Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, May 30, 2008

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, May 30, 2008
---------------------------

Senator Harry Reid
May 29, 2008

Take Action: Petition Against Nuclear Waste Dump At Yucca Mountain
We, the undersigned, petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject the Department of Energy’s (DOE) license application to construct the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

The DOE is proposing to dump 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada after transporting it through counties home to over 106 million people.

Enduring these nuclear waste shipments will be communities from Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Florida, Arizona, Delaware, West Virginia, Wisconsin, South Dakota and Nevada.

That’s 45 states which could host nuclear waste routes. Yet there will be absolutely no public process to review these routes – not by the NRC, not by the DOE, and not even by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This is a massive and dangerous shipping campaign, but the NRC refuses to scrutinize it when considering DOE’s application to build the dump.

Furthermore, DOE does not even have complete plans to transport nuclear waste or to build the dump at Yucca Mountain, which is in an earthquake-prone environment. In fact, DOE readily admits that designs for the repository will be at most 35% complete when it asks NRC to license it.

Even worse, the Environmental Protection Agency has not decided what levels of radiation can be “safely leaked” from the dump. EPA has proposed a dangerously lenient radiation standard that completely disregards the health and safety of future generations. But, with less than half the designs for the dump complete, it is preposterous to think that NRC is in a position to decide that a nuclear waste dump could meet EPA’s terrible proposed radiation standard.

THE NRC SHOULD NOT DOCKET DOE’S LICENSE APPLICATION TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN.

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

GreenNV
May 29, 2008

YUCCA TOP TEN

Reasons Why Yucca Mountain Should NOT be a Nuclear Waste Dump

1: NUCLEAR WASTE IS DEADLY.

2: Yucca Mountain is in a volcanic and earthquake zone.

3: Nuclear waste must come by train through communities where people live.

4: The Department of Energy has no plan for responding to emergencies or to remove waste if necessary.

5: Robots will “handle” any problems with the waste.

6: Yucca Mountain is within the Western Shoshone treaty lands and they say “NO.”

7: The Air Force trains with *live bombs over Yucca Mountain.

8: There is no health or safety standard in place for Yucca Mountain to comply with.

9: It will contaminate some of Nevada’s groundwater.

10: There will be huge costs for taxpayers.

11: (for good measure)—Nuclear waste is deadly pretty close to forever.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 29, 2008

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: McCain still backs Yucca plan

Regulatory requirements must be met, presidential hopeful says

Review-Journal Capital Bureau
By Sean Whaley

RENO -- Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said Wednesday that he continues to support the creation of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain if all necessary requirements are met.

Stumping at a town hall meeting in front of about 600 supporters, McCain prefaced his pro-Yucca Mountain comments by telling the audience that he must sometimes "tell people what they don't want to hear."

"I support Yucca Mountain once it goes through all of the process that it needs to go through," he said, to some applause. "But I also support reprocessing" nuclear waste.

The country needs to do both, McCain said.

The Arizona senator said the Carter administration in the 1970s stopped the reprocessing of nuclear waste in the United States, even though it is done elsewhere in the world.

McCain also reiterated comments from Tuesday that he would push for an international facility where nuclear waste from around the world could be stored, "if it's possible to do that and reach some international agreements where we can do that."

On Tuesday, McCain told a crowd in Denver that such a facility could eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain. He did not repeat the comment in Reno.

He did not elaborate on the idea and did not speak to the media after the hourlong event at the Boys and Girls Club of Truckee Meadows.

McCain voted for Yucca Mountain as the site of a high-level nuclear waste repository in 2002, when the Senate overrode Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the site. The vote was 60-39.

McCain, who said he would battle to win Nevada in November, said the country must end its reliance on foreign oil by exploiting the country's natural resources but also by expanding the use of alternative energy sources, including solar and nuclear power.

"The U.S. Navy has sailed ships around the world for more than 50 years with nuclear power plants," he said.

He disagreed with one questioner at the meeting who said oil exploration should be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

One key to encouraging further oil exploration around the country would be to offer states such as California a larger share of revenue for favorable energy policies, McCain said. But states retain the right to determine what happens off their shorelines, he said.

The real answer to the nation's oil dependence is "batteries that will take a car 100 miles before they have to plug it in. It's with hybrids. It's with nuclear. It's with wind. It's with solar."

Solar is a particularly attractive technology in Nevada and Arizona, McCain said.

Much of the oil revenue goes to countries that don't like the United States, and some of it ends up in the hands of terrorists. The country's oil dependence is a national security issue, a climate issue and an economic issue, McCain said.

In remarks prior to taking questions from the audience, McCain said he would stop the spending spree that Congress has been engaged in over the past several years.

He said the United States is winning the war in Iraq, and he criticized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, for not visiting the country to see what is happening firsthand.

"My friends, this is about leadership," he said.

McCain mentioned Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., only once, and as an afterthought. He mentioned President Reagan several times but did not mention President Bush.

The Nevada Democratic Party dismissed McCain's visit as an attempt to build support in a state he previously ignored. McCain came in third in the Nevada Republican caucus.

"He ignored Nevada during the presidential caucus, and it's hurting him now that he has no organization on the ground," said Kirsten Searer, deputy executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party.

After the meeting, McCain attended a fundraiser at the Eldorado Hotel and Casino in Reno, where he was met by a few dozen protesters. The lunch cost $1,000 per person. Lunch with a photo cost $2,300.

--Contact Review-Journal Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@review journal.com or 775- 687-3900.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 29, 2008

McCain's Yucca talk gets low-key response

One source says idea won't even be discussed

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

There was muted reaction on Capitol Hill and among nuclear industry representatives on Wednesday to Arizona Sen. John McCain's proposal that the United States participate in an international nuclear waste repository.

With the Department of Energy finally ready to seek a license to build a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, the candidate's comments could divert attention from that achievement, an industry official said.

DOE officials are expected to submit a repository application next week to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ending more than a decade of delay.

McCain "put the flag up there and I did not see anyone in Congress saluting it," said the official who asked not to be identified because his company was not commenting on the proposal.

"It is so far removed from where we are in policy circles that I can't imagine it being discussed, even in bar talk," the official said.

After McCain's speech Tuesday in Denver where he said that an international nuclear waste site "could make it unnecessary" to open a facility at Yucca Mountain, his aides suggested he was thinking more along the lines of supporting Russia establishing a site in Siberia where nuclear waste from Asian and European nations might be guarded.

"The international spent fuel repository, first and foremost, is about what to do with spent fuel that resides in other countries," said Randy Scheunemann, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser.

But McCain is willing "to entertain the possibility that if the spent fuel repository is up and running, if the security and safeguards are sufficient that we could possibility send some of our spent fuel there too," Scheunemann said.

The concept of a single repository overseas for smaller nations and those with nuclear power startups makes sense, but not for the United States, which produces most of the world's commercial nuclear waste, said Per Peterson, a nuclear engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

"It just would not be logical for the United States to send its spent fuel someplace else," Peterson said. "It would be a large-scale process to transport."

If the United States were to reprocess its nuclear waste, it would not be a large technical challenge to ship overseas the residuals from recycling, Peterson said.

But even if nuclear waste from commercial power plants were shipped elsewhere, a U.S. repository would still be needed for highly radioactive waste generated by the military over the years, Peterson said.

"It is difficult for me to see sending those materials to an international repository," he said. "I think that stuff, we really want to handle ourselves."

"Senator McCain was on the correct track in advocating for an international repository, but the remark about it providing an alternative to Yucca Mountain probably was off the cuff and probably in retrospect was misspoken," Peterson said.

--Contact Stephens Washington Bureau chief Steve Tetreault at STetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 29, 2008

ERIN NEFF: More candidate lies about Yucca

By the time fall arrives, John McCain might even backtrack from his signature campaign finance legislation.

Yet somehow -- and unbelievably -- McCain's flip-flopping has yet to ratchet up to the same level of John Kerry's "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts before they became the solitary plank in his new domestic economic plan. And the Arizona senator was as skeptical as any in D.C. about the human impact of global warming before he needed an endorsement from California's Governator.

And now McCain is signaling he wants to win states that the Bush administration's incompetence has turned purple.

In a sop to independent voters in Nevada, the ardent Yucca Mountain supporter actually said Tuesday that "it is even possible that ... an international (nuclear repository) could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain."

McCain said this during a speech in Denver, twice interrupted by protesters calling for an end to the war. He called the protesters his friends and plodded on through his "anti-proliferation" speech, which actually calls for new nukes.

From one end of his elastic jowls he suggested an end to nuclear testing; from the other he envisioned new weaponry to offset the threat of terrorism. Sounds like he advocates creating new nuclear waste.

McCain then went on to suggest that an international repository might be established to store spent nuclear fuel. And if you believe him, I've some fertile soil in Siberia to sell you.

Yup, that's the site of his proposed international dump. Wonder who McCain will sit down with to negotiate that one? The Chechen rebels or Putin?

You can tell Nevada has become a focal point in the frenetic general election when national politicians start making hay out of an issue Nevadans largely ignore.

McCain's record speaks much louder than his detail-lacking political proposal to create a new dump far, far away.

Since American senators were never quite convinced that shipping 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste by rail and road near schools and urban areas represented a danger, McCain must think it's going to be easy to haul the stuff overseas.

Just imagine the standoff somewhere -- maybe the Barents Sea -- between the barge and Greenpeace.

McCain is just the latest in a laundry list of would-be presidents who have spent much of their careers trying to screw us on this issue. The most classic flip-flop on Yucca came from Howard Dean in 2004. "I have seen the light" he pronounced.

Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards had even voted for the dump.

Democrats have largely hidden behind President Bill Clinton's decision to veto interim storage at the site. But even Clinton's veto was never intended to kill the overall project. He merely didn't think interim storage was safe.

McCain has crisscrossed the country advocating the construction of new nuclear plants. But a key reason the industry can't build new reactors is that Yucca is either way behind schedule or dead. The industry can't solve the waste problem without adding more waste to the mix.

There are varying degrees of Yucca support on the campaign trail. Back during the Republican primary, candidates from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney to Rudy Giuliani mouthed the sound science, states' rights comments on Yucca. McCain stridently stayed his course as an ardent proponent. Then he came here to raise money and found the "sound science" line.

McCain has these kinds of awakenings, but suggesting a nuclear waste dump be sited in Siberia is a stretch -- even for him. Perhaps his next "policy" proposal will be an international institute for online wagering on amateur sports.

Oh wait, McCain is against internet wagering, too. Well, by October, he's bound to have gotten around that belief.

And just how long will he hold out on proposals for boxing reform? After all, Don King did go out on the stump for George W. Bush in 2004, and even taped an anti-Kerry ad.

Only in America, indeed.

Will McCain decide it's more helpful to his chances to have a black boxing promoter trash Barack Obama than it is to continue his crusade to reform the sweet science?

By the time November rolls around, the septuagenarian might be caught confusing his "sound science" with his "sweet science" -- sort of like how he repeatedly can't seem to get a handle on the Shia-Sunni thing.

We may not need Yucca Mountain. But what Nevada also doesn't need is another presidential candidate who lies to us about Yucca Mountain.

--Contact Erin Neff at (702) 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 29, 2008

LETTERS: Blame Congress for our energy woes

To the editor:

Those senators asking oil company executives why the price of gasoline is so high were asking the wrong people. They should have been addressing the images in their own mirrors with questions such as:

Why are we not drilling for oil in the Alaskan arctic and off the coast of America?

Why are we not taking advantage of the large reserves of oil contained in oil shale deposits?

Why have we not built a new oil refinery in 30 years?

Why have we not been able to start construction on any new nuclear power plants for almost 30 years -- while we've wasted fossil fuels to generate electricity?

Why haven't we initiated a major effort to develop fuel-cell powered vehicles that run on hydrogen from seawater?

Why are we not converting coal into a liquid fuel as an interim measure until fuel cells are more readily available?

Why have we delayed the completion of the Yucca Mountain spent nuclear fuel repository?

Why have we supported a massive effort to develop ethanol fuels that are energy-inefficient and are causing large increases in food costs for those who can least afford them?

Why have we permitted radical environmentalists to push us toward less-efficient energy choices?

These technologies were all available when I retired from the energy business more than 20 years ago. This does not look to me like progress. There are a multitude of alternative approaches to solving our energy problems. Why don't we avail ourselves of them all?

Hal Shaw
HENDERSON

---

Profiteers

To the editor:

I agree with some of your previous letter writers who have complained about the high profits of our oil companies and the compensation of their CEOs. Their weak replies to lawmakers about hedging for the time when their profits are down are lame excuses, at best.

I doubt that most of the major oil company CEOs are even old enough to remember when profits were ever down.

My father worked for Mobil Oil back in the '40s and '50s, when they were just a little red-flying-horse oil company. I remember him telling me about how the local gas stations make their profits, even back then when you got more for your dollar than just gasoline.

I don't mind paying for something when the costs are justified. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the public is being shafted, especially when I watched my local gas stations raise their prices 10 to 20 cents on Friday. The justification: Happy Memorial Day Weekend.

Joe Schaerer
LAS VEGAS

---

Immoral transfers

To the editor:

In response to your May 16 editorial, "Agricultural handouts": Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize farmers or anyone else.

The idea that one person's needs are a moral claim on the assets of others has been used to justify countless redistribution schemes, from farm subsidies to welfare handouts to foreign aid. But this idea is false and unjust. Individuals have a moral right to what they earn -- not to what others earn.

Taxing one person to transfer his wealth to others is a violation of his rights and is not a legitimate government function. The government should protect our property from those who would steal it -- not steal it from us and give it to those who did not earn it.

David Holcberg
IRVINE, CALIF.
THE WRITER IS A MEDIA SPECIALIST WITH THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE.

---

It's about grant money

To the editor:

In 1972, some intrepid scientists decided that it was time to take a polar bear census, no doubt to dramatize the impending "Ice Age" that the intelligentsia at the time was so hysterical about. They counted 5,000 polar bears, aka "big white eating machines."

In 2008, other scientists managed to count 25,000 of the brutes. Now that's amazing fecundity, if I dare say! Unless my math is just a tad off, that's a five-fold population increase in just more than 35 years.

Yet, in the Review-Journal's Sunday Viewpoints section, there is a letter from William Fouts bemoaning the decreased fecundity of the Hudson Bay polar bear crowd. And, of course, he felt compelled to tell us about the severe melting in the arctic, conveniently forgetting to mention that the Greenland ice shelf has never been so thick.

It's a climate cycle, Mr. Fouts. People in the northern states and Canada just had the coldest and snowiest winter in years. And that includes northern Europe, Russia, China and even Afghanistan. And here's a big hint: It's not the first time in the past bazillion years that a climate cycle change has happened, just as Mother Nature intended. Nor will it be the last.

So why do I have the impression that this global warming/climate change hysteria is really all about college grant money?

Norman Yeager
HENDERSON

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

Nevada Appeal
May 29, 2008

McCain reiterates support for Yucca

Geoff Dornan
Appeal Capitol Bureau
gdornan@nevadaappeal.com

RENO - After what appeared to be an attempt Tuesday to soften his stance supporting Yucca Mountain, presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain told a Reno audience Wednesday he still supports the nuclear waste repository project.

"I support Yucca Mountain once it goes through all the processes that it has to go through," the Arizona senator said during a town hall meeting at the Reno-Sparks Boys and Girls Club.

McCain, who has been accused lately of softening or dropping long-held but controversial positions, reclaimed a bit of that maverick image Wednesday, not only affirming support for the nuclear dump project but saying he also still supports a temporary workers' permit system to bring in labor from Mexico. That comment drew boos and jeers of "No" from the crowd. He told the nearly 600 in attendance he won't back away from unpopular positions and cited his statements in Iowa opposing corn-based ethanol.

McCain on Tuesday seemed to change his position on the Yucca Mountain project, which is strongly opposed by Nevada voters, calling instead for an international repository that would make Yucca Mountain unnecessary.

Those statements drew fire from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who charged McCain "had hoped to make headlines misleading Nevadans into thinking he was having second thoughts about Yucca" when, in fact, he had not.

McCain told the town hall meeting Wednesday he believes more nuclear power is one answer for the U.S. But he said that involves not just Yucca Mountain but developing reprocessing technology and creating an international system of storage for waste. He also called for much greater emphasis on renewable energy sources, including solar, wind and geothermal energy, which he said Nevada has in abundance.

Referring to oil, he said, "there's never going to be enough."

On immigration, he repeated that securing the borders is first. But he called for a guest worker system allowing Mexican workers to come to the U.S., as well as tougher enforcement of laws prohibiting companies from employing illegal immigrants.

McCain sidestepped a question by a Ron Paul supporter about the Republican state party convention, which was called off to block Paul supporters from revising party rules and taking most, if not all the national delegate slots. The Republican party still hasn't announced plans to reconvene the convention and choose those delegates.

"There is a potential that Nevada may not be represented at the GOP convention in September," the questioner said.

McCain said he "didn't keep up closely" with that battle.

"But I would not let the state of Nevada not be represented at the national convention," he said.

McCain followed the town hall meeting with a private fundraising luncheon, where tickets were reportedly $2,300 apiece.

--Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.com or 687-8750.

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

PolitickerNV
May 29, 2008

McCain: A Westerner with no Western appeal

By Joseph K. Cooper

John McCain is visiting Reno today, apparently in a desperate attempt to build support in a state where he has no grassroots momentum.

Washoe County Democrats will gather to protest McCain's out-of-touch policies today at noon outside and across from the Eldorado Hotel, at the corner of 4th and Sierra in downtown Reno.

Not only did McCain come in third in Nevada's presidential caucus - behind Ron Paul - but last month Republican party leaders had to shut down their state convention when a contingent of Ron Paul delegates threatened to take a majority of the state's national delegates. Weeks later, state Republicans have no public plan to reconvene the convention.

Nevada is one of just two states in which McCain came in behind Ron Paul - he also came in fourth in the Alaska Republican caucus held this February.

"McCain is the third choice for Nevada Republicans, even though he hails from a neighboring state," said Kirsten Searer, deputy executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party. "He ignored Nevada during the presidential caucus, and it's hurting him now that he has no organization on the ground.

"Nevadans will reject John McCain because he offers nothing but a third Bush term," Searer said. "He would pursue the same failed economic policies, and said it's ‘fine' to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years. Now, he's flip flopping on his support for Yucca Mountain and fighting a new GI Bill that would provide our troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan enough support to pay for a college education. McCain is out of touch with Westerners and our values."

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

PolitickerNV
May 29, 2008

McCain woos wary Northern Nevadans

By Joseph K. Cooper

RENO-Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain returned to Nevada today, hosting a town hall meeting for a crowd of about 800 at the Truckee Meadows Boys and Girls Club in Reno. Although McCain brought the crowd to its feet several times during the course of the meeting, several attendees expressed reservations about a McCain presidency before, during and after his appearance.

"I would support him over the other two, I'll put it that way," said Ben Engel of Reno while the crowd awaited McCain.

After being introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain committed to campaigning in Nevada and predicted the state would go for him in November.

"Nevada is a Western state. I am a Western senator. I understand our issues: of Native Americans, of land, of water, of public lands, of dynamic growth and how we handle those challenges," said McCain. "I'm proud of the work that I've done on western issues and I understand that with your help we will safely win the state of Nevada."

McCain shot back at Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama for not agreeing to accompany him on a trip to Iraq. Obama's campaign had referred to McCain's offer as a "political stunt" yesterday and likened it to President Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner.

"My friends, that is a profound misunderstanding of what's happening in Iraq and what's at stake in Iraq," said McCain. "Because if we set a date for withdrawal like Sen. Obama wants to do, there will be chaos, there will be genocide, there will be increased Iranian influence there and we will have to go back with further sacrifice of American blood and treasure. I will never let that happen."

As in previous appearances, McCain also continued slamming Obama for saying he would meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, asking "Why is it that Sen. Obama wants to sit down with the president of Iran, but hasn't yet sat down with Gen. Petraeus?"

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded to McCain's remarks shortly afterward, saying "On the day after the former White House press secretary conceded that the Bush administration used deception and propaganda to take us to war, it seems odd that Senator McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on their depth of understanding about Iraq.

"Senator McCain stubbornly insists on pursuing the failed Bush policy that continues to cost so much, while Senator Obama believes it's time to begin a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops and compel the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future."

Most of McCain's appearance consisted of taking questions from the audience and he was immediately confronted with the unpopular issue of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository, which he has repeatedly supported.

"I got to go to places and tell people what they don't want to hear," said McCain. "I went to Iowa and said I didn't support ethanol subsidies. I support Yucca Mountain once it goes through all of the processes it needs to go through. But, I also support reprocessing. My friends, a little straight talk, we're going to have to do both."

The audience applauded McCain's "straight talk" on Yucca Mountain but was less supportive on another of his stances, which came up later on a question about immigration.

"We have got to have our borders secured first," said McCain. "We have to start there. We also have to have a temporary worker program that will-"

McCain was stopped short by calls of "No!" and boos.

"My friends, ask the agricultural sector here," said McCain. "We need people who will come to this country temporarily to fill a job that's vacant and then go back. That has to happen with a temporary biometric document. Then we've got to address the issue of the 12 million people who are here illegally."

"I don't agree with him on the worker program," said Rona Herman of Sparks as McCain left the gymnasium. "But I do wholeheartedly agree with him that we need to secure our borders first. Of the three choices that we have currently, he would better our country in my opinion."

It was a sentiment that was shared by several of the northern Nevadans filing out of the gymnasium.

"I loved it," said Al Raiché of Sparks. "He wasn't my first choice but he's my final choice, for sure."

Raiché smiled when asked about the issues on which he disagreed with McCain.

"He'll learn," he said.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
May 29, 2008

County hires firm to organize flood district

By Mark Waite
PVT

An $85,000 agreement was approved 3-0 by Nye County commissioners last week for bond counsels Swenseid and Stern of Las Vegas to perform the legal work necessary to create a general improvement district, or GID, for Pahrump flood control improvements.

The agreement is another step toward the creation of a GID, which could be instituted by the end of this year under a fast-track plan.

Pahrump Regional Planning commissioners received a presentation in March on the flood control service plan by Bureau Veritas that recommended forming a GID for the master plan of drainage facilities totaling $315 million.

Bureau Veritas recommended an initial special assessment bond of $210 million to fund just the facilities east of Highway 160.

The plan is to enact the Clark County Regional Flood Control District hydrologic criteria. It includes an extensive series of flood control measures including nine dams on Wheeler Wash, several detention basins east of Highway 160 and a series of storm channels going east to west throughout Pahrump valley.

The Nye County Commission has yet to hear the presentation on the service plan.

Kendra Follett, representing Swenseid and Stern, said it would take six months to go through the legal procedures to create the GID, providing the county commission doesn't need to postpone any items for further study.

Follett said commissioners may have to prepare a business impact statement.

Swenseid and Stern outlined the following time line for steps to initiate the GID:

* The county commission would submit a notice requesting the consent of the Pahrump Town Advisory Board at a June 17 town board meeting;

* The RPC would be asked to submit recommendations on the service plan at a meeting July 9;

* The county commission would scheduled a public hearing on the flood control service plan for the July 15 county commission meeting, and consider adopting a resolution approving the service plan, creating the GID and sending a notice to business owners;

* The county commission would propose an ordinance initiating the GID at the Aug. 20 meeting;

* Notices would be mailed to property owners not later than Aug. 29, or at least 15 days before a public hearing on the creation of the GID;

* A public hearing would be held Sept. 16 on the creation of the GID;

* A business impact statement would have to be available for public inspection by Oct. 15;

* The county commission would have to hold another public hearing Oct. 21 on its intent to establish a GID;

* The notice of the ordinance creating the GID would have to be published twice between Oct. 31 to Nov. 7;

* Appeals would be heard from Nov. 8 to Dec. 5.

The dates to set the adoption of rates and the initiation of proceedings to issue the bonds are to be announced.

Nye County Commissioner Joni Eastley read an e-mail she received from a Pahrump property owner who complained the assessment charged to fund the flood control plan would unfairly penalize owners of vacant property.

While property owners could benefit from not having to pay flood insurance premiums once the flood control improvements are in place, Eastley said the property owner in question mentioned that flood insurance normally benefits only owners of developed property.

Bureau Veritas calculated an assessment of $181.79 per acre per year would be required to fund the entire flood control system, covering 186,200 acres, assuming a $400 million bond issue, paid back over 20 years. Nye County Manager Ron Williams said that figure assumes there are no grants available to pay for all or part of the cost.

"There's a lot of opinions about what we should collect in a rate for protecting a community," Williams said. "This valley is divided into several different watersheds. You could decide rates depending on the type of watershed your property is located in."

If the county elected to pay a smaller amount, Bureau Veritas said assessments per acre would total $33.37 annually for a $75 million bond issue, $66.21 for a $150 million bond issue and $112.87 for a $250 million bond issue.

The draft service plan states, "The distribution of assessments assumes that all land in the district equally benefits from the improvements. This is true as all properties are being removed from the flood plain."

Commissioners voted 3-0 to approve the agreement with the bond counsel. Commissioners Gary Hollis and Peter Liakopoulos were absent.

The $85,000 will be taken out of the payment equal to taxes Nye County receives from the U.S. Department of Energy for the land value of Yucca Mountain. The county would reimburse the PETT fund for the cost of the legal counsel with the assessments once the GID is created, as it would the cost of the $386,946 Bureau Veritas service plan.

Commissioners also approved the naming of the district, simply calling it the Pahrump Regional Flood Control District.

Eastley jokingly proposed "the sink or swim flood control district."

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

Grist Magazine
May 29, 2008

The cowardly lion

McCain to skip another crucial climate vote

by David Roberts

Unbelievable. Sen. John McCain -- who just weeks ago said of the Climate Security Act, "I hope it will pass, and I hope the entire Congress will join in supporting it and the President of the United States would sign it" -- now says he won't show up to vote on it.

He won't vote against it, mind you. Won't go on record. Won't take a stand. He just won't show.

"I have not been there for a number of votes. The same thing happened in the campaign of 2000," he said. "The people of Arizona understand I'm running for president."

Pardon my French, but that's just chickenshit. Not to mention bullshit: in a crucial vote earlier this Congressional session that would have transferred oil company subsidies to renewable energy, McCain was actually in D.C. -- he sat on his plane while the vote was taken. (The measure failed by one vote.)

He won't support concrete proposals to reduce greenhouse gases or boost renewable energy, but he's too cowardly to go on record voting against them, since it might put the lie to all his lofty maverick rhetoric on climate.

You think Republicans for Environmental Protection will give him a pass on this one too?

And while I'm ranting: The reason McCain opposes Lieberman-Warner is that it doesn't contain sufficient pork for the nuclear industry. But when he's in Nevada, pandering to Nevada voters who hate the idea of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, he tells a different story. Heck, we might not even need Yucca, he says!

This is a guy who wants the U.S. to build on the order of 700 new nuclear plants, telling Nevada voters that we won't need a place to store all the waste.

How on earth did this guy get a reputation as a straight talker? Can you imagine this kind of evasion and double-talk being accepted from any other national candidate?

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

KMVT, ID
May 29, 2008

McCain In Favor Of Underground Nuclear Waste Facility

By Gina Jameson

Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain says he is still in favor of construction of an underground nuclear waste repository, as long as it meets all the state and federal regulatory requirements.

It's believed that building and opening the Yucca Mountain Repository is key to the US Department of Energy meeting it's contractual promises to Idaho, to remove high level nuclear waste currently stored at Idaho National Laboratory.

Much of that material will remain dangerously radioactive for at least ten thousand years.

Still, McCain also hedged his bet by saying that trying to find a place for an international repository may make it unnecessary to build the Yucca Mountain facility, which is already a decade behind schedule.

European countries already have a repository for high level spent nuclear fuel although no such facility exists in the US yet.

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

Senator Harry Reid
May 28, 2008

Reid, Nevada Leaders Kick Off Petition Drive Against Yucca Mountain Project

Rally signifies beginning of major effort against DOE license application

Las Vegas, NV – Nevada Senator Harry Reid joined a coalition of Nevada leaders and environmental groups to launch a petition effort against the license application by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

The petition tells the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the people of Nevada stand staunchly against the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. Reid was the first to sign the petition at today's event, along with Congressman Jon Porter; Senator Richard Bryan; Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid; Clark County Commissioner Susan Brager; and representatives from the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects, Citizen Alert, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Sierra Club and Nevada Nuclear Waste Taskforce.

"We will not let the people of Nevada be put at risk by the storage or transportation of the nation's nuclear waste – not now and not ever. I urge Nevadans to join me in signing this petition today," Reid said.

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

AP Google
May 28, 2008

McCain, Obama fight for the West

By Liz Sidoti

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Call it the political version of how to win the West.

Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are tripping over each other this week in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, a prelude to a likely general election matchup and inevitable fight for three booming battleground states. President Bush narrowly won the three states four years ago and Democrats now see them as ripe for opportunity.

"I'm a Western senator," McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting from Arizona, said in this gambling mecca Wednesday, signaling he intends to fiercely defend the turf. "I understand our issues."

Obama, who has nearly secured the Democratic nomination, sounds just as determined.

"We can win the West," the Illinois senator said Monday at a museum in Las Cruces, N.M., as he stood alongside the state's Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, a prominent Hispanic. "We're going to fight as hard as we can in these states."

Once a Republican stronghold, the historically conservative West has changed demographically over the past decade and, thus, politically.

Retirees from all over, including the liberal Northeast and West Coast, flocked to the region because of its available and cheap land, its dry, warm climate, its range of recreational activities and its magnificent mountains and sprawling deserts. Businesses sprouted in the region's few dense population centers, and job opportunities followed. So did swarms of swing-voting Hispanic immigrants.

That growth exploded since the last presidential election. Census figures show that Nevada grew 10.1 percent, Colorado 5.5 percent and New Mexico 4.1 percent between July 2004 and July 2007.

Thus, the region has become far more competitive and margins of victory have tightened as Democrats made inroads into decades-old GOP dominance.

In 2004, Bush won New Mexico by 1 percentage point, Nevada by 2 and Colorado by 5. Of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory, the states offer a combined 19 — the same number that Democrat John Kerry lost to Bush by four years ago. So, if Obama can win all the states that Kerry did, plus the three Western states, Democrats would win the White House after eight years of Republican rule.

Democrats argue that they now have more of a chance to take the West, and Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico are among their top targets. Arizona would have been, too, if McCain, the state's four-term senator, weren't the GOP opponent.

They point to recent electoral gains that swept Republicans from long-held offices, and note that both Colorado and New Mexico have Democratic governors. They argue that migration, in part from the more liberal coasts, works to their benefit. And, they claim that swing-voting Hispanics, whose numbers also have grown, are trending Democratic this year.

Obama is maneuvering to compete in the West even before he secures the nomination over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He talked with veterans on Memorial Day in Las Cruces, N.M., discussed the housing crisis in the sprawl of North Las Vegas, Nev., a day later, and talked education Wednesday in Thornton, Colo.

"Understand that my starting principle is, everybody should be bilingual or everybody should be trilingual," Obama said to cheers at a high school. Otherwise, he said, the United States will struggle to keep up with economic competition from other countries.

Obama allies argue that his appeal to independents will extend to voters here. They play down concerns among some Democrats about his standing with Hispanic voters, and say he's just as strong with them as Kerry and Al Gore were when they ran. Nevermind that both lost to Bush.

During the primary, Hispanics preferred Clinton to Obama by nearly 2-to-1, according to exit polls. Obama's bid to become the first black president also may give some Hispanics pause; racial tensions between the two groups are undeniable.

Republicans say they are concerned about defending the West only because of the strong national headwinds working against the GOP and not because of their candidate. They are comforted by McCain's long-standing support among Hispanics and his personal links to the West.

The Arizona senator and former chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee argues that his decades of experience handling issues critical to the region gives him an advantage over the first-term senator. McCain argues that Obama lacks the knowledge and background on Western issues, such as land management, water shortages and Native American concerns.

McCain's support for an eventual path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is a wild card with Hispanics. "We have to secure our borders first," McCain said at a town-hall style event at a local Boys & Girls Club on Wednesday. It's a position shift he made after broad-based legislation failed last year.

He also touched on other issues.

On alternative fuel sources, he said solar energy development needs to be embraced in both Nevada and Arizona. And, pressed about the construction of a nuclear waste repository in Nevada that many residents oppose, McCain told people something they didn't want to hear.

"I support Yucca Mountain once it goes through all the processes it needs to go through," McCain said. "But I also support reprocessing. A little straight talk, we have to do both."

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

KLAS-TV
May 28, 2008

Reid, Porter Team up to Protest Yucca Mountain

Eyewitness News has learned that the license application to open the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain is complete. It now goes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for action. The NRC has to give it's approval before the site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, can open.

Nevada's elected officials, opposed to the waste site, are turning their focus from the Department of Energy to the NRC.

It's a big day in the step of trying to ship nuclear waste from around the country here.

The Department of Energy license application is a massive document. It consists of 8,646 pages, stands 6 feet 6 inches tall and weighs 110 pounds. The DOE says they will submit it early next week, on Monday or Tuesday.

This moment has been delayed for than 20 years by the state of Nevada fighting the repository in the courts, in Congress and in federal hearings.

The repository is way behind schedule. It was originally supposed to open in 1998. The state has 30 days to file any contentions. The NRC will take 90 days to review the application before accepting it. 180 days later, the hearings will start on the application. It's expected that the approval process will take three years. If all goes according the DOE's plan the first shipment will go to the site in 2020.

But the battle is not finished. Tuesday morning, Nevada's elected leaders joined to once again ask residents to unite against the federal government. This time, Senator Harry Reid says residents must sign a petition opposing Yucca Mountain. It will be given to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"I think that there is a very small chance that nuclear waste will ever come to Nevada. I think it is on its death bed. We have some of the biggest proponents in congress who have walked away from it," said Reid.

Senator Reid, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, Commissioners Rory Reid, and Susan Brager, all Democrats, were joined at the rally this morning by one lone Republican, Congressman Jon Porter.

All of them vowed not to give up the fight against shipping the nation's nuclear waste here.

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

KTVN
May 28, 2008

Petition Against Yucca Mountain

Bryan West
Channel 2 News

Nevada Senator Harry Reid joined a coalition of Nevada leaders and environmental groups to launch a petition effort against the license application by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

"We will not let the people of Nevada be put at risk by the storage or transportation of the nation's nuclear waste - not now and not ever. I urge Nevadans to join me in signing this petition today," Reid said.

The license application is expected to be submitted next month to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

KXNT
May 28, 2008

New Effort Against Yucca Mountain

With the federal government about to file a license application to operate the the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository, Nevada is ready to continue the fight. The Department of Energy plans to file the application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as early as next week. Today, several top Nevada officials gathered at the Clark County Government Center to launch a petition drive against the license. Among those on hand were Senator Harry Reid, Congressman Jon Porter, former U.S. Senator Richard Bryan, state Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto, along with County Commissioners Rory Reid and Susan Brager. The leaders are urging Nevada residents to sign an online petition opposing the Yucca Mountain project. That petition will be sent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be used in consideration of the license application.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 28, 2008

McCain supports Yucca Mountain if requirements are met

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said today he continues to support the creation of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain if all necessary requirements are met.

But McCain, stumping at a town hall meeting here in front of about 600 supporters, said he also supports the reprocessing of nuclear waste.

"I support Yucca Mountain once it goes through all of the process that it needs to go through," he said, to some applause in the audience. "But I also support reprocessing."

McCain also reiterated comments from Tuesday that he would push for an international facility where nuclear waste from around the world could be stored. He did not elaborate and he did not speak to the press after the hour-long event at the Boys and Girls Club of Truckee Meadows.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 28, 2008

McCain: We may not need Yucca

Reid says Arizonan backs Nevada facility

By Keith Rogers and Steve Tetreault
Review-Journal

While Nevada officials were about to rally Tuesday in Las Vegas against plans for licensing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain was in Colorado saying such a facility might not be necessary.

"I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials," McCain, R-Ariz., said in a speech on international nuclear security at the University of Denver.

"It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain," McCain said, referring to the volcanic-rock ridge 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

At the rally in the Clark County Government Center's amphitheater, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who was aware of McCain's remarks, took the opportunity to note that McCain's voting record in favor of the Yucca Mountain repository speaks for itself.

"Everyone here should understand that John McCain is an advocate" for Yucca Mountain, Reid said.

"John McCain is on the wrong side of that issue," said Reid, the Senate majority leader who was joined at the rally by former Sen. Richard Bryan, chairman of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects, other state and Clark County officials, environmentalists and Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.

In a call with reporters, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, said the idea of an international repository is only practical at one site: Siberia.

"So when Senator McCain indicates a willingness to support the idea of an international repository and because the United States controls in effect the destination of some 75 or 80 percent of the spent fuel in the world ... an international repository will not happen without U.S. support and will not happen without a place to go," Scheunemann said.

He said an international repository would be primarily for spent fuel that's in other countries.

"But Senator McCain did indicate a willingness to entertain the possibility that if the spent fuel repository is up and running, if the security and safeguards are sufficient that we could possibility send some of our spent fuel there too," Scheunemann said.

Later, McCain's regional spokesman, Jeff Sadosky, said McCain is "just looking at new proposals out there. He believes they have merit and should be looked at because they could potentially alleviate the need for the Yucca Mountain site."

An official with the Nevada Democratic Party said McCain was trying to flip-flop on his traditional support for the Yucca repository.

The remarks were delivered a day before the candidate is scheduled to campaign in Reno.

"McCain did not explain how this international repository would work, and it is a disingenuous 180-degree turnaround for the Arizona senator," said Kirsten Searer, the Nevada party's deputy executive director.

Presidential candidates for the Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., have said they are opposed to building a repository at Yucca Mountain for 77,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel and defense wastes.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said McCain was on the right track in steering the nuclear waste debate away from Yucca Mountain and toward waste reprocessing.

"I will be talking to Senator McCain a lot about that," Ensign said in a call with reporters. "My belief is you don't need a repository, you need to recycle the waste."

Ensign said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a close McCain ally, shares that view and "we are going to work on Senator McCain that way when he is president."

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., believes McCain's reference to creating an international nuclear waste repository lacked detail and raised more questions, her spokesman David Cherry said.

"While it is still unclear how Senator McCain hatched this plan, Congresswoman Berkley has enormous concerns about shipping nuclear waste overseas given the dangers involved," Cherry said.

Berkley "welcomes any acknowledgement from the McCain camp that Yucca Mountain is a failure and should be scrapped, but that does not mean she agrees with this concept as an alternative," Cherry said.

Jon Wolfstahl, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said McCain's reference to international nuclear storage seemed to come "out of left field."

"It is possible that Russia might build a storage facility for countries in East Asia, but McCain seems to be suggesting some other country is going to accept our huge (the world's largest) stock of spent fuel and that this might be a way to avoid opening the spent fuel repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Talk about pandering," Wolfstahl wrote in a posting to the Web site of the National Security Network, a self-described progressive organization.

At the rally, organizers said they intend to collect thousands of signatures for a petition that asks the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject the Department of Energy's license application for the planned repository when it is submitted in June.

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said she is prepared to make legal challenges as soon as DOE submits its license application because she believes it will be incomplete, lacks a safety plan and fails to protect the public and the environment from deadly radioactive materials.

Allen Benson, a DOE spokesman for the Yucca Mountain Project, said, "We will submit a complete license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will conduct a very thorough and rigorous review. We look forward to participating in the NRC process."

Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0308.

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

Las Vegas SUN
May 28, 2008

McCain’s about-face on Yucca

By Jon Ralston

“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”

— John McCain, 5/27/08

If a man told you for years that he didn’t love you, essentially had no regard for you at all, and then suddenly, when he needed you, told you he adored you, would you fall for it?

As John McCain, alighting in Reno today, tries to woo Nevada voters, he is hoping for the kind of short-term memory loss Christopher Nolan wrote about and filmed in “Memento.” If Nevadans keep forgetting what he has said and done before, McCain might actually be able to convince voters here that his love for the state has simply been well-hidden. Very well-hidden.

Voters everywhere are used to being treated like ingenuous dumbbells by politicians trolling for their votes. But not since George W. Bush declined all interviews on the subject and uttered his “sound science” mantra has a White House hopeful so obviously taken the state for a bunch of rubes.

McCain made his comments in Denver as part of a larger speech on nuclear power the day before he is scheduled to be in Northern Nevada, which is either one of the largest coincidences in the history of politics or a calculated strategy to help him win a pivotal swing state. (Not that he needs to be right on Yucca Mountain, which will probably factor into few Nevadans’ decisions in November, if history is any guide. Just ask the president.)

McCain’s proposal would seem more sincere if only he hadn’t been so sincerely committed to the dump — and been so unabashed and frank about his support. But on the eve of his trip to Reno and on the eve of a general election in which Nevada could well be critical, the Straight Talk Express took a detour from its planned stop at Yucca Mountain.

McCain is an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power and a fervent backer of Yucca Mountain as a suitable storage site. The evidence is plentiful:

• In 2002, when final approval was assured after 20 years of debate, McCain told his home-state newspaper, The Arizona Republic, that the Nevada dump site would help the federal government resolve “one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people.”

• Just over a year ago, he was described as adopting a mocking tone when he told the Deseret News in Utah: “Oh, you have to travel through states ... I am for Yucca Mountain. I’m for storage facilities. It’s a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America.”

• Less than three weeks ago, Reuters ran a piece that said McCain “supports the Yucca Mountain storage facility and believes opposition to it is harmful to U.S. interests.” And the piece quoted one of his advisers as saying, “The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized.”

So in the past few weeks, McCain has experienced an epiphany and decided there should be some sort of international repository for the fuel that he had so long wanted to come here? This is believable?

And such a cockamamie solution, too.

We are going to ship nuclear waste overseas? Will Kathie Lee Gifford be seen dancing on a Carnival deck, pointing to canisters and promising cut rates to those tourists who travel onboard? John McCain’s Love Boat?

And exactly where overseas are we going to ship the waste? There’s plenty of room inside the Colosseum, right? I am sure it would be safe for, say 100, even 10,000 years, in Baghdad now that the war is almost over. Or perhaps Myanmar — I hear the weather is always lovely there.

I find it fitting that McCain would come up with this harebrained solution, which makes little policy or political sense and does not jibe with his past positions, on the same day the Nevada delegation began a petition drive to urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject the licensing of Yucca Mountain. If this really isn’t the typical one-election stand that politicians have been promising Nevada every four years, and if McCain wants to prove his love is real, I am sure he would be happy to sign the petition when he arrives in Nevada today.

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

Nevada Appeal
May 28, 2008

Between Yucca and a hard place

Abby Johnson

"I think it's fair to say we've solved the nuclear waste problem with this legislation." - Sen. Bennett Johnston quoted in the New York Times, Dec. 20, 1987

"I think it should have been designed differently. I knew we'd run into the kind of problems that we have - where you can't absolutely prove with certainty what's going to happen in 10,000 or 100,000 years." - Former Sen. Bennett Johnston quoted in the Las Vegas Sun, May 21, 2008

I first became aware of Sen. Bennett Johnston in the summer of 1986. The Louisiana Democrat and fellow senator Al Gore of Tennessee were at a Reno rally to stump for Congressman Harry Reid, seeking his first term as U.S. Senator for Nevada.

By the end of 1987, Sen. Johnston became infamous in our state as the father of the "Screw Nevada" bill. The legislation singled out Nevada's Yucca Mountain to be studied as the nation's first high-level nuclear waste repository; eliminated alternative sites in politically powerful Texas and Washington state from further consideration; and erased any vestiges of equity that were in the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act. "It was base, raw, power politics," said Nevada's junior senator, Harry Reid, quoted in the New York Times.

In 1986, who could predict that Congressman Reid would become Senate Majority Leader, and that Sen. Gore would serve eight years as vice president while Yucca Mountain blundered forward, later championing the threat of global warming? Who knew that the retired Senator-turned-nuclear-power-lobbyist Johnston would regret the outcome of the infamous law that gave the U.S. Department of Energy the go-ahead to study only Yucca Mountain and spend billions doing it?

Last week, Johnston stated to a nuclear waste transportation industry group that Yucca Mountain should have been designed as a temporary facility, according to a report in the Las Vegas Sun. As a lobbyist for the nuclear industry, he is now touting monitored retrievable storage (MRS) temporary sites to store radioactive waste, including Yucca Mountain. "Yucca Mountain is a great place for MRS," said Johnston to the waste haulers. Most of the waste is in the east but with an MRS in the west (who cares about distance, earthquakes or Nevada's fast growing population), nuclear waste haulers could be in business, even if nothing is buried in Yucca Mountain.

Why now? The nuclear industry is realizing that with Yucca Mountain stalled, temporary storage might be an expedient way to deal with nuclear waste in the short run and jump start the next generation of nuclear power.

Ironically, Johnston's belated pronouncement comes only weeks before the Department of Energy is expected to submit its long-delayed license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ask approval to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain.

Of the many "incidents and accidents" on the road to Yucca, this is one for the record books (if anyone is still keeping score on Yucca.) Just as the license application is finally ready, many in Congress and the nuclear industry are coming to the realization that Yucca Mountain was a bad bet.

The United States is on the verge of an energy sea change propelled by global warming and the cost of fossil fuel. With renewed interest in nuclear power, discussion of development of reprocessing capability in the United States to serve the world, and the possibility that today's nuclear waste could someday be tomorrow's nuclear fuel, a permanent repository may be neither paramount or inevitable.

Nevertheless, the state of Nevada is between a Yucca Mountain rock and a hard place - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process, expected to last three to four years. Nevada expects to do battle with DOE within the highly structured, rule-ridden quasi-judicial application hearing process of the NRC to uncover the flaws of repository design.

It is likely that Nevada will go back to the basics. The complex hydrogeologic setting of Yucca Mountain has not changed. Earthquake faults, young volcanoes, fast pathways for radiation to permeate the groundwater are still what is wrong with Yucca Mountain. DOE's engineering contortions are essential to meet the still-unknown million year EPA radiation standards. DOE is depending on canisters made of unproven alloys vulnerable to corrosion to contain the waste, and titanium drip shield covers to protect the canisters from moisture, but not procured or installed until up to 300 years into the future.

At a time when even Sen. Johnston, the father of Yucca Mountain, admits it was wrong to design Yucca Mountain for permanent waste entombment, expect to hear "all systems go" from DOE as it seeks a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a permanent repository.

To return to Sen. Johnston's remarks from 1987, it's fair to say that we still haven't solved the nuclear waste problem.

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

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
May 28, 2008

McCain readies for Reno visit

Stance on Yucca gets adjustment

By ANJEANETTE DAMON
adamon@rgj.com

On the eve of his first general election stop in Reno, U.S. Sen. John McCain changed his tack Tuesday on the storage of nuclear waste, calling for an international repository that could make the Yucca Mountain project unnecessary.

McCain has been an unabashed supporter of the project to store 77,000 tons of the nation’s most radioactive waste at the site 90 miles outside of Las Vegas, viewing the project as an essential part of securing the country’s nuclear waste. But in a Tuesday speech in Denver, McCain said he would push for an international repository, if elected president.

“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials,” he said. “It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”

McCain is expected to echo some of those remarks, focused mostly on reforming the way the international community curbs nuclear proliferation, today (Wednesday) during a town hall meeting at the Boys and Girls Club in Reno. It’s his first stop in Reno since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee.

After taking questions at the meeting, McCain will attend a private fundraiser at the Eldorado Hotel Casino, which Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons was expected to attend.

The Yucca Mountain project is a politically controversial topic in Nevada, which is shaping up to be a key battleground state in the November presidential election.

Presidential candidates routinely tailor their messages to Nevada voter opposition to the project while campaigning here. Democratic presidential candidates U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton oppose the project.

But before Tuesday, McCain hadn’t shied away from his support for Yucca Mountain. The closest he has come was to borrow a line from President Bush about basing any decisions on science during his last visit to Las Vegas in March.

McCain’s opponents accused him of trying to divert attention from his support of Yucca Mountain to an unrealistic international project.

“All you have to do is take a look at his voting record,” said Jon Summers, spokesman for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has dedicated much of his political career to stopping Yucca Mountain. “He has never looked for an opportunity to not turn Nevada into a dumping ground. Why would he think any differently now?

“This is a disingenuous attempt to pander to Nevada voters.”

McCain spokesman Jeff Sadosky said the Arizona senator would continue to support the Yucca Mountain project, “but at the same time, look at other possibilities.”

“There’s more and more discussion (about an international repository),” Sadosky said. “The Russians have discussed it as a potential option. John McCain feels it’s an option worth looking at that would alleviate the need for Yucca Mountain.”

U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who also opposes the Yucca Mountain project but supports McCain, said on a conference call with reporters Tuesday that he would rather the federal government invest in ways to recycle the waste.

“My belief is that you don’t need a repository, you need to recycle the waste,” Ensign said. “I’ll be talking to Sen. McCain a lot more about that. That is the way this country needs to go.”

While most polls indicate more than 70 percent of Nevadans oppose the Yucca Mountain project, some observers question how heavily the issue weighs on their minds when it comes choosing a president. In 2004, for example, Democrat U.S. Sen. John Kerry centered much of his campaign on President Bush’s support of the project. Kerry still narrowly lost the state.

“When you ask (voters) to list what’s your important issue in making a decision on who to vote for, rarely is it in the top 10, and never is it in the top five,” said Ryan Erwin, a Republican strategist in Las Vegas. “Nevadans will base their decision on the economy, education, health care, jobs, gas prices, issues that affect them on a daily basis.”

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

PolitickerNV
May 28, 2008

Berkley Urges Nevadans to Sign Petition to NRC Opposing Yucca Mountain License

By Joseph K. Cooper

(Washington D.C. - May 27, 2008) Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV) today issued the following statement in support of a petition drive seeking to prevent consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository 90 minutes outside Las Vegas. The text of the petition follows Berkley's statement below:

"We are at a critical moment in our battle to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada. Now is the time to come together as never before and to make our voices heard. I am urging every Nevadan to add his or her name to this petition asking the NRC not to act on a license for Yucca Mountain given the dangers and lack of planning. Yucca Mountain is not safe, the science is flawed, and the transportation risks are too great to ever allow this $80 billion toxic garbage dump to open for business. The NRC has a duty to protect every American who will be put at risk by this scheme and the commissioners should listen to the majority of Nevadans and reject this application," said Berkley.

A PETITION TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO REJECT THE LICENSE APPLICATION FOR A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN

We, the undersigned, petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject the Department of Energy's (DOE) license application to construct the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

The DOE is proposing to dump 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada after transporting it through counties home to over 106 million people.

That's 45 states which could host nuclear waste routes. Yet there will be absolutely no public process to review these routes - not by the NRC, not by the DOE, and not even by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This is a massive and dangerous shipping campaign, but the NRC refuses to scrutinize it when considering DOE's application to build the dump.

Even worse, the Environmental Protection Agency has not decided what levels of radiation can be "safely leaked" from the dump. EPA has proposed a dangerously lenient radiation standard that completely disregards the health and safety of future generations. But, with less than half the designs for the dump complete, it is preposterous to think that NRC is in a position to decide that a nuclear waste dump could meet EPA's terrible proposed radiation standard.

THE NRC SHOULD NOT DOCKET DOE'S LICENSE APPLICATION TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN.

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

PolitickerNV
May 28, 2008

…And Nevada Dems accuse McCain of flip-flopping on Yucca

By Joseph K. Cooper

LAS VEGAS-Speaking in Denver today, Ariz. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, backed away from his previously stated support for the Yucca Mtn. Nuclear Repository, proposing instead an "international repository for spent nuclear fuel."

"It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada," said McCain.

Nevada Democrats were quick to pounce on the potential policy shift, sending out a release accusing McCain of a nuclear waste flip-flop.

"A day before he is scheduled to visit Reno, presidential candidate John McCain is trying to fool Nevada voters and back off of his longtime support of making Nevada the nation's nuclear waste dump," said Kirsten Searer, deputy executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party.

"McCain has apparently just realized that his support of Yucca Mountain might cost him a critical swing state, and now he's trying to flip flop," Searer said. "But Nevadans won't let John McCain forget that he has a very clear record of supporting Yucca Mountain."

McCain's comments came on a day when Yucca Mtn. is at the top of several pols' agenda in the state. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was one of several Nevada politicians to attend an anti-Yucca rally in Las Vegas today.

"John McCain has voted every opportunity he's had in favor of Yucca Mountain," said Reid at the rally. "He's still in favor of Yucca Mountain. John McCain is on the wrong side of that issue."

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Reid cast doubt on the veracity of McCain's new proposal.

"He knows Nevada is a battleground state," said Reid. "And he's trying to waffle."

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

PolitickerNV
May 28, 2008

On eve of Nevada visit, McCain tries to flip flop on Yucca Mountain

By Joseph K. Cooper

A day before he is scheduled to visit Reno, presidential candidate John McCain is trying to fool Nevada voters and back off of his longtime support of making Nevada the nation's nuclear waste dump.

McCain, who has consistently voted for the Yucca Mountain project while in the Senate, today said in Denver, "I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052701367.html]

McCain did not explain how this international repository would work, and it is a disingenuous 180-degree turnaround for the Arizona senator. Not only has McCain voted for the Yucca Mountain dump, but he also admitted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal last May that, if Nevadans are voting for president based on his or her support of Yucca Mountain, then McCain might lose voters in the state.

McCain said, "Well, if that's their defining issue then I certainly understand why they wouldn't." ["Nevada's Litmus Test: Scrutiny increases on Yucca," May 7, 2007, Las Vegas Review-Journal]

He also said in the article, "I think we have to have a place to store the waste. I think that nuclear power has got to be a vital part of our effort to be independent of foreign oil, and I think it's (Yucca Mountain) a suitable place for storage."

An article in last week's Huffington Post also revealed that one of McCain's top media consultants in his current presidential campaign headed up a nationwide push in 2002 to pressure Senators to vote in favor of the nuclear waste dump in Nevada. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/mccains-ethical-dilemma-c_n_103216.html]

"John McCain is an unabashed supporter of Yucca Mountain, despite the dire safety concerns associated with the dump. Every time McCain has had an opportunity to make Nevada the nation's nuclear waste dump, he has taken it, with no concerns that Yucca Mountain endangers Nevada's groundwater, or that it would force the unsafe trucking of toxic nuclear waste through communities around the country," said Kirsten Searer, deputy executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party.

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

Washington Post
May 28, 2008

Wheat, Silver and Nuclear Waste: McCain Takes Questions In Nevada

By Juliet Eilperin

RENO, Nev. -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) proved one thing this morning as he addressed a crowd of hundreds at the Boys & Girls Club of Truckee Meadows: He can pronounce this state's name like a local.

"It's wonderful to be here in Ne-veh-da," he declared, obviously pleased that he did not commit the error of calling it "Ne-vaah-da." So he said it again -- three times -- drawing appreciative applause from the crowd. "Ne-veh-da, Ne-veh-da, Ne-veh-da."

Speaking before an enthusiastic and partisan crowd of at least 600 -- an unusually large gathering for the McCain campaign -- the presumptive GOP nominee devoted most of his opening remarks to attacking Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). He started off by mocking the recently passed farm bill, questioning why it would devote $20 million to collect seeds for research and $35 million to develop "hard, white wheat."

"He wants to continue this spending spree, he wants to continue this waste of your tax dollars on these unnecessary, pork barrel projects," McCain said. "I would veto a bill such as this farm bill. ... Republicans have got to stop joining with big-spending Democrats." The crowd responded with loud cheers and whistles.

Continuing with his line of attack, McCain questioned why Obama has only visited Iraq once, and why he has refused to sit down with Gen. David Petraeus to discuss the war effort.

"My friends, this is about leadership and learning. Why did I do that? Because I learned, I learned from the men and women of the military," he said. Obama, by contrast, "has not held one single hearing on Afghanistan, where American men and women are in harm's way."

The fact that Obama sees the war as a failure and has refused to travel with him to Iraq, McCain said, "that is a profound misunderstanding of what's happened in Iraq, and what's at stake in Iraq."

Later in the day, the Obama campaign responded forcefully. "On the day after the former White House press secretary conceded that the Bush administration used deception and propaganda to take us to war, it seems odd that Senator McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on their depth of understanding about Iraq," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "Senator Obama challenged the President's rationale for the war from the start, warning that it would divert resources from Afghanistan and the pursuit of AlQaeda and mire us in an endless civil war. Senator McCain stubbornly insists on pursuing the failed Bush policy that continues to cost so much, while Senator Obama believes it's time to begin a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops and compel the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future."

The audience at the event, which asked uniformly conservative questions, gave the senator a standing ovation when he vowed to "never surrender" in Iraq, and applauded fiercely when he said he opposed abortion and believes the right to life -- as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- applies "to the unborn as well the born."

For a few minutes the senator waded into the politically sensitive question of whether to store the nation's entire nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain: A questioner gave a lengthy speech on why it make more sense to "divide it up" and store it in 10 underground nuclear repositories across the nation.

"I cannot push for that many," McCain said, and instead he floated an idea he had just raised yesterday in advance of his Reno visit. "I can push for an international -- some place internationally where we could ship nuclear waste and have it stored."

The rest of the questions were non-confrontational, though they often veered to the right of McCain's own positions. One audience member suggested McCain throw out the current Mexican government in order to halt illegal immigration; a young boy suggested the country stop using paper money and revert to silver in order to curb inflation. A third person questioned whether "the administration, and maybe this is classified, has calculated what the daily losses would be under a retreat plan under Obama."

McCain tactfully deflected most of these questions, saying the Mexican government faced a difficult drug war, he doubted the United States would start using silver dollars, and that he would continue to press for victory in Iraq.

"My first priority is the security of this nation, as it should be," he said. "But my second priority is we never send our men and women into harm's way unless the mission is clear and the cause is justified."

Then McCain left the stage, without indicating whether he would have sent troops into Iraq in the first place.

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

Heber Springs Sun-Times
May 28, 2008

Op-Ed:
Jerry Jackson: Time for nuclear power

In late April three of the Rotary Clubs in this area hosted five business and professional people from France. At the joint dinner of these clubs we learned a little about life in France and the professional careers of these five visitors. This is a part of a world-wide exchange program that Rotary sponsors. It continues to be very important in promoting country to country communication. Paul Cafferty of the Heber Springs Rotary Club has done an excellent job in directing this program for several years.

Much of the discussion that night centered on France getting approximately 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear power plants. Unlike the scare tactics promoted by the anti-nuke crowd in this country, the French patriots reported no real problems with nuclear power.

Responding to a question on how they handle nuclear waste, their answer was they process it for further use and then store the rest. In this country we have proposed and planned for a deep cave in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the uniformed and scare mongers are doing everything they can to keep this country from moving forward.

The wackos that are protesting against nuclear power and those that are keeping us from drilling in Anwar and offshore for the most part are not really environmentalists. They are anti-capitalists who want this country to suffer and not progress ahead of our socialist neighbors. These are the people that blame all problems on the U.S. and hope we can be defeated in Iraq.

Let’s explore some factual information on nuclear power. But first let’s review some other alternatives that have been disappointments in the energy realm.

Within the last few years the savior to the energy crises was to be biofuels from corn, soybeans or other crops. You have no doubt heard the argument. We can grow crops each year by our super efficient farmers and have a renewable source of energy by manufacturing ethanol. After all, haven’t we been paying farmers billions for not growing crops in recent years?

A funny thing has happened since Congress encouraged the growth of the ethanol industry by special tax credits and other monetary boosters. There has never been evidence that much new energy is being produced since only a small part of the plant, the seed, is distilled into alcohol. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce these little seeds. Some energy experts claim there is actually an energy loss. Suffice to say distilling one third of our corn crop is replacing only three percent of our oil consumption.

World food prices have almost doubled since 2005. Food riots have occurred in Mexico, Egypt, Morocco, Guiana, Cameroon and at least six other countries. And so it goes. Milk prices, cereals, syrups and other corn products are soaring because so much corn is being diverted from cows and humans to produce ethanol.

So what about wind power? A trip on I-40 through Kansas reveals several acres of windmills. Other areas throughout the U.S. are starting to be dotted with these giant wind machines. The problem? Dismissing the complaint that some people say the sounds can be irritating, the truth is they produce only a pitiful amount of energy. To produce the amount of power of one conventional generating station, it would take a wind farm 75 miles square. That, my friends, is a lot of land and many, many windmills at a tremendous cost to manufacture and to install. To complicate the problem wind does not always blow at the same velocity regardless of the location.

As explained in the April 28th issue of The Weekly Standard nuclear power is so much more efficient that only the uneducated or the completely biased would prefer other energy sources as compared to nuclear. When an atom splits in two which happens in a nuclear reactor, certain binding energy is liberated. This energy release is two million times greater than any energy releases that come in an internal combustion engine or a coal fired electrical generating plant. This two million differential explains why a 1,000 megawatt coal plant must be fed with a 110 car train loaded with 16,000 tones of coal arriving every day. Meanwhile a nuclear reactor of the same size is fed by a single flatbed truck that arrives with a new set of fuel rods once every 18 months.

After reading and digesting all this information the obvious question is, why have we not built a new nuclear plant in this country in over 15 years? The answer - political posturing and wacko environmental concerns. Government regulations both federal and local to approve even the plans to build a new nuclear plant are mind-boggling. Very few want a nuclear reactor within site of their homestead or even in their same county. Can you imagine our congressmen or either of our two senators proposing a new nuclear plant anywhere in Arkansas? These same politicians will blame President Bush while the problem lies right in the halls of Congress.

There are signs that our country is beginning to awaken. Why? Maybe the real prospect of gas at five or six dollars a gallon has something to do with it.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, says in Newsweek, April 12, 2008, “My belief, in retrospect, is that because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made a mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil - that’s as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine with nuclear weapons.”

The town of Glen Rose in northern Texas is first in line to welcome the next proposed nuclear power. Community leaders and the general population are all for nuclear plants in that area.

Maybe these are only small steps, but perhaps it is a sign that the American public is coming to its senses. For a conservative guy that is often accused of worshipping cost numbers this table is impressive to me:

Production Costs per kwh Electricity

* Nuclear $1.72 cents
* Coal $2.37 cents
* Natural Gas $6.75 cents
* Oil $9.63 cents

--(Jerry Jackson of Heber Springs writes his “conservative viewpoint” column each Wednesday)

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

Rocky Mountain News
May 28, 2008

McCain takes on nuclear threat

Sen. critical of Iran, N. Korea; vows no 'surrender' in Iraq

By David Montero

John McCain's speech on foreign policy at the University of Denver on Tuesday largely avoided mentions of Iraq, but he had strong words about Iran and said North Korea must end its nuclear program.

Quoting John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee sought to balance the threat of nuclear proliferation and a plan to reward nations that use nuclear power for "legitimate civilian purposes."

"It is a vision not of the United States acting alone, but building and participating in a community of nations all drawn together in this vital common purpose," he said. "It is a vision of a responsible America, dedicated to an enduring peace based on freedom."

The speech also zeroed in on the importance of talking to and working with China on the threat of nuclear proliferation and continuing to follow the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing that is being adhered to by the United States.

"President Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and represents a threat to every country in the region," McCain said, referring to the Iranian leader who has resisted international pressure to discontinue his country's nuclear program. It was a threat, he said, that "we cannot ignore or minimize."

About 400 people packed the Cable Center at DU to listen to McCain's speech, which ran a little more than 30 minutes.

It ran longer than expected because the Arizona senator was interrupted four times early in the speech by protesters who smuggled in white sheets - one of which had the words "End the War" printed on it.

The first couple who antagonized McCain repeatedly chanted, "End this war," while McCain looked down at his notes and the protesters were removed.

The crowd responded by chanting McCain's name.

Without raising his voice, McCain chastised the protesters by saying it wasn't proper to interfere with other people's rights to free speech.

By the fourth interruption and removal of another protester, McCain mentioned Iraq.

"By the way, I will never surrender in Iraq," he said to loud cheers. "Our American troops will come home with victory and with honor."

At least two of the protesters were from Groups Unite to Disrupt McCain - a trio of anti-war organizations.

McCain spokesman Jeff Sandosky said interruptions at the candidate's events happen "from time to time."

McCain's visit to Colorado was his second this month.

Democratic front-runner Barack Obama will host a town hall meeting in Thornton today, lending credence to the view that Colorado, with its nine electoral votes, will be heavily contested through the general election in November.

In the past, Colorado has been reliably Republican in presidential elections, voting for Democrats only three times since World War II.

In 2004, Republican George W. Bush carried the state over John Kerry by 4.7 percent.

However, Democrat Ken Salazar captured a U.S. Senate seat that year, and Democrat Bill Ritter won the governorship in 2006, making Colorado a viable target for Democrats - along with other Western states such as Nevada and New Mexico, where McCain and Obama were on Memorial Day.

During his speech at DU, McCain mentioned a hot button issue in Nevada - development of a nuclear waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain.

He said he would like to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel, which "could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility" at Yucca Mountain.

McCain did poorly in the February Republican caucus in Colorado, losing to Mitt Romney by a ratio of 2-to-1. He also lost badly in Nevada's January caucus - trailing Romney and Ron Paul.

Romney has since backed McCain and may help lure voters back - voters like Sherry Collins of Loveland.

Wearing a wide-brimmed, dressy black hat and smoking a cigarette outside after the speech, she said Romney's endorsement helped bring her into the McCain fold after she supported Romney during the caucus.

Collins said it was "refreshing" to hear McCain talk about foreign policy issues besides Iraq.

"This is a major issue. It's not just Iraq," she said. "It's a world issue that affects everyone."

But McCain's view on nuclear proliferation failed to impress Colorado Democrats. Pat Waak, state Democratic Party chairwoman, and U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden, were at the university to offer a rebuttal.

Perlmutter said he scarcely could believe McCain would give a speech billed as a foreign policy talk without discussing Iraq. He said the Colorado National Guard is stretched "to the breaking point" and that the same holds true for the U.S. armed services stationed in Iraq.

"I think the silence of his foreign policy statement is something that is deafening," Perlmutter said. "We need to take a good look at that."

McCain spoke of global challenges in the new century, including using nuclear power as a potential way to end America's reliance on foreign oil and reduce global warming.

McCain also touched on a plan to reward nations for not developing nuclear weapons but, instead, limiting their nuclear capacity for civilian use.

--Staff writer Alan Gathright contributed to this story

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

The State
May 28, 2008

$10 billion project: 2 reactors planned in Fairfield

By Jim DuPlessis
jduplessis@thestate.com

South Carolina’s two largest utilities said Tuesday they have agreed to pay nearly $10 billion through 2019 to add two nuclear reactors in Fairfield County — only the second time power companies have made a financial commitment to build a nuclear plant in 30 years.

Columbia-based South Carolina Electric & Gas and state-owned Santee Cooper signed a contract with Westinghouse Electric Co. and The Shaw Group to design and build two reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville, about 25 miles northwest of Columbia.

The deal means hundreds of jobs to one of the poorest counties in the Midlands.

SCE&G, a subsidiary of Columbia-based SCANA Corp., will pay $5.4 billion in construction costs for 55 percent of the power. Santee Cooper will pay $4.4 billion in construction costs for 45 percent of the power.

U.S. utilities are moving aggressively to construct a new generation of nuclear plants. Applications for 15 new ones in eight states are pending before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

With the two new reactors, SCE&G and Santee Cooper could generate 2,234 megawatts of electricity by 2019 — enough power to keep 1.7 million homes cool on the hottest day of the year.

“This is an important milestone in our efforts to ensure we can continue meeting the energy needs of our customers safely, reliably and with minimal impact on the environment,” said Bill Timmerman, chairman and CEO of SCANA. “These new nuclear units will provide our customers with a clean, non-emitting source of power and will allow for a significant reduction in emissions for our system.”

The project is expected to bring a peak of more than 4,000 construction jobs to Fairfield County, which has suffered from high unemployment rates with the closing of major factories in the past five years.

The utilities submitted their plans in March to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review, a process that typically takes three to four years. If approved, work could begin in 2011.

The first 1,117-megawatt reactor is scheduled to begin generating electricity in 2016, and the second one in 2019. The units will require about 800 to 1,000 permanent employees, said Eric Boomhower, spokesman for SCE&G.

Today’s ratepayers will be paying for the construction of that future power, an ability provided by the S.C. General Assembly through a law passed last year. The utilities said the provision “will substantially lower the total cost of the new units to SCE&G’s ratepayers when completed.”

Earlier this month, Westinghouse and The Shaw Group signed a contract with Georgia Power to build two nuclear reactors of similar size near Augusta.

In the 1960s, utilities began building hundreds of nuclear plants that some promised would generate power “too cheap to meter.” But utilities delayed ordering new units in the wake of an accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979.

In the 1980s, regulatory oversight increased, construction costs escalated and electricity consumption failed to meet the bullish projections of the 1970s.

As a result, by the mid-1980s, utilities were canceling plans for new reactors and abandoned several projects under way.

Nuclear energy’s revival has been driven by concerns about global warming from coal-fired plants — an issue that was just beginning to gain wide attention of scientists in the early 1980s.

But if the NRC allows the utilities to expand, they still must wrestle with the issue of nuclear waste.

The Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada still has not opened and prospects of that happening any time soon are questionable. That means more high-level nuclear waste likely would have to be stored on site.

SCE&G officials said there is plenty of room on the site to store spent fuel rods at Jenkinsville indefinitely, if need be, but they expect the federal government to honor its commitment to provide a permanent repository.

Staff Writer Sammy Fretwell contributed to this story.

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

KTVN
May 27, 2008

Petition Against Yucca Mountain

Bryan West
Channel 2 News

The license application is expected to be submitted next month to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

Las Vegas SUN
May 27, 2008

McCain: Maybe we don’t need Yucca

By Lisa Mascaro, Michael Mishak

WASHINGTON — Yucca Mountain dropped back into the presidential race today when Sen. John McCain suggested the planned nuclear waste dump outside of Las Vegas may not be needed after all.

Among the remaining presidential contenders, McCain has been the lone supporter of Yucca Mountain, making him the odd candidate out among Nevadans who overwhelmingly oppose the repository. Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have both assured Nevada they would oppose the dump.

But in a talk on nuclear security at the University of Denver, McCain offered another approach as part of global efforts to watchdog civilian nuclear power:

Up in Reno, the Gazette-Journal’s Anjeanette Damon was among the first to nab McCain’s prepared comments this morning with this entry. She notes: “In his last visit to Nevada, a Vegas fundraiser in March, McCain began using the George W. Bush line about relying on science to determine if the site is safe. The international repository line is new for McCain.”

Here in Washington, McCain’s comments did not go unnoticed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s main lobbying arm, which offered this headline: “McCain proposes alternative to Yucca Mountain.” Read the blog entry here.

McCain’s comments came as Nevada officials held an anti-Yucca Mountain rally today in Las Vegas – a piece de resistance in advance of the Energy department’s plans to file the long-awaited application to license the dump as early as next week.

Sen. Harry Reid took the opportunity to blast the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, telling reporters afterward that McCain’s idea was a “phony deal” and his comments were a naked political power play. “He knows Nevada is a battleground state,” Reid said. “And he’s trying to waffle.”

Reid added: “If he’s opposed to Yucca Mountain, why doesn’t he just come out and oppose it? He’s afraid to.”

In brief remarks to about 60 people gathered at the Clark County amphitheatre, Reid called on the crowd to hold McCain accountable.

“John McCain has voted every opportunity he’s had in favor of Yucca Mountain,” he said. “He’s still in favor of Yucca Mountain. John McCain is on the wrong side of that issue.”

Rep. Jon Porter, facing a re-election challenge in a district that has turned increasingly Democratic, pivoted away from McCain and Republican leadership in comments to reporters after the event, citing his introduction of an amendment that would have cut funding for the project. “Sen. McCain has been very clear on his position. … I don’t agree with him. He’s wrong and I’ve told him that. But at least his record is clear.”

Porter said Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had not done enough to cut off funding for Yucca. “They’re giving us lip service,” he said. “If they were serious, they’d be helping Sen. Reid.”

Porter’s challenger, state Sen. Dina Titus, attended the event but did not speak.

--Mascaro reported from Washington, Mishak from Las Vegas.

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

Las Vegas SUN
May 27, 2008

Reid, Porter launch anti-Yucca Mountain petition drive

The Associated Press

Nevada politicians and anti-Yucca Mountain groups are mounting a petition effort against the proposed nuclear waste repository.

Sen. Harry Reid, Congressman Jon Porter and others plan to being circulating the petition Tuesday at a rally at the Clark County Government Center.

The petition voices opposition to the Department of Energy's license application to build the nuclear waste facility 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The license application is expected to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next month.

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

Grist Magazine
May 27, 2008

Nuclear options

John McCain talks nuclear security, promises to promote 'civilian' nukes

Posted by Kate Sheppard

John McCain gave a speech on nuclear security this morning at the University of Denver, and given his abiding love of nuclear power as the solution to climate change, that came up too. Where there's "civilian" nuclear energy, there's the possibility for nuclear weapons -- and if he's promoting the former, that leads to plenty of questions about how to prevent the latter. And of course, all that spent nuclear fuel has to go somewhere. His remarks:

As we improve the national and multilateral tools to catch and reverse illicit nuclear programs, I am convinced civilian nuclear energy can be a critical part of our fight against global warming. Civilian nuclear power provides a way for the United States and other responsible nations to achieve energy independence and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas. But in order to take advantage of civilian nuclear energy, we must do a better job of ensuring it remains civilian. Some nations use the pretense of civilian nuclear programs as cover for nuclear weapons programs. We need to build an international consensus that exposes this deception, and holds nations accountable for it. We cannot continue allowing nations to enrich and reprocess uranium, ostensibly for civilian purposes, and stand by impotently as they develop weapons programs.

The most effective way to prevent this deception is to limit the further spread of enrichment and reprocessing. To persuade countries to forego enrichment and reprocessing, I would support international guarantees of nuclear fuel supply to countries that renounce enrichment and reprocessing, as well as the establishment of multinational nuclear enrichment centers in which they can participate. Nations that seek nuclear fuel for legitimate civilian purposes will be able to acquire what they need under international supervision. This is one suggestion Russia and others have made to Iran. Unfortunately, the Iranian government has so far rejected this idea. Perhaps with enough outside pressure and encouragement, they can be persuaded to change their minds before it is too late. I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. [emphasis mine]

One can't help but wonder who decides what constitutes "responsible," and where, exactly, this huge international nuclear repository would be located.

Democracy Arsenal has much more on McCain's speech.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/05/mccains-nonprol.html

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

Huffington Post
May 27, 2008

McCain's Nonproliferation Policy -- It's a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Jon Wolfsthal

John McCain's speech on nuclear weapons seems to adopt the narrowest of lenses in dealing with nuclear weapons. Moreover, his proposals -- many of which might sound good -- don't match up with other things he has said on nuclear weapons, on Russia, on Iran and suggests he doesn't really get the complexity of these issues. Lastly, the tone may be better, but many of the proposals -- not to mention his language choices -- are right out of George W. Bush's play book. This may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but it is still a wolf.

1) He wants to work with Russia on arms control and tactical nuclear weapons, but he also wants to kick Russia out of the G-8. Not sure how you get them to play nice on nukes after you kick them in the teeth. Also, Bush adopted a loose standard on counting nuclear weapons and verification. Will McCain (who is now working with John Bolton -- father of Bush's arms control dogma) be any better?

2) I applaud his desire to get tactical nuclear weapons out of Europe, but if we pull nuclear weapons out of Turkey as Iran advances its nuclear program, they are not going to have increased confidence in NATO and the US. This speech, and the references to it, will send shock waves through Europe and and a McCain administration would start in a hole.

3) He does not walk away from the new "reliable replacement warhead" being pitched by the Bush administration. Lots of wiggle room for him, left there on purpose, I would guess.

4) Why is only the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) going to review nuclear policy? Where are the experts on nonproliferation, diplomacy, history, etc? This is the same line the Bush administration gave. In May of 2000, standing in front of Secretary Kissinger and other republican heavy-weights, then-candidate Bush said he would reduce nuclear weapons to the lowest number consistent with U.S. security. Sound familiar? McCain's statement is almost an exact quote. The JCS has set the current floor on reductions. The president sets the war guidance for the level of nuclear weapons, and leaving it to the JCS is a recipe for the status quo.

5) Did anyone else notice that McCain did not repudiate the policy of regime change? I know why Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons. Reducing ours will not get them to change their course. Of course, singing "bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann" won't do it either. Is McCain really suggesting cutting our nukes will lead others to reduce theirs? It's the broader policy that needs changing, not just the number of nukes.

6) Coming out of left field (or from pander-ville) is the remark about international nuclear storage. It is possible that Russia might build a storage facility for countries in East Asia, but McCain seems to be suggesting some other country is going to accept our huge (the world's largest) stock of spent fuel and that this might be a way to avoid opening the spent fuel repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Talk about pandering. Who does he think is going to take our nuclear waste? Even if someone would take it off our hands, the stuff contains about 100,000 weapons worth of plutonium that must be dealt with. Does McCain really want to export that to a country poor enough to want into the nuclear waste storage business?

7) Either you are for the ban on nuclear testing or you are not. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is the most studied arms control agreement in history. It has been verifiable since the 1960s. McCain voted against it. To play the "let's study it again" dance is too cute by half. If the president does not support it, it is not going to happen. Also, McCain seems to be suggesting we should re-open the agreement for new modifications. That is the fastest way to kill it. He also talks about limiting testing. We want to ban testing. We have more nuclear expertise than anyone -- why we would want to make the world safe for others to test nuclear weapons is unclear. Obama and Clinton have said they are for the CTBT and plan to fight for its ratification. McCain has not. The rest of the world -- including the states we need on our side to deal with Iran and North Korea -- are embarrassed that we have not ratified it.

McCain's speech is a feeble attempt to try to tie all Republicans and Democrats into the failures of the Bush administration nuclear policies. Before 2000, the US was on the right track. The regime needed work, but was sound -- more states had given up nuclear weapons and weapon programs in the 1980s and 90s than had begun them. Now that track record lies in ashes -- because of the Bush administration approach, backed by a Republican Congress that killed the CTBT and sought to restrict funding for nuclear security efforts during 2000-2004. McCain is promising more of the same.

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

RealClearPolitics
May 27, 2008

McCain's Remarks on Nuclear Security

John McCain

University of Denver
Denver, Colorado

For much of our history, the world considered the United States a young country. Today, we are the world's oldest constitutional democracy, yet we remain a young nation. We still possess the attributes of youth -- spirit, energy, vitality, and creativity. America will always be young as long as we are looking forward, and leading, to a better world.

Innovative and energetic American leadership is as vital to the world's future today as it was during the Cold War. I have spent my life in public service working to ensure our great nation is strong enough to counter those who wish us ill. To be an effective leader in the 21st century, however, it is not enough to be strong. We must be a model for others. That means not only pursuing our own interests but recognizing that we share interests with peoples across our planet. There is such a thing as good international citizenship, and America must be a good citizen of the world-leading the way to address the danger of global warming and preserve our environment, strengthening existing international institutions and helping to build new ones, and engaging the world in a broad dialogue on the threat of violent extremists, who would, if they could, use weapons of mass destruction to attack us and our allies.

Today we also need to apply our spirit of optimism, energy, and innovation to a crisis that has been building for decades but is now coming to a head: the global spread of nuclear weapons. Forty-five years ago, President John F. Kennedy asked the American people to imagine what the world would look like if nuclear weapons spread beyond the few powers that then held them to the many other nations that sought them. "Stop and think for a moment," he said, "what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in so many hands, in the hands of countries large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and irresponsible, scattered throughout the world." If that happened, he warned, "there would be no rest for anyone."

Kennedy's warning resonates more today than ever before. North Korea pursues a nuclear weapons program to the point where, today, the dictator Kim Jong-Il has tested a nuclear weapon, and almost certainly possesses several more nuclear warheads. And it has shared its nuclear and missile know-how with others, including Syria. It is a vital national interest for the North Korean nuclear program to be completely, verifiably and irreversibly ended. Likewise, we have seen Iran marching with single-minded determination toward the same goal. President Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and represents a threat to every country in the region - one we cannot ignore or minimize.

Other nations have begun to wonder whether they, too, need to have such weapons, if only in self-defense. As a result, we could find ourselves in a world where a dozen or more nations, small and large, stable and unstable, responsible and irresponsible, have viable nuclear weapons programs. But there is a flip side to President Kennedy's warning. We should stop and think for a moment not only of the perils of a world awash with nuclear weapons, but also of the more hopeful alternative -- a world in which there are far fewer such weapons than there are today, and in which proliferation, instability, and nuclear terrorism are far less likely. This is the world it is our responsibility to build.

There is no simple answer to the problem. If you look back over the past two decades, I don't think any of us, Republican or Democrat, can take much satisfaction in what we've accomplished to control nuclear proliferation. Today, some people seem to think they've discovered a brand new cause, something no one before them ever thought of. Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades. Others think military action alone can achieve our goals, as if military actions were not fraught with their own terrible risks. While the use of force may be necessary, it can only be as a last resort not a first step. The truth is we will only address the terrible prospect of the worldwide spread of nuclear arms if we transcend our partisan differences, co mbine our energies, learn from our past mistakes, and seek practical and effective solutions.

I'd like to suggest some steps we should take to chart a common vision for the future. It is a vision in which the United States returns to a tradition of innovative thinking, broad-minded internationalism, and determined diplomacy, backed by America's great and enduring power to lead. It is a vision not of the United States acting alone, but building and participating in a community of nations all drawn together in this vital common purpose. It is a vision of a responsible America, dedicated to an enduring peace based on freedom.

A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, "our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth." That is my dream, too. It is a distant and difficult goal. And we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern for our security and the security of allies who depend on us. But the Cold War ended almost twenty years ago, and the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world's arsenals. It is time for the United States to show the kind of leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind.

Our highest priority must be to reduce the danger that nuclear weapons will ever be used. Such weapons, while still important to deter an attack with weapons of mass destruction against us and our allies, represent the most abhorrent and indiscriminate form of warfare known to man. We do, quite literally, possess the means to destroy all of mankind. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used.

While working closely with allies who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security, I would ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy. I would keep an open mind on all responsible proposals. At the same time, we must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies. But I will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments. Today we deploy thousands of nuclear warheads. It is my hope to move as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force.

While we have serious differences, with the end of the Cold War, Russia and the United States are no longer mortal enemies. As our two countries possess the overwhelming majority of the world's nuclear weapons, we have a special responsibility to reduce their number. I believe we should reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek. Further, we should be able to agree with Russia on binding verification measures based on those currently in effect under the START Agreement, to enhance confidence and transparency. In close consultation with our allies, I would also like to explore ways we and Russia can reduce -- and hopefully eliminate -- deployments of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. I also believe we should work with Russia to build confidence in our missile defens e program, including through such initiatives as the sharing of early warning data and prior notification of missile launches.

There are other areas in which we can work in partnership with Russia to strengthen protections against weapons of mass destruction. I would seriously consider Russia's recent proposal to work together to globalize the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. I would also redouble our common efforts to reduce the risk that nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists or unfriendly governments.

I believe we should also begin a dialogue with China on strategic and nuclear issues. We have important shared interests with China and should begin discussing ways to achieve the greatest possible transparency and cooperation on nuclear force structure and doctrine. We should work with China to encourage conformity with the practices of the other four nuclear weapon states recognized in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including working toward nuclear arsenal reductions and toward a moratorium on the production of additional fissile material.

I believe we must also address nuclear testing. As president I will pledge to continue America's current moratorium on testing, but also begin a dialogue with our allies, and with the U.S. Senate, to identify ways we can move forward to limit testing in a verifiable manner that does not undermine the security or viability of our nuclear deterrent. This would include taking another look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to see what can be done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force. I opposed that treaty in 1999, but said at the time I would keep an open mind about future developments.

I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent, that results in making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal, and furthers our global nuclear security goals. I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense.

Finally, we cannot achieve our non-proliferation goals on our own. We must strengthen existing international treaties and institutions to combat proliferation, and develop new ones when necessary. We should move quickly with other nations to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty to end production of the most dangerous nuclear materials. The international community needs to improve its ability to interdict the spread of nuclear weapons and material under the Proliferation Security Initiative. And we need to increase funding for our own non-proliferation efforts, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs established by the landmark Nunn-Lugar legislation, and ensure the highest possible standards of security for existing nuclear materials.

In 2010, an international conference will meet to review the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If I am President, I will seize that opportunity to strengthen and enhance all aspects of the non-proliferation regime. We need to strengthen enforcement of the so-called "atoms for peace" bargain by insisting that countries that receive the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation must return or dismantle what they receive if they violate or withdraw from the NPT. We need to increase IAEA funding and enhance the intelligence support it receives. We also need to reverse the burden of proof when it comes to discovering whether a nation is cheating on its NPT commitments. The IAEA shouldn't have to play cat-and-mouse games to prove a country is in compliance. It is for suspected violators to prove they are in compliance. We should establish a requirement by the UN Security Council that international transfers of sensitive nuclear technology must be disclosed in advance to an international authority such as the IAEA, and further require that undisclosed transfers be deemed illicit and subject to interdiction. Finally, to enforce treaty obligations, IAEA member states must be willing to impose sanctions on nations that seek to withdraw from it.

We need to enlist all willing partners in the global battle against nuclear proliferation. I support the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Accord as a means of strengthening our relationship with the world's largest democracy, and further involving India in the fight against proliferation. We should engage actively with both India and Pakistan to improve the security of nuclear stockpiles and weapons materials, and construct a secure global nuclear order that eliminates the likelihood of proliferation and the possibility of nuclear conflict.

The most effective way to prevent this deception is to limit the