One Man’s View:

Hey Pa.: Keep your waste in your own backyard

By Tim O'Callaghan (contact)

Monday, March 9, 2009 | 4:34 p.m.

Tim O'Callaghan

Yucca Mountain

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

If Not Yucca, Where? Courier-Express (3-9-3009)

Yucca Mountain

Yucca funding: Another $100 million cut (2-23-2009)
Once flatlining, now on life support (2-20-2009)
Bill introduced to abolish nuclear projects agency (2-5-2009)
What Guantanamo, Yucca have in common: NIMBY issues (1-27-2009)
Gibbons criticized for downsizing Yucca agency (1-22-2009)
Obama set to scrap waste site funding (1-15-2009)

Today I was trolling the blogs and newspaper web pages when I happened to read this amusing editorial by Denny Bonavita, editor and publisher of McLean Publishing Co. in west-central Pennsylvania, which includes the Courier-Express in DuBois, Pa.

The “Our Opinion” penned by Mr. Bonavita is titled “If Not Yucca, Where?” and starts out by accusing the president of “pandering to Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate.” It then goes on to throw a little mud in Senator Reid’s face by continuing it “further muddies Obama’s credentials as an effective, bipartisan president. But that’s fine.”

OK Denny, so that’s fine. But the president usually doesn’t pander to the Senate leadership, no matter what side of the aisle they lead. It’s usually the other way.

This is where I begin to find his editorial amusing, if not hypocritical, when he makes a few interesting statements such as this beauty:

“We have just one nagging question.

“The federal government is obligated by law to accept the used reactor fuel from 104 commercial power reactors, but as yet it has no place to put it. The spent fuel, growing at the rate of 2,000 tons a year, is being held in pools and above-ground concrete containers at reactor sites.

“What happens to it?”

That’s easy for me to answer with a rhetorical question, such as, “What have you been doing with your garbage for the past 20 years?”

He follows up with, “What happens to us if terrorists steal it? If earthquakes or tornadoes spread it?”

This editorial reminds me of a neighbor I once had who would pick up his dog’s used dog fuel and toss it over his back wall instead of putting it in his own garbage can.

Anyway, I suggest they start shipping those super-duper, train crash-resistant canisters that were proposed for Yucca Mountain to the nuclear power plants around the country. Perhaps they might start with Pennsylvania.

The editorial goes on: “But no state wants to host the long-term storage site. The Nevada site had been vetted by previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic. Yes, Nevada loses.”

Well Denny I’m afraid that’s where you’re wrong. The political game called congressional seniority is how Nevada got screwed in the first place. We elected a dressmaker over Nevada’s second most powerful senator in history, Howard Cannon.

Today, Harry Reid is the most powerful senator ever to represent the people Nevada.

It has taken people such as Harry Reid, John Ensign, Shelley Berkley, Jon Porter and Dean Heller our congressional delegation of the past several years, to get the nuke screw out of our backside. The odds have always been stacked against Nevada, with only three members of the House of Representatives compared to Pennsylvania’s 22 members of the house.

By the way Denny, how many dogs — oops, I meant nuke plants — do you have in your back yard? Nevada has zero!

One last bit of irony. He wrote, “But we have no way to deal with the waste, which can kill us by the millions.”

OK, let me understand this. Nevada has to give a little bit. Therefore, it’s OK if terrorists try to steal 5-ton casks of your garbage from our backyard, and it’s OK if the garbage can kill millions of Nevadans.

For some reason, I fail to see your logic.

Or perhaps I’m just as big a NIMBY as you.

Tim O’Callaghan, co-publisher of the News, can be reached at 990-2656 or tim.oc@vegas.com. He writes a regular blog at tocomv.blogspot.com.

Discussion: 29 comments so far…

By davelv

3/9/09 at 8:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sorry your story is so wrong, but Nevada uses 16% nuclear electricity even though it does not have a nuke plant in the state. A minor point of course, but if other states are expected to keep their waste, so should Nevada.

Where will the thousands of spent fuel assemblies powering Nevada will be stored?
By davelv

3/9/09 at 8:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nevada is defended by nuclear bombs and nuclear powered Navy.

Where will Nevada's share of the defense waste be stored?

But also, renewable energy sources will be made by the rest of the country that uses 20% nuclear electricity. Nevada should certainly store its share of this spent fuel used to create all of the renewable energy that Reid wants for Nevada.

Where will Nevada store this waste?

It would appear that Nevada needs a Yucca Mountain just for all of the nuclear waste that it is producing!!
By jhv

3/10/09 at 5:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

OHHHH!!! give me a break on this story, man oh man, this report is about as science fiction as anything I have seen yet out of Nevada's debacle of nuclear anything. I can assure you that a rag team of 5 terrorist would rather poison a public water supply or bomb a federal building than try to get past a doudle razor wire fence, intrusion alerts, heavily barrier surrounding, armed guards, locked doors to try to lift a 5 ton cask of locked waste and put it in their car and drive off undetected....this is so far fetched it isnt funny...what a bunch of crap. The spent rods in the fuel pool are only accessible by polar crane and must be submerged, let alone try and get it out of the locked building. It never ceases to amaze me the depth that these "science fiction" writers go through to try and make a story. These are common anti everything people trying to make a story worth reading, while the whole time they are lying to the public. Nevada had its chance at having additional jobs and government money, by means of Yucca, now, leave the rest of the counrty alone when it comes to thier choice of nuclear plants. Maybe its because Nevada is so close th that crap hole California that is tainting its minds but, go ahead the same route and allow the state to go into foreclosure.
By Tim O'Callaghan

3/10/09 at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

davelv,
Where should we begin to divide up the waste, perhaps, by population?
By Tim O'Callaghan

3/10/09 at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

jhv,
Are we on the same planet? I didn't realize I needed to supply the spoon for you to scoop my sarcasm.
Perhaps, you were agreeing with my solution to leave the waste where it is created.
By the way, how many permanent additional jobs do you think it would have provided?
By jhv

3/10/09 at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Tim
I appreciate your sarcasm, perhaps, you are spooning somethig else? I dont agree with leaving the waste where it is created. The government, unfortunately promised the utilities a place to store waste, and thanks to that idiot Jimmy Carter a reactor that eats waste was halted in its development. Our government though, never does what its supposed to do or say. As a country, we need either a storage facility or a technology to eat the waste or process it, by the way, the technology is there for all. Nevada wouldnt even know the Yucca facility would be in operation, there's nothing above ground. And yes, there would have been plenty of permanent jobs, you forgot to mention or react to the government money the state would have gotten...but, Hairless Reid would probably spent it on wine women and song on the strip, instead of making a better life for the kids and citizens. Plain and simple...again Tim, America needs to do what is right to progress, we need industry, technology, jobs, equal trade, self reliance...we have given too much of this away, thats one of the reasons we are in the spot we are now. Thanks big business...Thanks politicians.
By SmartAz

3/10/09 at 9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

The American thing to do would be to package up the nuclear waste and sell it to the terrorists (for a profit). They would have to haul it away.

Just make sure that all sales are final so they couldn't return it.

After the nuclear waste has all been sold, we could turn Yucca Mountain into a mushroom farm.

Everyone needs to stop being so pessimistic and start searching for the right solutions.
By Oleszek

3/10/09 at 12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thank you jhv, for two things. First, for a good chuckle. And second, I've been telling people for a long time that the saying, 'ignorance is bliss', is far from true. But thanks to you, all I have to say is "Look at this guy right here. He hasn't the slightest clue as to what is going on around him and he's STILL got his panties all in bunch". Again, thank you. As for Harry Reid... try doing a little research and maybe your next attempt at an insightful thought won't sound like your stomach didn't agree with your last helping of FOX news. To think you were only three clicks away from seeing that Sen. Reid is a devout Mormon (who doesn't drink) and has a wife and five kids... oops! Reid has done more than his fair share of improving the quality of life for citizens, and he has brought home (Nevada) LOTS of money in the process, but I guess it doesn't mean a whole lot when you have to bring it back to a halfwit governor. As for Danny Bonavita, I think I must have missed the memo... But I think he pretty much summed it up for me: As of today, Nevadans are no longer susceptible to radiation poisoning, terrorists are incapable of entering Nevada, and earthquakes will cease to occur in Nevada. Sound about right? I sure hope that was a rhetorical question...
By annagraham

3/10/09 at 1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

I agree Oleszek. I've lived here for my whole life (27 years and counting) and it has never made sense to me that we should store radioactive waste on a highly active fault line. San Andreas fault anyone? One quick shake from the earth and the whole thing could bust open.

Just saying... if you like the waste so much, and you're not afraid of the repercussions, why not put it in a shed in your own backyard? I'm sure you could get some of that government money and create jobs yourself.

Personally, I'd rather be jobless and living in a tent in the desert than watch my children have reproductive problems and have our ground water (the teeeny bit we have) be contaminated with radiation.
By jhv

3/10/09 at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oleszak! Now you are making me laugh, and talk about not knowing crap, you take the cake buck wheat!! Terrorist..come on, you been listening to Greenpeace quacks, or maybe you are one of these wack jobs, and radiation posisoning....thats a good laugh, actually what makes me laugh the most, is the ignorance on the subject, yet you want to portray you have any idea or yet you want to say you are a subject matter expert...most people who read your sorry feedback, who have been associated with radiation or contamination or for that matter nuclear power or waste processing would laugh out loud at your feedback. Whats more, your hero Hairless Reid, has dark side to him and that is he is out for his own, not Nevada's. I would not be surprised to find out he is highly invested in the renewable energy market, which by the way is another government farce, and the people will know later that it is, when renewables cost us billions with little return on anything...better yet, here is a little article for you to read about your hero...get a clue!!!
Cornyn balked at a quick vote on Clinton, expressing dissatisfaction with the steps she has promised to guard against potential conflicts of interest involving foreign donations to the foundation her husband, former President Bill Clinton, set up.
"You have a unique circumstance. . . . Two of the most powerful people in America happen to be married to each other. A former president who's got this foundation and accepting huge contributions from foreign nationals and foreign countries happens to be married to the person who will be the chief diplomat for the United States," Cornyn said Tuesday. "I think it needs some more work to have greater transparency. If it doesn't get handled now, it probably won't get handled. So it's important to talk about it now."
Early Tuesday, Cornyn spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said Cornyn was "keeping all of his options on the table," including a possible filibuster.
That irked Clinton's home-state colleague, Sen. Charles E. Schumer , D-N.Y. "At most, he'll hold it off for two days," Schumer said. "What's the point? We've already gone through the process."
Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., later secured a unanimous consent agreement to vote on Clinton's nomination Wednesday
By annagraham

3/10/09 at 1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

oh one more thing. This is a purely Nevada against the world debate. Anyone who has lived here and calls this place home (NOT you transplants who call this the place where you bought your home) will tell you that Yucca has been a long and hard fought battle. We will never roll over for money, like the rest of the country seems to think we should. It's about more than money, or jobs, or any of that nonsense. It's about caring about the environment of our home.

Yucca by no means is a safe storage facility. If it was so easy to secure this waste, why not build this repository in the Montana hills or in the Ozarks, or any other place? Because people who care about Nevada are a minority. Everyone sees us as some lame desert. We don't have trees so we should house nuclear waste.

But those of us who really LOVE Nevada know that there is a huge ecosystem here that needs to be protected. We also know that our values cannot be bought. So, all you naysayers out there who want Yucca to go through, please leave Nevada. You don't care about her anyway!
By jhv

3/10/09 at 1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Anna, your 27 years hasnt taught you much, you agree with the ignorant. You need to educate yourself before you speak. This country seems to have its fair share of wack jobs who jump band wagons and know nothing about what they are talking about. You have proven this is an American disease, evidentally.
By annagraham

3/10/09 at 1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wow JHV so what did I say that was ignorant? You don't seem to know much at all. I never take "education lessons" from people with bad grammar and punctuation.

I know exactly what I am talking about. I have done primary and secondary research on this subject. As far as I can tell, you are just mad because I AM intelligent.

Please, if you find fault with my logic or points, refute them. By all means. But please, don't call me ignorant when you obviously don't even know what the word means.

Take a look in the mirror, then analyze the ignorance that is apparently running rampant on this page. (Just in case you're too dense to get that, it was a joke.)
By jhv

3/10/09 at 2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Your study still has not shown much in the way of your arguement. Primary and secondary study? Well, if you say so but, your input on reporductive problems? It shows you have not performed any studies. Do you realize what you are talking about? And thanks but, I have been involved in studies of nuclear power and processing for 30 years, I have an education to support theories and studies performed in the last 30 years on hazards related to industry including nuclear power and processing, apparently you need to do more study, you are too far away for worry on reproductive problems, you would not even be close enough to get enough a dose which would be higher than the current background dose you have around you. Get a clue!
By Oleszek

3/10/09 at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

JHV... I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here, and I would hope you would reply honestly. Do you by chance live in a place where nuclear waste is stored nearby and you want it moved elsewhere? Or is that you have something to gain from storing nuclear waste at Yucca? You seem to be quite a fanatical proponent of the project (judging by your consistent posts on this website regarding Yucca Mountain) and I'm slightly confused as to your motives.

Also, the "terrorists"... I was merely mocking Mr. Bonavitas logic. Its apparent you can read but you shouldn't have skipped class the day the teacher taught about reading in context.

As far as Reid goes, this dark-side you now mention is just a bit different than the dark-side you mentioned previously. Don't you think? And while we're on the subject, you would have to be crazy to think that there is a single politician out there who acts purely outside of his/her self-interest and entirely on behalf of his/her constituents... It doesn't work like that. You may have just as well told me grass is green. Duh. Whether or not Reid is looking out for himself is irrelevant at this point, he continues to bring home the bacon for Nevada and as far as I'm concerned he's done well for Nevada (no need to sweat the details).
By getalife

3/10/09 at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

I have lived here my entire life (45+) years and I am wondering if anybody with a brain actually knows where Yucca mtn is.

It is next to a nuclear test site.

OK, now that we have that out of the way, what's the problem?

The same NIMBY's that don't want solar or wind due to environmental impact don't want Yucca because they think the sky is falling.

Our country will NEVER be energy independent at this rate.

Nevada has a great big empty space that will never support a population. Let's put it to good use.

Go Yucca, by the way they are already reprocessing nuclear fuel at the test site.
By jfnance32

3/10/09 at 4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

We do not need all those thousands in high payings jobs.

The state does not need the hundreds in millions in tax revenue that it will bring.

Nope...we got plenty of those things.
By yucca_insider

3/10/09 at 8:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Look, O'Callaghan,

Setting aside whether Yucca is safe, because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will decide that....

The difference between Bonavita's NIMBY and yours is that he has the law on his side.

You can kvetch all you want about how the law is bad or unfair (I personally don't care for the Internal Revenue Code) but you still have to obey it. Or change it.

Because of that law-- the Nuclear Waste Policy Act-- Bonavita and everyone else in Pennsylvania has paid more than $1.5 Billion through their electric bills to the fund set aside pay for nuclear fuel disposal.

Not only does he have nothing to show for it, he is doubly screwed because now his taxes must pay damages for the government's failure to accept the fuel by 1998.

He has a right to be angry.

The 550 workers who are about to lose their jobs for following the law have a right to be angry.

And you should do a little research, because it's plain as day that you have not.
By WPa

3/10/09 at 8:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ha! Y'all can fight about this issue if you want. I'm just more than amused that you singled out Denny Bonavita and our small town newspaper to rail against.
By Metman

3/10/09 at 9:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

For any serious person reviewing the nuclear waste issue, please take note of this column: This is the level of argument that people like Harry Reid find compelling.

I invite anyone with a brain to join me in helping to defeat Harry Reid in 2010.

Nuclear power is necessary and vital to this country's interest.

The country is a lot bigger than the city of Las Vegas. And Nevada is little more these days than Las Vegas.

But like most of you, I have lived elsewhere. And they have not exploded over 900 nuclear bombs anywhere else.

Storing spent nuclear fuel in the Nevada desert makes a lot of sense. For the country if not for the small time minds of this city.

Lets remove Mr. Reid. Lets grow up and become something more than a gambling town, with a backwater hick for a senator.
By getalife

3/10/09 at 10:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Metman, sign me up. This argument against Yucca is crap. The people against Yucca probably watched "nuclear train" and believed it.

It is absolutely freaking me out how people can think that spent fuel rods, by themselves, can create a nuclear explosion.

They need to educate themselves on what it actually takes to detonate a bomb.

Like I said earlier, Nevada has plenty of space to spare. Bring on Yucca, and while you are at it install solar farms and wind farms. Put in the grid systems as well.

Nevada can be a leader in energy production, storage and whatever new tech can bring.

Or, we can stay a one-trick pony and let idiots like Reid run the show.

Nevada has wide opens spaces that will never support agriculture or farming or any kind, what do we have to lose.

I don't want to hear the uneducated stance that Yucca will somehow endanger someones kid. Stupid. Get the facts; go to the RJ and look at the Yucca project, if you can't actually tear yourself away from the TV or running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.
By Tim O'Callaghan

3/11/09 at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Look, Yucca-Insider, you obviously have a bigger bone in this fight than most so I'll accept your criticism with a grain of salt.
By Tim O'Callaghan

3/11/09 at 10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

WPa,
It's nothing personal against Denny Bonavita or your community newspaper. Having grown up publishing small and large community papers myself, I have a great deal of respect for Denny, we have the very same concerns, just from different perspectives. We agree to disagree on this matter.
By jfnance32

3/11/09 at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

I think it is funny that the press was so happy spreading the news that Obama was going to base his decisions on science instead of politics.

Did he have some secret group of scientists that studied Yucca and give him a report in the last 60 days?

If it was science based then would not be a valid reason not to submit the application?

I think it was based on science...political science.
By Ardent

3/11/09 at 3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hey, O'Callaghan:

Kudos to you for actually reading and responding to the blog posts attached to your article!

You do realize, I hope, that you've been pretty well boxed in by some of the knowledgeable bloggers, at least where scientific and legislative evidence are concerned. That much is apparent by your response to facts that can be independently verified, even by you.

For example, you seem to suggest that, because yucca_insider is probably an employee of the Yucca Mountain Project, his argument is somehow tainted. And yet, all this person has done is cite verifiable facts. Any state, for instance, that has nuclear power plants in it also has customers who have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund (the fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that requires utilities to levy a fee on customers to pay for construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain). It is also true that, because DOE did not meet the 1998 deadline to begin taking spent nuclear fuel from utilities, those utilities have been suing the pants off the federal government for breach of contract. The money to pay those settlements (to the tune of hundreds of millions annually and expected to grow to $10 billion) comes from the Treasury Department's Justice Fund, which is funded by taxpayers.

So it is a matter of established fact that Pennsylvanians, among others, will pay twice for something they will never get, just as yucca_insider suggests. And citizens from 39 other states are in the same boat.

As Moynihan (or was it Tip O'Neill) once said, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

And to davelv's point: Careful what you wish for in terms of dividing up nuclear waste. Currently, 160 million Americans live within 60 miles of a nuclear facility that houses nuclear waste, and virtually every major waterway in the country is in close proximity to stored nuclear waste.

In short, if you are trying to suggest some kind of scheme that bases waste storage obligation on receiving the benefit of nuclear power, then heed davelv's suggestion that Nevada receives 16% of its power from nuclear energy and also enjoys the benefits of our common military defense establishment.

If you are trying to argue, in other words, that we Nevadans shouldn't be obligated to store waste because we don't generate any, then the implied corollary is that we should reject the reward with the risk, and not use power from (for example) the Palo Verde nuclear plant located 40 miles outside Phoenix. (Funny how millions of Arizonans are willing to live closer to an operating reactor than the millions of Nevadans who refuse to live 90 miles away from a storage facility with inert spent fuel.)
By Ardent

3/11/09 at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

To annagraham and all the other poseurs who claim to have the technical and scientific "inside story" on Yucca Mountain:

Here's an anagram for you: Vide Ende.

In case you can't figure it out, the answer is: Evidence.

In other words, put up or shut up. Rather than offer assertions without proof (e.g., Yucca Mountain is a radiological risk from the perspective of human reproduction), provide some evidence for a change.

You might start, for example, with the definitive BEIR reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences. In those reports, you would find internationally accepted correlations between radiological exposure and (for example) cancer rates and potential reproductive impacts.

You could then apply that knowledge to the radiological exposure estimates calculated for the repository, and you would find that the exposure rate for the first 10,000 years is about 15 mrem annually. At that point, you could make an independent choice to (a) avoid Denver, which has a background radiation level of 700 mrem annually; or (b) avoid virtually every medical imaging technology available, all of which has much higher exposure rates per treatment (chest x-ray, CAT scans, etc.).

In short, you may not approve of jhv's grammar or his style of presentation, but if his/her background is what he/she claims it is, and if you are really trying to suggest that Yucca Mountain poses a serious risk to reproductive health from a distance of 90 miles, then I'm going to side with the nuclear industry insider over a 27-year-old who merely claims to have done "primary and secondary research."

So, to sum up, try offering some evidence for a change -- some citations or some relevant data. If I say that over 3,000 shipments of radioactive waste have been made in the U.S. without a single release of radioactive material or a single injury due to radiological exposure, then offer evidence as to why I should be concerned about transport of radioactive material. In other words, try fighting facts with facts for a change.

If I say that the BEIR reports on ionizing radiation demonstrate that only one in a hundred people exposed to radiation at levels orders of magnitude higher than that predicted for Yucca Mountain contract cancer, then respond in kind by citing a credible scientific study to the contrary. Otherwise, the points you are making are merely political (which, truth be told, may be perfectly fine by you and all that is necessary to "win" the debate on Yucca Mountain; then again, some of us like to be right on both facts and rhetoric).
By Ardent

3/12/09 at 1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Okay, I typo'd the "c" in my anagram and made it an "e", but you get the point.
By Tim O'Callaghan

3/12/09 at 4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ardent,

First, I must disagree with you about me being boxed in because I'm sure most of the posters are not experts or completely informed.

Although, I'm no expert in the field of Nuclear Engineering I have done plenty of reading to know what is spin, what is thought to be fact and what is fact.

Nowhere, in my opinion did I mention the law except in quoting Denny Bonavita.

As for yucca-insider, he/she makes an assumption I haven't read or understand the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which is simply not true. Perhaps, as he/she said, I don't agree with it. If any policy should be changed it should be the ban on recycling.

I have read the BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) reports including BEIR VII and I have also read the criticism of VII. Some of the criticisms I accept and others not.

Your points from BEIR VII are true as long as the isotopes remain sheilded. Therefore, if I were going to make my argument for leaving the used fuel on site I could use BEIR reports to conclude if the stored waste is safe enough to travel across the country in the proposed casks then wouldn't the casks be safe enough to keep on site?
The post fission fuel is extremely toxic if not shielded.

If readers were more attentive they would clearly see I never said terrorist were an issue. I was merely poking fun at the idea of a terrorist group try to lug a 5 ton cask away from a power plant.

Finally, my comment on storing waste based on population had nothing to do with nuke power usage, rather, davelv's comment on sharing the cost for freedom, by Nevada taking its share of nuclear waste generated my the military to defend our country.

Nuff said!!!

Thanks for commenting...
By Tim O'Callaghan

3/12/09 at 4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is noteworthy...

BERKLEY STATEMENT ON CREATION OF BLUE RIBBON PANEL FOR NUCLEAR WASTE ALTERNATIVES

(March 12, 2009 -- Washington, D.C.) Congresswoman Shelley Berkley today pledged her support for new legislation that will soon be introduced in the Senate and House that will create a blue ribbon commission to study nuclear waste disposal. Creation of the panel will further efforts to permanently end all work related to Yucca Mountain and to redirect billions of dollars in funding to other waste disposal activities.

"The creation of this expert panel is another critical step in eliminating Yucca Mountain because it will provide a solution to this issue that does not include dumping radioactive waste outside Las Vegas," said Berkley. "This proposal has bipartisan support, including the backing of President Obama, but it will only succeed if Yucca Mountain is 100% off the table and a new process put in place to address existing waste stockpiles, as well as materials from any new reactors. In the meantime, we can secure current waste at existing reactor sites using dry-cask storage. This method, already approved by federal regulators, costs a fraction of Yucca Mountain's staggering $100 billion price tag and is safe for 100 years, providing ample time for the waste issue to be solved."