Parkyn said the pledge was conditional on Hatch and Bennett's support of Yucca. Each voted in favor of Yucca in 2002, but Bennett announced his opposition for the project in September and Hatch still supports Yucca.

Hatch put his name on a bill introduced by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Bennett, that would allow companies to use federal money now slated to build Yucca to store waste in dry containers on site at commercial nuclear reactors. The Nevada and Utah House members introduced an identical bill in their chamber.

"Read the letters then read the bill. See if you think its consistent," Parkyn said. "He (Hatch) no longer supports Yucca Mountain or he wouldn't have signed onto that bill."

Hatch has been careful to make clear in his statements that he still supports Yucca Mountain and that his "overall strategy" is to find alternatives to the country's nuclear waste problem.

Hatch does not see this as a "stop Yucca bill" or as a permanent solution, according to his office, which points out the bill does not saying anything about this being a permanent alternative to Yucca. He acknowledges the plants need to move their waste, and he is committed to keeping all options open except for PFS, which he calls a "lamebrained" plan.

Parkyn said the "Reid-Hatch bill" is likely to start a national debate on the country's nuclear waste policy. He said it will be a question of whether to continue with Yucca Mountain, move to an interim site like PFS or leave the waste where it is.

"We now have an honest-to-God bill that revises that 1982 (Nuclear Waste) policy act," Parkyn said. "Believe me that is not going to die in some committee. This thing is going to get a floor debate."

He said the combination of Reid's leadership position and Hatch's seniority in the senate, along with the amount of senators that have waste in their states that they want moved, will keep the issue alive. Hatch is up for re-election in 2006, as well as all the House members. Some may want the issue punted until 2007 but that could leave it open still for the presidential contest in 2008.

"I don't think there is any chance the debate won't come up," Parkyn said.

Parkyn said the outcome of any debate determines the future of PFS, he said. Companies that will need to use PFS will pay for it, as has always been the plan. Those opting to not invest in it right now are making their own financial decision. Future events could allow them to come back or other companies not even involved with the project now may opt to get involved. It will really be up to the individual companies with nuclear waste.