Yucca Mountain News Clips - Sunday, March 5, 2006

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Sunday, March 5, 2006
---------------------------

MetroWest Daily News
March 05, 2006

Letter: Nuclear a sensible power choice

In response to John Gregg´s article ("No easy answer to questions on nuclear power," Feb. 25), calling nuclear power clean and safe is exactly where we need to start, if we are to have any kind of intelligent discussion of energy issues. Elimination of gross misconceptions is a prerequisite for meaningful debate.

As US nuclear power has not caused a single public death over its near 40-year history, and has never had any measurable impact on public health, it is safe by any objective standard. It is also clean by any objective standard, as it has completely contained all its wastes (or toxic materials), and does not release them into the environment.

It is also basically required to prove that its wastes will remain contained indefinitely, so that it will never have any significant impact at any point in the future. Scientific analyses already show that Yucca Mountain can meet this requirement, with maximum possible exposures (to any person) remaining within the range of natural background at all times in the future.

Fossil plants, which generate toxins in vastly larger volumes, and (therefore) simply release them directly into the environment, are estimated to cause about 25,000 deaths annually in the US alone (according to EPA), and are the leading cause of global warming.

As to nuclear´s potentially "cataclysmic" consequences, fossil plants´ annual death toll greatly exceeds the maximum possible consequence of any nuclear plant accident or attack. Credible estimates for the total eventual effects of Chernobyl range from 50 to approximately 4,000 deaths. The maximum conceivable consequences of any event at a Western plant are much smaller than that.

James Hopf
Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society,
San Jose, Calif.

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

Senator Harry Reid
March 1, 2006

Statement of Senator Harry Reid About Yucca Mountain Oversight Hearing

Washington, DC—Senator Harry Reid delivered the following remarks while testifying at today´s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing about the Yucca Mountain Project.

Remarks by U.S. Senator Harry Reid

March 1, 2006

“I am convinced the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump will never be built because the project is mired in scientific, safety and technical problems.

“In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which called for disposal of nuclear waste in a deep geological repository that would remain stable for thousands of years. The Act directed the Department of Energy to pick the most suitable site based on natural, geologic features.

“In 1987, Congress instead opted for political expediency and limited DOE´s studies to Yucca Mountain, despite the fact that the criteria in the Act would disqualify the Yucca Mountain site.

“DOE has been studying Yucca for 20 years now, and the studies are still incomplete.

“Transportation of nuclear waste from around the country to Yucca poses hazards to public health, economic and national security, and environmental safety – hazards from accidents or terrorist attacks. DOE has not addressed those hazards.

“Moving 77,000 tons of waste to Yucca would involve about 53,000 truck shipments or 10,000 rail shipments over 24 years. The waste would travel through counties housing 250 million people -- including population centers like Chicago, Washington D.C., and Las Vegas.

“Before his election, President Bush wrote, -- quote -- “I believe sound science, not politics, must prevail in the designation of any high-level nuclear waste repository. As President, I would not sign legislation what would send nuclear waste to any proposed site unless it´s been deemed scientifically safe.’

“Now President Bush is breaking that promise. He´s letting politics and unsound science prevail at Yucca Mountain.

“A few of the scientific problems that we have seen the last year and a half include:

“In 2004, the Court threw out the Environmental Protection Agency´s first radiation protection standards for Yucca because they were not strong enough to protect the public from radiation exposure and failed to follow the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In 2005, the EPA published its revised standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste dump, which are wholly inadequate, do not meet the law´s requirements and do not protect public health and safety. In fact, EPA is proposing the least protective public health radiation standard in the world.

“Numerous scientific and quality assurance problems with transportation plans, corrosion of casks, and the effectiveness of materials have caused DOE to suspend work on the surface facilities, and have caused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a stop-work order on nuclear containers.

“DOE revealed that documents and models about water infiltration at Yucca Mountain had been falsified. The DOE Inspector General reports that DOE continues to ignore falsifications of technical and scientific data.

“In numerous media reports, the administration has confirmed that it is preparing a legislative package that will remove health, safety and legal requirements for Yucca Mountain -- a clear admission that the project is a complete public health, safety and scientific failure.

“It should be clear to everyone that the proposed Yucca Mountain project is not going anywhere.

“It is time to look at alternatives so we can safely story nuclear waste. Fortunately, the technology for a viable, safe and secure alternative is readily available and can be fully implemented within a decade if we act now. That technology is on-site dry cask storage.

“Dry casks are being safely used at 34 sites throughout the country right now. The Nuclear Energy Institute projects 83 of the 103 active reactors will have dry storage by 2050.

“Senator John Ensign and I have a bill that would safely store nuclear waste while we look for a scientifically-based solution. That bill is the Spent Fuel On-Site Storage and Security Act of 2006. (S. 2099.) Our bill requires commercial nuclear utilities to secure waste in licensed, on-site dry cask storage facilities.

“There is absolutely no justification for endangering the public by rushing headlong towards a repository that is fraught with scientific, technical and geological problems. Our bill guarantees all Americans that our nation´s nuclear waste will be stored in the safest way possible.

“It is time we addressed the problem at hand – the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel – and stopped pouring taxpayers´ money down the drain on a project that could endanger all of our citizens.

“The Yucca Mountain project is a failure. I have fought against Yucca Mountain for decades, and I will continue to fight it.’

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

Las Vegas SUN
March 04, 2006

Bodman says DOE has no plans to move waste

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman says his department will not begin moving nuclear waste away from power plants around the country until the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain is licensed.

At a meeting with reporters in Washington, D.C Friday, Bodman sought to dispel speculation that the Bush administration was considering establishing temporary nuclear waste storage sites while the Nevada disposal site remains on the drawing board.

"All our efforts will be going into the procurement of an operating license" for Yucca Mountain, Bodman said. "At that point in time we will make a decision whether we will take advantage of interim storage opportunities or not."

DOE missed a Jan. 31, 1998, deadline to begin moving waste off reactor sites, triggering dozens of lawsuits from utilities and continuing pressure to move fuel to Yucca Mountain or elsewhere.

Under the scenario Bodman discussed, nuclear waste could remain at plant sites for at least five years.

By the time Yucca Mountain is licensed, new research on nuclear waste reprocessing would inform decisions on whether the spent nuclear fuel should be deposited at the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas or sent elsewhere in interim storage to await recycling, Bodman said.

The energy secretary's comments signal the administration's evolving strategy for handling nuclear waste.

In recent days, administration officials have outlined a plan that features continued emphasis on a Yucca repository but also a big push to explore reprocessing technologies that might wring more use out of spent fuel while making the ultimate end products less toxic for burial in Nevada.

A nuclear waste bill is expected to be sent to Congress in the coming days. Bodman said it will not contain interim storage provisions. A second DOE official confirmed that later Friday.

There had been broad speculation within the nuclear industry and on Capitol Hill that the administration might seek to establish temporary storage on federal land in Washington, South Carolina, Idaho or at the Nevada Test Site.

A spokeswoman for Officials at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's main trade association, had no immediate comment on Bodman's remarks.

NEI has been lobbying the government to move faster to remove spent fuel from plants in 39 states where it has been accumulating in pools and in "dry cask" storage containers.

The Energy Department is in the midst of a repository redesign and is awaiting radiation health standards for the site. The Environmental Protection Agency has said those will not be finalized until near the end of the year.

At whatever point DOE applies for a repository license, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has four years to evaluate it, a schedule that a number of experts say is optimistic.

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

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 04, 2006

Until Yucca Gets Licensed: Nuke waste staying put

Bodman: No plans to move material

By Steve Tetreault
©stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department does not plan to begin moving nuclear waste away from power plants around the country until it has a license in hand for a repository at Yucca Mountain, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Friday.

Bodman ruled out the government establishing temporary storage sites for nuclear waste while the Nevada disposal site remains on the drawing board.

At that point, which could be years, Bodman said research on nuclear waste reprocessing might guide decisions on whether the spent nuclear fuel should be moved to Yucca Mountain for disposal or sent elsewhere in interim storage to await recycling.

The Bush administration is promoting advanced reprocessing though a new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP.

"All of this fits together," Bodman said. "We would be making those judgments in the future based on what we learn about GNEP and how successful we will be."

The energy secretary's comments in a meeting with reporters shed fresh light on the Bush administration's evolving strategy for handling nuclear waste.

Bush administration officials are finalizing a nuclear waste bill expected to be sent to Congress in the coming days. Bodman said it will not contain interim storage provisions. A second DOE official confirmed that later Friday.

Officials at the Nuclear Energy Institute were unaware of Bodman's remarks and had no immediate comment, spokeswoman Trish Conrad said.

NEI, the nuclear industry's main trade association, has been among the state and industry groups lobbying for the government to move faster to remove spent fuel from plants in 39 states where it has been accumulating in pools and in "dry cask" storage containers.

DOE missed a Jan. 31, 1998, deadline to begin moving waste off reactor sites, triggering dozens of lawsuits from utilities and continuing pressure to move fuel to Yucca Mountain or elsewhere.

Steve Kraft, NEI nuclear waste director, said last week that moving nuclear waste away from power plants and onto some federal site "is our number one goal" that NEI would lobby for this year.

Under the scenario Bodman discussed, nuclear waste could remain at plant sites for at least five years and most probably longer than that.

At whatever point DOE applies for a repository license, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has four years to evaluate it, a schedule that a number of experts say is optimistic.

The concept of interim storage has been controversial. President Clinton in 2000 vetoed legislation that sought to establish temporary waste storage at the Nevada Test Site.

Last year, however, the House passed a bill directing the administration to explore interim storage. The proposal was dropped from final legislation.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 04, 2006

Anti-Yucca attorney recovering

Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Nevada's chief Yucca Mountain lawyer is recuperating from surgery after cancer was detected in his lower esophagus and stomach.

Joe Egan underwent surgery on Feb. 10 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York after being diagnosed with adenocarcinoma, which begins in cells that line mucous organs.

A surgeon removed a third of his stomach and half of his esophagus, and Egan said he plans chemotherapy treatments next month as follow-up treatment.

"Hopefully it is all gone," Egan, 51, said Friday, four days after returning home to McLean, Va.

The Virginia-based Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Cynkar has written and argued Nevada lawsuits against the Yucca Mountain Project and is preparing to represent the state in license hearings for the proposed nuclear waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The firm, which was hired on Sept. 11, 2001, has been paid between $3 million and $4 million so far and is working under an open-ended contract, said Bob Loux, director of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects.

Egan's partners continued to work on Yucca matters in his absence, Loux said.

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

Nevada Appeal
March 3, 2006

Letters to the editor

What is it about this state that says 'dump all over us?'

Now there is an article in the local paper about 3,000 metric tons of mercury that the government wants to ship to and store at the Hawthorne Ammunition Depot. What is it about this state that says "dump all over us?"

You would think that we were the hellhole of the country. The people of Nevada need to stand up and I mean big time and voice their thoughts and opinions about the government using the Nevada countryside to dump their hazardous waste in. Having been in the fire service and a haz-mat incident commander, I know how dangerous not only mercury but radioactive material can be. It is not going to go away in a few years.

It is here to stay, for the rest of my life, my children's life, and my grandchildren's life and for the next several hundred years. Who knows how long this stuff will last for we have only been delving into the nuclear stuff for about 60 plus years? The scientists have assumed that they know how long the waste stays dangerous, like coffee is good for you today but tomorrow it is not. Depends on who is paying them.

The officials and scientists say that nuclear energy is safe, clean and affordable. If it is so safe, why is it that this country has not built any more nuclear power generating plants since the Three-Mile Nuclear Power plant incident? If it is so clean and safe, why has it taken so much money and time to design, build, and open a safe affordable storage place for nuclear waste? I am talking mega-money folks, probably enough so that every citizen in this country could have a decent place to live in, plenty of food to eat, and wonderful medical service.

I feel that if this government had spent all the money that has been put forth on the Yucca Mountain project towards other alternative power sources such as wind or solar power we would be better off. Research and development of recycling the nuclear waste, like has been done in other countries, would have helped.

To the taxpayers of this country the Yucca Mountain project is just a cash cow for a lot of companies that are doing business with the government working on this project.

Here is a thought. Area 51 and its landmass would be a great place for a wind power farm.

To go along with all the above I feel that if this waste is going to be stored here that the state of Nevada and its citizens should be compensated for it and big time.

William M. Sweetwood
Carson City

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

Lahontan Valley News
March 04, 2006

The Budget-Up Close and Personal

By Montie Pierce

After studying the Bush administration's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year, most Republican candidates for re-election and those running for the first time face a critical dilemma. All candidates, both Republican and Democrat, will eventually be asked if they support or oppose the $2.3 trillion dollar budget proposal.

We know what the Democrats will say, but it's the Republicans who will be caught between a rock and a hard place. A big chunk of this money will go for defense, and we need to show support for our troops in every way we can. Nobody is going to argue with this. However, anyone who states that they support the overall Bush budget will be saying that they also support:

Education cuts - Elimination of many student loan programs, closing college doors on middle class and poor applicants who depend on these loans to exercise their right to an education. Elimination of many federal programs supporting the educational goals of middle class and poor Americans is also at stake, including decreased funding for Bush's own "No Child Left Behind" program. (This program, created by the Bush administration, has never been fully funded since its inception.)

Veterans - Asks for yet higher increases in co-pay prescriptions and proposes charging veterans an enrollment fee. As many veterans are on limited, fixed incomes, this will prohibit them from "signing up and paying" to receive benefits which up to now have been guaranteed to them at no cost. Ask what returning Iraq war veterans with missing limbs think about this plan... Bush continues to show disdain and non-compassion for our veterans - having never been in combat, he is totally ignorant of what it's like to be blown apart and shot at. The president proclaims we should support our troops, but evidently not our veterans.

Medicare & Medicaid - Proposes $36 billion in cuts over the next five years to Medicare and $105 billion over the next decade. Medicare is the only health care program that is available to most senior citizens in the country. Now, deductibles will be increased significantly, and premiums will grow to the point that they will not be able to enroll in the program, thus eliminating even more of America's citizens from receiving health care. The budget proposal also reduces reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors, and the result will be that many now accepting Medicare patients will have no choice but to turn them away.

The administration's current Medicare drug discount program is in shambles - the federal government even tried to send in their "experts" to help straighten things out, and even the experts couldn't understand the dialogue! Only about one-third of those eligible have signed up, and even this one-third are extremely dissatisfied and many will cancel their subscriptions. The present Medicaid program is now only a "temporary" relief program and is structured much like a loan program. When and if the patient dies, their estate is automatically attached, and nobody gets anything until Medicaid gets paid back. This program needs serious re-structuring, but this administration ignores the problem completely. Also seriously slashed is funding to the National Institute of Heath regarding research and technology (even though Bush has been touring the country lately promoting more research and technology).

Included in the Defense portion is another $120 billion for our open-ended war in Iraq, and about $40 billion for our efforts in Afghanistan. And the "kicker," which nobody wants to talk about... this budget asks for $544 million for the Yucca Mountain Project. Bush simply won't take "no" for an answer!

So for any candidate to come right out and say, "I support the Bush budget proposal" they need to take a hard look "inside the box" and realize what they are supporting before making such statements to the voters and the media. The economic stress is not just affecting those at the poverty level and below, but has now wormed its way into the middle-class. This ultimately widens the already immense gap between the "haves and the have-nots", or as Bush puts it, "haves and have-mores"...

Some more significant Budget items to think about:

1. Eliminates the $255 Social Security death benefit.

2. Eliminates the monthly Social Security sole survivor benefits of 16 and 17 year olds, if by misfortune they are not in school.

3. Eliminates funding for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program, designed to provide testing for low-income women. To date, the program has conducted 6 million tests resulting in over 23,000 detections since 1991.

4. Does not address the negotiation of Medicare drug prices with the major pharmaceutical companies. (This could save people billions of dollars, but the big drug companies helped put him office, so a "hands off" policy remains in effect.)

5. Fails to address the nation's critical energy problems. (His recently signed Energy Bill initiated a $65 million give-away to the major oil companies.)

This Bush administration budget is attempting to tilt the balance even more dramatically than it has already against middle Americans, veterans, senior citizens and even our children. I contend that Bush's priorities are not the same as those of the American people.

You are urged to persuade your elected representatives in Congress, both Republican and Democrat to vote against this outlandish and discriminatory budget proposal.

Contact Montie Pierce at montie@aiinc.com

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 03, 2006

Yucca Mountain repository costs may drop after new review

Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is revising costs to build a Yucca Mountain repository after a redesign that was initiated last fall and a new campaign that links the waste site to other ambitious nuclear initiatives.

DOE Deputy Secretary Clay Sell said Thursday that he had ordered a re-evaluation from the $57.6 billion that was the department's most recent published cost estimate for the nuclear waste repository, issued in May 2001.

Repository project manager Paul Golan said new estimates might emerge later this year, after DOE selects new designs for spent fuel canisters and for the industrial complex at Yucca Mountain where nuclear waste would arrive for placement.

Speaking with reporters after an appearance on Capitol Hill, Sell suggested repository costs would decrease upon review. Officials said last fall that new designs for the above-ground complex would eliminate several "multibillion-dollar" fuel-handling facilities.

There also has been growing speculation among industry and congressional officials that DOE plans further changes at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as part of a new waste reprocessing initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

The Bush administration is preparing a Yucca Mountain bill expected to be introduced in Congress in the coming days that could provide clues. Sell said some details of how the repository might relate to the reprocessing initiative remained undetermined.

Golan said he was not told he must find specific savings within the Yucca project.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
March 03, 2006

DOE: Yucca money won't be diverted

Radiation Exposure Standards Lowered for Nye County

By Steve Tetreault
PVT Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The Energy Department does not plan to divert money from Yucca Mountain in order to research other forms of nuclear waste disposal, a DOE official told senators at a hearing Wednesday.

While the Bush administration has linked the proposed Nevada repository to development of new reprocessing technologies for nuclear spent fuel, acting repository director Paul Golan said funding for the initiatives will remain separate.

Golan responded to a concern by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who convened the Yucca session.

Inhofe, a repository supporter, said he wanted assurance that a new administration reprocessing effort, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, "should not deter the forward progress of Yucca Mountain."

The idea that GNEP might tap into the nuclear waste fund set aside for Yucca Mountain has been raised in several quarters. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has speculated publicly about the possibility.

Also this week, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a repository supporter, said he was worried that GNEP would "divert managerial attention" from Yucca Mountain, as well as money that utility ratepayers have been setting aside for repository construction, more than $20 billion so far.

The hearing before Inhofe's committee gave Yucca critics a new opportunity to point out flaws in the repository project, while Inhofe and other supporters urged DOE to keep the project moving forward.

Critics, including both Nevada senators and the state's nuclear waste director, focused on radiation safety rules being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The proposed EPA standard would allow somebody living on the outskirts of Yucca Mountain - think Beatty, Amargosa Valley and even Pahrump - to be exposed to 350 millirem of radiation annually, dramatically increasing the odds of contracting cancer, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., charged.

"Let's face it, this is such a nightmare," Boxer said, adding health standards for other radioactive materials are not as lenient. "We are changing our tradition and our history of how we view cancer risks."

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said EPA "was forced to create this ridiculous standard to make Yucca Mountain scientifically feasible on paper."

William Wehrum, EPA acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, defended the agency's work. He said the action would limit radiation doses for a period up to 1 million years, an unprecedented standard.

The 350 millirem is no higher than people living in other parts of the country who are exposed to "natural levels" of radiation, Wehrum said, adding further it would take effect only after the first 10,000 years of repository operations. Before then, an annual dose limit of 15 millirem would be in effect.

By comparison, EPA officials say a routine chest X-ray emits 10 millirem and that a mammogram emits 30 millirem.

Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the Yucca program has been delayed for so long that there would be time for the EPA to formulate a new radiation safety standard.

Ensign and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., promoted their bill that would require the Department of Energy shelve the Yucca project and keep spent fuel stored in dry casks at reactor sites.

Yucca Mountain "is fraught with scientific, technical and geological problems," Reid said. "Our bill guarantees all Americans that our nation's nuclear waste will be stored in the safest way possible."

But Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., questioned the safety of keeping nuclear waste at power plants, saying such storage "is a perfect dirty bomb site."

"We do need to look into our choices," DeMint said. "We assume we can leave things the same and be safer rather than moving ahead like we have been trying to do for a number of years."

Golan said that nuclear waste kept in special casks and placed in reinforced steel and concrete canisters would be safe for 100 years, when it would likely need to be repacked.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
March 3, 2006

DOE DOA due to TVA

By Steve Tetreault
PVT Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - A federal judge has ordered the government to pay $34.9 million to the operator of two nuclear power plants in Alabama and Tennessee after the Department of Energy failed to meet a 1998 deadline to dispose of their nuclear waste.

The ruling in favor of the Tennessee Valley Authority is the first one in which the department has been told to pay specific damages to a utility that is keeping highly radioactive spent fuel stored onsite while delays continue to hamper plans for a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nye County.

Utilities that run most of the nation's 103 nuclear plants and some that have been mothballed have filed 61 lawsuits seeking similar damages.

Attorneys expect utilities to win judgments in many of the cases, since an earlier round of lawsuits established that DOE had breached longstanding contracts to take ownership of thousands of tons of their spent fuel by Jan. 31, 1998.

Industry officials have speculated damages could climb well into the billions of dollars, particularly since there appears to be no nuclear waste solution in sight while utilities continue to pile up waste and would be allowed to seek further compensation through the courts.

Damage awards are paid through a special judgment account overseen by the U.S. Treasury that is essentially fueled by taxpayers, officials said.

The Tennessee Valley ruling comes as Congress awaits legislation from the Energy Department in a new effort to jump-start Yucca Mountain.

The decision, issued Jan. 31 by Judge Charles Lettow in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, underscores the need for Congress to fix Yucca Mountain, or at least relocate spent fuel away from power plants, said Steve Kraft, nuclear waste director at the Nuclear Energy Institute.

"The government is starting to take money out of your pockets as taxpayers and paying utilities for their failure to move fuel from our sites so that is what we are suggesting that Congress deal with," Kraft said.

The lawsuit involved the three-reactor Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Limestone County, Ala., and the two-reactor Sequoyah facility in Hamilton County, Tenn.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal corporation and the nation's largest public power generator, operates two other nuclear power complexes but they were not part of the damage suit.

TVA officials claimed costs of $35,683,438 to build "dry storage" facilities at the plants, including modifications so spent fuel assemblies could be loaded into steel and concrete casks and transported to storage pads.

Roads and railroad bays needed to be rebuilt, underground utilities had to be moved, and "fail safe" cranes were installed, according to court documents. At Browns Ferry, security facilities needed to be expanded.

Judge Lettow allowed all but $859,304 of the costs.

The Energy Department had no immediate comment on Tuesday on the ruling or whether it planned to appeal.

The ruling is significant because the TVA was awarded virtually the entire sum it sought for damages, said Jay Silberg, an attorney who represents utilities in 19 of the lawsuits although not the TVA case.

Silberg said Congress may get motivated to speed nuclear waste bills if damage awards accumulate.

"DOE continues to have its issues and whether this has any impact on them it probably will have more impact on Congress when it gets to see they will have to start paying off real dollars," Silberg said.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she doubted the growing costs for nuclear waste storage will cause a stir.

"With all due respect my colleagues are brain dead on this issue," Berkley said. Nevada lawmakers have sponsored bills that would redirect Yucca Mountain fees paid by ratepayers to reimburse utilities for keeping spent fuel at their sites rather than build a repository in Nevada.

"Instead of wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money we should be spending money for onsite dry storage," Berkley said. "The end result would be the same."

The TVA case is the second one to emerge from the federal court of claims and the first to award damages to a utility.

The court awarded no damages but left the door open for a future claim in the first case, which involved the Donald C. Cook plant in Michigan operated by the Indiana Michigan Power Company.

Decisions in other cases are expected soon, including one involving nuclear waste stored at three nuclear plants in New England that already have been mothballed, and another from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, where the judge at one point suggested the government void its contract and give ratepayers their money back.

At the same time, the Energy Department reportedly is in settlement talks with some utilities. In 2004, DOE agreed to pay Exelon Corp., for keeping nuclear fuel at its plants until Yucca Mountain opens.

Exelon, which operates 17 reactors, was to receive at least $300 million, and $600 million if the Yucca repository does not open until 2015.

In December, Scana Corp., and Santee Cooper, the utilities that service most of South Carolina, reached a $9 million settlement for waste at a plant they operate in Jenkinsville, S.C.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
March 3, 2006

A candidate we can finally hang our hat on

Doug McMurdo

Every once in a while somebody will do something that so astounds the senses it restores your faith in the inherent goodness of people - and they do so at precisely the same time you've decided the human race is beyond redemption.

Nye County Manager Michael Maher dropped a bomb earlier this week. Not a real bomb like governments and terrorists use, but more of a metaphorical bomb, the kind that sucks the air out of your chest and makes your face go bug-eyed.

Maher this week announced he might campaign for the Nye County Commission's District IV, currently held by Candice Trummell, who will likely not seek re-election now that she's taken a position with a Lincoln County firm that is battling Nye County for the presumed cash flow that would come from the Yucca Mountain project.

So what is it about Maher's ambition to run for county commissioner that is so out of the ordinary? Well, in order to do so he's willing to give up - if elected - tens of thousands of dollars worth of salary and benefits each year.

Maher's willing to go from top dog to freshman commissioner; he's willing to expose himself to mean people who make it their life's mission to give grief to elected officials - and he's willing to put aside his personal life to ensure Nye County moves forward at a time when residents most need a decisive leader.

Actually, that last part might be what prompts the county manager to rethink his position. On Thursday, a day after our interview, Maher in an e-mail stepped back a couple of paces. His son was in an auto accident that morning and Maher backed off from his commitment, saying something about "family" and "what's important in life."

While Maher is an excellent administrator, has integrity and has a vision for Nye County that can only be described as practical and optimistic - he is not a great orator nor is he a chatty people person.

That would explain why Maher, without guile, had nothing but praise for the county commission he might hope to join in the fall, at about an 80 percent pay cut, when he told me of his plans.

He's too nice to be a politician, but voters I know are sick of the slicksters who can talk all day and not say a damn thing. We seem to have a plague of them.

District V Commissioner Patricia Cox's recent announcement that she would not seek another four-year term played a role in Maher's decision. "Patricia has the right idea," he said. "Patricia Cox pushed for a strategic plan and that is exactly what we need. We need to find out what direction we want to go and then get everybody pulling in that direction."

With Cox stepping aside after one term and Trummell's future uncertain - and no viable candidates on the horizon to serve as suitable replacements for either woman - Maher put his heart on his sleeve: "My thoughts were good people need to step up if we're going to continue with what we're trying to do."

That comment begged the question: "Well, Mr. Maher, just what, exactly, are we trying to do?"

He answered thusly: The biggest hurdle Nye County has to overcome, aside from ending the civil war between the north and south, is to find funds desperately needed to put in adequate infrastructure in burgeoning Pahrump, where growth has taken on the ideology of a cancer cell; growth for growth's sake.

"There will always be a funding problem until we get industry in town that provides good jobs," he said. "We have lots of houses going up, now we need jobs that pay wages so those people can afford to buy one of those houses."

Pahrump has become a haven for retirees who move here from other states. They've worked their entire lives and now it's time to enjoy the time they have left. That's the American dream. However, property taxes don't pay for roads, water and sewer and other infrastructure, so the working men and women of Pahrump are hurt and priced out of the very community they are helping to build.

"I want Pahrump to be a nice place for people to retire to, but I also want Pahrump and Nye County to be a place where people can live, work, raise a family," said Maher.

"People in the communities are nervous, county employees are nervous. People want to know if there's someone out there to elect. I'm pretty firm in my decision. I knew I needed to talk to you because I need to know if the people will support me and I need to know now because that window is closing."

Maher uses the word Need quite a bit. He is that rarest of individuals, however, because the needs he expresses are not his personal desires, but yours. He needs to help Nye County become a better place. This is his mission.

His message is simple and one that every resident in Nye County, particularly in Pahrump, has to hear - whether they like it or not: "We have to be able to adapt. Our homes are our investments but at some point outside influences will force us to move on or live with the changes.

"I know nothing ever makes everybody happy. There's lots of uncertainty out there but we just have to gnash our teeth and quit waffling.

"These next four years could be the most critical four years in Nye County's history."

He had me at hello.

Write to Doug McMurdo at dmcmurdo@pvtimes.com.

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

Las Vegas SUN
March 03, 2006

Jon Ralston pulls no punches on the race for governor, guilt by association and the Walters mess

Of polls, pitfalls and poltroons ...

Master of the Democratic domain? Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, whom I have lampooned at times for being invisible so far, apparently doesn't have to do much because he is all but even in a poll conducted for his campaign.

The polling firm Garin-Hart-Yang surveyed 1,100 statewide voters last month and found Gibson in a dead heat with state Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, who led 36-34.

"Like the 'Seinfeld' show, doing nothing actually works," joked Fred Yang, who conducted the poll.

Yang pointed to the high undecided count - 30 percent - and that Gibson does better the more people turn out.

That is, Titus has the hard-core partisans. "The bigger the electorate is, the better we do," he said in analyzing the numbers.

A potential problem for Gibson: You can't gin up turnout by being invisible.

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. News that ex-Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons is being feted at a fundraiser hosted by a lobbying firm that has represented the trade group most intent on building a dump at Yucca Mountain is beautiful serendipity for her opponents, Secretary of State Dean Heller and Assemblywoman Sharron Angle.

The event later this month is hosted by The Capitol Hill Consulting Group, which has advocated for the Edison Electric Institute, which wants Yucca Mountain as much as anything.

So what's the explanation? No response as of this writing from the Gibbons campaign, but what can she say?

I didn't know? That won't look too swift.

Who cares? That won't look too swift.

What fundraiser? That won't look too swift.

So what can her opponents say? A lot. And my guess is they will. I wonder how her husband, Rep. Jim Gibbons, who is running for governor, would feel about his wife being honored by a Yucca Mountain lobbying outfit? Ah, that would be so unfair to ask, wouldn't it?

No wonder they were worried. After perusing those city documents released in the Bill Walters probe by the City Council, you can see why the city attorney's office didn't want to hand them over. The documents reflect the same characteristics the council and upper management have shown vis-a-vis this murky deed restriction deal with the developer aka The Eighth City Councilman - a veritable montage of mendacity and cowardice, with only whistleblowers Lori Wohletz and John Redlein willing to stand up to juiced deals.

It's worth repeating just a couple of the excerpts from the documents stretching back to the late 1990s that show how the past was prologue:

Jan. 18, 1999: Deputy City Attorney Thomas R. Green's memo to City Manager Virginia Valentine is devastating about the council's consideration of selling the Royal Links golf course land to Walters.

"The negotiations as currently proposed did not confer any benefit to the City, and, therefore, there is substantial argument that such a transaction would violate the public purpose doctrine." That is, it would not benefit the citizens, but would benefit Walters. The beginning of a pattern, perhaps?

Aug. 2, 2005: City Attorney Brad Jerbic informs Doug Selby of his reaction to the manager's recommendations to the council on the deal with Walters on the deed restriction. Jerbic writes that he "cannot say that legal agrees with the solution. ... I do not agree that the purchaser (Walters) should select another engineer, since the purchaser is highly motivated to select an engineer that will produce the answer they want ... this office cannot sign off on (the deal)."

Sound familiar?

What is happening now - a thorough, meticulous probe by real estate and criminal law experts - will truly synthesize a relationship over the years between the city and Walters that could be called symbiotic - that is, if the city obtained the same benefit as the developer. Whether or not criminal acts have occurred is still unclear. But this probe will once and for all document what many of us have followed over the years, which is the incomparable way Walters has wined and dined and schmoozed public officials and then had his way with them.

That's his job. The question the investigators need to answer is how badly were the elected and appointed officials doing theirs.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program "Face to Face With Jon Ralston" on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the daily e-mail newsletter "RalstonFlash.com." His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. He can be reached at 870-7997 or ralston@vegas.com.

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

Planet Ark
March 03, 2006

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is planning steps to advance its long-stalled proposal to build a nuclear waste dump in the Nevada desert, officials told Congress Wednesday.

The government's plan to build an underground waste dump in the Nevada desert about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas is more than 10 years behind schedule and still plagued by scientific foul-ups and political stonewalling.

Paul Golan, an acting director at the Department of Energy, did not tell the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when the department will send its proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That step was originally planned for 2004.

But Golan said the department will publish a schedule of when it intends to make such a submission "later this summer."

"We believe that submission of our license application should not be driven by artificial dates," Golan said.

The NRC must sign off on the plan before Yucca Mountain can begin accepting waste from the nation's 103 nuclear power plants.

Spent fuel from US nuclear plants -- which supply about 20 percent of US electricity -- is piling up. More than 50,000 tons (45,500 metric tons) of it is stored at over 100 temporary locations in 39 states.

The administration hoped to open the site in 2010 and allow 77,000 tons (70,000 metric tons) of waste to be stored deep underground.

On another front, the Environmental Protection Agency hopes to issue a proposal by year-end that would assure safe radiation doses from the site for 1 million years, which would satisfy a court order that threatens to derail the project.

Bill Wehrum, acting assistant administrator for air and radiation for the Environmental Protection Agency, told the committee his agency hopes to finish its proposal by year end.

Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and ardent opponent of the site for safety reasons, told the panel that the repository "will never be built because the project is mired in scientific, safety and technical problems."

Reid proposed handling nuclear waste through "dry cask storage," a process that would allow nuclear reactors to store waste on-site. He and Senator John Ensign have introduced a bill requiring nuclear utilities to use the casks.

Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate energy panel, said the project needs to move to the licensing stage, and issued a report titled "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet."

Story by Lisa Lambert

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

Arms Control Today
March 03, 2006

Bush Promotes New Nuclear Plan

Wade Boese

The Bush administration hopes emerging nuclear fuel-cycle tech nologies will help meet U.S. and global energy needs and reduce dangers that civilian nuclear programs might be corrupted for nuclear weapons. But even administration officials indicate that the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), an initiative to promote such technologies, is by no means assured of success.

In his Jan. 31 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush argued the United States had to break its “addiction’ to oil by investing in alternative energy sources. GNEP is the nuclear component of a multi-pronged approach that also includes boosting solar and wind power. The administration is seeking $250 million in seed money for GNEP in its fiscal year 2007 budget request.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman unveiled GNEP Feb. 6. The initiative´s aims, Bodman explained, were to “extract more energy from nuclear fuel, reduce the amount of waste that requires permanent disposal, and greatly reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.’ Speaking at the same event, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell framed the initiative as part of “a nuclear renaissance, which we greatly need.’

GNEP rests on devising new ways of treating spent nuclear fuel so it can be used again and again, a process referred to as recycling, before being discarded as waste. Currently, the United States only runs nuclear fuel through a reactor once before disposing of it.

The United States abandoned commercial fuel recycling in the 1970s because of high costs and concerns about the dangers associ ated with chemical reprocessing, the current method for separating uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel for reuse. Because plutonium can be used to build nuclear bombs, Washingtondeclined to embrace an approach that created large quantities of bomb-ready material susceptible to misuse or theft. Despite U.S.apprehensions, France adopted a civilian spent-fuel reprocessing program, and Japan is on the verge of implementing one.

Administration officials envision GNEP as mooting past U.S. concerns by employing new reprocessing approaches, called UREX+ and pyroprocessing, that they say will not yield pure separated plutonium but a mixture, including plutonium, that is less applicable to making bombs. GNEP further calls for construction of new ad vanced burner reactors to make use of the reprocessed fuel.

But the new reprocessing technologies have yet to be proven on an industrial scale, and the new reactors must still be designed. En ergy Department officials seemed to acknowledge the many chal lenges facing GNEP by repeatedly couching it in qualified terms.

Bodman noted, “If we can make GNEP a reality…,’ while Sell said, “Ultimately, we hope to be in a position to make a judg ment about the commercial viability of this approach in the coming years.’ Sell also added that “the scale of what we are proposing is substantial and the level of [research and develop ment] and demonstration funding that would be required of this country is significant.’

Still, a Feb. 6 Energy Department press release quoted Bodman as declaring, “GNEP brings the promise of virtually limitless energy to emerging economies around the globe in an environmentally friendly manner while reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation.’

The International Aspect

The United States is aiming to get other advanced nuclear powers, such as France, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom, involved in GNEP. Participating countries would seek to develop new small-scale reactors that would operate their entire lifetime on one load of nuclear fuel, minimizing the risk that the fuel could be used for bomb purposes. GNEP countries would also work to devise new safeguard mechanisms to make it more difficult for nuclear materials and technologies in the civil sector to be di verted to building arms.

If the novel reprocessing approach pans out, Washington sees it as enabling GNEP participants to offer other countries a reliable supply of nuclear fuel and fuel services at an attractive price while limiting proliferation dangers. “We hope to develop an interna tional regime…so that fuel can be leased to a country interested in building a reactor and taking fuel, but then the fuel can be taken back to the fuel cycle country,’ Sell explained.

Eligibility for this offer would depend on potential recipients forswearing acquisition of their own reprocessing or uranium-en richment capabilities. Uranium enrichment can be used to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel or highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

In February 2004, Bush called for a halt to the spread of reprocessing and enrichment capabilities. (See ACT, March 2004.) Washington , Moscow, and several European capitals are trying to persuade Tehran to give up its fledgling enrichment program. The United States says Iran´s stubborn refusal is evidence of its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Russia and International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei have advanced concepts similar to GNEP intended to stymie the diffusion of enrichment and reprocessing technologies. Currently, 15 countries, including Iran, have such capabilities.

At a July 2005 Moscow conference, Kremlin officials floated the possibility of organizing a network of global nuclear-fuel supply centers based in Russia and other advanced nuclear powers, and Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated the proposal in January. ElBaradei has advocated establishing a guaranteed nuclear-fuel supply regime that would eventually evolve into multilateral management of all nuclear fuel facilities.

ElBaradei and Putin have said their proposals would be open to any government. Putin said Russia would provide “access without discrimination for all who desire it,’ while ElBaradei has recommended a supply regime based on apolitical, objective criteria. The United States has not made similar statements, raising questions as to whether GNEP services would be available to governments not in Washington´s favor.

Sell indicated that reactions to GNEP by other capitals have been mixed. Although saying it had been “enthusiastically received’ by some, he also admitted, “[T]here are different perspectives and different angles, and there are many details to be worked out.’

The reaction of U.S. lawmakers has fallen along party lines. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Feb. 9 that the “recycling technologies that are discussed under GNEP are exciting.’ Similarly, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the initiative Feb. 16 “visionary.’ Alternatively, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said the same day that GNEP “has serious problems.’ She cited potential costs of up to hundreds of billions of dollars, proliferation dangers, and doubts that recy cling would reduce nuclear waste.

The handling of nuclear waste is politically divisive in the United States, and the GNEP proposal to bring back spent nuclear fuel from foreign countries could prompt more objections to the initiative. Indeed, public opposition has stalled the U.S. government´s plan to open a long-term spent nuclear-fuel and waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

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