John Harja, the state historic preservation officer responsible for PFS, said the state did not refuse to sign anything. He just thinks it is "premature" to make a decision on how to protect historic places when a right-of-way has not even been issued yet.

"I don't see how that can be interpreted as 'refusing,' " he said. "We are just waiting for the right time."

But in November, the commission decided to stop consulting with the council and requested the council just send a formal comment on PFS instead. This allows them to get around having to wait for the BLM and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer to sign the agreement before issuing the license.

NRC argues that nothing on the site itself, which is the only thing it can regulate, can be considered for the National Register of Historic Places.

Everything considered historic is on the transportation side and beyond what NRC needs to regulate. It "terminated" talks with the council, saying "further consultation is unnecessary and will not be productive."

NRC spokesman Dave McIntyre said once the council forwards its comments, the commission will have fulfilled all its requirements and can issue the license.

"I would not expect it to be immediate," he said.

The BLM still would have to handle anything related to historic properties on its land.

In a complicated, bureaucratic notice in the Federal Register on Monday, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation asked for the public's input on what it should tell the NRC.

Carol Legard, of the council, explained that members of the public should send their views on the effects the PFS project may have on historic properties.

Denise Chancellor, an assistant attorney general who works on the state's fight against PFS, wondered why the commission is leading the charge on this issue when all the historic areas in question are not its responsibility.

"What dog does NRC have in this fight?" she asked. "Does NRC have the authority to do this off the reservation?"

Harja said it is too early for this type of consideration, especially without a right-of-way approval from the BLM or the report by the Defense Department on the potential impacts PFS will have on Hill Air Force base. Federal law requires this to be done before BLM can make any land-use decisions.

"What if they end up moving the rail line?" he said.

Private Fuel Storage spokeswoman Sue Martin said anything that would allow the consortium to get the license in hand is a good thing.

Monday's announcement marks the second new public comment period on Private Fuel Storage announced this month. The BLM sent a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, on Dec. 9, saying it intended to receive public comment on the proposed right-of-way PFS would need to open its rail line to take waste to Skull Valley. The BLM has not announced a specific starting date or where to direct comments on the right-of-way issue.

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com