WASHINGTON — Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada insists he is working to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada and Utah.

But don't look for the powerful Senate minority leader to help the Utah delegation with wilderness language inserted in the Defense Authorization Act that would block temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel on Goshute tribal lands west of Salt Lake City.

"He is opposed to legislating the wilderness area on the defense bill," said spokeswoman Tessa Hafen.

The wilderness language, sponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is regarded as Utah's last, best chance to block the storage of 44,000 tons of nuclear waste in above-ground canisters.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is poised to rule later this summer on a recommendation by the quasi-judicial Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of nuclear power utilities, be granted a license to store spent nuclear fuel in Utah for up to 40 years.

The Utah delegation is largely resigned to the idea that the NRC is going to grant the license. Earlier this week the NRC rejected yet another state contention that the storage would become permanent because the waste canisters were not suitable for permanent storage at Yucca Mountain. Only one appeal remains, that being whether the risk of an aircraft crash into the site had been properly considered.

With the NRC signaling its willingness to grant the license, the delegation has focused much of its efforts on trying to persuade the Department of Interior to reject the PFS lease with the Skull Valley band of Goshutes and to deny approval for PFS to build a rail spur needed to transport the waste to the storage site.

Bishop's language would declare those same federal lands needed for the rail spur to be wilderness and therefore off-limits to a new rail line.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is more confident the wilderness language will pass this year, pointing out there are two important differences between this year's attempt and the one that failed to make it out of conference committee last year. First, the Bishop language is part of the House version of the bill, whereas last year the Utah delegation was trying to get it added during the conference committee.

That means the issue is part of the debate and it becomes much more difficult for the Senate to take it out.

The other difference is that the Bishop language has the support of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which carries a lot of weight with key members of the conference committee. Last year, there were members of the conference committee opposed to the Bishop language simply because there was a perception that SUWA was opposed.