Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, June 26, 2008
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 25, 2008

Obama touts 'green' energy on visit to Springs Preserve

By Molly Ball
Review-Journal

Under the bleach-bright Las Vegas summer sun, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday checked out the solar panels that shade cars in the parking lot of the Springs Preserve while powering the facility.

"What we are seeing here ... is that the green, renewable energy economy is not some far-off, pie-in-the-sky future," Obama said in a speech at the local nature attraction. "It is now. It's creating jobs now. It is providing cheap alternatives to $140-a-barrel oil now. And it can create millions of additional jobs, entire industries, if we act now."

In his first visit to Nevada since becoming the Democrats' presumptive nominee, Obama visited Las Vegas to put forward his energy plan Tuesday morning. The energy issue has become the focal point of the candidates' recent sparring as it hits Americans in the pocketbook in the form of skyrocketing gasoline prices.

Obama proposed long-term investments in renewable energy as the solution and said "green" jobs like those at the Springs Preserve could provide work to locals suffering from the construction slowdown. He criticized Republican opponent John McCain's proposals as politically oriented ploys that wouldn't really address the problem.

The Illinois senator said he wouldn't rule out expanding nuclear power, but he would first require an acceptable way of dealing with the radioactive waste that results.

Obama opposes the proposed nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, and he used the local issue to slam McCain.

"He wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors when they don't have a plan to store the waste anywhere besides right here," he said.

The federal government, Obama said, should provide incentives for the development of wind, solar and other types of renewable energy.

"But Washington hasn't done that," he said. "What Washington has done is what Washington always does: peddled cheap gimmicks that get politicians through to the next election."

McCain has proposed a $300 million prize for development of battery technology for cars, an idea Obama ridiculed.

"When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty up for some rocket scientist to win," he said. "He put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity of the American people."

Obama was also critical of McCain's proposals for a summer holiday from the federal gasoline tax and allowing offshore oil drilling. He noted that McCain had admitted that drilling off America's coasts would have only a "psychological impact" in the immediate term.

"In case you were wondering, in Washington-speak, what that means is, 'It polls well,'" Obama said. "It's an example of how Washington tries to convince you that they've done something to make your life better when they really didn't."

Oil companies, he said, already have drilling rights to millions of acres of federal land, "and yet they haven't touched it," Obama said. "John McCain wants to give them more when they're not using what they already have."

The companies ought to pay a fine on drilling rights they're holding but not using, he said.

In the case of the gasoline -tax holiday, he said that when he supported such a measure in Illinois, oil companies simply pocketed the money to pad their profit margins rather than passing on the savings to consumers.

"These are not serious energy policies," Obama said. "I wish we could wave a magic wand and make gas prices go down, but we can't."

In the near term, Obama proposed a second round of stimulus checks to families and a tax cut for workers to help people deal with rising costs. To help pay for it, he called for a tax on oil companies' profits and closing the "Enron loophole" that allows speculators to drive up oil prices.

Over 10 years, Obama said he would devote $150 billion to alternative energy sources, which he said would create "up to five million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced."

Republicans responded to Obama's attacks on their candidate by calling him "the Dr. No of energy policy."

Obama has put forward just one concrete proposal on energy, the stimulus checks combined with taxing oil profits, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said in a conference call with reporters. Meanwhile, he has opposed McCain's many proposals: the gas tax holiday, offshore drilling, more nuclear power and the $300 million prize.

"I am not sure he has done anything other than mirror the inaction of the Democrat majority in the Congress," Burr said.

McCain's economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, defended the concept of offshore drilling's "psychological impact." Futures markets, he said, would respond to the prospect of increased drilling capacity by lowering oil prices right away.

"If the United States makes a strong commitment to additional exploration ... that sends a strong signal to the traders in the market that future supplies will be greater," he said.

After his 14-minute speech, Obama took questions from the audience of about 50 energy workers and conservationists seated in the small conference room at the preserve, which was built to national green building standards of energy efficiency and with sustainable materials.

Local electrician Eddie Gering, 48, thanked Obama for opposing the gasoline-tax holiday, saying he felt the proposal insulted his intelligence as a voter. He wanted to know why nuclear power shouldn't be a bigger part of the nation's energy future.

"The problem that we've got with nuclear energy right now is that we have not figured out how to store the waste in a safe and effective manner," Obama said. "That's why Yucca is such a big issue here in Nevada. The basic theory was, we won't solve the problem, we'll just dump it all in Nevada."

He said he would increase investment in research and development to find a better way to store nuclear material.

"If we can figure that out, then nuclear has some big advantages, the fact that it doesn't produce greenhouse gases being the most important one," he said.

To another question, about government red tape preventing new energy projects from getting off the ground, Obama became philosophical.

"I'm a Democrat, and at times in the past Democrats have gotten so regulation-happy they lose sight of efficiency," he said. "Republicans attack us as wanting government for the sake of government. I want enough government to do what needs to be done, but I also want government to get out of the way where it's blocking progress. I want to streamline government so it's working. I want it to be consumer-friendly."

While he was in town, Obama met briefly with a local family to talk about how his tax plan would affect them, according to the campaign.

Later Tuesday in Los Angeles, Obama raised nearly $5 million at a celebrity-packed fundraiser that was the equivalent of the entertainment industry's coming-out party for the likely Democratic presidential nominee.

"He's my candidate, and I think you have to put your money where your mouth is," said actor Don Cheadle. Actor Dennis Quaid said Obama is "the Superman for everyone."

Obama's campaign refused to say how many millions he and the Democratic National Committee raised at the gala, but Democratic officials put the number at close to $5 million. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the numbers publicly.

Campaign officials severely limited media access to the event at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion. No television cameras or photographers were allowed inside.

Obama, who is counting on Hollywood's reliable support for Democrats, appealed to the those in the crowd who might have supported his former foe, Hillary Clinton.

Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919.

--The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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

Las Vegas SUN
June 25, 2008

Obama gets first jabs on Vegas’ ‘green’ turf

By Michael Mishak

Barack Obama used a campaign speech on energy in Las Vegas on Tuesday to sully the “green” credentials of his Republican presidential rival, John McCain, who has been running ads in sunny Nevada boasting of his work on global warming.

Obama seized on remarks McCain made this week that offshore drilling would have a “psychological impact” on the oil speculation that some say has driven the price of gas to more than $4 a gallon.

“In Washington-speak, what that means is, it polls well,” Obama said, prompting laughter from about 80 “green industry” workers at the Las Vegas Springs Preserve, a 180-acre nature preserve on the site of the original Las Vegas oasis. “It’s an example of how Washington tries to convince you they’ve done something to make your life better when they really didn’t.”

He continued: “The American people don’t need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks. They need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table.”

McCain’s campaign responded swiftly, with energy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin saying the comments “revealed (Obama) doesn’t understand the fundamentals of a modern financial market and how it’s a usual way to convey information to participants in our economy.”

The attention being paid to energy in Las Vegas this week underscores the importance of Nevada as a key battleground state in November. McCain is set to deliver a speech on energy today at UNLV.

The state boasts enormous renewable energy potential, a fact not lost on Obama as he sought to use the setting (the Springs Preserve generates 70 percent of its power from solar panels) and the audience (peppered with workers from government agencies, unions and contractors all engaged in the energy industry) as a national example of a green economy.

“A green, renewable energy economy isn’t some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future,” Obama said. “It is now.”

Investing in solar, wind and geothermal energy could produce more than 80,000 new jobs in Nevada by 2025, he said. In the short term, however, Obama offered his prescription for “real relief”: issuing a second round of economic stimulus checks, taxing the record profits of oil companies, awarding a $1,000 tax cut to most workers and closing the “Enron loophole” that would mean tighter regulation of oil speculators.

In addition to promising to raise fuel economy standards for automobiles, Obama has pledged to invest $150 billion over the next decade in renewable energy research and development. On Tuesday he derided McCain’s proposals as little more than political posturing, particularly his pledge to offer a $300 million prize to anyone who develops a car battery that would “leapfrog” hybrid or electric power.

“When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to go put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win,” Obama said. “He put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people, not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.”

McCain has also proposed suspending the gas tax for 90 days, allowing offshore drilling and building more nuclear power plants, and his campaign has dubbed Obama “Dr. No” because of the Democrat’s opposition to all of those ideas.

Obama’s camp points to McCain’s voting against fuel efficiency standards and against a 2005 energy bill that included the “largest ever” investment in renewable energy. At the same time, Obama has taken heat for his support of corn ethanol — and the fact that many of his prominent advisers and supporters have ties to the industry. Corn ethanol is considered by many economic, consumer and environmental groups to be a boondoggle for agribusiness and packs a considerably smaller energy kick than ethanol made from sugar cane.

In response to a question on nuclear energy, Obama said he wouldn’t “rule it off the table” but insisted it was not a viable alternative until concerns about storing the waste safely are resolved. He opposes Yucca Mountain as the country’s nuclear waste dump but supports research on storage and recycling in general. McCain supports the dump proposal.

Likewise, while Obama said he supports “clean coal” as a potential alternative, he said the technology to make it environmentally safe is still lacking, and thus does not support the production of “new coal plants with old technologies that are, at best, going to be obsolete.” Nevada has plans for three such coal plants.

The candidates’ visits this week come at an important time for Nevada’s solar industry.

The Bureau of Land Management has quietly stopped accepting new applications for solar plants on federal land. The moratorium, reported last week by the Sun and catching even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid by surprise, is expected to last 22 months — about as long as it will take the agency to complete a study of the environmental impacts. But developers say the delay will kill the industry, which is just getting on its feet here.

Obama said Tuesday that he was unfamiliar with the specifics but would have the Energy Department, under his administration, “evaluate any moratorium to make sure it doesn’t impede that kind of development.”

And then, taking his last question, Obama signed off with a nod to Nevada’s libertarian spirit. “I’m a Democrat, and there have been times in the past when Democrats have gotten regulation-happy,” he said. “I want enough government to do what needs to get done ... We should have as light a hand as possible while ensuring we have tight, tough standards.”

--Sun reporter Phoebe Sweet contributed to this report.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
June 25, 2008

Strong energy policy is more urgent

After Saudi Arabia's oil ministry agreed to increase production and four major Western oil companies entered talks with Iraqi officials about improving that country's oil fields and allowing easy U.S. access, it would be easy to settle into a false sense of security.

To become complacent is the last thing we should do.

Instead, we must strengthen our energy policy by including nuclear technologies and domestic drilling for oil as part of a comprehensive energy policy that also boosts the use of renewable resources.

Anxieties regarding the benefits and possible harms of both technologies are understandable. We've learned much, however, about how to avoid spoiling our environment in the decades since the Exxon Valdez disaster. Many communities safely co-exist with nuclear power plants. Our biggest challenge right now is how to manage the waste products. That is at the heart of conversations regarding Yucca Mountain.

Saudi promises of more oil follow closely on their refusing President George W. Bush's request last week to boost production. At the time, they said that increasing production was not in their best interest and wouldn't affect the price. We have world pressure to thank for their change of mind. Analysts say, however, that demand in the U.S., China, India and elsewhere would absorb the new supply so quickly that it would hardly make a difference.

Also the instability of the Iraqi government and industry render whatever deals are struck there equally unstable and undependable. Meanwhile, wind, solar and geothermal technologies have begun to prove their worth, particularly here in Nevada, where the wealth of resources promises to enable us to become a significant provider for the Southwestern United States.

The need to become energy self-sufficient is more urgent than ever. It is time to think more clearly and seriously about a comprehensive energy policy that considers all resources and technologies.

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

Railway Gazette International
June 25, 2008

Infrastructure market

USA: The Surface Transportation Board has begun consultation on the 483 km Caliente Line, which is proposed to link Union Pacific tracks at Caliente to a planned high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

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

AP Google
June 25, 2008

McCain tries to balance energy solutions, votes

By Glen Johnson

LAS VEGAS (AP) — After fending off ocean drilling critics in California, Republican John McCain on Wednesday stiff-armed opponents of a Nevada nuclear waste repository as he outlined ways to resolve the nation's energy crisis while seeking votes in another swing state.

The presidential candidate reiterated his call for building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 — and a total of 100 at some point beyond that — during a speech at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. Despite the waste they might generate, McCain said they are part of a comprehensive strategy he has taken to calling the "Lexington Project," for the Revolutionary War site.

McCain didn't repeat his recent suggestion that the waste site at Yucca Mountain may be rendered unnecessary if the world can agree on a location for a foreign repository. That comment in Texas drew cries of disbelief from critics who accused him of pandering after long supporting Yucca.

Aides say the policies conform with the Arizona senator's straight-talk reputation and contrast with opposition from Democratic rival Barack Obama, whom they have taken to calling "Dr. No."

"The experience of nations across Europe and Asia has shown that nuclear energy is efficient. It is safe, it is proven, and it is essential to America's energy future," McCain said during his speech. "We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field. As Nevadans are well aware, we will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding."

It's unclear the degree to which the Yucca controversy moves votes in this fast-growing state. And Obama opened himself to similar criticism this week when he suggested nuclear power had to be explored as the nation copes with record gasoline prices now heading toward an average of $5 a gallon.

But McCain is fighting a Democratic tide in Nevada. In 2004, when President Bush narrowly beat Democrat John Kerry in the presidential race, there were 358,000 Republicans in the state to 348,000 Democrats. There are now 438,000 Democrats and 388,000 Republicans in Nevada, thanks to intense voter registration drives before party caucuses this winter.

Republicans have also been plagued by state-party chaos and personal problems involving their nominal leader, Gov. Jim Gibbons. He filed for divorce earlier this month and has moved out of the governor's mansion. This week he apologized for sending 860 text messages through a state-owned cell phone to the estranged wife of a Reno doctor.

"This is the first time — really in about 20 years — that the Democrats have had this large registration lead over the Republicans," said Eric Herzik, a registered Republican who is a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. "It's reflective of better organization by the Democrats. It's reflective of really what may be motivation by the Democrats to, as they say, 'turn Nevada blue.'"

Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said: "While Senator McCain believes that Nevada is a wasteland, Senator Obama has a plan that will develop the tremendous potential we have here for alternative energy sources."

Reid said Obama's plan to invest $150 billion in alternate energy resources appeals to Nevadans. "We have more sunshine then we know what to do with," the commissioner said.

McCain also has made solar power, as well as the development of electric cars and the use of alcohol-based fuels such as ethanol, part of his Lexington Project.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a McCain supporter, told reporters Wednesday, "Senator McCain's energy policy is a balanced policy" featuring expanded production, conservation and funding for developing alternative energy sources. Earlier this week, McCain proposed a $300 million prize for anyone who could develop a revolutionary battery pack for automobiles.

Obama branded the proposal a gimmick, despite using his Web site to suggest cash prizes for developing the next generation of biofuels.

"Nothing really points out Senator Obama's Dr. No-attitude toward energy security than his comments yesterday calling this a gimmick," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. McCain repeats the moniker in a new Web ad set to the James Bond theme music in homage to the movie villain Dr. No.

Elaine Bunker, a 42-year-old English teacher from Las Vegas, attended McCain's speech but said she's only reluctantly supporting the senator. Her first choice was rival Mitt Romney, now mentioned as a possible running mate.

Bunker said Yucca Mountain isn't factoring into her vote and she doesn't trust much of the political talk about the project.

"I don't have a strong feeling. So often it gets caught up in the rhetoric," she said. "I think it should be based on science. If the science says it's safe then we should go ahead, if it doesn't then we shouldn't. But it's so hard to sort out."

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

Los Angeles Daily News
June 25, 2008

McCain pledges he'll be green

By Glen Johnson

SANTA BARBARA - Republican John McCain said Tuesday the federal government should practice the energy efficiency he preaches, pledging as president to switch official vehicles to green technologies and do the same for office buildings.

Expanding upon his ideas to address the nation's energy crisis, the Arizona senator also called for a redesign of the national power grid so power is better distributed where it's needed and the country has the capacity to run electric vehicles that he wants automakers to supply.

"Our federal government is never shy about instructing the American people in good environmental practice. But energy efficiency, like charity, should begin at home," McCain said before conducting an energy round table at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

McCain drives a 2003 Cadillac CTS, a sedan the Environmental Protection Agency says gets 16 to 24 miles per gallon and emits about 9.6 tons of greenhouse gases annually. When campaigning, he's ferried by the Secret Service using a fleet of Chevrolet Suburbans, a full-size SUV the EPA estimates gets 12 to 20 mpg and emits 9 to 13 tons of greenhouse gases.

During the discussion, McCain made a comment likely to provoke discussion in Nevada, where he campaigns today and is the site of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. McCain long has supported the facility, much to the chagrin of pivotal Nevada voters, although last month he suggested creating a foreign waste repository that might make the mountain site unnecessary.

McCain reiterated his support Tuesday for building up to 45 new nuclear power plants and said the technology exists for safe nuclear waste reprocessing and storage.

"It's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken; it's a NIMBY problem," he said, using the acronym for "Not-In-My-Backyard." "We've got to have the guts and courage to do what other countries are doing, and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody."

Among those on the energy panel was Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain backer who opposes another major element of the candidate's energy strategy - ending a decades-old federal ban on offshore drilling.

McCain has said he would leave the decision to the states if the moratorium were lifted.

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

Los Angeles Times
June 25, 2008

Santa Barbara fumes over McCain drilling plan

Even some of McCain's supporters berate him for backing the idea of offshore oil exploration.

By Maeve Reston and Michael Finnegan

SANTA BARBARA -- John McCain came to California promoting an array of ideas to spur the market for clean cars and otherwise reduce carbon emissions.

But in this coastal city, the site of a disastrous oil spill in 1969, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was dogged by critics at nearly every turn for his recent embrace of offshore drilling.

During an environmental round table Tuesday morning at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, McCain endured a lecture on his new position from one of the panelists invited by his campaign -- an anomaly in a tightly controlled political effort.

Michael Feeney, executive director of the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, repudiated McCain's position on offshore drilling, as well his advocacy for building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030.

Before an audience of about 200, Feeney told McCain that he appreciated the candidate's rhetoric on balancing the nation's energy needs with environmental concerns, but that he didn't understand "how it's not compromising our environmental standards to propose a crash program to build more nuclear power plants."

In criticizing McCain's offshore drilling plan, Feeney said it would be unwise to "drain America's offshore oil and gas reserves as quickly as possible in the hopes of driving down the cost of gasoline" when it would take years before those resources could be extracted.

"We should be saving as much as possible the oil resources of this country, because we are going to need those for a long, long time to come, and we should be mostly focusing on reducing demand and improving efficiency," Feeney said.

Outside the museum, several dozen environmental protesters denounced McCain, who was finishing a two-day California swing. The protesters carried anti-drilling signs and photographs of the 1969 Santa Barbara spill, which emptied 3 million gallons of crude into the ocean and killed thousands of birds.

McCain didn't escape opposition to his drilling position even at his fundraiser Monday night at a luxurious Santa Barbara home with ocean views. Protesters gathered on two sailboats in the distance, shouting insults, and one of his own supporters at the fundraiser told him winning California was going to be "a tough haul" with his drilling stance.

McCain supporter Dan Secord, an alternate member of the California Coastal Commission, said Santa Barbara residents are "really kind of goosey here about oil spills." Gesturing toward the ocean, he told McCain, "We ask you to look out there to the south and the southeast and remember the greatest environmental catastrophe that's hit this state and then balance that with the notion of winning California."

The skepticism largely overshadowed the ideas McCain aired. He touched on new plans to prod the government to add low-emissions cars and trucks to its huge fleet of vehicles, as well as to require federal buildings to meet higher energy-efficiency standards. McCain also repeated the call he made Monday to award a $300-million prize to the inventor of a next-generation battery that could power electric vehicles.

Although McCain encountered skepticism here, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll suggested that there might be support nationally for drilling offshore and in other environmentally sensitive regions. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored drilling in "environmentally important" areas with "proper controls," and 13% said drilling should be allowed in such areas even if damage might result.

McCain's energy agenda was criticized by his Democratic rival for the presidency, Barack Obama. The Illinois senator, on an environment- related campaign trip of his own to Las Vegas, spoke to a few dozen renewable energy workers, and he visited an array of solar panels in a parking lot. The setting underscored his call for spending $150 billion over 10 years to promote such energy sources as solar and wind power. Obama also has urged raising the fuel-mileage standards for cars and trucks.

He contrasted his plans with McCain's, labeling the Republican's ideas an assortment of short-term political gimmicks that would barely cut gas prices or curb oil consumption. Obama zeroed in on McCain's support for, among other ideas, a summer suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

"I realize that gimmicks like the gas-tax holiday and offshore drilling might poll well these days, because people are desperate," Obama said, citing gasoline prices that have risen above $4 a gallon. "But I'm not running for president to do what polls well."

Obama also lambasted McCain for wanting to open more federal land to oil exploration when energy companies are not fully exploiting the drilling rights they already have. And he cited McCain's support for storing nuclear waste at the remote Nevada desert site of Yucca Mountain, a highly unpopular proposal in the political battleground state, where the Arizona senator will campaign today.

maeve.reston@latimes.com
michael.finnegan@latimes.com

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 24, 2008

DOE contract for Yucca Mountain attracts attention

U.S. Justice Department takes notice

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Justice is raising its eyebrows at a multimillion-dollar legal services contract the Department of Energy awarded in the fall to handle licensing for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

Energy Department officials failed to check with the Justice Department before signing a four-year $47.7 million contract with Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, a firm acknowledged to have conflicts on nuclear waste matters, a Justice official said.

"Neither DOE nor Morgan Lewis consulted with or even notified the Department of Justice before entering into an agreement that involved significant conflicts of interest affecting the United States," said Jeanne E. Davidson, director of the Justice Department's commercial litigation branch.

Davidson indicated that the Justice Department would have had the authority to block the contract. Neither Justice nor DOE officials could be reached Monday evening, and it was not immediately clear whether Justice might be contemplating action at this point.

Davidson conveyed the department's position in a June 16 letter to Gregory Friedman, the Energy Department's inspector general. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday.

In addition to helping the Energy Department win a construction license for the proposed nuclear waste site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Morgan Lewis also represents more than a dozen utility companies that have sued DOE for missing project deadlines dating to 1998.

The Justice Department represents taxpayers in the utility lawsuits that DOE has estimated could cost at least $7 billion in settlements and judgments. Davidson said the Justice Department as a key player should have been consulted.

Davidson said Morgan Lewis is pressing the federal Court of Claims for damage payments to utilities that continue to store their nuclear waste on site. At the same time, Davidson said, the firm will play a role in determining when a Yucca repository might open, if ever.

That means Morgan Lewis has the ability to affect the amount of damages its utility clients will receive, she said.

The Energy Department said it obtained a waiver in order to hire Morgan Lewis, which it contended was the only firm sizable and skilled enough for the Yucca Mountain licensing case. The firm said it erected firewalls to shield its lawyers handling various nuclear waste projects.

Davidson said the Justice Department has asked Morgan Lewis to explain what safeguards it installed to protect against conflicts.

The Morgan Lewis contract includes five one-year options that could raise its total value to $109 million, an amount lawyers said could be a record for a nuclear venture.

Friedman's office issued a report in April faulting the Energy Department for not fully documenting its selection process. Other than that, inspectors said DOE appeared to follow proper procedures in obtaining the waiver to hire Morgan Lewis.

More recently, the state of Nevada tried to have the firm disqualified from handling Yucca Mountain matters before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the NRC rejected the state's demand.

Several Nevada lawmakers renewed their call for the Morgan Lewis contract to be suspended.

"The Justice Department has finally recognized that this conflict of interest extends beyond the DOE and that it's the American taxpayer who stands to lose at the end of the day," said David Cherry, a spokesman for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said through a spokesman it was suspicious "that DOE went around the DOJ on a legal matter related to the largest government contract for legal services in history."

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

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

Las Vegas SUN
June 24, 2008

Obama says nuclear power is an energy option

The Associated Press

Barack Obama said Tuesday that he would not take nuclear power "off the table" as a possible energy option, but blasted John McCain's proposal to build dozens of new reactors in the U.S.

The Democratic presidential candidate sought to carve out a more cautious approach to nuclear power. He said he supports increased research into nuclear waste storage and recycling, but could not endorse construction of new reactors until those concerns are resolved.

"If we can figure that out effectively, then nuclear has some big advantages _ the fact that it doesn't release greenhouse gases being the most important," the Illinois senator told a group of "green" industry workers at a Las Vegas campaign stop.

The issue is a hot one in Nevada, where the federal government has spent about $6 billion on research and initial construction of a national nuclear waste dump 90 miles west of Las Vegas. Most of the state's elected officials are opposed to the construction of Yucca Mountain, which is designed to hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste.

McCain has been a longtime supporter of the Yucca Mountain project, though since becoming the likely Republican nominee for president he has tweaked his message to emphasize the importance of ensuring that the science behind the project was solid.

Nevada is expected to be a critical battleground in Obama's general election fight with McCain, and early polls show the candidates in a statistical tie.

Obama also criticized the Arizona senator's plan to open up oil drilling in the U.S.

"It makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store waste someplace other than right here at Yucca Mountain," Obama said. "These are not serious energy policies."

McCain spokesman Rick Gorka accused Obama of not taking any firm positions on energy issues.

"Sen. McCain is putting forward a plan of action, whereas Sen. Obama has been the Dr. No of energy, refusing to take a stand to help out Nevadans," Gorka said.

Obama made his remarks at the Springs Preserve, a nature preserve west of the Las Vegas Strip. He also toured the preserve's solar power facility and called for increased development of solar, wind and biofuels as alternative energy sources.

Obama said his proposals would create jobs and help revive Nevada's economy, which has been battered by slowdowns in housing construction and gambling and tourism.

The senator also said he remained open to supporting "clean coal" as a potential alternative to polluting fossil fuels.

The comment raised the eyebrows of environmental activist Scot Rutledge, who told the candidate the term was commonly used by the coal industry for a production process that is not considered clean by many in the environmental community.

Rutledge's group, the Nevada Conservation League, has joined an effort to block the construction of new coal plants in northern Nevada. He asked Obama to pledge not to use the term.

Obama didn't directly agree to the pledge, but said Rutledge had a "fair point."

"If the technology is not there to sequester the coal _ and, right now, frankly it is not where it needs to be _ I don't think we should be creating new coal plants with old technologies that are, at best, going to be obsolete," Obama said.

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

AFP Google
June 24, 2008

McCain bucks Bush on climate change

LOS ANGELES (AFP) — Republican nominee-elect John McCain Tuesday vowed to combat global warming without sacrificing economic growth, contradicting President George W. Bush on the need for binding emissions cuts.

Unlike Bush, McCain pressed for mandatory cuts in emissions of warming gases as he spoke at a California event alongside Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposes the White House hopeful's call for offshore oil drilling.

McCain said lifting a federal ban on coastal drilling may not bring down sky-high fuel prices for "some years," but could have a psychological impact as the United States takes greater control over its energy future.

"Nothing is more urgent right now than regaining our energy security -- we need to get it done and get it right," the Arizona senator said.

Both McCain and Democratic rival Barack Obama support "cap and trade" markets to slash emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, but the Republican took coded shots at Obama over who would offer greater leadership.

"Practical ideas are worth a lot more than uplifting lectures. It's not always a matter of making due with less energy. It's a matter of using energy in smarter ways," he said in Santa Barbara.

In his own speech in the Nevada gambling haven of Las Vegas, Obama took note of McCain's admission that offshore drilling would not yield any short-term benefits.

"'Psychological impact.' In case you were wondering, that's Washington-speak for, 'It polls well,'" the Illinois senator said.

"Well, the American people don't need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks to get politicians through the next election, they need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table," he said.

"They need a long-term energy strategy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the renewable sources of energy that represent the future."

Obama, who wants to invest 150 billion dollars over 10 years in alternative energy like wind and solar power, also derided McCain for proposing 45 new nuclear reactors without spelling out where the waste would be stored.

In the teeth of local opposition, the Bush administration wants to create a long-term nuclear waste repository in Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

Several dozen protestors picketed the McCain speech, some holding signs showing the devastating aftermath of a 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara to decry his policy reversal on permitting offshore drilling.

As the international community debates a successor to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, which Bush abandoned, McCain set out his proposal to reduce carbon emissions to 2005 levels by 2012.

By 2020, he said, emissions should be cut to 1990 levels, "and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050."

"In this way, we will transition into a low-carbon energy future while staying on a course of economic growth," McCain said.

"The purpose of this plan is to give American businesses new incentives and rewards to seek, instead of just giving new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.

"My strategy gives people time to adapt, instead of causing a jolt to your electricity bill and widespread shutdowns of tradition coal-fired plants."

McCain returned to his proposal of Monday for a 300-million-dollar prize for anyone who develops a commercially viable hydrogen battery that can leapfrog gasoline engines and current hybrid technology.

Obama said far bolder government leadership was required, analogous to president John F. Kennedy's promise of 1961 to put a man on the moon within the decade, instead of putting "a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win."

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

Reuters
June 24, 2008

Obama criticizes McCain's nuclear power plan

LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday criticized his rival John McCain's proposal to encourage the building of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

Obama, a Democrat, said the Republican candidate lacked a plan for storage of the waste. It was among several energy-strategy ideas that Obama said were "not serious energy policies."

Obama was speaking in Nevada, a state where proposals to build a nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain have generated strong opposition.

He also took aim at McCain's plan to allow more offshore U.S. oil drilling.

"It doesn't make sense for America," Obama said. "In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain," the Illinois senator said.

The U.S. Energy Department has applied for a license to operate a long-delayed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles from Las Vegas.

Opposition in the U.S. Congress to the Yucca Mountain waste site is among the hurdles it faces. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is among those who oppose it.

McCain, an Arizona senator, backs the project, while Obama is against it.

Asked his views on nuclear power in Jacksonville, Florida on Friday, Obama said, "I think that nuclear power should be in the mix when it comes to energy." But he added, "I don't think it's our optimal energy source because we haven't figured out how to store the waste safely or recycle the waste."

Obama supports using federal research and development dollars to explore whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for reuse.

--(Reporting by Caren Bohan, Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 23, 2008

CAMPAIGN 2008: Presidential candidates eye Nevada

Silver State receiving attention befitting its role as battleground

By Molly Ball
Review-Journal

Turn on the television in Las Vegas or Reno or Elko, and you'll see a presidential candidate who wants your vote.

There's the Democrat, Barack Obama, talking about the heartland values he learned from his grandparents. There's the Republican, John McCain, talking about saving the environment.

You don't have to settle for a commercial; you can see them in person. Obama will visit Las Vegas on Tuesday for a campaign event focused on the economy; McCain will be in town on Wednesday, opening a campaign headquarters.

There's no doubt Nevada is in both campaigns' sights as a top battleground.

"Batten down the hatches," said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst for the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter based in Washington, D.C. "It's going to be a targeted state for both sides. It's going to get a whole lot of attention by the time November rolls around."

Analysts agree that Nevada could swing either way.

"I've seen the state called everything from toss-up to a slight lean Republican from the prognosticators, but there's no scenario where anybody thinks either candidate is going to run away with the state," said Nevada Republican consultant Ryan Erwin, who's not working on the presidential campaign.

Four years ago, President Bush won Nevada by 20,000 votes, earning 50 percent of the vote to Democratic nominee John Kerry's 48 percent. Since 1912, Nevada has voted for the winner of every presidential election, except 1976, when the state chose Republican Gerald Ford rather than Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Ask Democrats, and they'll tell you Nevada is:

• A state that's becoming more receptive to their message.

• A state where growth has changed the demographics, beefing up the Democratic stronghold of Clark County.

• A state where Western libertarianism is being tempered by suburban quality-of-life concerns.

Republicans, on the other hand, say Nevada remains inherently conservative, a state where residents of all political stripes favor low taxes, small government and being left alone. They say McCain, an Arizona senator with a maverick image, fits that ethos.

The signs that both candidates have joined the competition for the state are abundant. McCain has situated his Western regional campaign office in Henderson. Wednesday's visit will be his third to Nevada since he captured the nomination. McCain had a town hall in Reno late last month.

Obama also visited Nevada last month. Even before he captured the nomination, his campaign had a volunteer organizing event in Las Vegas.

The Obama campaign has told donors that if he carries Nevada, other Mountain West states, and possibly Virginia or Georgia, he could get the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency even if he loses Florida and Ohio, The Associated Press reported last week.

A Review-Journal poll this month found that McCain had the support of 44 percent of Nevada voters, Obama 42 percent, with 14 percent undecided.

Strategists for both campaigns are optimistic.

"Nevada voters are conservative voters: independents, Democrats and Republicans," said John Peschong, McCain regional campaign manager for the Western states. "We believe John McCain is the right candidate with the right message to reach out to those folks. He's a Westerner. He understands the issues that concern them on a daily basis."

Obama campaign senior strategist Anita Dunn said Nevada voters are looking for what Obama offers: change.

"Senator Obama's message about the future, his message about moving past the partisan gridlock to a politics that's about solving our problems rather than finger-pointing, is something that does fit the culture of the West," she said. "Senator McCain's policies increasingly resemble George Bush's. ... He's essentially lost his maverick qualities."

Which side wins the argument in the months ahead will depend on several factors. Here are nine questions, the answers to which, according to political analysts and the two campaigns, will determine who wins Nevada.

1. What effect did the caucuses have?

Democrats made Nevada an early state in the primary process, having caucuses right after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. An astonishing 118,000 Nevadans participated in Democratic caucuses on Jan. 19. Republicans also had caucuses, which, while lower-key, drew 40,000 participants.

Hillary Clinton won more precinct delegates on Jan. 19: 51 percent to Obama's 45 percent. But Dunn of the Obama campaign argues that what matters is both candidates mobilized volunteers and got people involved, creating a campaign infrastructure that can be built on for November while McCain starts essentially from scratch.

Although Obama staffers left the state after the caucuses, the campaign kept its supporters mobilized for the county conventions in February and state Democratic Convention last month, she said.

Republicans had a primary in South Carolina on the same day as the Nevada caucus, which they mostly ignored. Mitt Romney built an organization in the state, but his lopsided win wasn't taken that seriously as the state was seen as basically uncontested.

Erwin, who worked for Romney in Nevada, said, "The organization we built for Romney, much of that is now working for McCain."

2. What does the Democrats' voter registration advantage mean?

On the day of the caucus, Democrats collected 30,000 voter registration forms. The efforts of the presidential campaigns and a strong push by the party have contributed an advantage in voter registration of more than 50,000.

By contrast, as of four years ago, there were 10,000 more Republicans than Democrats in the state, according to the secretary of state's office.

In May 2004, Republicans represented 41 percent of the Nevada electorate, Democrats 40 percent. As of May 2008, Democrats made up 43 percent of active registered voters, while Republicans made up 38 percent.

"There's no question that there's a trend locally and nationally toward the Democrats and away from the Republicans," said Dan Hart, a Nevada Democratic consultant unaffiliated with the presidential campaigns.

But while Republicans say they would like to be on the upside of the 50,000 voter gap, some say it has more to do with the Democrats working harder to get people registered and having a more contested caucus, than with the state truly trending blue.

"Republicans have to do a better job of registering voters, and I think they will, and I think they are starting to," said Republican consultant Sig Rogich, an early McCain supporter. "You will start to see those numbers even out."

In addition, he said, the numbers can be misleading because Nevada has a long tradition of rural Democrats voting for Republicans.

3. What role does rural Nevada play?

In 2004, rural Nevada delivered the state for Bush. Kerry got 25,000 more votes than Bush in Clark County, but with 65 percent of the rural vote, Bush pulled ahead.

They make up only about 15 percent of the state's population, but residents of the rural counties turn out to vote much more reliably than urban voters. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has argued that Kerry could have won the state if he had campaigned in rural areas; he still would have lost there but by a slimmer margin.

"If you're a Democrat, you don't have to carry those places; you just have to up your share of the vote outside Clark County," national analyst Duffy said.

Before the caucuses, Obama campaigned in Elko and released a platform of proposals for rural Nevada. He was stronger there than Clinton.

"The Republicans have had success in the past with high turnout outside of Clark County," said Eric Herzik, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno. "But is McCain enough of a draw to get 80 percent in Douglas County and Elko and those kinds of places? McCain wasn't their first choice, and they still have questions about him on issues like immigration."

4. Who will win the Hispanic vote?

McCain co-sponsored immigration reform legislation with Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy that would have allow some illegal immigrants to become citizens. Under fire from conservatives, McCain since has dialed back that position, saying the borders need to be secured before any other action is taken.

Republicans hope McCain can make inroads with the Hispanic vote as a result. His Spanish-language radio ads, which began airing a couple of weeks ago in Nevada and New Mexico, are evidence his campaign plans to try.

"He crossed party lines to work out solutions to the illegal alien problem," Rogich said. "He was a statesman on that issue and that was noticed. I hear that from the Hispanic community all the time."

In Nevada, Hispanics make up about 15 percent of the voting population. Exit polls from the Jan. 19 Democratic caucuses showed about 65 percent of Hispanics supported Clinton over Obama, and he is thought to have work to do to shore up their support.

"The Hispanic vote can be the deciding factor in this campaign. It has the potential to be the deciding demographic group," Hart, the Democratic consultant, said.

5. Will Democrats be unified?

Hispanics are just one group of Clinton supporters that Obama must bring to his side.

In Nevada, Clinton drew on her husband's network of supporters to build support within the Democratic establishment and lock up most of the major endorsements.

"Senator Clinton was an extraordinarily strong candidate," said Dunn, the Obama strategist. "She always started off as the prohibitive favorite. But we are now a unified Democratic Party."

Obama built a grass-roots network outside of Clinton's institutional advantages, and now that Clinton supports Obama, he will enjoy both, Dunn said.

Plenty of Clinton delegates at the Democrats' convention in Reno last month swore they wouldn't vote for Obama, particularly the older women who were the bedrock of Clinton's support. National analyst Duffy noted that in the recent Review-Journal poll, Obama had less support among Democrats, 71 percent, than McCain did among Republicans, 78 percent, and speculated that might be because Clinton's supporters are still angry.

But Duffy and other analysts expect the Democrats to come together. "It was a superficial split, and it's already beginning to heal," UNR's Herzik said. After their convention in August, "you'll have a unified Democratic Party."

6. Will Republicans be unified?

Herzik expects party unity to be more of a problem for McCain than Obama.

In the primaries, he said, "John McCain had substantive differences with other Republicans. Obama and Clinton pretty much agreed on all the issues; McCain was for an immigration bill that a lot of other Republicans hated."

McCain came in third in the Nevada caucuses, behind Romney and Ron Paul.

Peschong, the McCain regional manager, drew a parallel with the New Hampshire primary, where McCain had more than 100 town hall meetings and revived a campaign that was out of money and left for dead. Republicans, he said, just need to get to know their candidate.

"We do not believe he has a problem with the conservative base," he said. "Senator McCain is pro-life. He supports the Second Amendment. Once we have an opportunity to talk to the base, they will support him."

7. Will Nevada-specific issues resonate with voters?

Although he is a Westerner, McCain has staked out some positions that aren't popular with Nevadans. He once introduced legislation to ban betting on college sports, a major source of dollars for Las Vegas casinos, and he has been a proponent of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

McCain's position on Yucca Mountain has seemed to soften in recent weeks as he has said he also supports an international nuclear facility.

In 2004, Kerry attacked Bush on the Yucca issue; Bush promised to base decisions about the dump on science, something Democrats charge he has not done.

"It's a litmus test for candidates," Hart, the Nevada Democratic consultant, said of Yucca Mountain. "Unfortunately, some candidates give it lip service. They say one thing and then do another. I do think the candidate who wins has to have the right position on Yucca."

But Herzik said voters have bigger things on their minds: the war and the economy.

"I don't think anybody's going to make their choice about John McCain based on where he stands on sports betting," he said. "And the people for whom Yucca Mountain is a to-die-for issue aren't going to vote for a Republican anyway. The issue that the candidates will talk about that has the biggest link to Nevada is the housing market."

8. Who will win independent and moderate voters?

It's an axiom of political science that candidates run to their base, conservative or liberal, to win primaries, then run back to the middle of the political spectrum for the general election.

"The Democrats will try hard to make John McCain the next George Bush, and the Republicans will make Barack Obama out to be a crazy liberal," said Erwin, the Nevada Republican consultant. "But I believe this is a campaign that will be won on a handful of very middle-of-the-road issues."

McCain and Obama's early campaign TV ads send moderate messages. Obama's, titled "Country I Love," talks about his grandparents from Kansas and their values. It emphasizes his work to get people off welfare and cut taxes, traditionally conservative themes.

McCain has run two TV spots. In the first, he declares, "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war." In the second, he notes that he went against Bush on global warming, taking a stance more traditionally associated with Democrats.

"They're playing for the center," said Hart, the Democratic consultant. "There's that huge group of people out there who don't belong to either party. In most cases, whoever appeals to them more effectively will be more successful."

9. Who will vote?

"Turnout is the critical factor," UNR's Herzik said. "Clark County generally has low turnout, and that's where the Democratic base is. If they can reverse that in a significant way, the chances of a Democratic victory go way up."

No matter what the polls or the registration numbers say, what matters in November is who actually shows up to vote.

"Nevada had a caucus with record turnout, but that's not very reflective of the general electorate," Duffy said. "Now both sides are talking to the people that didn't participate in that process."

Hart agreed, citing lessons from the 2004 race.

"It's nuts-and-bolts politics: They (the Bush campaign) identified voters and got them to the polls, especially in the rural counties," he said. "Presidential elections are a matter of a few points one way or the other. You can look very good in the polls, but unless you get those people to vote, you are not going to win an election."

--Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball @reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919.

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

Heritage Foundation
June 23, 2008

A Free-Market Approach to Managing Used Nuclear Fuel

by Jack Spencer

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982[1] attempted to establish a comprehensive disposal strategy for high-level nuclear waste. This strategy has failed. The gov­ernment has spent billions of dollars without opening a repository, has yet to receive any waste, and is amassing billions of dollars of liability. Furthermore, the strategy has removed any incentive to find more workable alter­natives. For those that actually produce waste and would benefit most from its efficient disposal, this strat­egy has created a disincentive for developing sustain­able, market-based waste-management strategies.

The strategy codified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act seemed straightforward and economically sound when it was developed in the early 1980s. It charged the fed­eral government with disposing of used nuclear fuel and created a structure through which users of nuclear energy would pay a set fee for the service--a fee that has never been adjusted, even for inflation. These payments would go to the Nuclear Waste Fund, which the federal government could access through congressional appro­priations to pay for disposal activities.

The federal government has accumulated approx­imately $27 billion (fees plus interest) in the Nuclear Waste Fund and has spent about $8 billion to prepare the repository for operations, leaving a balance of around $19 billion. Utility payments into the fund total about $750 million annually. Yet the repository has never opened, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars.

The taxpayers have fared no better. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act set January 31, 1998, as the deadline for the federal government to begin receiving used fuel. The government's refusal to take possession of the used fuel has made both the federal government and the taxpayers liable to the nuclear power plant operators for an increasingly enormous amount that is projected to reach $7 billion by 2017.[2]

The federal government's inability to fulfill its legal obligations under the 1982 act has often been cited as a significant obstacle to building additional nuclear power plants. Given nuclear power's poten­tial to help solve many of the nation's energy prob­lems, now is the time to break the impasse over managing the nation's used nuclear fuel.

The Current Irrational System

The United States has 58,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste stored at more than 100 sites in 39 states,[3] and its 104 commercial nuclear reactors produce approximately 2,000 tons of used fuel every year. The Yucca Mountain repository's capac­ity is statutorily limited to 70,000 tons of waste (not to mention the problems associated with even opening the repository). Of this, 63,000 tons will be allocated to commercial waste, and 7,000 tons will be allocated to the Department of Energy (DOE).

These are arbitrary limitations that Congress set without regard to Yucca's actual capacity. As cur­rently defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Yucca would reach capacity in about three years unless the law is changed. Thus, even if Yucca becomes operational, it will not be a permanent solution, and the nation would soon be back at the drawing board.

The repository's actual capacity, however, is much larger than the current limit. Congress should repeal the 70,000-ton limitation immediately and instead let technology, science, and physical capac­ity determine the limit. Recent studies have found that the Yucca repository could safely hold 120,000 tons of waste. According to the DOE, that should be enough to hold all of the used fuel produced by cur­rently operating reactors.[4] Some believe the capac­ity is even greater.

Yet even with an expanded capacity of 120,000 tons, Yucca Mountain could hold only a few more years of America's nuclear waste if the U.S. signifi­cantly increases its nuclear power production. According to one analysis, America's current operat­ing reactors would generate enough used fuel to fill a 70,000-ton Yucca right away and a 120,000-ton Yucca over their lifetime. If nuclear power produc­tion increased by 1.8 percent annually after 2010, a 120,000-ton Yucca would be full by 2030. At that growth rate, without recycling any used fuel, the U.S. would need nine Yucca Mountains by the turn of the century.[5]

Given the difficulty of opening one repository, rely­ing on future repositories would be extremely risky. With the right mix of technologies such as storage and recycling, Yucca could last almost indefinitely.

Using Resources More Wisely by Recycling

The current U.S. policy is to dispose of all used fuel by moving it directly from the reactors into Yucca Mountain for permanent storage without any additional processing. This is a monumental waste of resources. To generate power, reactor fuel must contain 3 percent to 5 percent enriched fissionable uranium (uranium-235). Once the enriched ura­nium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. Yet this "used" fuel generally retains about 95 percent of its fissionable uranium, and that ura­nium, along with other byproducts in the used fuel, can be recovered and recycled. Regrettably, the current system's structure provides no incentive for the private sector to pursue this option.

Many technologies exist to recover and recycle different parts of the used fuel. The French have been the most successful in commercializing such a process. They remove the uranium and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using this method, Amer­ica's 58,000 tons of used fuel contain roughly enough energy to power every household in Amer­ica for 12 years.[6]

Other technologies show even more promise. Indeed, most of them, including the process used in France, were developed originally in the United States. Some recycling technologies would leave almost no waste at all and would lead to the recov­ery of an almost endless source of fuel, but none of these processes has been commercialized success­fully in the United States, and this will take time. Until the future of nuclear power in the U.S. becomes clearer, it will be impossible to know which technologies will be most appropriate to pur­sue in this market.

Ultimately, the private sector should make these decisions. Valuing used fuel against the costs of per­manent burial is a calculation best done by compa­nies that provide fuel-management services.

Overhauling Used-Fuel Management in the U.S.

The success of a sustained rebirth of nuclear energy in the U.S. depends largely on disposing of nuclear waste safely. New nuclear plants could last as long as 80 years, but to reap the benefits of such an investment, a plant must be able to operate dur­ing that time. Having a practical pathway for waste disposal is one way to ensure long-term plant oper­ations. Establishing such a pathway would also mit­igate much of the risk associated with nuclear power, but as long as the federal government is responsible for disposing of waste, it is the only entity with any incentive to introduce these technol­ogies and practices.

The problem is that the federal government has never been able to fulfill its current waste disposal obligations, much less introduce new and innova­tive methods of waste management. Although the Department of Energy under its current leadership has opened the door to reform, that leadership will soon be replaced when the new President appoints his own team. Administrations come and go, but inflexible rules and bureaucracies that oversee waste management seem to endure forever, making it impossible for the government to respond effec­tively to a rapidly changing industry. When it does attempt to respond, it often acts in ways that make no business sense and are inconsistent with the actual state of the industry.

Many of these efforts culminate in large govern­ment programs. While some of these programs have some near-term benefit insofar as they demonstrate political support for nuclear power, encourage pri­vate and public research and development, and develop the nuclear industry, they inevitably do more harm than good. They are run inefficiently, are often never completed, cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, and are often not economically rational. Furthermore, they often forgo long-term planning, and this leads to unsustainable programs that ulti­mately set industry back by providing fodder for anti-nuclear critics and discouraging progress in the private sector.

A New Approach

Introducing market forces into the process and empowering the private sector to manage nuclear waste can solve the problem, but this will require major reform. The federal government will need to step aside and allow the private sector to assume the responsibility for managing used fuel, and the pri­vate sector should welcome that responsibility.

The primary goal of any strategy for used-fuel management should be to provide a disposition pathway for all of America's nuclear waste. The basic problem with the current system is that every nuclear power plant needs a place to put its waste, and Yucca Mountain is simply not big enough to hold it all under the current used-fuel management regime.

In other words, permanent geologic storage capacity is a finite resource on which the industry depends. If used-fuel management were a market-based system, this storage capacity would carry a very high value. A new system should price geologic storage as a finite resource and fold any costs into a fee for emplacing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

Repealing the Mil. The key to this new approach will be to transform how waste manage­ment is financed. Once market-based pricing is in place, the fee that nuclear energy consumers pay to the federal government for waste management should be repealed. Under the current system, consumers pay for waste disposition through a flat fee, called the mil, that is paid to the federal government at the rate of 0.1 cents per kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity. This fee as currently assessed has no market rationale. It is simply a flat fee that rate payers pay to the federal government. It has never been changed, not even for inflation.

In a market-based system, instead of paying a pre-set fee to the federal government to manage used fuel, nuclear power operators would fold waste-management costs into the operating cost, which would be reflected in the price of power. This cost might be higher or lower than the current fee; more important, it would reflect the true costs of nuclear power.

Pricing Geologic Storage as a Scarce Resource. The idea would be to price the space available in Yucca Mountain according to a set of relevant vari­ables, including heat content of the waste, predicted production of used fuel, repository capacity, and lifetime operation costs. Each of these variables would help to determine the price of placing a given volume of waste in Yucca at any specific time.

As the repository is filled, the fee to emplace additional fuel would obviously increase. The fee could also increase, depending on the formula, as new plants are constructed or old plants' licenses are renewed because they would produce additional used fuel, thereby increasing the demand for repos­itory space. Prices would be lower for waste that radiates less heat. Prices would fall if Yucca's capac­ity is expanded or if waste is reduced through alter­native processes.

This would create a market for repository space. The fee could be structured in a number of ways. One example would be to charge a floating fee according to a predetermined formula. Under this scenario, the fee would shift constantly as the price variables change. For example, a volume of waste with less heat content would cost less to emplace than a similar amount with a higher heat profile. An alternative to a floating fee might be one that resets at timed intervals, such as once a year.

The exact structure and implementation of the fee could be determined at some future point. One simple option would be to divide the capacity avail­able in Yucca by the lifetime costs to give a price to emplace an amount (e.g., a ton) of waste in the repository. As the repository was filled, the price per ton would increase.

Nuclear power operators could then decide, given the price to place waste in Yucca, how to man­age their used fuel. As the price to access Yucca goes up, so will the incentive for nuclear operators to do something else with their used fuel. This should give rise to a market-based industry that manages used fuel in the U.S.

The market would dictate the options available. Some operators may choose to keep their used fuel on site to allow its heat load to dissipate, thus reduc­ing the cost of placing that waste into Yucca. Com­panies may emerge to provide interim storage services that would achieve a similar purpose. The operators could choose options based on their par­ticular circumstances.

As prices change and business models emerge, firms that recycle used fuel would likely be estab­lished. Multiple factors would feed into the eco­nomics of recycling nuclear fuel. Operators would make decisions based not only on the cost of plac­ing waste in Yucca, but also on the price of fuel.

If a global nuclear renaissance does unfold, the prices for uranium and fuel services will likely rise. This would place greater value on the fuel resources that could be recovered from used fuel, thus affecting the overall economics of recycling. Instead of the federal government deciding what to build, when to build it, and which technol­ogy should emerge, the private sector would make those determinations.

Some nuclear operators may determine that one type of recycling works for them, while others may decide that a different method is more appropriate. This would create competition and encourage the development of the most appropriate technologies for the American market.

Such a market for repository space could give rise to a broader market for geologic storage. As waste production causes Yucca storage costs to rise, companies could emerge that provide additional geologic storage at a lower price. This additional space would in turn reduce the value of the space available in Yucca.

Alternatively, as Yucca fills, nuclear operators may decide to develop additional geologic storage facilities in a joint venture. While this may seem unlikely, given the problems associated with open­ing Yucca Mountain, other communities may be more receptive to hosting a repository once a reli­able safety record is established and the economic benefits of hosting a repository are demonstrated. The federal government would still take title to any waste placed in future repositories once they are decommissioned.

Predicting how a market might evolve is impos­sible, but unlike the government-run process that led to the Yucca Mountain site--a process mired in politics--private entities would establish the path forward by working with government regulators. Private entities would also be able to pursue their plans without having to contend with as much of the bureaucratic inertia that accompanies govern­ment-run operations.

Most important, this system would encourage the introduction of new technologies and services into the market as they are needed, as opposed to relying on the federal government. New technologies would not be hamstrung by red tape or overregulation. This system would also allow for the possibility of no expansion of nuclear power. If the U.S. does not expand nuclear power broadly, there is probably no reason to build recycling or interim storage facilities.

Establishing a Private Organization to Manage Yucca Mountain. As permanent geologic storage is commoditized, the problem then becomes one of establishing responsibility for managing that scarce resource. Leaving that responsibility with the gov­ernment provides no benefits. No overarching need mandates that the government must manage Yucca Mountain or used nuclear fuel. Furthermore, leav­ing this responsibility in the hands of government comes with all kinds of pitfalls, including inflexibil­ity, inefficiency, politics, and being subject to annual appropriations, to name a few. Similarly, a public- private partnership is not necessary and has no inherent advantages.

Instead, a completely new organization--a pri­vate entity (PE)--should be established to manage Yucca Mountain. The PE's purpose would be to ensure that Yucca is available to support the com­mercial nuclear industry's need for permanent geo­logic storage indefinitely and to set the fee for placing waste in Yucca. This fee would be the pri­mary mechanism for managing access to the repos­itory. Its one operating mandate should be to remain open to receive waste either until a second reposi­tory is opened or until the last commercial nuclear power plant ceases operations.

The federal government should not be part of the management team. The PE could be organized in any number of ways. It could take the form of a nonprofit organization that is independent of but represents the nation's nuclear energy producers. Such a structure would ensure that no operator receives preferential treatment and that the PE oper­ates as a service to all nuclear operators. It also would prevent a profit-seeking entity from holding a monopoly over a key asset on which an entire industry depends. The federal government would provide oversight through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and other appropriate agencies.

The PE should be created as soon as possible and immediately commence a three-year transition plan, which would coincide with the NRC's review of the Department of Energy's application for a Yucca Mountain construction permit. During the transition period, the PE would work with the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioac­tive Waste Management to move the application for the Yucca construction permit through the NRC. After three years, when the license is granted, the PE would take control of Yucca operations, which would include overseeing Yucca construction and preparing for long-term operations.

Establishing a Waste Disposal Fund. The NRC requires that each nuclear plant operator establish a funding mechanism to ensure that resources will be available to decommission the plant once opera­tions cease. This is achieved either through guaran­tees from its parent company or by establishing a decommissioning fund.[7] This protects the taxpayer from the financial obligations of plant decommis­sioning if the operator becomes financially unable to carry out that responsibility.

A similar funding mechanism should be required for new plant licenses and life extensions to cover the costs of waste disposal once the mil is repealed. This could be included in the decommissioning fund or set up as a separate entity. It would not be a payment to the federal government and would always be con­trolled by the nuclear operator. The monies set aside should be adequate to finance the geologic disposal of any used fuel held on-site in dry storage. This guarantees that waste disposal funds will be avail­able, even if the operator becomes insolvent.

Other Issues. Changing from the current system of waste management to a market-based system raises a number of issues:

* How will repository construction be funded if it is dependent on disposal fees?

* What will happen to the Nuclear Waste Fund?

* Who is responsible for the disposal of existing nuclear waste, which has already been paid for?

* What happens to defense waste?

The Nuclear Waste Fund and Construction of the Yucca Mountain Repository. The Nuclear Waste Fund was set up by the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act to pay for the costs of waste disposal. The fund has approximately $19 billion, and about $7 billion has been spent so far on repository activities. Congress should abolish the fund and make the money available to the PE for licensing and constructing of the Yucca Mountain repository.

According to a 2001 analysis by the Department of Energy, licensing and pre-emplacement construc­tion will cost an estimated $5.74 billion, and decommissioning will cost $4.04 billion.[8] The Nuclear Waste Fund can cover both of those expenses, according to the 2001 analysis, and still have significant funds at its disposal. The balance should be applied to post-construction operating costs. It must be noted, however, that the Depart­ment of Energy is currently reevaluating those costs, and a new price structure could emerge. On the other hand, a private entity could price Yucca's costs differently even from DOE's new assessment.

Once used-fuel management is subject to the open market, it is always possible that no one will use Yucca Mountain, thus depriving it of the funds it needs to maintain operations. Given this possibility, the PE should be authorized to assess nuclear operators a fee to maintain minimum operations at Yucca if revenue streams are not adequate. This fee should be triggered only under predetermined circumstances.

Disposal of Existing Used Fuel. While a new regime to deal with new used fuel may make sense, it will not fix the existing problem created by the federal government's failure to dispose of existing waste despite being paid to do so. As a result of its failure, the government and the taxpayers have incurred an expensive ongoing liability for 58,000 tons of used fuel stored around the country.

The courts have confirmed this liability. As a result, the taxpayers have already paid $94 million in lawyer expenses and $290 million in damages. The government is appealing another $420 million award. The government's long-term liability for used fuel is projected to reach $7 billion by 2017 and $11 billion by 2020.[9] While no solution will satisfy all parties entirely, a resolution that allows a sustainable used-fuel strategy to emerge would be in the broad national interest.

One remedy would be to set aside an amount of space in Yucca Mountain for each reactor operator equal to the amount of used fuel that it produced before discontinuation of the waste fee. Operators could use this space without further fees as they see fit, including selling it to other operators.

Given that America's reactors have already pro­duced around 58,000 tons of waste, if the mil were repealed today, the PE would set the fee based on the total available space minus 58,000 tons. The capacity should be set based on scien­tific and technical parameters of what could safely be stored in Yucca.

Defense Waste. One of reasons that Yucca must be opened is that the United States has significant amounts of defense-related nuclear waste that is slated for disposal. Current plans set aside 7,000 tons of Yucca's capacity for defense purposes.

The federal government would be a customer for waste-management services just as every other operator is and would pay a fee for placing its waste in Yucca. Alternatively, the government could buy waste-management services on the open market to process its waste, thereby minimizing what is placed in Yucca.

Defining the Federal Role in Waste Disposal. Although its involvement in used-fuel management should be minimized, the federal government will continue to have a number of critical roles. During operations, the federal government would have sig­nificant oversight responsibilities. As is currently the case, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would oversee operations, and other federal agen­cies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, would continue to play a regulatory role. The national laboratory system would also play a critical role in facilitating research and development.

The federal government would fulfill its final obligation by taking possession of the closed and decommissioned Yucca Mountain whenever that may occur, along with any geologic repositories that may be built in the future. This is a critical role for the federal government because it is the only insti­tution that can maintain assured liability for the waste in perpetuity.

Steps to Overhaul Nuclear Waste Management

To begin the process of overhauling the nation's nuclear-waste management regime, Congress should amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to encourage development of a market-based management system for used nuclear fuel. Specifically, Congress should:

* Create the legal framework that allows the pri­vate sector to price geologic storage as a com­modity;

* Empower the private sector to manage used fuel;

* Repeal the 70,000-ton limitation on the Yucca Mountain repository and instead let technology, science, and physical capacity determine the appropriate limit;

* Create a private entity that is representative of but independent from nuclear operators to man­age Yucca Mountain;

* Repeal the mil, abolish the Nuclear Waste Fund, and transfer the remaining funds to a private entity to cover the expenses of constructing Yucca Mountain; and

* Limit the federal government's role to providing oversight, basic research, and development and taking title of spent fuel upon repository decom­missioning.

Conclusion

The current approach to managing used nuclear fuel is systemically broken. It was developed to sup­port a nuclear industry that was largely believed to be in decline; that is no longer the case. The federal government promised to take title of the used fuel and dispose of it; this removed any incentive for the private sector to develop better ways to manage the fuel that could be more consistent with an emerging nuclear industry. And the federal government has proven incapable of fulfilling its obligations to dis­pose of the fuel.

The current system is driven by government programs and politics. There is little connection between used-fuel management programs and the needs of the nuclear industry. Any successful plan must grow out of the private sector. The time has come for the federal government to step aside and allow utilities, nuclear technology companies, and consumers to manage used nuclear fuel.

Overhauling the nation's nuclear-waste manage­ment regime will not be easy. It will require a signif­icant amendment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and a long-term commitment by Congress, the Administration, and industry. But developing such a system would put the United States well on its way to re-establishing itself as a global leader in nuclear energy.

Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

---

[1]Public Law 97-425.

[2]Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, "Ten Years Overdue: January 31, 2008 Marks the 10th Anniversary of DOE's Deadline to Dispose of Nuclear Waste," Fact of the Day, January 31, 2008, at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=d1891f7 e-802a-23ad-459d-26b0cbf6b04f (February 28, 2008).

[3]Samuel W. Bodman, letter to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2007, at http://www.energy.gov/media/BodmanLetterToPelosi.pdf (March 3, 2008).

[4]Ibid.

[5]Phillip J. Finck, Deputy Associate Laboratory Director, Applied Science and Technology and National Security, Argonne National Laboratory, statement before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, June 16, 2005.

[6]This figure is an extrapolation based on the French experience with recycling.

[7]U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants," January 22, 2008, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collectio ns/fact-sheets/decommissioning.pdf (May 23, 2008).

[8]The Department of Energy is due to release a new assessment of Yucca's lifetime costs, which could alter the estimates provided by the 2001 breakdown.

[9]Committee on Environment and Public Works, "Ten Years Overdue."

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

Toledo Blade
June 22, 2008

Talk of offshore drilling raises questions about Great Lakes

Tom Henry

I can't imagine I'm the only one who did a double-take upon reading this headline on the front page of Thursday's Blade: President pushes for lifting ban on offshore drilling.

What does that mean for the Great Lakes region?

Nothing, yet. But stayed tuned.

Yes, I know. Mr. Bush is talking about drilling in the oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. He said in 2001 he had no plans to expand the limited amount of drilling that Michigan and Ontario have been doing beneath the lakes for years.

But, as we've seen, things change when gasoline prices hit the $4-a-gallon mark.

Keep in mind Vice President Dick Cheney fueled the controversy seven years ago at a GOP event in suburban Detroit, saying he did not consider the Great Lakes off limits to more drilling himself.

And that John Engler, the former Michigan governor who raised the specter of more drilling from that state's shoreline, is now president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Manufacturers. That's the Washington-based lobbyist group that represents the nation's industrial sector - one of, if not the largest, users of fuel.

Also don't forget about Mr. Bush's obsession with drilling in another ecologically sensitive region - Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

More on this in future columns.

Findlay Goes Green: The United Steelworkers are working with environmentalists to get the word out about how 20,000 or more manufacturing jobs can be created in Ohio through the development of renewable energy, clean technology, and "green" manufacturing.

A town hall meeting - one of 13 of its kind nationally this month - is set for 7 to 8:30 p.m. Tuesday at the USW Local 207L Union Hall, 1130 Summit St.., Findlay. Others are in Cincinnati tomorrow, Canton on Wednesday, and Cleveland on Thursday.

For more information, go to wecansolveit.org/page/s/steelworkers or www.bluegreenalliance.org/.

Nuke News: Something out of kilter must have happened with FirstEnergy Corp.'s recent "force-on-force" security exercise at Davis-Besse. Hence, a public document in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's headquarters, a letter from the utility with a subject line that reads: "Issue Associated With Recent Force-on-Force Exercise." In it, FirstEnergy requests a meeting with NRC officials to discuss the issue, claiming it "is generic in nature and could have a significant impact on the industry."

The NRC has kept a tight lid on security issues since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Eliot Brenner, the NRC's public affairs chief, declined to shed one iota of light on what this is all about.

More Nuke News: The NRC has received the U.S. Department of Energy's long-expected application to develop Nevada's Yucca Mountain into the nation's first repository for spent fuel pulled from nuclear reactors. That's the only thing in civilian hands classified as high-level radioactive waste. Within three years, the agency is to tell Congress whether the multibillion dollar project in the desert should be authorized.

How hot was it?: Globally, this spring was the seventh warmest on record* for combined land and ocean surface temperatures, according to the National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina, part of the federal government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

I put an asterisk* there because those records "only" go back to 1880.

It's not like anyone was around to collect global data at the dawn of time, mind you.

The analysis focused on March through May figures.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
June 21, 2008

'Dumb as we wanna be' -- Part 2

Bob Mccracken

The first part of Bob's column was published on page A8 in the June 13 edition.

The federal government's effort to store 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain began with the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1983. Since then, the effort has had a rough and expensive ride.

In the first part of this brief history of Yucca Mountain, we looked at the first years of the project. In Part 2, we trace some of the politics that have driven the project, suggest reasons why the effort has not succeeded up to now, and discuss the price we have paid for our failures.

Yucca stalls

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) workman-like approach in dealing with Nevadans on Yucca Mountain is, I believe, a symptom of the agency's and the nuclear industry's misunderstanding of the spent nuclear fuel storage issue.

Prior to 1983, DOE officials had been advised by Battelle, one of their large contractors, that successful construction of a repository for spent nuclear fuel was much more a social-political problem than a technical challenge.

The engineers and scientists, a Battelle report stated, could handle quite well the safe transportation and permanent storage of the spent nuclear fuel. However, if social and political aspects of the storage of spent nuclear fuel were not dealt with effectively, Battelle suggested, the effort could become controversial and divisive.

The issue was ripe for political manipulation.

For several years following DOE's first public meeting on Yucca Mountain, held in Las Vegas in early 1983, I believe opinion in Nevada regarding the repository was rather soft; most people didn't take a firm position one way or the other. I believe this was still somewhat true even after 1987, when Yucca Mountain was singled out as the sole candidate for a spent fuel repository.

People wanted more information; they needed to be persuaded.

In my travels in Las Vegas and in Nye, Esmeralda, Eureka and Lincoln counties, most people with whom I spoke were not worked up about the issue. When people did have opinions, they were likely to be weakly held.

Perhaps uppermost in most people's minds was, "What's in it for us?"

In the rural areas it was, "Hey, we need jobs out here."

Most of Nevada's congressional delegation had open minds on Yucca Mountain for several years after 1983. Nevada Sen. Chic Hecht, a Republican who took office in January 1983 and described himself to me as President Ronald Reagan's man in the Senate, was strongly pro-repository and very much a champion of Nye County's interests.

Judging from accounts in the press, Republican Sen. Paul Laxalt, also a strong Reagan supporter who served between 1975 and 1987, was also pro-Yucca Mountain.

Representative Barbara Vucanovic, a Republican from Nevada's 2nd Congressional District, appeared open-minded about the repository. Harry Reid was the only member of Nevada's congressional delegation who strongly opposed the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in those first years.

The Las Vegas Sun and its editor, Hank Greenspun, were adamantly opposed, as they had been to the Nevada Test Site throughout its history. The Las Vegas Review Journal for years was equivocal on Yucca Mountain, I would say neither strongly in favor nor opposed.

The big Las Vegas casinos for years were also equivocal.

In the meantime, anti-Yucca Mountain, anti-nuclear opinion among many in Nevada was slowly taking root, especially in the urban areas.

Perhaps a significant amount of this negative opinion may have come from the many newcomers to the state in this period. Chernobyl in 1987 had the effect of feeding it. Anti-Yucca Mountain sentiment was free to develop more or less unimpeded in the state, having been given a free ride by the failures of DOE and others in favor of nuclear power to educate the public and counter the negativity.

The Las Vegas Sun put out a steady stream of biased information on Yucca Mountain and nuclear energy technology. They even had a reporter, Mary Manning, whose specialty was nuclear negativity.

The negativity from Bob Loux's state office has never stopped. Both Harry Reid and Richard Bryan rode the anti-Yucca Mountain sentiment they had helped create to the Senate.

Reid moved to the Senate in 1987, replacing Laxalt. Bryan moved from Nevada governor to the Senate in 1989 by defeating Hecht.

About a year before he died, Hecht told me he attributed his defeat primarily to Bryan's milking of the Yucca Mountain issue.

In about 1986, I suggested to Loux that Bryan was on the wrong side of the Yucca Mountain issue.

"Are you kidding?" he replied. "It's the best issue he's got."

Instead of two pro-Yucca Mountain senators, by 1989 Nevada had two senators who strongly opposed it. The die was nearly cast.

I asked Hecht how Bryan and Reid knew early on Yucca Mountain was going to be such a good issue for them. He replied, "Fear always makes a powerful issue for a politician."

Bryan retired after two terms in the Senate; Reid built his political career around his opposition to Yucca Mountain and has been highly effective in playing the role of obstructionist.

From the late 1980s on, most Nevada politicians from both sides of the aisle have been obliged to toe the anti-Yucca Mountain party line.

Costs we pay

I believe Nevada's opposition to Yucca Mountain has been costly in many ways.

The federal government collects a tax on all nuclear power produced in the United States. So far, $27.2 billion has been collected under that tax. As of fiscal year 2006, almost $10 billion has been spent on programs for permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel. As of September 2007, $6.9 billion had been dispersed for the Yucca Mountain effort.

Since the federal government was required by law to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the utilities in 1997, nuclear power producers have taken to suing the federal government for breach of contract. So far, they have been awarded more than $7 billion. That's a total of $17 billion out of the public's pocket and not much to show for it.

But these costs are probably insignificant compared to the damage done to the earth's environment because of the U.S.'s failure to close the nuclear fuel cycle.

Untold numbers of gas- and coal-burning power plants have been constructed while further development of nuclear power has been on hold. Much, if not most, of that fossil fuel-based power production -- yesterday's technology -- could have been nuclear.

How much carbon dioxide, mercury and other toxic substances, some of them radioactive -- yes, burning coal sends radioactive substances naturally present in coal up the smokestack -- have been discharged into the earth's atmosphere because of this failure?

The damage done to the earth's environment, not to mention human health, is impossible to calculate, but it is likely considerable.

And then there are missed economic and social opportunities for Nye County, Nevadans and the country.

If the cards had been played right, Yucca Mountain could have seeded the development of a large advanced energy and nuclear science technology complex perhaps unmatched in the world.

In the 1980s and 1990s, it was not obvious to most that the world was headed for serious, potentially catastrophic energy and related global warming problems. The supposed need to store nuclear "waste" safely in the ground for 10,000 years, or for 1 million years, as the state of Nevada foolishly demands, was not seen as overkill.

We didn't seem to understand that there is more recoverable energy in the 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel intended for Yucca Mountain than in all the oil and gas in Saudi Arabia.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the nuclear "waste" to which the anti-Yucca Mountain forces have been opposed, will soon become the basis of a huge new energy industry, and Nevada (particularly Nye County) could have been -- and may still have a chance to be -- at the center of things.

That spent nuclear fuel intended for Yucca Mountain is going to be reprocessed and turned into electricity by somebody somewhere -- why not us?

The Tennessee Valley Authority just received $4 million from the Department of Energy to develop a conceptual design for "a nuclear waste reprocessing plant." A friend who lives in east Tennessee told me, "That money should be going to Nevada."

The French have been smart about all of this. Today, France gets about 80 percent of its electric power from 59 nuclear reactors. The French, who enjoy as high a standard of living as we and a longer life expectancy, dump less than one-half the amount of carbon per capita into the atmosphere that we do.

France's reliance on nuclear power is the main reason.

In the 1970s, France analyzed its energy situation -- "No oil, no gas, no coal, no choice," they said. They concluded nuclear was the best option. The public was educated on the pros and cons and the people made a rational choice about the future.

With gas costing more than $120 per barrel and global warming coming at us like a freight train, it's a different world from the time when Richard Bryan and Harry Reid announced their opposition to Yucca Mountain.

The day is not far off when such an unfortunate view will get a politician in trouble. But we have paid a price.

I borrowed the title from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who used it as the heading of a piece he wrote recently critiquing presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain's silly idea to place a moratorium this summer on the federal gas tax. I believe the heading aptly describes the history of the Yucca Mountain project.

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

Columbia Daily Tribune
June 21, 2008

Radioactive waste is nuclear plants’ top pitfall

By Ken Midkiff

Until there is a solution to a major problem, it is unlikely any new nuclear plants will be built in this country. Renewals of permits for current nuclear power plants will be difficult to obtain because of the same problem.

That problem? Radioactive waste. Since making such waste nonradioactive would violate the laws of physics, some safe place must be found to store this high-level radioactive waste product. Although "spent fuel" would seem to indicate the rods are no longer emitting much, the opposite is true: It is highly radioactive - it becomes so "hot" that it cannot be used in nuclear reactors. The rods are "spent" because they are no longer useful.

Every molecule of so-called spent fuel created since the advent of the Nuclear Age is still here, still emitting harmful rays. It turns out that, to date, no safe place has been located. And given the short life of nations, it could well be that no long-term safe place can be identified. Only the Ming Dynasty in China and the Roman Empire have lasted more than a few hundred years - and given the instability of the world, this nation is unlikely to exist much longer than China or Rome. Radioactive waste remains hazardous for thousands of years. There is no place on Earth that can be assumed safe for that period of time.

Eastern politicians have suggested Yucca Mountain, out in the barren lands of Nevada, as an appropriate place to bury spent fuel rods. The area was initially determined by geologists to be extremely stable - but recent studies have shown the area might not be as stable as original studies indicated. Right now the geologic features under Yucca Mountain are suitable for radioactive waste storage, but concerns have arisen about groundwater seepage, earthquake activities and other disruptions in the future. In addition, what is below a desert mountain today might be on the surface of a tropical area a few thousand years from now. No one can know what the future holds.

There also are political difficulties. The constituents of influential politicians object strongly to their area being designated for a dumping ground for radioactive waste. Even the disposal of low-level radioactive waste was subject to this - when a site for storing such waste was identified, residents howled long and loud. Eventually, the Midwest Compact, a deal between states, was abandoned because no matter what site was identified, there were objections.

The same objections were raised when Yucca Mountain was proposed by Congress as a place to bury radioactive waste. The people of Nevada, led by current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, don’t want that stuff stored anywhere in their state.

There are a number of secondary problems with nuclear power plants, but it is likely those are all subject to solutions. Some are concerned with the enriched fuel being used by renegade nations and terrorist groups for nuclear weapons - plutonium bombs and other such nasties. Tight security - quite a bit is already in place - would alleviate, but not eliminate, this threat.

Still others point to Chernobyl or Three-Mile Island and the dangers of leakage or explosions resulting from the inherent difficulties stemming from high-level radioactive materials. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a number of safety requirements in place to prevent explosions or harmful emissions. Those very regulations, in place to protect human health and safety, cause construction of nuclear power plants to be very expensive. Cutting corners on such safety measures resulted in the Chernobyl disaster.

Strict adherence to safety requirements and technological advances will ensure the public is protected from emissions and explosions.

Most of the problems associated with nuclear power plants can be solved. But there is still one remaining and gigantic problem, and that is what to do with all the high-level radioactive waste. This problem has no foreseeable solution and indeed might be unsolvable. Given the nature of physics, politics and the short life of nations, it is likely that this is the Achilles’ heel of nuclear power plants.

--Ken Midkiff is Osage Group conservation chairman and author of "The Meat You Eat" and "Not a Drop to Drink." You can reach him via e-mail at editor@tribmail.com.

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

Senator Harry Reid
June 18, 2008

Reid Leading A United Front Against Yucca

Nevada Senator Harry Reid brought the Nevada congressional delegation together this week to call on all Nevadans to sign the petition against Yucca Mountain. This anti-Yucca effort continues during the same week the Department of Energy is walking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) through the application it submitted to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The NRC will then have until September 1, 2008, to determine whether to accept the Energy Department’s application for further review. The petition calls on the NRC to reject the application, which contains designs for the dump that are only 35 percent complete and lacks a public safety plan in the event of an emergency.

“I urge all Nevadans to go to my website, reid.senate.gov, and sign the petition against Yucca Mountain,” said Reid. “Just as the Nevada delegation is united in our fight against Yucca, it is important for all Nevadans to voice their opposition to the dump. Nevada is not a wasteland, and I will continue working to cut even more funding from the Energy Department’s budget for Yucca Mountain this year.” To join Reid’s efforts sign the petition against Yucca Mountain by clicking here.

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

Senator Harry Reid
June 18, 2008

Nevada Congressional Delegation Calls on Nevadans to Sign Petition Against Yucca Mountain

Washington, DC—Nevada’s congressional delegation today called on all Nevadans to sign the petition against Yucca Mountain.  Tomorrow, the Department of Energy will walk the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) through the application it submitted to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The NRC will then have until September 1, 2008 to determine whether to accept the Energy Department’s application for further review.  The petition calls on the NRC to reject the application, which contains designs for the dump that are only 35 percent complete and lacks a public safety plan in the event of an emergency.

“I urge all Nevadans to go to my website, reid.senate.gov, and sign the petition against Yucca Mountain,” Reid said.  “Just as the Nevada delegation is united in our fight against Yucca, it is important for all Nevadans to voice their opposition to the dump.  Nevada is not a wasteland, and I will continue working to cut even more funding from the Energy Department’s budget for Yucca Mountain this year.”

“As we stand together as a delegation and a state to fight Yucca Mountain, it is important that citizens in our state continue to voice their opposition as well,” said Ensign.  “I encourage all those opposed to Yucca Mountain to sign the petition to the Department of Energy on my website and to drive the final nail in the coffin of this nuclear waste dump.”

“Nevadans overwhelmingly oppose President Bush’s Yucca Mountain plan because it is not safe and the science has more holes than Swiss cheese.  There is absolutely no reason the NRC should engage in a rush job that could result in a politically charged decision two months before the elections.  Let’s get together and send a message to the NRC that they should reject this faulty application which fails to adequately address issues ranging from violent earthquakes to corroding canisters of toxic radioactive waste.  Not to mention the threat to 50 million Americans living along transportation routes that would see thousands of waste shipments as a result of President Bush’s Yucca Mountain plan,” said Congresswoman Berkley.

“Yucca Mountain is not, and will never be, a partisan issue for Nevadans,” said Porter.  “I am proud to continue to fight side-by-side with my colleagues in the delegation and now everyone has the opportunity to speak up by signing this petition.  We will continue to win battles if we are united in our opposition, and together we will ensure the federal government ends this senseless project.”

“With the successful efforts of the Nevada delegation, we have been able to strip funds from the Yucca Mountain project and place it on the path to termination.  I encourage my fellow Nevadans to voice their opposition, sign this petition, and put an end to this ill-conceived and deeply flawed project,” said Heller.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
June 20, 2008

Official confident Yucca plan to clear licensing challenges

Nevada leaders say application has holes

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- A top Department of Energy official expressed confidence Thursday that the DOE's voluminous application to build a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository will clear initial license hurdles.

"We believe we have met your requirements in terms of a complete and accurate license application. We have addressed all the acceptance criteria," repository director Ward Sproat told Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff at a briefing.

Sproat, head of the DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said the application was "complete and high quality." That is the criteria that NRC staff will use to judge whether to docket the DOE bid and initiate comprehensive safety reviews.

But Nevada officials who attended the same briefing said it confirmed to them the Yucca application has holes. They said DOE presenters made clear that more work remains to be done on detailed blueprints for the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The purpose of the briefing scheduled for two days at NRC headquarters was for DOE to explain how it organized its 8,600 page application packet that was filed June 3, as well as thousands of pages of supporting documents. Officials stressed that issues of substance would not be discussed.

But speaking to reporters during a break, Steve Frishman, technical policy coordinator for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, argued the level of detail in DOE's application does not meet the NRC's standards.

The level of detail in the application has emerged as an early point of contention in the licensing process.

DOE officials said the plans they submitted are acceptable. Nevada attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto filed a petition asking the top NRC commissioners to reject the DOE application as incomplete.

The commission has not ruled but in a legal opinion this week agency attorneys appeared to side with the DOE.

The attorneys said regulations do not require the DOE to "fully describe" all designs, as long as they provide "sufficient information" about components important to safety.

In one of the DOE presentations Thursday, Yucca regulatory director William Boyle said the design detail was consistent with NRC's regulations and its repository review plan. DOE is using NRC-approved methodologies to set the technical boundaries within which the final designs would fit, he said.

Likewise on nuclear waste casks and containers, the DOE evaluated representative designs since it has only recently awarded contracts for the specific multi-purpose canisters that would be used at the site.

Frishman said lack of final designs raises uncertainties about repository safety.

"We believe there should be real designs," Frishman said. "The whole license application is whether the NRC can say whether there will be reasonable assurance the repository is safe. How can you have reasonable assurance when you don't know what the (radiation) doses are to the public."

Martin Malsch, an attorney for Nevada, also questioned whether 196 documents the DOE has submitted as primary references will be considered an official part of the license application.

If the NRC deems they are not part of the application, they may be out of reach from Nevada legal challenges.

The NRC staff has until September to decide whether to docket the repository application for further reviews and hearings that could consume the next three or four years at least.

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

Las Vegas SUN
June 20, 2008

$9 billion later, Yucca gets its day

By Lisa Mascaro

WASHINGTON — The only indication that today was a special day at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was the long line of people trying to get inside the towering headquarters, situated out in the suburbs.

The compound has especially tight security, even by Washington standards.

Still, the Energy Department’s formal presentation of its long-awaited Yucca Mountain application drew a crowd. Guards were processing visitor passes. People were late.

“I’ve been waiting 40 years for this meeting,” shrugged one guy in line. A few more minutes wouldn’t matter.

“I’ve only been waiting 30,” offered another.

The actual presentation of the application for the nuclear waste repository 90 miles outside of Las Vegas had a tough time living up to the hype. There was lots of technical house-cleaning about which documents could be found where, and how the thousands of pages were organized.

Even the high-tech hook-up with Las Vegas, which linked the meeting by sight and sound, was a little fuzzy. You couldn’t quite make from this end out who was watching from the desert.

The Energy Department’s project director, Edward “Ward” Sproat, summed up what some of the couple hundred gathered probably felt when he said many in the room had been working on Yucca Mountain “for a long time.”

“Many of whom probably felt they’d never see this day come,” he added.

Among those participating were Nevada’s representatives, who are fighting the project, a representative from Clark County and former Gov. Bob List, who is representing four rural counties just north of the site.

List had drawn some criticism in Nevada a few years ago when he went to work for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main industry lobbying promoting Yucca Mountain. But he said Thursday they dropped his contract in December, and now he represents the rural counties who want to be environmentally protected but who are also interested in economic development possibilities if Yucca Mountain goes forward.

“This day’s been a long time coming,” List said. “I think everybody wants to get an answer on this.”

The state, however, has questions.

(Quick primer: Yucca Mountain was chosen as the nation’s nuclear waste dump 20 years ago. It was supposed to open in 1998, but is now slated to open by 2017. Supporters say the country needs a central waste storage facility. Opponents worry the government plan will pollute Nevada with toxic waste. So far, $9 billion has been spent.)

Martin G. Malsch, the state’s lead attorney fighting the process, posed one simple question early during the proceeding.

The state is concerned because the Energy Department offered 196 supporting items, but refused to formally submit them as part of the license.

Leaving the items in a gray zone puts the state in a tough spot, creating a bit of a moving target as it tries to argue against the license.

“The most fundamental question we face is what is the license application?” Malsch asked the gathering. “The answer to that question is very important to us.”

The question led to some scrambling among officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the government agency that will decide by Labor Day whether the application can be accepted for formal review – which could then take up to four years.

They’re answer: They couldn’t immediately respond.

The presentation continues tomorrow.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
June 20, 2008

Nevada delegation wants residents to protest Yucca nuclear site

By Deborah Barfield
dbarfield@gns.gannett.com

WASHINGTON -- Nevada's congressional delegates are calling on residents to sign online petitions urging federal regulators to reject plans to put a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.

"Just as the Nevada delegation is united in our fight against Yucca, it is important for all Nevadans to voice their opposition to the dump," said U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat and Senate majority leader.

Reid and Republican U.S. Sen. John Ensign and U.S. Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas, Jon Porter, R-Henderson, and Dean Heller, R-Carson City, are steering residents to their Web sites to sign the petition.

The federal Department of Energy recently submitted a licensing application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the nation's first nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

The commission has 90 days to do a preliminary review of the application.

Energy officials said they need a permanent site to store nuclear waste, now at 121 temporary sites across the country.

But Nevada lawmakers have vowed vow to fight the project, including a push to cut funding and the petition campaign.

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

New West
June 20, 2008

New Uranium Boom

Nuclear Opponents Off-Base

By Richard Martin

Chip Ward, author of Canaries on the Rim: Living Downwind in the West, contributes a long essay on the new uranium boom in the West on TomDispatch (an invaluable left-leaning group blog that usually focuses on Iraq and U.S. military policy). It’s called “Radioactive Déjà Vu in the American West.” And while I have great respect for Ward and his work, he is so wrong in so many ways on this issue that it’s hard to keep track.

Ward basically rehashes all the traditional objections to nuclear power: mining uranium is dirty and a threat to public-health, it’s too expensive, it’ll never replace traditional forms of electric power generation, and there’s no place to store the spent fuel. In scathing fashion he reviews the inexcusable health damage visited upon the Navajo of New Mexico who mined uranium for nearly three decades – a public health disaster of shameful proportions to be sure. He even tosses in Manifest Destiny and off-road vehicles. And he concludes that “Big Nuke is Big Carbon’s mad-scientist cousin.”

I won’t detail the rebuttals to each of those objections, but a couple of them are worth spotlighting. Ward argues that the consequences of the last “uranium frenzy” in the West – huge tailing piles yet to be cleaned up, high levels of cancer among miners and “downwinders,” polluted groundwater, and so on – should prohibit new nuclear development in this country. He totally ignores what we’ve learned since then and the progression of technology around uranium mining and nuclear power. It’s like saying that after the Spindletop blowout, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill, we should have shut down the oil industry for good in this country.

In-situ leach mining, which Ward briefly considers, is a relatively safe and clean way of mining uranium that leaves no tailings and involves no human exposure to the radioactive material. It’s not foolproof, to be sure; but the Colorado legislature just passed a bill to require groundwater near in-situ mines to be maintained in its pristine condition during and after mining operations. That indicates that plenty of people believe it can be done without forever polluting precious water resources.

As the demand for uranium and for new nuclear power stations worldwide grows, the technology around the process advances at a rapid clip. That’s the way free markets work. To shut off those advances is to stand in the way of the continued progress of our energy-intensive society.

Also, Ward states that, because of fears about accidents and the expense of building new plants, “Wall Street won’t invest” in nuclear development. That’s simply not true. A host of new startups have sprung up around uranium mining and nuclear technology, and over the last five years, according to the authoritative equity investment site Seeking Alpha, “the WNA Nuclear Energy Index returned 33% annualized.” That’s compared to 11% a year for the S&P 500. Wall Street is investing heavily in nuclear power, and “the nuclear industry appears poised for stronger momentum in the years to come.”

Beyond specific counter-arguments, there’s one question I would like to ask Ward and other environmentalists with a visceral opposition to nuclear power: “Well, what would you suggest?”

We are in the pick-your-poison phase of the post-industrial era. If you choose against nuclear, you are choosing for continued burning of coal, more oil development on American land, and accelerating global climate change. Does Ward really think that proven, non-CO2-producing, small-scale nuclear power stations will be more expensive to build than so-called “clean coal” plants? Unless we are willing to go back to candlelight and charcoal fires, nuclear energy has to be part of the energy solution over the next 30 years. Oppositionists like Ward are confused about risk: they’d trade the uncertainty of nuclear development and its attendant risks (such as the potential leakage of stored nuclear waste into groundwater, which is infinitesimal and at any rate spread out over hundreds or thousands of years) for the certain destructive force of global warming. It’s a dangerous miscalculation.

“It’s getting hot out here in the West,” Ward remarks, “and we need a new story.” That story must include a chapter on nuclear energy.

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