Letter: A different take on Yucca Mountain

Saturday, March 4, 2006 | 7:20 a.m.

The Las Vegas Sun got it wrong in its Feb. 27 editorial, "Dangerous Yucca proposal."

Congress and the president confirmed Yucca Mountain as the site for a deep geologic repository in 2002 based on 20 years and $8 billion in scientific analysis. This analysis evaluated increasing Yucca's capacity by two-thirds and found the increase to be safe. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed this work. More recently, an additional independent review found the research related specifically to water infiltration technically sound.

The industry has a proven record of safely transporting used fuel - more than 3,000 shipments in this country over the past 40 years. And, the ability to safely transport used fuel was recently supported by a National Academy of Sciences report.

Active work on Yucca Mountain continues. The Energy Department's project head, Paul Golan, said he expects new target dates for filing the licensing application and commencing operations will be announced this summer. This work ultimately will be judged in a rigorous Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process, where decisions will be made based on facts, not unsupported claims.

Both common sense and concrete science show that Yucca Mountain is safe, is the best option for safely storing used nuclear fuel and is proceeding toward a successful conclusion.

Steven P. Kraft, Washington, D.C.