Yucca Mountain News Clips - Thursday, June 1, 2006

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, June 1, 2006
---------------------------

Nevada Observer
June 1, 2006

Yucca Turmoil Seems To Not End -- Congressional Hearings On Budget

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Welcomes New Congressional Appointees

by Johnny Gunn

In hearing after hearing Congress is learning what many in Nevada take as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: DOE speaks in tongues, and they aren't English. New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (R) is a strong supporter of nuclear energy, but has come to the conclusion that the Department of Energy doesn't know what it's doing. He was quoted on Capitol Hill saying confusion is rampant, time frames are out of whack. Other senators are asking why DOE is looking to return to a 'one canister fits all' approach when that idea was discarded a decade ago.

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository has not been licensed despite more than 20-years of bureaucratic bungling and misdeeds. Now four names have been brought before congress to be confirmed as members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). All four new members are generally in favor of the Yucca project. They are Edward Sproat, Dale Klein, Gregory Jaczko, and Peter Lyons.

Sproat is an executive of the nuclear energy industry and is now the director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for DOE. That makes him head of the Yucca repository project. Klein is with the defense department, and Jaczko and Lyons have been serving on the NRC temporarily and now permanently.

Some believe these appointments will allow DOE to move forward with the licensing. The Yucca project cannot go forward without licensing, and many believe that even with the favorable appointments that can't happen for at least another 20 years.

One thing standing in the way is a lack of forthrightness by DOE. In a paper released by Bob Loux of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, a division of Nevada state government, "Two separate independent federal investigations, both reported on April 25 paint a devastating picture of the untrustworthiness of the Department of Energy's scientific case for putting a nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain." Loux says the results confirm much of what Nevada has been saying for years.

The first report was the DOE Inspector General's criminal investigation into whether USGS scientists working on the project had falsified research data as indicated in a series of their e-mails. The second report, which Loux says overlaps the first, was the General Accounting Office's congressional testimony on DOE's chronic and continuing quality assurance failures.

That the e-mail affair was not an isolated problem seems to have been accepted even by Energy Secretary Bodman who said that the culture of the Yucca Mountain organization was "reflected in" the USGS e-mail affair. "To say this," Loux says, "is to admit as clearly as can be that one cannot have confidence in the scientific underpinnings of the entire project."

Senator Domenici is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and he seemed to want to throw his hands in the air in complete exasperation when DOE representatives said more time is needed on the one hand, and on the other said they want to begin work or a second repository. It is well known that the amount of high level nuclear waste currently on the ground will fill Yucca Mountain to capacity. Domenici has become a strong believer in reprocessing the waste into usable fuel. He told the committee he does not see spent fuel rods being placed underground at Yucca.

Nevada Senator John Ensign (R) released this statement in reaction to comments by Domenici that new recycling technology should be pursued because of Yucca Mountain's problems and delays. "Delays, questionable science, fraud, and mismanagement have brought the misguided Yucca Mountain project to the point that its most enthusiastic supporters are beginning to doubt it will ever become reality."

Ensign went on to say, "When the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee starts talking openly about recycling technology, it's a day for Yucca opponents to celebrate." In the meantime monetary problems for recycling took a hit in the House of Representatives when the House Appropriations Committee reduced the recycling budget by about $30 million.

The program is called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), and the house authorized only $120 million for the program. That is about half of what the president had asked for. Domenici however said in Senate Committee that he plans to allocate every dime the president asked for, "and more if I can find it."

One thing holding up licensing, besides all discussed above, is standards for radiation that might leak over a period of years at Yucca Mountain. The National Academy of Science (NAS) found fault with EPA standards that only extended to 10,000 years. NAS said the high level nuclear waste won't reach its highest level of potency for about 250,000 years. EPA then set one million years as their standard, but with a two-tier approach to radiation leakage.

Current standards suggest that 15-30 millirems should be the highest a human should receive. An X-ray will expose one to about ten millirems while a mammogram exposes a patient to about 30 millirems. EPA wants the standards for time following the first 10,000 years of storage to rise to 350 millirems. Scientists are decrying the effort saying that even 150 millirems is unacceptable.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
June 01, 2006

Progress Reported

Yucca said 'bogged down'

By Steve Tetreault

WASHINGTON - There are remaining technical questions about the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but the Department of Energy is making progress on them, a science expert said.

No way, insisted an official for the state of Nevada. DOE "is bogged down in a morass of technical, legal and managerial problems and it is unrealistic to imagine the project can pull itself out."

Meanwhile, an Energy Department executive said more time is needed for a project redesign. But at the same time, DOE is setting up a task force to study the need for a second repository, since the first one is projected to be full almost as soon as it might open.

The widely divergent messages aired at a congressional hearing on Tuesday finally caused several senators to snap in frustration and issue some of the sharpest criticism to date over delays at Yucca Mountain. One senator said he will step up efforts to reshape the repository program to reflect a new emphasis on waste reprocessing.

"Confusion is rampant, time frames are all out of whack," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Domenici said he called the hearing to assess progress "or lack of progress" at the Nevada site.

Many lawmakers thought Yucca Mountain was settled when Congress voted for the site in 2002. "Except we now find this is not the case at all," Domenici said, as the Energy Department has faced legal and quality assurance setbacks and undertook a redesign last fall.

"I'm not here to pour water on anybody's parade but at what point do we think we need to look at something else" while Yucca Mountain "spins its wheels," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.

The Energy Department has not issued a revised Yucca schedule yet, with experts saying it could be 2015 or 2020 before nuclear waste might be accepted at the site.

"In terms of why this is so hard, the simple fact is this has never been done anyplace anywhere around the world," with the safety requirements DOE must meet, said Paul Golan, acting director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Golan said delay was partly due to DOE redirecting toward a design that would use a single canister style to ship, store and dispose of nuclear waste. Golan said the change would simplify fuel handling and make it safer.

But Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., noted DOE abandoned a similar multi-purpose canister a decade ago. And Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., a repository advocate, charged DOE "has dragged its feet from the beginning."

"Congress has an obligation to get the job done and we don't need bureaucrats to get in the way constantly," Bunning said. "Changing from one canister to another? Using that excuse to say we are going to start over? Give me a break ... and now we are talking about a second repository? Do you know how foolish that looks to the American people?"

Bunning also blamed Nevada for delays, saying DOE has taken extra time "to ensure the people of Nevada are as safe as possible. It would be more productive for all of us to work with DOE to complete this project as safely and quickly as possible."

Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, rejected the advice. He said Kentucky would react the same as Nevada in fighting what it considers an unsafe endeavor. "Flogging Nevada certainly isn't the answer," Loux said afterwards.

Loux contended Yucca Mountain was found to be flawed around 1995 but the government moved forward anyway while covering up problems.

"DOE decided to compensate for the bad site with better packaging," Loux said.

The Bush administration has asked Congress to pass a bill that would speed repository licensing and groundwork in Nevada.

But Domenici said that approach is outdated. He said he will reshape the bill to reflect the Department of Energy's new push into nuclear waste reprocessing, which could alter the form and reduce the radiotoxicity of the waste shipped into the mountain if development is successful.

"It is going be clear we will not be putting spent fuel rods into Yucca Mountain," Domenici said.

Domenici said the bill also contained a "big vacuum" in that it does not allow for waste to be removed from power plants and stored at temporary locations while work continues in Nevada. Golan said DOE is open to the idea of temporary storage if Congress authorizes interim sites.

The Energy Department got an endorsement from John Garrick , chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a panel of independent science experts.

The board "believes that the DOE has made meaningful progress over the last year," Garrick testified. While the group has questioned DOE's grasp of certain geology and corrosion matters, "The board believes that the technical work is doable."

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 01, 2006

Letters: Taxpayers not funding Yucca Mountain Johnny

To the editor:

In your May 27 editorial, both you and Rep. Shelley Berkley attribute funding for the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Johnny cartoon character to taxpayers. You further question Johnny's honesty, suggesting he is a propagandist.

Perhaps you should consult Yucca Mountain Johnny on where the money for the program comes from. It does not come from taxpayers, as you and Rep. Berkley erroneously stated. The program, including Yucca Mountain Johnny's portion of the Web site, is supported by a user fee added to nuclear consumers' electric bills.

Perhaps Yucca Mountain Johnny is not the propagandist here!

Dan Kane
Las Vegas

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

Vermont Guardian
May 31, 2006

NRC vetoes lone commissioner´s safety concerns

Kathryn Casa
Vermont Guardian

Four of the nation´s top five nuclear regulators have overruled a move to stay the Vermont Yankee (VY) power boost until appeals about its safety are resolved — action that could have altered the way the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews some power uprates.

In a decision dated May 25, four of the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) disagreed with Commissioner Gregory Jaczko, who in a March 8 memo to his colleagues expressed concerns about the way the NRC staff approved a controversial 20 percent extended power uprate (EPU) at Vermont Yankee.

Jaczko is a former aide to Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, who opposes plans to build a high-level nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain, and nuclear critic Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA. The commissioner is seen as the panel´s most safety-conscious member.

In his memo, he pointed out that the NRC staff finding of “no significant hazards’ — which is required before an uprate can proceed — was issued far later in the VY uprate process than normal. The finding was made Jan. 5 — two years after Vermont Yankee filed its uprate application — and following a comprehensive safety evaluation in which the NRC placed so many conditions on the extended power uprate that one critic took to calling it an “experimental power uprate.’

“It appears that in complex cases like that confronting the NRC in Vermont Yankee´s application, the agency has misapplied the implementation of the ‘no significant hazards consideration´ determination,’ Jaczko wrote.

NRC staff subsequently approved the uprate on March 2, despite three safety contentions accepted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), the NRC´s quasi-judicial panel that reviews safety concerns. One contention filed by the state of Vermont was later dropped, but two others, filed by the Brattleboro-based New England Coalition (NEC), are to be heard in the fall.

NEC technical advisor Ray Shadis pointed out that the ASLB does not accept contentions lightly. In fact, NEC is the first outside party to be granted intervenor status before the board on an uprate. Before agreeing to review a contention, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board must thoroughly vet the argument “to show that there is a real, credible dispute over a safety issue with the licensee,’ Shadis noted.

Jaczko said these factors point to complex situation at Vermont Yankee, and raise questions about the way the staff reviews extended power uprates.

“I have significant doubts about the validity of the immediate effectiveness of the Vermont Yankee extended power uprate license amendment,’ he wrote in the memo. “I believe that the commission owes itself and its external stakeholders to stay the effectiveness of the requested license amendment until the outcome of the pending adjudication on this amendment. The commission should also direct the staff to re-establish the policy that extended power uprates, those over 7 percent, are likely to involve a significant hazards consideration determination.’

In the case of VY, Jaczko said NRC staff appeared “to have analyzed those hazards away through its safety analysis.’

“This implementation of the NSHC [no significant safety hazards consideration] determination process misses the point of the process —and its intent. If the staff had to make its reasonable assurance of public health and safety finding before it could conclude its NSHC determination, then the NSHC determination is no longer a tool to determine the necessity of a prior hearing, but instead simply becomes a tool to allow an amendment to be issued while a hearing is pending,’ he wrote.

Under federal law, NSHC standards should be applied “with ease and certainty,’ and should not be applied to “doubtful or borderline cases.’

The VY determination was “obviously complex — more of an analysis regarding whether there were significant hazards rather than an analysis of whether the application involved significant hazards considerations,’ Jaczko wrote.

In a response endorsed by his other three colleagues, NRC Commissioner Peter Lyons argued, “Nowhere in any of the legislative history of the [Atomic Energy Agency] or the commission´s regulations is it said that if the staff is unable to make a determination regarding the existence of a significant hazards consideration with ease and certainty a prior hearing is required.’

“Neither the statute nor the commission´s regulations requires that a notice of opportunity for a hearing include a proposed finding as to whether the propsed action involves a significant hazards consideration,’ Lyons replied.

Shadis called that argument “a masterpiece of equivocation.’

“The commission is taking refuge in an overly legalistic stance to avoid the substance of the argument that significant safety issues have been raised,’ he said. “The staff should not, in the face of that, file a finding of no significant hazards and issue a license.’

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

Stanford Daily
May 31, 2006

The changing face of nuclear

Training First Responders

By James Hohmann

NEVADA TEST SITE, Nev. — Changing realities in a post-Cold War world have caused forced adjustments in America´s nuclear proving ground. In a nine-hour, 250-mile tour of the high-security 1,375-square mile Nevada Test Site — larger than the state of Rhode Island — visitors saw both relics of a bygone era and were briefed on the new defense, environmental and energy programs intended to meet the nation´s needs in the 21st century.

In the opening salvo of the nuclear age, Harry Truman wanted to find a location where through testing and development — the power of the atom could be mastered for scientific and military applications. So the Atomic Energy Commission secretly selected this site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where 100 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted in the 12 years after the site opened in 1951.

The site´s methods changed in 1963 when President John Kennedy signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, literally driving the testing underground. The majority of all nuclear activity in the world, 828 underground tests, was conducted at the site — until 1992, when President George Bush, Sr. placed a moratorium on nuclear testing.

The craters from these years of nuclear blasts speckle the desert floor. While it´s hard to contemplate the damage each bomb could have inflicted if a city had been its target, such was the job of scientists stationed here.

At Frenchman Flat, physicists tested the impact of nuclear blasts on physical structures, constructing and then exploding industrial and residential buildings. Underground garages and shelters were built with different materials to see how much force each could withstand. They also tried to model the effects of blasts on humans, outfitting pigs with miniature military uniforms and locking them in pens to test the effects of the explosions´ intense heat. The pigs were tested, the tour guide said, because their skin is remarkably like that of humans.

The results of these tests are clear to any visitor, with leftover shards of these decimated structures littering the landscape. A railroad bridge was constructed more than a mile away from Ground Zero, the site of detonation. All that is left today are the mangled and partly-melted railroad trestles. Visitors on the tour said these remnants reminded them of the awesome power nuclear weapons bear.

“I´ve seen pictures and read about the destruction of nuclear weapons in books, but actually seeing that railroad trestle made a real impression on me,’ said Jim Kirkpatrick, a Wyoming native on a road trip. “Driving around Ground Zero had a unique sense about it.’

Scientists also set off bombs to determine how typical American homes would hold up during a Soviet nuclear attack. Houses built in the Yucca Flat at varying distances from Ground Zero were stocked with all the conveniences of the mid-1950s, and scientists studied each after the blasts. The classic footage of exploding houses comes from this series of tests.

The tour was taken to a house 9,000 feet away from Ground Zero that survived the testing and still stands five decades later.

The site also helped scientists learn more about the limits of nuclear applications. With the power of the atom a mysterious marvel, scientists for a time believed seriously that nuclear weapons could be used as relatively inexpensive tools for peaceful purposes. This notion motivated Dwight Eisenhower to announce his “Atoms for Peace’ initiative in 1953. Here, that program met its end.

Named for the biblical parable in which swords are beaten into plowshares, the Plowshare Program explored the possibility of using nuclear blasts to construct dams, dredge canals, clear land for highways and make railroad cuts through mountains. But studies of nuclear excavation — which produced sights like the awe-inspiring Sedan Crater — also created fireball mushroom clouds and deadly levels of radiation, understandably dissuading the use of nuclear warheads to these ends.

New realities at the end of Cold War and the beginning of the War on Terror have shifted research away from such purposes. In 1992, a $44 million underground experiment, co-sponsored by the British, called Project Icecap was four weeks from completion when George Bush Sr. declared a moratorium on testing. The superpowers hoped to study the effects of a nuclear blast on urban high rises. As a result, a several-hundred-foot-tall structure stands alone on the desert floor. Trailers on stilts meant to measure ground movement sits by in case testing is resumed.

And with the war on terror and the recent jump in military spending, use of the site — if not the prospects of renewing Cold War-style testing — is on the rise. A variety of agencies — including the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the national laboratories — have staffs and offices on the site.

In so-called sub-critical tests, scientists have continued to work with different nuclear materials without putting enough together to create a detonation and fallout. The Stockpile Stewardship program allows them to keep the nuclear arsenal modern without testing. A planned 700-ton conventional bomb test set for June was indefinitely postponed by the government last Friday. [See adjacent story]

The Department of Homeland Security has constructed a massive training facility on site to train police, fire and medical first-responders at the federal, state and local levels for various scenarios. These emergency officers come for one-week training courses, which include training on what to do after the release of radiation from a so-called ‘dirty´ bomb.

The federal government picks up the tab for the travel, housing, food and training costs of the law enforcement agencies involved, said John Spahn, a Bechtel contractor and former manger of the HazMat center program at the Nevada Test Site.

At the Incident Experiment Site, the National Center for Combating Terrorism has crashed planes, derailed railroad cars and staged other realistic crisis scenarios. Last week, Las Vegas Fire Department trucks were parked outside one of the mock simulations.

At the HazMat Spill Center that Spahn managed until 2002, first responders can practice cleaning up real chemical spills and containing explosions. More than 10,000 first responders receive specialized training on detecting and responding to weapons of mass destruction.

“You name the three letter agencies,’ Spahn said. “They´ve all been out here.’

This helps explain the secrecy still shrouding the site. On the tour, no phones, cameras, recorders or binoculars are allowed. Area 51, the highly-secret government installation, sits on the other side of a ridge at the border of the site. On maps, it is known as Groom Lake. A Predator aircraft — the unmanned aerial drone used extensively in Afghanistan — flew by the tour bus. The planes are operated out of a nearby Air Force base. Humvees with machine gun emplacements rove around the site.

Some tour participants felt the impact of the high level of security.

“I would have liked to have seen more nuts and bolts, but I guess that is off-limits,’ said Gary Henderson, a Florida retiree.

Officials said the site is prepared to resume underground nuclear testing in less than two years. The government maintains a staff of 1,200 at the site, a far cry from the once thriving infrastructure that required more than 13,000 supporting a continuous flurry of activity.

While most said they enjoyed the tour and were proud of the work the government has done here, one participant worried that the tours don´t tell the whole story.

“It´s good for people to come get educated, but you have to be careful about how much information you take from here,’ said Michele Mason, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford´s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. “There´s a lot of information that is being left out.’

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

Stanford Daily
May 31, 2006

The Atomic Testing Museum: Window to the Past

By James Hohmann

LAS VEGAS — The nuclear legacy that looms so large here has been commemorated by exhibits at the new Atomic Testing Museum. Opened in February of last year, the state-of-the art, interactive center — an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution — follows chronologically the evolution of nuclear technology from the Manhattan Project to the post-Sept. 11 efforts to contain nuclear materials around the globe.

After walking by a timeline of everything nuclear in the 1990s, visitors enter rooms within the exhibit centered around various themes, like Harold Edgerton´s high-speed photography of explosions and the Native American culture of the area near the Nevada Test Site.

“We´ve related those experiences in an attempt to show there is a deeper human history,’ said Museum Registrar Vanya Scott, who manages the collections and artifacts. “All the artifacts in here have a story to tell — singly or as a group.’

An internationally-renowned design firm was charged with including as much multimedia as possible. Touch screens, video displays and objects are scattered throughout the museum.

“The multimedia aspects allow us to reach all audiences,’ Scott said. “Some people are visual learners. Some people learn by touching and feeling. Some people need to listen. We cater to all these needs.’

The museum drew 30,000 visitors in its first year, a turnout that Museum Operations Manager Maggie Smith considers promising.

“We feel like that was a pretty good start,’ she said. The museum has had several high-profile visitors, including several senators and the secretary of the Department of Energy.

A security officer at the museum, Lee Williams, was a formerly captain in the private security force at the Nevada Test Site — an area featured prominently in the exhibit — from 1974 to 2000.

“The exhibits bring back a lot of memories every day,’ he said. “We were never in the same place two days in a row, and we got to see all the tests.’

The displays try to paint a balanced picture of the nuclear issue, its designers said.

“It´s very important for us to communicate that we are a museum that attempts to tell all sides of the story,’ Scott said. “We´re not pro- or anti-nuclear. We want to recount the history of what happened and let the visitors decide for themselves.’

But some visitors felt the exhibits tended to be more supportive of nuclear technology than museum officials stated.

“I don´t know if it entirely shows both sides,’ said Jack McKenna, a native of Vancouver in Canada. “Some of the movies seemed more pro-atomic.’

Nonetheless, McKenna said he enjoyed the museum.

“I lived through the Cold War, and this brings backs what a frightening time it was,’ he said. McKenna, who was born in 1954, remembers watching the Cuban Missile Crisis unfold on television. He said he was expecting to see more on the crisis in the museum.

A series of special exhibits are planned for in the coming months. In August, for example, survivors of the Nagasaki blasts will speak about their experiences.

Still young, the museum hopes to expand. Scott said she´d like to develop traveling exhibits on subjects that could not be addressed due to a lack of space. One example she offered was the role that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration played in predicting the weather during testing.

In addition to the Atomic Testing Museum, several nuclear-related exhibits are located nearby.

Harry Reid Exhibit Hall

Attached to the museum is a traveling exhibit hall. The current display features gadgets, including a Geiger counter, telephones designed to withstand nuclear fallout and a special camera used to photograph blasts.

The Nuclear Testing Archive

In the same facility, but unaffiliated with the museum, is a reading room sponsored by Bechtel SAIC — the private contractor that supports government operations at the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain. The archives contain videos and documents created by the contractor and released by the government under the Freedom of Information Act.

“From movies to documents to slide shows, we´ve got it all,’ said Jeff Gordon, the librarian who runs the reading room. “Anyone who wants to look at the history of nuclear testing is welcome.’

Nevada State Museum

A traveling exhibit here includes photos taken by Las Vegas photographer Don English of mushroom clouds from tests conducted during the 1950s that were visible in the Las Vegas morning sky. There are also creative photos of show girls and casino operations taken during this era.

The Atomic Testing Museum is located at 755 East Flamingo Road in Las Vegas.

Admission prices: Adults: $10, Seniors: $7, Youth (7-17): $7

Hours: Mon.-Sat.: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Sun.: 1-5 p.m.

For more, visit AtomicTestingMuseum.org.

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

Vermont Guardian
May 31, 2006

NRC vetoes lone commissioner´s safety concerns

Kathryn Casa
Vermont Guardian

Jaczko said these factors point to complex situation at Vermont Yankee, and raise questions about the way the staff reviews extended power uprates.

In the case of VY, Jaczko said NRC staff appeared “to have analyzed those hazards away through its safety analysis.’

Under federal law, NSHC standards should be applied “with ease and certainty,’ and should not be applied to “doubtful or borderline cases.’

Shadis called that argument “a masterpiece of equivocation.’

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

Las Vegas SUN
May 30, 2006

Doggone it, lawmakers are punny

Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun

Who knew members of Congress are sometimes called on to vote like dogs?

It started innocently enough at the House Judiciary Committee last week during the debate over a bill by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., that would ban Internet gambling.

Rep. Robert I. Wexler, D-Fla., was making an impassioned speech for his amendment, which he claimed would level the playing field by allowing online dog racing - along with online horse racing - to be exempt from the ban.

As Wexler made his colorful case, he misspoke. "(Goodlatte) will say his bill doesn't allow horses to gamble over the Internet," he said, drawing chuckles from the committee. (Who knew the members actually listened to their colleagues' rousing speeches?)

Then the rhetorical games began.

When Wexler's time had expired, his colleague, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., rose to yield to him precious minutes to continue the debate.

"I don't have a horse in this race. I don't have a dog in this race, either," Schiff said as he offered his time, drawing more chuckles from the committee.

Then there was no turning back.

"I can see this debate's going to the dogs," Schiff said on his next rise.

Goodlatte took his turn in the war of wits during his rebuttal to Wexler, saying: "In this legislation, the gentleman is barking up the wrong tree."

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., later dropped a barrage of puns that included "let sleeping dogs lie," "that dog won't hunt" and "it's a dog-eat-dog world," all in her support of the Wexler amendment - and that turned the chuckles to groans.

But the top dog turned out to be committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who called on the members to vote in canine-speak.

"All those in favor of the amendment will please say 'woof.' All those opposed, say No ¦ The Woofs appear to be defeated and the Nos have it."

Actually, a roll-call vote was taken, and the amendment lost 15-21, with just a few actual woofs.

• • •

To Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., her ongoing campaign to stop Yucca Mountain is a life-and-death matter in more ways than one.

She couldn't convince her colleagues to vote against the Energy and Water appropriations bill that contained in next year's funding for Yucca Mountain. Nor could she get them to pull the plug on Yucca Mountain Joe, the cartoon character on the Energy Department's Web site for kids. But she could put her life on the line to block the project.

As her floor time ticked down in the debate, she made a pledge:

"I will lie in front of any train that attempts to send nuclear waste to Nevada," she said. "I will stand on the highways to stop any truck that brings nuclear waste in Nevada. Nuclear waste will come to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, over my dead body, I promise you that."

• • •

You can tell a bit about a member of Congress by his office on Capitol Hill.

Some have flags out front. Others have placards touting a cause near and dear to their hearts. Some keep their doors closed.

The offices for Nevada's members of the House are as different as the members themselves.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., veteran of two wars, pilot and geologist, has a neat, organized, law-and-order type place with patriotic pictures on the walls.

The office of Berkley is all glitter and glam - from the Fabulous Las Vegas table lamp that looks like a replica of the real thing, to the teddy bear dressed like a barely clad showgirl from a charity auction.

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., has a Napoleon Dynamite bobble-head (wearing the trademark Vote for Pedro T-shirt) and a piano. He sets the mood for an interview on immigration with music.

Bob Marley, he asks? Actually, it turns out to be a mix of maybe Marley, definitely U2 and the rest was a bit difficult to hear over his own drumbeat of talking points on the House immigration bill.

Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.

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

Spartanburg Herald Journal
May 30, 2006

President is right to call for more nuclear power plants

President Bush is pushing the nation toward energy independence and a cleaner environment by advocating more nuclear power plants.

The president traveled to a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania last week to urge power companies to take advantage of new federal incentives to build nuclear power generation facilities.

"For the sake of economic security and national security, the United States must aggressively move forward with construction of nuclear power plants. Other nations are," Bush said.

He's right.

Despite the emotionally charged concerns of some environmental activists, nuclear power is a clean and safe energy source.

It doesn't burn fossil fuels that must be imported from the Middle East. That would help free our international policy from the concerns of obtaining as much oil.

And it eliminates the air pollution that comes with oil-fired or coal-burning plants. These emissions contribute to air pollution and global warming concerns.

You'd think environmentalists would jump at the chance to support such a common-sense choice. But you'd be wrong.

Although some have realized that nuclear power is a good choice, others continue to oppose nuclear plants and the infrastructure necessary to support them.

This opposition reaches the ridiculous. Some environmental groups oppose the proposed long-term nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada because the federal government can only guarantee it against leaks for 10,000 years.

They insist on a longer guarantee, refusing to acknowledge that better technology 100 centuries from now would make a longer guarantee frivolous.

Federal officials should continue to advocate more nuclear energy and should work with power companies and state and local officials to build plants like the nuclear plant planned for Cherokee County.

That plant would guarantee a full energy supply for the Upstate's future as well as boost the region's economy.

Those benefits should be available here and to other parts of the country.

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

Patriot-News
May 30, 2006

Still Skeptical

If nuclear power is to expand, safely, waste needs must be met

President Bush, in a visit last week to Montgomery Coun ty's Limerick Generating Station, called again for the building of more nuclear power plants. But the country remains unconvinced that this is the right path and the completion of a nuclear waste repository is nowhere in sight.

The accident at the Unit 2 Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in 1979 rendered the entire industry radioactive, from which it has yet to recover. But even before the accident, the heavily subsidized nuclear industry was in deep trouble from cost overruns, for which millions of Pennsylvania ratepayers continue to this day to pay for and will for a number of years to come in the form of so- called "stranded costs" on their electric bill.

And under last year's energy bill, taxpayers are being called on to pay billions more to revive the industry. That legislation provides nearly $3 billion for nuclear research, $3.25 billion in construction subsidies, $5.7 billion for operational subsidies and $1.3 billion in reactor decommissioning subsidies.

Among the construction subsidies is $2 billion in "risk insurance" to compensate utilities for any delays in construction due to regulation or litigation. Not included in the bill's cost estimate is the potential default of government-backed loan guarantees of up to 80 percent of the cost of new nuclear plants, which could run as much as $2.5 billion per unit.

The marvel here is that utilities have not rushed full-speed ahead to build new nuclear plants, even though the government has assumed virtually all the risks. This includes a 20-year reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, which caps the industry's liability in the event of an accident.

However, the rush may have begun. Three companies, including TMI-owner Exelon, have applied for site permits to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sixteen other companies say they are planning to apply for licenses to build and operate 25 nuclear plants, according to Forbes magazine.

Yet, plenty of skepticism remains among the public, likely still skittish about embracing an atomic power plant as a neighbor, and investors on Wall Street, which pulled the plug on the nuclear industry when massive cost overruns in the construction of plants exposed the industry's economic shortcomings.

But it would appear that Uncle Sam has contrived to make nuclear power virtually risk-free for investors, if not risk-free in the usual sense.

Nevertheless, the industry needs to demonstrate that it can build a modern nuclear plant that is safe, if not necessarily affordable in the time-honored sense of market-driven forces. But more than anything, the government has to crank up its effort to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. It would be unconscionable to expand the amount of high-level nuclear waste generated without a permanent safe means of storage.

Barring some kind of breakthrough in alternative energy development, which no one expects anytime soon, the country has no choice but to pursue the possibilities present in all forms of energy, including nuclear.

Still, we can't help but wonder whether all the tax dollars being lavished on the nuclear industry wouldn't be better invested in the expansion of solar and other renewable energy sources.

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