Monday, March 22, 2004 | 9:50 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- A House subcommittee will address the status of the Yucca Mountain project and pending legislation that alters how the project gets money.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., plans to testify at the hearing Thursday, spokesman Adam Mayberry said, but a final witness list could not be confirmed by the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, which will hold the hearing.
"He looks forward to continue to make the case that Yucca is bad for the nation," Mayberry said.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., has asked to testify but has not heard back from the subcommittee yet, spokesman David Cherry said. A representative from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which has recently been critical of the project's status, could also testify, Cherry said.
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., also will be testifying, spokeswoman Amy Spanbauer said.
The subcommittee was supposed to hold a hearing on the proposed nuclear waste storage project the Energy Department has planned for Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, last September but it was postponed.
The Energy Department intends to submit a license application for the project in December 2004 and, if approved, the site could open for the first waste shipments by 2010. Critics hope pending court cases could stop the project.
Beyond looking at the overall status of the project, the hearing will examine a bill introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, that would tap directly into the Nuclear Waste Fund, an account made up of fees paid by nuclear utilities users.
The Energy Department wants $749 million from the fund to go directly into the Yucca project and not through the usual congressional funding process that would make it compete with other programs for money.
The hearing will also look at a bill introduced last year by Illinois Reps. John Shimkus, a Republican, and Bobby Rush, a Democrat, that would remove at least $725 million from the regular appropriations process for the Yucca program each year and not subject it to spending caps placed on the appropriations bill.
archive
