Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, November 7, 2008

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, November 7, 2008
---------------------------

KLAS-TV
November 06, 2008

DOE Wants Yucca Mountain Expanded

The Energy Department will tell Congress in the coming weeks it should begin looking for a second permanent site to bury nuclear waste, or approve a large expansion of the proposed waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Edward Sproat, head of the department's civilian nuclear waste program, said Thursday the 77,000-ton limit Congress put on the capacity of the proposed Yucca waste dump will fall far short of what will be needed and has to be expanded, or another dump built elsewhere in the country.

The future of the Yucca Mountain project is anything but certain. President-elect Obama has said he doesn't believe the desert site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas is suitable for keeping highly radioactive used reactor fuel up to a million years and believes other options should be explored. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has vowed to block the project.

Sproat, addressing a conference on nuclear waste, said the Energy Department will send a report to Congress in the coming weeks maintaining that the Yucca site will need to be expanded. He said within two years the amount of waste produced by the country's 104 nuclear power plants plus defense waste will exceed 77,000 tons. Yucca Mountain is not projected to be opened before 2020 at the earliest.

"We've done enough testing around the site to now that we can make it bigger," Sproat told reporters. But he said Congress will have to remove the capacity limit now in place.

If the limit is not removed, said Sproat, the report will urge Congress to give the department authority to begin looking for and evaluating a second nuclear waste repository elsewhere in the country. The law currently prohibits any such search, said Sproat. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must issue a license to build the underground waste dump at Yucca Mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock in the Nevada desert not far from where the government exploded numerous nuclear bombs during the Cold War era.

The NRC has four years to make a decision. Sproat acknowledged that the next president could withdraw the license application now before the NRC. But he said that would throw "the whole process...into a lot of confusion and uncertainty" since Congress also has prohibited the government from considering any place other than the Nevada site.

An alternative could be a temporary above-ground repository, possibly on a federal site. Sproat said the report, which has been completed, will say either expand Yucca Mountain, begin the process of finding a second repository, or "don't do anything and let this whole thing just sit for another 10 to 20 years and see what happens." He said the department would prefer the go-ahead for a larger Yucca site.

"We do think there is room for additional storage at Yucca. How much, we're not clear on," said Sproat. Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and associate professor for environmental science and policy at George Mason University who has studied the Yucca Mountain area, said there are clear limits to Yucca expansion because of nearby earthquake fault lines and potential volcanic activity.

"There are geological constraints on Yucca Mountain. It is not an endless sink for nuclear waste," said Macfarlane at the conference sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
November 06, 2008

Letters to the Editor

Back to Yucca

Dear Fellow Pahrumpians:

Now that the presidential election is history, we need to turn to a more local subject: Yucca Mountain.

The Yucca Mountain Project, like it or not, it is coming, and we can't fight the federal government over it; that gets none of us anywhere. When all the political rhetoric is put aside, when all the money, both private and public that has been wasted fighting the project is put aside, the result is still the same. Yucca Mountain is still located off Highway 95 in Nye County, Nevada.

However, I do have a suggestion. My suggestion is based on my theory that a smart person knows when he has been defeated; but a smarter person turns that defeat into a victory.

When Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president on the Republican ticket, more Americans became aware of Alaska and its permanent fund dividend. I lived in Alaska for 27 years and I was there when the oil pipeline was built and I was there when the permanent fund was created, and I received checks from the permanent fund. What most people here don't understand is how the fund works.

When the permanent fund was created, a non-partisan committee was put together to write the rules and bylaws that would pertain to the fund being created. First and foremost, these laws were written so the fund was absolutely untouchable by any politician for any purpose.

Frankly, the permanent fund "fathers" had some of the most brilliant minds ever put together. How do I know? Because here it is 25-plus years later and it still is untouchable by politicians for pet projects. Nothing unites the various ethnic groups of Alaskan citizens faster, and nothing infuriates Alaskans more, than when politicians try to do an end-run around the citizens of Alaska and tap the funds.

I can guarantee you that to this day, when a politician tries this, it is a sure bet that recall petitions will be circulated and the politician involved will be removed from office; and barring that they are not returned to office for another term.

Receiving a check every year was not the only advantage to creating the fund. Enough taxes are collected every year from the oil companies to not only fund a good portion of the Alaska state government operating budget but the permanent fund as well.

In fact, Alaskans quit paying state income taxes when the oil pipeline went into operation.

Not only could Nye County create our own permanent fund, but since we are a county government, thereby smaller than a state or federal government, more tax money could be dedicated to a permanent fund. Not only could Nye County create our own permanent fund, but with the portion of taxes dedicated for county operations, my guess is there would be enough that we would be able to quit paying property taxes.

How was the permanent fund created, you may ask?

For every barrel of oil that flows through the Alaskan pipeline the state, as well as the North Slope Borough, collects a tax. A portion of the money the state collects, after funding state government, is put into the principal of the permanent fund.

The fund is very well managed. The fund has provided a profit every year practically since its inception.

This profit is where the checks Alaskans receive come from; however, Alaskans only receive checks for 50 percent of the profit.

The other 50 percent is, by law, put back into the principal of the fund, thereby inflation proofing it. Even in the downturn of today's market, there will still be a check next year.

It may not be as large as they have been recently, but there will still be a check. Additionally, like Alaska, Nye County permanent fund checks wouldn't be large to start with, but as the investments made with the fund money grow, so will the checks.

While I realize this is an over-simplification of the process involved, and not all concerns are covered, if we don't take the first step, we can't begin the journey.

Yucca Mountain is located in Nye County, not Clark County, as most Las Vegans believe. Why don't we citizens of Nye County create a non-partisan committee made up from common citizens and have this committee study the laws, rules, bylaws and regulations of the Alaskan Permanent Fund and create one of our own?

Since Yucca Mountain is located solely in Nye County, because every other place fought it being located in "their backyard," we don't have to share any profits that can be made from it being located in "our backyard" either. It can be done, but it must be done right. The Alaska Permanent Fund laws must be followed, and copied, exactly, or all we will be creating is a permanent slush fund for the politicians that we common citizens will never see.

Since we can't change the fact Yucca Mountain is located here in Nye County, we can change this to our advantage. We can charge, and charge well, for using our land for nuclear storage. We can charge, and charge well, every local and state government, as well as every business that sends spent nuclear fuel for storage.

I am not talking about a one-time charge, I'm talking about a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly fee, to be paid by the federal government for using Nye County land for Yucca Mountain and allowing this facility to be placed so close to our town without regard to the possible consequences that will happen when there is a spill, i.e., water contamination as well as contamination of our air.

I'm also talking about a fee to be paid by any state or business that sends spent fuel to our storage facility. This fee would be in effect until there is no longer any threat from this spent fuel, which will truly make this a permanent fund. We would also need to put a surcharge on every shipment sent to be dedicated for clean-up because it is inevitable that there will be spills.

Instead of complaining about being defeated, let's turn this defeat into a victory. If we could create a permanent fund, progress would come to Pahrump. There would be no more real estate slump either; in fact, with a guaranteed yearly check there wouldn't be enough housing to go around. Where the rest of the nation is in a real estate slump with massive foreclosures, Pahrump and the Amargosa Valley could see an increase in real estate value.

We'd have enough money to pave, not chip-seal, all our roads; we'd have enough money to provide more law enforcement; we'd have enough money for public water and sewer systems and flood control; we'd have enough money to put in street lights; we'd have enough money to provide not only better schools but books in our classrooms; we could create more local jobs, with benefits; we could create a place our youth would come back to after they graduate college. It wouldn't be Utopia, but it would put us on the right path.

So I have only one question: Why not?

Now is the time to act. If we wait until the spent nuclear fuel starts arriving, it will be too late. Let's not let complacency defeat us; let's turn this defeat into a victory. Since time is of the essence, if you are interested, let the Pahrump Valley Times know. If you are interested, let our politicians know.

It was a "grassroots" effort that started our great nation. Let us continue this movement and make Pahrump a place you want to be, not a place you want to be from.

Kathy Stone

(It ought to be noted that the entire Nevada congressional delegation is dead-set against allowing development of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository, and that the Alaska Permanent Fund involves that state dealing with private-sector companies, not the federal government.-Ed.)

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

Columbus Free Press
November 06, 2008

A Chicago-area electoral victory says "No We Won't" to nuke power

Harvey Wasserman

As the world media filled with the victory of Barack Obama, a defeat for atomic power in his own back yard sent a Solartopian message to the new administration.

In the Chicago-area communities of Oak Park, Berwyn and Riverside, voters approved by well over two-to-one a referendum asking that “our elected officials in Illinois take steps to phase out nuclear power in the state, replacing it with renewable sources such as wind and solar.”

The three communities currently rely on atomic power for some 75% of their electricity, which is supplied through Commonwealth Edison, a subsidiary of Exelon, America's largest nuke owner. With 11 operating reactors, Illinois has more reactors than any other state.

But 31,586 (68.3%) voters approved the referendum, versus 14,676 (31.7%) opposed.

Atomic energy will be one of the most critical issues the new administration will face. Obama was criticized by eco-advocates for taking campaign donations from Exelon. Both he and Vice President-elect Joe Biden expressed campaign support for atomic power.

But their stance was moderated by Obama’s insistence that atomic power be “safe,” and by ads he ran in Nevada opposing the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump. Some 80% of Nevada citizens oppose that project, whose projected cost now runs about $100 billion.

By contrast, John McCain vehemently advocated the quick construction of some 45 new reactors. He pointed with pride to his own naval service on nuke-powered vessels.

But the issue of how to finance such a “nuclear renaissance” now overshadows all the rhetoric, and will define the technology’s future.

A strong lobby with a slick, expensive pubic relations campaign is now pushing new nukes. New ratepayer-based reactor financing is now being shoved through state public utilities commissions in Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas and possibly elsewhere, with tens of billions in potential liability.

But Wall Street has given thumbs down to a technology that can't compete with Solartopian sources like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and other green energies.

The future of new reactor construction thus depends on massive federal and state subsidies. In the fall of 2007, the industry inserted into a Congressional energy bill a package of loan guarantees meant to provide $50 billion in taxpayer-backed funds to build new reactors.

Reactor projects fail about 50% of the time, and such a subsidy could have stuck taxpayers with a massive liability. A national grassroots campaign led in part by NukeFree.org and musicians Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash helped defeat the package. Not a single major national environmental organization supported the guarantees.

This fall an even larger federal loan plan, offering virtually unlimited funds, was on its way to the US Congress. It could have provided a half-trillion dollars in new taxpayer guarantees to build just the 45 reactors McCain proposed.

But when Wall Street collapsed, the federal bank bailout made the idea of taking on still more huge financial liabilities untenable.

As Barack Obama takes office in January, green power advocates will again argue that along with questions of terror and error, radioactive waste and ecological harm, nuke power is far too expensive to compete with Solartopian green power.

The clock is counting down very fast on the idea of new nukes. With projected construction times of a decade or more, new reactors cannot begin to deliver energy until many years after the installation of competing green sources, whose comparative costs continue to drop.

So this small but strong Chicago-area vote for a Solartopian future sends a very clear message. A powerful new nuke lobby will be pushing hard from Day One of the new administration.

But in today’s financial and political climate, atomic energy cannot compete. A green-powered vision is the only one that can work on both Main Street and Wall Street.

--Harvey Wasserman’s SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior editor of www.freepress.org, where this article first appeared. He edits the NukeFree.org website.

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

Energy Matters
November 06, 2008

Renewable Energy News

Nuclear vs. wind and solar power

by Energy Matters

Lester R. Brown, one of the world's most widely published authors and referred to by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers", has recently published his views via the Earth Policy Institute on the nuclear vs. wind and solar power debate; stating that nuclear power is uneconomical compared to renewable energy.

Quoting from a recent analysis entitled "The Nuclear Illusion", Brown points out the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant costs around (USD) 14¢ per kilowatt hour compared to a wind farm's very economical 7¢ per kilowatt hour. The costings take into account capital, general operations and maintenance, transmission and distribution in relation to both options.

However, the nuclear cost doesn't incorporate major expenses including waste disposal, massive insurance premiums and decommissioning of nuclear plants when they reach the end of their serviceable life. With these extra issues, nuclear power generated electricity simply becomes unaffordable according to Brown. On the issue of nuclear waste storage, Brown uses the example of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in the USA where he estimates the cost for the actual storage, not including transport, is just under USD $1 billion per reactor.

Just a couple of years ago, the cost to construct a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant was between $2 - 4 billion. As of this year, the figure has skyrocketed to over $7 billion. Uranium costs have increased six-fold since the beginning of this decade.

Quoting the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Brown states there are 439 operating nuclear reactors worldwide currently. Given the lifespan of these facilities, 93 will close between 2008 and 2015, followed by 192 between 2016 and 2025, then the remaining 154 will close after 2025 - yet only 36 nuclear reactors are currently being constructed worldwide

Brown states that wind generates more energy, increased employment, and more carbon dioxide reduction per dollar invested than nuclear and believes that while nuclear facilities will not disappear altogether, we are now entering an age of wind energy, solar power and geothermal sourced electricity generation.

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

AP Google
November 05, 2008

New attitude: Obama vows change, agency by agency

The Associated Press

President-elect Barack Obama has vowed to reverse or sharply modify many of the Bush administration's policies. Based on his campaign promises, these are key areas where changes are expected.

DEFENSE

Obama's promise to get U.S. troops out of Iraq in the first 16 months of his presidency helped launch his candidacy. He says he will shift forces and resources to Afghanistan.

But, overall, the Pentagon under Obama may not look much different than it does today. When and how he extricates troops from Iraq may depend on the security pact that U.S. officials negotiate with Iraqi lawmakers.

Obama has called for a responsible and phased withdrawal to bring the bulk of the troops out by mid-2010. The proposed security pact being pressed by Iraqis would have all U.S. forces out of the cities by next summer, and out of the country by the end of 2011.

For Afghanistan, Obama has said he would add about 7,000 troops to the U.S. force of 31,000. Pentagon officials are poised to more than double that increase — saying they need 15,000 to 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

Obama wants to increase the size of the Army, Marine Corps and special operations forces, efforts already under way. He has called for greater emphasis on counterinsurgency missions — a move the military recognized as critical in the early years of the Iraq war, and began to implement.

_Lolita C. Baldor

STATE

Obama will inherit foreign policy challenges involving Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has said he would place a premium on diplomacy over the use of force to solve disputes, and he pledged to maintain a robust diplomatic corps and foreign aid programs.

However, the current financial crisis could curtail some overseas development programs the Bush administration has championed, and there could be a shift in the department's emphasis.

Obama's stated willingness to talk with leaders like those in Iran, Syria and North Korea, may result in increased diplomatic activity in areas where the Bush administration initially resisted engagement, including dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The new president will find a diplomatic corps that has often been frustrated by its lack of influence over the past eight years, notably during Bush's first term when the Colin Powell-led State Department's words of caution on the Iraq war were ignored.

_Matthew Lee

JUSTICE

The Justice Department will re-examine all surveillance, interrogation and detainee policies to see if any should be overturned or changed. Obama has said he wants to close the detention facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, meaning he must decide whether terror suspects held there now should face military or civilian trials if they are moved to U.S. jails.

Obama advisers say he may review the department's newly approved guidelines that could let the FBI investigate Americans in national security cases without evidence of a crime, based in part on their ethnicity or religion. He wants to create a senior position — likely from the FBI or Homeland Security Department — to coordinate all domestic intelligence gathering.

He has called for hiring 50,000 new police officers nationwide. The administration is likely to urge Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard Act, which expands federal hate crime laws to include protections for people targeted because of their gender, sexual orientation or disabilities — and then require vigorous Justice Department enforcement.

Obama says he wants to eliminate any disparity between sentencing guidelines for people convicted of crack cocaine crimes and those for powder cocaine. Penalties for crack cocaine offenses are much harsher, and the vast majority of those convicted are black.

_Lara Jakes Jordan

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Obama wants the government to help millions of lower-income people buy health insurance through greater use of government subsidies, an approach the Bush administration has opposed.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program expires soon, and many analysts see its reauthorization as a way for Obama to secure an easy and early victory on health care.

For adults, Obama would establish a new public insurance program as part of a National Health Issuance Exchange, which would include private insurance plans. Millions of Americans would get some federal help in paying their premiums.

The Bush administration encouraged people to leave traditional Medicare by subsidizing private insurers offering "Medicare Advantage" plans. Obama has said he would reduce payments to these Medicare insurers by about $150 billion over 10 years.

_Kevin Freking

ENERGY

The Energy Department is likely to shift its focus dramatically toward development of alternative energy, increasing support for research into cellulosic ethanol, wind turbines, solar technology and more fuel-efficient cars. The department is likely to press for tougher efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.

Obama has said he wants to spend $15 billion a year to spur alternative energy and more efficient use of energy. Economic and budgetary problems, however, may make those spending levels difficult.

Obama has said he does not oppose nuclear power, but has reservations about building dozens of new reactors because of concerns about radioactive waste. Obama has said he believes Yucca Mountain in Nevada — where Bush wants to bury reactor waste — is not the right place to keep it for millions of years. It's not certain whether Obama will withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application, now before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Energy Department may more closely scrutinize loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. Obama's Energy Department is likely to continue along its current path on most nuclear weapons programs and related waste cleanup efforts, which account for most of the department's budget.

_Joe Hebert

TREASURY

Obama's most immediate economic problem will be dealing with the nation's financial crisis and deciding how to implement the $700 billion rescue program Congress passed last month. He is expected to move quickly to get a team in place to work with outgoing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Obama has proposed a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures by companies getting assistance from the bailout bill. He also said he wants tighter restrictions on executive pay at institutions receiving the federal aid.

Obama supports a second stimulus bill to boost the economy. He would spend more on government infrastructure projects to create jobs, and he would give more aid to states that are having to cut services.

Obama wants to temporarily suspend rules that impose tax penalties on early withdrawals from 401(k) retirement plans to allow cash-strapped families to tap these funds.

_Martin Crutsinger

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Obama has promised to listen to the EPA's scientific experts and "reverse the Bush administration's attempt to chip away at our nation's clean air and water standards."

On global warming, he has said he will overturn a Bush decision forbidding California from setting limits on greenhouse gases from vehicle tailpipes. He wants to reduce the amount of carbon in gasoline by 10 percent by 2020.

Unlike Bush, Obama might try to regulate global warming gases under existing law, although he has made clear that his priority is pushing Congress to draft a new law to limit how much of those gases can be released.

_Dina Cappiello

INTERIOR

Obama has said he will thwart attempts by the Bush administration to discount the advice of the department's wildlife biologists when deciding if power plants, dams and other projects will harm endangered species.

He has vowed to invest to "repair the damage done to our national parks by inadequate funding" and protect the nation's forests.

Obama says he will acquire and conserve new parks, and uphold the 58.5 million acres of national forestland that former President Clinton set aside in 2001 as roadless areas. The Bush administration has tried to overturn the rule.

_Dina Cappiello

TRANSPORTATION

Obama has consistently called for spending more on the nation's crumbling highways, bridges and tunnels. Besides transportation spending in a proposed stimulus bill, Obama has endorsed a $60 billion National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank.

The current $286 billion highway bill expires in 2009. It's unclear how Obama and the Congress will fund a new bill now that federal gas taxes are falling short of program obligations.

Another top priority will be passage of a bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration and moving forward on modernizing the nation's air traffic system, which relies on World War II-era technology. Relations between air traffic controllers and the FAA have are likely to be much more harmonious in an Obama administration.

The outlook for Amtrak could also brighten. Obama has pledged support for Amtrak and called for developing high-speed rail networks across the country to conserve energy and boost the economy. Amtrak has an important ally in vice president-elect Joe Biden, one of the railroad's most enthusiastic supporters in the Senate.

_Joan Lowy

EDUCATION

Obama has pledged to overhaul President Bush's No Child Left Behind education law. He says it emphasizes annual test scores in reading and math too heavily at the expense of subjects such as music and art and is too punitive toward struggling schools.

Yet it's unclear how much of the law Obama would undo. His advisers include supporters as well as opponents of the law, and Obama's campaign said he would not dump the testing requirements at the heart of No Child Left Behind.

Obama supports universal pre-kindergarten. He would help students pay for college with $4,000 tax credits in exchange for community service. However, paying for such efforts, estimated to cost $19 billion, may prove difficult.

Obama has also said he likes the controversial idea of tying teachers' pay raises to student performance, but only if teachers negotiate the arrangement and it's not based solely on test scores.

_Libby Quaid

AGRICULTURE

Obama has cultivated the support of many farm groups, and he stood behind a massive, $290 billion farm bill enacted earlier this year over President Bush's veto. He supports traditional farm subsidies, weather-related disaster assistance for farmers and subsidies for corn ethanol.

However, Obama favors lowering the maximum amount of subsidies an individual farmer can receive, something Congress has resisted.

"We'll close loopholes that let agribusiness break the rules and we'll put more fruits and vegetables in our schools and fight hunger," Obama said in South Dakota in May.

Some of his positions on trade may be less popular with farmers. He has been cool to some free trade agreements and wants to revisit some aspects of NAFTA, which has been a boon for agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico.

_Mary Clare Jalonick

LABOR

Organized labor will renew its bid to enact the Employee Free Choice Act. Under the EFCA — which passed the House but failed in the Senate — unions could increase their membership by having employees sign cards, instead of going through secret-ballot elections to organize workplaces.

Under Obama, the National Labor Relations Board may try to reverse several decisions, including those that let companies classify workers as supervisors and thus exempt them from union coverage; require companies to post instructions on how to get rid of newly formed unions; and prohibit union organizers from using company e-mail systems.

Obama's Labor Department also can be expected to push for increased power for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, including more job-site inspections and increased penalties for safety violations.

_Jesse Holland

HOMELAND SECURITY

Obama has said he would add more personnel, infrastructure and technology to the border regions and crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, which is what the Bush administration is currently doing. Obama also said he would bring the 12 million people who are currently in the country "out of the shadows," fine them, make them pay taxes and get them to the back of the line to become U.S. citizens.

Obama must decide whether to remove the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the Homeland Security Department and restore it as an independent agency. One of his top advisers, James Lee Witt, favors such a move, but other administration priorities may come first.

_Eileen Sullivan

INTELLIGENCE:

Obama wants an overhaul of the human side of spying, and wants to give fixed terms to the national intelligence director's office to buffer it from sudden changes in partisan leadership. He has expressed concerns with the size and scope of the office, created four years ago to oversee and knit together the nation's 16 intelligence agencies. The office has grown dramatically since then.

Top officials have asked that intelligence structures_ the offices and roles now laid out in laws, after multiple post-9/11 reforms — remain stable.

_Pamela Hess

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Obama wants to expand VA health care for veterans. Congress voted in 1996 to do that, but the agency has exercised its authority to suspend enrollments as needed. Obama has said that led to 1 million veterans being turned away, and he has promised to reverse the policy.

He also said he would improve screening and treatment for mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury; expand the number of housing vouchers and start a program to help veterans at risk of being homeless; add more rural veterans centers; create an electronic system to transfer medical records from the military; and improve preventative health options.

_Kimberly Hefling

NASA

Obama is a space fan, and a troubled NASA is counting on that.

NASA doesn't have enough money to do all it has planned and is facing key decisions about its embryonic return-to-the-moon program, new rocketship and about-to-retire space shuttle program. The current NASA plan would have the space shuttle end in 2010 and astronauts not ready to fly in a new moon rocket until 2015. In the five years in between, America would have to rely on the Russians to take astronauts to the mostly U.S.-funded international space station.

NASA's robotic Mars program is in disarray, and its Earth-observing program has been downsized.

The Obama campaign said it supports a "robust" program of robotic probes and space-based telescopes and satellites. It also emphasized education and NASA's role in climate change research.

_Seth Borenstein

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 04, 2008

Nov. 04, 2008

RALLY IN HENDERSON: McCain promises upset

Republican nominee says momentum belongs to him

By Molly Ball
Review-Journal

A defiant John McCain stood before a giant banner reading "VICTORY IN NEVADA" in Henderson on Monday night, amping up a wildly cheering crowd with the promise of a come-from-behind victory as he headed into Election Day.

"This momentum, this enthusiasm convinces me we're going to win tomorrow," the Republican presidential nominee said, his wife, Cindy, and daughter Meghan at his side.

"A lot of the pundits have written us off, just like they've done before," he added. "My opponent is measuring the drapes of the White House. They may not know it, but the Mac is back, and we're going to win this election."

McCain spoke at the Henderson Pavilion, near the intersection of Green Valley Parkway and Interstate 215, around 8:30 p.m. The crowd of supporters was estimated at more than 10,000, said Dianne Mizelle, the pavilion's operations coordinator.

It was McCain's last stop on a seven-state election eve sprint before going home to Arizona. Before arriving in Nevada, he stumped in Florida, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Indiana and New Mexico.

The rally in Southern Nevada was McCain's first visit to this battleground state since early August and the only time over the course of the campaign when he has held a public rally in Southern Nevada. His running mate, Sarah Palin, also was in Nevada on Monday night, with stops in Reno and Elko.

With the exception of Pennsylvania, all of the states McCain visited were won by President Bush four years ago, a sign of the uphill battle he is thought to face against his Democratic rival, Barack Obama.

But McCain, in a 17-minute speech, cast himself as a fighter who can't be knocked down, saying, "We're going to show the country and the world, and it's going to happen here."

McCain asserted he would cut spending and fix the housing market, but Obama would raise taxes and kill jobs.

"Senator Obama's tax increases will kill jobs and make a bad economy worse," he said. "I'm not going to let that happen ... I'm going to make government live on a budget, just like you do."

McCain promised to lower the cost of energy by exploiting every possible source, including "safe nuclear power." He did not mention his support for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

No McCain speech would have been complete without a reference to Joe the Plumber, the would-be small business owner in Ohio whose pointed question to Obama prompted the Democrat to opine that wealth ought to be spread around, not concentrated in the hands of a lucky few.

The crowd booed with gusto at the mention of that notion.

"My friends, Joe the Plumber represents small business all over America," McCain said.

"It's clear that what Senator Obama wants to do is take money from one group of Americans and give it to another," he said.

"He's running to be redistributionist in chief; I'm running to be commander in chief. Senator Obama is running to spread the wealth; I'm running to create more wealth. Senator Obama is running to punish the successful; I'm running to make everyone in this nation successful."

Though McCain has regularly bashed Democratic congressional leaders on the trail, his criticism of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had special weight on Reid's home turf and was enthusiastically received.

Reid and McCain do not have a relationship of senatorial collegiality. Since McCain became the GOP nominee, Reid has regularly questioned his temperament and has said he "can't stand" the Arizonan.

"Senator Obama has never taken on Harry Reid. I have," McCain said. "This is the same Harry Reid who in April of 2007 said, 'The war is lost,'" McCain reminded the crowd. "We're winning, Harry."

McCain sought to exploit recent comments by Obama's gaffe-prone running mate, Joe Biden, whom McCain termed "the gift that keeps on giving."

Biden warned of a "generated crisis" by which the world would test Obama's mettle and predicted Obama would be up to the challenge.

"I've been tested, and I've passed that test," McCain said. "Senator Obama hasn't."

A spokeswoman for Obama's campaign answered the criticism of the Democrat by saying Obama would fix the economy.

"John McCain is clearly out of touch with the needs of our country and the needs of Nevada," Kirsten Searer said. "Under John McCain, the middle class will watch wealth get favored over work, jobs will get shipped overseas, and the cost of health care and college will go through the roof. That's not acceptable."

As he neared the end of his remarks, McCain pivoted momentarily to a reflective tone. He thanked the crowd "from the bottom of my heart," adding, "It means a great deal. I know you're worried tonight. America is a great country, but we're at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future."

In a rousing crescendo, McCain said he would make sure America emerges stronger, not weaker.

"Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer," he said. "Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. I am an American. I choose to fight. Be strong and fight."

Audience member Kira Meadows, 22, was amazed by McCain's zeal, knowing the long day he'd had.

"He was so energetic. He came out so strong," said Meadows, a student who attended the rally with her parents, sister and two friends, arriving at 3 p.m. to get good seats.

Meadows said she plans to vote for McCain today because "he's the only candidate who has ever fought for our country, the only one."

What is at stake in this election, she said, is nothing less than the future of democracy.

"It's whether we go to socialism or not," she said. "Whether we'll be a free country. Whether we'll ever get to vote in another election."

Meadows said she believed the pep talks of the local Republican candidates who spoke before McCain.

State Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, argued that because Democrats turned out in higher numbers in early voting, there are fewer of them left to vote, and the Democratic Party will "run out of voters."

Husband and wife Daman and Cristin Barron brought their 5-year-old daughter and 18-month-old son to the rally and stood at the back of the crowd on the cool, dark lawn behind the packed seating area.

"For me, I really think that John McCain has captured the real essence of what it means to be an American: our freedom, the free market, letting us make our own way rather than paving it for us," said Cristin Barron, 27, a homemaker and college student. "That's what America was founded on."

Daman Barron, 29, said it's not easy being a young Republican -- "maybe 1 percent of our age group agrees with us" -- but the Henderson couple believe strongly in their moral values.

"This is for my kids," Daman Barron said. "I want them to see history."

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

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

KVBC
November 03, 2008

Congresswoman Berkley speaks out against McCain, Yucca Mountain

The day before John McCain's visit to Nevada, some Democrats are calling him out for his stance on Yucca Mountain.

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley and former Nevada Governor Bob Miller want McCain to apologize for comments he made about the safety concerns surrounding the nuclear dump.

"This will create thousands of jobs in Nevada. This will be a great boom for the economy," says McCain. "I'm confident when we reprocess, which we can do, which the Europeans do, there will be a much smaller amount of nuclear fuel to be stored."

Berkley believes Yucca Mountain could have devastating effects on our community.

"We need people coming to Southern Nevada to enjoy our entertainment. The last thing we need is a nuclear dump 90 miles away," says Congresswoman Berkley.

McCain says he'll support Yucca Mountain only when it meets environmental and safety standards, which he believes will happen.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
November 03, 2008

Obama supporters criticize McCain on nuclear safety

By Anjeanette Damon

Seeing one last opportunity to put doubt in Nevada voters' minds about U.S. Sen. John McCain, supporters of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama held a news conference Sunday to criticize what they called McCain's "dismissive" comments about "nuclear safety."

At a campaign event in Iowa last week, McCain criticized Obama's energy policy, saying voters should listen closely to the Democrat's words.

"We talked about nuclear power, well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah." McCain said, referring to Obama's resistance to nuclear energy.

But local Obama supporters saw the comments as an indication McCain doesn't take seriously safety issues surrounding nuclear power or nuclear waste, specifically the proposed nuclear waste storage plant at Yucca Mountain.

McCain has long supported the Yucca Mountain project, and his energy policy depends on building 45 new nuclear power plants if he is elected president.

"Sen. McCain has taken his lack of concern for safety in Nevada to an all-time low," Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, said of his comments in Iowa. "I personally can't believe as a candidate that he would want votes from Nevada even though he's talking about trucking and then dumping the world's most toxic substance in this state.

"And then to dismiss any concerns about it with 'blah, blah, blah,' I think demonstrates a complete disregard for the safety of this state."

McCain spokesman Rick Gorka blew off the criticism, saying McCain's comments were taken out of context.

"They need to get a life," he said of the Obama campaign. "That was a commentary on Obama's lack of leadership on energy policy."

Gorka said McCain did not intend to be dismissive of the safety issues surrounding nuclear energy or its waste.

"He's been 100 percent consistent on this issue, and folks know his position," Gorka said. "We don't know what Obama is going to do because he doesn't know what he's going to do until the latest poll comes out."

McCain has said he would pursue the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain as long as science proves it's safe. He also proposes finding ways to recycle the waste.

Since the start of his presidential campaign, Obama has said he opposes the Yucca Mountain project. Instead, he supports improving the safety of storing the waste where it is generated.

Obama has not been in the Senate long enough to build a voting record on the project. McCain has long voted in favor of it.

The Yucca Mountain project is unpopular in Nevada. Democrats running for president here typically speak out against it. In 2004, President Bush won Nevada despite his support for Yucca Mountain.

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

CNNMoney
November 03, 2008

Democratic Victories Could Bring US Energy Policy Shift

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Oil companies and coal-fired power plant operators would be the likely losers if Democrats expand their majorities in the U.S. Congress and Sen. Barack Obama wins the White House.

Obama, D-Ill., has called for a windfall tax on oil company profits and for cutting the greenhouse-gas emissions produced by coal-fired plants. Democrats tried to push similar measures earlier this year, but failed amid opposition from the White House and Senate Republicans, who commanded a substantial number of votes.

Winners under expanded Democratic rule would include solar companies, wind companies, biofuels makers, plug-in hybrid vehicles, smart-grid and natural-gas companies.

"There seems to be no doubt that more support will be given to alternative energy than exists today," Lazard Capital Markets analysts wrote in research note. "Most congressional candidates are running on energy platforms, so renewables are likely to remain at the forefront of the policy debate for the foreseeable future."

Obama leads nationally by 3 to 7 percentage points, according polling data compiled by RealClearPolitics.com. Polls in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania put Obama ahead while Florida is very close.

The shift would come amid a Democratic focus on combatting global warming. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that heat waves, heavy rains, and hurricanes would likely become more intense as the climate warmed. The panel said that the world needs to cut emissions of heat- trapping gases into the atmosphere by 50% to 85% by 2050 to limit the damage.

With power plants accounting for about 40% of U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, the power industry faces the starkest consequences from federal climate-change legislation that would force polluters to pay for emissions. Companies hit hardest would include Duke Energy Corp. (DUK), which describes itself as the third-largest coal user in the country, burning about 46 million tons a year. Coal-fired power plants produce about half of the country's electricity.

Oil companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), ConocoPhillips (COP), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) and BP PLC (BP) would also be hit under a plan to impose a tax on windfall profits. Though Obama hasn't spelled out the details, Senate Democrats earlier this year pushed legislation that would subject oil companies to a 25% tax on windfall profits related to the surge in crude oil prices.

Any changes might not be immediate. Obama's transition team had been considering hosting a "green summit" shortly after he assumes office, according to a person familiar with the matter. But the energy agenda has taken a back seat to the U.S. economic crisis.

Early on, an Obama administration might have no choice but to deal with some energy issues. The U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007 found that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. That leaves the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether the emissions pose a danger to the public and should be regulated. The EPA will have to make a finding, something an Obama administration hopes to use as a tool to persuade Congress to begin taking action.

An Obama administration would also be confronted with decisions about vehicle fuels. Obama has called for establishing a low-carbon fuel standard, in which fuel suppliers would have to steadily reduce the carbon in their fuels. The policy could have varying implications for biofuels makers. Corn-based ethanol could wind up at a disadvantage, since reports such as one produced by California's Air Resources Board found that corn-based ethanol is worse for the environment than gasoline, once factoring in the chances that land that currently absorbs carbon dioxide would be plowed up to help support biofuels production.

Obama's promises about supporting clean-coal technology will be put to the test. His vow to keep coal part of the fuel mix is at odds with government forecasts that mandatory cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions would likely lead to the shuttering of scores of coal-fired power plants and reduce demand for coal.

His vision assumes that the U.S. Energy Department will team up with private industry to invest in so-called carbon capture and storage technology, an expensive project given that the U.S. posted a $438 billion deficit in fiscal 2008, representing about 3.1% of the country's economic output. The deficit could be higher this fiscal year given that the U.S. has decided to inject $700 billion into the banking industry.

"We can't afford to shut down all the coal fired power plants," said Sanjay Shrestha, an analyst at Lazard. But carbon-capture and storage technology isn't an immediate solution because "it will take some time before that ends up becoming viable." Nuclear power is another question mark. Obama's campaign says the U.S. is unlikely to meet targets for greenhouse-gas emissions reductions without nuclear power. But he opposes the storage of nuclear waste at the proposed facility at Yucca Mountain. His plan involves more study of long- term disposal issues and envisions that for now, waste would continue to be stored at current locations around the country.

Solar power and wind companies could be among the biggest winners given that an Obama administration wants to require that 10% of electricity come from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025. At least two dozen states have renewable-electricity requirements, though Obama would accelerate those mandates in some states and extend the requirements for the first time to parts of the Midwest and the Southeast.

Natural-gas companies would also benefit. The Obama campaign calls for looking at ways to speed up drilling for natural gas in an area know as the Barnett shale, which covers parts of Texas. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, but extracting the gas from shale may carry environmental risks. Concerns surround the millions of gallons of water that are pumped into shale to break rock up and release gas, and whether the contaminated water can be disposed of without seeping up into underground drinking water.

--By Siobhan Hughes, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6654; Siobhan.Hughes@ dowjones.com

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

World Nuclear News
November 03, 2008

Contract awarded to manage Yucca Mountain project

The US Department of Energy (DoE) has awarded a contract worth up to $2.5 billion to the USA Repository Services LLC (USA-RS) consortium to manage and operate the used nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

The USA-RS partnership - a subsidiary of URS Corp that includes its Washington Division, Areva and the Shaw Group - will provide mission support to the DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) for the Yucca Mountain project. After "transition activities" are completed, USA-RS will assume responsibility for the performance of the Yucca Mountain project on 1 April 2009. The performance-based, cost-plus award-fee contract initially covers a five-year period, with a potential five-year extension until 31 March 2019.

USA-RS will have several key responsibilities under this contract: it will complete the detailed design of the repository; address questions on the licence application submitted to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) earlier at the beginning of June 2008; operate the existing Yucca mountain facilities before construction authorization; and, support management of construction and operation activities at the repository.

Secretary of energy, Sam Bodman, said: "If we are to meet growing energy demand and slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power must be a larger part of our energy mix ... In order to ensure that such an expansion can occur, the United States must have a permanent repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste." He added, "This contract will enable our national repository program to move forward by securing the necessary management and operations expertise needed as we begin the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing proceedings."

Tom Zarges, president of URS's Washington Division, said, "We are very pleased to have been selected for this project, which is vital to the future of nuclear power and energy independence for the United States. URS has a long history of supporting the DOE, and has managed many successful projects including the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, the nation's only operating deep geological nuclear waste repository."

"Shaw has provided oversight support on the preliminary design and licensing of the Yucca Mountain project for almost 11 years. We are pleased to increase our involvement and expand the professional services provided to this first-of-a-kind project," said J M Bernhard, Shaw's chairman, president and CEO.

Jacques Besnainou, president of Areva Inc, commented, "Areva is extremely pleased that our team has been selected by DoE for this critical project." He added, "We look forward to working with our team and DoE to assure the disposition of used fuel and radioactive waste is accomplished in a safe and secure manner." The principal Areva contribution to the project will be in the surface facility design and to lend its expertise in support of the NRC review of the licence application.

Future contracts

The USA has been planning the Yucca Mountain repository for many years. Since 1977, when it ruled that used fuel was to be treated as waste and could not be reprocessed to recover uranium and reduce its volume, the government has had a responsibility to provide final disposal of the fuel in a deep geologic disposal facility. According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DoE was supposed to start accepting fuel from utilities early in 1998, but its failure to provide a repository on time has meant that the fuel has had to be stored at reactor sites. Since 1998 some 60 lawsuits have been launched by US utilities to try to recover the extra costs incurred. Payouts totalling over $600 million have already been awarded, and with other lawsuits outstanding the compensation costs to the government could run into billions.

The DoE has announced that it will extend the waste disposal contract under the 1982 legislation to also cover radioactive waste generated by new nuclear power reactors. Under the 1982 legislation, a company must have a contract with the DoE for disposal services in order to receive a construction and operating licence from the NRC for a new reactor.

"These contracts are essential to advancing the commercial nuclear renaissance which is needed in order to meet our nation's significant future demands for providing electricity in a safe, secure and environmentally friendly manner," commented Bodman.

Yucca Mountain was approved by Congress and President George Bush in 2002 as the site for the USA's first permanent used fuel and high-level waste geologic repository. The OCRWM's current projected completion date for the project is 2017, but the fate of the project would be with the next US President. The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, "believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option" for long-term management of wastes, while Republican candidate John McCain would try to establish an international radioactive waste management scheme which could make Yucca Mountain unnecessary. The election to pick one of those men as leader, of course, occurs on 4 November.

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

Business Wire
November 03, 2008

Shaw Part of Team Selected to Manage the U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Project

BATON ROUGE, La.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Shaw Group Inc. (NYSE: SGR) announced today that its Environmental & Infrastructure Group is part of a team selected to manage and operate the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository Project in Nevada. Shaw will perform as a principal subcontractor to USA Repository Services, LLC, led by the Washington Division of URS, in support of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for the Yucca Mountain Project.

Professional support services to be provided by the team include completing the detailed design of the repository, defending and updating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license application, operating Yucca Mountain facilities prior to the NRC’s Construction Authorization and supporting construction management and operation of the repository. The value of Shaw’s scope associated with this award was undisclosed.

Douglas E. Cooper, a Shaw executive with extensive nuclear industry experience, will transition to USA Repository Services as general manager for the company. Mr. Cooper previously served as vice president of Shaw’s Maintenance Division, having provided corporate oversight for Shaw’s Exelon nuclear projects, including maintenance, modifications and construction operations for 17 NRC-licensed nuclear reactors at 10 complex, multi-unit nuclear sites. For more than 29 years, Mr. Cooper has managed all facets of commercial nuclear plant operations and compliance with all NRC licensing requirements. Prior to joining Shaw, Mr. Cooper served as a chief nuclear officer responsible for directing utility employees and subcontractors for large nuclear power plant projects while improving ratings in site performance, safety and plant reliability.

“Shaw has provided oversight support on the preliminary design and licensing of the Yucca Mountain project for almost 11 years. We are pleased to increase our involvement and expand the professional services provided to this first-of-a-kind project. This is a significant initiative for the Department of Energy in achieving its vision to safely manage spent nuclear reactor fuel and other nuclear waste," said J.M. Bernhard Jr., chairman, president and chief executive officer of Shaw. “We are proud to commit Mr. Cooper, one of our most qualified nuclear leaders, to manage this team, and we are confident in his ability to lead this project of strategic national importance.”

As a major provider of complete lifecycle services to the nuclear industry, Shaw has been involved in several first-of-a-kind nuclear projects for the DOE and the commercial nuclear industry. Most recently, Shaw and its consortium partner Westinghouse Electric Company were selected to build six new AP1000™ nuclear units in the U.S.— the nation’s first new nuclear power plants to be built in more than 30 years. Shaw is also the primary contractor for the DOE’s Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility at Savannah River, S.C.

The Shaw Group Inc. is a leading global provider of technology, engineering, procurement, construction, maintenance, fabrication, manufacturing, consulting, remediation and facilities management services for government and private sector clients in the energy, chemicals, environmental, infrastructure and emergency response markets. A Fortune 500 company with fiscal year 2008 annual revenues of $7 billion, Shaw is headquartered in Baton Rouge, La., and employs approximately 26,000 people at its offices and operations in North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region. Shaw is the power sector industry leader according to Engineering News-Record's list of Top 500 Design Firms. For further information, please visit Shaw's Web site at www.shawgrp.com.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for certain forward-looking statements. The statements contained herein that are not historical facts (including without limitation statements to the effect that the Company or its management “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans” or other similar expressions) and statements related to revenues, earnings, backlog, or other financial information or results are forward-looking statements based on the Company’s current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effects on the Company. There can be no assurance that future developments affecting the Company will be those anticipated by the Company. These forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) and assumptions and are subject to change based upon various factors. Should one or more of such risks or uncertainties materialize, or should any of our assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary in material respects from those projected in the forward-looking statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. A description of some of the risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements can be found in the Company’s reports and registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Form 10-K and Form 10-Q reports, and on the Company's Web site under the heading "Forward-Looking Statements.” These documents are also available from the Securities and Exchange Commission or from the Investor Relations department of Shaw. For more information on the Company and announcements it makes from time to time on a regional basis, visit our Web site at www.shawgrp.com.

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

New York Times
November 03, 2008

Letter: Think Twice Before Building More Nuclear Plants

Re “After 35-Year Lull, Nuclear Power May Be in Early Stages of a Revival” (“The Energy Challenge” series, Business Day, Oct. 24):

There are many reasons to balk at constructing new nuclear power plants. Safety, storage and security are significant obstacles, the last two of which may be insurmountable.

Ten seismic faults lie within a 20-mile radius of Yucca Mountain, located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. And scaling up nuclear power would require the capacity of one “Yucca Mountain” every 5 to 10 years until the midcentury.

Nuclear plants take a decade to build, and estimates for the cost of a nuclear plant have just doubled from $6 billion to $12 billion.

Replacing carbon waste with radioactive waste is not healthy and probably not insurable. A better proposal, offered by Al Gore, is to build a cleanly powered smart grid. With a 10-year timetable and a cost of $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion, such a grid would maximize the benefits and minimize the potential consequences for our health and the global environment.

Paul R. Epstein
Boston, MA

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 02, 2008

Mission accomplished

To the editor:

How can the editorial board of the Review-Journal in good conscience support Sen. John McCain for president? Sen. McCain is a huge proponent of nuclear power. His solution for nuclear waste is to store it in Nevada.

The Review-Journal has consistently and repeatedly opposed the nuclear waste dump being planned for Yucca Mountain. Over the years, I frequently have disagreed with your editorials, but have respected your positions because I thought the editorial board was intellectually honest. I constantly defended the journalistic integrity of your newspaper.

Now I know the truth; my wife was right. The Review-Journal has a right-wing agenda, no different from Fox News, and will write and print whatever it wants to further the cause.

So please stop pretending to be against the dump at Yucca Mountain. You just asked everyone in Nevada to vote for it. And if Sen. McCain wins Tuesday's election and the dump comes here, accept responsibility.

For the Review-Journal, it will be "mission accomplished."

E.M. Keach
Las Vegas

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

Las Vegas SUN
November 02, 2008

Democrats take issue with McCain nuclear comments

The Associated Press

Democrats are trying to make an issue out of comments by Republican presidential candidate John McCain that dismiss Barack Obama's concerns over the safety of nuclear energy.

McCain mimicked his Democratic opponent at a campaign event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, on Oct. 26, saying Obama says nuclear power "has to be safe, environment, blah blah blah," when the two debate over energy policy. McCain went on to say that nuclear power is safe.

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said Sunday that the "blah blah blah" remark dismissed safety concerns and insults Nevadans who oppose the construction of a national nuclear waste dump 90 miles west of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain. Most Nevada elected officials oppose the plan.

McCain supports the plan, Obama opposes it.

A spokesman for McCain's campaign did not immediately return a call seeking comment on Sunday.

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

Atlanta Journal Constitution
November 02, 2008

Our Editorial Board's Opinion

Reactors have to be part of energy plan

A constant theme of the campaign of 2008 — from the race for president to the state’s Public Service Commission — involves re-embracing nuclear power as a clean and available source of energy.

Unfortunately, the call among candidates for more nuclear power has often been as shallow as the cry to “drill, baby, drill.” Nuclear does need to be part of the nation’s energy-production capacity, particularly given the role of fossil fuels in climate change. But nuclear power still faces long-term issues about cost and safety that have not been addressed or even acknowledged.

Three decades after the last nuclear power plant was commissioned in the United States, 21 companies have indicated they want to build 34 new reactors. In Georgia, workers have already begun clearing old buildings near Georgia Power’s two Plant Vogtle reactors so two new units can be constructed.

Other steps in a nuclear revival won’t be so simple. For example, as Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein pointed out last week in Atlanta, the agency needs a new generation of scientists, engineers and skilled workers to ensure the safety and security of the nation’s nuclear generators. The NRC has already awarded $20 million to 60 universities for scholarships and faculty recruitment and retention to ramp up for a decade or more of new nuclear development.

While many older Americans remember the 1979 reactor incident at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant and the explosion at Ukraine’s Chernobyl plant in 1986, nuclear power didn’t fall out of favor in the U.S. because of safety issues alone. Construction of nuclear plants ceased because they were prohibitively expensive to build and ratepayers eventually balked at the higher bills they were forced to pay.

Nuclear plants remain much more expensive to build than coal-fired or natural-gas plants — they take much more concrete and steel and are much more complex, as well. However, costs have been mitigated in recent years in part because designs have been standardized. Most proposed new plants are planned on existing sites, meaning that there will be no cost for land.

Moreover, Congress has pushed the nuclear revival by providing almost $20 billion in loan guarantees and operating subsidies similar to what’s available for companies investing in solar and wind power.

The NRC is also trying to lower costs by streamlining its application and approval process. In the past, that process often took as long as a decade. Under existing rules, the NRC has allocated a 30-month window to review an application followed by 12 months for public hearings. But Klein, the NRC chairman, believes that once the first two or three licenses have been granted, the pace could be accelerated. As always, however, the primary goal must be safety, not speed.

The industry also has no solution to its most daunting safety and security problem, the permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel. The Energy Department’s proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository is a decade-plus behind schedule. DOE only this year filed its license application with the NRC, which is not expected to reach a decision on the safety and suitability of the site until 2011 at the earliest. Meanwhile, spent fuel is kept on plant sites, many of which are approaching 30 years of age. As an interim solution, the industry wants an above-ground centralized storage site — probably in a desert facility — until underground storage like that planned for Yucca Mountain is available.

That would not come cheaply or quickly, and anti-nuclear groups raise a valid point in questioning whether the money might be more efficiently invested in alternative energy and conservation. Even with more standardized construction and joint ventures to share the cost of creating reactor components, the cost of nuclear-power capacity is about $8,000 a kilowatt compared with about half that for coal, according to a recent Florida Power & Light estimate.

Investments in conservation and alternative sources should be given priority, particularly if they are cost-competitive, but inevitably, additional sources of energy are going to be needed. The threat of global warming demands that safe and affordable nuclear power helps meet that need.

— Mike King, for the editorial board (mking@ajc.com).

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

Atlanta Journal Constitution
November 02, 2008

ISSUE IN-DEPTH: NUCLEAR POWER: Reactors have to be part of energy plan

To fight climate change, alternative fuels and conservation are essential, but they are not enough.

By Mike King

A constant theme of the campaign of 2008 —- from the race for president to the state’s Public Service Commission —- involves re-embracing nuclear power as a clean and available source of energy.

Nuclear plants remain much more expensive to build than coal-fired or natural-gas plants —- they take much more concrete and steel and are much more complex, as well. However, costs have been mitigated in recent years in part because designs have been standardized. Most proposed new plants are planned on existing sites, meaning that there will be no cost for land.

The industry also has no solution to its most daunting safety and security problem, the permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel. The NRC was supposed to start accepting spent fuel rods 10 years ago at the Yucca Mountain depository in Nevada, but instead the agency is still trying to decide whether the site is suitable, with a decision about accepting waste expected to come no earlier than 2011. Meanwhile, spent fuel is kept on plant sites, many of which are approaching 30 years of age. As an interim solution, the industry wants an above-ground centralized storage site —- probably in a desert facility —- until underground storage like that planned for Yucca Mountain is available.

—- Mike King, for the editorial board (mking@ajc.com).

NUCLEAR ENERGY’S IMPACT

Nuclear percentage of net electric generation in each state, based on 2006 numbers.

Vermont: ……..72

New Jersey:……54

South Carolina:..51

Illinois:……..49

Connecticut: ….48

New Hampshire: ..43

Virginia:……..38

Pennsylvania:….34

North Carolina:..32

New York:……..30

Arkansas:……..29

Maryland:……..28

Nebraska:……..28

Michigan:……..26

Tennessee: ……26

Minnesota: ……25

Alabama: ……..23

Arizona: ……..23

Georgia: ……..23

Mississippi: ….23

Kansas:……….21

Wisconsin: ……20

United States: ..19

Louisiana: ……18

California:……15

Florida: ……..14

Massachusetts: ..13

Iowa:…………11

Missouri:……..11

Ohio:…………11

Texas: ……….10

Washington:……9

Others*: ……..0

*The District of Columbia and 19 states have no nuclear capability

Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole numbers.

--Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 01, 2008

In Brief

Surface Transportation Board

Yucca rail hearing scheduled in Las Vegas

The federal railroad board has set a Dec. 4 field hearing in Las Vegas to hear public reaction to the Department of Energy's application to build a 300-mile railway across rural Nevada to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing facility, 3250 Pepper Lane.

The Surface Transportation Board is considering DOE's bid to construct a rail line from Caliente to Yucca Mountain, where the department plans to build an industrial complex and a warren of tunnels to store more than 77,000 tons of highly radioactive material.

Speakers are required to register in advance. Go to www.stb.dot.gov for information on how to sign up.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
November 01, 2008

Swiss brief Nye visitors on waste

By Mark Waite
PVT

German residents voted to shut down nuclear power plants, but in Switzerland five nuclear reactors continue to produce 40 percent of the nation's power, Nye County Nuclear Waste Project Office Director Darrell Lacy told county commissioners this month.

Lacy made a trip to Switzerland in September as part of a four-member Nye County delegation that included Assistant County Manager Pam Webster, Geoscience Manager Levi Kryder and County Commissioner Roberta "Midge" Carver, who has only a few months left on her term.

County commissioners budgeted $20,000 out of the nuclear waste oversight program for the trip.

They joined a delegation by the United States Transportation Council, an advocacy group for the U.S. nuclear material transport industry.

Last year county officials went on a USTC tour of nuclear waste facilities in Sweden and Finland; the year before, Japan was on the itinerary.

Lacy told Chairman Joni Eastley there was a protest in a Swiss community over nuclear issues the week before their visit. They were told most of the protesters were Germans or Austrians.

"Most major decisions in Switzerland are done through referendum. They've had several referendums on nuclear issues. The most recent one was whether to shut down nuclear power in the country as Germany has done and Italy has done, but that was voted down 66 percent,' Lacy said.

Nye County officials met with the Swiss equivalent of the U.S. Department of Energy, he said. The Swiss energy officials talked about concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and a desire to be free of the use of fossil fuels through nuclear energy.

Lacy said they visited the newest Swiss nuclear power plant, constructed in 1984. He said the German decision to phase out nuclear power may be revisited due to problems getting natural gas supplies through Russia.

The nuclear waste in Switzerland is shipped by rail and offloaded at an intermodal facility a mile from an intermediate storage facility, Lacy said. He told Eastley in 24,000 shipments there haven't been any accidents.

"They have not identified their geologic repository yet, so they have made a decision to use intermediate storage for the next 50 years or so," Lacy said.

The long-term goal is to establish a geologic repository like Yucca Mountain, he said, in a country with a lot more rainfall than Nevada.

While the Swedes and Finns have plans to build a nuclear waste repository in granite, the Swiss will build it in sedimentary rock, Lacy said. Yucca Mountain is being built in volcanic tuff. The Swiss will dig drifts over 1,500 feet deep with smaller casks to reduce heat generated by the radioactive waste, he said.

The intermediate storage facilities are big, indoor concrete pads with casks stored on them, he said. Some sites have high-level waste returned for reprocessing in France.

Carver mentioned a few things she learned, like the fact Switzerland has four official languages, but she told Eastley she never heard a concern the nuclear waste might be a target for terrorists.

Lacy said in Switzerland the storage of nuclear waste is handled by a joint venture of private companies, not by the government. The itinerary called for visiting an interim, dry-cask storage facility operated by Zwilag, a company owned by four Swiss nuclear utilities, in Wurenlingen.

Carver was impressed at efforts to educate the public at the Swiss facilities.

"Both sites that we went to were very accommodating to visitors, very educational. At one site they had several different age groups of young people going through this facility,' Carver said. "Most people get upset about things because they don't understand them."

Eastley's comments seemed to reflect a positive attitude toward nuclear waste and nuclear energy.

"Nothing would make me happier as a commissioner than to see the successful reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods and to have Nye County, Nevada, identified as the nation's first nuclear energy reserve," Eastley said.

Eastley admitted that wasn't something she expects to see before she leaves office.

Eastley is running for re-election. If she's re-elected to another four-year term Nov. 4 it will be her last, as she's bound by term limits from running again in 2012.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 31, 2008

Yucca manager changed

URS Corp. division gets $2.5 billion job

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy switched operators of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project, awarding a $2.5 billion management contract Thursday to a team headed by a unit of URS Corp., a major construction and engineering design firm.

USA Repository Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of San Francisco-based URS, was given a five-year contract, with an additional five one-year options that could carry through March 31, 2019, the department said.

The company will manage the program through upcoming license hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and into construction if a license is granted and if DOE can win sufficient funding from Congress and overcome other obstacles to build the storage site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

DOE has projected a repository could begin accepting waste in 2020 under its best-case scenario. At the same time, officials have said that could be a long shot given anticipated budget struggles and legal and political opposition in Nevada.

The new management team includes two principal subcontractors -- Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Inc., a Louisiana-based industrial construction firm, and nuclear fuels management specialist Areva Federal Services.

Both firms have worked previously as Yucca subcontractors, a DOE spokesman said. Also, Areva holds a contract, awarded in May, to develop transportation, aging and disposal waste canisters on the program.

USA Repository Services would replace Bechtel-SAIC, which has served as chief management contractor on the Yucca project since February 2001, and whose contract expires at the end of March 2009.

Bechtel SAIC had submitted a bid to continue its management role. Also applying was a team representing Babcock and Wilcox Co., Fluor and Energy Solutions.

"We are disappointed with the result but we are proud of what we have done here," Bechtel SAIC spokesman Jason Bohne said.

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

Power Engineering Magazine
October 31, 2008

Areva team wins Yucca Mountain nuclear waste contract

31 October 2008 -- Areva said the U.S. Department of Energy has awarded a contract to USA Repository Services LLC, a unit of URS Corp. that includes Areva and the Shaw Group, to manage the used nuclear fuel repository project at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The five-year contract, which has an optional five-year renewal, is valued at $2.5 billion.

The USA Repository Services partnership will have several responsibilities, including completing the detailed design of the repository and addressing questions on the license application submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier this year.

The contract also stipulates that USA Repository Services will operate the existing Yucca Mountain facilities before construction authorization and support management of construction and operation activities.

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

Traffic World
October 31, 2008

STB to Hold Caliente Hearing

Thomas L. Gallagher
Web Editor

The Surface Transportation Board will hold a public field hearing on the U.S. Department of Energy's plan to build a railroad line to serve a proposed nuclear waste site.

On Dec. 4 in Las Vegas, Nev., the board will hear testimony concerning the DOE's application to build the proposed "Caliente Line," a 300-mile rail line that would connect an existing rail line near Caliente, Nev., to a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nev.

DOE proposes to use the new line initially to transport materials needed to construct the repository, and, eventually, to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste for disposal at the completed repository. DOE also has requested approval to operate the line as a "common carrier," which, if approved, would require that the line be accessible to other shippers engaged in interstate transportation.

People who intend to speak at the hearing may file notice electronically via the Board's Web site, at http://www.stb.dot.gov .

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

Tri-City Herald
October 31, 2008

Nuclear fuel recycling shouldn't be shelved again

The Department of Energy's new draft environmental study on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership looks largely to be an exercise in futility.

No matter who is elected president next week, he'll pursue his own energy strategy. Not many elements of the Bush administration's ambitious GNEP proposal are likely to survive the transition.

But GNEP's basic aim -- to develop better technology to safely reuse the nation's spent nuclear fuel -- shouldn't be abandoned.

Sure, there's no shortage of uranium needed to fuel existing reactors around the world, but that won't be true forever.

Demands are certain to increase, and supplies will eventually dwindle. If we wait for a crisis before pursuing reprocessing technology, it'll be too late.

The U.S. will run out of storage space for spent fuel long before it runs out of uranium for new fuel rods. The nation's stockpile of spent nuclear fuel is expected to exceed capacity of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository by 2010.

The potential for recycling to drastically reduce the need for new geological storage could make the technology cost effective, regardless of uranium supplies.

Arguments that commercial fuel reprocessing in the U.S. will contribute to proliferation of nuclear weapons are unconvincing.

The U.S. abandoned its reprocessing program in 1977 to set an example for the rest of the world. It hasn't worked. Other countries reprocess nuclear fuel, and the number of nations in the nuclear-weapons club continues to expand.

If anything, a U.S. program to develop proliferation-resistant technology for reprocessing spent reactor fuel promises to slow the growth in countries with nuclear weapons.

A public hearing on DOE's draft environmental statement is planned at 7 p.m. Nov. 17 at the Pasco Red Lion, 2525 N. 20th Ave. An Oregon hearing will be held the next evening in Hood River.

We suspect the comments collected will become a footnote to a DOE proposal that's shelved indefinitely come inauguration day.

But the need for nuclear energy is becoming increasingly obvious to more Americans. Just last week, the New York Times ran this headline: "The Energy Challenge -- Nuclear Power May Be in Early Stages of a Revival."

Sustaining that revival for the long haul without reprocessing in the mix won't be possible. The next administration needs to continue funding research and development.

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

Augusta Chronicle
October 31, 2008

Firm to run site at Yucca

Project goes to former SRS arm

By Rob Pavey

The U.S. Department of Energy awarded a $2.5 billion management and operating contract Thursday to USA Repository Services, a subsidiary of the URS Corp., whose Washington Division ran Savannah River Site from 1989 until this year. It continues to manage its liquid waste program.

The five-year contract, with a five-year renewal option, is to provide mission support to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for the nation's first national repository for high-level radioactive waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

The new partnership's principal subcontractors are Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Inc., and AREVA Federal Services Inc.

After two decades of debate, the Energy Department filed a formal application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June to build the Yucca Mountain project, which would become a final resting place for radioactive material currently stored at 121 temporary sites in 39 states -- including SRS near Augusta.

Yucca Mountain, a remote ridge on federal land in the Mojave Desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been under study for such a repository since the 1980s. SRS has two glass waste storage buildings, where radioactive waste encased in glass is stored in steel cylinders that could be shipped to Yucca Mountain.

According to an Energy Department press release, the contract would take effect April 1, 2009.

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

OneWorld
October 31, 2008

Nukenomics No Longer Add Up - Expert

Brittany Schell
OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, Oct 31 (OneWorld) - Nuclear power is a risky source of energy that comes with many hidden costs, said an environmental analyst and long-time leader in the U.S. environmental movement Tuesday.

Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, said the "flawed economics" of nuclear power are placing unforeseen burdens on taxpayers: the costs related to the construction of nuclear plants, the disposal of nuclear waste, the decommissioning of old plants, and security in case of an accident all contribute to the price the world pays for nuclear power. Wind energy is a more economically sound option, said Brown.

The apparent cost of nuclear power is the cost of construction and fuel for nuclear plants, and this price is rising. The estimated construction cost of a nuclear reactor two years ago was between $2 and $4 billion. Now it is $7 billion, in part because of the rising cost of steel and cement, Brown said.

The price of fuel for nuclear power plants is also on the rise. Uranium now costs $60 per pound, compared to $10 at the beginning of the decade. This increase is due to the depletion of easily mined sites rich in ore, Brown said. Companies now have to dig deeper to find uranium, and the uranium content of the ore has dropped.

Brown said that when calculating the true cost of nuclear power, factors such as waste disposal, insurance in case of an accident, and decommissioning costs once a plant is worn out have to be included.

Brown mentioned the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, where the United States plans to store the radioactive waste from its 104 nuclear reactors, as an example of unforeseen costs of nuclear power. Yucca Mountain is located 90 miles outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. The cost of this repository, estimated at $58 billion in 2001, has climbed to $96 billion.

"Not only is Yucca Mountain over budget, it is 19 years behind schedule," said Brown. "It was originally supposed to be ready to accept waste in 1998 and it now is scheduled for 2017. It's not even certain that it will ever be completed."

The lack of a permanent waste storage facility is a security risk and security costs are usually not included in financial analyses either, said Brown. There are 121 temporary facilities in 39 states, and it is difficult to monitor and provide adequate security for all the sites. He cautioned that this distribution leaves the sites vulnerable to leakage, as well as possible terrorist attacks.

"There is a growing risk of radioactive material getting into the wrong hands," Brown said. He said there were 250 incidents last year of nuclear material being lost or stolen, and a lot was never recovered.

Another risk of nuclear power, according to Brown, is the danger of another accident like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Sandia National Laboratory estimates that a worst-case scenario accident would cost $700 billion, "roughly the size of the fiscal bail out that congress passed a few weeks ago," said Brown. The cap on liability for U.S. nuclear power plants was set at $10 billion by the government, so in the case of such an accident the excess cost would be born by tax payers.

The cost of decommissioning older nuclear reactors can tip the balance sheet too. Reactors have an average life expectancy of about 40 years. Since the first plant opened in 1954, over 100 reactors have been closed, but many have not completed the decommissioning process, said Brown. According to a 2004 International Atomic Energy Agency report, the decommissioning cost for each reactor will range from $250 to $500 million, not including the cost of removing and disposing of the waste.

A report by nuclear consultant Mycle Schneider said recently that about 90 nuclear reactors are set to close within the next seven years. With only 36 new nuclear reactors under construction worldwide, Brown notes that world nuclear power generation could drop by 10 percent by 2015. With this "aging of the nuclear fleet," nuclear power generation could hit a sharp decline as more aging reactors close.

"What we're looking at is a half century of growth being replaced by what could be decades of decline," said Brown.

In light of this impending decline, Brown said the U.S. government should stop investing money in nuclear power -- currently over $70 billion a year -- and devote more money to the research and development of renewable energy sources, such as wind.

Comparing nuclear power with wind, Brown pointed out that nuclear power already costs twice as much as electricity produced from the wind, not including the additional costs he cited.

"If we look at the economics comparing nuclear with wind, a dollar invested in wind produces more energy, leads to a greater reduction in carbon emissions, and creates more jobs than one invested in nuclear power," said Brown.

Environmental research and activist groups, including the Center for American Progress, Greenpeace, and the Worldwatch Institute, are pressing the next administration in Washington to support multibillion-dollar "green jobs" programs to spur the U.S. economy while slowing the onset of global climate change. Each group's plan calls for a significant increase in government support for renewable energy.

The U.S. Department of Energy released the first national wind resource inventory in 1991, which highlighted the potential of three states -- North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas -- to satisfy the country's electricity needs through wind energy. Brown said that since then, wind turbine technology has improved and he estimated that these three states now have enough potential wind energy to satisfy the country's entire energy needs, not just electricity.

"Wind is the most mature of the renewable energy sources," said Brown. "Emphasizing the creation of new jobs with investments in renewables and efficiency is the way we want to go."

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 30, 2008

Firm wins Yucca Mountain management contract

WASHINGTON — The Department of Energy announced today it was switching operators of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project, awarding a $2.5 billion management contract to a team headed by URS Corp., a major construction and engineering design firm.

USA Repository Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of URS Corp., was given a five-year contract, with a potential five-year option period that could carry through March 31, 2019, the department said.

"This contract will enable our national repository program to move forward by securing the necessary management and operations necessary as we begin the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing proceedings," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement.

The team includes two principal subcontractors -- Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Inc., a Louisiana-based industrial construction firm, and nuclear fuels management specialist AREVA Federal Services.

USA Repository Services will replace Bechtel-SAIC, which had served as chief management contractor on the Yucca Mountain Project since February 2001, and whose contract expires at the end of March 2009.

After a transition, the new contractor will take over on April 1, according to DOE.

The new contractor will oversee completion of designs for the proposed nuclear waste site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and provide construction management if DOE is granted a license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, according to the department.

Bechtel SAIC was reported by Nuclear New Build Monitor, a trade publication, to have been in competition for the new contract, along with a team of Babcock and Wilcox Co., Fluor and Energy Solutions.

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

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

DOE
October 30, 2008

U.S. Department of Energy Awards a Contract to USA Repository Services for Management and Operating Contractor Support for the Yucca Mountain Project

Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today awarded a $2.5 billion management and operating (M&O) contract to USA Repository Services (USA-RS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the URS Corporation. USA-RS will be supported by principal subcontractors: Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., and AREVA Federal Services, Inc.

“If we are to meet growing energy demand and slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power must be a larger part of our energy mix; it is a mature technology with significant potential to supply large amounts of safe, reliable, emissions-free base load power. In order to ensure that such an expansion can occur, the United States must have a permanent repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste,” said Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman. “This contract will enable our national repository program to move forward by securing the necessary management and operations expertise needed as we begin the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing proceedings.”

USA-RS will provide mission support to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) for the Yucca Mountain Project. As awarded, this contract has a five-year period of performance with a potential five-year option period. If fully exercised, this contract will continue through March 31, 2019.

Key scope activities under this new M&O contract are:

* providing management expertise and support for the completion of repository design;

* addressing questions or requests for additional information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the DOE’s License Application and supporting DOE’s activities in the subsequent NRC licensing process;

* operating the Yucca Mountain site; and

* providing construction management and integration support.

After the transition activities are completed, USA-RS will assume responsibility for full performance on April 1, 2009. A website providing information on the new contract will be set up prior to transition and will be accessible from the OCRWM website.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

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