House to Obama on Nuke Waste: No Yucca, no deal

“A leading House GOP member on nuclear issues said Wednesday that Senate nuclear waste management legislation that does not identify Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository will not pass the House.”

Read more at The Hill.

5 responses to “House to Obama on Nuke Waste: No Yucca, no deal

  1. Westchester Bill

    The House is right on this one.

  2. In 1982, the United States Congress passed a Law to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act made the DOE responsible for finding a site, building, and operating an underground disposal facility. The concept dates back to 1957 when the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the best means of protecting the environment and public health and safety would be to dispose of the waste in rock deep underground.
    In 1984, DOE selected ten locations for consideration as potential repository sites. President Reagan approved three sites for site characterization. The three sites were Hanford, WA; Deaf Smith County, TX; and Yucca Mountain, NV. In 1987, Congress directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain, already located within a former nuclear test site.
    In 2002, House Joint Resolution 87 allowed the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store nuclear waste. The Department of Energy was to begin accepting spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain Repository by January 31, 1998. A series of delays due to legal challenges, concerns over how to transport nuclear waste to the facility, and political pressures resulted in underfunding of the construction.
    In July 2006 the DOE proposed March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste. Nevada Senator Harry Reid said that he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted as having said: “Yucca Mountain is dead. It’ll never happen.”
    The federal government owes to the utilities somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998.
    Meanwhile our high-level radioactive waste remains above ground in temporary storage that is not as secure or well-shielded.

    • “Meanwhile our high-level radioactive waste remains above ground in temporary storage that is not as secure or well-shielded.”

      It is safe, though. If you intend to imply it’s dangerous, you are incorrect.

      • The current custodians of the wast are doing everything in their power to abate any direct danger. I mean to imply that it is *vulnerable.* I cannot name a single repository trained or equipped to repel a determined terrorist raid seeking to abscond with materials for a ‘dirty bomb.’

        • By the way, it’s not “above ground.” Nor is it in a form suitable for 1. stealing and 2. use in a bomb.
          I suspect you have no actual knowledge of our high level nuclear waste storage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s