Las Vegas Sun

November 26, 2014

Currently: 67° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

NUCLEAR ENERGY:

Commission: Store nuclear waste where it’s wanted

Image

File photo

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

WASHINGTON — Nuclear waste should be stored in places where there is consent, not opposition, the U.S. energy secretary was told today by a commission that was assigned by the president to review the nation’s approach to storing nuclear fuel.

The commissioners cited the Obama administration’s decision to halt work on a Yucca Mountain repository, and the acrimony that has since ensued, as an example of where the country’s nuclear waste management policy is in a shambles, while stressing that to continue the impasse is unacceptable.

The commission has been meeting for more than two years to lay a way forward for safe, long-term management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. The lack of a national strategy has complicated efforts to expand the country’s domestic production of nuclear energy.

The 180-page report is the culmination of its efforts.

In their summary, commissioners wrote: “The need for a new strategy is urgent, not just to address these damages and costs but because this generation has a fundamental, ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with the entire task of finding a safe, permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating.”

In their letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, commissioners said their recommendations, which would require action by the White House and Congress, are “what we believe is the best chance of success going forward, based on previous nuclear waste management experience in the U.S. and abroad.”

Among the commissioners’ recommendations is one to create an organization to safely store, transport and dispose of nuclear waste, as well as changing the manner in which the government accounts for the approximately $750 million a year in fees ratepayers are paying into the Nuclear Waste Fund to ensure those dollars are available to use for nuclear storage.

On the books, the money is still slated for construction of Yucca Mountain; in practice, the money is going toward deficit reduction and to pay for other programs. Nuclear-dependent states and nuclear energy companies have sued the government to reclaim the dollars they paid in but for which they’ve received no service in return.

Nevada was first put forward as a site for nuclear waste storage in 1982, and in 1987, Congress voted to make Yucca Mountain the nation’s official repository for nuclear waste.

It was supposed to be up and running by 1998.

While the commissioners urged the country to start developing “at least one geologic disposal facility and at least one consolidated storage facility,” the body did not make any ruling or recommendation on the topic of Yucca Mountain specifically. In fact, the commission was specifically told not to address Yucca Mountain or any other specific site, or give any opinion on what the role of nuclear power in the national energy mix ought to be.

“These are all important questions that will engage policymakers and the public in the years ahead,” the commissioners wrote. “However, none of them alters the urgent need to change and improve our strategy for managing the high-level waste and spent fuel that already exist and will continue to accumulate so long as nuclear reactors operate in this country.”

The political fighting over the fate of Yucca Mountain reached a high pitch last year, as a new House Republican majority sought to restart the stalled Yucca Mountain construction process to enable the expanded development of nuclear waste.

An international disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan, and a round of infighting at the country’s body tasked to oversee nuclear safety, have thrown House Republicans’ efforts in relief against a parallel conversation about whether the country should be looking toward nuclear power to play a significant role in our energy sector at all.

President Barack Obama and his administration have been mostly supportive of the push to expand the country’s nuclear capacity, but not to the point of pressing for Yucca — that’s been as much a non-starter for the president as it has been for the project’s most zealous detractor, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid.

“The Yucca Mountain project failed and is now a relic of the past. The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report is a critical step toward safely and securely managing nuclear waste,” Reid said in a statement Thursday praising the commission’s report. “Most importantly, this report makes abundantly clear that no state, tribe or community should be forced to store spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste without its express consent. Yucca was originally selected because of a flawed, nonscientific and political process, and it failed because Nevadans, with good reason, overwhelmingly opposed it.”

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 10 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.

  1. Store nuclear waste where it's wanted: NOWHERE!

    Now what?

  2. Where was everyone when we pumped billions of construction dollars into Nevada.The article says Nevada lobbied for this facility and it certainly looks like the best place for long term storage.We cannot continue to let this waste set onsite for several reasons including national security.Suck it up Nevada.Take one for the team.It's not like there is not a lot of room out there.

  3. What happened to the whole personal responsibility and States' rights rhetoric? I guess it only applies some of the time when it suits the Republican narrative. You made the sh#t you can deal with it. Take your screw Nevada politics and shove it.

  4. How about we store it in Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) mouth? Two birds, one stone.

  5. WHERE IT'S WANTED: Los Alamos, New Mexico, is begging for the stuff!!!!! And, as we all know, the Los Alamos Laboratories have been playing with nuclear materials for over a half century, so no problem, send it THERE.

    Nevada is NOT a good candidate for anything nuclear. We do NOT have the water resources, and Nevada is NOT centrally located. So it makes sense to look at New Mexico and Texas as possible high level radioactive waste repositories.

    Blessings and Peace,
    Star

  6. This approach will clear the field. The present storage method is to put nuclear waste in metal containers and on land or underwater, outside, near population centers in many cases. None of these centers would have ever approved of nuclear storage they experience: it is there because the 'waste' can't be shipped somewhere else.

    Shipping the waste 'where it is wanted' makes use of one of the more powerful forces of nature called "pussy cat logic".

    If there is only one cat, one can fill four cat dishes with food and the 'only cat' will look up, stare it's host in the face and wait for something better to come along.

    Now, put a second cat down. The first cat to choose a dish will experience the company of the second, and they will nudge or fight each other for the privilege of sampling that single dish even though there are three others to choose from.

    Jealousy is not a human trait - it exhibits itself in most living things. There are so many problems in this world that could be solved by simply understanding the psychology of the common cat. By chance of luck, there is someone in Washington who has employed the same knowledge and will be eminently successful in it's utilization.

  7. You still don't answer the question.Where were the complaints when year after year the USA pumped billions into Yucca wasteland.Live up your commitments and by the way I am a Dem.I would rather hear your solutions than personal comments whitch I could give a sh** about.USA.

  8. Re Ed Phillips. "The article says Nevada lobbied for this facility...". Nevada has never lobbied for the Yucca mountain site, and never will. "Take one for the team"??? This ain't a sporting event Ed.

  9. Re Vegas kid. The only mention of 750M dollars in the article was that amount paid by ratepayers into a fund. That would be ratepayers everywhere in the US. The money did not fund employment of Nevadans at the Yucca Mountain site. There hasn't been anyone working there for years.

  10. For 1VegasKid, who stated, "How you ask? It's political suicide to talk about this but build Neuclear Power Plants on the Test Site. Connect this to the west coast grid to supply the deficit of power and increasing power demands and higher rates that every customer connected to the power grid in the southwest (California, Arizona, Utah, ect..)is facing today."

    So, 1VegasKid, one thing you absolutely NEED to utilize a Nuclear Power Plant is: lots of WATER, a sustainable, non-stop supply of WATER. Nevada does not qualify under that one condition. It is not possible, nor practical.

    Blessings and Peace,
    Star