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.
yucca insider 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?
don kosloff said…
They proabablay can't spell "Oklo".

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…