantees that power-hungry ideologues won't look to undermine the filibuster -- and the checks and balances it brings to Congress -- in the future.

But that shouldn't stop us from feeling like winners today.

Lt Gov. Lorraine Hunt should know by now where she stands with the Bush administration -- about as far away as possible.

Two months have passed and the underdog Republican candidate for governor has yet to receive a response to the letter she sent President Bush urging him to re-evaluate his decision to recommend Yucca Mountain.

That's too bad because Hunt is the only top Nevada Republican with the backbone these days to take the fight against the nuclear waste dump directly to the Republican president.

According to her aides, Hunt hasn't even gotten an acknowledgement of receipt of her March 23 letter.

Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Democrat, got such an acknowledgment on May 2 in response to her April 19 correspondence asking Bush to halt the Yucca Mountain licensing process amid allegations that scientific evidence was rigged.

A White House aide told Berkley in the canned response that her letter was being shared with the president's advisors "for their careful review."

I'll bet they're carefully reviewing the quickest way to file it in the trash can.

But Hunt, who polls show is trailing Rep. Jim Gibbons (a Bush apologist) in the Republican primary for governor, can't even get a formal brush-off from White House.

Her aides, however, say the ever-optimistic lieutenant governor is still hoping for some kind of response.

And I'm still waiting for my Megabucks check to arrive in the mail.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 25, 2005

House OKs stopgap storage

Interim sites sought for nuclear waste

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The House voted Tuesday to start storing nuclear waste at federal government sites as a stopgap while work continues on a Yucca Mountain repository.

Lawmakers also supported accelerated research into nuclear fuel recycling, technology that scientists have said could wring more energy from reprocessed nuclear waste while reducing the volume and radioactivity of waste that would be buried in Nevada.

The new directions for nuclear waste were outlined in a $29.7 billion spending bill for the Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The bill passed 416-13 and goes to the Senate.

"It is time to rethink our approach to spent fuel," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, the energy and water subcommittee chairman and author of the measure.

"We already are storing foreign reactor fuel at DOE sites, and its time to think we do the same thing for domestic fuel."

Hobson said nuclear waste needs to be moved away from power plants, where it is costing the government $1 billion a year in legal liabilities and project delays.

Yucca Mountain, which the House bill fully funded at $661 million, would remain a cornerstone of the waste disposal strategy.

The bill directs Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to identify interim waste storage sites four months after the bill becomes law and to start moving spent fuel from nuclear utilities to one or more locations by the end of 2006.

The bill identified nuclear sites in South Carolina, Washington state and Idaho as among potential hosts.

The Energy Department has been lukewarm to the idea, and some officials in the nuclear industry fear it could distract attention from completing the Yucca project, which has been delayed.

Lawmakers said the vote marked the first time the House has supported storing nuclear waste anywhere other than Nevada.

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., voted to store nuclear waste at interim sites, while Reps. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., voted against the proposal.

Porter said a push for interim storage outside Nevada will compel lawmakers to consider alternatives to Yucca Mountain. "It is a start in forcing members to understand there needs to be other solutions," he said.

Berkley said she opposes transporting nuclear waste anywhere from reactors where it is stored.

Gibbons had the same position, his spokeswoman said.

Berkley said the proposal to set up interim nuclear waste site is going nowhere. She said it would provoke strong opposition from any targeted state, just as Yucca Mountain has done in Nevada.

"I predict within three years, this ridiculous notion will be dead," Berkley said. "Nobody will go for it."

Lawmakers from potential storage areas were quick to declare their states off-limits.

Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, said a 1995 pact between the Energy Department and the state prevents storage of commercial nuclear waste at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., questioned whether law permits the Energy Department to develop stopgap sites for nuclear waste. The Savannah River site in South Carolina handles nuclear programs and could be a destination.

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said the government's nuclear site at Hanford is in the midst of a cleanup.

"It's the last place you'd want to send more nuclear waste," he said.

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

New York Times
May 25, 2005

House Votes for Interim Nuclear Waste Sites

WASHINGTON, May 24 (AP) - The House voted on Tuesday to begin temporary storage of commercial nuclear waste at one or more federal facilities, fearing further delays in a proposed repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The directive was included in a $29.7 billion measure financing the Energy Department. It came over the objections of lawmakers from Washington and South Carolina, two states where the waste from commercial power reactors may be sent.

An attempt by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to strip the bill of $10 million for the interim storage program failed in a vote of 312 to 110. The House passed the spending measure Tuesday night by a 416-to-13 vote.

The legislation leaves it up to the Energy Department to select one or more sites, though a report accompanying the bill suggested the department's Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington State, a facility in Idaho and closed military bases as possible sites.

The interim storage proposal comes amid concerns about delays in opening the proposed Yucca Mountain Project in Nevada. Last year a federal court questioned its proposals for protecting the public from radiation leaks. More recently, concerns surfaced over accusations that government workers on the project falsified data.

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

New York Times
May 24, 2005

Roll Call on Nuclear Waste Bill

Associated Press

The 312-110 roll call Tuesday by which the House voted for temporary storage of commercial nuclear waste at one or more federal facilities. A ''no'' vote was a vote against an amendment that would removed the provision from the spending bill.

Voting ''yes'' were 108 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent.

Voting ''no'' were 89 Democrats, 223 Republicans and no Independents.

''X'' denotes those not voting.

ALABAMA

Democrats -- Cramer, N; Davis, N.

Republicans -- Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Everett, N; Rogers, N.

ALASKA

Republicans -- Young, X.

ARIZONA

Democrats -- Grijalva, Y; Pastor, N.

Republicans -- Flake, N; Franks, N; Hayworth, N; Kolbe, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats -- Berry, N; Ross, N; Snyder, N.

Republicans -- Boozman, N.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats -- Baca, N; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, N; Costa, N; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lantos, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, N; Millender-McDonald, X; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; SAnchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Solis, Y; Stark, Y; Tauscher, N; Thompson, Y; Waters, N; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.

Republicans -- Bono, N; Calvert, N; Cox, N; Cunningham, N; Doolittle, N; Dreier, N; Gallegly, N; Herger, N; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, N; Lungren, Daniel E., N; McKeon, N; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Pombo, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N; Thomas, N.

COLORADO

Democrats -- DeGette, Y; Salazar, N; Udall, Y.

Republicans -- Beauprez, N; Hefley, N; Musgrave, N; Tancredo, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats -- DeLauro, Y; Larson, Y.

Republicans -- Johnson, N; Shays, N; Simmons, N.

DELAWARE

Republicans -- Castle, N.

FLORIDA

Democrats -- Boyd, N; Brown, Corrine, Y; Davis, N; Hastings, Y; Meek, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wexler, Y.

Republicans -- Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Feeney, N; Foley, N; Harris, N; Keller, N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Putnam, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Shaw, N; Stearns, N; Weldon, N; Young, N.

GEORGIA

Democrats -- Barrow, Y; Bishop, N; Lewis, Y; Marshall, N; McKinney, Y; Scott, N.

Republicans -- Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Norwood, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.

HAWAII

Democrats -- Abercrombie, Y; Case, N.

IDAHO

Republicans -- Otter, N; Simpson, N.

ILLINOIS

Democrats -- Bean, X; Costello, N; Davis, N; Emanuel, N; Evans, Y; Gutierrez, N; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, Y; Rush, N; Schakowsky, Y.

Republicans -- Biggert, N; Hastert, X; Hyde, N; Johnson, N; Kirk, N; LaHood, N; Manzullo, N; Shimkus, N; Weller, N.

INDIANA

Democrats -- Carson, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans -- Burton, N; Buyer, N; Chocola, N; Hostettler, N; Pence, X; Sodrel, N; Souder, N.

IOWA

Democrats -- Boswell, Y.

Republicans -- King, N; Latham, N; Leach, N; Nussle, N.

KANSAS

Democrats -- Moore, N.

Republicans -- Moran, N; Ryun, N; Tiahrt, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats -- Chandler, Y.

Republicans -- Davis, N; Lewis, N; Northup, N; Rogers, N; Whitfield, N.

LOUISIANA

Democrats -- Jefferson, N; Melancon, N.

Republicans -- Alexander, N; Baker, N; Boustany, N; Jindal, N; McCrery, X.

MAINE

Democrats -- Allen, X; Michaud, Y.

MARYLAND

Democrats -- Cardin, N; Cummings, N; Hoyer, N; Ruppersberger, N; Van Hollen, Y; Wynn, N.

Republicans -- Bartlett, N; Gilchrest, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats -- Capuano, Y; Delahunt, Y; Frank, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Meehan, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats -- Conyers, Y; Dingell, N; Kildee, N; Kilpatrick, N; Levin, N; Stupak, N.

Republicans -- Camp, N; Ehlers, N; Hoekstra, N; Knollenberg, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Schwarz, N; Upton, N.

MINNESOTA

Democrats -- McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, N; Sabo, Y.

Republicans -- Gutknecht, N; Kennedy, N; Kline, N; Ramstad, N.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats -- Taylor, N; Thompson, N.

Republicans -- Pickering, X; Wicker, N.

MISSOURI

Democrats -- Carnahan, N; Clay, Y; Cleaver, N; Skelton, N.

Republicans -- Akin, N; Blunt, N; Emerson, N; Graves, N; Hulshof, N.

MONTANA

Republicans -- Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans -- Fortenberry, N; Osborne, N; Terry, N.

NEVADA

Democrats -- Berkley, Y.

Republicans -- Gibbons, Y; Porter, N.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republicans -- Bass, N; Bradley, N.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats -- Andrews, N; Holt, Y; Menendez, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, N; Payne, Y; Rothman, N.

Republicans -- Ferguson, N; Frelinghuysen, N; Garrett, N; LoBiondo, N; Saxton, N; Smith, N.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats -- Udall, Y.

Republicans -- Pearce, N; Wilson, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats -- Ackerman, Y; Bishop, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, N; Higgins, N; Hinchey, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, N; McNulty, Y; Meeks, N; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Towns, N; VelAzquez, Y; Weiner, Y.

Republicans -- Boehlert, N; Fossella, N; Kelly, N; King, N; Kuhl, N; McHugh, N; Reynolds, N; Sweeney, N; Walsh, N.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats -- Butterfield, N; Etheridge, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, N; Watt, N.

Republicans -- Coble, N; Foxx, N; Hayes, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N; Taylor, N.

NORTH DAKOTA

Democrats -- Pomeroy, N.

OHIO

Democrats -- Brown, Y; Jones, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, Y; Ryan, Y; Strickland, N.

Republicans -- Boehner, N; Chabot, N; Gillmor, N; Hobson, N; LaTourette, N; Ney, N; Oxley, N; Pryce, N; Regula, N; Tiberi, N; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats -- Boren, N.

Republicans -- Cole, N; Istook, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.

OREGON

Democrats -- Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, Y; Hooley, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans -- Walden, N.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats -- Brady, N; Doyle, N; Fattah, N; Holden, N; Kanjorski, N; Murtha, N; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans -- Dent, N; English, N; Fitzpatrick, N; Gerlach, N; Hart, N; Murphy, N; Peterson, N; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Sherwood, N; Shuster, N; Weldon, N.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats -- Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats -- Clyburn, N; Spratt, Y.

Republicans -- Barrett, N; Brown, N; Inglis, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Democrats -- Herseth, N.

TENNESSEE

Democrats -- Cooper, Y; Davis, N; Ford, Y; Gordon, N; Tanner, N.

Republicans -- Blackburn, N; Duncan, N; Jenkins, N; Wamp, X.

TEXAS

Democrats -- Cuellar, N; Doggett, X; Edwards, N; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, N; Hinojosa, N; Jackson-Lee, N; Johnson, E. B., Y; Ortiz, N; Reyes, N.

Republicans -- Barton, N; Bonilla, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; DeLay, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.

UTAH

Democrats -- Matheson, Y.

Republicans -- Bishop, N; Cannon, N.

VERMONT

Independent -- Sanders, Y.

VIRGINIA

Democrats -- Boucher, N; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans -- Cantor, N; Davis, Jo Ann, N; Davis, Tom, N; Drake, N; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, N; Wolf, N.

WASHINGTON

Democrats -- Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, Y; Smith, Y.

Republicans -- Hastings, X; McMorris, N; Reichert, N.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats -- Mollohan, N; Rahall, Y.

Republicans -- Capito, N.

WISCONSIN

Democrats -- Baldwin, Y; Kind, N; Moore, X; Obey, Y.

Republicans -- Green, N; Petri, N; Ryan, N; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING

Republicans -- Cubin, N.

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

Guardian
May 25, 2005

House Votes for Temporary Nuclear Storage

Andrew Taylor

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted Tuesday to begin temporary storage of commercial nuclear waste at one or more federal facilities, fearing further delays in a proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

The directive was included in a $29.7 billion measure funding the Energy Department and came over the objections of lawmakers from Washington and South Carolina, two states where the waste from commercial power reactors might be located.

An attempt by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to strip the bill of $10 million for the interim storage program failed 312-110. The House passed the spending measure Tuesday night by a 416-13 vote.

While the legislation leaves it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested the Energy Department's Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and a facility in Idaho as possible locations. It also said the department should consider other federal sites, including closed defense bases for temporary storage.

It calls on the energy secretary to produce a plan for interim storage four months after the bill becomes law and begin accepting waste before the end of next year. The legislation must still be considered by Senate.

Washington and South Carolina lawmakers said that if their states are targeted, they feared the interim facilities could end up as permanent waste repositories. They worried that establishing interim waste dumps might reduce pressure to open Yucca Mountain.

``The state of Washington does not want to become ... a nuclear waste dump more than we are already,'' said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. ``Interim, in geologic time, could mean several lifetimes.''

The interim storage proposal comes as concerns continue about delays in opening the proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Last year a federal court questioned its proposed radiation protection plans. More recently concerns surfaced over allegations that government workers on the project falsified data.

The bill provides $661 million for continued development of the Yucca facility, which must still get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the Appropriations energy subcommittee, said that he strongly supports development of the Yucca facility but that interim storage is needed because of the delays. He said the government faces an estimated $500 million in additional liability costs for every year the government fails to accept waste. By law, the Energy Department was supposed to begin taking commercial used reactor fuel in 1998.

More than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste is now kept at reactors in 31 states.

The spending bill also contains $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, most of it devoted to waterways, dams and flood control projects. That is $414 million more than requested by President Bush but $294 million less than current funding.

The House approved less money than the Bush administration had wanted for maintaining the country's nuclear weapons. The White House said the $450 million cut from its request for the nuclear weapons program threatens the ability to ensure the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile without underground testing. Lawmakers added the $450 million to the president's $6 billion request for environmental cleanup at heavily polluted sites used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.

The bill calls for spending $62 million for oil and gas research, programs the administration had wanted phased out, arguing that the highly profitable industry already ``has the financial incentives and resources'' to develop new technologies without taxpayer subsidies.

Separately, a House Appropriations subcommittee approved by voice vote a bill to fully fund Bush's request for NASA, while cutting law enforcement grants to state and local governments and in the State Department's budget. The trade-offs came in a $57.5 billion measure for NASA and the Commerce, Justice and State departments.

The subcommittee's treatment of NASA, approving Bush's full $16.5 billion request, contrasts with last year's budget cycle when a bill containing the agency's funding slashed Bush's request by 7 percent, or more than $1 billion.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, whose district is home to the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, refused to bring that bill to the floor and forced negotiators to restore the cuts when assembling a $388 billion catchall spending bill last November.

The measure approved by the subcommittee on Tuesday would cut crime-fighting grants to state and local governments by $400 million from current levels. The panel also would cut $273 million from Bush's request for the State Department but boost FBI spending by 10 percent over this year.

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

KLAS-TV
May 24, 2005

House Debates $29.7 Billion DOE Funding Bill

The House started debate Tuesday on a $29.7 billion funding bill for the Department of Energy.The energy and water projects bill would provide $661 million to continue development of the nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain.

Because of the delays in the project, the House added $10 million for developing sites to hold the waste while waiting for Yucca Mountain to be finished.

Nevada lawmakers are working to stop the project. Representive Jim Gibbons said going forward with Yucca Mountain is like using 8-track tapes in the era of iPods.

The delays are largely caused by accusations of falsified science.

The project is scheduled to be finished in 2012.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
May 25, 2005

Beatty could go from mining gold to wind

Area Near Barrick Bullfrog Mine could be Used as Wind, Solar Energy 'Farm' Operation

By Phillip Gomez
PVT

In the summer of 1904, the story goes, Frank "Shorty" Harris - the archetype of the "single-blanket jackass prospector" - gabby, barely 5-foot-four with a bushy mustache and inured to chasing rainbows from Coeur d'Alene to Tombstone, with his partner Ed Cross, a sober newlywed, found an unusual piece of rock in the desert west of Beatty's ranch. It was about the size and dark greenish color of a bullfrog.

According to Richard E. Lingenfelter's account in "Death Valley & The Amargosa: A Land of Illusion," (University of California Press, 1986), Shorty was skeptical at first, but then as he examined the ore specimen, "his cheeks flushed with excitement and he finally let out a war whoop, jumped up and shouted: 'Hellfire, Eddie, we've struck the richest jackpot this side of the Klondike!'"

In no time at all, word of the Bullfrog strike had spread to Tonopah and Goldfield and the stampede was on. The Bullfrog Mining District came into being within a few weeks. Lingenfelter says that some miners sought the aid of a psychic, like the California faith healer who claimed in her visions that ore was to be found deep under ground.

The city of Rhyolite, a modern metropolis of 10,000 in the first decade of the 20th century, but now lying in ruins west of Beatty, became the most enduring legacy of the Bullfrog mining frenzy.

One of the penultimate chapters in Southern Nevada's rich mining history concluded in the late 1990s when Barrick Bullfrog Inc. shut down gold-mining operations it had been engaged in for a decade. True to the faith healer's prophecy, the deep-seated Bullfrog Mine had yielded $910 million in gold over the course of its 10-year lifespan.

But that may not be the Bullfrog's final croak.

Barrick Corp., the parent of Barrick Bullfrog, intends to transfer 81 acres of its former mining property to the Beatty Economic Development Corporation, a 501(C)3 non-profit. Additionally, 10,000 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management surrounds the property, which the redevelopment corporation wants to lease.

But instead of underground mining, the redevelopment plan calls for mining the skies with its ever-renewable golden rays and gusty zephyrs. The site, located in a narrow band of Nye County well documented as receiving the highest level of solar radiation in the country, has been proposed as a wind and solar farm, a demonstration project for "green energy."

"It's really a wonderful opportunity for Beatty," says Nye County Commissioner Joni Eastley. "They have the chance to be at the forefront of green energy development." Eastley is team leader for the county's Brownfields grant projects, a reclamation initiative sponsored by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Beatty's old Bullfrog mine was selected by the EPA as one of only six in the nation for a pilot project for reclamation under the agency's Mine-Scarred Lands program.

Dr. James Marble, Nye County's director of the office of natural resources, presented his "Mine-Scarred Lands Initiative" slideshow to Beatty residents on May 12, and to Pahrump residents on May 16.

Beatty boosters are completing an alternative energy feasibility study and exploring possibilities for diversifying their economy in sustainable ways and through a number of other initiatives.

But it's the green energy approach that holds the most promise. Continuing dialog with the BLM over leasing public lands for setting up arrays of solar generating reflectors has become integral to the town's re-use plan for the Bullfrog, an area approximately 180 acres in size.

The sun shines on Beatty more than 300 days of the year and the wild desert wind is constant. That makes it predictable, and promoters say bankable. They believe that, with support, they could have another gold mine on their hands - sunshine suitable for conversion to local energy use. As well, the sunbeams could be exported as alternative electric energy. But the question remains whether solar and wind energy can be produced on a scale sufficient to allow export to outside markets.

What would Shorty do? Well, he'd probably celebrate his good fortune in a saloon, which is what he did with his share of newly found wealth. When he woke up from a drunken stupor six days later, he found he had signed away his half-claim for a paltry $1,000.

Beatty solar supporters don't intend to celebrate too early. But they know that history is on their side. With extractive fossil fuel industries all around in decline, (as indicated by soaring gasoline and natural gas prices), government and industry will be looking to cheaper sources of energy in coming years.

Already, Nevada supports alternative energy development with a tax exemption and energy legislation calling for 15 percent of total electricity production to be renewable by 2013. Nevada universities earmark $4 million per year to alternative energy research. The Nevada Energy Office is exploring wind energy production in the area.

The federal Department of Energy, already a major presence in Nevada with the Yucca Mountain project and Nevada Test Site, provides analyses of the state's solar and wind resources. And, importantly, the BLM has recently issued directives to its field offices on the potential for solar and wind energy development on public lands.

Visions of alternative energy in Beatty have been around for a number of years. In 1999, a number of solar and wind energy companies sent representatives to the town to assess the potential for re-use of the Bullfrog Mine. They found transmission capacity available in existing substations and transformers capable of being reconfigured to send electric energy out to the nationwide grid.

In early 2000, Bomin Solar Research published a report entitled "Implementation of a Pilot and Demonstration Project in the Amargosa Valley, Nevada." The study explored alternative energy production in the area.

Promoters plan to continue to collaborate with federal and state agencies involved already with alternative energy. A development plan would draw upon previous efforts to analyze Beatty's optimal energy development, the costs and potential revenue streams available. Analysts would determine the feasibility of electrical interconnection and transmission to the utility grid.

The servicing utility for the area, Valley Electric Association, would have to agree to take on the project. Alternative organizational structures, such as private producers or the creation of a new energy cooperative, are also being contemplated.

Production of alternative energy would just be the start of Beatty's revitalization. Boosters envision their alternative goldmine attracting businesses and industry to the town - just as the original Bullfrog blossomed into a mining district with scores of makeshift towns and claims.

With its plentiful water supply, its untapped tourism potential as the gateway to Death Valley National Park and historic Rhyolite, with its electrical infrastructure linkage via federal energy rights-of-way - running just west of the Bullfrog Mine to Washington State - Beatty promoters feel poised to become the alternative energy showcase of the nation.

At least that's what the sunny optimists are saying. In that they're in good, if crusty, company, they're following in the beaten path and spirit of Nevada's single-blanket jackass prospectors.

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

Washington Post
May 25, 2005

House Votes for Temporary Nuclear Storage

By H. Josef Hebert
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Fearing more delays in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada, the House wants the Energy Department to establish temporary storage for commercial reactor waste at one or more federal sites around the country.

The directive was included as part of a $29.7 billion spending bill that passed the House late Tuesday. It still awaits Senate action.

The measure also provides $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, mostly for water and dam projects, and money for maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile and other Energy Department programs.

The spending bill calls on the Energy Department to produce a plan for aboveground storage for spent reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants within four months at one or more federal sites, and to begin accepting waste by October 2006. It provides $10 million for the program with a stipulation that more can be requested if needed.

It also calls for the department to step up its research into new technologies to reprocess used reactor fuel to reduce the amount of disposable waste. Nuclear nonproliferation advocates have criticized reactor waste recycling. Fuel reprocessing was abandoned by the nuclear industry in this country in the 1970s because of nuclear proliferation concerns.

"The proliferation risks from reprocessing are too great" to revive it, argued Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., whose attempt to remove the interim storage and reprocessing provisions from the bill failed 312-110.

Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations energy subcommittee, said that while he strongly supports building the Yucca facility for long-term burial of the reactor waste, temporary storage is needed because the Yucca project is now projected to not be finished until 2012 and could be delayed further. It still needs a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license.

He said temporary storage could head off hundreds of millions of dollars in damages the government faces for every year of delay in taking the waste. Courts have ruled that the government was contractually obligated to provide for long-term disposal of commercial used reactor fuel and should have begun taking the waste in 1998.

There are 60 lawsuits pending by utilities over the waste disposal issue. More than 54,000 tons of the highly radioactive waste is being kept at commercial power plants in 31 states, with the amount growing every year.

While the legislation leaves it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested a wide range of potential facilities from DOE weapons complex sites to closed military bases. Among the sites mentioned were the department's Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and the Idaho National Laboratory.

Some lawmakers worried that temporary storage could become permanent.

Markey in a letter to other lawmakers said the interim storage proposal threatens to create "new regional nuclear waste dumps around the country."

"Interim, in geologic time, could mean several lifetimes," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. "Radioactive waste ... is like the pyramids of Egypt. It tends to stay around for a long time."

Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said he was worried that if the government establishes temporary sites for the waste it will siphon money from the Yucca Mountain program and take away the urgency of getting the underground repository approved and built in the Nevada desert. For just that reason Congress rejected interim storage in 1990, he said.

But Hobson noted the spending measure provides $661 million, more than the administration had sought, for the Yucca program for the fiscal year beginning in October. "We are not intending ... to divert or diminish attention from Yucca Mountain," he said.

Still, the nuclear industry has never embraced interim storage unless the site was near the proposed Yucca facility, fearing it would reduce the incentive to push ahead with the Yucca repository, a deep geological burial site along a ridge of volcanic rock 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

President Bush gave approval to the Yucca project in 2002 and Congress quickly endorsed it, overriding strong Nevada objections. But a string of recent setbacks has put the Yucca program in doubt.

A federal appeals court rejected the proposed radiation protection plans for the Yucca facility, and funding problems last year caused delays in developing a plan for transporting the waste and applying for an NRC license. Recently, documents surfaced that alleged that government workers on the project falsified data.

___On the Net:

Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

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

Nuclear Engineering
May 25, 2005

Interim storage plan faces opposition

An upcoming Energy Department funding bill for the $29.75 billion fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations budget is set for a fierce debate over nuclear waste provisions.

The bill would require the Department of Energy (DoE) to temporarily store commercial SNF and would provide $10 million for the purpose in the face of delays at the Yucca Mountain repository. The bill also includes $5.5 million for launching a spent fuel reprocessing initiative.

Opponents of the bill argue that the reprocessing plan undercuts non-proliferation policy and that temporary storage would create new regional nuclear waste sites.

Controversially, the interim storage provisions may strengthen the case for the planned Private Fuel Storage (PFS) site in the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah. The bill´s language calls for the use of DoE sites, but allows that if this is not possible other federal sites, closed military bases or non-federal fuel storage could be considered.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board recently ruled in favour of the PFS site, saying that the likelihood of an F16 jet crash causing radiological release was sufficiently remote. This follows objections from the state of Utah to the site.

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

Guardian
May 25, 2005

Federal Board Rejects Utah's Nuke Appeal

Chris Clark
Associated Press Writer

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A federal licensing board on Tuesday rejected Utah's appeal to thwart the stockpiling of spent nuclear fuel rods at an American Indian reservation.

The state had argued in April that radiation could escape from waste casks if an outer protective shield was breached, even if the interior canister holding the fuel rods remained fully intact.

But lawyers for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Utah's argument was too late and lacked scientific merit, advising the three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to reject it.

Although turning aside the state's argument, the board suggested the NRC study whether radioactive waste could leak from a cask that was damaged but not breached.

The ruling clears the way for the NRC to approve the project, which would create a temporary waste dump for spent rods on the reservation pending the opening of a national repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. It was not immediately clear when the commission would issue its final decision.

The Goshute Indian tribe has sought the waste station at its reservation in Skull Valley, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, hoping to earn as much as $3 million. The tribe is teaming with Private Fuel Storage to build the station, which would store more than 40,000 tons of nuclear waste.

The state had previously argued that the proposed waste station's proximity to an Air Force base increased the risk of a fighter jet crashing into the spent fuel rods. The licensing board dismissed that scenario as unlikely.

The state also contended that rods could end up permanently in Utah because the Energy Department isn't obligated to transport them to Nevada, but the board rejected that argument in February.

Gov. Jon Huntsman's legal counsel, Mike Lee, said the governor was disappointed with Tuesday's ruling but ``remains firm in his resolve to fight this battle at every possible front.''

He said the state is pursuing various options, including appeals in the courts and with the NRC, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the company was pleased the process was moving forward.

``All of these challenges and the additional hearings and things like that that have gone on for the last eight years is evidence of how rigorous this process is,'' she said.

The issue has wound its way through the courts since Skull Valley Band Tribal Chairman Leon Bear signed a lease in 1997 allowing PFS to store the fuel on Goshute land.

The planned underground nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain has also endured a string of problems. The Energy Department recently abandoned a 2010 completion date and did not set a new one.

---On the Net:

Licensing board: http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html

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

Deseret News
May 25, 2005

Another blow in fight to keep out nuclear waste

By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News

Next stop: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Utah lost its bid Tuesday to have an NRC board overturn its earlier decision that favored licensing the Private Fuel Storage nuclear waste storage facility proposed for Skull Valley. The next appeal apparently will be before the full NRC.

Mike Lee, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s general counsel on the issue, said Huntsman was disappointed by the development. "Nevertheless, the governor's really firm in his resolve to keep high-level nuclear waste out of Utah," he said.

"The state is going to use all of its resources at its disposal to keep any quantity of spent nuclear fuel from entering the state's borders."

"Disappointing but probably expected," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

The decision by the commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board bolsters the board's ruling of three months ago. The board held that a crash of an Air Force F-16 is so unlikely that the plant can be built.

The PFS facility, planned for land owned by the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indian Tribe, would be about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The site is in a corridor that F-16s from Hill Air Force Base take toward the Utah Test and Training Range.

Two main issues were decided on Tuesday. The first was the state's claim that the board had not considered the possibility of a crash that didn't breach the protective container holding nuclear fuel but weakened it so that it might later leak radiation.

The second was an allegation that the the board was wrong in two matters it did consider: determining the strength of a cask to withstand crashes, and the likelihood of certain kinds of F-16 crashes.

The state lost on both categories. The board ruled that the state had not brought up the argument on non-breaching damage and asked the NRC to check into it. It also decided against the state on the second subject.

But Peter S. Lam, one of the three board members, refused to endorse the finding on the second subject, saying the board did not significantly alter its rationale in the Feb. 24 ruling on those matters. At that time, he issued a dissenting opinion.

A silver lining in the latest ruling is that the board agreed with the state that modified casks, with greater safeguards, will be needed. "Any other design and conditions are not covered by our decision," it noted.

Lee said this refers to custom-engineered casks that have not yet been engineered.

Meanwhile, he said, canisters inside the storage cask would not be accepted at the proposed Yucca Mountain permanent fuel repository in Nevada.

Unless there is some evidence that the material could be transferred to Nevada, "the whole idea of this being an interim storage site is a farce, is a ruse," Lee said.

Arguments decided in the latest appeal were largely technical, involving questions such as whether a glancing blow at the top of a cask from a crashing F-16 could smash with sufficient force into an adjacent cask to cause damage to its side. The board said it could not.

Another issue was whether enough F-16 crashes had been analyzed to calculate the likelihood of such an accident at the site. The board said there's no reason to think recalculating such factors would change the remote likelihood of such an accident.

Lee said the NRC licensing board is not the end of the line for Utah's opposition. "We're fighting this battle on various fronts." These include:

• Appealing to the whole NRC. "We've got 15 days to file a petition for review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion," Lee said.

• Opposing the plant siting before the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA approval is needed before any such action can take place on an Indian reservation.

• Asking the Bureau of Land Management not to authorize the railroad spur across BLM land that would be required to haul casks from the Union Pacific main line to Skull Valley.

The state also is appealing federal court rulings against a Utah law that would have given state regulators more authority over PFS. A petition is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which may decide whether to accept the challenge by the end of next month.

"We're going to fight this at every step," Lee said.

Bishop said the licensing board and the NRC deal with technical issues, not policy issues. An example of a policy issue is that "it is not very smart to build a nuclear waste dump next to a bombing range," he said.

"What we are talking about is airspace, and by definition the NRC doesn't deal with that."

Bishop does not have much hope that the NRC will listen to Lam.

"If the NRC was going to make the right policy decision, it would have done it already. If they surprise me, I will be happy. But I am not counting on them to be part of our strategy" to block PFS, Bishop said.

Contributing: Jerry Spangler
E-mail: bau@desnews.com

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

Deseret News
May 25, 2005

House OKs a study of nuclear sites

Bishop is hopeful clarification keeps waste out of Utah

By Andrew Taylor
Associated Press

and Jerry Spangler
Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — The House voted Tuesday night to begin temporary storage of commercial nuclear waste at one or more federal facilities — none in Utah — fearing further delays in the proposed but long-delayed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

An attempt by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to strip the bill of $10 million for the interim storage program failed 312-110. The House passed the spending measure by a 416-13 vote. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, voted against the measure; Reps. Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon, both R-Utah, voted for it. The legislation must still be considered by Senate.

The House bill also provides $661 million for continued development of the Yucca facility, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which must still get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

It calls on the energy secretary to produce a plan for interim storage four months after the bill becomes law and begin accepting waste before the end of next year.

Earlier Tuesday, the chairman of a House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, in response to concerns expressed by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, insisted that language inserted in the Yucca Mountain funding package is not intended to open the door for interim storage of nuclear waste on Goshute tribal lands in Utah — even if the wording makes it appear so.

"I do not see any reason for the secretary (of energy) to consider making a private site or a site on tribal land into a DOE site for interim storage," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. "My intent is for the secretary to evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites."

Hobson's disclaimer came Tuesday in response to concerns expressed by Bishop, who sought the chairman's assurances on the record in the event the Department of Energy decides to utilize a private site similar to the one proposed by Private Fuel Storage in Tooele County's Skull Valley.

"The fact he said it on the record gives me a whole lot of comfort," Bishop told the Deseret Morning News. "Having him clarify his intent is powerful if push ever comes to shove."

As has been often the case in the Utah's nuclear storage debates, Washington and South Carolina lawmakers said Tuesday that if their states are targeted, they fear the interim facilities could end up as permanent waste repositories. They are concerned that establishing interim waste dumps might reduce pressure to open Yucca Mountain — which is opposed by many in Nevada.

"The state of Washington does not want to become . . . a nuclear waste dump more than we are already," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. "Interim, in geologic time, could mean several lifetimes."

The interim storage proposal comes as concerns continue about delays in opening the Yucca Mountain project. Last year a federal court questioned its proposed radiation protection plans. More recently concerns surfaced over allegations that government workers on the project falsified data.

Hobson, chairman of the Appropriations energy subcommittee, said that he strongly supports development of the Yucca facility but that interim storage is needed because of the delays. He said the government faces an estimated $500 million in additional liability costs for every year the government fails to accept waste. By law, the Energy Department was supposed to begin taking commercial used reactor fuel in 1998.

More than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste are now kept at reactors in 31 states.

Of concern to Utahns in the spending bill was language in the nonbinding committee report that states, "Should these or other DOE sites prove impractical, the department should investigate other alternatives for centralized interim storage, including other federally owned sites, closed military bases and non-federal storage facilities."

The only non-federal storage facility currently in the licensing process is the PFS Skull Valley proposal, which won a major victory Tuesday when the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected the state's appeal of an earlier decision to recommend that PFS be granted a license.

If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants the PFS license — and the Utah congressional delegation seems resigned that it will — the PFS facility could be operational by the deadline specified in the appropriations bill debated Tuesday on the House floor.

And just as Utah, Washington and South Carolina are temporary storage proposals, Nevadans are fighting Yucca Mountain. And in many respects, the Utah and Nevada projects are tied at the hip: The Utah site is seen as temporary storage until Yucca is up and running, and as a transitional site after Yucca is at capacity.

The earliest that Yucca Mountain could open is 2012, even though the government was bound by contract with the nuclear power industry to have a site up and running by 1998. Failure to have a permanent storage site put the government at legal risk — a risk that Hobson said could cost taxpayers $1 billion a year.

The House spending bill also contains $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, most of it devoted to waterways, dams and flood control projects. That is $414 million more than requested by President Bush but $294 million less than current funding.

The bill calls for spending $62 million for oil and gas research, programs the administration had wanted phased out, arguing that the highly profitable industry already "has the financial incentives and resources" to develop new technologies without taxpayer subsidies.

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

Salt Lake Tribune
May 25, 2005

Agency rejects latest appeal of Skull Valley nuke storage

Safety board: A consortium could be a step closer to building the facility, but other avenues are available to the state

By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on Tuesday rejected Utah's latest appeal seeking to prevent Private Fuel Storage's plans to store 44,000 tons of nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation.

The board's decision means PFS is inching closer to getting its license to build an interim spent fuel-rod storage site 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. PFS officials have said they could be operating by 2007.

The state still has other avenues of administrative appeal, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has yet to sign off on the deal.

The state also is asking the Interior Department to throw out the Skull Valley Band's contract with PFS, and to deny PFS a right-of-way for a rail line to the reservation to move the waste. Another angle of attack is U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop's proposal in a Defense Department bill that would create a wilderness area to block the rail line.

Should PFS continue to prevail with the federal agencies, Utah can take the issue to a federal appeals court, said assistant Utah Attorney General Denise Chancellor.

Reaching that point "could be a month, it could be four months" she said.

Nevertheless, PFS views the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's decision as a victory.

“We're very pleased that the process is moving forward,’ said Sue Martin, spokeswoman for PFS, the group of electric companies proposing the facility. “It has been moving forward. It's just been at a glacial pace.’

The state had asked the licensing board to reverse a Feb. 24 ruling in favor of PFS, arguing that the board underestimated the risk and consequences of an F-16 fighter jet smashing into the waste dump while training at the nearby Air Force range.

“Given the result we reach today, nothing said herein alters the status quo, under which the commission has been, and continues to be, vested by NRC regulations with the authority to issue the requested license,’ the three-judge panel wrote.

In one part of the ruling, the judges were unanimous in rejecting the Utah attorneys' contention that the board should consider what harm might occur if one of the casks is damaged internally by an airplane crash.

However, the panel did suggest that the commission direct NRC staff to conduct “diminished shielding’ studies to determine whether radiation might escape from a cask that is damaged but not breached and decide if those studies warrant further research.

In the second part of the ruling, Judge Peter Lam dissented from the other two judges, arguing against the board's determination that the risk of an F-16 crash was so remote - less than one in 1 million per year - that it should not prevent the licensing from proceeding.

Lam argued the determination was based on inadequate F-16 crash data.

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, expressed frustration, but no surprise. "I still think these are very legitimate concerns and I think it's very disappointing that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approached this the way it has."

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch expressed optimism. “PFS will never, in my opinion, overcome all the administrative, legal and economic hurdles," he said.

Meantime, Utah's delegation was alarmed by language in an Energy Department budget bill that seeks to create an interim nuclear storage site by next year to house the waste until a permanent repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev., is built.

A committee report accompanying the bill recommends interim storage in Nevada, if existing law can be changed, or at Energy Department sites in South Carolina, Washington, Idaho or Nevada. However, it also leaves open the option of a “non-federal’ storage site.

“I am very nervous about the interim storage issue that is in this bill,’ said Matheson. “I'm nervous about its effect on validating or enhancing the viability of Private Fuel Storage.’

Bishop asked the chairman of the subcommittee that drafted the bill for assurances the storage wouldn't take place at a site not run by the Energy Department.

“I do not see any reason the [Energy] secretary would consider a private site or a site on federal land or an Indian reservation for interim storage,’ Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, replied.

---Tribune reporter Patty Henetz contributed to this story.

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

Idaho State Journal
May 25, 2005

Bill funds INL space for nuke storage - Plan consolidates bomb-grade uranium

By Christopher Smith

Associated Press Writer

BOISE (AP) - The U.S. House considered a spending bill Tuesday that would set aside money to upgrade buildings at the Idaho National Laboratory for storing bomb-grade uranium stockpiles from federal weapons labs in other states.

The $29.7 billion appropriations bill for federal energy and water programs includes money for several existing and new programs at the eastern Idaho nuclear research compound. If passed by the House, the spending bill would need to be reconciled with a Senate version before being sent to the White House for President Bush's signature.

The House bill would boost the budget for the Energy Department's Office of Security and Performance Enhancement to $356.5 million, more than the $300 million recommended by Bush. An unspecified portion of that increase would be used to design renovations to two concrete bunkers at INL to house surplus plutonium and highly enriched uranium no longer needed for nuclear bomb production.

Hundreds of tons of the so-called "special nuclear materials" are stored at installations around the country. The bill would order the Energy Department to come up with a plan by Sept. 30 to consolidate much of the weapons material in Idaho.

The Bush administration is seeking to cut costs and the threat of terrorist attack by moving the materials from multiple sites near population centers to more remote locations.

Idaho Republican Congressman Mike Simpson is a member of the House appropriations panel that approved the language in the spending bill. He said that because the enriched uranium is not waste and similar materials are already stored at INL, he's willing to consider using the Idaho lab as a storage site.

"It's important to keep in mind that Idaho has the experts, the facilities and the security to deal with these materials in a safe and responsible manner," Simpson said Tuesday. "If the Idaho National Laboratory can play a significant role in helping to secure our nation against nuclear terrorism and save taxpayers billions of dollars in the process, we have a responsibility to sit down with DOE and talk about it."

Opponents say that although the Idaho lab has been billed as the proving ground for new generations of clean nuclear power, consolidating the material there would put INL into a Cold War-era role of atomic weapons support.

"Just because INL has better security than Los Alamos (National Laboratory in New Mexico) - which isn't hard - it seems all of the real dangerous programs are turning toward us," said Jeremy Maxand of the Boise-based Snake River Alliance. "It's all happening through the appropriations process and there's no public debate, no hearings, no environmental impact statements."

Maxand also points to $8.5 million in the bill for INL to plan and build facilities to take over Los Alamos National Laboratory's production of plutonium-238, which is used in "space batteries" to power orbiting satellites.

Simpson said several provisions in the House spending bill reinforce INL's role in developing nuclear power reactors, including $13.5 million for an advanced test reactor for the Navy, $7 million to accelerate operation of a homeland security test range to study ways to protect the nation's electrical grid and wireless communications systems, and $16 million for upgrading research facilities at the site.

The bill also would direct the Department of Energy to begin storing spent commercial nuclear reactor fuel at interim storage sites by 2006, specifying INL as one possible alternative until a permanent repository is operating at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

Simpson says chances of that ever happening are slim. He said the bill's language does not alter the force of a 1995 court-ordered settlement between the state of Idaho and the Energy Department that says DOE "will make no shipments of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants" to INL.

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

IOL
May 25 2005

Is SA playing with nuclear fire?

Wendell Roelf

In the high-stakes nuclear game, will a radioactive waste management policy be foisted on an unsuspecting public or will "transparency, consultation and stakeholder participation" be a reality?

A draft policy containing those word remains ungazetted while government commits itself to developing prototype pebble bed nuclear reactors for commercial use.

"The draft policy appears to be following a 'design, announce, defend' approach with respect to all radioactive waste," said Nik Wullschleger, an independent scientist and geologist.

Wullschleger said given the complex scientific nature of radioactive waste management, there had been "insufficient time" for capacity building, effective public participation and proper comment.

He said the public participation process was "seriously flawed" and made a mockery of a ministerial foreword to the draft legislation which stated that among the policy's "great achievements is its participatory process".

By Wednesday afternoon government had not commented, despite a list of questions e-mailed to the nuclear chief director, Tseliso Maqubela, and ministerial spokesperson Yvonne Msolo last week.

The radioactive waste management policy, released for public comment in 2003, is government's attempt at addressing shortcomings in managing nuclear waste.

The comment period was initially only a month and the policy was only available in English.

Despite operating the Koeberg nuclear reactor on the Cape West coast, and another nuclear facility at Pelindaba near Pretoria, the country does not have a regulatory framework for radioactive waste management.

High-level waste at both facilities is stored on-site because it was too dangerous to move, while medium to low-level waste is buried at the Vaalputs site in the Northern Cape.

South Africa might build 20 pebble bed modular reactors (PBMRs) to meet future electricity demand, with each plant producing up to 32 tons of high-level waste a year, including 1,5 tons of uranium.

If only five reactors were built, each operating for its entire 40-year lifespan, space would have to be found to store a massive 6 400 tons of radioactive waste.

Earthlife Africa's Sibusiso Mimi said a "policy is simply an idea of a plan".

He used the United States - a nuclear giant - to illustrate that proposals to store high-level waste remained unresolved after years of controversial debate.

In the USA, the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste storage facility remained unbuilt, with investigations into suitable sites costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

"It is totally foolhardy to continue to produce highly toxic waste with no real plan of what to do with it," said Mimi.

Critiquing the draft legislation, Wullschleger recommended that polluters carry the full cost for the entire hazardous life-span of the waste, "including 'grave-side' maintenance and monitoring".

Wullschleger said the Best Available Technology not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) principle could be abused by profit-motivated generators and operators, such as Eskom.

He said in accordance with the precautionary principle, BATNEEC should be replaced with the Best Practicable Environmental Option, as described by the National Environmental Management Act of 1998.

Wullschleger also raised concern over the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Agency, saying a potential conflict of interest existed because the agency was a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa).

Necsa was the promoter of nuclear technology and would now be charged with the management of radioactive waste.

While government appeared to favour deep geological disposal of radioactive waste, Wullschleger said "retrievability" of containers, when considering public safety or a possible containment breach, should be ensured at all costs. Especially because the hazardous life-span of radioactive waste, such as spent fuel, plutonium or uranium, could be millions of years.

In its submission, the City of Cape Town suggested that the draft radioactive waste strategy be revised to include a framework timetable, budget and deadline for the establishment of a final repository for high-level nuclear waste.

This timetable would consider the "true costs" of nuclear power, the city said.

Cape Town wanted the costs of providing financial guarantees and security against potential nuclear accidents to be assessed relative to the population potentially affected in a worst-case scenario.

"Although unlikely, a severe accident could have far-reaching and long-term impacts on the entire city population and economy of the Western Cape. To put some perspective on the magnitude, the R3,5-billion guarantee for Koeberg would provide just over R1 000 per person (for compensation) for the 3,2 million population of Cape Town."

The city warned that if the full life-cycle financial and environmental risks and costs are not taken into consideration, current electricity consumers may not have paid the full costs of electricity.

"And the outstanding costs may be held over for future generations to bear."

The city has already submitted an appeal to Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk, against the record of decision authorising the pilot PBMR at Koeberg.

The PBMR authorisation included the condition that the national policy on radioactive waste must be in place before commencement of construction of the prototype nuclear reactor.

- Sapa

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