Skip to main content

Strong Bipartisan Support Shown For Yucca Mountain Repository

Image
By Trish Conrad
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.
June 21, 2007 at 10:50 PM
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?
June 22, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous said…
They proabablay can't spell "Oklo".
June 23, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more