Skeptical Nevadan wrote on August 14, 2008 10:30 AM: Some other points:

Bear in mind that, as the RJ recently reported, the DOE has "lawyered up" with the top firm in the nation on nuclear regulatory matters. The fee this firm will receive for its advocacy of the Yucca Mountain Project?

$47 million.

The good news is -- for the repository, at least -- that this money comes from a virtually inexhaustable supply of federal government dollars. In fact, if the Congress lifts budgetary constraints on fully exploiting the Nuclear Waste Fund, then DOE will have unfettered access to the $21 billion currently in that fund.

So the question quickly becomes: How much of Nevada's money is the State going to spend in order to contend with this legal juggernaut? How many of OUR tax dollars will fund this effort?

Related questions might be:

What will our already-strapped State be forced to deprive us of (school and infrastructure funding, etc.) in order to continue tilting at windmills in their battle against the repository?

What has the State spent its money on so far? Has it even built a worthy case against the repository, including credible scientific and regulatory contentions? Or will its opposition take the familiar form of propaganda and loophole-hunting?

Bearing in mind that the NRC licensing process is primarily scientific, technical, and regulatory, how well are our high-paid State attorneys prepared for this case? And how much money will we have spent to fund what could easily be a losing effort?

In the end, I would bet my life that careful study will reveal that our State officials were poorly prepared and had little if any credible evidence. If the State isn't saved by a loophole, as in the appellate court ruling against the EPA's dose standard, then we taxpayers will have been fleeced -- again!

Skeptical Nevadan wrote on August 14, 2008 10:01 AM: Roger: You apparently come from the same school as our politicians, whose philosophy seems to be "If I say something enough times, eventually it will come true." Never mind the complete absence of anything remotely resembling a deliberative process (e.g., consideration of evidence, impartial assessment, weighing of potential risks and rewards, etc.) Just keep on saying it over and over, and by golly it'll all come true. The good news is, you have a 50-50 chance of being right, so if things work out your way you can then take credit for the outcome!

Ted: I agree with your central point, but would add that much of Mr. Loux's funding comes not from the State, but rather from the federal government. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (which is the law mandating construction of a national nuclear waste repository) stipulates that "affected units of local government" receive federal dollars to "study" the various implications of the proposed repository.

The language is vague enough that "study" can include "fund opposition to" the repository. Thus, because the law requires DOE basically to fund its own opponents, Bob Loux has been feeding at the government trough for years. A full accounting of how that money was spent would likely reveal that it was: (a) squandered on no-bid contracts for political activists such as Judy Treichel to spread propaganda; (b) used to commission dubious sociological studies by primarily out-of-state firms (even though we have a university system here in Nevada perfectly suited for such studies); and (c) more or less frittered away by careerists looking to advance themselves and their allies.

Even the RJ has taken Loux and his agency to task on some of these points, and the GAO has reprimanded Loux & Co. in the past for their unseemly (and potentially illegal) spending practices.

Skeptical Nevadan wrote on August 14, 2008 09:38 AM: Great: 30 more days for the State to embarrass itself and further demonstrate that they have squandered taxpayer dollars on threadbare propaganda and have virtually no case against the repository.

The petition that the Attorney General's office filed immediately after the DOE's submittal of the repository license application was shamefully illogical, had no scientific dimension, badly misinterpreted the relevant statutes (in some cases citing the wrong section of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), and once again demonstrated that Nevada's case is merely political. The crack team of State lawyers couldn't even demonstrate competence with the existing statutes and regulations -- and that's their sole job!

And remember: it's not as if the State hasn't had time to prepare itself. This project has been underway for over two decades. In that time, hundreds of individual reports, most of which provide the basis for the license application, have been publicly available on DOE's website.

The State could have analyzed and studied any number of these reports in hopes of finding material to build a technical or scientific case against the repository, but the simple fact is either (a) the State didn't bother, or (b) they did look at the reports but couldn't find anything wrong with them.

The more likely scenario is probably (a), given that our State officials long ago confined themselves to the political battle and have been resolutely anti-scientific -- even while constantly carping about the alleged lack of "sound science" coming out of the Yucca Mountain Project.

The real question is: On what basis can a bunch of lawyers and political lemmings make such claims, lacking any technical or scientific expertise themselves and having squandered whatever funding they received on propaganda campaigns rather than legitimate scientific studies?

Clean sweep wrote on August 14, 2008 08:56 AM: Roger: You wrote three sentences, and got it wrong three times. An amazing record of futility.

Roger wrote on August 14, 2008 08:01 AM: Yucca is rightfully dead. The idiots who supprt it have already wasted millions in tax dollars. The plan is flawed and will never happen.

Ted wrote on August 14, 2008 07:21 AM: Great, now this gives even MORE time for the state to spend money we don't have for legal fees for fighting Yucca Mountain.

Where are we getting this money to support Bob Loux's soap box? Wouldn't want to waste it on say schools/teachers for our poor performing school district for our children. No, let's waste it on lawyers and legal fees fighting a program we will get anyways.