Yucca Mountain News Clips - Wednesday, December 7, 2005

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
December 07, 2005

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: DOE doubles rural rail cost estimate

Projected price tag of line now $2 billion

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Depart-ment of Energy has doubled its estimate of what it would cost to build a railroad across rural Nevada to transfer nuclear waste to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, officials confirmed on Tuesday.

The projected price tag of a 319-mile line now stands at $2 billion. A DOE spokesman said the updated estimate also includes construction of rail yards and other maintenance features along the route.

The DOE in a 2002 environmental impact study estimated it could build a 300-mile railroad at a cost of $880 million in 2001 dollars. The figure was greeted with skepticism at the time by repository critics.

Robert Halstead, a Wisconsin-based consultant for the state of Nevada, said the new estimate is probably more realistic, and still may prove to be low for what he said was a challenging route that crosses several mountain ranges and high desert terrain.

"I've been saying at least a billion and a half dollars and up to 2 billion based on engineering analyses we did back in 1996, when we knew less about the problems of that route than we do now," Halstead said.

The revised costs also underscores the growing costs facing the repository project, which has been repeatedly delayed since its original opening date of 1998. The most recent official cost estimate for the overall repository was calculated in 2001 at $58.5 billion, a DOE spokesman said.

An official familiar with the project said DOE managers "had a big gulp about six months ago" when they projected new costs for the Nevada railroad. The department is preparing an environmental impact study of its preferred rail corridor that has included public meetings in rural Nevada and meetings with ranchers along the route.

The DOE has proposed to build a rail line from the outskirts of Caliente west and north to Warm Springs, then curling around the northwest boundary of the Nevada Test and Training Range managed by the Air Force. The railroad would follow the western border of the test range south to the Yucca site.

Companies that expect to bid for shipping contracts plan to seek more details of the cost figures, said David Blee, a spokesman for the U.S. Transport Council, their trade group.

"Clearly we are interested in knowing the cost basis," Blee said. "We are always concerned about cost escalation in the program, particularly in the vital transportation component."

The new cost projection also gave fresh ammunition to Yucca Mountain critics, who contend that burying nuclear waste in Nevada is a boondoggle at any price.

"It would be cheaper to build a road paved with gold," Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said of the railroad. "Yucca Mountain is already slated to be the most expensive public works project ever undertaken by the government, and just like this ridiculous railroad boondoggle, its price tag continues to spiral out of control."

The Nevada railroad will provide "another funding challenge with Congress," said Christopher Kouts, a Yucca project manager.

Halstead said growing costs may cause the Energy Department to think again whether it wants to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain by rail. The department also has considered shipping waste canisters by rail to Caliente, than transferring them to trucks for transport to the repository.

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 07, 2005

Estimated cost of Yucca Mountain railroad raised to $2 billion

Associated Press

Estimated cost of Yucca Mountain railroad raised to $2 billion LAS VEGAS (AP) - The estimated cost of building a railroad line to ship nuclear waste across Nevada to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository has more than doubled, to about $2 billion, an Energy Department official said Wednesday.

The revised figure includes construction of rail yards, maintenance and support facilities that weren't part of a 2002 estimate for the 319-mile line, said Allen Benson, spokesman for the Energy Department and the Yucca Mountain program in Las Vegas.

Critics of the repository, who had derided the original estimate as far too low, said the new estimate showed the Yucca plan was becoming too expensive.

"It would be cheaper to build a road paved with gold," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "Yucca Mountain is already slated to be the most expensive public works project ever undertaken by the government, and just like this ridiculous railroad boondoggle, its price tag continues to spiral out of control."

Robert Halstead, a Wisconsin-based consultant for the state of Nevada, which opposes the repository plan, said the new estimate may still be too low for what he said was a challenging route across high desert and several mountain ranges.

The Energy Department announced in April 2004 that it planned to ship most of the waste to Yucca Mountain by train. The department said it would build the new rail line from Caliente, a small town 150 miles northeast of Las Vegas, to the Yucca Mountain site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

No railroad currently runs to Yucca Mountain, and project planners also have considered shipping waste canisters by rail to Caliente, than transferring them to trucks for transport to the repository.

The 2002 railroad cost estimate was included an environmental study prepared before Congress and President Bush approved the Yucca site for the repository.

Benson said Wednesday that a total project estimate was still being calculated.

The Energy Department in 2001 projected the cost of building and operating the national nuclear repository at about $58 billion. Plans have called for the Yucca site to entomb 77,000 tons of highly radioactive used reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and military installations in 39 states.

The project has in recent months gotten less congressional funding than project planners sought, and project officials have facing questions about e-mails suggesting that scientific findings about the plan were falsified.

The projected opening date has been pushed back from 2010 to 2012 or later.

---On the Net:

Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste

Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov

---Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 06, 2005

Editorial: Railroad crossings at risk

Report says federal government investigating less than 1 percent of collisions at crossings

Las Vegas Sun

We are outraged by a report documenting that of 3,045 train crashes last year at railroad crossings around the country, only nine were investigated by the Federal Railroad Administration. The report was released by the inspector general's office of the Transportation Department.

Every single accident at a railroad crossing should be investigated by the Railroad Administration, just as the National Transportation Safety Board investigates all plane crashes. Local investigators will document the time of the crash, the extent of the damage and the number of injuries. But it takes a federal investigation to determine why the accident took place and what safety measures need to be taken to ensure against a recurrence.

Hazardous materials are aboard trains every day, which means there is the potential for whole communities to be affected by crossing accidents. It is unconscionable for the federal government to be neglecting this critical responsibility.

The report brings to mind Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where the federal government wants to bury high-level nuclear waste -- and ship most of it there by rail. Federal neglect of the railroads is just one reason -- among dozens -- to shut the Yucca project down.

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 06, 2005

Guest columnist Jim Gibbons: A different take on mining bill

Jim Gibbons, a Republican, represents Nevada's 2nd Congressional District. He is a member of the House Committee on Resources.

Unfortunately, the Las Vegas Sun's Nov. 30 editorial entitled "Public lands up for grabs?" does not accurately portray the reasons for or the consequences of the mining provisions which I authored with House Committee on Resources Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif.

As the Las Vegas Sun may be aware, there is limited opportunity for economic growth in rural Nevada. This is largely due to the fact that the federal government owns and regulates seven of every eight acres in Nevada.

Mining operations bring economic opportunity to rural communities, and these provisions will allow that economic opportunity to continue beyond mine closure while upholding all current environmental laws and regulations.

Nevada's mining industry -- our state's second largest -- provides tax revenue to communities to fund schools, emergency services, roads and other vital infrastructure. Current provisions in America's mining law are insufficient in allowing for the sustainable development projects that can keep communities economically viable long after a mineral resource is depleted.

This is what motivated me to pass responsible mining reform legislation in Congress. Unfortunately, these provisions have become the subject of gross and willful misinterpretation by opponents of mining. Ironically, the same people who oppose the provisions rely on the products of mining every day -- from shampoo and computers to the roof over their heads.

The charge that the provisions will make unlimited amounts of public land available for purchase regardless of mineral potential is completely false. The provisions specifically require that any land made available for purchase must contain a mineral deposit.

Further, my proposal requires would-be buyers to prove the existence of a profitable mineral deposit by performing extensive mineral development work.

The Sun further, and falsely, claims that the bill offers "no protection to millions of acres of other sensitive public lands." The provisions in this bill do not apply to areas withdrawn from mineral entry. Areas withdrawn from mineral entry include lands already identified in Clark County for disposal, as well as national parks, monuments, wilderness and other special areas. Additionally, the proposed provisions still mandate compliance with all provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

Your readers should also know that my proposal will not interfere with land sales under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA). This area has been off limits to new mining claims since 1998. Consequently, these mining law provisions do not apply to any lands inside the disposal boundary.

Simply put, my proposal allows miners to purchase mine sites so they can be mined. Later, these mine sites may be redeveloped for secondary productive uses after the mining is completed.

Currently, when a mine shuts down in Nevada, not only do all the jobs leave, but companies must remove all valuable infrastructure -- such as roads, power lines, water lines, substations and buildings. All of these facilities could -- and most certainly should -- be used for future economic sustainability.

These responsible reforms will generate significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury. Mining companies will now pay $1,000 per acre or fair market value -- whichever is higher -- for lands they wish to purchase.

This is certainly a whopping increase over the $2.50 to $5 per acre provided for under current law. You can buy a cup of coffee today for that price; certainly our public lands are worth more.

Increases in other fees in the bill will generate $158 million to the federal treasury in the next five years and will yield even more to states and local governments in payroll and other tax revenues as mines come into operation.

Radical environmental groups -- most of which are headquartered outside Nevada -- seek the complete outsourcing of Nevada's mining industry ... and the jobs and revenue they provide our state. I prefer to keep these high-paying jobs in Nevada.

These groups also cherish the fact that the federal government controls more than 85 percent of Nevada. Such federal control over Nevada is harmful to our state and our citizens (Yucca Mountain comes to mind as a prime example).

This boils down to the major philosophical dispute seen all over the West ... that the federal government -- based 2,600 miles from Nevada -- knows best how to manage our lands better than we do. I disagree. I always have and I always will.

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

Provo Daily Herald
December 06, 2005

Court rejects Utah nuke waste appeal

N.S. Nokkentved DAILY HERALD

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to consider an appeal by Utah seeking to reinstate laws blocking a nuclear waste storage site at the Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley.

"It's not unexpected," said Denise Chancellor, an assistant attorney general for Utah.

Nor was it a surprise for Minnesota-based Private Fuel Storage LLC, spokesman Bruce Whitehead said. It's another loose end tied up and another roadblock cleared. But he said he expects the state's efforts to block the storage site, about 52 miles west of American Fork, to continue.

Utah had asked the Supreme Court to review a ruling last year by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court declined, giving no comment on the merits of the case.

The 10th Circuit had upheld a challenge brought by PFS and the Goshute Tribe of a series of state laws enacted from 1998 to 2001 that would regulate nuclear waste in Utah, The Associated Press reported Monday. The court upheld a lower court ruling that those laws infringed on federal authority.

PFS and the Goshute Tribe had argued that the state laws were pre-empted by federal law.

Utah maintained the challenge was premature, and asked the Supreme Court to review the case and determine by what standard should a law be considered pre-empted.

"Is there some way they could be implemented?" Chancellor said.

Utah maintains the laws themselves shouldn't be challenged until they are applied.

"There's nothing to show how Utah would have applied the law," she said.

The company has leased a corner of the reservation to build a temporary storage facility. It would send up to 44,000 tons of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants in 4,000 concrete and steel casks to the facility. The waste ultimately would be sent to a proposed federal repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

Much of the waste would be shipped through Utah County.

Chancellor admitted that getting the Supreme Court to review the case was a long shot.

"It's rare that the Supreme Court grants certiorari," she said.

In 2003, for example, 6,671 petitions were filed with the Court, but only 115 were granted.

Whitehead maintains the state is knocking its head against a brick wall. Most of the state's opposition is not based on science or engineering, he said, but is a willy-nilly approach at taxpayer expense.

"Every time the state does something, we're obligated to respond," Whitehead said. But that's private money that's being spent, part of the millions already invested.

Utah, meanwhile, still is fighting in court. Last month, the state asked the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a September decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approving a license for the facility, the AP reported.

After eight years of litigation, there's a huge record to review, Chancellor said.

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