Yucca Mountain News Clips - Thursday, January 11, 2007

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, January 11, 2007
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 12, 2007

Land set aside for Yucca rail study

Associated Press

The government has set aside a 130-mile stretch of land through central Nevada so that the Energy Department can study whether it wants to use it to build a rail line to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, officials said.

The federal Bureau of Land Management withdrew the mile-wide corridor from Hawthorne to Goldfield from public use and withdrew an additional 107 square miles of property along portions of a previously designated study route from Caliente to the Yucca Mountain site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The moves became official with a Wednesday posting in the Federal Register in Washington, D.C.

Setting aside 140,000 acres along the so-called 130-mile Mina corridor means that no new mining or property claims can be made, said Dennis Samuelson, a BLM realty specialist in Reno. It forbids the government from selling or trading the land. Grazing and other public access are not restricted.

The land withdrawals will allow the Energy Department to conduct environmental studies of the rail routes to the proposed nuclear repository.

The Mina route would run north-south and could cost less than a 319-mile east-west rail line proposed from Caliente, near the Utah border, across rural Nevada to the waste site. The Energy Department had said it favored the Caliente route, but the cost has been estimated at $2 billion.

There is no rail line to the Yucca Mountain site, which Congress and the Bush administration picked in 2002 as the place to entomb 77,000 tons of radioactive waste now being stored at nuclear reactors in 39 states. The project has been stalled by funding shortfalls and questions about quality control during site selection.

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

Engineer Online
January 12, 2007

Plugging radioactive leaks

Scientists have laid the foundations for a method of containing radioactive waste that would not leak for thousands of years.

A joint team, from the University of Cambridge and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in the US, has begun to devise ways to measure the effectiveness of storing radioactive waste in different crystal forms.

These tests could be used to develop a method of storing highly radioactive elements that would only begin to leak thousands of years into the future. By then most of the radioactivity would have decayed.

As well as making the storage of the waste safer, the process could also end up saving governments huge quantities of money. Earlier this year, Britain announced plans to bury its nuclear waste stockpile – about 470,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste – hundreds of metres beneath the earth’s surface. Read The Engineer's article on the subject here.

At the moment, doing so would necessitate the selection of a site which had sufficiently stringent geological features to withstand any potential leakage at a cost of billions of pounds. In the United States, $7bn has already been spent researching the viability of the Yucca Mountain burial site. Questions about its safety still remain, and the project is expected to cost between $50bn and $100bn in total.

‘By working harder on the waste form before you started trying to engineer the repository or choose the site, you could make billions of pounds worth of savings and improve the overall safety,’ Cambridge earth scientist Dr Ian Farnan, who led the research, said.

‘At the moment, we have very few methods of understanding how materials behave over the extremely long timescales we are talking about. Our new research is a step towards that.

‘We would suggest that substantive efforts should be made to produce a waste form which is tougher and has a durability we are confident of, in a quantitative sense, before it is stored underground, and before anyone tried to engineer around it. This would have substantial benefits, particularly from a financial point of view.’

When highly radioactive substances like plutonium are stored they are naturally unstable. According to current thinking, elements like plutonium should be combined with a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to form a crystal.

However, the crystal structure can only hold the radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal, radioactive decay occurs and tiny atomic fragments called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying nucleus, which recoils like a rifle. The structure is blasted repeatedly until it breaks down, increasing the potential for leakage.

Some earth and materials scientists believe it is possible to create a structure that rebuilds itself after these “alpha events” so that it can contain the radioactive elements for much longer. The tests developed by the Cambridge and PNNL team would enable scientists to screen different mineral and synthetic forms to test which would be the most durable.

The initial findings, reported in the journal Nature, suggest some mineral forms would not be sufficiently effective. During their research the team measured crystals comprising plutonium, silicon and zirconium oxides (zircons) that were created 25 years ago. The magnetic resonance measurements suggest that these would be more susceptible to leakage within 1,400 years and that the crystal would swell and potentially crack much sooner, perhaps within just 210 years.

However, the work did not address leakage and William J Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national laboratory in Richland, Washington, who made the samples used in the study, cautioned that the researchers detected no cracking. Weber noted that the “amorphous” or structurally degraded natural radiation-containing zircon can remain intact for millions of years and is one of the most durable materials on earth.

PNNL senior scientist and nuclear magnetic resonance expert Herman Cho, who co-wrote the report, said: ‘The testing method we have developed adds a valuable new perspective to research on radioactive waste forms in general.

‘It has also raised the question: ‘How adequate is our understanding of the long-term behaviour of these materials? Studies of other waste forms, such as glass, could benefit from this technique.’

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

Nature
January 10, 2007

Canned nuclear waste cooks its container

Estimates of radiation damage to materials have been too low.

Philip Ball

Storing high-level nuclear waste without any leakage over thousands of years may be harder than experts have thought, research published in Nature today shows.

Ian Farnan of Cambridge University, UK, and his co-workers have found that the radiation emitted from such waste could transform one candidate storage material into less durable glass after just 1,400 years — much more quickly than thought1.

Current plans for disposal of some of the most dangerous material generated in nuclear power plants, such as radioactive elements extracted from spent fuel rods, differ from one country to another. A common strategy being explored is to encase the waste in a hard, crystalline ceramic material — a kind of synthetic rock — and then put it in steel canisters and bury them in cavities excavated underground.

Because many radioactive substances continue emitting radiation for a very long time, the containment must persist for an awesome duration. Plutonium-239, one of the most deadly by-products of nuclear power, has a half-life of 24,000 years, meaning that only half of any initial batch has decayed over this time. Ideally it should stay put for about ten times as long: a quarter of a million years.

Candidate ceramic

Farnan and colleagues have investigated one candidate material hoped to do the job, called zircon (zirconium silicate). The plan is that this ceramic material will hold on fast to the radioactive atoms and stop them from finding their way into the environment — for example by being dissolved and dispersed in ground water.

The problem is that the radioactive waste damages the matrix that contains it. Many of the waste substances, including plutonium-239, emit alpha radiation, which travels for only very short distances (barely a few hundredths of a millimetre) in the ceramic, but creates havoc along the way.

A fast-moving alpha particle knocks into hundreds of atoms in its path, scattering them like skittles. Worse still, the radioactive atom from which the particle comes is sent hurtling in the other direction by the recoil. Even though its path is even shorter than that of an alpha particle, the atom is much heavier, and can knock thousands of atoms out of place in the ceramic.

All this disrupts the crystalline structure of the ceramic matrix, jumbling it up and turning it into a glass. That can make the material swell and become a less secure trap. Farnan says that some zircons that have been heavily damaged in this way by radiation have been found to dissolve hundreds of times faster than undamaged ones. So if the ceramic gets wet, there could be trouble.

Hit and run

Previous estimates of the radiation damage to waste-storage ceramics have relied largely on calculations and computer simulations. Now Farnan and colleagues have measured it directly.

They used a technique called nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy — similar to the method of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) used in biomedicine — to measure the relative amounts of crystalline and glassy material, both in artificial zircon containing plutonium and in naturally occurring mineral zircon, which commonly contains radioactive uranium. They estimate that each alpha-decay event of a radioactive atom displaces around 5,000 atoms in the zircon - between 2.5 and 5 times more than predicted previously.

"There's more damage than we thought," says Rod Ewing, a specialist in nuclear-waste disposal at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

There are other materials that may fare better than zircon, including other zirconium minerals. But Farnan's work implies that we probably don't yet fully understand how well any of these materials might stand up to the battering of radiation. He thinks the findings should encourage engineers to think very carefully about the matrix encasing the radioactive waste, rather than focusing on the geological characteristics of the burial site. Ideally, the best material would be able to heal itself, with the atoms displaced by alpha decay moving back slowly into their crystalline positions.

Ewing notes that the technique used in this study could be used to investigate these alternative materials, hopefully to find a longer-lived candidate.

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 11, 2007

Second possible route for Yucca Mountain rail line to get study

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The government has set aside a 130-mile stretch of land through central Nevada so the Energy Department can study whether it wants to use it to build a rail line to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, officials said.

The moves became official with a Wednesday posting in the Federal Register in Washington, D.C.

Setting aside 140,000 acres along the so-called 130-mile Mina corridor means no new mining or property claims can be made, said Dennis Samuelson, a BLM realty specialist in Reno. It forbids the government from selling or trading the land. Grazing and other public access are not restricted.

The land withdrawals will allow the Energy Department to conduct environmental studies of the rail routes to the proposed national nuclear repository.

The Mina route would run north-to-south, and could cost less than a 319-mile east-west rail line proposed from Caliente, near the Utah border, across rural Nevada to the nuclear dump site. The Energy Department had said it favored the Caliente route, but the cost has been estimated at $2 billion.

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

E&ETV
January 11, 2007

Reporters Roundtable: E&E Daily reporters talk climate change, oil tax, royalty relief, Yucca, and investigations

As the Democrats take control over both houses of Congress, the future of energy and environmental legislation remains to be seen. During today's OnPoint, E&E Daily senior reporters Mary O'Driscoll, Ben Geman and Darren Samuelsohn discuss key issues that will be taken up by both the House and the Senate this year. Reporters discuss Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) influence on climate change legislation, Sen. Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) affect on the future of Yucca Mountain, the possibility of an overall energy package, oil tax and royalty relief, and what to expect from the president's upcoming State of the Union address.

Click here to watch this episode:
http://www.eande.tv/main/?date=010807

Transcript:

Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today for a reporter's roundtable are E&E Daily senior reporters Mary O'Driscoll, Ben Geman and Darren Samuelsohn. Thanks for joining me guys.

Ben Geman: Sure.

Darren Samuelsohn: Glad to be here.

Mary O'Driscoll: As the Democrats take control of Congress they are talking a lot about oversight investigations and basically making an overall change to the way that Congress works. Will these reforms actually happen and if they do, how much of a change can we expect from the previous Congress?

Mary O'Driscoll: I think you'll see a lot of activity just out of the gate, just to get some things moving, but I think things will, they inevitably slow down, the whole process. And then you're going to have been working on legislation and investigations at the same time. The investigations are going to take a little while to kind of get going too because they have a lot of groundwork to lay and questioning and depositions and all that kind of stuff in the investigations to do. So I think that that will start happening probably the latter part of the spring or summer or something like that, maybe even the fall, when we really start seeing a lot of activity, a lot of hearing activity and that kind of thing. But I think a lot of the investigations will be behind the scenes for a while. But the legislation, you know the House is going to come out with both guns blazing and come out and do a lot of the energy stuff. But once you get to the Senate things are going to definitely slowed down, as Senator Bingaman and other senators have said first thing last week.

Ben Geman: Yeah, I think on the oversight piece one thing I do think that a lot of Democrats see is really ripe for the picking, and will do somewhat quickly, is oversight hearings on the Interior Department's royalty collection program. I mean there's a lot of problems with that that's been widely reported on. And I think we're going to see some action on that relatively soon. Now there were some looks at this end of the Republicans to be fair, but I think the Democrats are eager to sort of take it up a notch so to speak. I mean, look, you've got a lot of sort of things that they want to go after. You've got big oil, which is always sort of a target that they're going to look for. You've got the industry's relationship with the administration. I mean I think we're going to see a burst of activity on that issue as well.

Monica Trauzzi: Darren, a major focus, among the Democrats, has been climate change legislation. And with Senator Boxer as the chair of the Senate EPW Committee, how much she influenced the legislation for climate change. She's a senator from California. They just passed an aggressive cap on greenhouse gas emissions, so how is she going to play into this?

Darren Samuelsohn: This is going to be an interesting time for Senator Boxer. She will now be in charge of the committee as opposed to just being a senator from California where she could previously talk about her issues, talk about her concerns, whether it be children's health, environmental issues. Now she's talking for the entire Democratic Party as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. So right away, right after the election for example, she came out and said that she wanted to move legislation that was as strong as California. Will there was pretty quickly some push back that that's not going to happen. Not going to happen for the entire United States, not with senators from coal states, from oil states that would have to be participating in this process. And she has said that, so you can see that she has already transitioned, that she is now aware that she has to reach out to other senators. One of the first hearings I think she's going to hold is she's going to invite senators in, congressmen in, and I think that just you're going to get the lawmakers testifying before Senator Boxer's committee offering their ideas. So while she might want and she might set down the benchmark from the left, I think that she is going to definitely be listening to what the senators from the center have to say.

Monica Trauzzi: And how likely is passage of climate change legislation? Will we see the Republicans and the Democrats finding common ground or are the Democrats going to have to water down their proposals?

Darren Samuelsohn: Well, before we even knew the Democrats were in charge most people were saying 2008, 2009, 2010, were the likely years. Now the Democrats are in control. We know that Senator Reid, for example, is saying that climate change is going to come to the floor in the springtime period. So that means that Senator Boxer has been given instructions and I think Senator Bingaman as well has been given instructions to try and figure out what kind of climate bill they might be able to get through their committee in the first couple of months. Now the important thing to keep in mind is will it be a cap on emissions or will it be some other climate related sorts of things? Whether it be CAFE, whether it be renewable portfolios, standards, whether it be energy efficiency green buildings, you know, there's a whole host of things. Senator Boxer said in an interview on NPR that there are like 14, 15 things that scientists recommend that we can do to deal with climate change. She doesn't think she's going to be able to get all 14. She might have to get seven, eight, nine or 10 of them. So that's probably where things are headed.

Monica Trauzzi: Ben, several key energy and environmental issues are coming into play early on this time around. The Democrats have plans to take up oil taxes and royalty relief. Talk specifically about how they may change things for the oil companies.

Ben Geman: Yeah, this is something that's going to happen fairly quickly in the House. Now, of course, as Mary mentioned, things work much more slowly in the Senate, but right out of the gate the House Democrats have made an oil tax and royalty relief package part of their sort of first hundred hour showcase. Right now they're planning a vote on January 18. And what that package would do would repeal certain tax breaks for the large integrated oil companies, or what people tend to refer to as big oil. Those include certain favorable tax treatment for the cost of oil exploration as well as some deductions on income for domestic manufacturing. Now right now the manufacturing deduction applies to oil and gas. And I think what House Democrats want to do is sort of remove that industry's eligibility for that. And then of course there's been this huge controversy over these deepwater Gulf of Mexico leases. And there's going to be an effort to sort of address some of the problems with those to ensure that royalties are paid. And what they want to do with all this, and I think we're going to see a lot of coupling of these two ideas, both in the House and the Senate, is take these revenues that come in, somewhere in the billions of dollars they hope, and steer it into alternative energy. You know, again, we're going to see a quick burst of that in the House even though, and I think industry is resigned to sort of something clearing that chamber. But the Senate is a real different body. I was speaking with Senator Baucus, who's the chair of the Finance Committee, which addresses tax policy, and he agreed that Democrats are also going to want to go after industry tax breaks. And that's something Harry Reid has said, that's something Jeff Bingaman has said. But he also said I want to, you know, he injected in a precaution; he said I want to get the facts out. I want to go slowly. So look for the Senate to be the place where this sort of receives a much, I think, longer-term consideration.

Monica Trauzzi: And what have you all heard about an overall energy package? Is it likely? Can we expect it all in one piece? And what might be included in it?

Darren Samuelsohn: It's going to be dribs and drab. Pieces are going to come to the floor when they're ready, that's what I'm hearing.

Mary O'Driscoll: Right, and there's also a school of thought out there that, kind of bear with me on this, that you've got the 2005 energy bill. You know, love it or hate it, whatever you think of it, it passed in 2005 and those kinds of bills come along very rarely. And a lot of the elements that you're talking about with energy right now are ideas that largely were discarded at that time. That lawmakers knew they were never going to get that through Congress. And now they're coming back again. I think it's going to be very difficult for them to really kind of put one big bill out there. So as you said it's going to be the dribs and drabs. These are a lot of ideas that were discarded in 2005. Congress has changed. You know there's a new way of looking at things, but you need to keep that in mind, that these things were tried and abandoned at that time and so they're coming back. Things are little bit different now, but it's still going to be a real, it's going to be a hard job for them to get any of this done.

Ben Geman: Yeah, I completely agree. I mean there's a lot of indications that it's going to be sort of, that there's not an inclination to do this one big package. I think one area where you will see some potential for bipartisan cooperation is something that's quite popular in both parties, which is biofuels. We've already had some legislation in the Senate, bipartisan legislation introduced right out of the gate. And we're also going to see a quick hearing, I believe, it's on January 10 in the Senate Agriculture Committee, devoted to biofuels as they get ready to sort of do the farm bill. So there is going to be some focus on that issue and within that I think there's a lot of different issues in play. I mean there's talk of the outright boosting of the renewable fuel standard, but there's a lot of other issues that I think lawmakers are going to be sort of keen to address as well.

Mary O'Driscoll: Don't forget things like CAFE.

Monica Trauzzi: Yeah, what about CAFE?

Mary O'Driscoll: Don't forget things like renewable portfolio standards and that kind of thing.

Monica Trauzzi: Can we expect a change in CAFE?

Ben Geman: Well, yes and no. I mean it's very difficult to just do a straight up sort of clean increase in the mileage standards. I mean there's resistance to that by the administration and, frankly, among some Democrats as well. John Dingell is an obvious example. But, you know, there's a lot of ways to address the issue. I mean I think there is support for doing something on vehicle fuel efficiency. You know, that can sort of bring in ways to factor in proliferation of hybrid vehicles, flex fuel vehicles. Of course for hybrid vehicles as well as, you know, the administration does support raising CAFE, but sort of segmented by different sort of classes of vehicles. So somewhere within that soup, I think, that there's going to be sort of an effort to do something. But it's a notoriously difficult thing to pass and of course there's resistance in Detroit.

Mary O'Driscoll: And also you can't discount the fact that if you've got lawmakers looking at renewable portfolio standards you're going to have a lot of Republicans coming back and saying, yeah, but what about nuclear? Don't we include nuclear with that? Well, then you're going to have this fight about what's going to be included and what isn't and you're kind of back at square one.

Monica Trauzzi: And let's talk about Yucca Mountain for a moment.

Mary O'Driscoll: Speaking of nuclear.

Monica Trauzzi: Speaking of nuclear. Senator Craig has said that he plans to reintroduce Yucca Mountain legislation with Senator Pete Domenici. At the same time, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is strongly opposed to Yucca Mountain and he's going to be controlling the floor debate on this issue.

Mary O'Driscoll: Right.

Monica Trauzzi: How is this going to play out? And is Harry Reid going to have influence in this debate?

Mary O'Driscoll: Oh, certainly, nothing is going to come to the Senate floor. They can talk about it in committee all they want. You know, a lot of people are going to be talking about the problem with nuclear waste storage. What are we going to do about disposal? But it's never going to see the light of day on the Senate floor. Harry Reid will make sure of that. To Harry Reid's way of thinking, and to a lot of people, is that there's already nuclear waste storage now. It's all been done on-site at the nuclear power plants. And so he has no problem with that. Well, the industry and a lot of other people do have a problem with that. You know Harry Reid, it's not going to get past him and for him to do or say anything different would be a huge change of policy on his part it's just not politically palatable in Nevada.

Monica Trauzzi: But several Democrats are pro-nuclear.

Mary O'Driscoll: Right.

Monica Trauzzi: Is this going to cause a battle among Democrats? Can they pressure him in a way to get this to the floor?

Mary O'Driscoll: Not when you've got people in Nevada fighting the Yucca Mountain repository. That's the one thing that, he's been on this for decades now and I really don't see any change in that at all. There's no change in attitude in Nevada, and so it's going to stay the same. But one thing, you know, he has been careful also to say that he does support the nuclear industry. He wants to see more nuclear power plants. And so the big divide is on the waste issue itself. So it's pretty much going to be a stalemate when it comes to that.

Monica Trauzzi: White House Energy Policy Coordinator, Al Hubbard, announced recently that there would be a big focus on energy independence in the upcoming State of Union speech. What is the President likely to focus on? What are you hearing? And how is this going to change Congress's overall agenda?

Darren Samuelsohn: Well, I've covered every single George Bush State of the Union speech. Every single one of them has gotten a mention on energy. Last year obviously was the most famous, I guess you could say, when he said that America's addicted to oil. But it's always usually one piece to a much broader speech. This year I think you might see Bush trying to look ahead to his legacy maybe on energy policy and get people talking about it, but ultimately I think it's probably going to be a repackaging of the ideas that we've heard from them before. There could be something new and they're not going to tell us exactly what that is until President Bush gives his speech. They're notoriously good at keeping things secret. I would say though that whatever Bush comes out with, you know, it lands at the feet of Democrats on the Hill and they're going to have their own priorities that we're talking about here and whatever Bush offers the Democrats have their say.

Mary O'Driscoll: You have to remember, this is the first time in quite a long time since we've had a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. And just to tell you how old I am, I was here the last time that that was and I was around the Hill. And I think you're going to start seeing a lot of the things they said that in those times, way back in the 80s, which is when the President, the Republican President comes out and makes a statement, the Democratic members of Congress say DOA, its dead on arrival, not going to happen. And so they're pretty much set in the direction they're going and the president is set in the direction he's going. And as we all know, these things don't ever come around and meet until the very last minute.

Ben Geman: I haven't the slightest idea what he's going to propose, to be honest, But one thing that I'm a little bit curious about, and I think this is going to have a lot to do with how Congress reacts, is it would be one thing if there was a sort of major new policy shift, akin to supporting mandatory caps on greenhouse gas.

Darren Samuelsohn: Not going to happen.

Ben Geman: Which it seems like is not going to happen, that would be one thing. On the other hand, but say he comes forth and says, look, I'm announcing a major new monetary commitment, of course tough in a tough budget climate, but a major new monetary commitment to some of the priorities they've laid out already, cellulosic ethanol and such. So I think the way that the Hill will react will depend on whether, you know, on the one hand it's a policy shift or on the other hand it's sort of just a boosting of commitments to priorities that they've already sort of established.

Mary O'Driscoll: Yeah, but then it also depends on where the money is coming from ...

Ben Geman: Right.

Mary O'Driscoll: ... for that. If you rob Peter to pay Paul you're going to run into some real problems. And with the budget climate, who knows where that money is going to come from if you can ever find it.

Monica Trauzzi: All right. We're going to have to end it on that note. Thanks for joining me.

Darren Samuelsohn: Thank you.

Mary O'Driscoll: Thank you.

Monica Trauzzi: This is OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Thanks for watching.

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

Nevada Appeal
January 10, 2007

It's 2007, and time to give Yucca Mountain a brake

by Abby Johnson

For 30 years, the federal government has been forcing a nuclear waste repository on the state of Nevada. Nevada has pushed back against Congress, a succession of presidents and secretaries of energy, and the nuclear-power brokers.

When the feds first eyed Nevada as a dumping ground for the nation's high-level nuclear waste and spent-nuclear fuel from power plants, Nevada's population was 621,975, and Gerald Ford was president.

The Yucca Mountain site, at the western edge of the Nevada Test Site, was attractive because of its remote, dry isolation and proximity to land contaminated by radioactivity and already owned by the government. It would be an easy sell to the state that was a willing host for nuclear weapons testing. Nevada was powerless in Congress, it was thought, and easy to override.

Then the feds began to study the site to determine if it was "safe." Over the years, the litmus test changed from "safe" to "suitable" to "able to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." It's more than a word game: The understanding of what the repository would do and how it would contain the waste has shifted over time.

It was assumed that a mountain in the desert would be, in the nuclear power industry's words "bone dry." But one of the biggest challenges to DOE has been how to handle the water that moves through the cracks, fissures and earthquake faults in the volcanic rock above the water table in Yucca Mountain, and how to handle the heat generated by the waste.

Along the way, DOE realized that geology alone would not contain the waste. It is now depending on engineered barriers, including disposal containers made of experimental metals whose long-term resistance to corrosion is uncertain. The debate is not about whether the repository will leak radiation into the water table and atmosphere, it's about when - one hundred, five hundred or thousands of years into the future.

In the past two years, the repository program has been slowed down by rule and design changes, and a vexing number of details. DOE has had problems preparing the body of information that must be available electronically for the licensing process, a prerequisite for applying for a license. There have been serious questions about whether some of the research meets quality-assurance requirements.

Yucca Mountain isn't remote anymore. Now the population of Nevada is more than four times higher than in 1975 - pushing 2.6 million. Clark County alone has 1.8 million people, and Pahrump, down the road from Yucca Mountain, has a 9 percent annual growth rate. By the time the repository would be operational, optimistically projected at 2017, Nevada's population will be seven times greater than it was in 1975.

Yucca Mountain hasn't changed, but Nevada has.

The national political climate has also changed. While DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is being directed by Ward Sproat, a dynamic outsider, Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid as majority leader is in a place to slow Congressional action and block fast-tracking of the repository.

But even Reid, speaking to reporters after the November election, acknowledged that he can't stop Yucca, just slow it down. Expecting Congress to eliminate all funding for the project, the ultimate OFF switch, is not a realistic option.

What stopped the ill-conceived Great Basin MX missile project 25 years ago was the president.

In the next 12 months, Nevada is going to be in the spotlight as an early proving ground for presidential candidates. The Democratic Party's presidential caucus will be held in January 2008. Like New Hampshire and Iowa, voters and the media should have unprecedented access to meet the presidential hopefuls and quiz them about their Yucca stand. Republican candidates will also court Nevada as a possible swing state.

The next president has the opportunity to smash the glass and pull the emergency brake to stop the costly and unsafe Yucca Mountain repository program. The new president can redirect efforts into research and development, support above ground storage at or near existing nuclear power plants as a safe interim measure, and flip the Yucca switch to OFF.

The new year brings Nevadans the opportunity to get commitments from presidential hopefuls to bring the Yucca Mountain project to a long overdue and screeching halt.

--Abby Johnson is a resident of Carson City, and a part-time resident of Baker. She consults on community development and nuclear waste issues. Her opinions are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her clients.

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

Environment News Service
January 08, 2007

U.S. Moves to Become Global Nuclear Fuel Supplier

WASHINGTON, DC, January 8, 2007 (ENS) - The Bush administration is pressing forward with plans to recycle spent nuclear fuel in the United States and supply nuclear fuel to other countries that refrain from building nuclear enrichment or recycling facilities to make their own nuclear fuel.

The U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, announced Thursday that it intends to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Initiative, GNEP, promoted by President George W. Bush.

Under the GNEP, the Energy Department proposes to design, build, and operate three facilities in the United States.

A nuclear fuel recycling center would be constructed to separate spent nuclear fuel into reusable and waste components and then manufacture new nuclear fast reactor fuel using the reusable components.

An advanced recycling reactor would be built to destroy long-lived radioactive elements in the new fuel while generating electricity.

And an advanced fuel cycle research facility would be built to explore spent nuclear fuel recycling processes and other advanced nuclear fuel cycles.

Introducing the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, PEIS, on Thursday, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said, “Our need for nuclear power - a safe, emissions-free and affordable source of energy - has never been greater and GNEP puts us on a path to encourage expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production while reducing nuclear proliferation risks.”

Before he joined the Department of Energy, Spurgeon was executive vice president and COO of the publicly traded company USEC Inc. With headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, this global energy company is a supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants.

Through its subsidiary, the United States Enrichment Corporation, USEC operates the only two uranium enrichment facilities in the United States, the gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio.

Uranium enrichment is a key step in the production of nuclear fuel used by nuclear power plants worldwide to generate electricity.

The GNEP also includes two international initiatives. First, the United States would supply nuclear fuel services to other countries that decide not to build their own nuclear enrichment or recycling facilities to make nuclear fuel.

The program also would develop proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors for use in developing economies.

Speaking in Vienna September 19, 2006 at an event called "Assurances of Nuclear Supply and Nonproliferation" hosted by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, Spurgeon said the United States does not intend to impose its nuclear fuel services upon other countries.

"Of course," he said, "each state is free to make its own decisions with respect to nuclear energy policy, consistent with its international obligations."

"Our intent is not to infringe on the sovereignty of states in making those decisions, but to provide alternatives that secure energy supplies and promote our shared nonproliferation goals," said Spurgeon.

As part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, the GNEP encourages expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production.

At the same time, the Energy Department says, the program will help to minimize proliferation risks, and reduce the volume, thermal output, and radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel before disposal in a geologic repository.

The Bush administration is still pressing forward to develop the nation's first geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite opposition from the Nevada Congressional Delegation, which includes Senator Harry Reid, the new Senate majority leader, who has vowed that the facility will never be built.

Support is growing for the renewed development of the nuclear industry in the United States. In October 2006, the Progressive Policy Institute, which is affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, issued a report on the energy sources it supports for the 21st century.

Along with support for homegrown biofuels, a cap on carbon emissions and more wind, solar and clean coal, the report, "A Progressive Energy Platform," states, "Expand nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gas emissions. New plant designs can produce power more safely and economically than first-generation facilities."

Many environmentalists are still opposed to nuclear development. "To call nuclear reactors clean and safe is the height of hypocrisy," said Greenpeace USA spokesman Jim Riccio last April on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. "Unfortunately, nuclear energy will not address our addiction to oil and therefore, it isn’t a viable solution to global warming," said Riccio.

The GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement will consider a wide range of potential impacts from releases of radioactivity and other hazardous materials to the general population and workers. The PEIS will consider impacts to air and water quality, as well as to plants and animals near the proposed facilities.

The PEIS will consider the potential impacts from transportation of the radioactive materials and waste across the United States and around the world and the potential impacts from the treatment, storage, and disposal of these materials.

The potential impacts from accidents, acts of terrorism or sabotage also will be evaluated.

The PEIS will consider adverse effects on low-income and minority populations and the cultural and achaeological concerns of Native Americans.

Also under consideration are the short and long-term land use impacts, long-term health and environmental impacts, site suitability, consumption of natural resources and energy, pollution prevention and waste management practices, as well as potential impacts from decontamination and decommissioning of facilities at the end of their useful lives.

The PEIS will consider 13 sites as possible locations for one or more of the proposed GNEP facilities.

At this time, the following DOE sites are under consideration for the location of a nuclear fuel recycling center and/or an advanced recycling reactor:

* Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
* Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky
* Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio
* Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
* Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
* Hanford Nuclear Site, Richland, Washington
* In addition, five non-DOE sites also are under consideration for the location of a nuclear fuel recycling center and/or an advanced recycling reactor:
* Atomic City, Idaho
* Morris, Illinois
* Hobbs, New Mexico
* Roswell, New Mexico
* Barnwell, South Carolina

DOE is proposing that the advanced fuel cycle research facility be located at a DOE site. Sites under consideration include:

* Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
* Argonne National Laboratory, DuPage County, Illinois
* Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
* Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
* Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
* Hanford Nuclear Site, Richland, Washington

To further define the PEIS and identify key issues, the Energy Department is inviting the public to comment on the proposed scope during the 90-day comment period that began December 27, 2006 continues through April 4, 2007. All comments received during the public scoping period will be considered in preparing the GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

To encourage public participation in the GNEP PEIS process, the Energy Department will host scoping meetings:

* February 13 Oak Ridge, Tennessee
* February 15 North Augusta, South Carolina
* February 22 Joliet, Illinois
* February 26 Hobbs, New Mexico
* February 27 Roswell, New Mexico
* March 1 Los Alamos, New Mexico
* March 6 Paducah, Kentucky
* March 8 Piketon, Ohio
* March 13 Pasco, Washington
* March 15 Idaho Falls, Idaho
* March 19 Washington, DC

To see the locations and times for the scoping meetings and to read the Federal Register Notice for the GNEP Draft PEIS, click http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=972330191683+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve.

The Energy Department plans to publish the GNEP Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement in 2007 and the GNEP Final PEIS in 2008.

Once it is approved, the Energy Department will announce the availability of the GNEP Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register and hold public hearings to solicit comments on the GNEP Draft PEIS from federal, state, and local governments, Native American tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the public.

These comments will be considered and addressed in the GNEP Final PEIS. The Energy Department will issue one or more Records of Decision at least 30 days after publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the GNEP Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

--For more information on the lease agreement and patent license, access http://www.gnep.gov/.

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

RedOrbit
January 09, 2007

What a Waste ; Lights Out for Yucca Mountain?

Next month marks the nine-year anniversary of something that didn't happen: the original opening date of a permanent nuclear waste storage facility inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The hoped-for opening date is now 2017, given all the roadblocks that have been erected by anti-nuclear activists and Nevada's congressional delegation. And if Senate Majority Leader-to-be Harry Reid manages to kill this besieged but necessary project, we'll all be marking the non-anniversary for years to come -- as another nail in the coffin of America's nuclear energy industry.

Few Americans were giving much thought to energy policy when they were pulling the lever for Democrats in November. Most undoubtedly were basing their decision on more parochial issues. But the changing of the guard in Congress has potentially profound implications for the future of an industry that provides 20 percent of the electricity Americans consume.

The Yucca Mountain project was in trouble even before the Democrats took control of Congress. But the prospects for the project -- which holds the key to any long-term revival of a flatlined nuclear energy sector -- will further dim once Reid becomes majority leader. According to an Associated Press story that appeared last week, "Nevada lawmakers... met Dec. 19 for a strategy session to combat Yucca Mountain, emerging to promise more setbacks for the nuclear waste dump." One of the attendees, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, emerged to predict that "The next two years may very well be the death knell to sending nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain."

While Berkley and Republican colleague Jon Porter launched a bipartisan effort to rally House colleagues against the project, Reid signaled his intent to cut off funding, which has averaged around half a billion dollars a year. Reid & Co. say they'll bottle up pro-project legislation any way they can. "They also want Nevada Attorney General-Elect Catherine Cortez Masto to review legal options to gum up the project with lawsuits," reported the AP.

Las Vegas was an appropriate setting for such a meeting, since this small but willful clique of legislators is gambling with America's energy future. Their "success" will be a setback for the nation as a whole, if it stymies a much-needed revival of nuclear energy and leaves these highly radioactive materials scattered at more than 126 temporary locations in 39 states, where they are more vulnerable to terror attacks.

Yucca Mountain may not be the perfect solution, but it's the best that we have at the moment. And the failure to build a safe and secure waste repository could further discourage new investment in nuclear power plants, leaving a 20 percent electricity deficit as aging reactors begin to shut down. We haven't seen opponents of Yucca Mountain offer a viable alternative; nor has enough thought been given to the security and public safety implications of leaving these materials scattered around the country, in temporary storage.

Reid and others are proposing we leave the waste where it is. But these facilities aren't designed to last thousands of years, as Yucca Mountain is. Many are nearing or exceeding storage capacity. Many are located relatively close to, or in the midst of, population centers, whereas Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the nearest city (Las Vegas), on the remote and secure Nevada Test Site.

The first time these less-secure sites become targets for terrorists, sleep-walking Americans will wake up screaming, demanding to know why nuclear waste isn't buried in the relative safety of Yucca Mountain. We hope they grab their pitchforks and torches and head for Harry Reid's congressional office.

Pulling the plug on the project now would also mean an estimated $8 billion, and 20 years of planning and study, have gone for nought. It also opens the federal government to billions of dollars in potential settlement payments, as the companies that have paid the federal government $18 billion for construction of a nonexistent storage facility attempt to recoup those costs, plus damages. Estimates vary as to how much the 60 pending lawsuits might cost taxpayers, with some experts predicting as much as $56 billion. The Department of Energy says it will cost just $2 billion or $3 billion -- but how does one put a price tag on possibly killing off an industry that supplies 20 percent of the nation's electricity?

County takes stand for open government

For supporters of open government, and who wouldn't be, El Paso County had an early Christmas present last week when it announced it was partnering with the Pikes Peak Library District to air county commission meetings on the library's cable channel. We don't believe Hiro Nakamura and the rest of Monday night's "Heroes," or the cast of "CSI" on Thursdays, have much to worry about ratings wise, but it's good to see the commissioners moving forward to provide more access to the county's decision-making process.

Ron Kale, the county's director of public communications, said, "This is a way to show people how decisions are made, what kind of presentations the Board of County Commissioners receives -- all of the stuff that helps to demystify county government."

The broadcasts of taped commissioner meetings will allow residents who are unable to attend the 9 a.m. meetings on Mondays and Thursdays to follow the decision-making process and get more information on how the commissioners arrive at their decisions. And best of all, according to the story in The Gazette, this will be accomplished without raising taxes or cable fees to pay for the service. The commissioners have been looking for a way to do that and, according to Commissioner Wayne Williams, this agreement does that. Kudos to all involved in making government more open and accountable in El Paso County.

--Source: Gazette, The; Colorado Springs, Colo.

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

Guardian
January 08, 2007

Tribe Keeps Fighting for Treaty Rights
By Ken Ritter
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The way Allen Moss sees it, vast stretches of the West and all of their wealth belong to the Indians.

And despite being turned back in lawsuit after lawsuit for decades, the Western Shoshone leader says he won't rest until the U.S. government honors a 19th-century treaty that, according to the tribe, entitles it to reclaim ancestral lands extending from California through Nevada and Utah to Idaho.

The lands include much of the Las Vegas area. The Shoshones say they are not interested in Sin City - too many people, too many problems. But they want the rugged desert hills that have yielded tens billions of dollars worth of gold over decades.

At issue is the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, which the Shoshone say gave the tribe - not the federal government - royalties and final say over water, mineral and property rights for land covering 93,750 square miles, an area roughly the size of Maine.

Moss, a representative to the eight-member tribal council in Nevada, estimates the number of Shoshone at 5,000 to 8,000 - descendants of people who lived from the Snake River Valley in Idaho to the Salt Lake Valley in Utah, across most of eastern and central Nevada, and in Death Valley and the Mojave Desert in California.

The tribe has taken its case to fence lines, courts, international tribunals and the public.

It sued to block the nation's nuclear waste from being stored in Nevada. It succeeded in postponing government plans to explode a non-nuclear bomb that would send the first mushroom cloud in decades over the desert. And it went all the way to Switzerland to ask the United Nations to intervene in the land dispute.

The tribe keeps losing on most fronts, but also keeps appealing - and some cases its members have notched a place in Western lore.

Tribal elder Carrie Dann and her sister Mary became folk heroes for defying the government in a losing, quarter-century battle to graze cattle on federal land without authorization.

The Supreme Court ruled against the tribe in another case in 1979, saying the Treaty of Ruby Valley gave the U.S. trusteeship over the tribal lands. And in September, the Court of Claims in Washington accepted the government position that the treaty was ``merely one of friendship and that it conveyed no treaty rights.''

Lawyer Bob Hager, who has been handling Western Shoshone cases for free since 1983, maintains the tribe is losing on technicalities. He said the tribal claim finally got traction - and attention - with the U.N. Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination last year in Geneva.

The panel said the U.S. government is trampling on Shoshone rights. It cited the privatization of Shoshone ancestral lands for mining and energy developers and federal efforts to open a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas.

Cynthia Magnuson, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman in Washington, said the government would not comment on the dispute because the case is still in court.

The government has offered tribal members money, arguing it is unrealistic to expect the U.S. to give back lands acquired through ``gradual encroachment'' and now dotted with cities, crisscrossed by interstate highways and railroads, and used for mining, ranching and recreation.

A law signed by President Bush in 2004 approved the distribution to tribal members of more than $145 million, including some $26 million that a federal Indian claims commission awarded in 1979.

Some Shoshones have said they would take the cash, but others balked. Moss, who loads preprinted newspaper advertisements for a living, said the money will not be touched because to take it would be to concede the government's position.

``Our land is not for sale,'' he said. The money continues to collect interest.

Moss is not sure his sons, now 25 and 21, will take up the decades-long fight.

``They can't believe how long the battle has taken,'' said Moss, 52. ``They were taught in school this is a land of laws. I sit here saying, `This is how the laws have been manipulated and twisted.'''

``The whole thing boils down to, `How many times can you break the law or twist the law in your favor?' That's what the government has done.''

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 07, 2007

Looking In On: Washington

The woman to know in Congress

By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - After playing supporting roles for years in the minority party, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley emerged as the woman to know on the morning of the opening of the 110th Congress.

She stood with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on one side and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the other as about 100 invited guests looked on at her Capitol Hill townhouse.

The event was billed as a breakfast in honor of Reid's rise to the top position in the Senate. But the hostess had her own 15 minutes.

Reid said a few words, then praised the congresswoman as his partner in Congress, where the two Democrats worked side by side while their party was in the minority.

Almost on cue, Hoyer came bounding in. The Maryland Democrat offered his praise for his faithful friend who stood by his side before he made it big, according to those who were there.

Berkley had suffered politically for her decision to support Hoyer in 2002, during his failed bid to become minority leader over Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Only recently have tensions between Berkley and Pelosi eased.

Berkley spokeswoman David Cherry said it was a momentous start to a historic day. "It was a great moment for her," he said.

• • •

Democrat Rep. Shelley Berkley and Nevada Republican Rep. Jon Porter landed coveted seats on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in the new Congress, which has been widely seen as boosting the influence of an otherwise small state.

Nevada now has two sets of eyes looking at virtually every piece of legislation that deals with raising taxes or spending money, from gaming or mining regulation on the local level to national issues of Medicare and Social Security benefits.

But being on the committee forced them to give up their positions elsewhere. Both served on Transportation, where they had helped bring back millions of dollars for Nevada. Berkley also sat on Veterans Affairs, where she worked to secure the Southern Nevada veterans facility, and International Relations.

Porter fought against Yucca Mountain from his seat on Government Reform and served on Education and Workforce.

The question arises: Is it worth it for two-thirds of the state's House delegation to concentrate their efforts on Ways and Means?

UNR professor Eric Herzik had been wondering as much and said the short answer is yes. The two will have greater influence over a larger stack of bills that influence vast swaths of Nevadans' lives.

Besides, it's a politically smart move. If either Porter or Berkley had not won such a coveted seat, they would have been criticized in the next election cycle as just another back-bencher, as Congressman-turned-Gov. Jim Gibbons was labeled in 2006.

"So they both did politically the right thing," he said.

An important question is whether they will work together for the benefit of Nevada, as most observers believe they will, or allow their party allegiances to cancel out each other, he said.

• • •

The best place to get some face time with Nevada's newest congressman, Dean Heller, just might be on his daily commute.

Heller has been spotted multiple times over the past week on the Washington subway system, which is not a normal place to see your representative. Members of Congress routinely drive a few blocks to get to work.

But there was Heller, coming up from the Metro. And waiting for the train one night after his welcome party.

One day was just a practice run, to see how long it would take from his home in the Virginia suburbs to his office on the Hill. But the others were real. He has been at it ever since his office opened last Wednesday.

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

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

Arizona Republic
January 07, 2007

APS president: Rate increase will end up saving customers

Mark Shaffer
The Arizona Republic

New Arizona Public Service Co. President Donald Brandt discusses some of the utility's main issues:

• Proposed 20.4 percent electric rate increase. "If the (Arizona) Corporation Commission doesn't approve our request, there's no doubt in my mind that our bond rating will be downgraded to non-investment grade junk. That will mean a needless increase in cost for our customers between $650 million and $1.2 billion over 10 years. If that happens, I will also be very concerned with our access to capital markets. To have the second-fastest-growing utility in the country teetering on the lowest investment grade is a very dangerous place to be."

• Increased federal oversight of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station because of malfunctions. "We had a great track record, the best in the industry for 10 years. But some element of complacency slipped in and nuclear plants have to be in a constant improvement process. We've already changed the people out there that we needed to. Plus, before his retirement Jim (Levine) took the bull by the horns and put in an improvement program which I think has impressed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

• Expanding Palo Verde. "It's way too early to speculate about that. There are potential other sites in the state with a better water supply. We are so far off from additional viable nuclear. I think it needs to go in that direction but we have to get Yucca Mountain (nuclear waste repository) going first. Eighteen nuclear plants in India alone are being built but you can't afford in this country to get one even half built because of the risk factors. Global warming and competition are going to force a decision on whether we are going to have more nuclear energy."

• TransWest Express 6,000 megawatt project to bring electricity from Wyoming. "Our planning now is looking at having it in place between 2015 and 2020. This is an ideal alternative for our state because there are a lot more wind sites in Wyoming and huge coal reserves. But there is going to be a lot of blocking and tackling."

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

Guardian
January 05, 2007

NRC Commissioner Resigning

WASHINGTON (AP) - Edward McGaffigan Jr. said Friday he will leave the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after more than 10 years because of health reasons.

McGaffigan, 59, a Democrat, informed President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada of his decision in letters Thursday. Reid must recommend a person to fill the Democratic spot on the board.

The longest-serving commissioner in the NRC's history, McGaffigan was appointed to the commission on Aug. 28, 1996.

McGaffigan is undergoing treatment for metastic melanoma, a particularly dangerous form of skin cancer, according to the agency.

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

KLAS-TV
January 05, 2007

Reid Will Get Input on Another NRC Commissioner

The longest-serving commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is resigning. That means for the second time in two years Senator Harry Reid will have some input on a replacement for the panel with oversight of Yucca Mountain.

Edward McGaffigan Junior announced today he will leave the NRC after 10 years because of health reasons.

The 59-year-old Democrat informed President Bush and Reid of his decision in letters Thursday. As Senate majority leader, Reid must recommend a person to fill the Democratic spot on the board.

Bush appointed Reid's top science adviser at the time, Gregory Jaczko, to the five-member NRC in January 2005.

Reid has fought for years to keep the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site out of Nevada. Some Senate Republicans and the nuclear industry had opposed Jaczko's nomination, fearing he would work to further Reid's desire to kill the project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Jaczko's term expires at the end of 2008.

---------------------------------
Saturday, January 06, 2007: 17:02
---------------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
January 06, 2007

Western Shoshone keep fighting for 1863 treaty property rights

By Ken Ritter
Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The way Allen Moss sees it, most of the riches of Nevada - from the Las Vegas Strip to the state's gold mines - belong to an American Indian tribe.

Keep Las Vegas, he said. But the Western Shoshone tribal leader wants to reclaim ancestral lands stretching from California through Nevada and Utah to Idaho.

Time after time, in lawsuit after losing lawsuit, the Western Shoshone National Council and its members have been turned aside as they try to use a 19th-century treaty to win back what they say has been improperly taken by the U.S. government.

"Las Vegas is on Shoshone land. The gold mines, that's all Shoshone," said Moss, Reno-area representative to the eight-member tribal council in Nevada. "People don't understand how much money, how many resources are coming out of Shoshone country."

The tribe never used lines on a map until the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, which the Shoshone say gave them to up to 93,750 square miles of ancestral lands. Las Vegas would tuck into a notch on those lines.

Tribe members insist the treaty, ratified by Congress in 1866, grants the Shoshone, not the federal Bureau of Land Management or other agencies, royalties and final say over water, mineral and property rights in an area the size of the state of Maine.

The hot, harsh desert area bears small bounties of pine nuts and medicinal herbs. The rugged hills have yielded $20 billion worth of gold over the years - third behind Russia and South Africa in world gold production, a lawyer for the tribe said.

Moss estimates the number of Shoshone at between 5,000 and 8,000 - descendants of people who lived in lands from the Snake River Valley in Idaho to the Salt Lake Valley in Utah, across most of eastern and central Nevada, and in Death Valley and the Mojave Desert in California.

To reclaim the lands and win some legal footing, the tribe has taken its case to fence lines, courts, international tribunals and the public.

It sued to block the nation's nuclear waste from being stored in Nevada. It succeeded in postponing government plans to explode a bomb that would send the first mushroom cloud in decades over the desert. And the tribe went all the way to Switzerland to ask the United Nations to intervene in the land rights dispute.

The tribe keeps losing on most fronts, but also keeps appealing - and some cases have notched a place in Western lore.

Tribal elder Carrie Dann and her late sister Mary became famous for defying the government while losing a quarter-century battle to graze cattle on federal lands next to their Crescent Valley ranch without authorization.

The Supreme Court ruled against the tribe in another case in 1979, saying the Treaty of Ruby Valley gave the U.S. trusteeship over the tribal lands.

A Sept. 20 Court of Claims ruling in Washington, D.C., took the government position that the treaty was "merely one of friendship and that it conveyed no treaty rights."

The panel cited concern about the privatization of Western Shoshone ancestral lands for mining and energy developers and cited federal efforts to open a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"The thrust of our argument is that there has been no fair adjudication of claims," said Hager, of Reno. "The Organization of American States in 2002 and the U.N. panel last year reached the same conclusion, that the Western Shoshone were denied due process and equal protection."

Cynthia Magnuson, a U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman in Washington, said the government would not comment on the lawsuits or on the ruling by the U.N. panel. She noted that arguments in the Court of Claims appeal were due this month.

"Generally, while things are pending, we do our talking in court," Magnuson said.

The government has offered tribal members money, arguing it isn't realistic to expect the U.S. to give back lands acquired through "gradual encroachment" and now dotted with cities, crisscrossed by interstate highways and railroads, and used for mining, ranching and recreation.

A law signed by President Bush in 2004 approved distribution to tribal members of more than $145 million, including some $26 million the federal Indian Claims Commission awarded in 1979 based on the 1872 value of 24 million acres.

Some Shohones have said they would take the cash, but others balked. Moss, who loads preprinted newspaper advertisements for a living, said the distribution money won't be touched because to take it would concede the government's position.

"Our land is not for sale," he said. The money continues to collect interest.

Hager said he intends to appeal federal court dismissal of a lawsuit in Nevada challenging the distribution plan. Tribal chief Raymond Yowell claims Congress erred in approving the distribution, because lawmakers were told the federal land claims had been decided and the Western Shoshone had agreed to the amount.

Another case pending in federal court in Reno seeks to void the 19th century transfer by the U.S. to the Union Pacific Railroad Co. and seven other large landholders of land, minerals and water in a so-called "checkerboard" pattern.

The Western Shoshone also are appealing a federal court ruling last year that the court lacked jurisdiction and that too much time had passed since a landmark 1951 ruling to decide the tribe's treaty rights claim. The 1951 case, filed with the Indian Claims Commission, cut the size of the Western Shoshone aboriginal land claim from 60 million to 24 million acres.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Dann case in 1985 that the tribe lost title to the land when the $26 million was deposited as payment - even though the money was never collected.

Hager said a court decision whether the Western Shoshone could invoke aboriginal rights to block a planned non-nuclear "Divine Strake" weapons explosion at the Nevada Test Site north of Las Vegas could prove pivotal to the tribal claim.

Moss isn't sure his sons, now 25 and 21, will take up the decades-long fight.

"They can't believe how long the battle has taken," said Moss, 52. "They were taught in school this is a land of laws. I sit here saying, 'This is how the laws have been manipulated and twisted.'"

"The Indians look at the ground as being sacred, including the water," he said. "The whole thing boils down to, 'How many times can you break the law or twist the law in your favor?' That's what the government has done."

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

Myrtle Beach Sun News
January 06, 2007

U.S. Fuel Needs

Nuclear energy could ease power concerns

By Sen. William Mescher

Before I had the privilege of serving the citizens of South Carolina as a state senator, I spent nearly 40 years in the electrical energy sector: first with the investor-owned Commonwealth Edison Co.; then president of Santee Cooper, a public power entity; then chairman of the board of the American Public Power Association; and then an energy and management consultant. I like to think this experience is an asset to my function as a state senator, especially considering how much energy issues have been in the news over the past few years.

In fact, even as things calm down a bit and prices reach a more reasonable level, there's no denying that energy is still one of the most important issues facing South Carolina, her people and her industries and businesses. No matter how low prices get this month or next, we are still a long way from a truly stable energy situation.

I hope we can be honest enough with ourselves to admit it.

We all have firsthand knowledge of just how volatile prices can be. Unprecedented demand continues to put a strain on limited supplies. Seemingly isolated incidents a world away can send the price of gasoline skyrocketing with little or no warning. Whether it's a civil unrest in Nigeria or an explosion somewhere in Russia, the global oil markets are so interconnected that we feel the effects almost immediately.

Such an event could happen tomorrow, next week or next month, and the resulting spike in energy prices will once again leave hardworking Americans searching for a way to make ends meet.

South Carolina, and all of America, must work to ensure a stable, reliable supply of energy. We need to move quickly to pass legislation on all levels that would aid and abet our efforts to attain energy security, increase our domestic supply, reduce our demand, protect our environment and allow us to provide low-cost and reliable energy to the growing number of people who call this state their home.

A series of steps could make all the difference in the world: restarting the nuclear power industry; building needed power plants; expanding our existing oil refining capacity; building new oil refineries; promoting alternative energies like bio-diesel and hybrid technology; expanding research on ethanol to make it more cost-effective; promoting energy conservation; developing green power and other renewable energy; providing incentives to automobile manufacturers and auto purchasers to make and purchase cars getting better gas mileage; switching to compact fluorescent lighting; and finding more stable partners on the global energy market, whether it's for gasoline, natural gas, ethanol or another source, because it is unwise to rely so heavily on geopolitically unstable countries such as Venezuela or Iran.

I earlier mentioned nuclear power. Nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable and can rapidly lessen our reliance on foreign fuel sources. If this country is serious about addressing its energy needs, the environment and concerns about climate change, nuclear energy is certainly part of the answer. Concerns about nuclear energy and nuclear waste in the United States are based on political, not technical, issues. The Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility stalemate is strictly political. It's a "not in my backyard" standoff, pure and simple. For the good of our country the Yucca Mountain problem must be resolved.

The timing is right for action on our energy situation. U.S. electricity demand is projected to increase 45 percent by 2030, which is the same year 40 percent of Americans are projected to live here in the South. That's a lot of energy to a lot of people, and our endeavors are well worth the effort. The economic boost for both our personal pocketbooks and our economy as a whole would be tremendous. And the benefits to our national security and foreign policy would be immeasurable.

The choice is ours. I hope we resist the urge to act as if things are "back to normal." Instead we must make it a personal and collective goal to find new ways to think about energy. It's going to take all hands on deck - you, me, our communities, our government and our businesses - to ensure that we enjoy long-term success.

--The writer lives in Columbia.

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

Guardian
January 05, 2007

NRC Commissioner Resigning

WASHINGTON (AP) - Edward McGaffigan Jr. said Friday he will leave the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after more than 10 years because of health reasons.

The longest-serving commissioner in the NRC's history, McGaffigan was appointed to the commission on Aug. 28, 1996.

McGaffigan is undergoing treatment for metastic melanoma, a particularly dangerous form of skin cancer, according to the agency.

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

KLAS-TV
January 05, 2007

Reid Will Get Input on Another NRC Commissioner

Edward McGaffigan Junior announced today he will leave the NRC after 10 years because of health reasons.

The 59-year-old Democrat informed President Bush and Reid of his decision in letters Thursday. As Senate majority leader, Reid must recommend a person to fill the Democratic spot on the board.

Bush appointed Reid's top science adviser at the time, Gregory Jaczko, to the five-member NRC in January 2005.

Jaczko's term expires at the end of 2008.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 05, 2007

Mourners honor DOE manager

Yucca Mountain official, 53, died of cancer

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- A funeral was held Wednesday in Las Vegas for John Arthur, a senior Department of Energy manager in the Yucca Mountain program who died over the holidays.

Arthur, 53, died of cancer on Dec. 26. About 100 DOE colleagues and officials from Clark, Lincoln, Esmeralda and Nye counties were among attendees at his funeral at St. Joseph Husband of Mary, Catholic Church on West Sahara Avenue.

"John was a great leader in the Yucca program over the years, and his contributions, his smile and his infectious optimism will stay with us always," said Ward Sproat, director of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, who delivered a eulogy at the service.

Arthur was a New Jersey native who made a 27-year career in Energy Department nuclear and environmental restoration programs.

As a manager in the Albuquerque Operations Office from 1995 to 2001, Arthur handled DOE waste and cleanup projects in Florida, Missouri, Texas, Colorado and New Mexico.

Arthur joined the Yucca Mountain Project in 2002 as a deputy director of the Office of Repository Development, which made him chief of operations in Nevada.

In a May reorganization, Arthur became director of site operations, overseeing health and safety programs at the proposed nuclear waste repository.

Brian O'Connell, nuclear waste director for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said Arthur spoke several times to group members and was "candid" about the Yucca program, which has faced delays and criticism.

"He told us the status of the program, where he thought it was going, the obstacles it faced and how he was trying to overcome them," O'Connell said. "He tried to maintain a positive focus over the activities, and he was very professional."

Though Clark County officials oppose the project, "we grew to respect his honesty, integrity, pleasant demeanor, and above all, to appreciate his consideration for our position," county planning official Irene Navis said in a posting to Arthur's online obituary.

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

Living on the Earth
January 5, 2007

As Democrats take the reins in both houses of Congress, the outlook for the environment may be a bit brighter than in recent years. Darren Samuelsohn, an environment reporter for the online news service Greenwire, joins host Bruce Gellerman to talk about what to expect on the environmental agenda in the 110th Congress.

GELLERMAN: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios in Somerville, Massachusetts this is Living on Earth. I'm Bruce Gellerman. It's official. The 110th Congress is now in session and the first woman speaker in history will preside.

ANNOUNCER: Therefore the Hon. Nancy Pelosi of the state of California is duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives having received the majority of the votes cast.

(APPLAUSE FADES UNDER)

GELLERMAN: Democrat Pelosi was quick to chart a change of course for Congress far different from the agenda the Republicans had set. Pelosi emphasized environmental issues will be fundamental to her vision of a new America.

PELOSI: A new America that declares our energy independence promotes domestic sources of renewable energy and combats climate change.

GELLERMAN: So, now the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress, and George W. Bush is a lameduck president. What happens now? Can the Democrats pull off their ambitious environmental agenda? Darren Samuelsohn is senior reporter on energy and the environment at Greenwire, an online daily news service, and he joins us to discuss what's in the works as lawmakers get down to business.

Darren, Welcome to Living on Earth.

SAMUELSOHN: Nice to be here.

GELLERMAN: Both houses of Congress are going to be in the hands of the Democrats. What do you see as the Democrat's top 3 environmental priorities in 2007?

SAMUELSOHN: There's probably a whole host of things they want to take on but I would say you would put energy independence and renewable energy at the top of their list. They want to shift the focus financially in terms of what the federal government has been spending from oil and gas industries to stimulating solar and wind, renewable energy resources. I think climate change is one of their top priorities. It's one of the bigger heavier lifts that they'll pick up. And then oversight of the Bush administration is something that will probably be the easiest thing for them to do. They can hold hearings in the House and the Senate looking at everything for the last six years, maybe focusing more on what's happened in the last year or two. We're talking about air pollution policies, water pollution policies, endangered species policies, fire policies. The whole gamut I think is on the table.

GELLERMAN: You know philosophically they couldn't be more different from the Republican Party. But do you think anything will actually change?

SAMUELSOHN: Uh, certainly the ability to give the public more of an opportunity to look into these items is something. With Republicans in control for four of Bush's six years in office really a lot of the things that have happened on the regulatory front out of the agencies have not been closely scrutinized. At least on an oversight level it's a 180 difference from last year.

GELLERMAN: Of course the new head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is Jeff Bingaman who is a Democrat from New Mexico and he replaces Republican Pete Domenici Republican from New Mexico. What is going to be the difference in terms of their energy visions?

SAMUELSOHN: They are very similar people when it comes to philosophical legislative approaches. They're both very methodical senators. The difference will come in how much attention Senator Bingaman puts on renewables as opposed to Senator Domenici who when he pushed through the energy bill that President Bush signed in 2005, it was a lot of people said heavy for the oil and gas industries; lots of subsidies for them, lots of tax breaks for them. With Senator Bingaman I think you have definitely an opportunity to move legislation with renewables in mind. Then on top of that Senator Bingaman does have a different perspective on climate change. Senator Bingaman spent the last two years in the minority trying to convince Senator Domenici to come on board in limiting green house gas emissions in the United States. He was unsuccessful. Domenici is kind of flirting with that. So Bingaman has a different take on regulating green house gas emissions.

GELLERMAN: Both are big advocates of nuclear energy. New Mexico is the site of the new nuclear enrichment facility. What do we see in terms of nuclear energy?

SAMUELSOHN: Despite what Domenici and Bingaman have to say about nuclear power the head of the Senate now will be Harry Reid from neighboring state Nevada. And Harry Reid is an opponent of Yucca Mountain and the waste repository the Bush Administration and the energy department want to put there. So there's going to be an interesting clash between the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the two New Mexicans are in charge of and the leader of the Senate Democrats, Harry Reid.

GELLERMAN: So, without cracking the Yucca Mountain the future of nuclear energy in this country is dead on arrival?

SAMUELSOHN: Uh, certainly from an industry perspective I think that they're going to still keep working toward trying to construct, trying to permit new plants. If you talk to people who worked on that energy law in 2005, they're highly excited about the fact that there are all of these permits now moving through the process. Those are going to move forward and of course the energy department will keep doing what it's doing. And President Bush will keep as a proponent of nuclear. So, no I don't think that it's dead on arrival.

GELLERMAN: What are the chances that we'll actually see a new climate bill in Congress?

SAMUELSOHN: I have been tracking this closely. I just pulled out my list of new senators the other day to try and figure out where the senators are on this. And it looks like there are enough senators in this Congress that could pass something with global warming in mind with limits on green house gas emissions. It might not be as strong as environmentalists want. It might not be what scientists say is necessary at this point. But it would be a first step for the United States that it hasn't taken. Is it going to happen in the next two years? I mean you have to overcome President Bush and his opposition. And you have to overcome even in the House with Democrats in control the new leader of the Energy and Commerce Committee is from an auto state, John Dingell. I think a lot of people think 2009, 2010 once President Bush is out office are the big years for actually seeing something signed into law.

GELLERMAN: You know what, Darren, you sound very confident and sure about your predictions and um, how big a deal are environmental issues for this Congress, do you think?

SAMUELSOHN: I think they're going to be a little bit more on the front of the Democrats minds compared with the Republicans. That's just from my years of covering Capitol Hill. It's been six years, Republicans have been in control for four of those six and you saw often times that there were hearings when the Bush Administration wanted them. With this Congress I have a strong sense with Barbara Boxer particularly in control of that Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, she's going to let no stone go unturned. I mean every single EPA decision that came out in December within weeks of the election, she wasn't even sworn in yet as the new chair of the environment committee. She was holding press conferences announcing, you know, plans for oversight hearings on every single thing that EPA came out with. She's not even chairman yet and she's already spelled some significant plans ahead.

GELLERMAN: And of course, President Bush is a lame duck. Does he have much power; I mean he doesn't have control of either of the houses. His presidency is in the final two years. What really can he do?

SAMUELSOHN: Um, what can he do? He can still issue regulations. He can still propose budgets and he can use the bully pulpit. It will be interesting to watch what President Bush is able to do and how much influence he has with Democrats. With divided government in Washington sometimes strange things can happen. It will be interesting to see if this administration ends up signing things that you wouldn't have thought they would have signed in the first six years.

GELLERMAN: Darren Samuelsohn is senior reporter on energy and environmental issues at Greenwire. Darren, thank you.

SAMUELSOHN: Thank you so much.

--Darren Samuelsohn is Senior Reporter on Energy and the Environment at the environmental news service, Greenwire

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