Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
June 29, 2005

Government scientist denies falsifying Yucca Mountain data

Jaclyn O'Malley
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A scientist at the center of a controversy over potential falsification of documents about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump insisted before Congress on Wednesday that he did not alter paperwork on the project.

“I have never falsified any documents related to Yucca Mountain or any other project,’ Joseph Hevesi, a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist in Sacramento, Calif., told a House Government Reform subcommittee.

The panel is investigating e-mails written by Hevesi and other scientists that, according to critics, seem to suggest they changed work to reach a predetermined conclusion. The existence of the e-mails, written between 1998 and 2000, was made public by the Energy Department in March.

Hevesi was appearing under subpoena before the panel chaired by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.

Before testifying, the thin, gray-haired scientist sat alone at the witness table with his hands clasped, occasionally shifting in his seat, as Porter read portions of e-mails Hevesi had written.

Among them: “In the end I keep track of two sets of files, the ones that will keep QA happy and the ones that were actually used.’ QA refers to quality assurance.

Hevesi and others were studying how water moved through the desert site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas where the government wants to store 77,000 tons of commercial and defense nuclear waste for at least 10,000 years. The USGS validated Energy Department conclusions that water seepage was relatively slow, so radiation would be less likely to escape.

A planned completion date of 2010 for the Yucca project was recently abandoned by Energy Department officials.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 29, 2005

NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT: Porter limits access to Yucca e-mails hearing

Berkley, Gibbons asked to stay away so he can broaden probe

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Concerned that a Yucca Mountain investigation he is leading might be perceived as too parochial, Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., asked Nevada's two other House lawmakers not to take part in a hearing today on the nuclear waste project, congressional officials said.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., readily agreed. But Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., objected. She said Porter was making a mistake not to include fellow Nevadans who have fought the proposed waste repository.

"I wanted to take part and I was not invited to," Berkley said Tuesday.

"My understanding is that (Porter) has a misplaced idea that if other Nevadans participate then Congress will consider this a Nevada-only issue," Berkley said. "If it wasn't for the Nevada delegation this issue would have been dead a long time ago."

Nonetheless, Berkley said she planned to stay away while Porter conducts the hearing as chairman of the House federal workforce and agency organization subcommittee.

Porter was not available Tuesday evening. His spokesman T.J. Crawford said Berkley and Gibbons participated fully at an initial Yucca Mountain hearing on April 5, and Porter wanted to focus today's session on his subcommittee's ongoing investigation.

Though he is an opponent of Yucca Mountain like most other Nevada elected leaders, Porter also is taking a longer view of the investigation, which he believes raises questions about Energy Department management and the behavior of federal workers, Crawford said.

"This is not just a Nevada issue for him," Crawford said. "He has two hats to wear as chairman of his subcommittee. His responsibility, his scope, is much, much more broad."

The subcommittee is seeking to uncover details behind a cache of e-mails from 1998 to 2000 in which several scientists assigned to the Yucca project by the U.S. Geological Survey discussed possible falsification of quality assurance records for their research.

Joseph Hevesi, a USGS hydrologist who has been identified as one of the e-mail authors, has been subpoenaed to testify today. Crawford said Hevesi is expected to appear but it was not clear whether he would discuss the e-mails.

The inspectors general at the Energy Department and the Department of Interior also are investigating the e-mails with assistance from the FBI.

John Arthur, deputy director of the Yucca project, also is scheduled to testify. Arthur said earlier this month that an internal DOE probe was concluding that Yucca science was not compromised by allegations raised through the e-mails.

The April 5 hearing, held days after the explosive e-mails were made public, was dominated by Nevadans. Only two or three other subcommittee members appeared for brief periods.

Crawford said subcommittee members are expected to take a more active role today. The panel has 11 members.

Gov. Kenny Guinn, Attorney General Brian Sandoval and Sens. John Ensign and Harry Reid testified on April 5, as did Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Judy Treichel of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, and Joe Egan, the state's nuclear waste lawyer.

Although not members of the subcommittee, Gibbons and Berkley were invited to sit on the dais with Porter. They questioned witnesses including USGS director Charles Groat and acting Yucca Mountain project director Ted Garrish.

Discussions about the focus of the hearing included leaders of the House Government Reform Committee as well as Porter, Gibbons and Berkley, according to Amy Spanbauer-Maier, Gibbons' chief of staff.

"It was agreed upon by everyone that we wanted to be sure that this did not turn into something that critics could say was just Nevada against Yucca Mountain," Spanbauer-Maier said.

The perception that Nevada lawmakers look only to capitalize on Yucca Mountain flaws "is something that is always out there," she said. "We didn't want to divert any attention from the questions at hand about gross mismanagement and falsification of documents."

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 29, 2005

BARGAINING BEGINS: Senate passes energy bill

Bill backed by Nevada senators heads for tough talks with House

By H. Josef Hebert
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- An energy bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday is more favorable to conservation, wind farms and ethanol and less kind to oil and gas producers than legislation passed by the House.

Whether the differences can be resolved may depend on how much pressure President Bush can bring to bear. Bush urged lawmakers to resolve their differences quickly and send him a bill before August.

"The administration's attitude is we want a bill," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. "I think you will see the president quite proactive on this."

Hard bargaining lies ahead, especially with an issue surrounding the gasoline additive MTBE remaining a potential deal breaker, as it was two years ago.

The House, particularly Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, wants to protect oil companies and refiners who produced MTBE from environmental lawsuits brought by communities whose drinking water has been contaminated by the additive.

DeLay said Tuesday an attempt is being made to "come up with a solution" to the MTBE issue, but he provided no details.

Supporters of the Senate bill, which has broad bipartisan backing and is silent on MTBE, say such liability protection would trigger a filibuster and send the bill to defeat, as it did in 2003.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said the House needs to work out a compromise on MTBE that can pass Senate muster.

After finishing all but a final vote on the bill last week, the Senate approved the 1,250-page document Tuesday 85-12. Seven Democrats and five Republicans voted against the bill.

Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., voted for the bill.

The Nevada senators said the bill contained an amendment that requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and not a bankruptcy judge, to make rulings on utility contracts tied up in bankruptcy proceedings for Enron.

The provision could help protect Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific from more than $300 million in outstanding contracts to the defunct energy trading firm, they said. The federal energy commission has indicated it would rule in favor of the utilities.

The Senate bill also contains a three-year extension of the renewable production tax credit for wind, biomass and geothermal energy and a new investment tax credit for solar energy. Investors view Nevada as a potentially lucrative source of renewable power.

The bill also contains a program for researching uses for gold and other precious metals in industrial and automotive catalytic converters.

Despite its broad sweep, which would affect virtually every energy industry while boosting energy conservation, lawmakers acknowledged the bill would have little impact on high gasoline and crude oil prices. Crude oil eclipsed $60 a barrel this week, and gasoline averaged $2.22 a gallon nationwide, according to the Energy Department.

The bill's critics argued that it does little to reduce demand for oil, two-thirds of which goes for transportation, or reduce oil imports, which account for 58 percent of U.S. demand.

More environmentally friendly than the energy bill passed by the House in April, the Senate bill would funnel 40 percent of $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable energy sources, energy conservation and alternative transportation fuels.

Among other provisions:

• Loan guarantees of up to 80 percent for developing new technologies for clean coal and next-generation nuclear power reactors.

• A doubling of ethanol use in gasoline to 8 billion gallons a year by 2012, a boost to corn farmers.

• A requirement for utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind and biomass from garbage or plants, by 2020.

• Mandatory reliability standards for electric power grids, ending the current system of industry self-regulation.

• Tax breaks for people who buy gas-electric hybrid cars, more energy-efficient appliances or energy-efficient homes.

The bill skirted some of the most contentious energy issues, from drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, which is called for in the House bill, to requiring automakers to build more fuel-efficient cars.

It also avoided mandatory reductions in heat-trapping emissions to address climate change, which some senators had wanted.

Some Republicans, including Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, opposed the bill in part because of its cost, an estimated $16 billion in direct spending and tax breaks. That's double what the House-passed bill would cost and well above the $6.7 billion price tag the Bush administration wanted.

An analysis by the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense said the bill would cost $55 billion over 10 years if all the programs it authorizes were actually funded by Congress.

Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault contributed to this report.

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

Las Vegas SUN
June 29, 2005

Scientist denies falsifying data on Yucca

Porter presses for more information on e-mails

By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Geological Survey scientist Joe Hevesi told a congressional subcommittee that he did not falsify any scientific information on the Yucca Mountain project, though he was "somewhat horrified" when he looked back at his e-mails on the subject, which he thought were personal correspondence.

"I have never falsified any documents related to Yucca Mountain or any other project," Hevesi said at a House Federal Workforce and Agency Organization subcommittee hearing today. "This whole process has been a learning process for me when I realized that an e-mail is actually an official documentation. I was not perceiving e-mail that way."

Hevesi testified in response to questions about the latest Yucca Mountain project controversy that has had Nevada calling for the Energy Department to stop the project.

Hevesi insisted that while he used "poor wording" in some of his messages, he did not falsify any documents or scientific information.

"I have completely rethought how I use the whole e-mail system and how I communicate with others," Hevesi said.

Hevesi testified at the subcommittee hearing this morning as part of an investigation by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., into e-mail messages uncovered by Energy Department in March. The department said it found e-mails written by U.S. Geological Survey employees that suggest they falsified scientific information at the Yucca Mountain project.

As Porter read down a list of e-mails, asking for detailed information on Hevesi's intent and reasoning behind the messages, the scientist calmly described his work on the project and his frustration in trying to get the job done.

"I place things in e-mails out of emotional response," Hevesi said. "... I believe I had reputation for being flippant in e-mails."

Requests for "delete this memo" that appeared in several messages made public by the subcommittee were not attempts to cover up information but just to delete personal e-mail sent between himself and his colleagues, Hevesi said. They were not professional memos.

Hevesi testified that when he used the words "fudge factor" in his e-mail, he meant "simplification, not falsification." Fudging the information meant to use placeholders, and Hevesi said scientists use fudge factors all the time.

"My heart was in my work to do the best I could," Hevesi said. "I did feel the work was important."

Hevesi called the scientific work on the project "sound" but that getting the documentation together took more time than originally thought.

Hevesi was a research hydrologist who studied how water flowed through the mountain. He said several times at the hearing that he was not in a position to say whether the site was suitable to safely store nuclear waste.

After its announcement on the e-mails, the department did not name the scientists, citing ongoing investigations, but Porter sent a letter to the Interior Department asking for Hevesi along with fellow scientists Alan L. Flint and Lorraine E. Flint to appear before the subcommittee. Today's hearing was one that Porter had initially tried to conduct in late April, but the three scientists refused to attend at that time.

The Flints, who are married, have met with subcommittee staff, Porter said, but he had House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., issue a subpoena to Hevesi earlier this month after he refused repeated attempts to testify.

Hevesi said today that the only reason he refused to appear was that he wanted to wait until other investigations into the e-mails were over.

"I was trying to focus on one situation at a time, rather than having two parallel situations," Hevesi said.

Porter is still waiting for a number of documents from the Energy Department related to e-mails written by Hevesi and others. Porter may request another subpoena for the documents, although he has not made a decision yet.

Porter wants the documents for the committee's investigation and to back up his claims to fellow House members that this is not just a Nevada issue.

"Nevada's message consistently for 20 years has been 'no' and many times we get discounted because they expect us to say no," Porter said in an interview. "So I have been making it very clear to the committee members, that this is not just a 'no.' It is real people with real falsified documents, with real falsified science and it is not just Nevada one more time saying 'no.' "

Porter said as the subcommittee chairman he has a responsibility to the federal employees working on the project. He wants to make sure they were not harassed and that the management culture illustrated in the e-mails does not carry over into nuclear weapons or other Energy Department programs.

"It isn't just a witchhunt for employees," Porter said. "It's to be fair to those employees as well as to the agency and to the American people first. It's a balance."

Nevada's other House members, Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Democrat, and Rep. Jim Gibbons, a Republican, did not attend the hearing, but were invited to submit written testimony.

Porter spokesman T.J. Crawford said the subcommittee sees this as a continuation of the hearing Porter conducted April 5, which Berkley and Gibbons attended, asked questions and made statements.

"They've already spoken," Crawford said. "This is more of a subcommittee thing."

Gibbons spokeswoman Amy Maier said Porter wanted to make sure the hearing would focus on the "blatant mismanagement" within the Energy and Interior Departments, and not be labeled another Nevada driven-initiative against Yucca Mountain, so Gibbons agreed not to attend.

"It's a broader issue," Maier said.

Berkley spokesman David Cherry would only say that she was asked not to participate.

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

Las Vegas SUN
June 29, 2005

USGS scientist denies falsifying Yucca Mountain data

By Erica Werner
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - A scientist at the center of a controversy over potential document falsification on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump insisted before Congress on Wednesday that he did not alter paperwork on the project.

"I have never falsified any documents related to Yucca Mountain or any other project," Joseph Hevesi, a United States Geological Survey hydrologist in Sacramento, Calif., told a House Government Reform subcommittee.

The panel is investigating e-mails written by Hevesi and other scientists that, according to critics, seem to suggest they changed work to reach a predetermined conclusion. The existence of the e-mails, written between 1998 and 2000, was made public by the Energy Department in March.

Hevesi was appearing under subpoena before the panel chaired by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.

Before testifying, the scientist, a thin, gray-haired main in a dark gray suit, sat alone at the witness table with his hands clasped, occasionally shifting in his seat, as Porter read portions of e-mails he had written.

Among them: "In the end I keep track of two sets of files, the ones that will keep QA happy and the ones that were actually used." QA refers to quality assurance.

Explaining that message, Hevesi said that the only difference between the two sets was that the set for quality assurance had a header field.

"All the numbers in those files are identical, so in essence they are identical files," Hevesi said.

He said he never felt pressure from his managers to reach a specific result, and defended the work he and his colleagues were doing.

"I feel the work is sound, and I realize it doesn't seem that way with these e-mails," Hevesi told lawmakers. "The e-mails I characterize, myself, as being water-cooler talk, and I would not do that again in hindsight."

Hevesi and others were studying how water moved through the desert site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas where the government wants to store 77,000 tons of commercial and defense nuclear waste for at least 10,000 years. The USGS validated Energy Department conclusions that water seepage was relatively slow, so radiation would be less likely to escape.

A planned completion date of 2010 for the Yucca project was recently abandoned by Energy Department officials.

The e-mails are under investigation by the inspectors general of the Energy Department and the U.S. Geological Survey, with help from the FBI. Hevesi said the ongoing investigations were the reason he refused to meet voluntarily with the subcommittee.

Hevesi said he did feel pressure to meet deadlines and did wish for more resources. But he described his frustration as a natural conflict between the approach of scientists and the approach of project managers.

"There were deadlines that would require a more simplified approach to solving a scientific issue, but that's always going to be the case," Hevesi said. "As a scientist, we have a tendency to put too many resources into a problem because we're after the right answer, which is the true answer, and in many cases you can never get to that point."

"I placed things in e-mails out of emotional response," Hevesi said.

He encountered skepticism from Porter, who like the rest of Nevada's congressional delegation is trying to stop the Yucca project. Other subcommittee members were more sympathetic.

"Even members of Congress, if someone had to look at all our e-mails they might have a field day," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

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

Las Vegas SUN
June 29, 2005

Opposing views show in Yucca surveys

Citizens in rural areas, Clark County reach different conclusions

By Launce Rake
<lrake@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun

Nevada regional governments with opposing opinions on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump have studied how their citizens view the project, and the conclusions are as different as the areas in which the people who were surveyed live.

There were other differences as well, starting with the cost of the projects.

The study of fewer than 70 people in rural areas of Nevada, where governments have supported the dump as a way to invigorate moribund local economies, cost $212,000. Clark County, the state's most urban county with a government that steadfastly opposes the dump, interviewed 600 county residents at a cost of $18,000.

According to those who put the survey together for interviews in Nye, Esmeralda and Lincoln counties, the project consisted of six questions targeted for business leaders, community leaders and property owners, on how a proposed transport route for nuclear waste called the Caliente Rail Corridor would affect the respondents. The cost for each question came to about $505.

The Clark County survey, depending on how questions were answered, could include up to 140 questions, at a cost of about 20 cents per question. The official report about the study results is going through final polishing and should be released to the public within the next several weeks, Clark County consultants and officials said.

Those who put the survey together for the rural areas and those who worked on the Clark County effort said that direct comparisons of the two projects miss the point. The rural effort, funded through Energy Department funds, was based on dozens of face-to-face interviews with opinion shapers across the wide open spaces of central Nevada.

The Clark County effort, also funded by the Energy Department, was a telephone survey from Las Vegas. Irene Navis, planning manager for Clark County's Nuclear Waste Division, which works on Yucca Mountain issues, said the goal was to have a randomly selected group of people for a scientifically valid study that could be compared to earlier opinion research, to see how attitudes towards the dump have changed.

Navis said the results from the Clark County are under review, and the results should be released later this summer. She said the early review of the results show that residents here fear the impact the dump and radioactive waste transportation will have on property values and tourism.

Detailed input

The authors of the central Nevada project, which was completed under the auspices of the Central Nevada Community Protection Working Group, said in their study that the goal was to get "specific, detailed input from individuals whose lives would be most affected by the Caliente Rail Corridor and to begin the process of developing and providing a list of impacts and needed mitigation."

Caliente Mayor Kevin Phillips, whose government approved the project, said the effort is a step towards understanding all the potential impacts of moving nuclear waste through central Nevada. He described the central Nevada work as more of a "conversation to gain understanding" than an effort to reach a final conclusion.

Among those whom Larry Lytle and Vaughn Higbee, the subcontractors for the work, interviewed were 16 property owners near the proposed transportation route for the nuclear waste, nine business owners, 18 "public service providers," 15 public officials and a handful of others from nonprofit groups and other interest groups.

Lytle and Higbee, in their report, said the face-to-face interviews in people's homes "provided a distinctly human touch to this report ... The emotional impacts were most profound."

"This report is not comprehensive. The interviews that were completed are not a scientific sample of those impacted by the Caliente Rail Corridor. Rather, they are ... a very personal and subjective look into the lives and concerns of a relatively few people."

The report did not produce definitive findings in the way that numerically based research would bring, but it generally found that those who were interviewed welcome the economic growth that they believe will come with Yucca Mountain and its rail corridor.

Lytle and Higbee also found that on the other hand, some are concerned that property that has been in some families for generations may be lost.

"Mitigation of the physical and financial impacts will be very complicated," the authors wrote. "Mitigation of the emotional impacts will be miraculous."

While Lytle and Higbee, two Lincoln County residents operating as L&H Consulting, wrote the report and conducted interviews, the lion's share of the funding went to Robison/Seidler, a consulting firm that has a long history of work both for rural counties and the Nuclear Energy Institute, an advocacy group supporting the Yucca Mountain dump and the rail corridor.

Ace Robison, company founder, is a former Energy Department deputy assistant secretary and chief of staff to former Sen. Paul Laxalt, R-Nev. Robison is a past chairman of the Nevada Republican Party and, last year, was named by Gov. Kenny Guinn to the Colorado River Commission, which represents the state in discussions of Colorado River water and energy produced by Hoover Dam.

Working hard

Robison said his company worked hard for the money it made off the project, which started last year. Robison/Seidler billed $17,810 monthly for the effort, about double what Lytle and Higbee made every month.

"We earned our money," Robison said.

"We were out with the subs (subcontractors) a good deal of the time. We spent a good deal of time overseeing and focusing them. We wanted to use people who were local to the county. We did not want to use a professional organization. If we had used a professional organization, we would not have gotten the result that we needed to get.

"Otherwise, the local folks who were being interviewed, would have been hesitant to give their opinions," Robison said.

He said comparing the Clark County survey to the work in the rural counties was not fair.

"It's a qualitative study," he said. "It is not a quantitative study at all.

Robison said the subcontractors in many cases knew the people they interviewed personally -- which was an important part of the effort.

"What it was intended to be was a very personal interaction on a personal level with the business and property owners that would be most affected by the Caliente route," Robison said. "It was done by individuals who are people from Lincoln County, and it was almost a conversational thing. It discussed what your feelings are, whether it should be built, how you think it will affect you, and in a very subjective way, how do you feel about that."

Different in form

Navis, with Clark County, is usually on the opposite side of Robison on Yucca Mountain issues, but agreed that different kinds of studies would be very different in form, content and ultimate cost. Qualitative studies include such techniques as focus groups, forums or face-to-face interviews, with significant travel costs.

Quantitative surveys are usually done over the telephone, as it was for the Clark County effort, and that can be a lot cheaper to do than a face-to-face interview.

Terry Murphy, president of Strategic Solutions, a Las Vegas consulting firm that was one of several that worked on the Clark County study, said the difference in goals and techniques can explain the cost difference.

"I can easily see how a study could cost $200,000, especially if it involved face to face interviews and a lot of travel," she said. "It depends on how in-depth they go into the survey.

"Ours was quantitative. If his was qualitative, that can sometimes be more expensive ... With qualitative research you can get a much better insight into the community. You can get at some real nuggets of information that you might not get in a quantitative study. There is value to both."

Allen Benson, spokesman for the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain project, said the agency will review the spending of both the urban and rural efforts. He also defended the scope and purpose of the rural survey.

"There is an auditing process after the fact. There is also a routine monitoring process," he said of the appropriation for the rural survey. "This is money that has been appropriated for this program and the department believes would be of benefit to the program.

"We provide funds to produce information," he said. "The policymakers in these communities certainly are entitled to know the views of their constituents."

Some of those who have long been critical of the Yucca Mountain project said the funding for the survey represents business as usual for central Nevada governments.

"It's typical," said Louis Benezet, a Caliente resident and an outspoken voice against the project. The survey doesn't really represent the opinions in Lincoln County, he said.

"I'd say it's really stacked," he said of those who were interviewed in the rural survey. With the exception of a few, "most of those people are already supporters."

"They didn't interview me. They didn't interview ordinary people. That leaves a lot of people who were affected. Many of these people (who were interviewed) are among a select group that were wined and dined on behalf of Yucca Mountain in the past."

Another person who has not seen the completed survey of rural residents is Lincoln County Commissioner Hal Keaton, who was one of those interviewed.

Keaton, who opposes the Yucca Mountain project, said he was, however, able to get a copy of the transcript of comments he provided Higbee and Lytle. He said most of his comments were faithfully included in the transcript of his survey, except for one point.

"Everything that they put in there was accurate except the last statement, that I thought nuclear power plants were the best way to produce power. I've never said that."

Funding plan

Keaton criticized the funding plan for the central Nevada project. The Energy Department funding went through the Central Nevada Working Group to Nye County, which transferred the money to the Caliente in Lincoln County, which then formed the contract with Robison/Seidler.

He said the goal of the funding program was to avoid going through Lincoln County, where he would have oversight.

"The consultants totally run the program," Keaton said. "They convinced the working group and Nye County that they should funnel the money through Caliente. That way they don't have to work with me.

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

Salt Lake Tribune
June 29, 2005

Nuclear execs tout Yucca, but Curtis says Utah could get the waste

U.S. legislators meet: Utah's speaker warns that the "temporary" Goshute site could be permanent

By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - Nuclear energy industry officials told a group of lawmakers from around the nation Tuesday that making Yucca Mountain a permanent storage site for nuclear waste is an “important national priority,’ and of “critical importance.’

They touted the public's desire for more nuclear power plants and the safety of transporting and storing spent nuclear fuel. “Yucca Mountain is the path forward we see in dealing with this material,’ said Steve Kraft, director of waste management for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

But before the industry heads down that path, Utah House Speaker Greg Curtis pointed out, up to 44,000 tons of the waste may rest in Utah's West Desert, site of a proposed temporary storage facility on the Skull Valley reservation.

“We can call it interim, but it could end up being 200 years,’ Curtis warned, noting that Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of energy companies pushing to store spent fuel rods on Goshute Indian land, is poised to get a 20-year license with an option to renew it for another 20.

“Why is anybody naive enough to think they wouldn't just renegotiate it [for longer]?'' Curtis added.

Tuesday's meeting with lawmakers from the National Conference of State Legislatures mainly dealt with Yucca Mountain, the proposed storage site for the nation's spent fuel that has been frequently delayed and may not operate for a decade, if ever.

But Curtis occasionally turned the topic to PFS, which may serve as a storage site until Yucca is operation. Or, as Curtis fears, it could permanently hold nuclear waste.

“In 40 years, most of us won't be here,’ he said. “We're taking the problem and sticking it with the Goshutes. We're letting my children deal with it, and that's not a solution.’

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is poised to approve a license for the Goshute site this summer if Utah loses its last administrative bid to oppose the storage in Utah.

Earl Easton, a senior-level adviser on transportation for the NRC, told the group there is no automatic renewal of a license, and the Goshute site, if approved, would have to apply for its renewal. Asked what would happen if the license wasn't renewed, Easton said he guessed the nuclear waste would have to be moved.

“We've never come to that situation, to be honest,’ he said. “I don't know of a situation where we've ever terminated a license.’

Easton clarified later that most licenses haven't come up for renewal so there wasn't much history.

Curtis, the only Utah representative at the meeting, said he is not a “fan’ of the Yucca Mountain proposal, especially because it appears to him that the nation's plan for taking care of its nuclear waste is to find the least populated area and dump it.

“The state ought to have a say in it,’ Curtis said after the meeting. “If Nevada doesn't want Yucca we shouldn't force it down their throats. And if Utah doesn't want it, it shouldn't be shoved down our throats.’

tburr@sltrib.com

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