Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterSUN EDITORIAL:
Nuclear politics and Nevada
McCain is a longtime supporter of Yucca Mountain; Obama speaks out against it
Sat, Oct 18, 2008 (2:06 a.m.)
The power a president holds over Yucca Mountain was demonstrated in February 2002, when President Bush recommended to Congress that the partially built nuclear waste storage project be completed.
Five months later Congress succumbed to his recommendation, despite Bush’s campaign promise to Nevadans that he would hold off on any Yucca decision until the project had been “deemed scientifically safe.”
No such determination has ever been made. There have been, however, many scientific reports concluding that the project — just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas — would be very dangerous.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been instrumental in rendering the project inert. Yucca Mountain, however, still has a heartbeat. Whether that heartbeat is stilled or resuscitated depends on the next occupant of the White House.
A story this week by Las Vegas Sun reporter Phoebe Sweet reiterated the positions of presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. Their views are well worth remembering by Nevadans as they head to the polls — and early voting begins today.
On the campaign trail, McCain has been clear: He supports Yucca Mountain. He cites the billions the federal government has invested in the site and maintains it can be made safe.
Taking his cue from Bush’s “sound science” line, McCain said during a March campaign stop in Las Vegas he would “accede to whatever scientific — credible scientific — opinion is.” Richard Bryan, former Nevada governor and former U.S. senator, told Sweet, “Sound science has become, in the nuanced language of nuclear politics, a wink and a nod to say, ‘I’m all for it.’ ”
There is nothing nuanced about Obama’s position. “I am opposed to Yucca Mountain ... I have consistently said that I am opposed to Yucca Mountain, and that will not change,” he said in January.
The opposing views illustrate how important the coming presidential election is for Nevadans.
Discussion: 12 comments so far…
Post a comment
Email Edition
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Fourth fireworks light up valley sky
- Ensign’s pal lacked usual qualifications for job as senator’s senior aide
- Jay-Z lights up Las Vegas, lives life to the max
- Cousins attracting attention from college football recruiters
- Strip performer is eBay high bidder for Elvis ring
- Las Vegas to sizzle for the Fourth
- Swarm of crickets descends once again on Northern Nevada
- Local conservative radio talk reflects right’s downcast state
- Henderson house fire displaces family of three
- Day 2 of the World Series of Poker main event
Blogs
Elsewhere
Goalie chooses Mudbugs over Wranglers
The Bull's-Eye
Real drama follows Desert Classic victory by 'The Power' (UPDATED)
Elsewhere
Spike TV's 'UFC's Ultimate 100: Greatest Fights' airs tonight
The Kats Report
LV Phil 'Spectacular' at Springs Preserve was great -- for the music
Punchy Points: UFC 100
No. 6: The Ref: Dean relishes role, making right calls (1 Comment)
The Bull's-Eye
Canadian is first in Desert Classic's final four, Barney joins him (UPDATED) (2 Comments)
Sports: Upon Further Review
July 4 at Wimbledon
Calendar
- Blues Monday at the House of Blues (9 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
- Industry Night at XS (10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- The Automatic Tour at The Square Apple (5 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
"Whether that heartbeat is stilled or resuscitated depends on the next occupant of the White House."
So if Obama wins the the Sun is saying that Obama will kill Yucca.
I wonder what excuses they will offer up in 4 years if Yucca heartbeat is still beating.
(Removed by the site staff)
Mr. Nance
I don't know. Hopefully, we'll get the chance to find out. :-)
When you call the LV Sun on the facts that differ with their editorial they pull your comment.
This is their form of the Fairness Doctrine.
"Congress succumbed to his recommendation, despite Bush's campaign promise to Nevadans that he would hold off on any Yucca decision until the project had been 'deemed scientifically safe.' No such determination has ever been made."
Fortunately, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will perform an independent scientific and technical review of the Yucca Mountain license application. The NRC will also hold hearings to consider input from independent technical and scientific assessments, including those by the State of Nevada. There are a lot of claims, one way and another, about whether Yucca Mountain would be safe. Let's see what the USNRC ends up saying.
I think you are right Future2012.
It now seems they are removing stuff because they do not like content and not because it has offensive remarks.
Also, it seems that they have stop emailing bloggers when they remove the remarks.
I have a feeling the upper staff at the Sun do not realize that they have some lower staff person doing this BS.
Right no e-mail.
Las Vegas Sun is now playing the censorship card.
Apparently anything is allowed to get Obama in the whitehouse
Congress "succumbed"??? Congress' majority voted to make Yucca Mountain the nation's nuclear waste repository.
As to any Presidential power, Congress passed the law in 1982 on how to proceed with licensing a repository. The DOE and the NRC are merely following this law that CONGRESS has made. If the Las Vegas Sun is suggesting that Obama should ignore a national law and the will of Congress, then what other laws will Obama and the Democrats propose to disregard?
Future2012:
I'm disappointed to learn that your blog post was yanked. Given that I frequently support the repository in these blogs myself, and also criticize the Sun editors, I suspect that I may soon find myself the victim of Sun censorship.
To this point, however, the editors have not yanked my blog posts, even when I criticize the Sun pretty sharply.
In any event, davelv is right to question the Sun's characterization of the 2002 vote. Not only did Congress not "succumb," but President Bush's vote did not represent an exercize of presidential "power" above and beyond whatever is allowed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
The Act explicitly calls for the president (whoever he/she is) to approve or deny the DOE's site recommendation. Bush did not arbitrarily proclaim that he would now be recommending Yucca Mountain as the site for the repository. Rather, the DOE submitted a site recommendation, which Bush was required -- by law -- to approve or deny.
This is one of several obligations laid out in the Act; the president does not instigate such obligations but rather follows them.
Unfortunately for people such as the Sun editors, who continue to suggest that the next president can somehow "kill the repository," the Nuclear Waste Policy Act doesn't require any input from the president from this point on. It is already a matter of settled law, and the various presidents since 1982 have performed their statutory obligations. The rest is in the hands of the NRC.
Absent new legislation to overturn or amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the president is pretty much powerless to stop the Yucca Mountain Project. In fact, Sen. Harry Reid remains the State's best hope when it comes to derailing the Project. Only someone with control over budget appropriations can thwart the Project now. Otherwise, it all hinges on the outcome of the NRC review.
The next president could order the Energy Department to withdraw its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The NWPA does not give the President any power to withdraw the application. If a President did that, it is likely that many states would go to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of such an action. Remember, there are over 35 states that have nuclear waste and their nuclear powered citizens have paid into the Waste Fund to pay for Yucca Mountain. The Democrats and the President would be playing with fire to use a Presidential action to stop Yucca Mountain. If the site really is as bad as Reid et al postulate, then the NRC will not license it. What are they afraid of? Or are they calling the NRC corrupt?
Flash1967:
Again, I don't understand where this idea comes from, that the president can "order" an agency to disobey the law.
The construction of a national repository is mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and all of the statutory obligations from the executive branch have been fulfilled.
A president "ordering" the Department of Energy to withdraw the application would be tantamount to "ordering" the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend enforcement of drinking water standards, or ordering the Department of Labor to suspend affirmative action or workplace discrimination enforcement.
These agencies follow and implement requirements of THE LAW, not the desires of this or that president.
You are essentially arguing for unconstitutional authority for the executive branch, and we've already been flirting with that for the past eight years. You are suggesting that a president should be able to ignore, disobey, or overturn an established law without being subject to the typical (i.e., constitutional) process we have now.
It seems to me Roe v. Wade would have fallen long ago if such options were available to the executive branch....