Yucca Mountain News Clips - Thursday, July 17, 2008

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, July 17, 2008
---------------------------

KXNT
July 16, 2008

Lawmakers Blast Yucca Mountain Cost

Members of Nevada's congressional delegation are blasting new Department of Energy estimates on the cost to build and operate the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository for 100 years. On Tuesday, Ward Sproat with the Office of Civilian Radioactive Management Ward told a House panel the new price tag would be 90-billion dollars, up from the 58-billion dollars estimated in 2001. Sproat says the increase is due to inflation and plans to expand the storage site northwest of Las Vegas. Congresswoman Shelley Berkley called the nuclear storage facility, quote, "grade A radioactive pork." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed to kill Yucca Mountain through budget cuts, calling the new DOE cost estimates "brazen and ridiculous." Last month, the Energy Department submitted its application to operate Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has until September to decide whether to move forward with hearings, which could take three to four years, or reject the application. If approved, Yucca Mountain could open in the year 2020, about two decades behind schedule.

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 16, 2008

Yucca Mountain cost estimate tops $90 billion

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The projected costs to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, ship used radioactive fuel to Nevada from around the country and operate the site for 100 years have grown to more than $90 billion, an energy department official said Tuesday.

Ward Sproat, director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, said the department will detail its new cost estimate in a report to be released in the next several weeks.

The department's previous "total system life cycle" cost estimate for the repository was $57.6 billion, set in 2001. Since that time, the project schedule repeatedly has been pushed back and some of its key elements are being redesigned.

Sproat, who spoke to reporters after testifying before a House energy subcommittee, said the increased costs were due also in part to inflation and DOE assumptions that the Nevada site at some point will be expanded.

A second report the energy department is preparing to make public will renew a recommendation that Congress eliminate a 70,000-metric-ton cap on how much nuclear waste can be placed within a Yucca repository.

The department believes the mountain site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas could hold at least twice as much nuclear waste, Sproat said, while industry-funded studies have concluded the Yucca capacity could be expanded by three or four times.

Sproat said a third report will conclude that there is no need to raise the fee that the department charges utilities to fund the Yucca Mountain project.

The charge, which is passed on to consumers, is one-tenth of one cent per kilowatt hour of electricity. Since 1983, charge revenues have built a fund that today contains $21 billion, the total after the department spent $9 billion.

Sproat testified to members of the House energy and air quality subcommittee that was seeking an update in light of DOE submitting a construction application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June.

Sproat said DOE "turned the corner on the Yucca Mountain program" when it filed its application.

He used the achievement as a selling point for Congress to reconsider bills that would make more money available for repository construction and address DOE needs for water and land withdrawals in Nevada.

Questions surrounding radioactive waste disposal long have been an impediment to the development of more nuclear plants, Sproat contended.

But with the project now under review by the regulatory commission, "we are three to four years away from answering the questions and putting them to bed finally," Sproat said.

Commission officials have said they hope to complete a license review in three or four years. Even so, it would take almost a decade more, under DOE's best-case scenarios for a repository, to open Yucca Mountain for business, with some experts predicting delays even years longer than that.

Most members of the energy and air quality subcommittee generally have been supportive of the Yucca project. With lawmakers feeling pressure from constituents on energy prices, several panelists said DOE cannot move fast enough to complete Yucca Mountain.

"For the sake of the country we need a safe, secure repository that can be safeguarded and where America's nuclear waste can go, the sooner the better," said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., urged colleagues to reconsider. She said there are unresolved issues at Yucca Mountain, including unfinished designs for nuclear waste canisters, the lack of a federal radiation safety standard, and questions about whether the site could withstand earthquakes and volcanoes.

Berkley said it was not too late for Congress to decide to keep nuclear waste stored at current power plant locations until other disposal methods can be developed.

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

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 16, 2008

Berkley’s 9 minutes of defiance on Yucca

House panel gathers for update on stalled plans for waste dump

By Lisa Mascaro

Washington — The lineup was as lopsided as they get here on the Hill.

One side included all the big-time supporters of Yucca Mountain — the nuclear energy lobby, the Energy Department, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

On the other side: Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley, the lone opponent of the proposed nuclear waste dump to appear in the Tuesday morning hearing. She came to tell Nevada’s side of the story.

Over the next nine minutes and 25 seconds, the Democratic congresswoman from Las Vegas spit bullets at the project proposed for a site about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

She hammered the project’s “bloated price tag.” (The costs are now estimated at $90 billion to build and operate the facility for 100 years — one-third higher than a previous estimate, thanks to inflation, expansion and redesign.)

She noted the “history of chronic delays.” The project is 20 years behind schedule.

She railed about the “long list of scientific and technological shortcomings that continue to plague Yucca Mountain,” and read e-mail about falsified scientific reports.

She drew chuckles as she spoke about the Energy Department’s sci-fi-sounding plan to send mechanical devices into the mountain 100 years from now to install drip shields, which would protect entombed waste canisters from water corrosion. She described it as something out of the movie “I, Robot.”

And she mocked those who advocate nuclear power as green energy (because it produces no global warming-causing emissions).

“Clean energy? Nuclear waste is radioactive,” the exasperated congresswoman said. “What is more dirty than that?”

The House subcommittee was assembled Tuesday to receive an update on the project, an aide said, not to hold a debate over whether Yucca Mountain should be built.

Still, when Berkley asked if she could join, the Democratic-led panel obliged.

Congress is increasingly frustrated with Yucca Mountain. Even though the Energy Department hit an important milestone last month by submitting its long-awaited license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review, lawmakers want more progress.

Repeatedly on Tuesday, lawmakers wanted to know about Plan B, and what alternatives for interim storage were available during the wait for Yucca Mountain.

Edward Sproat, whose office oversees the project in the Energy Department, said pursuing alternative sites around the country would require more political will than is feasible to be financially worthwhile.

In fact, a congressionally mandated report on the prospects for a second dump will show next month that the Energy Department thinks the best option is to simply expand capacity at Yucca Mountain, Sproat said later.

Before Berkley could finish her prepared remarks, the committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, lightly tapped his gavel. Time to wrap it up.

A few minutes later in the hall, she sighed. “I needed an hour.”

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 16, 2008

In My Opinion: The new 'recycling' business, getting fleeced, fascinating times & physical labor awaits...

Charles Lawson

OK, we're going to see to it Yucca Mountain is shut down. Billions of dollars spent digging holes in a mountain with no tangible return to show for it. Years ago, you contribute such a fiasco to a mining promoter out to fleece the public, and we got fleeced. I, for one, would like to see some tangible return on our investment; but when emotions are in control, that's an unlikely scenario. I was watching a show on what Europe is doing with its infrastructure now that it's "united," and it seems it's building record setting tunnels through the Swiss Alps to Italy, and record setting bridges from France to Spain. The improvements are designed to cut down travel times and fuel consumption among countries. Do you think our politicians have enough insight to do the same? It seems to me we could have utilized those huge Yucca Mountain boring machines to build tunnels through the Sierras to relieve travel time, not to mention the huge cost of snow removal incurred every year. Environmentalists should be ecstatic over the benefits; but they'll still oppose such a plan, like they did at Lake Tahoe, which has resulted in massive traffic jams every summer for the last 30 years.

If the trip from California to Reno only took two hours or so instead of five to six, that might be a far more useful benefit. Do you think our leaders might think up something useful to do rather than just say we need a study? Speaking of studies, a proposal is underway by environmental specialists to study the effects the current fires in California will have on water clarity in Lake Tahoe. Let's see...airborne particles falling into the water, along with nutrients produced by burning vegetation, may induce algae growth, thereby reducing clarity. There, I've done a study which indicates that, in all likelihood, water clarity in Lake Tahoe will be adversely affected by wildfires in California. I'd only charge $100,000 or so for this study; and I'd also recommend California be banned from having any further wildfires until the clarity of the Lake can be assured. A final recommendation to the State of Nevada would be to sue California for the severe air pollution Nevadans are being subjected to, likely causing widespread illness among the residents of Nevada.

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

UPI
July 16, 2008

$90 billion pricetag put on Yucca

LAS VEGAS, July 15 (UPI) -- The cost to build and operate the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump in Nevada is estimated at $90 billion, officials say.

The U.S. Energy Department estimate came after Congress requested updated figures on the proposed nuclear waste repository in the remote Nevada desert, the Las Vegas Sun reported Tuesday.

The new figure is $19 billion higher than previous estimates provided last year.

Energy Department project director Edward Sproat said the higher costs come from inflationary adjustments, design changes and increases in the amount of waste and time it takes to entomb nuclear waste.

Most Nevadans oppose the proposal.

Construction on the controversial project is years behind schedule because of objections by officials at the state and local levels.

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

Truthdig
July 16, 2008

Don’t Drink the Nuclear Kool-Aid

By Amy Goodman

While the presidential candidates trade barbs and accuse each other of flip-flopping, they agree with President Bush on their enthusiastic support for nuclear power.

Sen. John McCain has called for 100 new nuclear power plants. Sen. Barack Obama, in a July 2007 Democratic candidate debate, answered a pro-nuclear power audience member, “I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix.” Among Obama’s top contributors are executives of Exelon Corp., a leading nuclear power operator in the nation. Just this week, Exelon released a new plan, called “Exelon 2020: A Low-Carbon Roadmap.” The nuclear power industry sees global warming as a golden opportunity to sell its insanely expensive and dangerous power plants.

But nuclear power is not a solution to climate change—rather, it causes problems. Amory Lovins is the co-founder and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado. He makes simple, powerful points against nuclear: “The nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It is a very carefully fabricated illusion ... there are no buyers. Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies.” He adds: “Basically, we can have as many nuclear plants as Congress can force the taxpayers to pay for. But you won’t get any in a market economy.”

Even if nuclear power were economically viable, Lovins continues, “the first issue to come up for me would be the spread of nuclear weapons, which it greatly facilitates. If you look at places like Iran and North Korea ... how do you think they’re doing it? Iran claims to be making electricity vital to its development. ... The technology, materials, equipment, skills are applicable to both. ... The president is absolutely right in identifying the spread of nuclear weapons as the gravest threat to our security, so it’s really puzzling to me that he’s trying to accelerate that spread every way he can think of. ... It’s just an awful idea unless you’re really interested in making bombs. He’s really triggered a new Mideast arms race by trying to push nuclear power within the region.”

Along with proliferation, there are terrorist threats to existing nuclear reactors, like Entergy’s controversial Indian Point nuclear plant just 24 miles north of New York City. Lovins calls these “about as fat a terrorist target as you can imagine. It is not necessary to fly a plane into a nuclear plant or storm a plant and take over a control room in order to cause that material to be largely released. You can often do it from outside the site boundary with things the terrorists would have readily available.”

Then there is the waste: “It stays dangerous for a very long time. So you have to put it someplace that stays away from people and life and water for a very long time ... millions of years, most likely. ... So far, all the places we’ve looked turned out to be geologically unsuitable, including Yucca Mountain.” Testifying at a congressional hearing this week, Energy Department official Edward Sproat said the price of a nuclear dump in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain has climbed to $90 billion. Slated to go online a decade ago, its opening is now projected for the year 2020. And even that’s optimistic. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, wants to block nuclear waste from passing through Utah entirely, and most Nevadans oppose the Yucca waste plan.

The presidential candidates are wrong on nuclear power. Wind, solar and microgeneration (generating electricity and heat at the same time, in smaller plants), on the other hand, are taking off globally, gaining billions of dollars in private investments. Lovins summarizes: “One of the big reasons we have an oil problem and a climate problem today is we spent our money on the wrong stuff. If we had spent it on efficiency and renewables, those problems would’ve gone away, and we would’ve made trillions of dollars’ profit on the deal because it’s so much cheaper to save energy than to supply it.”

The answer is blowing in the wind.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America.

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

Deseret News
July 16, 2008

Cost of Yucca Mountain soars

New figure for N-waste storage site tops $90B

By Erica Werner
Associated Press

and Lee Davidson
Deseret News

WASHINGTON — Turns out, it's going to cost taxpayers $32 billion more than first thought to open and operate the nation's first nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

And Utah and Nevada members of Congress are using that news to try to kill that project and replace it with storing waste in dry casks at nuclear power plants that produce it.

The Bush administration's latest calculation — made public Tuesday — is that the Yucca Mountain facility will cost more than $90 billion. It's the first official estimate since 2001, when the figure was $58 billion.

Ward Sproat, the Energy Department official in charge of managing the controversial Yucca Mountain repository project in Nevada, disclosed the new number to reporters after a House hearing Tuesday.

The estimate includes $9 billion already spent and covers about 100 years of operation until the dump, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is sealed up forever.

"That's a lot of money," said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, a member of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, where the news was delivered. "We need to look at whether proceeding (with Yucca Mountain) is really the most cost-effective alternative. I don't believe it is."

Matheson and other Utah and Nevada members are pushing a bill calling for storing nuclear waste on-site at nuclear power plants in "dry cask" storage. Matheson notes that technology had not been developed when Congress first passed legislation calling for the Yucca Mountain repository.

Matheson said dry-cask storage could store all the radioactive waste produced in the last four decades on a space about the size of a football field. He says using that would be safer than transporting nuclear waste across the country, through Utah and into Nevada.

"Utahns have a hard time understanding why the transportation risks associated with shipping waste to Yucca Mountain have never been fully studied," despite all the money spent on Yucca Mountain so far, Matheson told the committee. "Given that 95 percent of the waste would go through Utah if rail were used, and 87 percent if we truck this waste, this is a huge concern to my constituents."

Matheson added, "The West — whether it is Utah's Skull Valley (proposed as an interim storage site), or Nevada's Yucca Mountain — is not the de facto dumping ground for this lethal material. Storing nuclear waste on site is the safest, most reasonable and most effective way of allowing nuclear power plants to continue operating while we search for an appropriate long-term storage solution."

Sproat said some of the estimated cost increase comes from inflation. Also, Energy Department officials now expect the dump will hold more radioactive waste than the 77,000 tons initially approved by Congress.

A report with precise cost breakdowns will be released to Congress in the next several weeks, Sproat said.

Already, some 64,000 tons of radioactive spent fuel rods are stored at commercial reactor sites in 33 states, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Most of it is stored in vault-like pools while some has been moved into dry-cask storage, where Nevada lawmakers, who oppose Yucca Mountain, would like it to stay — or be moved into dry-cask storage on-site.

Sproat opposes that plan as impractical. He also objected to other interim storage options raised Tuesday by frustrated lawmakers, who reported hearing from constituents about the need for new energy sources.

Commercial nuclear power plants now produce some 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but concern about waste disposal has hampered the industry's growth.

Yucca Mountain was originally supposed to open in 1998 but has been beset by lawsuits and political and scientific controversies. The best-possible opening date is now 2020, Sproat told lawmakers at an Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing.

Even that is contingent on a steady money stream, something that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has blocked.

The Energy Department did succeed in submitting a required construction license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last month. The commission has up to four years to decide whether to approve it — but that timeline, too, is dependent on congressionally approved budgets.

--E-mail: lee@desnews.com

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

Salt Lake Tribune
July 16, 2008

If Yucca opens, waste could travel via Utah

Matheson reminds House panel of his 2005 bill to keep radioactive junk where it was made

By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - Dumping the nation's nuclear waste in the Nevada desert could cost billions more and take decades longer than expected.

The plan to open Yucca by 2020 - 22 years after it was initially projected to open - hinges on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approving a license for the facility, for Congress to approve the arrangement and for enough money to be earmarked for the project.

Rep. Jim Matheson wants to take another route: leaving 77,000 tons of deadly waste where it was created.

The Utah Democrat reminded a Department of Energy official and others Tuesday at a House subcommittee hearing about a bill he introduced in 2005 to keep the waste at reactor sites under DOE oversight. He reintroduced the measure this session.

"The transportation of nuclear waste across the continent creates more problems than leaving it where it is," Matheson said, noting he does not oppose nuclear energy. "Even if we were to magically open Yucca Mountain today, we wouldn't have enough room for the waste we have."

A second waste site as big as Yucca Mountain, which could hold an amount about as large as is now stockpiled, may be needed to hold the rest of the nation's spent nuclear waste, said Edward Sproat, director of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste.

WASHINGTON - Dumping the nation's nuclear waste in the Nevada desert could cost billions more and take decades longer than expected.

Rep. Jim Matheson wants to take another route: leaving 77,000 tons of deadly waste where it was created.

If Yucca goes forward, between 87 percent and 95 percent of the 77,000 tons of radioactive waste could travel through Utah en route to the southern Nevada dump. Also, because Nevada couldn't hold all of the nuclear industry's waste, Utah could again be looked at as a potential storage site for spent nuclear fuel.

State leaders have for at least a decade fought a proposal from energy companies to build a temporary storage site on the Skull Valley Goshute reservation about an hour's drive from Salt Lake City.

Sproat said on-site storage of the nuclear waste won't solve the waste-disposal problem.

"It really becomes a question of for how long are you going to leave it there," Sproat said. "Eventually it's going to move, and the longer you leave it there, the more it's going to cost."

The cost to open and operate Yucca has swelled since the last time the DOE released an estimate of $58 billion in 2001. Sproat says the project, including the $9 billion already spent, and 100 years of operation could total $90 billion.

Sproat said a report on interim storage of nuclear waste as well as another on the need for a secondary repository are "imminent" but gave no firm date of when they would be released.

--tburr@sltrib.com

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

AP Google
July 15, 2008

Total nuke dump cost to top $90 billion

By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Turns out, it's going to cost taxpayers $32 billion more than first thought to open and operate the nation's first nuclear waste dump.

The Bush administration's latest calculation — made public Tuesday — is that the facility will cost over $90 billion. It's the first official estimate since 2001, when the figure was $58 billion.

Ward Sproat, the Energy Department official in charge of managing the controversial Yucca Mountain repository project in Nevada, disclosed the new number to reporters after a congressional hearing Tuesday.

The estimate includes $9 billion already spent and covers about 100 years of operation until the dump, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is sealed up forever.

Some of the increase is due to inflation, Sproat said. Also Energy Department officials now expect the dump will hold more radioactive waste than the 77,000 tons initially approved by Congress.

A report with precise cost breakdowns will be released to Congress in the next several weeks, Sproat said.

Commercial nuclear power plants now produce some 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but concern about waste disposal has hampered the industry's growth.

Even that is contingent on a steady money stream, something that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has blocked.

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

Las Vegas SUN
July 15, 2008

Yucca Mountain price tag: $90 billion

By Lisa Mascaro

WASHINGTON -- The new price tag for building and operating Yucca Mountain is estimated to be $90 billion, the Energy Department said today, providing the first real snapshot of lifespan costs after Congress has repeatedly pleaded for an updated financial picture.

The estimate is $19 billion higher than previous rough estimates provided last year for the nation's nuclear waste dump about a 1 1/2-hour drive outside of Las Vegas.

Energy Department project director Edward Sproat said the higher costs come from inflationary adjustments to today's dollars, design changes and increases in the amount of waste and time it takes to entomb it. The repository would be open for 100 years.

Within three weeks, the department also plans to report on a second repository, as required by Congress.

No surprise here: The report will say that expanding Yucca Mountain would be the most cost-effective option.

Most Nevadans oppose the proposed nuclear waste dump in the state. The project is 20 years behind schedule and is now on track to open in 2020.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement saying, “It’s always more, more, more … The evidence that Yucca Mountain will never happen is growing by the day.”

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley said the project qualified as "grade 'A' radioactive pork. We could spend a fraction of that amount to pay for keeping waste safely on-site at existing plants for the next 100 years."

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 15, 2008

Yucca Mountain Project cost grows to $90 billion

WASHINGTON -- The estimated costs to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, ship used radioactive fuel there from around the country and operate the site for 1OO years has grown to more than $9O billion, an Energy Department official said today.

Ward Sproat, director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, said the department will break down its new cost estimates in a report to be released in the next several weeks.

DOE's previous "total life cycle" cost estimate for Yucca was $58 billion, in 2OO1.

Speaking to reporters after testifying at a House hearing, Sproat said the higher costs were due in part to inflation and DOE's assumption that the Nevada site will store larger amounts of spent nuclear fuel.

A second report DOE is preparing to make public will recommend Congress lift a 7O,OOO-metric-ton cap on the Yucca repository capacity rather than try to establish a second storage site for new volumes of nuclear waste being generated at utilities, Sproat said.

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

redOrbit
July 15, 2008

From Our Readers

Is It Too Late to Make a Deal?

As directed by the Congress of the United States in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the U.S. Department of Energy has submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build a deep-underground repository on federal land at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The application documents more than 20 years of scientific analyses and engineering, and demonstrates that the nation's inventory of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste can be disposed of safely and isolated from the environment.

The license application reflects a massive science and technology effort encompassing the work of thousands of Nevadans representing numerous national laboratories, internationally renowned science and engineering firms, universities and the Department of Energy. More than $6 billion has been spent to date, a significant portion of which has been spent in Nevada.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is entirely independent of the Department of Energy, will now begin a preliminary review to decide whether to accept the application. If they find it sufficiently complete, they will begin a detailed and rigorous review of the application. This review will take several years and will include public hearings in Nevada that will allow public participation.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will grant a license to build the repository only if it concludes that the repository will protect the health and safety of the public now and into the far future.

As Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said on the day the license application was filed, we at the Department of Energy know that some of you have deeply felt concerns about the Yucca Mountain facility. We do not seek to dismiss or minimize them. On the contrary, issues of health, safety and security have been of paramount importance during the design process. They will continue to be of paramount importance to us as we go forward.

The Yucca Mountain repository program has been one of the most open government projects in history. Information about the repository and its design can be found at www.ocrwm.doe.gov. The license application itself as well as all of the documents that have been developed to support the application can be found at www.lsnnet.gov.

We encourage you to read this information for a better understanding of how the repository will work both to protect people and the environment as well as to solve our nation's nuclear waste problem.

Ward Sproat
Washington, D.C.
--The writer is director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

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

St. George Daily Spectrum
July 15, 2008

Matheson introduces bill amending Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

ST. GEORGE — U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, along with the Utah and Nevada Congressional delegations, has introduced a bill –HR 4062—that amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, according to a press release from Matheson’s office today.

Matheson’s bill requires commercial nuclear utilities to transfer nuclear waste from spent nuclear fuel pools into dry storage casks; requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to take title of all spent nuclear fuel stored in dry casks on-site and requires such storage to comply the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s safety regulations, the release said.

According to the release, Matheson said that nuclear waste is already stored at the nuclear power plants where it is created and technical experts say that can occur safely for at least 100 years. Even if Yucca Mountain opened tomorrow, it wouldn’t have enough room for existing spent nuclear fuel and even DOE concedes that between $1.2 and $1.9 billion per year is needed to construct and begin operation of Yucca Mountain by the scheduled opening in 2020.

Last month, DOE submitted a long-overdue licensing application for Yucca Mountain to the NRC and that agency has begun processing it.

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

Salt Lake Tribune
July 15, 2008

Matheson pushes alternative Yucca Mountain nuke waste shipment plan

By Thomas Burr

WASHINGTON - Dumping the nation's nuclear waste in the Nevada desert could cost billions more and take even longer than previously anticipated.

But the plan to open Yucca by 2020 - three years later than previously estimated - hinges on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approving a license for the facility, for Congress to give its final nod to the arrangement and for enough money to be earmarked to the project.

"That is the best achievable date if everything does according to plan," Edward F. Sproat, director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, testified Tuesday before a House subcommittee.

Even then, he said, a second site may be needed to hold the rest of the nation's spent nuclear waste since the Yucca site is seeking a license to store some 77,000 tons of the radioactive leftovers.

Between 87 percent and 95 percent of that waste would travel through Utah en route to the southern Nevada facility, and Utah could again be looked at as a potential storage site for spent nuclear fuel.

Rep. Jim Matheson wants to take another route: leaving the waste where it was created.

The Utah Democrat pushed the Department of Energy official and others Tuesday about a bill he introduced in 2005 to have nuclear power plants hold onto their waste at reactor sites and for the DOE to take charge of them.

"The transportation of nuclear waste across the continent creates more problems than leaving it where it is," Matheson said, noting he does not oppose nuclear energy. "I just don't think moving the waste to Yucca Mountain really solves the problem. Even if we were to magically open Yucca Mountain today, we wouldn't have enough room for the waste we have."

Sproat, however, noted that on-site storage of the nuclear waste won't solve the problem either.

"It really becomes a question of for how long are you going to leave it there," Sproat said. "Eventually it's going to move and the longer you leave it there the more it's going to cost."

That concern was shared by Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who argued Yucca Mountain makes the most sense because it is remote and "there's no one around."

"If we can't put it in the desert, under a mountain, we just can't put it anywhere in this country," Shimkus said.

Of course, the cost to open and operate Yucca has grown since the last time the DOE released an estimate of $58 billion in 2001. Sproat says the project, including the $9 billion already spent, and 100 years of operation could total $90 billion overall.

And it might need a twin to keep up with demand.

Sproat said a report on interim storage of nuclear waste as well as another on the need for a secondary repository are "imminent" but gave no firm date of when they would be released. The federal government once tried to select an area outside of Canyonlands National Park, and a consortium of energy companies recently tried to temporarily locate thousands of tons of nuclear waste on the Goshute Indian Reservation.

A few members of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Energy and Water complained that the time it has taken to approve, build and open Yucca Mountain has hindered - and will continue to hold back - any new nuclear power plants as the nation faces an energy crunch.

"A delay doesn't work for anyone's benefit," said Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez, D-Tex., who added that a lack of a clear storage plan is an "argument against improving our reactor capacity."

--tburr@sltrib.com

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

Longview Daily News
July 15, 2008

Yucca Mountain stalling only delays inevitable nuclear power push

Daily News editorial

An emerging political consensus on the need to control greenhouse gas emissions and concern about the nation’s dependence on costly foreign oil have prompted the Bush administration and Congress to give nuclear energy a new look. President Bush made the construction of new nuclear power plants a priority of his second term and, more recently, Congress voted to provide almost $1 billion for various nuclear energy programs.

Assigning nuclear power a larger role in the nation’s energy future is only sensible. There seems little basis for the popular fear ignited by the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Nuclear plants can be operated safely. Indeed, nuclear power provides nearly 80 percent of France's electricity needs. By comparison, commercial reactors generate only 20 percent of U.S. electricity.

The last application for a new reactor in the United States was filed 35 years ago. Despite the apparent political consensus on jump-starting the country’s moribund nuclear power industry, we’re not optimistic that commercial utilities will soon be rushing to build new plants. Congressional leaders don’t appear to understand that the dawn of a new era of nuclear power is contingent upon the federal government honoring its promise to take possession of radioactive waste left over from the previous era.

Senate leaders, in particular, have shown a determination to block the construction of a national repository for nuclear waste near Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Last week, a Senate panel cut the administration’s fiscal 2009 budget request for the project from $494.7 million to $386.5 million. If the lower figure holds, it will mark the second straight year that Congress has sliced more than $100 million from the Yucca Mountain budget. And, given Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s support of the cut, it likely will hold.

The Nevada Democrat assumed the Senate’s top leadership post in 2006, vowing to keep the nuclear waste dump out of his home state by starving it of adequate funding. So far he’s made good on that promise. The fiscal 2008 funding cut caused the government to put off some of the work planned for the year, putting the scheduled 2017 completion date in jeopardy. Another 20 percent funding cut in fiscal 2009 would almost certainly add years to that completion date.

The budget reductions are not mandated by a need to hold down federal spending. The money is available to build the waste dump. Commercial utilities have collected more than $20 billion from ratepayers over the past 20 years for the construction of this national repository.

The government’s promotion of more nuclear power is on a collision course with Congress’ failure to move forward on the construction of the waste dump in a more timely manner. As a practical matter, members must know that there can be no revival of the U.S. nuclear industry until and unless the completion of this project is assured.

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

Toledo Blade
July 13, 2008

Radioactive-waste storage holds key to nuclear power

Tom Henry

The next four years are critical for Nevada's Yucca Mountain, not to mention America's nuclear power industry.

Is the industry truly poised for a rebirth? That question begins and ends with what happens at Yucca Mountain, the only site the government has considered for years as the possible host for spent fuel from America's nuclear reactor cores.

The project's fate is being determined in the Washington suburb of Rockville, Md., at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's headquarters.

The NRC last month received the Department of Energy's long-anticipated license application to develop Yucca Mountain into the national repository.

It was another dull moment in government to most of us. But it also was the start of a new chapter of hope for an industry mired in a never-ending saga over its high level of waste.

The debate comes down to whether the nation should go forward with the Earth's largest geothermal experiment in southwestern Nevada. It's one in which mountain rocks must be capable of withstanding radioactive decay for at least 10,000 years, something no scientist can possibly guarantee with absolute certainty.

It's a calculated risk. But we don't live in a risk-free world, either.

To give you an idea of just how far the Yucca Mountain project has gotten off course, let's talk a minute about a little piece of bureaucracy that Congress passed a generation ago called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

The act called for the government to collect one-tenth of a cent for every kilowatt hour of electricity purchased from a utility that generates nuclear power, such as FirstEnergy Corp. and DTE Energy.

That's right. Just one-tenth of a penny. Run your hair dryer, make some coffee, turn on a kitchen light, warm up last night's pizza, and, before you know it, you've dropped a penny in a coffer called the Nuclear Waste Fund. The money in it is for a national repository.

That account has accumulated billions of dollars since 1983, including interest, with no decision in sight. But that's not all. The Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that the government owes utilities rent for each day they've had to hold onto spent fuel since Jan. 31, 1998, the government's self-imposed deadline to have a repository ready to go. That, as you can imagine, is costing us billions more.

Yucca Mountain is a barren mountain in Nevada's Amargosa Desert that's 2,000 miles from Toledo, 30 miles from California's Death Valley, and home to more scorpions than people. To the east is the Nevada Test Site, where the nuclear weapons were once tested.

Congress is requiring the NRC to evaluate the Energy Department's 8,600-page application for a minimum of three years. It has given the NRC an option for one more year beyond that, an option the agency - often accused by its critics of being soft on industry and rushing to judgment - said on June 3 it expects to exercise.

The review is to involve more than 100 staff and contractor employees with expertise in geochemistry, hydrology, climatology, structural geology, volcanology, seismology, health physics, homeland security, law, as well as chemical, mechanical, nuclear, mining, materials, and geological engineering, according to the NRC's statement.

President Bush has been one of the nuclear industry's biggest allies. Republican John McCain hopes to carry on where he leaves off, proposing 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and Yucca Mountain as the repository.

Democrat Barack Obama has said he could support an expanded nuclear industry but is more cautious in his assessment.

"Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there," Mr. Obama has said, adding that consideration should be given to any state more willing to play host.

Any takers?

Unlikely.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
July 12, 2008

Ohioan chosen as Nye top dog

By Mark Waite
PVT

Richard L. Osborne Sr., director of administration for Tallmadge, Ohio, was chosen as the primary candidate for the county manager position by Nye County commissioners Wednesday.

Assistant County Manager Pam Webster said preliminary top-level background checks have been conducted on the candidates, but the Nye County Sheriff's Office was directed to perform another one. His hiring will also be subject to contract negotiations.

Osborne was chosen from among 28 candidates for the job. He was chosen to replace Ron Williams, who was appointed interim county manager to replace Mike Maher in March 2006 and promoted to permanent county manager in December 2006.

Three other finalists were called in for interviews: James T. Braswell, operational services director of Douglas County; Marie A. Gelles, a contractor for Texas First and former city administrator of Helotes, Texas; and Ronald Stock, city administrator of Lamar, Colo.

Commissioner Peter Liakopoulos made the motion to hire Osborne.

When asked later why he endorsed Osborne, Liakopoulos said, "He stated that he was pro business. I think he demonstrated also that he has the intelligence to get caught up on wilderness, because the wilderness issue, I don't think, if you're not from the West, you're not going to pick up on."

Liakopoulos questioned each applicant about what they would do to bring business into the county.

"I have 36 years of public service in varying degrees," Osborne said. "I also managed, owned and operated several businesses on the side, so I have a perspective of the small businessman that you won't find too often in a public servant."

Osborne ran rental properties, operated a beer and wine store and drew a few chuckles when he remarked about owning a doughnut shop while he was a policeman.

He began work for the city of Tallmadge in December 1970 as a patrol officer. He was promoted to sergeant, criminal investigations, uniform division commander, operation's commander, then in August 1996 began work as city treasurer.

In January 2000 he was appointed director of administration, supervising 240 employees in a city of 17,500.

Osborne received his bachelor of arts in management from Malone College in Canton, Ohio, in 1993. He completed course work in business management and criminal justice from the University of Akron from 1982 to 1991.

Osborne said county administration may have to reverse the feeling among some business owners that the county is against them.

Liakopoulos also questioned the candidates about their views on wilderness issues.

Osborne said he wants to relocate to a warmer climate. But Eastley, an Ohio native herself, cautioned him he may be traveling two days per week throughout the county, to areas where there may be snow.

Commissioner Roberta "Midge" Carver asked if he knew how large and diverse Nye County is.

When Osborne said it was bigger than Rhode Island, Eastley added four other states that would fit inside Nye County.

Commissioner Butch Borasky said there's a little friction between the county and Pahrump town government. Osborne said he's a good communicator and will talk with the rank and file as well as titular heads.

"I would begin by trying to gather information, as much as I could, not only from the people who live in the city, or the proposed city of Pahrump, but also talk with a lot of the people that live here and get their spin on it. Communication I think is at the root of many of the issues in America today," Osborne said.

He told Borasky he plans to spend six to 10 years working as county manager.

"I'm not ready to retire. I'm not ready at all. I'm looking for another good challenge," he said.

When it came to knowledge of Nevada water law, Osborne told Borasky the same situation exists back in Ohio.

Commissioner Gary Hollis said unlike Ohio, however, Nye County has to deal with federal agencies like the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, with 98 percent of the land under federal control.

Osborne said Ohio also has national parks and forests. "When all is said and done, they're human beings trying to do their job to the best of their ability," he said.

Since leaving Tallmadge in October 2007, Osborne said he has been doing some consulting work for a small city in northeastern Ohio. He mentioned experience working on a training program at Kent State University for the Summit County Probation Department from 1997 to 1999.

Osborne told Eastley he visited the Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office.

"If contamination to the water supply from Yucca Mountain is an issue, then you should move the water supply," Osborne said.

Webster had questions about each candidate's management style. Osborne said, "I'm thoroughly a team player -- always have been."

But in a follow-up question, Osborne said he doesn't micromanage.

Osborne said he could travel to remote communities in Nye County. He recalled doing a lot of traveling in Ohio's 88 counties as an assessor for the Commission for Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies from 1989 to 1993.

Citing a Chinese proverb, he said, "A journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step."

Osborne told Webster he would be available to relocate to Nye County in a couple weeks. He already informed the consulting firm he works for about his job interview in Pahrump.

Osborne said, however, he applied for several jobs and was also a candidate in Gulf Shores, Ala.

But the Nye County manager job is the only position for which he is a finalist, Osborne said.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 12, 2008

Letter: Repository would take care of shortfall

Here we are facing massive cuts in every area of our Nevada government. Gee, just what would it take to cover this huge shortage? We don't want the money that a state lotto would bring in. Even $10-$60 million. Maybe more maybe less.

How about opening that Yucca Mountain and charging the heck on every shipment in. Lots of states with waste. We've been blowing up atomic bombs for the last 40 years. If we're not dead yet of radiation, then let's go! Start the receiving and get the money needed to cover our shortfall and "billions" more. We could even start taking shipments from other countries.

How about we make so much money that, like Alaska, every Nevada citizen who has lived in residence for more than a year gets a rebate check. Or, better yet, no more property taxes. Even the casinos would love that.

And don't forget to fix our roads, parks, schools, more police/fire. So many things to take care of right here in Nevada.

Martin Grevich
Reno

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

Tri-City Herald
July 12, 2008

Hanford vit plant gets emission stack (w/ video)

By Pratik Joshi

It's made of steel, weighs about 140,000 pounds and it took four months to assemble.

And Friday the 68-foot-tall emission stack was set atop the Analytical Laboratory building at Hanford's vitrification plant by 32 workers and engineers in an hourlong operation. The stack will help block the release of contaminants from the lab into the environment.

"It's a significant milestone, a good symbol of our progress for the community to see," said David Leeth, plant construction manager.

The $12.2 billion Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project, of which the lab is a key component, will help take care of the 53 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste stored in underground tanks at Hanford.

The lab will analyze radioactive waste samples before they're treated to identify the best recipe to convert the waste into molten glass, and will ensure quality control in the treatment process.

The plant, which is being constructed by Bechtel National, is expected to become operational in 2019.

"Every installation we make brings us closer to operations and supports our efforts to clean up the Hanford site," said Delmar Noyes, deputy manager of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project for the U.S. Department of Energy.

The plant will be the world's largest vitrification facility and will be a model for the nuclear industry to follow, he said. It's designed to last 40 years, he added.

The plant spread over 65 acres will include a pretreatment facility and separate facilities for treating low-activity waste and high-level waste. Low-activity waste will be processed faster than the high-level waste and be stored at Hanford, while high-level waste eventually will be shipped to an underground repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

For the Tri-Cities, construction of the plant is an engine of community growth. It brings federal money to the area and provides thousands of high-paying jobs, said Deanna Smith, spokeswoman for the Tri-City Development Council.

It's nice to see work at the plant is progressing well, Smith said.

About 800 to 1,000 professionals including chemical and radiological technicians and health physics specialists will be needed to run the plant when it's operating.

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

redOrbit
July 12, 2008

Nuclear Power, Recycling Needed Now

By Michael L. Green

At a time when America is paying $1.5 billion a day for imported oil, it seems incomprehensible that something isn't being done to remove the albatross around the neck of nuclear power.

For that we can thank Congress. It is supporting renewable energy, everything from solar and wind power to biofuels and other green sources. While renewable sources might help meet peak energy demand, they simply can't provide the "base-load" electricity that our nation needs to drive the economy.

Whether or not we like nuclear power, the reality is that, next to coal, no other source of electricity is more important. Nuclear plants account for 20 percent of the nation's electricity, operating safely and dependably, free of the whims of Middle East sheiks and corrupt Russians.

Yet U.S. nuclear utilities do not have access to a critically important technology that is available to their counterparts in France, Great Britain, Japan and other countries. The irony is the technology - known as nuclear recycling, or reprocessing - was developed in the United States a half-century ago but banned by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, on grounds that it could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Often mistaken for nuclear waste, spent fuel possesses uranium and plutonium that can be chemically recycled into new nuclear fuel to produce electricity. Currently there is 55,000 metric tons of spent fuel stored at nuclear plant sites around the country, awaiting shipment to a central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

If the spent fuel were to be saved for recycling, it could provide electricity for decades, extend uranium supplies and significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste. Experts say recycling in the United States poses no proliferation risk, and its revival would enable our country to make good use of a valuable energy resource. Essentially, the only nuclear waste that would need to be shipped to the Nevada repository for permanent disposal is a relatively small amount of spent fuel that can't be recycled.

President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - known as GNEP - calls for construction of a recycling plant that would be ready by 2020. GNEP's goal is to encourage the use of nuclear power worldwide, while preventing the loss or misuse of plutonium. The idea is to persuade countries that are planning to build their first nuclear power plants to forego recycling and instead obtain reactor fuel from the United States or a few other countries that already possess recycling capability.

The administration has asked Congress for funds needed to establish a nuclear recycling center, which would include the recycling plant, an advanced "fast reactor" capable of using the recycled fuel and a research facility to develop new technologies for recycling that would make it more difficult to convert plutonium into a bomb. But Congress has provided little money for GNEP. Some members of the House and Senate are reluctant to acknowledge that nuclear non-proliferation safeguards are more likely to be observed by countries if they're given an opportunity to obtain nuclear fuel for electricity production.

Moreover, the failure to provide adequate funds for GNEP shows an ignorance of nuclear power's importance globally. The International Atomic Energy Agency forecasts as many as 1,000 nuclear plants operating by 2050, more than double the number today. Egypt, Vietnam, Malaysia and Argentina are among the countries planning to build nuclear plants.

How will they obtain nuclear fuel if it's not available from the United States and a few other countries with recycling capability? The short answer is they will develop their own capability. And the risk of plutonium diversion for weapons production will pose a serious threat to world peace. In all likelihood, Congress will stick its head in the sand, hoping that when it re-emerges solar energy will be there in abundance to meet our needs, confirmation that our energy policy borders on the irrational.

The energy problem is terribly serious. We can ill afford not to use sources of energy - primarily nuclear power and clean coal technology - which we know how to use and which, in combination, could satisfy our energy needs. To slough off the need for nuclear recycling because of the hope that solar or wind energy may eventually become important is a dangerous thing for our country and for the world.

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

Huffington Post
July 11, 2008

Radioactive Pigs

Carl Pope

It hit 117 degrees here in Las Vegas, but what's heating up longer term is another kind of heat -- radiation. The Department of Energy applied for its long-sought permit to open a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE proceeded, as it always has on this project, with reckless disregard of the fact that isn't nearly ready to answer the questions that will arise. Just before the filing, the State of Nevada revealed that it had identified between 250 and 500 legal flaws in the permit process, any one of which could be the basis for a legal challenge.

Steve Frishman, technical policy coordinator for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, warned: "We believe there should be real designs ... 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?"

More evidence of the hard-wired sloppiness that has plagued Yucca from the start popped up a week after DOE filed for its NRC permit. Holtec International, one of the nation's largest manufacturers of nuclear waste storage systems, called Yucca a "doomed undertaking" and said the safety procedures proposed by DOE were a "fool's errand."

Normally outsiders have a hard time grasping the technical issues at Yucca, but this latest recklessness is simplicity itself. Yucca lies near earthquake faults and is expected to experience quakes of up to 6.5 on the Richter scale. DOE rejected Holtec's proposal that the nuclear waste casks undergoing the four-year "cool down" period before being storied permanently should be tied down with seismic anchors. Now in San Francisco, where I live, gargoyles on office building are seismically anchored. It seems abundantly clear that nuclear waste casks should be as well. But DOE wants to save money and, as Holtec said, in an earthquake "pigs will fly before the casks will stay put." Again, this is not the opinion of Greenpeace -- it's a company that stores nuclear waste as a business.

So how does this play out politically? Nevada is a presidential battleground state, and has a closely contested congressional seat as well.

Sixty percent of Nevadans continue to oppose Yucca. More than half say that a Presidential candidate's stance on Yucca will influence their vote in November. John McCain supports Yucca. Barack Obama opposes it. More troubling for Nevadans, McCain favors an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in constructing at least 45 new nuclear power plants, and perhaps as many as 145. These new plants if built will need storage -- and Yucca, as presently designed, will be full. But the pressure will be enormous to just ship the added waste to Nevada, on the grounds that it is already at risk.

As Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid put it during McCain's most recent visit to Las Vegas, McCain "believes Nevada is a wasteland."

Commissioner Reid also drew a sharp contrast between the two candidates: "While Sen. McCain wants to bury the most toxic substance known to man in our state, Sen. Obama wants to spend billions of dollars to invest in new technologies that will create 5 million new jobs across the country."

McCain's response to Nevada was scornful. From the seemingly safe distance of California, he rejected the notion that there could be anything wrong with the Yucca site, saying "It's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken; it's a NIMBY problem." However, it appears that NIMBY is a relative concept, depending on whose backyard we're talking about. Because when asked earlier what he thought about the safety of just shipping radioactive waste through Arizona to get to Yucca, McCain, as this YouTube clip shows, made it clear he didn't like the idea at all.

But about a half million Nevadans have moved into the state since DOE last seriously tried to move the Yucca Mountain project along. Our challenge is going to be educating those new residents about the federal plan to use junk science and rushed permits to make their state the designated sacrifice zone to revive the financial fortunes of America's nuclear power complex.

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

Lincoln County Record

County Sends Letter to Surface Transportation Board

By Dave Maxwell

Dr. Mike Baughman, of Intertech Services in Carson City, reported at the July meeting of the Joint City/County Impact Alleviation Committee in Pioche. He stated that the Surface Transportation Board is “probably the most likely entity to get some of the mitigation measures parties may be concerned about imposed as conditions to granting the certificate,” issued to the Department of Energy (DOE) to build a railroad to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

On June 3, 2008, the DOE filed an 8,647 page license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build the disposal site.

On July 11, both the DOE final Environmental Impact Statements for the Yucca Mountain site and the preferred Rail Corridor and Alignment will be entered into the Federal Registry detailing the plans. This starts a 30-day public comment period required by the National Environmental Policy Act before the DOE can issue a Record of Decision, which they expect to do as early as August 12, 2008. That decision will state exactly where the DOE wants to build the railroad through the state of Nevada, which includes the Caliente Corridor. DOE then hopes to start the licensing process in September 2008.

The DOE must also apply for a right-of-way permit for the rail alignment with the Bureau of Land Management as well as file for a Certificate of Public Conveyance and Necessity from the Surface Transportation Board (STB), to build its proposed 336-mile railroad across Lincoln County. The certificate from the STB would also allow the railroad to be a shared-use line involving commercial traffic.

It is through the Surface Transportation Board that Dr. Baughman feels is the best way for Lincoln County and the other interested parties to have many issues of concern addressed up front.

He said in May 2008, 25-30 parties, including Lincoln County, the N4 Grazing Board, City of Caliente, a number of environmental groups, the state of California, and several private ranchers filed notice with the STB to participate in the process. Parties have until July 15 to submit comments on the DOE’s application for Certificate of Public Conveyance and Necessity. Lincoln County Commissioners made their comments in a letter approved at their regular July 7 meeting and submitted it to STB Secretary Ann Quinlan in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Baughman said the letter basically identifies eight or nine topical land areas and explains how this project might impact land use and offers a number of prospected mitigation measures as conditions to granting the certificate. Some 30 allotments in Lincoln County and 12 in Nye and Esmeralda Counties stand to be impacted by the DOE railroad to Yucca Mountain. Dr. Baughman noted the STB historically has been very good about imposing conditions as a stipulation for granting the certificate.

He said the letter “draws heavily on comments made to the draft EIS and also draws on, and references the variety of impact studies the County has done over the past number years. But it is focused almost entirely on mitigation measures.” Baughman said the letter was written in such a way that the STB could lift out the recommended mitigation measures “almost verbatim and put as a condition to granting the Certificate of Public Conveyance to the DOE.”

Baughman said the STB also has the authority to require the DOE to negotiate agreements with affected parties on mitigation measures and review them for approval.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
July 11, 2008

Panel chops Yucca spending

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel Tuesday chopped more than 20 percent from the Department of Energy's 2009 budget for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

Action taken by the energy and water subcommittee signals months of uncertainty ahead as to whether the DOE will have enough money to manage its newly submitted license application for the Nevada site if Congress carries out the deep cut.

The Senate subcommittee approved a $386.4 million Yucca budget for the fiscal year that starts in October.

That is the same amount that Congress allocated last year, but $108.3 million less than DOE had requested for 2009.

Most of the additional funding was budgeted to pay lawyers, engineers, managers and scientists preparing to defend a repository application sent last month to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOE spokesman Allen Benson said the department will not comment until Congress completes work on the Yucca Mountain budget as part of a $33.2 billion spending bill for the Energy Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a Yucca critic who has exercised power as Senate majority leader to slow the project, said the Senate budget cut unveiled on Tuesday will set it back.

"It was no simple task to cut $109 million -- 22 percent -- of the $495 million budget requested by the president, but it will surely cripple the progress the Energy Department wants to make," Reid said in a statement.

A corresponding bill in the House fully funds Yucca Mountain at DOE's request of $494.7 million. The House and Senate would need to settle on a final amount but leaders have not said when the bill will be finished.

Congress last year forced budget cuts of more than $100 million in the Yucca program, prompting several hundred layoffs and a DOE reorganization to meet a June goal to send a repository construction plan to the NRC.

The nuclear safety agency is reviewing the DOE application before deciding whether it should be docketed for more extensive studies.

The new Senate bill granted the agency's request for $37.3 million to carry out Yucca Mountain license studies in the coming year, according to Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., the subcommittee chairman.

"They will have sufficient funds," Dorgan said.

Meanwhile Tuesday, Nevada lawmakers turned up their criticism of a Yucca Mountain legal services contract between the Department of Energy and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The lawmakers renewed a demand that Morgan Lewis be taken off the project after the Justice Department recently raised new questions about the firm's conflicts of interest.

At the same time Morgan Lewis is working a $47.7 million contract to handle repository licensing, it represents nuclear utilities that are suing the Department of Energy for missing deadlines on the project. The Justice Department has challenged whether DOE had the authority to seek a conflict of interest waiver to allow Morgan Lewis to be hired for the Yucca job after the firm said it was taking steps to keep the cases separated.

"The Justice Department's opinion is clear and unequivocal," Nevada's five members of Congress said in a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "The Department of Energy had no authority to waive Morgan Lewis's conflicts of interest..."

DOE responded in a statement that the department was within its rights to grant the waiver, which it said complied with "all applicable rules and regulations."

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

Danville News
July 11, 2008

Letter: No moderate

It looks like the "Straight Talk Express" has hit another big pothole. As part of his energy strategy John McCain is proposing the construction of 100 new nuclear power plants. We have yet to come up with a good solution to handle the 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste that presently sits at currently operating power plants. He wants this waste to be shipped across 45 states to the unproven repository in Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He sees no problem with shipping this waste through your town or city but when asked whether he would want it shipped through his home state of Arizona he said no. This is hypocrisy at the highest level.

There are now ads on TV extolling the virtues of Senator McCain's energy policies, but there is much the ads don't tell you. He says he is for caps on CO2 emissions but has turned around and has said they shouldn't be mandatory. He says he is for clean, renewable energy, but twice recently he was the only senator absent when bills for clean energy failed by a single vote. He wants a gas tax holiday, which may put many thousands out of work who repair our crumbling infrastructure. He wants to open our coastlines for offshore drilling even though a Bush Administration agency has reported that such a move will have little effect on prices 5-10 years down the road when the oil would come to market.

Don't be fooled. Sen. McCain is not a moderate. Yes, he has at times shown steaks of independence, but he has been a very strong supporter of the Bush administration's policies, and if elected, we will see a continuation of most of those policies, which have brought the country to our present circumstance.

Jack D. Miller,
Middleburg

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