Las Vegas Sun

January 27, 2015

Currently: 53° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Memo from Carson City:

Coming election could signal shift in opposition to Yucca Mountain


File photo

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

For decades, Nevada’s federal and statewide elected officials have had a seemingly uniform mantra on Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste in the state: Hell no. End of conversation.

But November’s election could change that, both proponents of Yucca Mountain and those ardently opposed say. On the ballot this year are three Republican congressional candidates — two of whom are in tight races — open to some form of research or reprocessing at the site.

Republican Danny Tarkanian, running for Congressional District 4, said last week at a Las Vegas PBS debate that Yucca Mountain could be used for a reprocessing facility.

“We need to diversify our economy,” he said. “We’ve spent $12 billion to do the studies and the infrastructure at Yucca Mountain. ... I’ve suggested we turn it into a reprocessing facility of nuclear spent fuel. That would bring in $1 billion in revenue.”

Tarkanian’s statements drew sharp responses from environmental groups and his opponent.

“It’s really terrifying that we could have a voice in our congressional delegation that wants to bring nuclear waste to Nevada,” said Bob Fulkerson, executive director of PLAN Action, a progressive group that has opposed the site on environmental grounds.

Former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, chairman of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects, said Nevada’s elected officials from both parties — including Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Dean Heller, Rep. Shelley Berkley and Gov. Brian Sandoval — have strongly opposed storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

On reprocessing, Bryan is wary.

“I don’t want that to be used as a trojan horse for us to accept nuclear waste,” he said. “I have some concerns about what I’m hearing.”

Horsford, the Democrat running against Tarkanian, said he would support using Yucca Mountain as a data storage site or for some other non-nuclear use.

“I strongly oppose shipping toxic material through our backyards, turning our state into the nuclear waste capital of the country,” he said in a statement.

But those who support using Yucca Mountain in some nuclear capacity see in Tarkanian, as well as in Rep. Mark Amodei of Northern Nevada and Rep. Joe Heck, R-Las Vegas, a willingness to talk about the site.

Heck, in an interview, said he had considered reprocessing at the site but found it would need too much water. He believes Yucca Mountain should be turned into a research facility.

“Nobody wants a repository,” he said. “But what are we going to do moving on? There’s so much at the site that could be an economic benefit to Nevada.”

Amodei, of Carson City, also has said he opposes the storage there. But, he said, the state needs to have conversations about what’s next.

“Once people get over the, ‘Oh my God, you said (Yucca)’s not dead,’ part, I think the focus goes to, 'OK, if it’s not dead, what is alive?'” Amodei said in April.

Yucca advocates applaud the shift.

Randi Thompson, executive director of Nevadans for Carbon-Free Energy, a collection of business leaders mostly in Reno, said the group supports using the site for research purposes.

But she said elected officials shut down when they hear the term Yucca Mountain.

“It’s frustrating,” she said. “All we’re saying is, ‘Can’t we have a conversation? Can’t we look at the economic impact of this project?’ Having Danny at the table would be great.”

Democratic spokesman Zac Petkanas said having the three Republicans open to talking about Yucca Mountain in Nevada’s delegation “would begin the breakdown of Nevada’s previously bipartisan firewall that has prevented the dump at Yucca Mountain from becoming a reality.”

Indeed, Thompson acknowledged the most powerful force blocking Yucca Mountain is the Senate majority leader from Nevada.

“Until Harry Reid is no longer in power, it doesn’t matter how many congressmen we elect who are pro- or anti-nuclear reprocessing,” she said.

CORRECTION: Tarkanian said in the PBS debate that Yucca Mountain could be used for a reprocessing facility, not a repository. | (October 22, 2012)

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: 9 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. Future,

    Didn't you get the memo? Our unemployment rate is down in Nevada, only 11+% instead of 12+%, we don't need no steenking Yucca jobs.

  2. It is safe to say that the MAJORITY of people in the state of Nevada, do NOT want the Yucca Mountain High Level Radioactive Waste Repository to ever be realized.

    Any politician who supports using Yucca Mountain for high level radioactive waste storage, will not be supported by the MAJORITY of Nevada citizens/voters. The People of Nevada have spoken/voted to this effect, and they should be respected.

    Blessings and Peace,

  3. Typical of the pinko Sun to use scare tactics just 2 weeks before the election.

  4. "We've spent $12 billion to do the studies and the infrastructure at Yucca Mountain. ... "

    We've spent $2 trillion minimum in Iraq and never studied anything. BFD.

  5. 90%+ of the Sun's endorsements are Democrats......fair and balanced? Me thinks not.....LMFAO

  6. Good point SunJon...

    I think the jusr of the article is, what can we do with the Yucca site. Nuke waste is still a hot button topic. But is there something else we can use the site for?

    Although certainly a common sense argument that our local economy needs to diversify, as long as the casinos make up the significant portion of the state's tax revenue and are the major employer, changing course will be difficult. I've lived in Vegas 30+ years, can count on my fingers and toes AND your fingers and toes how many times this issue has been brought up in the media or by a politician.

    A great catalysis for change are politicians who, like Danny Tarkanian, make these "rogue" statements. The discussion needs to start somewhere.

    One concern of using the facility for toxic storage was/is the possibility of contaminating underground water sources. Rather than the billion dollar pipe line from central Nevada or the new "straw" into Lake Mead, we can drill for water at Yucca... we've already tunneled into the ground.

  7. Careful consideration should be given to the recommendation of some to host a reprocessing facility in Nevada. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future did not recommend reprocessing of spent fuel after listening to the testimony on both sides of the issue at meetings. Testimony on this issue is available in the transcripts and videocasts of the Blue Ribbon Commission. One should also consider the report of the BRC issued in January 2012.

  8. Yucca is an empty hole with a fence at a distance to keep people from getting close to it.

    If you think it is being used, or "operating", you are living in a parallel universe where politicians actually make laws that are duly carried out by an executive branch.

    I am told by people smarter than me that if we use a pyroprocessing technology for reprocessing, volatilizing metals for separation, then water is not as big an issue as with the current variations on the redox processes that dissolve everything. But power becomes a big issue. Maybe a few small modular reactors on the site could power such a plant.

    But why do that in Nevada unless you can assure that the resulting waste will not have to travel again. Whoever gets a reprocessing plant ought to also get a disposal facility. Moving the stuff long distances twice is foolish.

  9. As of election night: Yeah, so not so much. Yucca Mountain dump and/or magical "reprocessing facility." Still a dumb idea. If it's so harmless and wonderful, put it in your own backyard.