Skip to main content

Strong Bipartisan Support Shown For Yucca Mountain Repository

Congress sent another strong signal yesterday that the deep geologic repository planned at Yucca Mountain, Nev. is a vital component of our national used nuclear fuel management policy.

Congressman Jon Porter (R-NV), proposed an amendment that would have cut funding for the Yucca Mountain program previously approved by the House Committee on Appropriations. However, his bid to slash over $200 million from the project was met with resounding opposition.

In a sizable margin that represented large numbers of both Democrats and Republicans, the proposed amendment failed with just 80 in favor and 351 opposed.

That reflects an increase in support for the project over previous House votes regarding the used nuclear fuel repository. When the House voted to select Yucca Mountain as the site for the program in 2002, there were 306 votes in support and 117 against. Last year, another amendment which would have restricted activity at the site also failed, 271-147.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Porter said in response to the outcome, “This is proof that Yucca Mountain is alive and well.”

In a statement released by the Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste Management, Director Ward Sproat said, “Yucca Mountain is critical to the nation’s current and future energy and national security needs.”

The Senate has not yet cast any votes this session regarding the program funding.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The EPA safety standard for Yucca Mountain requires that the DOE prove that the repository will protect ground water for the next one million years. Thus it is fascinating to learn that the DOE just had to purchase a system to clean up naturally occuring arsenic in the ground water at Yucca Mountain, because it already does not meet EPA safety standards:

http://www.wateronline.com/content/news/article.asp?DocID=%7B9A2B28FD-29AB-471F-BAAB-DFE6B54A3A7D%7D&Bucket=Supplier+News&VNETCOOKIE=NO

It's good that we are making sure that the Yucca Mountain repository will be safe for hundreds of thousands of years. But anti-Yucca Mountain activists need to get a reality check, because they are diverting attention from the really important things that we should be working on, such as cutting back the air pollution from coal and getting control of carbon dioxide emissions.
Anonymous said…
It's been a shameful week for Nevada's Congressional delegation. Three have uttered flat-out falsehoods (I won't say lies...) on the floor of Congress.

As recorded by Congressional Quarterly:
Shelley Berkley alleged Yucca Mountain would pollute the groundwater of the entire southwest. False, and physically impossible.

Jon Porter said his committee last year found "thousands of emails" showing falsified science at Yucca Mountain. False. DOE self-identified 14 e-mails that implied frustration with quality assurance documentation. Two independent investigations found no science was "falsified."

And in his own news release, Harry Reid said DOE was "stealing water" from Nevada to conduct borehole drilling at the site of planned surface facilities at Yucca Mountain. False. The program had permission from the Nevada state engineer.

What else are they getting wrong?
Anonymous said…
They proabablay can't spell "Oklo".

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin