Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, December 23, 2005

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, December 23, 2005
---------------------------

Deseret News
December 23, 2005

Editorial misses mark on nuclear storage

By Scott Peterson

Your editorial "On-site nuke storage only logical" (Dec. 16) so badly misses the mark on technological realities of used nuclear fuel management that it does a disservice to your readers.

An underground repository like the one envisioned at Yucca Mountain, Nev., will be needed for disposal of some of the byproduct material of nuclear power generation under any fuel management scenario, even one that includes advanced reprocessing techniques that are decades away.

A bill introduced last week by Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign and supported by Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch ignores progress toward development of a national repository to satisfy Nevada's not-in-my-back-yard stance on this issue. It is the wrong policy for the nation, which receives one-fifth of its electricity from nuclear energy.

The Reid-Ensign bill simply leaves fuel at nuclear power plants and ignores the government obligation under law to move it to one location where it is better secured 1,000 feet underground. In short, it defers the issue to future generations. Despite his endorsement of the bill, Hatch understands this reality, since he continues to voice support for the planned Yucca Mountain repository.

Research and development into advanced reprocessing technologies should not delay progress on Yucca Mountain — a site endorsed overwhelmingly by Congress in 2002 after some 20 years of scientific study.

The growing need for secure, emission-free sources of electricity at stable prices is leading to an era of new nuclear power plant construction. It is important that the nation's used-fuel management policies match this reality rather than the head in the sand approach advocated by your newspaper.

Scott Peterson is vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C.

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

Tri-Valley Herald
December 23, 2005

New lab chief takes the helm

Former Livermore facility director Anastasio ready for new duties at Los Alamos

By Ian Hoffman
Staff Writer

Even with an apparently unwieldy academic-corporate team taking control of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the labs new incoming chief says the buck absolutely stops with him.

A day after his team won a half-billion dollar contract to run the birthplace of the bomb, former Livermore lab di-

rector and weapons designer Mike Anastasio waved off questions over who would do what at Los Alamos by saying he will shoulder everything from safety to security and science to overall management.

Ill be responsible, as the laboratory director, he said Thursday.

Anastasio hopped a plane for New Mexico almost immediately after Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman named his team, Los Alamos National Security, as winner of the Los Alamos contract. The team is headed by the University of California and engineering giant Bechtel National, along with nuclear-operations experts BWXT and Washington Group International and New Mexicos three largest universities.

Yet it took months for UC and the corporations to hammer out a teaming agreement, and there were indications that questions of each team members power remained unsettled even as Los Alamos National Security put up its proposal to run the troubled weapons lab.

On Wednesday, however, federal officials said they were satisfied that the LANS teams performance would be integrated.

We think weve demonstrated that we are in fact an integrated team that well lead and run the laboratory in that way, Anastasio told reporters Thursday.

LANS is one team that is working together and has one leader — me, he said.

He and deputy John Mitchell, a former Bechtel executive with 12 years experience at the governments Y-12 Site, the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain, said they will pull in executives and management ideas from across the weapons complex to resolve persistent problems at Los Alamos with safety, security and financial management.

Anastasio and Mitchell in turn will answer to a board of mostly UC and Bechtel officials, and expect to turn to the board when they need help.

They look to me to run the laboratory, Anastasio said. They will hold me accountable for my success or lack of success at doing that.

Colleagues at Livermore say Anastasios laid-back demeanor masks an insistence on accountability from subordinates. They found that he often knew their budgets and performance as well or better than they did.

Attention to the bottom line at Los Alamos is expected to be more acute than in the past. Congress has provided relatively stable federal budgets for Los Alamos and the other two U.S. nuclear weapons labs in recent years and going into 2006. But lawmakers are offering no new money to cover the significant new costs of management competition at Los Alamos.

The labs $1.8 billion budget soon must carry eight times as much in contract fees, up to an average of $74 million a year, plus new pension contributions and — with the greater role of private corporations — the possibility of tens of millions in state taxes that the nonprofit University of California never has had to pay in 62 years of running the lab.

Anastasio said his team is ready to generate efficiencies with better operations at Los Alamos but expects also to look for new revenue outside of the U.S. Department of Energy.

In saying farewell to Livermore, Anastasio cautioned employees there that they will face a similar contract competition perhaps starting early in the new year.

Id like to say Im glad I wont have another bid proposal again, because it is a lot of work, he said.

As congratulation and parting jibe, Livermore colleagues fitted Anastasios beloved black Audi with a sunburst orange New Mexico license plate.

Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com.

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

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
December 23, 2005

Point Beach gets 20-year license renewal

By Thomas Content
tcontent@journalsentinel.com

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday signed off on a proposal to extend the license of the Point Beach nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years.

The NRC granted an application to renew the license of the two Point Beach reactors, which opened in the early 1970s. The license would be extended until 2030 in the case of Unit 1 and 2033 in the case of Unit 2.

The Point Beach plant in Two Creeks in Manitowoc County supplies about one-fourth of the electricity generated by the state's largest utility, We Energies. Hudson-based Nuclear Management Co. operates the plant for plant owner We Energies.

"It's a good day for Point Beach, for We Energies and for NMC," Dave Weaver, the utility's nuclear asset manager, said from Washington, D.C., after the license renewal decision was signed.

The decision is significant, he said, because "it means we don't have to incur the expense of either building a new plant or trying to import energy from out of state, which is difficult now with constrained transmission resources."

The commission issued a statement saying it approved the license extension, and noted that it has authorized such extensions for 39 reactors across the country. The agency said Nuclear Management Co. "had demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging."

The agency spent nearly two years reviewing an application from the plant operator that was more than 1,600 pages.

Nuclear power opponents have said the NRC's review process was inadequate because it doesn't take into account the environmental impacts of storing more spent nuclear fuel at Point Beach, potentially until the early 2030s.

Spent fuel is being stored safely at Point Beach and other nuclear power plants, and safe storage is expected to continue, whether at the plant or at a national repository planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the NRC says.

The license renewal did not address a series of problems that led to harsh safety findings from the agency in recent years.

"It's a separate issue," NRC spokesman Jan Strasma said. The license review was focused more on the ability of the plant itself to age rather than current management of Point Beach, he said.

In 2003, Point Beach became the only plant in the nation to be hit with two "red" findings from the NRC. Red findings are the most severe assessed by the agency on a four-color grading scale.

As a result, the plant is one of only two nuclear plants nationwide that are subject to an extremely high level of NRC inspections and scrutiny.

At a meeting Wednesday with NRC near Chicago, NMC managers at Point Beach told regulators they have done everything that's been asked of them to improve plant performance, including steps to improve both plant engineering and their effectiveness at correcting problems, Strasma said.

The NRC hasn't yet signed off on "whether or not what they've done is sufficient," Strasma said.

Weaver said he expects that to occur in early 2006. "We're making good progress there, too," he said.

Charlie Higley, executive director of the Wisconsin Citizens' Utility Board, a ratepayer advocacy group, said he wasn't surprised that the license was renewed. The group was disappointed that storage of spent nuclear fuel and the subpar performance of Point Beach in recent years weren't part of the review process for the Point Beach license.

Point Beach employs about 700 workers. The two-reactor plant can generate 1,035 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power about 518,000 homes.

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

Reno Gazette Journal
December 22, 2005

Anti-Yucca tactics raising project costs

Regarding your Dec. 8 article on costs of the Yucca Mountain project including the needed railroad, it is my firm opinion that if the false propaganda agents of certain hydrocarbon companies and countries would just go away and allow the nuclear scientists and engineers alone, the cost of Yucca Mountain would be greatly reduced.

These anti-Yucca Mountain tactics are exactly like the ones that were used to try to stop the construction of our over-100 present-day-operating nuclear plants that have been operating for decades without a serious accident, tactics that caused undue much higher costs of our existing nuclear plants.

When the entire Yucca Mountain project is completed, we will find that it was the best $60 billion ever spent. Cutting our electric power costs in half, stopping pollution of the atmosphere and the taking of our precious oxygen to create CO2, plus the many other good reasons to "go nuclear" will show that this money was well spent.

Art Johnston, Reno

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

Deseret News
December 22, 2005

Nuclear waste shift may aid PFS

Opposition to Yucca renews the focus on proposed Utah site

By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — A new effort to keep nuclear waste at commercial power plants may help keep Private Fuel Storage alive, according to its chairman, but Utah lawmakers will continue to fight it.

John Parkyn, Private Fuel Storage chairman and chief executive officer, said by supporting a bill that "shuts Yucca down," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has shifted sides in the nuclear waste debate. This could allow companies to renew their involvement with Private Fuel Storage in the future or encourage other ones to sign up that would need storage.

"It's a question of where is the fuel going to go and is this country going to honor the 1982 vote," Parkyn said. "We have to have a place to put spent fuel."

Congress voted in 1982 to take nuclear waste from power plants and store it in a federal geologic repository. Congress eventually approved Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the site but it did not open in 1998 as planned. Utilities have been waiting for the government to come through with a storage site, and eight companies created PFS, which planned to use the Goshute Skull Valley Land in Tooele County.

Four of the eight original investors, making up about 68 percent of the consortium, have written Hatch this month pulling their financial backing of PFS. All of them mentioned the government's progress on Yucca or any federal storage facility as a reason for their decision.

"Everything is predicated on progress at Yucca Mountain," Parkyn said.

Three of the companies that have changed their minds — Florida Power and Light, Southern Company and Entergy — were part of the six pledging to Hatch and Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett in 2002 that they would not put any money toward constructing PFS "so long as the Yucca Mountain project is approved by Congress and repository development proceeds in a timely fashion."

"We want to emphasize that our clear preference is that Yucca Mountain licensing, construction and operation proceed in a timely manner," the six companies wrote in 2002. "We understand and respect your opposition to PFS, and want to make it clear that our support for PFS comes entirely from the past failures of the United States government to fulfill its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and concerns about the timely development of the Yucca Mountain facility."

Xcel Energy, which held 33 percent of the consortium, was not on the 2002 letter but told Hatch on Dec. 8 it also would hold future investments. Entergy does not mention Yucca specifically in its letter but wants to see progress toward "federally sponsored away-from-reactor storage and disposal for the nation's spent nuclear fuel."

Parkyn said the pledge was conditional on Hatch and Bennett's support of Yucca. Each voted in favor of Yucca in 2002, but Bennett announced his opposition for the project in September and Hatch still supports Yucca.

Hatch put his name on a bill introduced by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Bennett, that would allow companies to use federal money now slated to build Yucca to store waste in dry containers on site at commercial nuclear reactors. The Nevada and Utah House members introduced an identical bill in their chamber.

"Read the letters then read the bill. See if you think its consistent," Parkyn said. "He (Hatch) no longer supports Yucca Mountain or he wouldn't have signed onto that bill."

Hatch has been careful to make clear in his statements that he still supports Yucca Mountain and that his "overall strategy" is to find alternatives to the country's nuclear waste problem.

Hatch does not see this as a "stop Yucca bill" or as a permanent solution, according to his office, which points out the bill does not saying anything about this being a permanent alternative to Yucca. He acknowledges the plants need to move their waste, and he is committed to keeping all options open except for PFS, which he calls a "lamebrained" plan.

Parkyn said the "Reid-Hatch bill" is likely to start a national debate on the country's nuclear waste policy. He said it will be a question of whether to continue with Yucca Mountain, move to an interim site like PFS or leave the waste where it is.

"We now have an honest-to-God bill that revises that 1982 (Nuclear Waste) policy act," Parkyn said. "Believe me that is not going to die in some committee. This thing is going to get a floor debate."

He said the combination of Reid's leadership position and Hatch's seniority in the senate, along with the amount of senators that have waste in their states that they want moved, will keep the issue alive. Hatch is up for re-election in 2006, as well as all the House members. Some may want the issue punted until 2007 but that could leave it open still for the presidential contest in 2008.

"I don't think there is any chance the debate won't come up," Parkyn said.

Parkyn said the outcome of any debate determines the future of PFS, he said. Companies that will need to use PFS will pay for it, as has always been the plan. Those opting to not invest in it right now are making their own financial decision. Future events could allow them to come back or other companies not even involved with the project now may opt to get involved. It will really be up to the individual companies with nuclear waste.

Of the four remaining companies invested in PFS, only Genoa Fuel Tech, a subsidiary of Dairyland Power Cooperative with 11.8 percent interest in PFS, is the only original investor left that has not made any changes to its plans. It has a non-operating nuclear power plant along the Mississippi River that it wants to decommission, but it has no place to put the waste.

Parkyn, who worked at Dairyland's decommissioned plant, said dry cask storage does not help him because it still keeps the waste sitting there as it has been for almost 19 years. Parkyn would not provide a specific breakdown of the companies interest in PFS, but Hatch's office did.

First Energy, based in Akron, Ohio, has a 6.9 percent share. It will remain on through the licensing phase, and no decision has been made on whether it will still honor its pledge not to move on to construction.

American Electric Power has a 10.5 percent share but is not contributing any more money at this point, Cook Nuclear plan spokesman Bill Schalk said. He said he was not aware of any letters going to Hatch at this point, but there are no plans to contribute toward construction.

"We don't believe Private Fuel Storage will be available to meet storage needs for Cook Plant," Schalk said. AEP owns Cook Plant in southwestern Michigan. He said the plant has space in the fuel pool until 2012 and that dry cask storage is its best option. Southern California Edison, which has just a 3 percent share in PFS does not have any immediate plans to store waste at PFS, according to spokesman Ray Golden. The company has not made any financial contributions to PFS since 1999. It has developed its own on-site storage, so the need for an interim site is not as great.

E-mail: sstruglinski@desnews.com

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

Albuquerque Tribune
December 22, 2005

Some ask whether UC deserves trust for Los Alamos work

By James W. Brosnan
Scripps Howard News Service

WASHINGTON - Department of Energy and New Mexico officials are proclaiming a new day at problem-plagued Los Alamos National Laboratory, even if the University of California will continue to play a lead role along with Bechtel and two other corporations.

"This is a new contract, with a new team, marking a new approach to management at Los Alamos. It is not a continuation of the previous contract," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Wednesday in announcing the choice of UC-Bechtel over a Lockheed Martin-University of Texas proposal.

"This means somebody is really in charge of management (Bechtel) and in charge of the scientific performance standard (UC). That's very different," said Sen. Pete Domenici, the Albuquerque Republican who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that holds the Energy Department's purse strings.

Others aren't so sure it's much of a change.

"What does it take for UC to suffer the consequence of screwing up?" asked Danielle Brian, executive director of a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight. "Lockheed wasn't a great alternative, but it is hard to see how UC could possibly have been a vote of confidence. We expect a continuation of the era of chaos at Los Alamos."

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who has overseen several hearings on problems at the lab, fired off a letter to Bodman demanding copies of all documents by Jan. 6.

"Based on the track record by the University of California and the seemingly invulnerable culture of mismanagement at Los Alamos, I am surprised to learn that the current contractor has been invested with new trust. I have minimal hope and no belief that UC can reverse its record of consistent failure," said Barton's letter.

Domenici's response, "Oh, the University of Texas lost."

Another Texas Republican, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, said Bodman assured her the selection process, run entirely by civil servants, was fair.

"California has an advantage in continuity and that was a factor, " Hutchison said.

Said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat: "The proposal was judged on the merits. I think they will be able to withstand any questions that members of Congress have."

When former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced in April of 2003 that the Los Alamos contract would up for bid for the first time in the 60-year-history of the nation's premier bomb factory, it was widely assumed that the reason was to dump UC over repeated security, safety and mismanagement concerns.

Lockheed Martin, which already manages Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, emerged as the strongest alternative by partnering with the University of Texas and announcing that Sandia President C. Paul Robinson would step down to head the Los Alamos effort.

But UC, which at one point pondered whether even to bid, put together its own strong team, headed by Michael Anastasio, a physicist and director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and as a deputy director, Bechtel's John Mitchell, a nuclear weapons systems manger who had overseen the Energy Department's Nevada Test Site, the Y-12 plant in Tennessee and Yucca Mountain.

BWX Technologies, which manages Y-12 and the Pantex Plant in Texas, and the Washington Group, which has contracts at the Waste Isolation Plant in southeast New Mexico and other energy sites, rounded out the Los Alamos National Security team.

Domenici said he gathered from what energy officials said "on almost all counts, this was a better proposal."

The actual selection was made Monday by Thomas P. D'Agostino, a career civil servant at Energy and acting deputy administrator for defense programs. The decision was based on the recommendation of an eight-member selection board headed by former energy general counsel Tyler Przybylek.

D'Agostino and Przybylek said UC-Bechtel and Lockheed-UT can still appeal the contract decision.

D'Agostino said the UC-Bechtel team proposed a unique interdisciplinary approach that would allow "operational excellence" to permeate across Los Alamos Lab.

The structure also will allow the lab director to look across the department and focus not just on what is good for Los Alamos but all the nuclear weapons production sites, D'Agostino said.

Neither Energy Department officials, UT-Bechtel, nor New Mexico officials could say precisely Wednesday what that would mean for the other weapons labs, like Sandia.

Some critics of the Energy Department say there is too much duplication and competition between the labs.

D'Agostino said the new Los Alamos contract "presents a forum" where questions about integration and consolidation can be addressed. He did not elaborate.

The contract will total $512 million over seven years with an Energy Department option to extend the contract another 13 years with no competitive bidding.

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

Beaver County Times
December 22, 2005

Editorial - Lap dog

When it comes to oversight of the executive branch, the Republican-controlled Congress is little more than a lap dog for the Bush administration, doing whatever it can to please its master.

The Washington Post reported that U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, last week said "it's a fair comment" that the GOP-controlled Congress has done insufficient oversight and "ought to be" doing more.

No kidding.

Consider this. Democrats on Davis's committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million.

The Post reported the committee under Davis has issued just three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents.

Obviously, congressional Republicans have failed to fulfill their role as watchdog over the executive branch of government. It's no wonder the Bush administration thinks it can do anything it wants. With this Congress, it knows it can.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
December 21, 2005

Regional Transportation Commission

2006-07 Nye road projects approved

By Gina B. Good
PVT

Let the cheering begin - 29 additional miles of chip sealed roads are in the works for Pahrump, according to the 2006-2007 Nye County Regional Transportation Commission's budget.

The cost for the roadwork is estimated at close to $2 million to be funded equally by the RTC and Payments Equal To Taxes paid by the federal government for the Yucca Mountain project.

The chip seal project was announced at Monday's Regional Transportation Commission meeting. The total budget for the Commission is $1.8 million, collected from state sales tax (at one fourth of one percent) plus gas tax (at four cents per dollar of the motor vehicle fuel tax paid at the gas pump).

In addition to Pahrump's chip seal project, the Commission budget includes regular road maintenance, paint and labor for road striping and equipment.

Samson Yao, head of the county's public works department, asked for a chunk of the budget to include three truck-mounted paint sprayers for striping.

"We would no longer have to rely on NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation)," said Yao. "We are always placed at the end of the list (when requesting equipment from NDOT). The cost would be cheaper with our own labor and equipment."

A review of ongoing road projects included board member Gary Hollis requesting that the Commission be contacted when the National Park Service schedules major projects in Death Valley. He said hundreds of trips by heavy trucks "tear up the road."

Hollis also said Public Works and the RTC shouldn't have to bear the cost of constantly repairing roads that others ruin. Board Chairwoman Midge Carver suggested asking the National Park Service "for some kind of monetary help for the damage." Yao said a courtesy request would be in order and that the National Park Service should be made aware of the problem even if the Service doesn't pay for the repair.

Tonopah Town Manager James Eason traveled to Pahrump's community center to ask for assistance with manpower and equipment to refurbish the road leading to the popular Tonopah Mining Park. Both board members in attendance voted to support the project, which will create a new entrance to the park.

Yao estimated it would take approximately $20,000 in labor and equipment for the 1,500-foot road. Shawn Hall, director of the mining park, assured the board that the route would not affect the historical nature of the park.

In other business:

• Herb Renner was released from the Commission due to personal issues and the county clerk's office will be instructed to place advertisements to fill the vacancy. Renner joined the board Sept. 19.

• By way of updating the Commission on the truck route study being developed by Stantec Corp., Yao said the firm is still in the process of receiving public comment. He mentioned that Stantec had recently received a handful of surveys from truck drivers who had not attended the public meeting in November. He expects a summary of the surveys will be forthcoming in January.

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

Deseret News
December 21, 2005

PFS backer backs off

N-waste plan dealt blow as Entergy puts future investments on hold

By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — And then there were four.

Entergy Corporation, one of the eight original investors in Private Fuel Storage, will hold future investments from the proposed nuclear waste storage site, Executive Vice President Curt Herbert Jr., told Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in a letter sent Tuesday.

Entergy becomes the fourth PFS investor this month to change its financial support, which on top of other recent legislative and administrative action, has "put Utah over the hump in our fight against the Skull Valley plan," Hatch said.

Herbert wrote that Entergy will withhold future investments in Private Fuel Storage "as long as there is apparent and continuing progress toward federally sponsored away-from-reactor storage and disposal for the nation's spent nuclear fuel."

Entergy owns the second-largest fleet of nuclear plants in the country.

"We recognize the political obstacles to finding solutions to management of spent fuel from nuclear plants and believe the Utah facility is probably not the best solution to be pursued at this time," Herbert wrote.

The letter is similar to those written by Xcel Energy, Southern Company and Florida Power and Light, all who have changed their financial backing of the proposed used fuel storage site at the Goshute's Skull Valley reservation in Tooele County.

Xcel, which holds the largest percentage of the consortium, said it will put a hold on its funding while Southern and FPL have opted out completely.

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said not to read too much into the companies' decisions. The site was always going to be done in phases, and there are a lot of other companies out there who have storage needs that could sign on in the future to move the project to its next stage, she said.

The companies seem to have a renewed faith in the government's plan to store nuclear waste in a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. This is puzzling at first glance because the companies created the idea of PFS in the first place because Yucca was not going to open on time and the project still faces a variety of obstacles before it would open — which at the earliest could be 2012 to 2015.

"When PFS was proposed, they looked at it as an insurance policy," said A. David Rossin, a former president of the American Nuclear Society and a former Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Energy Department. "I don't think they expected as many political problems."

Rossin said prospects for Yucca sometimes look better and sometimes looks worse.

Those following nuclear waste issue in Washington say legislation expected to come down next year could put the prospect in the better category now and be the main reason for the PFS companies renewed hope.

It has been reported for months that the administration is working on an "everything Yucca" bill, although the specifics are not known. The bill could include an effort to establish a radiation protection standard as well as change how Congress allocates money to the project, but no one can confirm details.

A White House sponsored reprocessing plan is also an open secret on the Hill. Everyone from nuclear industry insiders to Senate staff hear the same rumor but specifics are not known. The 2006 energy and water spending included money for a recycling program that some say are a start to a bigger reprocessing debate.

An on-site storage bill already introduced by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and supported by the entire Utah congressional delegation would allow nuclear companies to use federal money now earmarked for Yucca to build dry container storage on site and get nuclear waste out of storage pools.

The industry opposes the bill, saying it does not solve the permanent storage solution.

The matter of potential legislation did come up in Hatch's meetings with Xcel, according to his office. Hatch spokesman Peter Carr said the Energy Department has told the companies that something is coming up but did not offer specifics because the specifics are not there yet. The department listened to alternatives the companies offered but could not confirm what would be in their proposal.

Hatch did not actually meet with Entergy personally, Carr said, but the other companies that have changed their minds went to Entergy themselves to get it to change its support for PFS.

Entergy spokesman Carl Crawford would only confirm that the company sent a letter to Hatch.

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com

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

Salt Lake Tribune
December 21, 2005

Nuclear waste storage: Four companies hold a 68% interest in the project

By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - A fourth partner in Private Fuel Storage said Tuesday it won't kick in any more money for the partnership, which seeks to store high-level nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah.

Louisiana-based Entergy Corp. sent a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch and the Utah congressional delegation Tuesday indicating that it would "hold in abeyance" future investments for construction of the PFS site.

Earlier this month, Southern Co. said it was withdrawing from the PFS partnership and XCel Energy and Florida Power and Light made commitments not to provide financing for the project beyond the licensing phase.

The four companies combined hold a 67.8 percent interest in the PFS project, which had eight original partners.

In September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized a license for PFS to store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel on the Skull Valley reservation 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City until a permanent waste disposal site could be built at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The license has not been issued.

"When a large majority of PFS shareholders are willing to admit that PFS isn't likely to happen, then we know our work has been paying off," Hatch said in a statement.

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin has said the members were not committed to supporting construction or storage at the site, which will be paid for with contracts to store waste. There are other companies that may be interested in storing their waste at the site, and if there are not, the facility won't be built, she has said.

The Senate is expected this week to send President Bush a broad defense policy bill that includes the creation of a wilderness area near the Skull Valley site that would hinder construction of a rail line to the proposed PFS facility.

The House on Monday passed the bill with the wilderness proposal, offered by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

The Bureau of Land Management, at Hatch's urging, also has decided to have another round of public comment on whether a rail line or station to transfer the waste casks from trains to trucks would be in the public interest. It's initial review in 2001 identified the rail line as the best option.

Hatch has been leaning on the companies to withdraw from the PFS partnership, seeking to convince them of the obstacles remaining to the plan and committing to working toward alternative solutions and ensure the federal government "lives up to its commitment" to dispose of the waste.

Hatch has said he supports a publicly financed initiative to develop a technology to reprocess the nuclear waste.

"I have no doubt that the actions taken by the Bush administration, combined with our success in securing Congressman Bishop's wilderness language, have put Utah over the hump in our fight against the Skull Valley plan," Hatch said.

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

Salt Lake City Weekly
December 21, 2005

Hits & Misses
by Ted McDonough

HIT: Congressional Cooperation

Sometimes it pays to put your state´s interests ahead of party politics, even if it means working with (gasp!) Democrats. By cozying up to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and outspoken critic of President Bush, Utah´s congressional delegation, aided by intense lobbying from Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., succeeded in getting Rep. Rob Bishop´s once long-shot Cedar Mountain Wilderness proposal into a must-pass defense bill. The wilderness would block Private Fuel Storage from shipping spent nuclear reactor fuel by rail to a planned storage site in Tooele County. The deal won´t kill PFS, but may nudge the nation toward the sensible nuclear policy outlined in a Nevada-Utah bill that proposes spending Yucca Mountain money on storing nuclear waste at the plants that create it.

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

Senator Harry Reid
December 20, 2005

Reid, Ensign Introduce Nuclear Waste on-Site Storage Legislation

Bill will eliminate need for central nuclear waste repository like proposed Yucca Mountain project

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign introduced legislation today mandating that nuclear waste be stored on-site where it is produced and requiring the federal government to take responsibility for possession, stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring of the waste.

For decades, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the government has focused only on the proposed Yucca Mountain site as a central repository for nuclear waste generated at plants around the country. However, conclusive evidence has shown that the Yucca Mountain project is fraught with safety, scientific and budgetary problems, making it a near certainty that the site will never be approved for use. Additionally, any plan that includes only one waste site would require transporting nuclear material from sites all over the country across thousands of miles, greatly increasing the chances of an accident or terrorist attack.

The legislation introduced today would eliminate the need for a single repository, ensuring nuclear waste can be safely stored on-site and under control of the federal government. The legislation will also increase safety at all nuclear power plants by providing funding for additional security to guard against accidents or terrorist attack.

“The Yucca Mountain project is never going to open,’ Reid, the Senate Democratic Leader, said. “It is time we put the safety of this country first and approach the storage of nuclear waste in a way that is productive and realistic. There cannot be any weak links in the chain of security of our nation´s nuclear power infrastructure. Storing nuclear waste on-site is the safest, most reasonable and most effective way of allowing nuclear power companies to continue operating while keeping the health and safety of Americans as our top priority.’

“What we are proposing today represents the safest and most responsible course of action available for storing nuclear waste,’ Ensign said. “The dry cask storage technology exists to provide a viable, on-site alternative to shipping waste across the country and it is time we make use of that technology for the health and safety of Americans everywhere. Yucca Mountain is not feasible and it is not acceptable. This is a safe and real solution for nuclear waste storage.’

Reid and Ensign pointed to a long list of set backs for the Yucca Mountain project including a July, 2004 court decision that the radiation standard for the site was not stringent enough to protect the public from the significant risks associated with nuclear waste and a November 2004 announcement by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that there is no plan for safely transporting nuclear waste to the proposed repository.

The same board in February of this year called for hearings to review concerns over the corrosion of the titanium drip shields that are supposed to keep water from leaking into casks inside Yucca Mountain. On March 16, 2005, the Department of Energy announced the falsification of document and models about water infiltration, a key issue, at Yucca Mountain. On July 18, 2005, DOE announced that if Yucca Mountain were to open, high-level nuclear waste would be shipped by train ignoring the fact that about one-third of reactor sites are not capable of shipping fuel by rail.

The legislation was cosponsored by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It would require nuclear power companies to store nuclear waste in what is known as dry cask storage containers. As approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dry cask containers can safely store waste for at least one-hundred years and are already used at thirty-three nuclear power site throughout the country.

“I´ve always said that storage on site is the right scientific answer, but differing state laws have made it impossible. The Reid legislation resolves this problem, and buys us time to craft a sensible national policy on nuclear energy,’ said Sen. Bob Bennett.

Companion legislation was also introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representatives Jim Matheson (D-UT), Jim Gibbons (R-NV), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Jon Porter (R-NV) and Rob Bishop (R-UT).

Summary of The Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005

Amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as follows:

· Requires commercial nuclear utilities to transfer nuclear waste from spent nuclear fuel pools into dry storage casks within 6 years after enactment or 6 years after the waste is produced, whichever comes first.

· Requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to take title of all spent nuclear fuel currently in on-site dry cask storage within 30 days of enactment.

· Requires the spent nuclear fuel on-site storage sites and storage casks to comply with NRC regulations.

· Requires the DOE to take title to, and full responsibility for the waste at the reactor sites after it has been transferred to dry cask storage in compliance with regulations.

· Expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund will compensate utilities for expenses associated with transferring, storing and securing the waste.

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 20, 2005

Columnist Jack Anderson had close ties to the Sun

By Ed Koch
<koch@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun

Although he never attended a Las Vegas Sun board of directors meeting or reaped any profits from the newspaper, syndicated columnist Jack Anderson said he was nevertheless proud to have had a partial ownership of the publication.

The five shares of stock that Anderson received in a single certificate in the late 1950s was a gift from then-Sun Publisher Hank Greenspun -- a thank you for introducing Greenspun to powerful Washington attorney Ed Morgan, who defended a crusading Greenspun in high-profile libel cases.

Anderson often mused that his Sun stock probably was valued at about the cost of a door at the newspaper's offices. But he said he could not put a value on his close friendship with Greenspun or his ties to Las Vegas.

Anderson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer whose investigative Washington-based column once appeared in more than 1,000 newspapers, died Saturday following a lengthy battle with Parkinson's disease. He was 83.

"Dad kept a special eye on Las Vegas," said Las Vegas attorney Kevin Anderson, one of Anderson's nine children. "Utah was No. 1 and Nevada was No. 2 of the places that he would have considered a second home.

"Dad loved to tell the story of when he debated (former Nevada Gov.) Paul Laxalt (in 1970). Laxalt called Dad an East Coast columnist. Dad responded that he grew up in Utah and that the people of the West 'are my people.' "

In the 1980s and 1990s, Anderson visited Las Vegas several times a year for speaking engagements and to visit with his son and grandchildren.

Anderson's association with Las Vegas goes back to the Sun's beginnings in the early 1950s, when Greenspun's often controversial front-page "Where I Stand" columns attracted the attention of Anderson, who at the time was doing research for then-"Washington Merry-Go-Round" muckraking columnist Drew Pearson.

"When you think of my father in Las Vegas, you think of his relationship with Hank Greenspun," Kevin Anderson said. "The driving force of their friendship was the mutual respect they had for each other."

In the mid-1950s, when Las Vegas attorney George Franklin was accused by the Sun of running a baby-selling business, Franklin sued the paper, prompting Anderson to introduce Greenspun to Morgan. Greenspun later wrote that Morgan provided a brilliant defense for the Sun, topped off with a moving summation.

Although Franklin won the case, the Las Vegas jury awarded him just $80,000 -- a far cry from the millions of dollars he wanted. Franklin would go on to become a Las Vegas city councilman, Clark County commissioner, state assemblyman, North Las Vegas city attorney and, ironically, a Sun columnist.

The Sun columns and stories that were the subject of Franklin's suit led to reforms in state adoption procedures.

Morgan and Greenspun remained close until their deaths in the late 1980s.

Anderson and Greenspun also teamed up to take on powerful Communist witch-hunter Sen. Joe McCarthy. Their critical writings helped discredit McCarthy and bring about his downfall.

Anderson long kept a watchful eye on how national issues affected Las Vegas and how major news out of Southern Nevada influenced Washington politics.

In a May 1, 1997, story, Anderson said he doubted that a high-level nuclear waste repository would ever be built at Yucca Mountain.

"Given the (Energy Department's) record of mental constipation, there is no reason to fear that the project ever will reach the construction phase," Anderson said. "Based on my 50 years in Washington, when a project like this gets caught up in a whirlpool, it winds up going nowhere but in circles."

Born Jackson Northman Anderson on Oct. 19, 1922, in Long Beach, Calif., he started in the newspaper business at the Murray (Utah) Eagle at age 12, earning $7 a week. At age 18, he became a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune.

Anderson studied at the University of Utah and Georgetown, but never earned a journalism degree.

During World War II, he worked as a civilian correspondent for the Deseret News. In 1947 Pearson hired him. Anderson took over the column when Pearson died in 1969 and three years later won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting that the Nixon administration secretly favored Pakistan in its war with India.

"I think my father would want to be remembered as an example, but not just in his field," Kevin Anderson said. "He would want to serve as an example of how anyone from nowhere could apply themselves and one day make a difference."

In addition to his children, Anderson is survived by his wife, Olivia.

Ed Koch can be reached at 259-4090 or at koch@lasvegassun.com.

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

Salt Lake Tribune
December 20, 2005

Plan passes to hinder Skull Valley N-storage

By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - The House passed legislation Monday that includes the designation of the 100,000-acre Cedar Mountain Wilderness area, a plan pushed by Utah leaders to hinder a private company from storing nuclear waste in the state and to protect the Air Force's access to a key training range.

The language, part of a broad defense bill, complicates plans by Private Fuel Storage to store 44,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation by preventing a rail line from being built to deliver the waste to the reservation.

The 374-41 House vote on the defense bill came at 4 a.m., after an all-night session. The Senate is expected to pass the bill later this week.

The Cedar Mountain designation would not kill the plan by PFS, a consortium of electric utilities, but it could create headaches and delays.

A spokeswoman for the coalition has said the company could simply truck the waste to the reservation, rather than shipping it by rail.

It is a legislative victory that Utah's delegation has been fighting for several years, and it might not have happened were it not for the intervention of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, according to Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

The Cedar Mountain language was bottled up late last week, amid opposition from Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who had the support of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and the prospect for passage appeared bleak.

But Hastert threatened to prevent the House from approving the bill unless Ensign sat down with Bishop and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch to explain Ensign's opposition to the Utah proposal.

There was a series of discussions between Ensign, Hatch and Bishop, culminating in a meeting Thursday night in Hatch's Capitol office where Ensign agreed to a somewhat diluted version of Bishop's original bill.

The original proposal would have created a ring of restricted areas around the reservation where the Bureau of Land Management would be prevented from approving a rail line.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission OK'd a license in September for PFS to build the facility, although the license has yet to be issued. Hatch has also been pressing the utility companies that make up PFS to drop out, and has commitments from three that they will not support construction of the facility.

The BLM also is planning to solicit another round of public comments on whether it is in the public's interest to permit construction of a rail line to the Skull Valley reservation. The original assessment, completed in 2001, said rail shipment was the best alternative.

The Cedar Mountain language is part of a much broader defense bill, that includes a prohibition on torturing detainees in U.S. custody, a military pay raise and a requirement that the president provide quarterly reports to Congress on military operations in Iraq.

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