Yucca mountain:

Obama set to scrap waste site funding

Sen. Reid confirms budget talks; nuclear dump project likely dead

U.S. Department of Energy

Yucca Mountain is located about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Washington — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that the new president will essentially zero-out funding for Yucca Mountain when he releases the fiscal 2010 budget to Congress after taking office.

Yucca Mountain

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition office declined this week to discuss budget plans beyond Obama’s previously-stated opposition to the nuclear waste dump. But Obama told Reid during last week’s sit-down meeting in the Capitol that the budget would be zero, or close to it, the senator’s office said.

Reid elaborated on that statement Wednesday after a meeting with Nevada’s congressional delegation. “When Obama’s budget comes out for the following year, there will be nothing in there for Yucca Mountain,” Reid said.

Eliminating funding for the long-running effort to develop the nation’s permanent nuclear waste dump in the Nevada desert would all but kill the project.

A new multiyear management contract signed last year between the Energy Department and the new contractor on the project is contingent on funding.

“Zero is zero: If you don’t have any money, obviously you can’t work,” said Allen Benson, a spokesman for the Energy Department, which has been developing the site for more than 20 years. Benson said the department would decline to discuss specific options because the incoming Obama administration has not yet announced its budget plans.

Budget cuts engineered by Reid over the past several years have forced cutbacks to the project. Reid slashed the budget from $490 million to $386 million for fiscal 2009. The workforce is down to 1,400 employees, mostly in Southern Nevada, from 2,700 just a few years ago.

Reid said perhaps there would be some funding granted in Obama’s 2010 budget to develop alternatives to Yucca, such as the senator’s proposal to keep waste securely where it sits at nuclear power sites across the nation.

Nevada’s lawmakers have long said that storing the waste at nuclear plants is preferable to shipping it across the country to Nevada. Yucca Mountain is about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Republican Sen. John Ensign said the waste can be stored safely at utility company sites for 100 years. “That’s the best solution. And guess what, that’s the solution they’ll have to go to now,” Ensign said after Wednesday’s meeting. He and Reid have co-sponsored on-site storage legislation.

Ensign suggested that the state’s lawmakers help workers at Yucca Mountain transition to new jobs.

Yucca Mountain is now at the crossroads many envisioned when they considered what would happen with a Democratic president in the White House and Reid as Senate majority leader.

The Nevada delegation has fought Yucca for years, but has been unable to kill the project outright.

Even with the budget cuts Reid has engineered in recent years, the Energy Department was still able to meet its 2008 deadline to submit a license application for the project to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a milestone.

Obama’s aides said on the campaign trail that he would revoke that application.

Steven Kraft, director of used fuel management for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s main lobby, said Obama should let the application go forward and let the regulatory commission decide whether the project is safe.

“If, in fact, this administration believes in science, they ought to look at the science independently and say, is the science right or not?” Kraft said.

The potentially fatal blows to Yucca also come as Reid is gearing up for reelection in 2010. Finally halting the project would not only be a gesture from Obama to the state that helped elect him to the White House, but a powerful campaign slogan for the senator.

What remains to be seen is whether Congress would try to reinstate funding for Yucca Mountain if Obama wipes it out.

Nuclear waste is stored at dozens of sites across the country, and utility companies in various states have sued the federal government for failing to send it to Yucca by 1998 as promised.

Obama’s home state of Illinois has more waste stored than any other, but waste is also being generated and stored at power plants in virtually every region of the country. Some so-called orphan sites in New England still have waste even though the power plants have been long shut down. Nevada does not have any nuclear plants or waste.

The president’s annual budget is a proposal to Congress, which routinely tweaks it to its preferences.

Yet Reid’s colleagues in the Senate may not want to cross him and the House may not want to tackle the issue. Robert Loux, the former director of the state agency fighting the project, questions whether reinstating the funds would be a priority for the Democratic-controlled Congress.

In the meantime, Reid plans to cut Yucca by another $100 million for the current budget cycle. He will do so in the coming weeks when Congress takes up an omnibus appropriations bill to continue funding the government through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

Such a cut this year would make it difficult for the Energy Department to continue pursuing the application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reid has also said the commission’s budget will be cut, curtailing its ability to review the application.

Discussion: 12 comments so far…

By johnevegas

1/15/09 at 4:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

How about that, a president who actually does what he says? I'm not sure we're ready for this as a country after eight years of bald face lies.

"Reid plans to cut Yucca by another $100 million for the current budget cycle..."

And who is this Reid??? Surely not the guy that the reps keep harping about. The one who can't stop Yucca? Nah! This guy seems determined to stop it. Must be another Reid.
By Fccfirstclass

1/15/09 at 5:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Great news!

Both my parents worked at Hanford in the '40s and know about the legacy from the Manhattan Project. The superfund has been trying to clean up Hanford for the last 15 years and is only 1/3 done. They are encasing underground storage tanks that are leaking built very close to the Columbia River.

Reagan and Bush I wanted Hanford to be the King of the Dump until Yukka was put up to be the alter of waste.

Good ole John McSame wanted Yucca to be finished, but said that no waste would go thru Arizona, just Las Vegas and the rest of the country. Thank you Mr. Obama. and Reid.
By davelv

1/15/09 at 6:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

First off, McCain did not say waste couldn't travel through Arizona- he said it wasn't a good idea to have it travel through Phoenix. Typical anti-nike anti-Republican misdirection from the truth.

Secondly, the writers of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act planned for its funding and thorough vetting of the selected site. They didn't consider the Senate Majority Leader, the President and the Secretary of Energy intentionally ignoring and gutting a federal law along with malfeasance of rate payer funds and causing tens of billions of dollars in federal liabilities. Perhaps the next legislation will have penalties for politicians who decide on their own what federal laws to follow or not, and require any misused funds or resulting liabilities to come out of their states' budgets.

Regardless of the changes Reid can produce in the next few years, once the Republicans are back in control one could anticipate quick implementation of pro-Yucca funding since the law obviously will not be changed.
By jfnance32

1/15/09 at 7:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

The Democrats will passed funding for Yucca despite the fact that two of their most powerful leaders are against it.
By Future2012

1/15/09 at 8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

The truth is that this has never been a question of safety.

Reid's refusal to allow a scientific review of the LA is proof of that. Why is Harry afraid?

This is only about politics.

Harry Reid has failed on so many fronts, in so many ways, and in so many thing, that he is down to only one fear-mongering reason to vote for him in 2010.

If the spent nuclear fuel can be safe forever at 105 nuclear sites why can't be safe buried in a mountain?

Let the LA review prove the safety.
By Bill_in_Henderson

1/15/09 at 8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

"This is only about politics."

Right. It is about the politics of trying to shove this waste down our throats (the infamous "screw Nevada bill"), and the politics of a growing state flexing its political muscles to shove the waste right back.

"If the spent nuclear fuel can be safe forever at 105 nuclear sites why can't be safe buried in a mountain?"

Hey - if it is so flipping safe where it is, then why transport it in trucks down our freeways, where it is undeniably NOT safe.

Thank you Senator Reid and President-elect Obama! You two gentlemen are keeping your word, and the Fox News Channel crowd have no idea how to deal with truth from politicians.
By Future2012

1/15/09 at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Hey - if it is so flipping safe where it is, then why transport it in trucks down our freeways, where it is undeniably NOT safe."

Where is your opposition to such hazardous materials as chorine and propane tanker

The point was made in the R-J on 1-17-2008, that Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson held 21 formal draft EIS hearings (9 in Nevada) in 1999 and 2000, to establish that danger from transportation of nuclear waste is less then such hazardous materials as chorine and propane. This has been a long closed issue, but still raised by Nevada even though they will not do anything about chlorine tankers running by the Vegas Strip. Bill Richardson was engaged in preparing a positive the Site Recommendation right before he left office.

Transportation of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is not a problem. If Nevada representatives would demand similar protection for Chlorine tankers as will be in place for SNF such as dedicate trains, exclusion zones, evacuation plans, GPS locators, armed guards (to protect from terrorist with TOW missiles), track and signal inspects, alerts to local officials of the location of hazardous materials, trained emergency responders then we could be less concerned about the potential Bhopal like deaths from a toxic laden tankers of 90,000 people.
By Gordon

1/15/09 at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

The arguments don't add up.

On one hand it's too dangerous to leave the waste where it's at (even though it's located on the most secure areas of our country, nuclear reactors). Moving the waste does not decrease the danger in the area, the reactor remains.

On the other hand it's safe to move because we developed impenetrable transportation casks.

Common sense would say, ok put the waste in the impenetrable transportation casks, build underground bunkers at each reactor site, and put the casks in the bunkers.

As far as propane and chlorine posing the same danger; a nuclear waste accident could contaminate a large area (uninhabitable) for 1,000's of years. A propane or chlorine accident would be cleaned up in a week.

I've heard a lot about terrorist wanting to make a 'dirty bomb' (laden with radioactive material), but have not heard of them 'trying' to get their hands on propane and chlorine. They can go anywhere in the country and get propane and chlorine, but have trouble getting nuclear material.

There is flexibility in the NWPA that allows the president, in my opinion, to end Yucca. Section 8, paragraph B "Evaluation by the president"..."Such evaluation shall take into consideration factors relating to cost efficiency, health and safety, regulation, transportation, public acceptability, and national security." http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/nwpa/...

Thank you Senator Reid for your undying devotion to ending Yucca Mountain. If your predictions hold true you will win re-election with a landslide.
By davelv

1/15/09 at 12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Section 8 was completed in 2002 by Bush and endorsed by Congress. There is no section of the NWPA that now allows withdrawal of the license application.

As to nuclear waste making a large area uninhabitable for 1000s of years, this is anti-nuke propaganda. Do you see either Hiroshima or Nagasaki abandoned - NO, and these were atomic bombs!. Also, people could escape quickly from an accident without lethal doses, but would already be dead from a chlorine tanker disaster. We should all be far more worried about what is in the cargo trucks beside us daily on the highways than anything that would be shipped to Yucca Mountain.
By Future2012

1/15/09 at 12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

"...a nuclear waste accident could contaminate a large area (uninhabitable) for 1,000's of years...."

Spent nuclear fuel is solid ceramic pellets that will not be spread around. They are within sealed Zir fuel rods - which are within a seal 2" steel thick canister which will be placed in a shipping cask design against 40 foot drops, tunnel fires, tow missle, etc.

Read the LA that Reid is afraid of move through the process before spreading junk science.
By Gordon

1/15/09 at 1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Actually I would say much of the 'propaganda' you speak of originates from those wanting the waste moved. The reasons they want it moved are the same reasons the majority of Nevadans don't want it. I'll concede one point, about being uninhabitable, as a 4th generation Vegan I know better. But, we are talking about high level nuclear waste not a nuclear blast (something that scientists once believed to be a 'safe' tourist attraction, from a safe distance and eye protection, when above ground tests were conducted). I believe the contamination would be different or our government wouldn't be worried about a 'dirty bomb'. I'm not talking about a drum that rolls over and breaks its seal, I'm talking about an explosion that spreads large quantities a far distance.

Every argument I hear about how 'safe' this material is, and that it poses no threat, just makes me ask "then why move it?". Every argument stating science can guarantee safety during transportation just makes me wonder "if we can move it safely, why can't we use the same technology to store it safely onsite?"

We don't put our entire nuclear arsenal in one place; you don't put all your eggs in one basket.
I'm no expert on the subject just a concerned citizen.
By Lesismore

2/26/09 at 9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

The problem of storage onsite is that the amount of present storage and future generated waste will soon exceed the individual nuclear plants capacity. In addition, 100 years is only temporary storage, a small percentage of the waste decay half life. Yucca is Long Term storage (1 million yrs) with the ability for several hundred years to retrieve what is placed there if processes change. Yucca would also house defense and naval waste that can not be stored anywhere else. In addition, nuclear waste will not itself explode and would be protected during dedicated rail transport. Yucca also has the environmental conditions (low rainfall, deep aquifer, less population, and federal lands) to safely store waste. Rainfall and water percolation will degrade the canisters if stored underground locally. Imagine if each state/nuclear plant asked the government for billions of dollars to create underground storage. One safely designed and constructed, monitored, protected location is better than numerous unsafe locations where the waste is allowed to degrade by unfavorable underground conditions. Concerned citizens are important to question the issues..to be an informed citizen though, read the information and not just listen to uninformed politicans. For more information visit http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/yu...

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question