Yucca Mountain News Clips - Sunday, March 12, 2006

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Sunday, March 12, 2006
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 12, 2006

Editorial: Fixated on 'broken' Yucca Mountain

Like French generals in red pants

Once a decision is made, an effective leader will "stick with the plan" for a reasonable time to give it the greatest chance of success.

Battles are rarely won by generals who send a brigade marching down one road, and then -- before it has reached its objective -- countermand those instructions, ordering the commander to turn his men around and rush off somewhere else. "Wait, I've had another thought ..."

But such dicta can carry their own curse. How many hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in World War I because bull-headed generals refused to adapt their tactics to new technological realities -- not just for weeks, but for years?

After $8 billion and years of "study," the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository -- eight years behind schedule and already the most expensive tomb-building project since the days of the Pharaohs -- seems much closer to the latter case.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman went before lawmakers in Washington last week and admitted the Yucca Mountain project is "broken."

It would be hard to deny. Inspection audits by Mr. Bodman's department and by congressional investigators have raised persistent questions about the quality of work by the DOE and its management contractor, Bechtel SAIC, on the project 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

So unreliable was the ongoing process of documentation that work was actually ordered stopped on project design and research on canister corrosion. Just a year ago, it was revealed that several U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists in e-mails had discussed possible falsification of quality assurance documents concerning water infiltration at the site.

The DOE "did not manage it very well," Mr. Bodman told members of a House subcommittee on Wednesday. "We really had a process that was broken, and we are trying to fix it."

Asked by Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., when Yucca Mountain is going to open, Mr. Bodman replied, "That's sort of the $64 question. I would guess at least five years before we are in a position to put a shovel in the ground to build it."

"I think we have a very serious problem here," responded Rep. Visclosky.

Members of Congress say it's reached the point where the inability to move Yucca Mountain forward could endanger efforts to license new nuclear plants, which would, of course, generate more nuclear waste.

Under the circumstances, you'd think the congressmen would be anxious to consider any reasonable alternative to the repository.

Though of course, you'd also have thought the World War I generals would have been anxious to consider any reasonable alternative to again sending their men up against the machine guns.

Sure enough, the congressmen sounded like French generals in red pants, storming that all that's really needed is more resolve on the part of the men, more "elan," even as Mr. Bodman returned to the Hill the very next day, March 9, to explain the Bush administration's ambitious plans for an alternative that would considerably reduce the need for Yucca Mountain: nuclear waste reprocessing.

Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wanted no part of the technology -- which the modern-day French have been using for years. And why not? Because they fear it might distract attention from Yucca Mountain!

"I am concerned that this sprawling new venture may divert DOE's attention from other immediate concerns such as fulfilling its current responsibility with respect to Yucca Mountain," explained Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.

"I am not a supporter," agreed Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "I'm not going to start down that trail until we finish other trails we started" -- including Yucca Mountain.

One can almost hear the ghosts of the Allied commanders along the Somme and Marne in 1914 and 1915, vowing that to equip their own enlisted men with automatic weapons would "only encourage the waste of ammunition," while to examine such alternatives as armored vehicles and flank-turning amphibious landings would only "sap the courage" needed by their men to keep charging those darned machine guns.

We're in today's Yucca Mountain mess only because environmental concerns -- some legitimate, but some overblown -- aborted America's own fledgling waste-recycling program decades ago. Now, the administration is seeking $250 million this year -- more than $1 billion over the next several years -- to develop new recycling technologies that could produce fuels less attractive for terrorist hijacking while still useful for a new generation of fast reactors.

Yes, it would be better if this responsibility were laid at the doorstep of the private concerns that profit from nuclear energy, rather than on the taxpayers.

But either way, if recycling is the wave of the future -- and it may well be -- the plan to seal valuable nuclear waste deep underground could end up ranking right up there in the pantheon of looniness with the post-WWII attempt to develop a nuclear-powered airplane.

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

Las Vegas SUN
March 11, 2006

Editorial: Last laugh is on Republicans

GOP leader pokes fun at Democrats instead of looking inward at his own party's miscues

The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, may have thought he would get a laugh when he used this line Friday in a speech to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference: "Not only can the Democrats not settle on an agenda, they can't even agree on a slogan." But the laugh, albeit a cynical one, is actually on Mehlman and his party.

Midterm elections, coming up in November, are mostly about the party in power. They are an opportunity for the voters to express their views about the controlling party's performance. And their views are becoming well known already.

The head of the Republican Party, President Bush, achieved just a 37 percent approval rating this week in a poll conducted jointly by the Associated Press and the international polling firm Ipsos. The poll also showed that only 31 percent of the nation's voters approve the performance by the Republican-led Congress. And 70 percent of those polled said they thought the nation was on the wrong track.

It seems to us that the Republican Party's chairman has a lot more to worry about than whether the Democrats have published a platform or come up with a slogan. In fact, the Democrats have articulated what they stand for numerous times. A Democratic spokesman named a few standard bearers this week in an interview with Las Vegas Sun Washington reporter Benjamin Grove - strong national security, reformed health care, better schools, a smarter energy plan and more retirement security.

And we would add stronger congressional ethics rules, better management of the environment, closer relations with our international allies, greater protection of civil liberties, more openness in government, a higher minimum wage, sufficient taxes to support our troops and infrastructure and to protect future generations from mountains of debt, efficiency in emergency responses, wiser federal appointments to key positions and a plan for nuclear waste that does not include Yucca Mountain. And that's just for starters.

Republicans must answer for the state of affairs in Iraq. They must explain the collapse of ethics among their ranks in regard to the lobbying scandal that is still swirling. They must explain why Social Security reform crumbled under their watch and why Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff had to resign. They must account for a president who insists that the United Arab Emirates is right for our ports. They have to face seniors and tell them why the president wants to cut Medicare and why the prescription drug bill is a confusing mess. They will face angry questions about Hurricane Katrina and why the national debt limit is being raised.

No wonder they'd rather hit the Democrats on the all-important slogan issue.

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

Salt Lake Tribune
March 11, 2006

Nuclear energy is not clean or safe

By Eileen McCabe-Olsen and Pete Litster

Some of Utah's lawmakers argue that nuclear energy is clean, safe and cheap.

We disagree with them on the supposedly low level of greenhouse gas emissions released throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, and the economic nonsense of huge taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power. However, we are more concerned with the legacy of long-lived nuclear waste.

Waste from nuclear power currently resides at the generating plants, awaiting permanent storage in the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada. Yucca Mountain is geologically unstable and is on land sacred to the Western Shoshone Indians. Recent studies indicate that designs for this project could allow groundwater corrosion within decades, resulting in contamination of the huge aquifer that lies beneath. This supplies water to one of the West's largest dairy lands.

Assuming that Yucca Mountain actually opens, what will we do when it's full? Its capacity was calculated based on the premise that no more nuclear plants would be built and that no existing plants would be relicensed beyond their initial 40 years.

Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign, as well as our own senators, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, have proposed changing federal law to keep waste at the generating plants. Power plant owners and neighboring residents oppose these changes, not wanting such "safe" waste in their backyards, thus efforts to "sweep it under the rug" here in the West. It is unclear that the industry-supported waste fund will cover these expenses, leaving taxpayers with the bill.

Members of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes and the State of Utah are fighting the Private Fuel Storage nuclear dump proposed for the Goshute Reservation in Utah's West Desert.

Oscar Shirani, an industry whistleblower, has done extensive analysis of the dry storage casks designed for the PFS project, and noted that even a mild sandstorm could clog the casks' cooling vents, and that birds or rodents building nests in them could cause containment failure and radioactive release.

A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy noted the gross lack of funding for emergency responders to handle a nuclear accident en route to our Great Basin home. Further, studies by the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C., describe, in detail, consequences of even moderate damage to a "spent" nuclear fuel cask from a common automobile-train collision, including release of Cesium-137, a dangerous radionuclide.

Finally, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences conceded that no analysis had been made of the terrorism threat to nuclear waste in transit to Skull Valley, because the relevant information was classified.

Nuclear proponents are pushing a false "solution" for reducing this waste burden: recycling or reprocessing nuclear waste. The technology being discussed by the Bush administration is merely theoretical. Even nuclear advocates, like the Nuclear Energy Institute, acknowledge that it will take decades and serious expense to mature.

Despite these factors, 11 new plants are being planned. Since 2000, 39 have been relicensed, 12 more applications are under review, and 27 more applications are expected by 2012. Disposal of the expected waste output requires planning far beyond what we can even currently imagine.

It is unconscionable that certain Utah lawmakers are trying to trick Utahns into contributing to this already massive and dangerous boondoggle. It is hypocritical to oppose the storage of nuclear waste within state lines, when you are considering becoming an actual generator of the waste.

Tons of radioactive rock is not clean. Radioactive water is not clean. Further creation and expansion of nuclear waste dumps is not safe. Enabling this with huge taxpayer subsidies makes no economic sense.

Utah has many energy options it can consider. Let us not make the critical error of gambling our future on a choice we cannot undo.

---Eileen McCabe-Olsen is associate director and Pete Litster is executive director of Shundahai Network, an international network of activists and organizations formed at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site in 1994 to unite environmental, peace-and-justice and indigenous land-rights communities.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
March 10, 2006

Nuclear Waste: Lawmakers snub reprocessing plans

Legislators say they'd rather see repository at Yucca

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's ambitious plans for nuclear waste reprocessing got a cold reception Thursday from pro-nuclear lawmakers who said they were more interested in seeing a waste repository built at Yucca Mountain.

At a budget hearing with Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee expressed skepticism over the reprocessing initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the committee chairman, said he believed the reprocessing plan "may be overly broad, and it may be premature."

"Put me down as publicly respectful, but I am not a supporter," Barton said. "I'm not going to start down that trail until we finish other trails we started."

Barton said those trails included the Nevada venture and coal and oil projects that Congress passed last year but that President Bush gave short shrift to in this year's budget.

Bodman heard similar reactions Wednesday from another group of House members who handle energy bills, signaling the president's reprocessing plan might face a rocky future on Capitol Hill.

As he did in the earlier meeting, Bodman on Thursday described the embattled and delayed Yucca Mountain effort as a thorn.

"This one is an embarrassment," he said. "It has been around for a long time, and every time I use the words 'Yucca Mountain,' people cringe."

Bodman outlined his efforts to reform the repository program, which so far is eight years behind schedule. He said he has installed new managers who are redesigning segments to save money and simplify nuclear fuel handling at the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

A Bush bill to fix aspects of the repository program will be ready "within a month," Bodman said.

He also said the Energy Department is beginning to prepare a report ordered by Congress on the possibility of building a second nuclear waste repository. The department is required to issue such a report between 2007 and 2010.

"We will be examining a number of states as potential sites," Bodman said, without elaborating.

As for reprocessing, the Energy Department is asking Congress to approve $250 million this year and more than $1 billion over the next few years as down payments for GNEP.

Advocates say they envision perfecting technology that can reprocess spent nuclear fuel in ways to make it less attractive to terrorists while recycling elements into new fuel that can be burned in a new generation of fast reactors.

The resulting waste, while destined to be buried at a repository, would be compact in volume and less toxic, they say.

Critics argue that the vision is a dream and that the reprocessing the administration envisions is uneconomical and unrealistic.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
March 10, 2006

Gone Fission

Senator doubts Congress will act on Yucca this year

By Steve Tetreault
PVT Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate's energy committee said Tuesday he did not think Congress would act on legislation this year to help establish a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nye County.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said it is getting late to carry on a nuclear waste debate during a congressional session that figures to be shortened by elections this fall.

"It seems to me to be very difficult to get it done this year," Domenici said in a remark published by Environment & Energy Daily, an Internet publication that reports on Congress.

Domenici's spokeswoman could not be reached Tuesday to confirm his comment, which also was reported by Congress Daily. The senator spoke to reporters following a committee meeting.

The remarks by a senator who is considered influential on nuclear issues comes as the Bush administration continues to negotiate internally over a proposed bill intended to jump-start the stalled Yucca program.

Sources say officials at the Department of Energy and at the White House continue to differ on key elements of the bill, which is expected to spark debate and opposition from repository opponents.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday he hoped it would be ready "within the month."

Bodman on Friday said the Bush administration would not seek permission from Congress in the bill to establish interim sites where nuclear waste could be located from power plants until Yucca Mountain is completed.

On Monday, administration sources said Bodman "spoke too soon," and that interim storage still was being negotiated.

Meanwhile Tuesday, Democrats said the administration's contradiction of Bodman may signal "the beginning of the end" for the energy secretary.

"Given the Bush administration's emphasis on loyalty, and its record of marginalizing dissenters, this development does not bode well for Secretary Bodman," said a statement distributed by the Democrats' "war room" established by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Democrats said former EPA secretary Christine Todd Whitman and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were among high-ranking Bush officials who left their jobs after disagreeing with the White House on policy matters.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
March 10, 2006

13 Vehicles for $371,000

Sheriff to get his wheels

Three - Not Five - Pickups to Join The Fleet

By Phillip Gomez
PVT

The Nye County Sheriff's Office, with over 2,000 miles of gravel or dirt roads in the county, plus another 600 miles of paved or chipped-sealed roads, goes through patrol vehicles like a gambling addict through a paycheck.

Last year, no new vehicles were added to the sheriff's fleet, so the office was starved for wheels. This year it hit the jackpot - well, almost: a straight flush, king high.

It was Nye County video poker stakes.

The Nye County Board of Commissioners agreed Tuesday to Sheriff Tony DeMeo's request.

In the fourth presentation made to the board, the commission approved an expenditure of $371,000 to purchase 13 new vehicles - three 2006 Dodge four-wheel drive, quad-cab pickup trucks, two 2006 Ford Expedition sports utility vehicles and eight 2006 Ford Crown Victoria patrol cars.

The new vehicles are to replace older patrol vehicles with more than 100,000 miles on them. Currently, the sheriff's office has 31 vehicles with more than 100,000 miles. They are deemed unreliable and unsuitable for use as emergency vehicles.

The new pickups were the blue chip items. The cost per vehicle is $24,000 plus another $6,906 each for modifications. To outfit the vehicles with police equipment - radar, video cameras, radios, modems and GPS tracking systems - add on another thousand or two, up to $3,500, but that wasn't included in the total price tag of $30,906 each.

The Crown Vics cost $30,412 each; the 4 x 4 Expeditions, $30,015 each.

The sheriff's office really wanted to get five pickups, but the commissioners talked DeMeo down to three - as a pilot project to test them. But in poker who knows who is bluffing whom?

"I really have mixed feelings about the 4 x 4s," said Commissioner Patricia Cox.

Lt. Frank Jarvis said the four-wheelers would allow for improved access to difficult terrain and response times to calls for service in times of inclement weather, especially in remote areas. A deputy responding to a call from a resident in Gabbs, for example, would take approximately three hours to get there from the Smoky Valley if traveling by paved road, Jarvis said. But if the deputy went over gravel roads, he or she could get there in half that time.

Additionally, the pickups' heavier suspension, heavy-duty transmission and higher ground clearance would lower undercarriage repair costs, he said.

"People get stuck on wet roads and we can't respond," said Lt. Jarvis.

Jarvis also said patrol vehicles take a beating from being regularly parked and idled. He said idling for an hour was equivalent to driving 33 miles.

Vehicles used in accident investigations are sometimes idling for up to eight hours. The cars must remain running in order to supply electricity from the battery to run the emergency lights, radios and other electronic equipment.

"Would you be willing to try three instead of five, and then report back an analysis, a pilot project of the pickups?" asked Commissioner Joni Eastley.

DeMeo and Jarvis indicated that one pickup would go the northern part of the county, to be utilized for search and rescue incidents. One would go to Beatty and one to Pahrump.

Comptroller Marie Owens said the interest earned on the county's PETT fund would pay for the vehicles. But it would almost wipe out the fund.

PETT is the Payments Equal To Taxes that the county collects from the federal Department of Energy for the Yucca Mountain Repository as host county.

Cox remained concerned that the sheriff's request had not been budgeted and that allocating the funds to his office would deprive the commissioners of funding other departments.

"Since the money is there," said Cox, "do we want to drain it down, not give other important equipment throughout the county and let them go without?

"It wasn't in the budget," she told the sheriff. "Why wasn't it factored into your budget? ... My concern is, how are we going to be assured that ... we can run this large a fleet without using PETT funds (every year)? Is this for this year coming up, and that is it?"

Jarvis replied that a few vehicles would need replacing each year.

DeMeo said the county has recently bought fire and rescue equipment and now it was the sheriff's turn.

"If the budget were adequate, we wouldn't have to come back and ask (each time). It's a problem that surfaces every year. It's something we should have in our budget at an adequate funding (level)," said the sheriff.

Police services in the county were "24-7," said DeMeo, meaning 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

The sheriff's office needed to "turnover" vehicles each year, he said, "unless the county has an appetite to fix these vehicles (after they reach 100,000 miles)."

Cox made the motion, including in her proposal the appendage words "... and not to come back for additional items." It passed unanimously, 3-0, Commission Chairwoman Candice Trummell abstaining.

Trummell abstained due to her involvement as a consultant for an engineering firm that does business with Esmeralda County. Esmeralda and Mineral counties are slated to get Nye County's "hand-me-down" used vehicles.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
March 10, 2006

Nye County in Crisis

Uh oh!

Budget Overspent, Public Laws Violated, Nobody Told Officials

By Phillip Gomez
PVT

The Nevada Department of Taxation notified Nye County Manager Michael Maher eight months ago to the day that the county was overspent and the current Nye County Board of Commissioners had improperly passed a resolution in an attempt to balance its budget using PETT funds.

PETT stands for Payment Equal To Taxes, the annual negotiated payments of approximately $10 million Nye County receives from the federal Department of Energy for being the host county for the Yucca Mountain repository.

The revelations came out at Tuesday's commission meeting in Tonopah, except that Chairwoman Candice Trummell joined the discussion by teleconference from Pahrump's Bob Ruud Community Center.

"Why didn't you follow up?" Trummell asked Maher regarding the miscommunication with the state office and his tardiness in notifying the commissioners of the problem.

"We messed up on that," said an apparently flustered Maher, speaking for himself and subordinate Marie Owens, the county comptroller. "We assumed we had it," he said of the needed approval by the Department of Taxation.

On June 6, 2005 the Department of Taxation in a letter addressed to Maher informed him that an action taken by the board of commissioners in April 2005 to allocate $3 million in PETT funds to pay for a county budget shortfall was procedurally improper.

The April meeting was statutorily illegal because it had been improperly noticed to the public and because only three board members voted for the action taken. Four votes in favor of the motion, a two-thirds "supermajority" was legally required for the funds transfer to take place. Only three commissioners were present at the time.

On the other violation, a notice was placed in the Tonopah Times-Bonanza & Goldfield News newspaper, published on March 31, that a commission meeting was scheduled for April 5. That was five days short of the required 10-day stipulation in the Nevada Revised Statutes (350.87). General meetings require three working days notice in order to abide by Open Meeting law.

Maher was told in the June 6 letter he received from the Department of Taxation that he had until June 30 to resolve the issue regarding the budget imbalance.

Augmentation of the budget using PETT funds was, on its face, illegal, so the three commissioners present had resorted to calling the transfer a "loan."

Inexplicably, Maher did nothing to notify the commissioners of the state's notice of violation.

"We thought we would have a balanced budget," said Commissioner Patricia Cox in an interview on Wednesday. "The deficiencies should have been addressed. He didn't do his job."

As a result, the Department of Taxation has "written up" Nye County, according to commissioners' descriptions, for being in violation of technical points of the law.

"It's against the law to overspend your budget," Cox said afterward. "(Commissioner) Joni Eastley tries to hammer the sheriff every time he overspends, and now the county is overspending."

Cox has long been a stickler on budgetary matters.

Maher apparently tried to cover up his error by surreptitiously reading the Department of Taxation notice into the public record during the public comment period at a commission meeting in Pahrump two weeks ago, according to sources close to the proceedings.

Chairwoman Trummell, however, wouldn't let him do that because under public comment rules the commissioners would not then be permitted to discuss the matter.

Maher was instructed to put the item on the next meeting agenda. Then, at Tuesday's meeting, Maher tried to sneak the past-due notice into the commissioners' consent agenda - the cumulative list of items fast-tracked for approval, needing only the board's single, all-inclusive vote.

That tactic, too, failed.

At the commission meeting Tuesday, Cox said, "I guess I'm really disappointed that we didn't have a (copy of the) letter in our backup (documents)."

Maher claimed he didn't know about the letter until two weeks ago, Feb. 24, when the county's independent auditor, Dan McArthur, informed him the Department of Taxation had denied the inter-fund loan. Maher said he couldn't get a clear copy to include in the backup documents.

"I didn't have a good copy until this morning," he said. The original sent to him was not legible.

Cox said the copy she obtained was legible, and Trummell said there was no excuse for Maher's failure to provide the board with a copy of the letter.

On April 5 a quorum of three commissioners convened in their conference room on Basin Avenue and by teleconference. But it was not a quorum for the action they were there for.

They procedurally erred when they voted to "augment" the general fund budget by taking $3 million out of the "Special Projects" PETT account to make the funds available to cover the shortfall in the general fund budget to be submitted to the state.

For ordinary discussion, deliberation and action purposes, only a simple majority vote would have been necessary under the law.

The commissioners deemed the money transfer between accounts "an inter-fund loan," and so described it on the record. They planned to pay back the loan at a rate of $600,000 per year over a five year-plus period, said Cox.

Comptroller Owens, who had not yet come on board with the county when the letter debacle occurred, tried to give shelter to her boss from the flack he was taking. "While this is a very unfortunate set of circumstances," Owens said, "I believe the letter (from the Department of Taxation) got lost in the transition between (former budget director) Charlie Rodewald and me."

Maher at that time was acting comptroller as well as performing his regular job as county manager.

"My comment is, you can't expect miracles overnight," said Owens, "and when you have a changing of the guard, you (have to expect some things to fall through the cracks) ... In all fairness to Michael Maher, he was trying to get the budget (balanced). Quite frankly, I think he did a pretty marvelous job."

The upshot of the delinquency and illegal meeting came down to this: the state will deem Nye County a rogue elephant, overspent for the 2004-05 fiscal year, Owens indicated.

Trummell asked how many times in the past had the county been overspent across the board in all its departments. "Never," she huffily answered the rhetorical question.

"In a majority (of the departments) we were overspent in the past," Owens corrected. "The unfortunate thing is ... we had several conversations with (Department of Taxation official) Warner Ambrose and he never disclosed that (the inter-fund loan) wasn't approved by the Department of Taxation. We did not know about this letter."

"Warner Ambrose never told you the item had been approved," shot back Trummell. "Nor is it his job to do so after his boss has notified the county that it has not been approved.

"I don't think it's the state's job to baby-sit Nye County," she said. "It sounds like there was a serious flaw at the staff level."

Trummell said more will be known about the ramifications of the "bankruptcy" by the next commission meeting. "We all are in violation of the NRS," she said afterward. "It affected the cash-flow situation for the county's general fund."

In the meantime, high-ranking county officials have indicated in private there will be a push to terminate the employment of Maher and Owens later this month.

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

Oxfam America
March 10, 2006

Western Shoshone Victorious at United Nations

U.S. Found in Violation of Human Rights of Native Americans – Urged to Take Immediate Action

Geneva, Switzerland

Today, in a historic and strongly worded decision by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) the United States was urged to "freeze", "desist" and "stop" actions being taken or threatened to be taken against the Western Shoshone Peoples of the Western Shoshone Nation. In its decision, CERD stressed the "nature and urgency" of the Shoshone situation informing the U.S. that it goes "well beyond" the normal reporting process and warrants immediate attention under the Committee´s Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure.

This monumental action challenges the US government's assertion of federal ownership of nearly 90% of Western Shoshone lands. The land base covers approximately 60 million acres, stretching across what is now referred to as the states of Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California. Western Shoshone rights to the land - which they continue to use, care for, and occupy today - were recognized by the United States in 1863 by the Treaty of Ruby Valley. The U.S. now claims these same lands as "public" or federal lands through an agency process and has denied Western Shoshone fair access to U.S. courts through that same process. The land base has been and continues to be used by the United States for military testing, open pit cyanide heap leach gold mining and nuclear waste disposal planning. The U.S. has engaged in military style seizures of Shoshone livestock, trespass fines in the millions of dollars and ongoing armed surveillance of Western Shoshone who continue to assert their original and treaty rights.

Based upon these actions and a dramatic escalation of new actions threatening irreparable harm to Western Shoshone and their environment, last year, with the support of the Univ. of Arizona Indigenous Law and Policy Program, the Western Shoshone filed a renewed legal action at the United Nations CERD. In addition to evidence of the United States' conduct, the Western Shoshone delegation also delivered over 13,000 signatures from citizens across the United States of America supporting the Western Shoshone action to CERD. This petition was a result of a campaign organized by the rights-based development organization Oxfam America to demonstrate the widespread concern for the Western Shoshone peoples to the United Nations.

CERD rejected the U.S.´ argument that the situation was not "novel" and therefore should wait to be reviewed until the U.S. submits its Periodic Report – past due since 2003. The Committee informed the U.S. that "[a]lthough these are indeed long-standing issues... they warrant immediate and effective action... [and] should be dealt with as a matter of priority." The United States was "urged to pay particular attention to the right to health and cultural rights of the Western Shoshone…which may be infringed upon by activities threatening their environment and/or disregarding the spiritual and cultural significance they give to their ancestral lands."

CERD presented its decision to the Western Shoshone this morning. The decision details the U.S.' actions against the Western Shoshone and calls upon the United States to immediately:

Respect and protect the human rights of the Western Shoshone peoples;

Initiate a dialogue with the representatives of the Western Shoshone peoples in order to find a solution acceptable to them, and which complies with their rights;

Adopt the following measures until a final decision or settlement is reached on the status, use and occupation of Western Shoshone ancestral lands in accordance with due process of law and the U.S.' obligations under the Convention;

Freeze all efforts to privatize Western Shoshone ancestral lands for transfer to multinational extractive industries and energy developers;

Desist from all activities planned and/or conducted on Western Shoshone ancestral lands;

Stop imposing grazing fees, livestock impoundments, hunting, fishing and gathering restrictions and rescind all notices already made.

The decision is historic in that it is the first time a United Nations Committee has issued a full decision against the U.S. in respect to its highly controversial Federal Indian law and policy. The decision expressed particular concern that the U.S.' basis for claiming federal title to Western Shoshone land rests on a theory of "gradual encroachment" through a "compensation" process in the Indian Claims Commission. The decision highlights that this same process was found by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to violate "international human rights norms, principles and standards that govern determination of indigenous property interests." When the U.S. last appeared before the Committee in 2001, Committee members expressed alarm and concern that U.S. laws regarding indigenous peoples continue to be based on the outdated, colonial era "doctrine of discovery."

The Committee gave the U.S. a July 15, 2006 deadline to provide it with information on the action it had taken. The decision issued today demonstrates a solid commitment by the United Nations human rights system to make the Western Shoshone´s struggle a priority. Whereas indigenous peoples have been active at the United Nations for several decades, the decision today also brings a breath of hope to indigenous communities across the U.S. and globally where the negative effects of U.S. policy and influence reach. In its decision, the Committee drew particular attention to its General recommendation 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular their right to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources.

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

Spero News
March 10, 2006

US found guilty of violating Shoshone human rights

Western Shoshone were victorious Friday at UN, as the US was found in violation of human rights of Native Americans and urged to take immediate action

Bernice Lalo says the Shoshone Nation is being "threatened by extinction." But a landmark decision Friday by a UN committee is causing some Western Shoshone's to have hope,

The United States was urged to "freeze", "desist" and "stop" actions being taken or threatened to be taken against the Western Shoshone Peoples of the Western Shoshone Nation, in a Friday decision by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The U.S. has until July 15, 2006 to provide the UN committee with information on the action it had taken.

This action challenges the US government's assertion of federal ownership of nearly 90 percent of Western Shoshone lands.

"The mines are polluting our waters, destroying hot springs and exploding sacred mountains-our burials along with them--attempting to erase our signature on the land," says Lalo. "We are coerced and threatened by mining and Federal agencies when we seek to continue spiritual prayers for traditional food or medicine on Shoshone land."

According to Lalo, "We have endured murder of our Newe people for centuries, as chronicled in military records, but now we are asked to endure a more painful death from the U.S. governmental agencies -- a separation from land and spiritual renewal."

The decision expressed particular concern that the U.S.' basis for claiming federal title to Western Shoshone land rests on a theory of "gradual encroachment" through a "compensation" process in the Indian Claims Commission.

Joe Kennedy, also a Western Shoshone insists that "we have rights to protect our homelands and stop the destruction of our land, water, and air by the abuses of the United States government and the multinational corporations. He says "the situation is outrageous and we're glad the United Nations Committee agrees with us."

"Our people have suffered more nuclear testing than anywhere else in the world and they're continuing underground testing despite our protests. Yucca Mountain is being hollowed out in order to store nuclear waste. We cannot stand for it," Kennedy claims, adding "this earth, the air, the water are sacred. People of all races must stop this insanity now in order to secure a safe future for all."

The decision is historic in that it is the first time a United Nations Committee has issued a full decision against the U.S. in respect to its highly controversial Federal Indian law and policy.

CERD stressed the "nature and urgency" of the Shoshone situation informing the U.S. that it goes "well beyond" the normal reporting process and warrants immediate attention under the Committee's Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure.

The land base covers approximately 60 million acres, stretching across what is now referred to as the states of Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California.

Western Shoshone rights to the land -- which they continue to use, care for, and occupy today -- were recognized by the United States in 1863 by the Treaty of Ruby Valley. The U.S. now claims these same lands as "public" or federal lands through an agency process and has denied Western Shoshone fair access to U.S. courts through that same process.

The land base has been and continues to be used by the United States for military testing, open pit cyanide heap leach gold mining and nuclear waste disposal planning. The U.S. has engaged in military style seizures of Shoshone livestock, trespass fines in the millions of dollars and ongoing armed surveillance of Western Shoshone who continue to assert their original and treaty rights.

"While others are allowed the freedom of religion, we are kept from the very same right. The Newe (people) use this ancestral land for sacred ceremonies. The federal agencies prevent our access to some of these important areas. Our ancestors' burials are being dug up and placed into local museums' basement storage areas because of surge of gold mines and nuclear developments. This is an outrage to our people," said Judy Rojo. "We pray for the healing of our peoples, the land and the harassment and destruction to stop."

Steven Brady, also a Western Shoshone, said that "this battle has been going on for quite some time, but we've seen a dramatic increase in the federal government and the companies' rush to finalize what they consider a settlement in order to get a hold of our lands for activities that are contaminating our water and our air."

In addition to evidence, the Western Shoshone delegation also delivered over 13,000 signatures from citizens across the United States of America supporting the Western Shoshone action to CERD. This petition was a result of a campaign organized by the rights-based development organization Oxfam America to demonstrate the widespread concern for the Western Shoshone peoples to the United Nations.

CERD rejected the U.S.' argument that the situation was not "novel" and therefore should wait to be reviewed until the U.S. submits its Periodic Report -- past due since 2003.

The Committee informed the U.S. that "(a)lthough these are indeed long-standing issues...they warrant immediate and effective action... (and) should be dealt with as a matter of priority." The United States was "urged to pay particular attention to the right to health and cultural rights of the Western Shoshone...which may be infringed upon by activities threatening their environment and/or disregarding the spiritual and cultural significance they give to their ancestral lands."

CERD presented its decision to the Western Shoshone this morning. The decision details the U.S.' actions against the Western Shoshone and calls upon the United States to immediately:

-- Respect and protect the human rights of the Western Shoshone peoples;

-- Initiate a dialogue with the representatives of the Western Shoshone peoples in order to find a solution acceptable to them, and which complies with their rights;

-- Adopt the following measures until a final decision or settlement is reached on the status, use and occupation of Western Shoshone ancestral lands in accordance with due process of law and the U.S.' obligations under the Convention;

-- Freeze all efforts to privatize Western Shoshone ancestral lands for transfer to multinational extractive industries and energy developers;

-- Desist from all activities planned and/or conducted on Western Shoshone ancestral lands;

-- Stop imposing grazing fees, livestock impoundments, hunting, fishing and gathering restrictions and rescind all notices already made.

The decision highlights that this same process was found by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to violate "international human rights norms, principles and standards that govern determination of indigenous property interests."

When the U.S. last appeared before the Committee in 2001, Committee members expressed alarm and concern that U.S. laws regarding indigenous peoples continue to be based on the outdated, colonial era "doctrine of discovery."

The decision issued today demonstrates a solid commitment by the United Nations human rights system to make the Western Shoshone's struggle a priority. Whereas indigenous peoples have been active at the United Nations for several decades, the decision today also brings a breath of hope to indigenous communities across the U.S. and globally where the negative effects of U.S. policy and influence reach. In its decision, the Committee drew particular attention to its General recommendation 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular their right to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources.

"The Western Shoshone Nation is very thankful to the Committee members for their decision affirming U.S. discrimination and destructive policies do not go on unaccounted for. Truth is what it is -- that can never change," said Judy Rojo.

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

Deseret News
March 10, 2006

Huntsman lawyer raps PFS chief's comments

Parkyn says wilds won't avert building of rail spur

By Joe Bauman and Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News

The governor's legal counsel in Washington and the Utah congressional delegation Thursday blasted comments by the head of Private Fuel Storage who said a newly created federal wilderness area won't stop him from building a railroad to haul nuclear waste to Utah's west desert for storage.

"I really am at a loss to figure out what it is Mr. (John) Parkyn is arguing" if he "suggests he can somehow build this rail spur through the wilderness area, what his legal theory would be," attorney Mike Lee said.

"The basis for any such theory completely escapes me," Lee said, and all other lawyers he knows who are familiar with wilderness law.

Lee was commenting on the statements that Parkyn, PFS chairman, made Wednesday during an NRC conference in Maryland. Parkyn held up a copy of the license, saying he didn't think anyone could block the project.

In its ongoing effort to thwart PFS's plans, the state filed a new petition this week with the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., challenging the license that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted PFS to operate the high-level nuclear waste storage facility in Skull Valley, Tooele County.

Parkyn indicated the recently designated federal wilderness area, created largely to block the company's preferred rail spur route, would not prevent another rail route.

It was not clear if Parkyn meant a railroad route could be built to the site without crossing the wilderness boundaries.

A spokeswoman for PFS said she could not comment on the chairman's statement as she had not been involved in briefings. But what was apparent is that he thinks wilderness character does not extend throughout the official wilderness area.

"That doesn't mean you can't put a railroad there, whether Sen. (Orrin) Hatch understands that or not," Parkyn said.

Parkyn said the 100,000-acre Cedar Mountain Wilderness, created in January, is not a real wilderness area. Utah's members of Congress just "drew a bubble" around the mountains to block the nuclear waste, he added.

According to the federal Wilderness Act, except for administering the area and for such purposes as emergency rescue, "there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area . . . no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

Hatch, R-Utah, disagreed with Parkyn's statement that the project is going ahead.

"Their read on this certainly doesn't square with ours," he said. "I don't see how PFS will find a way to do this, with no railroad, new wilderness, and no new partners. What company in its right mind would see this as a sound business opportunity to partner with PFS?"

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who introduced the bill creating the wilderness area, said the act would "block the northern rail spur that PFS would need to the waste" and that this represents a major setback to the project.

"I'm glad we've been able to put up some serious roadblocks to this ill-advised proposal," he said. "And we will continue the fight.

"The chairman of PFS may be able to explain why this foolish project would be good for him and the out-of-state utilities, but he is unable to explain how on earth it would make sense to put an above-ground high-level nuclear waste storage facility right next to a bombing range. No one can, because it doesn't make sense."

Meanwhile, Lee explained that the petition Utah filed with the appeals court is the second in several months. The first was in November, before the NRC issued the license.

"This is another filing in basically the same action we brought" before the license was issued, he said. "We just filed this one out of an abundance of caution, to make sure we had taken account of subsequent rulings."

The state was being careful to "avoid any question of possible procedural default," he added. So, the petition now cites the granting of the license and other rulings that took place since the original petition.

Some key arguments in the state's petition include:

• The NRC should not have granted approval of a storage facility for highly radioactive waste in a route overflown thousands of times a year by military aircraft en route to the Utah Test and Training Range — some of which "carry live ordnance." The concern is that a plane might crash or a bomb might fall onto the storage facility.

• The NRC approved the plant as a temporary storage site, even though it would use protective casks that are not the same as those that would be brought to the government's planned permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

When will the appeals court rule on Utah's petition?

"I would imagine it would be at least six to eight months before we have any kind of decision," Lee said. "It could be a year or so."

Contributing: Leigh Dethman.
E-mail: bau@desnews.com; suzanne@desnews.com

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

The Argonaut
March 10, 2006

Local Briefs

Engineers assess risk at Nuclear-Waste Repository

Rick Allen, a university agricultural and civil engineer, is helping Sandia National Laboratories assess the risk that percolating water could pose to high-level nuclear waste planned for storage at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Yucca Mountain gets only 4 to 8 inches of rainfall a year, but if too much of it percolates down through the mountain´s soils and into its rock core — and if sealed storage containers should leak — scientists want to know how far radioactive contamination would travel underground.

Allen, a professor of water resources engineering, says he was “delighted to be considered’ as a project advisor. “It feels nice to be doing this service for the nation,’ he said.

Allen and his team, visiting-professor Ricardo Trezza and research associate Clarence Robison, were selected because of Allen´s authorship of a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization publication that is the third most frequently accessed document on that organization´s Web site.

Staff at Sandia, located in New Mexico, told Allen that they chose to apply the FAO methodology to their evaluation of Yucca Mountain because of the conciseness and reproducibility of the study´s approach, the amount of detail it provides and its worldwide and national acceptance as a standard for calculating evapotranspiration.

The suite of Sandia models to which Allen´s team is contributing will project environmental impacts out to at least 10,000 years, including such climate-change scenarios as global warming, monsoons and mini-Ice Ages. “The nuclear-waste containers are sealed very well and should never corrode and leak,’ Allen says, “but scientists have to address the question of, ‘What if there were a leak?´’

Up to 77,000 tons of used commercial nuclear-reactor waste and defense waste may eventually be stored at the Yucca Mountain repository. Allen´s research will help the U.S. Department of Energy decide whether or not that will happen.

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

Patriot-News
March 10, 2006

Editorial: Open Yucca Mountain

Described as "the most studied real estate on the planet," a nuclear repository inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain should be opened without further delay, according to the majority staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A 1982 law directed the Department of Energy to provide a final resting place for highly radioactive spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors no later than Jan. 31, 1998. Current projections suggest the ear- liest the waste could be placed in the facility is 2015, and only then if it passes the regulatory hurdles still to come and is fully funded.

That puts the project, which is critical if there's to be any expansion of nuclear power in this country, 17 years behind schedule. Whatever one's views on nuclear power, the government needs to make more timely determinations than this on key issues or the nation will never be able to confront the looming energy emergency.

Getting electric-user-funded Yucca Mountain up and running is as much about acting responsibly to address nuclear power's legacy of highly radioactive waste as it is about nuclear's future. Some 2,000 metric tons of highly toxic waste is generated nationally every year by nuclear reactors such as Three Mile Island's Unit 1, with 70,000 metric tons expected to be stored around the country by 2012.

And the pertinent local question is this: Are central Pennsylvanians safer with nuclear waste being stored at three nuclear power stations on the banks of the Susquehanna than they would be if it were shipped to a permanent repository in Nevada?

The Bush administration is looking at the politically controversial and technically tricky possibility of dramatically reducing the volume of waste and extending the uranium fuel supply through reprocessing.

But even if we go down that road -- and we have doubts that would be advisable, given the burning nuclear proliferation issues of the day that this step would disturb -- under the best possible scenario it would be a very long time before reprocessing would be a viable option.

Yucca Mountain may not be the ideal solution for dealing with the nuclear waste issue, but it is by far the best one now available. The government simply needs to get on with doing it.

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

Vermont Guardian
March 10, 2006

Vermont´s nuclear crossroads: Where four major issues intersect

By Timothy Nulty

Vermont faces four major nuclear issues.

Three are requests by Entergy to increase Vermont Yankee´s (VY) power output by 20 percent, extend VY´s operations beyond 2012, and expand the spent-fuel storage capacity by using “dry cask’ technology.

The fourth issue is the adequacy of the fund that Entergy must maintain to pay for decommissioning the plant at the end of its life.

At present, our regulatory structure is biased toward considering each issue independently. In fact, they are interrelated moving parts. Without a broad review of all the issues together, and the trade-offs between them, Vermont will miss important opportunities, and incur substantial costs.

VY provides more than a third of all of Vermont´s power — at advantageous prices derived from the buy-back provisions of the contract with Entergy concluded by the Dean administration. This arrangement is one reason why Vermont has the lowest rates for power in all of New England. In addition, VY is a major economic player in its own right — providing jobs, income, and taxes to the state as a whole and the southeast region in particular.

Continuing this role for as long as possible — under favorable terms — and subject to stringent safety and environmental safeguards is an important matter for our state. Yet, continued supply under these terms faces serious threats:

• The buy-back contract lapses at the end of the current VY license in 2012. If VY is recertified, will the buy-back provisions be extended on current terms? If not, what happens to Vermont´s power supply and the prices for acquiring it?

• The uprate will increase output by 20 percent, but may reduce the plant´s reliability, and Vermont will get very little of the benefit of the increased output, most of which will be sold out of state at market prices. But Vermont will be fully exposed to any problems arising from the uprate — safety, environmental, or supply related.

The Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) is not empowered to consider the safety issue but is fully aware of the other problems. In view of this, it granted Entergy a certificate of public good (CPG) for the uprate on condition that a rigorous independent engineering study be undertaken by the NRC specifically designed to assess the effect of the uprate on VY reliability. The NRC did conduct a study, which concluded that the uprate is safe. But the NRC study did not conform to the PSB request and did not address reliability directly.

Entergy argues that the study provided enough “incidental’ information on reliability to meet the board´s intent. Others, equally expert, remain unconvinced. Therefore, the questions remain open as to whether the conditions of the board´s CPG have been met (and, hence, whether the CPG is in effect), what effect the uprate will actually have on reliability; and whether the ratio of potential benefits to Vermont from the uprate exceed the potential risk to its power supply. If the answer to the more previous question is no, as this author is inclined to believe, what remedies are needed to protect Vermont´s interests?

• VY stores its spent fuel in a water-cooled facility intended to be a temporary holding tank until the permanent national repository at Yucca Mountain was complete. The federal government was supposed to take possession of the waste and move it to Nevada. In fact, Yucca Mountain has been repeatedly delayed. No one can say for certain when — or whether — it will open. As a result, many “temporary’ storage facilities around the country, including VY´s, are running out of space.

VY cannot proceed with either the uprate or an extension of its license without a solution to the storage problem. In the absence of a federal solution, Entergy is proposing to expand its own storage facility utilizing passive, dry cask technology that does not rely on water-cooling systems.

This raises a major issue for Vermont. If there is no credible federal solution on the horizon, should Vermont create a second-best solution of its own for long-term storage of both new and existing spent fuel? The alternative is to live indefinitely with the existing, unsatisfactory temporary storage facility.

Whining to the federal government is not a strategy for anything except ducking the issue and making lawyers rich. Building a reasonably secure permanent — or semi-permanent — facility is an unpleasant prospect, but we may have no choice. Perhaps, as part of any permission for either uprate or license renewal, Entergy should be required to build dry cask storage secure enough to be a backup alternative to Yucca Mountain, thus protecting Vermont from the possibility that the Nevada facility never opens.

Such a facility would probably be more secure than Entergy currently plans. What is certain is that the existing water-cooled facility is not suitable for indefinite storage even for the spent fuel already in it, let alone new spent fuel. Failing to create alternatives will ultimately force closure of the plant. This would be the worst of both worlds. Failing to deal with the need for new, more secure storage will mean shutting VY down and storing the existing waste indefinitely in the existing water tank — resulting in maximum damage to both the economy and the environment

• Currently the decommissioning fund is being gradually filled at a rate intended to produce enough money to shut down Vermont Yankee by 2012. But if the plant´s license is renewed, closure will be postponed. How will the rate at which the fund is filled be adjusted? If the plant fails before the new closure date (e.g., due to problems from the uprate) the flow of money into the fund will stop. It is not certain that the fund will be large enough at that time to pay for decommissioning, so who pays the difference?

Obviously, it is in Entergy´s interest to minimize the amount of money they put into the decommissioning fund. Conversely, Vermont´s interest is that the fund be large enough to pay for a rigorous definition of decommissioning tasks. These issues are hotly disputed, and their resolution will have consequences for the first three issues: license renewal, the uprate, and dry-cask storage.

In short, all four issues raise major questions and each is intimately connected to the others — and to the power supply and, hence, to the economic health of Vermont.

The Public Service Board has been professional and deliberate in considering the issues that lie within its purview, but restrictions on its mandate and regulatory process inhibit the board´s ability to take the broadest, strategic view of these issues. That is right and proper.

The PSB is a regulatory body, not a legislative one. Like the courts, regulatory bodies should not pass fundamental laws. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has an even narrower role — safety, in the strictest sense. It has neither the mandate nor the inclination to assess the effect of its decisions on the economy and environment of Vermont. Finally, the Douglas administration has even less authority or strategic vision than the two preceding bodies.

Vermont needs to develop a complete strategy with respect to nuclear energy and the future of VY and its place in an overall electric power strategy. If it does not, the state, its citizens, workers, and businesses will pay a heavy price.

Only the Legislature is institutionally, constitutionally, and politically equipped to consider all the issues and make the difficult but necessary tradeoffs. It is time for it to do so.

Timothy Nulty of Burlington is an economist and a public member of the Vermont Nuclear State Advisory Panel. His term expires this year.

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