Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleYucca Mountain dump opponents see their momentum ebb
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 | 2 a.m.
Related Document (.pdf)
Sun coverage
Related Archives
- Group calls on Congress to keep Yucca Mountain alive (3-22-2010)
- Yucca Mountain foes hail historic step to kill nuclear waste depository (3-4-2010)
- Energy Department withdraws application for Yucca Mountain (3-3-2010)
- Feds file request for suspension of Yucca Mountain license (2-1-2010)
- Obama to zero out Yucca Mountain funding, pull license (1-31-2010)
- Dying Yucca Mountain still has some life (1-30-2010)
- Obama administration: ‘We’re done with Yucca’ (1-29-2010)
- Friday announcement will unveil plans for panel on Yucca alternatives (1-28-2010)
- White House, Energy Department clash over Yucca Mountain cuts (1-14-2010)
- Report: Yucca Mountain costs double other alternatives (12-2-2009)
- Nuclear industry weighs in on nuke dump license (11-16-2009)
- In Nevada, nuclear raises touchy issues (11-14-2009)
- Feds to slash Yucca funds as project maintains life (11-9-2009
- 3 Las Vegans join state Commission on Nuclear Projects (11-5-2009)
It turns out neither the president nor Harry Reid nor the state of Nevada will be the ones deciding whether the nation’s nuclear fuel dump will be built at Yucca Mountain.
The fate of the nation’s nuclear waste repository lies, momentarily, with an appeals court in the District of Columbia, which is being asked to determine whether President Barack Obama’s Energy Department has the right to kill the dump.
Several entities, including the state of South Carolina, where large quantities of nuclear waste are stored, have sued the Obama administration over its decision to halt the Yucca Mountain project.
With the legal action pending, an administrative board in Las Vegas that is supposed to review Obama’s request to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application, essentially ending the project, decided the courts should go first.
The decision last week to “punt” the responsibility to the courts broadsided anti-Yucca Mountain forces in Nevada and showed once again that the process of killing Yucca Mountain may be as long and tortured as the attempt to build it.
Bruce Breslow, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the three-judge administrative panel’s decision to suspend its work while the court acts “basically just stopped the process.”
“They’ve punted on the whole thing,” said Breslow, whose agency has been fighting the project for decades. “We feel the administrative proceeding must go to a conclusion before it goes to federal court.”
Energy Department Secretary Steven Chu maintains that Yucca Mountain is “not an option” for the dump and believes its decision to halt the project will be upheld.
The Energy Department filed a motion Monday asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the board in Las Vegas, to either force the panel to resume its work or take over the review itself.
“We are confident that we have the legal authority to withdraw the application for the Yucca Mountain repository,” Energy spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said.
The department used strong language in its filing, saying the board’s decision “abdicates its obligation” to review the Obama administration’s request to withdraw the license. It said the board’s “decision is misguided.”
The decision to suspend the hearings startled Nevada officials and others working to stop the waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
But it probably should not have. The story of Yucca Mountain is nothing if not one of unexpected twists — from the 1987 decision to name the Nevada desert as the dump site to the 2008 election of a Democratic president who vowed to kill it.
This year, the Obama administration announced it would make good on the president’s campaign pledge to Nevada, as the Energy Department sought to withdraw the Yucca Mountain application pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seeking to withdraw Yucca Mountain’s license was the most significant step to date to bring it to its end — more so than years of starving the project of federal funds.
Yet, advocates for Yucca Mountain have been unwilling to go away quietly. Storing waste on site at the nuclear reactors throughout the nation can be costly and utility companies complain they have been required to charge their customers a fee to pay for the eventual repository in Nevada.
South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford announced in February his opposition to the Obama plan and his state’s intent to sue. South Carolina argues that keeping the nuclear waste in its state would be a “hazard.”
Because the state has seven of the nation’s more than 100 civilian nuclear reactors, it would be eyed for a waste dump.
“The abandonment of the Yucca Mountain site would place South Carolina back on the list of candidate states for a high-level nuclear waste or spent fuel storage or disposal facility of some kind,” argued South Carolina in its court filing. “The citizens of South Carolina also derive economic, health, safety, professional, recreational, conservation and aesthetic benefits from the existence of the natural environment of the region.”
Under normal circumstances, the three-judge board in Las Vegas would review the petition from South Carolina and other opponents to intervene in the case, making a decision that could be appealed to the full Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the courts.
But the board believes the questions raised are legal, not scientific, and would be better handled by the district court in Washington.
“The key issue is clear and well-defined: that is, whether DOE has lawful authority to withdraw the Application,” the panel wrote last week. “From the standpoint of efficient judicial administration, there appears little practical advantage for the Court of Appeals to defer consideration of the matter.”
The court will expedite its decision on whether to take up the issue.
Reid, the Senate majority leader who has long fought to kill the project, believes it will be halted.
“Sen. Reid is confident that the license application for Yucca will ultimately be withdrawn,” spokesman Jon Summers said. “He believes the Obama administration and Secretary Chu have all the authority they need to permanently shelve the seriously flawed application to build the nuclear waste dump.”
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
As so many have said on this discussion site:
As soon as the November elections are over, the Obama Administration will resurrect the Yucca Mountain project.
Since Las Vegas is a gambling town, I wonder if anyone is giving odds on this one???
Obama did not make this decision based on science.
If he did then he would have an independent science commission to find the facts and to issue an recommendation.
He did not do that.
Also, by making a political decision to close Yucca it broke the law.
Obama violate the law.
And in civil court, he will have his hand slapped big time.
It turns out neither the president nor Harry Reid nor the state of Nevada will be the ones deciding whether the nation's nuclear fuel dump will be built at Yucca Mountain.
The fate of the nation's nuclear waste repository lies, with an appeals court in the District of Columbia.
_____________________
We have told the Sun from the get go but they and Reid had their head buied in the sand
Now we we see what breaking the law means.
Maybe, just maybe someone will take a good look at this decision by the DOE and realize it's a bad move.
The only problem is, everyone LEFT THE BUILDING! So even IF the courts rule that DOE can not withdrawl the license, nobody will be around to continue the work from the Sandia "Lead Lab".
Nice move DOE. You really are UNFIT to be a licensee!
Idiots.
aBadReid.com
Quote from the above article: "The abandonment of the Yucca Mountain site would place South Carolina back on the list of candidate states for a high-level nuclear waste or spent fuel storage or disposal facility of some kind," argued South Carolina in its court filing. "The citizens of South Carolina also derive economic, health, safety, professional, recreational, conservation and aesthetic benefits from the existence of the natural environment of the region."
In other words, South Carolina is saying they don't want it, but it's okay for the citizens of Nevada to live in a nuclear waste toilet.
Back in the 1980s, Nevada was weak politically. The other States and the Federal Government basically bullied Nevada into this. Now, Nevada is politically savvy. But the other States are clamoring they want to continue the nuclear legacy in Nevada, basically saying we have no say in the matter.
We don't have a lock on this stuff. The idea of building a nuclear waste port-o-let 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, a teaming city of about 2 million people that makes its money off of tourism/gambling, is an incredibly bad idea.
Nevada needs to diversify. That's a given. But this is not the way to go. It's a no brainer. Health is way, way more important than wealth. People are not willing to sell their souls.
The idea of accepting nuclear waste from other States who could care less how it's packaged or how it's transported, just so long as they dump it in Nevada, is an incredibly bad idea for us.
Also, there has been talk about re-processing nuclear waste to make it into fuel. The actual truth of the matter of this is that it has been tried overseas in Europe, but the end result in this long process ends in failure. If we get nuclear waste, we are STUCK with it and will never convert it into anything for re-use. And our children's, children's, children's, children are stuck with it too.
I say the people who want this to happen in Nevada, make sure they spend a lot of money and time in it. Only when they realize they wasted money and time, will they understand that no means no and it STILL means no.
Keep fighting this nonsense.
One last thing: For all the people that talk bad about Senator Reid and he does nothing, this is what political power means. Senator Reid, along with President Obama, have turned this off and kept nuclear waste away from Nevada. And that's one of the campaign promises that President Obama made that made my decision to vote for him.
I know, it's unfair. It's illegal, blah blah blah. TOO BAD! We don't want this stuff. And we NOW have the political clout to say no and people actually pay attention.
Close that thing down and turn it into a hot dog stand...
and this surprises anyone that Harry Reid and Obamaa would over step the boundaries of the legal process to accomplish anything they want.
Did you know that technology exist that allows spent nuclear fuel to be recycled and reused? What do you think France does with all of their waste? They recycle it. The US passed laws that made recycling spent fuel illegal due to national security... http://www.heritage.org/Research/Comment...
1. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was made the "law of the land" in 1982.
2. Obama does not have the power to set aside laws he does not like.
3. Case closed.
Sound science has proved over and over again that Yucca Mt. poses no risk to Las Vegas or any surrounding area. Let's stop the fighting and make some money on this place already. Nevada will get federal money for housing this facility and it will create 100s of permanent jobs. Oh wait our politicians don't care about jobs or getting out of debt...just health care for illegals and people that don't work, crap we lose again.
Can you say "Jobs"! Put scientist, engineers and construction workers on the job. Currently in Washington we are working on stabilizing radioactive materials. Why not Nevada? Good grief this place is in no man's land.
Anybody remember the Texas Supercollider in the 80's and 90's near Waxahachie? The US spent a fortune to build about half of it, then shut it down. Spent Billions. Same thing with Yucca.
Unless we make a decision, and then take politics out of it, this will happen over and over, especially when a new president from a different party is elected. I'm surprised we can build anything except military weapons in our country today.
Just about anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. Prevailing is quite another issue.
Bring it on.... the Libs want us believe in all kinds of scientific fairy tales but can't get their heads around the disposal of nuclear waste.
Technology will continue to advance and Yucca is a great place to store this stuff.
FYI... transporting this waste is very safe; although, I love reading about some hysterical, uninformed poster talking about a nuclear "cloud" or "meltdown".
This is the same crowd that knows the science behind Global Warming is sound but has no concept of what it takes to actually detonate a nuclear weapon or how safe solid fuel rods are.
Long live Yucca! If Republic Services can bend the taxpayers of Clark County over a barrel for normal refuse imagine how much money we can get for "glow in the dark and irradiate our kids" refuse.
It is interesting that the loud mouths about states rights now argue that South Carolina, and the other states, have a superior right over Nevada to send high level nuclear waste in to the state of Nevada.
All this toxic material will have to be transported through Clark county at some point. Yes, transported through and into the county.
Gordon:
The natural corollary to you argument is this: There are also Democrats who SUPPORT the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. Perhaps not in the political establishment, but that establishment does not necessarily speak for all Nevadans.
If you cared to actually investigate who supports the proposed repository and who does not, you'd find that it doesn't boil down to a convenient, Manichean divide along party lines. A more interesting breakdown concerns State versus local. Look into, for example, the opinions of residents of Nye County, and of their local representatives. That is a story we never hear about: If the Evil Federal Government is trying to oppress Poor Widdle Nevada with its Bad Old Nucular Dump, the Nevada is equally trying to oppress Poor Old Nye County.
Colin:
Your campaign to keep people misinformed -- yourself especially -- rages on, apparently. For the last time: The residents of South Carolina and Washington HAD NOTHING TO DO with the siting of Defense Department waste processing facilities in their states. As with the Nevada Test Site, those facilities were built in WA and SC by government fiat. The Hanford Reservation in WA was built as part of the Manhattan Project, and I don't think the residents of WA were given a chance to vote on it in some kind of referendum. There was this little thing called World War II going on at the time, and then this thing called the Cold War later on, and the government prolly didn't want to advertise its nuclear weapons activity. Much the same was the case with the Savanah River Site in SC.
So stop trying to blame the victim here; stop trying to make it sound like the residents of WA and SC are responsible for disposing of waste they had no say in generating -- waste, in fact, that is the by-product of our "Common Defense."
Thus, if Nevadans and Washingtonians and South Carolinians are equally being victimized by the government, the difference would be this: Residents of WA and SC were PROMISED by that government that the waste produced there would be removed and placed in a national repository. That promise is established in THE LAW OF THE LAND, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Conversely, no law establishes that Nevada has a legal right to refuse nuclear waste storage. If Harry Reid was as powerful as you make him out to be, he would reverse that state of affairs and overturn the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Likewise for the current Administration. Because they are not, we have the current wrangling in the courts.
So, to use your line of argument, GET OVER IT. There are laws, and we are (allegedly) a nation of laws. You can bluster and wail all you want, and stamp your feet and cry "We don't want it here." But there are consequences to that position, and you should man up and acknowledge their reality like a responsible adult.
The left wants to kill Yucca, the right wants to kill Obamacare, neither will succeed.
Sorry, Ardent, you don't convince me.
Seems like there are a lot of people all lining up along political party lines trying to throw this thing at Nevada. And there are like battalions of scientists that are all stepping up to microphone to proclaim this is a good thing for Nevada and it should continue on and you can even eat scrambled eggs off the top of the containers they're stored in, etc., etc. And these politicians and scientists are all hiring droves of lawyers to stand up in court and parrot this stuff before judges.
Well, it's changed. No longer do we, the people of Nevada, have to listen to this stuff. It's over. Put a fork in it. It's done and it's not going to happen.
We have a Senator and a President who don't want it to happen. The Republicans just HATE it when you throw it back at them and stand up to them and tell them it's wrong and we're not going to do it. THOSE are the people who are jumping up and down and whining.
And I could care less. Point fingers at President Obama all you want and blame it on Chicago style politics similar to Mayor Daley style, but it's about time someone stood up to people who are trying to railroad Nevada into doing what they want. When, in actuality, this will only be a problem...nothing but pain and misery for the residents here, not only now, but for generations and generations to come.
Sure, this stuff has to go somewhere, and I can't give you an answer to it, but put it somewhere....other than Nevada.
The scientists don't convince me they know what they are doing, other than they want to make money off of this. Nuclear waste reprocessing is a joke and seems to be used only to try to entice. Also, a recent article by scientists, they were trying to figure out how to make signs that can be seen from the sky (and space, I guess) that would last 10,000 years from now that said, "Don't dig here." Seems like they are more interested in people living 10,000 years from now than they do care about the ones that are here now. Also, if they are interested in stupid signs like that, that tells me Nevada is stuck with this stuff FOREVER. Until it rots. Which tells me reprocessing is a pipedream.
And you cannot convince me that the politicians and people from South Carolina have genuine concern for their fellow Americans in Nevada. They do not. They could care less. All they want to do is get rid of it. It could leak forever, just so long as it happens past their State line.
So, go ahead and wait for the political winds to blow your way. Not going to happen. It's dead. And it will continue to die. I suggest we spend money to put up signs around the perimeter of Yucca Mountain that are seen from space, "No nuclear waste here. We killed this nuclear waste storage fairy tale a long time ago. You can dig all you want. It's safe."
Colin, I'm not surprised that Ardent failed to convince you. In one of your previous comments regarding Yucca Mountain, you stated: "It's illegal, blah blah blah. TOO BAD!" Anyone with such an irrational perspective is undoubtedly immune to listening to another side's point of view.
I'd advise you to at least read Ardent's comments regarding Yucca Mountain's Court of Appeals case in yesterday's Las Vegas Sun. I have no idea who "Ardent" is, but it's clear he/she knows more about this issue than you or I do.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr...
I read it, Pete. Interesting.
I still say Nevada was not represented fairly at the time when this happened. But the times change. I say right now now, we are. And the decision of President Obama confirms this.
And that is the beauty of the American style of Government and laws. It is in a constant state of flux, changing, fixing things that are just plain wrong. And that's what is happening here.
I encourage those who wish for Nevada to store nuclear waste to make sure they do spend a lot of money filing appeals, hiring lawyers, paying court reporters, delays, continuances, devoting time, studies, etc.; ensuring that a lot of money, time and effort is wasted; depleting the coffers of taxpayer money from Washington and South Carolina and whoever else. And wasted so much and for so long, they'll just finally get it and decide to abandon this harebrained idea to turn Nevada into a nuclear waste toilet.
People can paint me as a "not in my backyard" proponent, but I don't care. It is worthwhile to fight this. Not only for the Nevadans of now, but the ones in generations to come.
We really do NOT need nuclear power in the first place.
It's not clean if we trade our fortunes for raw materials and then subject hundreds of generations of our clan to watch it from a distance til it loses its radioactive destruction.
We don't really NEED to be lighting up the night sky, cooling the desert heat or other stupid things. Our planet for generations is paying the price.
Sorry to pester you with the geezer perspective right now while you're basking in the effortless reverie of your squandering of resources, but the fact is that this gluttony surge is absolutely non-sustainable.
No, I'm NOT Jimmy Carter in a sweater sittin by the fire sayin we're gonna suffer.
Just sayin if we don't even recognize our consumption-oriented culture flies in the face of any future without mounding piles of ubiquitous material for potentially devastating terrorist attacks, then we have completely given tomorrow to today.
Remember DDT? It killed bugs preety well, but it was killing all the eagles. Remember them? So we had the sense to quit the DDT and they fly over our land today. Bugs and eagles.
Gordon:
I'm obviously agreeing that the alleged political schism is phony. If I'm guilty of anything, it's of using the colloquial "you" instead of "one" in close proximity to a direct address to you. If you want to elevate form over substance, you are welcome to. The statement I make immediately prior clearly suggests that I was agreeing with your premise.
But if you desire argument, then here it is:
(1) Your claim that the same folks who deny global warming science also support the science behind Yucca Mountain is manifestly false if you are trying to implicate actual scientists. I can rattle off dozens of scientists whose statements on both subjects refute any such implication (e.g., Barry Brook). You may have a legitimate axe to grind if you are referring to politicians (e.g., James Inhofe), but if not, you are merely perpetuating the same partisan spin that elsewhere you seem to condemn. Senator Patty Murray of WA and Congressman James Clyburn of SC are both Democrats; both support global warming legislation (and presumably the science behind it); and both are AGAINST the Administration's effort to close Yucca Mountain. What do you do with these people, eh? Accuse them of reverse NIMBY?
(2) Virtually nobody except Harry Reid and his NRC "plant" Greg Jaczko (now NRC Chairman, who once worked for Reid as an aide) are trying to suggest that nuclear waste is "safe where it is" indefinitely. It may be safe in the relative near-term of 50 or so years, but study after study points to an ENVIRONMENTAL APOCALYPSE if there is a loss of institutional controls (war, famine, natural disaster) in the 100-year time frame. We're talking about TEMPORARY nuclear waste storage within 60 miles of 160 million Americans and near every major waterway in the nation. Reid's effort (through Jaczko) to push permanent on-site storage is throwing the NRC into crisis, for its so-called "Waste Confidence Ruling," on which the current design of on-site storage depends, not to mention the storage and disposal contracts for all existing nuclear facilities, is premised on the 50-year time frame.
(3) Your attempt to "Sanfordize" this dispute is lame. I won't bother rehashing what I said in my other post. Suffice it to say that SC is not the only party to the Court of Appeals petitions. Washington state is also against the Administration's effort to close Yucca Mountain, as is a trio of WA residents from the Hanford area who have joined the suit. Add to them the Prairie Island Indian Community and NARUC (the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners). What do you have to say about these parties? How are you going to impugn their motives and imply that they are hypocrites or otherwise worthy of our contempt?
So feel free to quibble over pronouns and rhetorical form. I'll continue to resort to facts, thank you very much.
"It is worthwhile to fight this. Not only for the Nevadans of now, but the ones in generations to come." - ColinFromLasVegas
Colin, is there any other Federal program/law you say this about? If so, which ones? If not, then I submit that you are being disingenius when you talk about protecting future generations. If nothing else, if we don't do something to address our energy concerns now those future generations will be cussing us even worse.
Colin:
You make the fatal mistake of thinking that I'm trying to convince you.
I'm not. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I do not respect your opinions themselves. In my humble opinion (and it is just that, an opinion), your opinions are long on individualist fervor (which is a good thing), but short on scientific and political fact.
So be it. But bear in mind that I'm not attempting or even hoping to convince you of anything. You are merely providing me a pretext to express my views, as I'm sure I am doing for you.
And by the way, I wonder if you would be singing the praises of "the constant state of flux" in American government and law if, say, the laws governing Affirmative Action or abortion rights were being treated by any administration the way the current administration is treating the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Imagine, if you would, that Congress has passed a law establishing, for example, Social Security benefits for retirees. Then imagine that an administration instructs an agency in the executive branch (say, the Treasury) to stop sending Social Security checks to those retirees.
The retirees, or an organization representing them, would then sue the government. They might even invoke the Administrative Procedures Act or even the separation of powers clauses in the Constitution itself. Sounds to me like, absent an act of Congress (a law ending Social Security), the administration would be acting illegally by controverting existing law.
But for you, that is some kind of desirable "flux" in the laws of the land? What happened to respecting the process of law itself? The proper channels and such? Checks and balances?
Was that the change ("flux") I voted for? I hadn't realized that.
A note to Lisa Mascaro:
Once again, an apparent desire to abandon journalistic standards for the more rewarding realm of advocacy has caused a reporter to misrepresent simple facts.
The "board" you refer to is an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are technically four such ASLBs, comprising a number of administrative and technical judges, presiding over the NRC's Yucca Mountain license application proceeding. These subdivisions of the ASLB are know as Construction Authorization Boards, or CABs (there is CAB-01, CAB-02, CAB-03, and CAB-04).
The particular board that issued the motion discussed in your "story" is CAB-04, which is composed of Judges Moore, Ryerson, and Wardwell. Thus far, CAB-04 has concerned itself mainly with procedural motions and the like (things that concern the process, as opposed to the substance, of the hearing). These three judges also sit on another CAB, I think, dedicated to substantive matters.
So Lisa: Here's a news flash from someone who has actually researched this subject, as you yourself could easily do using the same online documents that I have been reading.
The ASLB and its CAB subdivisions ARE NOT HEADQUARTERED IN LAS VEGAS.
The ASLB is NOT "an administrative board in Las Vegas." It is NOT "the Las Vegas board."
It is an NRC entity, headquartered in Rockville, MD, just like the NRC itself.
For the convenience of the participants, NRC constructed a hearing facility in Vegas, and the ASLB has indeed presided over hearings there on a number of occasions. However, most of the ASLB's work is done in Rockville. That's where the ASLB motion you discuss CAME FROM.
Your mishandling of the facts could lead one to believe that the "administrative board" was somehow separate from the NRC. That board IS THE NRC, in its adjudicatory aspect. There are the commissioners themselves (including Harry Reid's former aide, NRC Chairman Jaczko), the ASLBs, and the NRC technical staff.
ASLBs are supposed to be independent judicial entities that rule on existing NRC regulations (and case law) and preside over hearings under NRC's purview (basically, anything nuclear). The commissioners have the right to review and indeed overturn any ASLB decision, but even that is supposed to be done in accordance with NRC regulations and case law and precedent. The commission IS NOT supposed to make political or policy decisions, though unfortunately its members are political appointees.
I beg you, Lisa Mascaro: You are a reporter, a representative of the media, the sole source of information for many people wishing to know more about this issue.
PLEASE BECOME MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REPORTING.
Let's see we can look to energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu P.h.d., Noble Prize Winner in Physics, past head of Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory or we can listen to talk-radio with their slue of nutty views and their "guest" high paid Lobbyist List. (Who said if the water table is contaminated Yucca, it wouldn't be bad because it flows to Death Valley. Great, let's poison a National Park.
List is an Attorney, not a Scientist.
NIMBY
I saw the comments to my last comment. I read them, appreciate and respect your opinions.
All I guess I'm trying to say is that Nevada cannot do this. For the main reason that we will be accepting nuclear waste that will NOT degrade to any acceptable level to dispose of for a very, very long time. By accepting this burden of nuclear waste storage now, we are throwing this responsibility off on the next few generations of Americans to come. These future Nevadans already will have this burden placed on them...AND THEY AREN'T EVEN BORN YET! In my eyes, this is totally and completely unfair. And it is not representative of the ideals of the America I was born and raised in.
I have other reasons, but that probably one of the biggies why I can't sign on to this dumb nonsense.
mred, I know you worship talk radio, as evidenced by your nonstop referrals it, but Dr. Chu had discussed Yucca very favorably before going to the dark side (anti-science).
His nomination was originally viewed as a positive sign the dump would silently move forward.
Colin, for the sake of discussion, assume that the storage containers are in fact as safe as they are meant to be and the site itself is, too.
What is the burden you are referring to? There certainly won't be a financial one, in fact, this will be an economic boost to our State in several areas.
South Carolina should take the rods, they have nuke plants after all. I suspect some of the weirdness in NV, UT, and CO could be traced to the 1950's open air nuke testing and the fallout drifting all over.
God forbid something like nuclear weapons get exploded above and below ground many times over a few hundred miles from Vegas.
God forbid something like that will ever happen.
For that would be 100,000x's worst than a Yucca accident.
texexnv, I never implied that he was changing laws, I implied that if he or Harry wanted to "overstep" the boundaries of the laws they would do so. You really don't believe they work within the limits of the law do you? they trapse outside the lines every chance they get. Both parties do.
Wait a minute - Where are all the morons who've been posting here praising Harry Reid for killing Yucca, for all his clout in D.C.???
Hey morons, come on, join in!
It seems like, all of a sudden, there is all this new science, and new scientist findings that tell you Yucca is not a good place. Let me run this by you,Scientists and researchers are paid through govt grants, funding and on the govt payroll, because the govt hires them to "research" something particular. Do you really believe if the admin in charge is against Yucca, that any scientist or researcher in his right mind would come back with stats that says its a great place, or that they would even be allowed to publicly announce it? They have spent millions and millions building this facility, researchers in the past have said Yucca is the best place, yet, for decades, the military bases have been digging holes and burying hazardous materials that have seeped into your water, the dust in the air and the ground that you grow fruits and veggies in, never hear a mumble about that, and that stuff isn't contained, nor monitored and you will never get rid of it, can't get paid for it, can't recycle it and sell it, can't employ anybody to take care of it. food for thought.
If Yucca ultimately gets used or not will be a purely political decision. It will have nothing to do with science, jobs, or what's best for the state. Like many other DOE projects they flip flop with the winds and change as the politicians change. DOE has always been more political than science look at it's core mission; to reduce US reliance on foreign oil. Since it's inception it has done the opposite crushing almost every alternative that was viable and spending billions on distractions that have nothing to do with energy in the first place.
Gordon:
A late response: You quote a poll from 2002 saying that 83% of Nevadans are opposed to Yucca Mountain.
Here's a HUGE newsflash: times have changed. In a poll very quietly released last Friday, it was reported that ONLY 44% of Nevadans are now opposed to Yucca Mountain.
44%! Opposition has dropped by half. 18% are undecided, and 38% of Nevadans SUPPORT Yucca Mountain.
38% support for Yucca is a better percentage than Harry Reid's latest approvals.
People are beginning to see that the media, politicians, and antinuke/antiYucca scaremongers have spent years lying to them, and it's Nevada's loss.
Link to the aforementioned poll:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/expert--reproce...
Republicans know nothing about science.
YUCCA IS DEAD.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITS OVER ACTIVE EARTHQUAKE
FAULTLINES AND UNDERGROUND WATER.
YUCCA WILL NEVER BE SAFE.
We have to recycle nuclear waste.
three words: recycle the fuelrods!
Pres Carter had a proposal to make 4 fuelrods recycling sites so that the rods could be reused.
dems have become scientists too now!!! That is the whole proposal of Yucca, to recylce the waste. The faultlines and the underground water is the new admins excuse. It has been studied for decades. You would and do have a higher chance of contamination in your water from the waste the military bases bury.Have you seen the maps of the faultline right underneath Yucca? Would your scientists actually have spent billions to build a repository over an active faultline? Go look it all up teamster. Not from a site that walks in lockstep with the liberal agenda, but an actual site with maps of the faultlines in the west, then look at the waterways and the repository security, the waste is contained not just dumped in the ground, like the militaries do.I'm not convinced it is a bad site for the waste, hell Harry is going to approve Calif. using Northern Nevada as a garbage dump for California. Hasn't approved or disproved it, he asked for more study, and if you notice, northern Nevada is not his home base for votes, Vegas is. stab us in the back first chance he gets.And go look at how the scientists change their minds with every new admin.
For those who are interested in some of the science beyond the scope of politics (and the media) and ramifications for spent nuclear fuel rods as a possible energy source check out Bill Gates Ted Talk this year on the Ted Talks web site. One certainty is that even depleted uranium is rich in neutrons.
What many here are not aware of is what has been going on in the realm of the scientific community about the possibility of running a new generation of reactors with our current store of used fuel rods.
The USGS did a great job on Yucca Mtn. However,It may turn out that there is no need to store waste there. It may turn out that our nuclear trash has become a national treasure.
How can the local media be so far out of the loop?
Brad, this is one of those favorite hot-button issues where the local media won't get nailed for its politics.
And no, I wasn't aware of the possiblitlity of actually re-using fuel rods as opposed to re-processing. Sounds very interesting. That still doesn't alleviate the storage problem while those rods are waiting to be used. While it might be feasible to use the containers that were meant for shipping the rods as temporary local storage, there still remains the very real security issues dealing with having the material at so many local sites.
Boftx : Yes it is a hot-button. It is too bad our scientists are unable to inspire Nevada Politicians. Perhaps they gave up a long time ago. Considering all that was invested in Yucca
it is also unfortunate that some local research was not funded on additional aspects of relavant physics. Transmutation would be worth some effort. That is using energy to make things non-radioactive.
And of course the Terra Power idea that Gates and Buffet are looking at for the rods as fuel. If our politicians were awake and aware of these things mabey we could build the protype here instead of Russia.
Check out Gates sales pitch and try not to let the carbon emission motivation detract from the overview on Terra Power.
I just did a quick Google search on Gates TerraPower and found a little bit of information, including one site that had some pretty slides illustrating the traveling wave concept, but they were short on explanations.
My big question is this, once the reactor has reached end-of-life, what products are left over? I would guess that there is still a substantial plutonium component that would need to be dealt with. And that in turn means a site such as Yucca would still be needed.
On a side-note, I found the idea of using these relatively small, self-contained reactors for remote power generation facinating.
Obviously I need to look into this more.
Boftx: Bill Gates answers the what's left over question in his 2010 Ted Talk. You take all the leftover and put into the next reactor. They claim a minimal waste scenario on the concept. Check it out at www.Ted.com. I think you will like that forum very much.
Las Vegas Sun: You may want to look outside the realm of lawyers and local politics on the issues of Yucca Mtn. Given the new ideas in science try to imagine that conversation after dinner at the White House with the new head of DOE.
Gordon, the link you provided is awesome. I never knew it existed. I'm saving it to fav's. I didn't see anything there though that would warrant using earthquakes as a problem. I don't believe it is on top of a fault. Nothing I read indicated it was and I can't imagine a facility of that nature being built on a fault. I don't understand how water is an issue. The whole repository is contained, very contained. Like I said before, there is more contamination from the military bases than you would ever see at Yucca. This thing with Yucca, is no differnet than the people of Vegas suing the state to have their money returned for a water line(or whatever it was) they paid for, but was never built. Nevada is going to get sued from several states that have paid big bucks to help fund the facility and now Harry and Obama said no. No different, and those states,if Yucca isn't going to materialize, should get every dime back. So, in essence, Harry and Obama have screwed Nevada once again. Whats the bill on Yucca? $800 billion? I don't remember.
lipton......
Put the blame where it belongs.
George Bush screwed Nevada.
I see that the Obama followers are still blaming all of Obama's failures on George Bush...
How do you figure? He said he was in favor of Yucca. We are over a year into this new admin, at what point does Obama get to take responsibility for his actions, instead of his actions being Bushes fault? You guys seem to blame Bush for every move Obama makes.I guess thats the easiest way out of saying he has really messed up, just blame someone else.Is it Bushes fault that Obama just approved billions more for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it Bushes fault that Obama is giving the illegals amnesty? He should be changing that age old law that says just because you came from another country and had a baby on our soil, doesn't mean they get all the benifits of the citizens. You can't go to Canada, have a baby and get all the bennies Canadians recieve. Its not Bushes fault he just passed the most unconstitutional, expensive law ever in the history of this country, Its not Bushes fault he bailed out the car industry, or the mortgage companies, or just gave billions more to Fannie and Freddie,this is now Obamas gig, put the blame where it belongs.
Lashing out at President George Bush over the approval of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste dump, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Saturday that Bush's decision will be brought to bear on his presidency.
and the cost of that repository to date is $8 billion. People should be outraged at Harry and Obama. But, teamster wants to blame Bush!!!!!