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.
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
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.
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?