Yucca Mountain News Clips
Sunday, July 23, 2006
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
July 23, 2006
Reid puts Nevada in '08 spotlight
By J. Patrick Coolican
Las Vegas Sun
In the end, it probably came down to Harry Reid.
A committee of national Democrats charged with selecting which state would follow the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus chose Nevada on Saturday by an overwhelming vote. The decision, made at a Washington meeting, still needs to be ratified by the Democratic National Committee in August, but Nevada is looking like the solid favorite.
As Nevada Democrats sold the state to the national party in hopes of getting an early voice in choosing the next Democratic presidential nominee, they were able to tout Nevada's ascendant labor movement, increasing racial and ethnic diversity and mix of urban and rural populations.
But it was the state's senior senator who made the difference, people close to the process say.
"He made an awful lot of phone calls," said Carol Fowler, a South Carolina delegate who voted for Nevada.
"He fought hard and it couldn't have happened without Senator Reid," said state Sen. Steven Horsford, D-North Las Vegas, who helped lead Nevada's effort.
For Nevada, this decision means the state will likely play a major role in selecting the next Democratic nominee for president. Candidates will be here early and often, and they'll be forced to confront and make promises about important Nevada issues, such as water, education and Yucca Mountain.
The victory for Nevada arose from a decision by the national party, led by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, to change the way Democrats choose their standard bearer. In the past, Iowa and New Hampshire have played outsized roles in selecting the party's nominee, with candidates who did well in those states usually sweeping ahead on the momentum of those victories.
The problem, as Democratic leaders have come to recognize, is that Iowa and New Hampshire are small, rural, almost entirely white states, not representative of either the party or the country as a whole.
That often has led to debacle candidates such as Michael Dukakis, nominated in 1988 before being crushed by George H.W. Bush. Even Sen. John Kerry, despite his narrow 2004 loss to President George W. Bush - or, from another perspective, because of it - was seen by some as the product of a flawed nomination process.
The party sought an early caucus state that was Western, diverse and had a strong labor movement. A race in a state out West would produce better campaigns and better candidates, the reasoning went. Nevada and Arizona were the top contenders.
From the beginning, Reid orchestrated the contest. When Danny Thompson, spokesman for the Nevada AFL-CIO, and Horsford went to New Orleans in April to make the case for Nevada, they didn't go empty-handed. Reid turned to Billy Vassiliadis of R&R Partners - the firm that came up with the "What happens here stays here" slogan for Las Vegas - to produce a video and marketing package.
"Nevada started off with a bang at the DNC meeting in New Orleans when they presented. It was a lavish, well-done presentation, and that impressed the rules committee," said Marc Ambinder, an associate editor for The Hotline, a Washington, D.C., political newsletter that has followed the deliberations closely.
Reid's staff worked with Thompson and Horsford on their presentation and then hit them with prep questions and answers.
The presentation was not Vegas glitzy, though. It studiously avoided portraying the Las Vegas that much of the country has come to perceive. "We just had to explain to people that we have a strong working class, union and minority population," said Pilar Weiss, political director for the Culinary Union, which consulted on the effort.
Thompson said the presentation was "on message" and focused on the criteria that the party had set: strong labor movement, diverse population, a geographic layout that would allow for retail, door-to-door politics.
Nevada was the only state in the running with a growing labor movement, both in absolute terms and in proportion to the working population.
The Culinary Union's membership increased 20 percent to 60,000 last year alone, and overall union membership has grown from 12.5 percent of the working population in 2004 to 13.8 percent now.
Also, the labor movement sees its future in the service industries, where labor here has been growing, in casinos and hospitals in particular.
Although the influence of the labor movement is on the wane nationally, it still has clout in the Democratic Party.
The committee also liked Nevada for its increasing diversity, he said. Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans make up 36 percent of the state's population, according to 2004 national census figures.
Once the presentation was made, the phone calls began from Reid.
"He took this on as something he was willing to work hard for, and he did work for it," Fowler said. Asked if he used any of his vaunted, back-alley political dagger skills, she responded with a chuckle: "He was nothing but a perfect gentleman."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., also was instrumental, Fowler said, in addressing the South Carolinian's concern that whatever state won the contest would be able to put on a good caucus.
A caucus is an odd electoral process whereby political party members gather on a single night at hundreds of different locations to publicly discuss the candidates, then select delegates representing the various contenders.
It is much different than individuals casting ballots behind the curtain of the voting booth. The effort requires tremendous organization.
Berkley quickly allayed Fowler's concerns, helping to convince her that Nevada's strong labor movement would provide the necessary organizational soldiers.
Ambinder said there was another factor in Nevada's success.
While other powerful Washington Democrats such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have privately and publicly clashed with Dean, Reid has stuck by him and agreed - at least in principal - with his long-term strategy to fight the Republicans in all 50 states and on all fronts.
"The DNC loves him because of his relationship with Howard Dean," he said.
"Dean's in this fight with Emanuel and Schumer, but Reid has a good relationship behind the scenes and is even a public supporter of Dean. That was a huge plus."
--J. Patrick Coolican can be reached at 259-8814 or at patrick.coolican@ lasvegassun.com.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
July 23, 2006
Letter: Bush serves his own agenda, not America's
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this supposed to be a democracy?
The majority of Americans are in favor of stem-cell research, yet, we allow Bush to dictate what he believes in. He created the war in Iraq, which has killed thousands of our soldiers, not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. I guess he does not consider these lives important. He would rather protect embryos that would be discarded anyway rather than try to save someone from a debilitating disease.
Did he forget that he was an elected servant and not king? Don't we have a right to decide where we want our tax dollars spent? We did not choose to go to war in Iraq, yet most of our tax dollars are being spent in the war. Our tax dollars, which were supposed to go to Hurricane Katrina relief, were spent on plasma TVs and golf course vacations.
He has shoved the Yucca Mountain waste repository down our throats even though he promised he would consider scientific evidence to decide whether it was safe. Obviously, another lie he told us. He has blocked the investigation into his domestic surveillance program. That should tell us something. What is he hiding?
Even though Congress and the Senate passed bills, he used a signing statement that would override the laws that he does not agree with. This man thinks he is king and is above the law.
Nevada, he has shown that he is not our friend.
Dolores Kelley, Las Vegas
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
Jul. 21, 2006
Yucca director pressed on costs
The Associated Press
LAS VEGAS -- As many as 500 workers at the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain will receive notices next week that they might be laid off at the end of September.
Officials said Friday that the layoffs were part of an ongoing reorganization at the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Notices are being prepared for about a fourth of the work force employed by managing contractor Bechtel SAIC and for its commercial and federal laboratory subcontractors, Bechtel spokesman Jason Bohne said.
Many of the employees affected are scientists, engineers, computer modelers and technical workers. Some of the workers are expected to be retained by Bechtel as it repositions its work plans, Bohne said.
Others are expected to be offered jobs by the Sandia National Laboratories, which is taking over portions of the Yucca project from Bechtel.
Bohne and Sandia representative Kate Rivera said they did not know how many workers might be offered new jobs and how many might face layoffs in the fall.
The Energy Department announced the reorganization in January, saying it expected the transition to be complete by October.
Under the reorganization Sandia will assume control of science and technical components, including projections of how long the underground repository might prevent residue of highly radioactive and decaying nuclear waste from escaping into the environment.
Sandia performed a similar role in coordinating the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad, N.M., a repository that began receiving transuranic nuclear waste for disposal in 1999.
DOE managers said the reorganization was designed to improve the project's credibility with scientists and regulators. The department wanted to open the dump in 2010, but allegations that government scientists skirted quality control requirements and a federal court's invalidation of the government's proposed radiation safety standards have pushed back the opening date.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 22, 2006
Critics question Yucca Mountain upgrade plan
DOE plans to spend $100 million at site
By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal
Although they are at least two years away from seeking a license to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Department of Energy officials intend to spend $100 million over the next several years to build roads, power lines and a central operations area at the site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The upgrade plan has raised questions among critics about the need for new construction, its drain on water resources and the potential for stirring up toxic dust.
Details of the proposed infrastructure improvements are contained in a draft environmental assessment plan that the federal agency put out for public comment this month. Comments should be submitted no later than Aug. 7, according to the Federal Register notice.
The plan calls for construction of up to 33 miles of new and replacement roads, more than 20 miles of power lines and a central operations area with six buildings to replace existing facilities that in some cases have exceeded their operational life, according to the 70-page draft document.
The buildings include a 43,000-square-foot field operations center for offices, training, computer operations and emergency facilities; a 10,000-square-foot station for fire and medical support; and a 43,000-square-foot craft shop for maintenance and repair operations.
None of the work is directly related to the planned repository, nor is the work being done to construct concrete pads for storing nuclear waste aboveground so that it can age before it is entombed inside the mountain, project spokesman Allen Benson said.
"Whatever we're doing is to ensure the safety of our workers and our guests," he said Friday. "This is for safety and security."
But Nevada critics of the repository plan, including Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant to the State Nuclear Projects Agency, said the upgrades are "totally unjustifiable."
"The real issue in this whole thing is that we can't find in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that they can have authorization to do this kind of work," he said late Friday.
"It's pretty clear, especially with the new schedule, that this has got to be a leg up for getting deeper in the expense for going forward," Frishman said.
On April 19, the project's facility operations director, Scott Wade, told a meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's advisory committee on nuclear waste that the upgrades would cost roughly $100 million.
Some of the construction activities could potentially affect air quality, wildlife, water resources and American Indian cultural resources, the report indicates.
Another potential issue is water needed for construction activities. Litigation continues over the state engineer's denials in 2000 and 2003 of the Energy Department's request for permanent rights to 430 acre-feet per year for the Yucca Mountain Project.
There has been no resolution in the water appropriation matter, but under a stipulation, the project is currently allowed to use about five acre-feet per year for its facilities and sanitation.
Construction activities would require much more temporary use of the water, however, between 230 acre-feet and 297 acre-feet, according to the report.
There are about 326,000 gallons in an acre-foot, which is almost enough water to supply two average Las Vegas homes for one year.
As much as 150,000 cubic yards of fill material would be hauled to the site and graded flat. Some of the fill material could be obtained from either the existing muck pile near the North Portal, existing pits or a new one 15 miles from the mountain.
The material would have to be crushed and screened, the report states.
---------------------------
Contra Costa Times
July 22, 2006
Leading Nevada candidates for U.S. Senate face primary opponents
Brendan Riley
Associated Press
CARSON CITY, Nev. - This fall Nevada voters will choose among Republican U.S. Sen. John Ensign, two splinter party hopefuls and Democrat Jack Carter, former President Carter's son - assuming predictable wins by Carter and Ensign over their Aug. 15 primary opponents.
The conservative Ensign, seeking a second six-year term, faces a long-shot Republican primary challenge from perennial candidate Ed "Fast Eddie" Hamilton of Las Vegas, a former Chrysler Corp. supervisor who says he's the "only peace candidate" in the GOP.
Carter, a Las Vegas investment consultant, is running in the Democratic primary against political unknown Ruby Jee Tun of Carson City, a middle school science teacher.
Also in the Senate race are Libertarian Brendan Trainor of Reno and the Independent American Party's David Schumann of Minden - and Nevada's "none of these candidates" option, which can't win a race but can embarrass a contender who gets fewer votes than "none."
Ensign has pulled far ahead of all the candidates in the Senate race in raising money. The latest federal campaign finance reports show him with $5.2 million in contributions. Carter was the only other candidate to list substantial contributions - and he's far behind at $1.1 million.
While Ensign is the prohibitive favorite in the primary, Hamilton says he's giving the incumbent a fight anyway because Ensign should face more than a "coronation."
Hamilton wants the United States to get out of Iraq. He said he backed the removal of Saddam Hussein but believes Iraqis have to "work it out among themselves."
Hamilton ran unsuccessfully for many offices in Michigan before moving to Las Vegas. That included bids for the Michigan Legislature, the U.S. Senate and for governor - once as a Democrat and once as a Republican.
In 2002, he ran simultaneously for U.S. Senate and Michigan governor, although he dropped out of the latter race after failing to get enough signatures to make the primary ballot.
Ensign, a veterinarian who served two terms in the U.S. House before winning his Senate seat in 2000, has decried the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and has called for stronger public support for the Iraq war, tougher immigration laws and cuts in government spending.
He touts his efforts to bring a veteran's hospital to southern Nevada, his support of legislation that opened up federal land in Nevada to development and parks, and his efforts to block the nation's nuclear waste from being stored at Yucca Mountain.
Ensign, a strong supporter of President Bush, is known for his good working relationship with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who defeated him in his first Senate try in 1998 by a mere 428 votes.
In her bid for the Democratic nomination, Jun isn't accepting campaign contributions and concedes there may not be "a snowball's chance" that she can win. She also says the United States shouldn't leave Iraq in anarchy and chaos, and the president's executive powers should be checked.
Tun, whose mother and one of her grandfathers were immigrants, says the Senate shouldn't lose sight of citizens who are in the U.S. legally. She also wants an end to big tax breaks for major corporations.
In his campaign ads, Carter reminds voters of his famous father and compares the U.S. government to a discount wholesaler. He also notes his rural roots and Navy service in Vietnam.
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter both have visited Nevada to support their son's first bid for elective office.
Carter also has criticized the Bush administration's domestic spying program and the new Medicare drug program as a boon to the pharmaceutical industry. He promised to fight against federal efforts to place a high-level nuclear dump in Nevada.
Carter has a degree in physics from Georgia Tech University and law degree from the University of Georgia School of Law. He was in his late 20s when his father won the presidency in 1976, and never lived in the White House. After working as a lawyer in Georgia, he became an investment consultant specializing in hedge funds.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
July 21, 2006
Light banter fills room at latest Yucca hearing
By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun
WASHINGTON - Playfulness and good cheer aren't moods commonly associated with the words "Yucca Mountain."
But there are exceptions. This week, certain lawmakers on Capitol Hill were brimming with hope as they spoke with the enthusiastic new director of the planned nuclear waste burial site at Yucca Mountain. Edward Sproat is a turnaround expert from the private sector, a can-do guy determined to breathe new life into the project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Sproat told members of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that he intended to have it open by 2017.
"I'm going to try to be around to hold you to 2017," said Rep. Ralph M. Hall, a Texas Republican who celebrated his 83rd birthday last month. In a nod to his own optimism, Hall added: "George Burns said he didn't buy green bananas."
"I'm frustrated by the lack of progress at Yucca, but I'm not giving up," said Rep. Joe Barton, also a Texas Republican. Barton had served in the White House when the plan was unveiled in 1982. "It's only going to be 19 years late."
The committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan, gave a resounding welcome to Sproat.
"This long-delayed program can be put on a sound footing," Dingell said, before asking whether Sproat's call for still more studies would slow down the project.
"I won't let it," came the reply.
"Then let us pray," Dingell said.
As the hearing wound down, Republican Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia asked Sproat how he feels about the whole thing.
"I took this job because I have a strong opinion about its need for the country," the former nuclear industry executive said.
"I can't remember how many hearings we've had where the directors sat there and assured us of this and that and nothing's happened," said Norwood, who then issued a caution:
"You've got bureaucrats around every corner, digging a hole, hoping you'll fall in it."
--Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.
---------------------------
Fort Worth Star Telegram
July 21, 2006
America needs to get up and atom, folksBy BERNARD L. WEINSTEIN
Special to the Star-Telegram
Once again, violence has flared in the Middle East, and oil prices have shot up in response. At nearly $80 a barrel, petroleum is at an all-time high adjusted for inflation. And some analysts predict that the price could rise as high as $100 a barrel during the next several months.
The possibility of supply disruptions from this politically unstable region, along with the rapidly escalating price, drives home the imperative to diversify America's energy base and reduce our dependence on oil imports. A revival of the nuclear energy industry could help.
The press recently has been filled with articles suggesting that nuclear power is on the rebound in America. For example, a March Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans support construction of more nuclear power plants, while Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has come out in support of nuclear energy "as a safe, efficient and environmentally friendly alternative" to fossil fuels.
On the Texas front, NRG Energy, the operator of the South Texas Project near Bay City, has announced plans to add two nuclear plants to the two already in service, at a cost of $5.2 billion. NRG expects to finish the first plant by 2014 and open the second in 2015. TXU, which plans to build 11 traditional coal-fired plants in Texas during the next decade, claims it is considering expansion of its Comanche Peak nuclear power facility.
Will these plans materialize? If America is to have a clean, affordable and reliable supply of electric power in the decades ahead, let's hope so.
The United States hasn't seen a new nuclear plant since the 1970s. But new legislation providing loan guarantees, production tax credits and federal risk insurance seems to be reviving the industry. And President Bush --unlike his predecessors -- has become a vocal advocate for nuclear power, emphasizing its importance to ensuring economic and national security.
Today, America has 103 nuclear plants in 31 states; these facilities generate about one-fifth of the nation's electricity. While the nation's 600 coal-fired power plants produce 36 percent of all U.S. emissions and nearly 10 percent of global greenhouse gases, nuclear power generation is environmentally benign. What's more, new reactor designs will permit plants to be built more cheaply, with enhanced safety and less spent fuel.
Of course, anti-nuclear naysayers still abound, claiming that the technology is inherently unsafe and produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. This same crowd claims that we can obtain all the energy we need through conservation and renewables.
Certainly, conservation can help. Indeed, we've made considerable progress by dramatically reducing our energy usage relative to gross domestic product during the past 20 years. Wind, solar and other renewables have their place; but because they are intermittent and unpredictable, they can't be viewed as substitutes for large baseload plants.
As for the safety issue, the nuclear industry can point to almost 60 years of commercial operation without a fatal accident. Even the 1979 incident at Three Mile Island resulted in no injuries or deaths to plant workers or nearby residents. Can the U.S. coal industry say the same?
Furthermore, since 1964 the industry has transported more than 10,000 used fuel assemblies without incident to temporary storage sites. Once the U.S. Department of Energy begins accepting nuclear waste at a permanent repository in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, the controversy about what to do with spent fuel finally will be over. And though used fuel remains radioactive for centuries, within 40 years it losses 99.9 percent of the radioactivity it had when it left the reactor.
As for terrorist attacks: Even if a 747 crashed into a reactor and breached the 6-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel, no explosion would occur. Chemical plants and pipelines are much more exposed to a terrorist attack than a nuclear power plant.
With political pressure building for caps on carbon emissions, and oil and natural gas prices on a permanently higher plateau, now's the time to aggressively build nuclear power plants. By themselves, these plants won't wean America off fossil fuels or totally eliminate the need to import oil and gas. But they can help ensure a balanced mix of energy sources, hold down long-term power costs and improve our economic and environmental health.
--Bernard L. Weinstein is director of the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas in Denton.
---------------------------
Grand Rapids Press
July 21, 2006
Nuclear power: Get on with it
Michigan needs a new electric power plant, but there has to be some energy coming out of Washington, too. Congress needs to break its political stalemate over disposal of nuclear waste to open the way for more power-plant construction.
At the same time, the federal lawmakers would be squaring themselves with utility companies and millions of ratepayers who, through their monthly electric bills, have been making mandatory deposits of $750 million a year into the federal Nuclear Waste Fund.
The payments, which amount to 1/10th of a cent per kilowatt hour, are supposed to go toward construction and operation of a waste dump. Instead, the fund -- now holding some $18 billion -- is mostly used to back up other federal programs.
The lack of a permanent dump for the radioactive leftovers is the cork in the nuclear power bottle, and has been for over two decades. Without the storage site, the country has been left to pile up 50,000 tons of nuclear waste at temporary sites: some 130 of them in 39 states. Mostly, the sites are on the grounds of nuclear power plants, including three along West Michigan's Lake Michigan shore. The storage containers, made of concrete and steel, are safe, but the plant sites weren't designed as waste storage locations. Nor should ratepayers have to pay both to stack dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund and to pile up waste in the temporary bins.
The situation dates to 1982 when Congress ordered construction of a permanent burial place for nuclear wastes. In 1987, lawmakers decided that the site would be Nevada's desolate Yucca Mountain and stip-
ulated that wastes should be going there by 1998. But eight years beyond that date, not a pound of nuclear waste has entered Yucca Mountain. Nevada opposition in the Senate, supported by Michigan's Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and lawsuits by anti-nuclear and environmental groups have stymied progress.
Now the Senate is moving to set up regional waste centers to last 25 years or until Yucca Mountain can be opened. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved such a plan this week. The idea likely is a false hope and an expensive one at that. Further political blockades and drawn-out legal battles are inevitable. Congress instead should focus on legislation needed to push the Yucca Mountain project forward.
Michigan needs that movement. The state's existing power plants aren't generating enough electricity to meet the state's peak requirements. Not for 17 years has a major power plant been built in the state. A Michigan Public Service Commission report this year recommended that Michigan have at least one new electric power plant on line by 2011. The plant almost certainly will be coal-fired unless nuclear power can be freed up as an option.
That should happen. Nuclear power is a clean, safe and reliable energy source. It also would serve to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Michigan's federal lawmakers should be pushing nuclear power. This time, Sen. Stabenow should be among them.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------