Yucca Mountain News Clips - Sunday, April 30

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Sunday, April 30
---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
April 30, 2006

Brian Greenspun wonders why Jon Porter would embrace Nevada enemy

What was Jon Porter thinking?

As the incumbent in Nevada's 3rd Congressional District, Jon Porter has considerable heft when it comes to raising money for his re-election effort. And, as an incumbent, he also has an overwhelming advantage over all comers when it comes to retaining the seat in the House of Representatives that he won two elections ago.

You would think, therefore, that Porter needn't have to do too much to skate into a third term, courtesy of an electorate that is short on memory and even shorter on the patience needed to pay attention to such things as elections.

This is the kind of election that can usually only be lost by the incumbent, not won by the challenger. Except that Mr. Porter has tied himself hook, line and sinker to the coattails of President Bush, with the emphasis on sinker. And with our president's approval ratings hovering just above the 30-point mark, that could be a recipe for disaster if Jon can't, in the voters' minds, cut himself loose from the Bush albatross.

And, here's the big one, "except" - except if the incumbent Nevada congressman makes such a bonehead move as to invite President Bush to Nevada for a fundraiser at a time in our history when there are only two men going way the heck out of their way to bury this state, its people and its booming economy under the rubble of the nation's high-level nuclear waste.

Guess what Jon Porter did last Monday.

For a fistful of campaign cash, Porter invited one of those men to Nevada as if to flaunt whatever power may be derived because of some illusive friendship with the president. The other man, the former governor of Nevada, Robert List, and now a high-paid pitchman for the nuclear power industry, was in the audience to cheer for the unabashed leader of the Screw Nevada section of the federal government.

The trouble I am having is my inability to square an invitation to the man who would like to bury our state beneath mountains of radioactive nuclear waste and the insensitivity of a congressman who would rather have the dollars than stand up for the health and happiness of the men, women and children who will suffer because of Bush's arrogance when it comes to the Yucca Mountain issue.

Perhaps there are some out there who can explain it, but the way I see this thing, Jon Porter has decided that a principled stand against the most dangerous man to the future of Nevada was not worth having to raise campaign funds the old-fashioned way. Better a gift from the g od of the nuclear power industry than working for his money by convincing voters he is representing them ably and wisely.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the value of having a president come to your city and your campaign fundraiser. It gives you the kind of dollars you desperately need - especially in light of the very formidable opponent you have drawn in the general election. But I also understand the much greater value that voters attach to the principles of loyalty, friendship and, most importantly, the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately syndrome.

We know what Bush has done for Nevada - absolutely nothing. And we also know what President Bush is trying to do to Nevada - absolutely everything bad. At a time when not only science but also a large number of responsible leaders across the country have turned thumbs down on the Yucca Mountain project, President Bush has single-handedly and quite proudly resurrected Yucca from the ash heap of really bad ideas and foisted it upon Nevadans and the rest of the country in his usual arrogant and insensitive way.

Arrogant because he doesn't believe he has to pay attention to science, reason or logic like most responsible people. Insensitive because he doesn't have to give a darn about the people way out in Nevada who will be most directly affected by his attempt to continue to curry favor with some of his largest political benefactors. What President Bush is doing for the nuclear power industry titans and against the people of Nevada is the epitome of the corruptive nature of near absolute power.

Whatever Jon Porter claims to have done in Nevada's fight against Yucca Mountain, it is all for naught because of his coziness with the nuclear "decider-in-chief" who has decided that a few thousand Nevadans can die for the greater good of the nuclear power good old boys.

That may sound a bit harsh to the few people out there who still believe President Bush is acting in their best interests, but it is a far cry from the scrutiny level to which Nevada voters will hold Porter come election time. With the potential of a first class opponent in Tessa Hafen, voters need not worry about the quality of representation they will have in Washington if they decide to term-limit Jon Porter.

And if that happens, or even looks like it could happen, whatever few dollars President Bush helped raise for Porter will not be able to save his political hide.

Which brings me back to the operative question: What was Jon Porter thinking?

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

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

Las Vegas SUN
April 30, 2006

Test Site is once again making noise

June detonation draws wide attention

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

Almost 60 years after the nation reveled at the sight of mushroom clouds boiling high above the Nevada desert, another blast - tiny by comparison - is again thrusting the Nevada Test Site into the public spotlight.

Some things at the site, 60 miles northwest of Las Vegas, haven't changed in those six decades. A visitor can still see the parallel wooden benches perched 10 miles above Frenchman's Flat, where politicians, military brass and scientists watched the above-ground flash and mushroom clouds from the first atomic bomb tests.

The land is still home to miles of scrub creosote and Joshua trees. The desert mountains, dry lake beds and valleys appear impervious to human activity.

Yet there have been changes at the site. Many changes.

"The one thing that has evolved over time is that the Test Site has become the world's, certainly the free world's, largest outdoor laboratory," said Troy Wade, chairman of the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation. The size and isolation of the Test Site means that there is "zero risk to the public" for most activities, Wade said.

"Over the past few years, particularly since 9/11, other agencies with other interests have become partners with the Test Site. One of the big users at the Test Site right now is the Department of Homeland Security."

Yet despite the recent changes, work at the site is still far below the level of the glory years. Just 4,000 employees work there now, fewer than one-third as many as in the early 1970s. The last test of a nuclear device occurred 14 years ago.

The test scheduled for June 2 will be of a 700-ton conventional bomb. The research could aid in development of so-called bunker-buster weapons, including small-scale nuclear devices, according to the federal official overseeing the test, Doug Bruder, director of counter-weapons of mass destruction technology for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

For Las Vegas, all this talk about the bombs in the desert is familiar. The city has always had a tight relationship with the often secret and highly secure area.

The site, which includes the village of Mercury, was born out of the federal government's search for a place within the continental United States to detonate the most powerful explosives built by man.

After rejecting coastal North Carolina and other possible sites, authorities settled on a sweeping, desolate region of the southern Great Basin, with few neighbors and no large cities nearby.

President Harry Truman in December 1950 gave the order to create the Nevada Test Site, placing it under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Within a year, the government exploded a dozen atomic bombs at the site. While the U.S. military and Energy Department - the Atomic Energy Commission's direct descendant - no longer detonate nuclear weapons, nuclear research does continue.

"The Test Site always has been and will for the foreseeable future be focused on the national security mission," said Kevin Rohrer, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. A central part of that security mission, he said, is maintaining and ensuring the reliability of nuclear weapons through "subcritical nuclear experiments."

"Subcritical" means that it doesn't reach the chain reaction that results in a nuclear explosion.

"We do not do nuclear testing," Kathy Carlson, manager of the Test Site, said, referring to above or below ground atomic bomb blasts. But, she said, "We are doing very small experiments, called subcritical experiments, with small amounts of material to really understand how materials react."

The experiments include testing how plutonium and uranium - the essential material for nuclear weapons - respond to a variety of environments and events. Much of the work associated with the safety and security of the bombs is done at the Test Site's Device Assembly Facility.

Rohrer noted that the government does not assemble warheads at the facility, although it "could potentially perform that function." Assembly of nuclear weapons is done at a plant outside Amarillo, Texas.

The Test Site also is home to research that doesn't involve radioactive materials. A growing amount of work involves other kinds of defense-related programs funded by the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others. Energy Department officials say they can't discuss all of the agencies that contract for work within the Test Site.

Carlson, however, did say that her agency now trains about 50,000 men and woman yearly on and off the Test Site to handle various emergencies, including chemical, biological and nuclear crises. The Test Site's isolation and tight security offers advantages for specialized training, she said.

It is against that backdrop that the test detonation of 700 tons of conventional explosives June 2 has sparked protest. Nevada officials have threatened to delay the blast and an environmental group has sued over air quality concerns.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., suggested those concerns are based on the federal government's credibility with Nevada's citizens.

"The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has yet to satisfy the state of Nevada's demand for more information about this test, and it must not go forward until this obligation is satisfied," she said in a statement last week. "As a Nevadan that lived through the nuclear testing era, I have a healthy skepticism for federal officials who say there is nothing to worry about when it comes to protecting public safety or the environment."

Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a nonprofit group working on Test-Site and environmental issues in Nevada, said people have good reason to not trust the federal government.

"We are very skeptical of the activities on the Test Site," she said.

Johnson noted that a half-century ago, the federal government sold the bomb tests as an economic boon for Las Vegas and central Nevada. Today, the government is using similar arguments to push forward with plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

"At some point, we have to say, 'Wait a minute. This is nuts. We cannot keep doing this,' " Johnson said. She worries that present-day activities, including the June 2 blast, could still have environmental impacts on the region.

Wade, of the Test Site historical foundation, said the Test Site's national defense mission carries with it some risk. Wade said some of his colleagues have died from diseases that may be related to their work at the site, where he has worked for most of his life.

"I have not personally been affected, but I have had friends who have," Wade said. "If you go to the museum, you will hear me say on one of the little film clips that as a nation, we put people at risk - on site and off site. As a country, we had no choice.

"We did everything we could to minimize the risk, but we were taking risks."

For Wade, like many of those working at the Test Site today, that risk is an essential part of the national security mission.

"The world is less safe and less stable than when we were engaged in the Cold War with the Soviet Union," he said. "I'd say the mission today, it's even more important.

"By policy, this country does not test nuclear weapons, but what a lot of people don't recognize is that the defense of this country is still based on a nuclear deterrent. Safety and reliability - that's a big job.

"Regrettably, there is no way this world is going to get rid of nuclear weapons," he said. "That means the Test Site is always going to have some sort of nuclear-weapons-related mission."

Carlson, the Test Site manager, predicted that the unique conditions at the Test Site will attract more federal agencies to do testing and training.

"The Test Site is one of the few places in the country where you can do high-hazard experiments," she said. "We're very bullish on the Test Site because it is very like the Middle East."

Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at lrake@lasvegassun.com.

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

Boston Globe
pril 30, 2006

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

Military link

Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.

Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.

In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers.

Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ''security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements.

The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.

Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration.

Oversight questioned

Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees.

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.

After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.

Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.

It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports.

On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating ''whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing.

When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed.

When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections.

Bush's statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program, for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took office.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

''Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said.

Defying Supreme Court

Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade Commission from political interference.

Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say.

In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and publish reports ''without the approval" of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute's director would be ''subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Yet despite the court's rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ''in a manner consistent with" the Constitution's guarantee of ''equal protection" to all -- which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites.

Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens to ''overturn the existing structures of constitutional law."

A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."

Common practice in '80s

Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented.

Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it.

But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president.

When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a president's influence over future court rulings.

Under Meese's direction in 1986, a young Justice Department lawyer named Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about signing statements. It came to light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to the Supreme Court.

In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would resent the president's attempt to grab some of its power by seizing ''the last word on questions of interpretation." He suggested that Reagan's legal team should ''concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress."

Reagan's successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.

Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress.

Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role.

Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.

But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.

''What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House," said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements through history. ''That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration."

Exaggerated fears?

Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush's signing statements are overblown. Bush's signing statements, they say, should be seen as little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers who are dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives.

Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the laws does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them.

Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws that Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to ''withhold information" in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law requiring the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US citizens in foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put the list on its website.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.

''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."

But Cooper, the Portland State University professor who has studied Bush's first-term signing statements, said the documents are being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new laws.

Lower-level officials will follow the president's instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said.

''Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn't look like the legislation," he said.

And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way to know whether the administration is violating laws -- or merely preserving the right to do so.

Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws.

In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president.

''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation."

Added Graham: ''I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified."

And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, several Democrats lodged complaints.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to ''cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow."

And Representatives Jane Harman of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan -- the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively -- sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding that Bush rescind his claim and abide by the law.

''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight," they wrote. ''The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight. . . . Once the president signs a bill, he and all of us are bound by it."

Lack of court review

Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush's claims, legal specialists said.

The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush's assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters.

''There can't be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ''And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked."

Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party.

''The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they're not taking action because they don't want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans," said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. ''Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party."

Said Golove, the New York University law professor: ''Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.' "

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

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

Pahrump Valley Times
April 28, 2006

Homestead, Highway 160 on next week's commission agenda

By Phillip Gomez
PVT

The Nye County Board of Commissioners convene in Tonopah for one day only next week, Tuesday, at 8:30 a.m. to consider a variety of county issues.

At 10 a.m. a presentation is scheduled on the Nevada Department of Transportation's "transportation system projects," likely including improvement plans for Homestead Road and Highway 160 in Pahrump.

At 10:30 a.m. the discussion will turn to consideration of a resolution implementing a moratorium on subsequent and contiguous parcel map applications in the Amargosa Valley and for other areas outside of the Pahrump Valley.

At 2 p.m. the president of the National Association of Counties is scheduled to present an update on NACO activities, including the status of a petition on the unfounded mandates initiative.

Other untimed but listed agenda items include:

• An action item for approval of three indigent medical payments to regional hospitals. The total amount of the payments is in excess of $25,000.

• Approval is requested for the purchase of medical equipment in the amount of $6,790.

• Approval is requested for the purchase of a used modular building to be placed at the Pahrump Medical Center. The building is to be used for extra space as a waiting room and examination room. The amount budgeted is $180,000.

• Action is scheduled for designation of certain commissioners to act as liaison with staff and to negotiate with the federal Department of Energy for the county's next round of PETT funds.

PETT is the Payments Equal To Taxes agreement that Nye County works out with DOE in exchange for having the Yucca Mountain Repository located within the county.

• Various personnel actions are listed that upwardly adjust the pay grades of certain employees.

• In planning and zoning matters, various parcel map applications in Amargosa Valley are apparently being snuck under the wire before the previously mentioned moratorium takes effect, if it indeed passes.

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

Deseret News
April 29, 2006

Nuclear waste recycling is costly, foes say

By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods is being promoted as a better alternative to simply storing the highly radioactive waste from power plants in repositories.

But how viable is reprocessing?

A Deseret Morning News evaluation found that critics say reprocessing is fraught with economic and safety concerns and that reprocessing carried out in Great Britain caused accidents and radioactive leakage. But the technology also has strong support.

Reprocessing is an issue in Utah because EnergySolutions, the Salt Lake City-based nuclear cleanup and disposal company formerly known as Envirocare, supports it. EnergySolutions says reprocessing would reduce the volume of nuclear waste that would need to be stored.

In an April 17 press release, EnergySolutions CEO Steve Creamer said, "Recycling is the right thing to do for America and will make the PFS (Private Fuel Storage) proposal for Utah obsolete," a point also being made in a current series of EnergySolutions TV ads.

PFS would store up to 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in an above-ground facility at Skull Valley, Tooele County, for up to 40 years. Meanwhile, the federal government is planning a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

EnergySolutions noted that in March that the U.S. Department of Energy issued a request for parties to submit expressions of interest in a demonstration program for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. GNEP, supported by President Bush, would have advanced countries supply nuclear fuel to other nations.

Under GNEP, the United States would develop technologies to recycle nuclear fuel "that do not result in separated plutonium — a key proliferation risk of existing recycling technologies," says a DOE Web site.

EnergySolutions recently purchased the American arm of British Nuclear Group, which carries out reprocessing in the United Kingdom. That gave EnergySolutions the American rights to reprocessing technology. Creamer made it clear that any U.S. reprocessing by the company would not take place in Utah.

An expensive process

"The main problem is cost," said Steve Fetter, professor and dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park. "It is expensive to reprocess nuclear fuel."

Fetter, interviewed by telephone, said new uranium is relatively cheap, and plutonium from reprocessing is far more expensive to use in nuclear fuel. With reprocessing, he said, the product has "negative economic value."

To fabricate the uranium and plutonium from reprocessing and use them in fuel is difficult "because plutonium is hazardous. It requires special equipment, a special facility that's very expensive."

Even if the plutonium were free, he said, the cost of using this reprocessed fuel would be greater than buying fresh uranium for the plants.

Cost also is a concern for Frank von Hippel, professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University and co-director of Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security.

He said that in the 1960s and '70s, the United States promoted reprocessing but later reversed that stance. That happened after India used reprocessing to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel — then used the plutonium for its first nuclear bomb, he said.

Also, he said, America's leaders decided it was not economical to reprocess and recycle plutonium. "That was confirmed by other countries' later experience," von Hippel said in a telephone interview, "countries that didn't stop as quickly as we did."

According to von Hippel, "We're talking in the ballpark of $100 billion for reprocessing and recycling," as well as preparing material for storage. That is the waste already generated, not counting future waste, he said.

"That's probably the low end of the range," von Hippel added.

"Recycling makes good sense for a number of reasons," Greg Hopkins, senior vice president of EnergySolutions, said in response to e-mailed questions.

"When taken on a life-cycle basis, considering the value of energy recovered and the disposal costs saved, it's economic. Recycling will also allow for the increased use of nuclear power for energy generation."

He said that presently, 20 percent of the U.S. power supply is derived from nuclear generation stations.

"There will be reduction in societal costs that are significant, but hard to calculate, with more nuclear generation." More nuclear power could reduce the need to import foreign fuel, resulting in greater energy security and energy independence, he said.

Not depending as much on burning fossil fuel means "a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere," Hopkins said.

Problems in Britain

Serious accidents have plagued nuclear fuel reprocessing in Great Britain.

In May 2005, the British Health Protection Agency's Radiation Protection Division issued a report summing up the risks to the country's population from ionizing radiation from all sources, including medical X-rays. It concluded that risk from non-medical sources were "at a very low level."

The report, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the UK Population: 2005 Review" discusses exposure from nuclear fuel reprocessing. Reprocessing is carried out at a plant called Sellafield, located at Cumbria on the Irish Sea. Sellafield is operated by British Nuclear Group, part of a holding company called BNFL.

In 1983, according to Sellafield's Internet site, a "beach incident" occurred in which "highly radioactive discharges resulted in beach closure."

The radiation exposure report says, "Although there have been decreases in discharges made by Sellafield in recent years, the environmental levels have not reduced substantially. This is mainly due to historical discharges of 137-cs (radioactive cesium). Liquid wastes from Sellafield are discharged directly to the Irish Sea via a pipeline."

Seafood consumers were believed to ingest some radioactive material, and exposure was also possible from sediments or through handling contaminated fishing gear.

Still, the report concludes, the exposure was "in general . . . low."

Discussing fallout from past nuclear tests, discharges of radioactive waste and consumer products, the report says, "Exposures to members of the public from these sources remain at a very low level."

Six years ago, the British government temporarily shut down a reprocessing plant because officials feared workers had "deliberately falsified records relating to the quality of fuel pellets," says a Deseret Morning News article from that time.

Later, in April 2005, the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield was shut down when a remote-controlled camera showed that a pipe had leaked badly. It turned out that the leak had begun months before, "possibly as early as June 2004," says a report authorized by British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd.

Britain's Nuclear Decommissioning Agency released a report in March 2006 pointing to metal fatigue as the cause of the failure. A large quantity, about 83 cubic meters, of "highly radioactive and corrosive" liquid ran into a secondary containment pool. There it remained, and apparently nobody was exposed to the toxic witch's brew.

Still, the incident raised concern. The government placed 49 requirements on British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd. before it could restart the plant.

"EnergySolutions cannot comment on the details of specific operational matters in the UK," Hopkins wrote in an e-mail to the Deseret Morning News. "We note however that installed engineering systems fully contained the material and that no material was released to the environment, and no personnel were injured or exposed to the leaked material.

"We also saw in recent UK press articles that the plant in question is due to restart shortly."

Hopkins wrote that EnergySolutions believes that in the United States, the possibility of such accidents is extremely low.

"Nevertheless adequate design and operational safeguards have to be put in place and tested to ensure that the public, the environment and workers are fully protected in the event of an accident." He added that operational error can never be completely ruled out, and that's why engineering safeguards are required. "Lessons learned through many years of successful operations are constantly being incorporated," Hopkins wrote.

Repository needed?

"Reprocessing absolutely does not relieve the need for a geologic repository," said Vanessa Pierce, program director for the Salt Lake City-based activist group Healthy Environmental Alliance of Utah. Reprocessing is not really recycling, she said.

The resulting volume of waste is less, Pierce said, "but that's irrelevant" to the question of whether a repository is needed. The capacity of the government's planned repository at Yucca Mountain is not limited because of the size of the waste containers but by the need to control heat generated by the highly radioactive material, she said.

Even though reprocessing reduces the bulk of the waste to be stored, the material that is left, which is not usable in power plants, still generates significant heat, Pierce said.

"You still need almost the same amount of space even though you've got a smaller volume of waste. So it does virtually nothing to solve our need for a geological repository."

Fetter, the University of Maryland professor, said fission products left over after reprocessing "cannot be recycled" and must be stored in a repository. "Yucca Mountain would be needed even if we reprocessed all the spent nuclear fuel," he said.

"It is the heat of the waste that determines how much you can put into the repository." Reprocessing as practiced in England and France "doesn't reduce the heat of the waste at all."

EnergySolutions' Hopkins replied, "Reprocessing does require a long-term storage facility like that proposed for Yucca Mountain.

"However, recycling used fuels greatly improves the storage facility efficiency. If the U.S. simply continues operating its existing nuclear power plants, without recycling, then more than one repository will be required." Without recycling, Hopkins said, the current stockpile of spent fuel would fill the anticipated capacity at Yucca. "Recycling used fuel," he added, "avoids the need for additional repositories."

E-mail: bau@desnews.com

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

Provo Daily Herald
April 29, 2006

Governor: Say no to storage site

Jim Graham
The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY -- Gov. Jon Huntsman and Sen. Orrin Hatch on Friday rallied public opposition to a proposed storage site for spent nuclear fuel on the Goshute Indian reservation, urging Utah residents to submit their comments to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management before the May 8 deadline.

Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of power utilities, wants to store up to 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel above ground on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.

"We have an opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin of PFS," Huntsman told about 100 people at the State Capitol Complex.

Congress created a federal wilderness area near the proposed storage site that opponents hope will block movement of nuclear waste there by rail. Opponents are now focused on fighting plans for a transfer station at the site, which could handle shipments arriving by truck.

So far, more than 10,000 people have weighed in during the BLM's 90-day comment period, officials said. Opponents would like to see at least 110,000 comments before May 8, when the 90-day period ends. Huntsman noted that about the same number of people already have expressed their preference for one of three designs for a state quarter.

The state also launched an Internet campaign, with about 20 Web sites promoting the letter-writing campaign against the PFS plan.

"The more we get, the better chance we have of getting the BLM to back off," said Hatch, R-Utah.

Hatch and Huntsman were joined at the "No Way Day" rally by U.S. Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Chris Cannon, R-Utah, state and local leaders, business associations and environmental groups. U.S. Sen. Robert Bennett and U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, both Utah Republicans, were not at the event, but also oppose the plan.

Opponents contend it is too dangerous to transport nuclear waste to the site, with rail lines and roads passing close to hundreds of thousands of Utah residents. The site is also near a military bombing range for jet fighters.

"Storing high-level nuclear waste in an above-ground facility next to a bombing range doesn't make sense, and it can't and won't be a solution," Bishop said in statement.

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin also encouraged people to write the BLM -- in support of the project. She said the company spent eight years crafting its application for the proposal, and that the plans meet federal and state safety requirements.

"We also encourage people to educate themselves and make sure they're up to speed on both sides of the issue," Martin said.

PFS won a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier this year to build the temporary storage facility. But the license was granted just as several of the utilities that make up PFS pulled out of the project.

The facility is planned to be an interim storage site until the federal government opens a national repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Political opposition, money shortages and other problems have delayed the project, and Energy Department managers now can't say when the site will open.

On the Net: Utah Department of Environmental Quality: www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/no_high_level_waste/index.htm

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

San Diego Union Tribune
April 28, 2006

Energy Commission says keep ban on new nuclear plants

By Samantha Young

SACRAMENTO – In its first comprehensive look at nuclear power in nearly 30 years, the California Energy Commission recommended Friday that the state continue its moratorium on construction of nuclear plants.

The commission issued a report that was triggered by the “renewed enthusiasm’ about nuclear power in Washington and overseas, commissioner John Geesman said.

California has barred construction of nuclear plants since 1976.

The 198-page report puts California at odds with the Bush administration, which has advocated nuclear power development in the face of rising gas prices and as a way to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.

The Energy Commission does not plan to let utilities build more plants because there is no adequate place to store the nuclear waste, said Geesman, who presided over the committee that oversaw drafting of the report.

“The disposal of waste is an extraordinarily important threshold question for the increased reliance of nuclear power,’ he said.

Californian gets about 13 percent of its electricity from three nuclear power plants, two in California and one in Arizona. The two plants in California, Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Diego County, now store the potentially hazardous waste on site.

Nuclear industry representatives say California's ban could cost the state.

“If they are going to rule out nuclear energy, what are they going to rule in for a reliable electricity supply that keeps the air clean?’ said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear industry group based in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Department of Energy is overseeing licensing of a national repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But that project has been set back by funding shortages, legal challenges and mismanagement.

“There seem to be technical problems, management problems, economic problems and legal problems, and the combination of those suggested to us that it was unlikely to be a viable storage site,’ Geesman said.

The Energy Department continues to push ahead with the project. Earlier this month, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman submitted legislation to Congress to speed development of the waste dump. He also asked for the authority to expand the storage capacity to take waste from more than 131 sites in 39 states.

“It has to be built under federal law,’ Kerekes said. “It's not going at the pace we in the industry would like to see, but it's moving forward.’

Nevertheless, California regulators have little confidence in Yucca Mountain.

Authors of the report advised the state's utilities to recover a share of the more than $1 billion they have paid in fees to the nuclear waste fund, which was created to help pay for a national repository. Such a move may take an act of Congress, and dozens of utilities have sued the Department of Energy for the expenses they have incurred since the government missed its target of opening the repository by 1989.

In addition to the costs, state regulators are concerned that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Homeland Security have failed to address safety issues surrounding the waste that sits at nuclear plants.

“In the heightened security environment since September 11, 2001, increased attention has been paid to the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to potential acts of terrorism,’ according to the Energy Commission report. “Nuclear power plants are difficult targets due to their substantial containment vessels, but spent fuel pools and interim fuel storage facilities may be more vulnerable.’

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is studying how its facilities – the Diablo Canyon plant and the closed Humboldt Bay nuclear plant – would be affected by a worst-case scenario natural disaster.

Southern California Edison, which co-owns the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, has no plans for a similar study, according to the report.

An Edison spokesman said the company was reviewing the report and declined to comment.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
April 28, 2006

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: Nominee backs repository

Bush choice aided Nevada Initiative

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Dale Klein, a nuclear waste expert with a long history of support for Yucca Mountain, is in line to be appointed head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

White House officials announced on Thursday that President Bush intends to nominate Klein to a five-year term as chairman of the commission that regulates the nuclear industry and which will play a major role in judging the Nevada site for a nuclear waste repository.

Klein, a longtime professor, associate dean and vice chancellor at the University of Texas, currently works at the Pentagon as assistant defense secretary for nuclear, chemical and biological programs.

But Nevada officials said they remember Klein from the early 1990s when he participated in the Nevada Initiative, an $8.7 million advertising campaign sponsored by the American Nuclear Energy Council to build public support for the Yucca Mountain project.

"I certainly believe (Klein) is completely and totally biased about Yucca Mountain," said Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects who participated in debates against the engineering professor at the time.

Industry officials justified the multi-pronged Nevada Initiative as an effort to educate residents about nuclear waste and to counter anti-nuclear spin as the government stepped up efforts to characterize Yucca Mountain as a potential repository.

But state leaders and repository critics blasted the campaign as propaganda. Then-Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., called it a "declaration of war."

Klein "was in ads about Yucca Mountain long before any of the scientific information was in," Loux said. "He is entirely biased and completely subservient to the nuclear industry."

According to a November 1991 account in Nuclear Fuel, a newsletter that covers the industry, Klein appeared in a Nevada commercial in which he holds a simulated fuel pellet and "stresses that spent fuel is a solid, not a gas or a liquid, and that it does not leak (spill) or explode."

Klein also was to be featured in newspaper ads listing a toll-free number where Nevadans could call and ask questions, Nuclear Fuel reported then.

Earlier, Klein was on a presidential commission that studied the need for an interim storage site where nuclear waste could be packaged and consolidated until a repository was finished.

Klein would replace outgoing commissioner Nils Diaz as chairman of the five-member nuclear regulatory board.

Klein's pending nomination was applauded by Frank "Skip" Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who said Klein "has a broad understanding of commercial nuclear technology and policy issues that will suit him well as NRC chairman."

But Loux suggested Klein be called on to recuse himself from Yucca Mountain matters at the NRC, a position that some Nevada lawmakers also were considering.

Klein faces confirmation in the U.S. Senate, where Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., customarily scrutinizes appointees who could affect the Yucca project. Reid had no comment on Klein.

After a struggle with the Bush administration and Senate Republicans during which he held up dozens of Bush appointees, Reid won confirmation of his science aide, Gregory Jaczko, to a two-year term to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2004.

As a condition, Jaczko was required to recuse himself for one year from participating or commenting on NRC activities related to Yucca Mountain. Jaczko's term expires this year, and Reid has said he is seeking to have him reappointed.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., believes Klein should be held to a similar recusal standard, spokesman David Cherry said.

"If that was the condition the Republicans put upon that nominee, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The congresswoman would expect the nominees to be treated the same way."

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
April 28, 2006

LETTERS: Yucca Mountain's science not broken

To the editor:

Several articles and editorial cartoons have appeared recently in the Review-Journal alleging that the science on the Yucca Mountain Project is broken. It is not.

Two scientists from the world-renowned U.S. Geological Survey who once worked on the project acted in what was later admitted in a congressional hearing to be an unprofessional manner. They failed to follow a procedure for model development and instead completed the required paperwork some time after the work was done. This does not necessarily mean that the results of the analysis were flawed.

An evaluation of the model results shows that the U.S.G.S. estimate of how much water flows into Yucca Mountain is in line with other estimates and those for other parts of the desert southwest. Nevertheless, the secretary of energy adopted a conservative approach and directed the project's scientific staff to treat the work as suspect. As a result, the model will be redeveloped, and we will not rely on the U.S.G.S. model for our license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

This failure to follow protocol by two of the more than 2,000 employees working on the Yucca Mountain Project hardly qualifies it as a "broken" project. However, we certainly agree with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and acting project Director Paul Golan "that this project will be done according to good science or it will not be done at all."

What is often overlooked is the fact that we, too, are Nevadans. Like other Nevadans, we have a vested interest in the safety of this project. We have made our homes here and are raising our children here. We drive on the same roads and share the same concerns about trucks carrying hazardous materials (not just nuclear), as well as about air and water quality. None of these issues is uniquely attributable to nuclear waste.

Jane Summerson
Paige Russell
Deborah Barr
Eric Smistad
April Gil
Las Vegas
THE WRITERS ARE SCIENTISTS WHO WORK ON THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S PLANNED HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY LOCATED ABOUT 100 MILES NORTHWEST OF LAS VEGAS.

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

Las Vegas SUN
April 28, 2006

Editorial: No crimes at Yucca?

No charges in falsified data case involving proposed nuke dump raise doubt about probe

On Tuesday the Energy Department announced that the U.S. attorney's office in Nevada would not file criminal charges against scientists working on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository who had falsified data.

This wasn't just any ordinary paperwork that had been falsified - this was data that involved how fast water can travel through the mountain and ultimately corrode canisters containing nuclear waste if a dump is ever built.

The Energy Department's inspector general, who worked with the FBI and the U.S. attorney on the criminal investigation, issued a five-page memo to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman outlining the probe's findings. The memo, however, is terribly vague regarding the evidence that had been gathered during the investigation, including how widespread the falsifying of data was.

There also wasn't an adequate explanation as to why such activities are legal. In the eyes of the federal government, apparently, falsifying data is legal and par for the course at Yucca Mountain.

The inspector general's report did note that the falsified data undermined public confidence in Yucca Mountain. Of course, public confidence in the repository, which has been riddled by politics and bereft of quality scientific work, has been undermined since its inception. It was the discovery of e-mails written by scientists, which talked about the falsifying of data, that provided a smoking gun about just how corrupt and shoddy the work has been at Yucca Mountain.

Bodman certainly hopes this report is the end of the controversy over the falsifying of data. And we're sure President Bush, who wants the dump built, would like to see the controversy go away, too.

The release of the inspector general's report on Tuesday was interesting, if not curious: It came one day after Bush had been in Las Vegas for a fundraiser for Rep. Jon Porter, who chairs a House subcommittee that is investigating the very falsifying of data in the inspector general's report. Imagine how the release of the report prior to Tuesday would have affected the public's reaction to the president's visit here.

The bottom line is that Nevada's congressional delegation needs to push for a public accounting from the U.S. attorney and the inspector general as to exactly what happened with the falsifying of the data and, just as important , why such actions didn't constitute criminal behavior.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
April 28, 2006

Nye/Yucca audit 'glowing'; Hammermeister resigns

By Phillip Gomez
PVT

Yucca Mountain's host county has some healthful news apropos to the week following the fourth annual Earth Day celebration in Pahrump April 23.

Nye County received a glowing report on the quality of its quality assurance program - the county's own QA oversight of potential after-effects that could be found in the earth's groundwater surrounding the nuclear waste repository yet to be built 20 miles east of Beatty.

The county's program consists of an independent series of groundwater studies and the collection of scientific data regarding water flow pathways inside the earth. The studies, serving as public health precautions, are to ensure the safe long-term storage of 70,000 metric tons of highly radioactive materials under Yucca Mountain.

The county's facility, the nuclear waste repository project office, is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through cooperative agreements with Nye County.

Dale Hammermeister, who recently took over as director and who is resigning May 5, according to Nye County Commissioner Joni Eastley, reports that an in-depth audit of his office's quality assurance program, conducted last month, turned up no conditions adverse to the quality of its operations.

"A periodic, rigorous audit," according to Hammermeister, is one aspect of the QA program conducted by experts in the field. Quality assurance in Nye County aims to assure the scientific community and ultimately the public that nuclear radioactive particles won't get into their water supply.

The "quality" at stake refers to the reliability of the hydro-geological data scientists amass about the area of concern.

Last month Nye County contractors performing an in-depth audit could not find anything wrong with the way the project office implemented its QA program across the range of activities, mostly related to groundwater, that it regularly monitors.

"The QA program is intended to ensure that scientific activities are conducted in a systematic manner, using documented instructions and procedures to ensure the validity, integrity, preservation and reliability of the data generated," Hammermeister said in a news release.

"We attribute this good report to the experience and professionalism of our fine staff," said Hammermeister. "For our studies to be accepted by the scientific community, they must be performed to the highest professional standards."

Nye County recently contracted with two such experts, Bill Belke and Ken Hooks, both of whom previously worked as QA officers for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC is the federal agency with ultimate authority for deciding whether to license the Yucca Mountain Repository - if and whenever it gets its act together.

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

Environment News Service
April 28, 2006

No Criminal Charges in Yucca Mountain Email Science Scandal

WASHINGTON, DC, April 28, 2006 (ENS) – Federal prosecutors have decided not to file criminal charges against three government workers who allegedly falsified water research data on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. A report by Department of Energy (DOE) Inspector General Gregory Friedman released Tuesday stops short of recommending criminal prosecutions.

The workers were running computer models on water infiltration and climate, crucial factors in determining the overall safety of a potential nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Water permeation at the repository could corrode containers holding nuclear waste, resulting in radioactive leaks.

The DOE is attempting to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, located at the edge of the Nevada Test Site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Joseph Hevesi is the primary author of the emails that appear to indicate the data used in scientific studies at the Yucca Mountain Project was falsified. During the time period in question from 1995 through 2000, Hevesi worked as a hydrologist on the Yucca Mountain Project for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which was contracted by the DOE. Since then, Hevesi has moved to Sacramento, California where he continues to work as a scientist for USGS.

Hevesi denies having falsified any Yucca Mountain documents. Testifying under subpoena last July before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization, Hevesi said, "I have never falsified any documents related to Yucca Mountain, or any other project."

One incriminating email, dated 3/30/2000, reads, "The programs, of course, are all already installed otherwise the ___ would not exist. I don´t have a clue when these programs were installed. So I´ve made up the dates and names (see red edits below). This is as good as its going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff, as long as its not a video recording of the software being installed.’

Although Hevesi and the two other USGS workers whose names appeared on suspect emails, Alan Flint and Lorraine Flint, will not be charged in the matter, Nevada´s two senators say the Inspector General's report supports their view that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump is unsafe and scientifically unsound.

Senator John Ensign, a Republican, and Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat who serves as Senate Minority Leader, asked for the investigation after emails surfaced last year indicating that government scientists working for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) falsified some test results for the Yucca Mountain project.

The tests looked at water infiltration at the proposed geologic repository. The falsified work compromised quality assurance requirements and raised questions about the accuracy of other health and safety data related to the Yucca Mountain project.

President George W. Bush and Congress have approved the site which is planned as the permanent storage site for at least 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste from power plants and Department of Defense sites across the country.

The Inspector General of the Department of Energy, the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation looked into the allegations that USGS employees had falsified water infiltration data.

In a memo to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman dated April 25, 2006, DOE Inspector General Friedman says that investigators interviewed 70 current and former employees of the DOE, Yucca Mountain contractors, and the USGS. They analyzed 150,000 emails written from 1998 through 2005.

As a factor in the decision that federal prosecutors would not pursue criminal charges, Friedman mentioned the length of time between when the emails were written and when they were discovered as obstacles to building a case.

Moisture migration experiment in the Yucca Mountain tunnel. March 1998. (Photo courtesy YMP)

The emails were written in the 1998-2000 time period, and were not disclosed to senior DOE officials until March 2005. The investigation found that the emails were read by at least one USGS supervisor and one quality assurance official at the time they were written, but the contents appear to have gone unchallenged.

The Inspector General wrote, "The nearly six year delay in surfacing and appropriately dealing with the controversial emails was inconsistent with sound quality assurance protocols."

There was a further four month delay from the time that an email review team at Yucca Mountain contractor Bechtel suggested that the emails contained falsified data and the time the suspect emails were sent to responsible Yucca Mountain officials.

Other required scientific records were not kept, and when the deficiency was discovered, the requirements were waived, the investigation revealed.

The Inspector General's report noted that “the actions of those involved, which have been described by observers as irresponsible and reckless, have had the effect of undermining public confidence in the quality of the science associated with the Yucca Mountain Project.’

Senators Ensign and Reid say the decision not to prosecute has no impact on their opposition to Yucca Mountain.

“The prospect of criminal prosecutions is secondary to the underlying fact that the science presented by the USGS and the DOE is faulty, misguided and fraudulent,’ said Ensign.

“The emails in question show clearly that data has been manipulated or fabricated, and the ensuing hearings have brought this important aspect to light," Ensign said. "No case has been made, nor can it be made, that the storage of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is scientifically sound.

"I intend to thoroughly review the Attorney General´s report," Ensign said, "but regardless of the AG´s findings, the scientific case put forth by Yucca Mountain supporters is as weak as ever.’

Hydrology experiment in the test tunnel under Yucca Mountain. April 2001. (Photo courtesy YMP)

“The science that DOE claims is supporting Yucca Mountain is sloppy, and in some cases it´s actually false,’ said Reid. “That´s a much bigger concern than whether a couple of employees will go to jail. The Yucca Mountain project is a complete failure. It has failed every legitimate health, safety, and scientific test. I´m going to continue working to stop Yucca Mountain altogether.’

More evidence of problems at Yucca Mountain was revealed to the same Congressional panel this week.

On Tuesday, Jim Wells, director of the Natural Resources and Environment Division of the General Acountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, testified that the DOE's planned nuclear waste repository faces recurring quality assurance and management challenges.

First, Wells told the House Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization, the DOE has about 14 million more Yucca Mountain project emails to review in its efforts to restore confidence in scientific documents because of the quality assurance problems shown in the emails between project employees.

Second, he said, the DOE faces quality assurance challenges in resolving design control problems associated with its requirements management process - the process for ensuring that high-level plans and regulatory requirements are incorporated into specific engineering details. Problems with the process led to the December 2005 suspension of certain project work.

Third, DOE continues to be challenged to manage a complex program and organization. Significant personnel and project changes initiated in October 2005 create the potential for earlier problem areas, such as confusion over roles and responsibilities, to reoccur.

The DOE has had a long history of quality assurance problems at the Yucca Mountain project, Wells said.

In the 1980s and 1990s, DOE had problems assuring NRC that it had developed adequate plans and procedures related to quality assurance. More recently, as it prepares to submit a license application for the repository to NRC, Wells told the panel that DOE has been relying on costly and time-consuming rework to resolve lingering quality assurance problems uncovered during audits and after-the-fact evaluations.

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

KUTV
April 28, 2006

Hunstman, Hatch Rally Opposition To Waste Site

SALT LAKE CITY Gov. Jon Huntsman and Sen. Orrin Hatch on Friday rallied public opposition to a proposed storage site for spent nuclear fuel on the Goshute Indian reservation, urging Utah residents to submit their comments to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management before the May 8 deadline.

``We have an opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin of PFS,'' Huntsman told about 100 people at the State Capitol Complex.

So far, more than 10,000 people have weighed in during the BLM's 90-day comment period, officials said. Opponents would like to see at least 110,000 comments before May 8, when the 90-day period ends. Huntsman noted that about the same number of people have already expressed their preference for one of three designs for a state quarter.

The state also launched an Internet campaign, with about 20 Web sites promoting the letter-writing campaign against the PFS plan.

``The more we get, the better chance we have of getting the BLM to back off,'' said Hatch, R-Utah.

Hatch and Huntsman were joined at the ``No Way Day'' rally by U.S. Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Chris Cannon, R-Utah, state and local leaders, business associations and environmental groups. U.S. Sen. Robert Bennett and U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, both Utah Republicans, were not at the event, but also oppose the plan.

``Storing high-level nuclear waste in an aboveground facility next to a bombing range doesn't make sense, and it can't and won't be a solution,'' Bishop said in statement.

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin also encouraged people to write the BLM – in support of the project. She said the company spent eight years crafting its application for the proposal, and that the plans meet federal and state safety requirements.

``We also encourage people to educate themselves and make sure they're up to speed on both sides of the issue,'' Martin said.

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