iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

House Panel Investigating Plan To Halt Yucca Mountain Nuclear Site

Yucca Mountain Investigation

MATTHEW DALY   03/31/11 08:22 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — A House energy panel said Thursday it is investigating the Obama administration's decision to halt plans to bury the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada.

The investigation by the Republican-led Energy and Commerce panel focuses new attention on the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository 90 miles from Las Vegas.

Reps. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and John Shimkus, R-Ill., said there is no scientific or technical basis for withdrawing the application for Yucca Mountain, the only permanent storage site in the U.S. designated for spent nuclear fuel.

"The tragic events unfolding in Japan underscore the urgent need for the United States to pursue a coherent nuclear policy to safely and permanently store spent nuclear fuel," Upton and Shimkus said in a statement.

Yucca Mountain has been endorsed by many scientists and lawmakers from both parties, and U.S. officials have spent decades and billions of dollars developing the site, yet "this administration has recklessly sought to pull the plug on the Yucca repository without even the sensibility of offering a viable alternative," the lawmakers said. Upton chairs the energy panel, while Shimkus heads a subcommittee on the environment and economy.

A spokeswoman for the Energy Department said officials will work with committee leaders as they perform their oversight role.

Opponents of Yucca Mountain have said they are concerned about possible contamination, and the Obama administration said it would not consider the site and would look for alternatives.

News of the investigation came as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said three U.S. nuclear power plants need increased oversight from federal regulators because of safety problems or unplanned shutdowns.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko said the three plants – in South Carolina, Kansas and Nebraska – "are the plants we are most concerned about" among the 65 U.S. nuclear power plants in 31 states. All U.S. plants are operating safely, Jaczko said.

An agency spokesman said the plants under review are the H.B. Robinson nuclear plant in South Carolina, Fort Calhoun in Nebraska and Wolf Creek in Kansas.

Spokesman Scott Burnell said three reactors at the Oconee Nuclear Station in South Carolina had been on the watch list, but were removed two weeks ago after improved performance reviews. He emphasized that all 104 U.S. nuclear reactors operate safely, and that the heightened review of the three plants was routine.

"The NRC felt the three required significant additional oversight but continue to operate safely," he said.

All U.S. nuclear plants are inspected frequently. If enough minor problems or issues are identified, a plant moves to a second level of inspection, Burnell said.

Items that aren't resolved in a reasonable time – or new items of higher significance – can move a plant to a third level of closer inspection and oversight. That is where the plants in South Carolina, Kansas and Nebraska are listed, Burnell said.

The agency has two higher levels of concern for even more serious problems: one where senior NRC management becomes involved and a final level where a plant is shut down until officials determine it is safe to reopen. No U.S. plants are currently listed in either category.

Nine of the 104 U.S. reactors are listed in the second, minor level of concern, Burnell said.

At a hearing Thursday of an energy subcommittee, GOP lawmakers repeatedly blasted the plan to halt the Yucca Mountain project, calling it blatantly political. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been a relentless opponent of the Yucca Mountain site, and Obama promised during the 2008 presidential campaign that he would look for other ways to address the disposal of highly radioactive waste from commercial nuclear power plants.

"Probably the four most expensive electoral votes ever cast in this country were the four Nevada votes in 2008" for Obama, said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho. "They cost us approximately $12 billion in shutting down Yucca Mountain, or the attempt to shut down Yucca Mountain."

Simpson and other critics say the Obama administration is violating a federal law that designates Yucca Mountain as the leading candidate for waste disposal.

"I firmly believe that you are acting outside the law," Simpson told Jaczko.

Jaczko replied that the commission's lawyer disagrees with that interpretation, adding that the NRC has approved a budget for the next fiscal year that does not include any money for Yucca Mountain.

"Commission approval of a budget doesn't mean diddly. What matters is what passes Congress," Simpson retorted.

Last year, the Energy Department filed a motion with the NRC to withdraw its application for Yucca Mountain. The commission has not ruled on that motion, but the Energy Department has gone ahead with dismantling the project.

South Carolina and Washington state are among those suing the president and other federal officials to try to restart plans to ship spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — A House energy panel said Thursday it is investigating the Obama administration's decision to halt plans to bury the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada. The investigation by the Repu...
WASHINGTON — A House energy panel said Thursday it is investigating the Obama administration's decision to halt plans to bury the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada. The investigation by the Repu...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 221
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
11:20 AM on 04/03/2011
If you get your electricity from nuclear power, then I say bury it in your back yard, not mine, We here in southern Utah are still suffering the effects of nuclear testing in Nevada in the 50's and 60's. We don't need anymore. And NO, it is not safe.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Yorksgal
'Conservative Christian' is a complete oxymoron.
12:26 AM on 04/03/2011
Then I suggest that Sen Upton and Shimkas move their homes to Yucca Mtn.

The report for Yucca Mtn. has many cover-ups - one of them being it is in an earthquake prone area.

NV does not want your waste - keep it for yourselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onasphere
Small business owner. Democrat.
10:25 PM on 04/01/2011
The best place to keep nuclear waste is right where it is. Moving it around is even more stupid than making the stuff in the first place.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onasphere
Small business owner. Democrat.
10:22 PM on 04/01/2011
Ok, so let's say 25% of our electricity comes from nuclear power. What if you're thirsty, and you have 3 bottles of beer and a bottle of Drano. Maybe you just drink the beer, and not the Drano. Wouldn't that be smart?
photo
SamEllison
I feel so clean!
09:09 PM on 04/01/2011
Is it me or does this article fail to say anything about fault lines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
08:35 PM on 04/01/2011
The taxpayers have paid 10's of BILLIONS to develop this site now that it is finally ready to accept waste Harry Reid says no way... Harry that's fine now the state should be required to pay the $$ back and end all uranium mining
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:22 PM on 04/03/2011
built on faults, and an underground river.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:26 PM on 04/01/2011
The states that allow nuclear reactors to produce energy within their borders need to figure out how to store their own toxic waste. Nevada has no nuclear reactors and has enough scars from nuclear science. Nevada is not a wasteland.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vincent Van Der Hyde
The truth will set you free.
08:36 PM on 04/01/2011
Well,
last time I was thru there,
it looked sure could have passed for wasteland!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:01 PM on 04/01/2011
We have vibrant desert ecology, ranches, wild horses, and children here like any place else. It's the fourth most seismically active state in the country, and the ground water in some small towns like Beatty, Nevada, have plutonium in it because of nuclear testing. We are still recovering from those tests. No, Nevada is not a wasteland. Ask the Paiute and Shoshone tribes who were here long before us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Yorksgal
'Conservative Christian' is a complete oxymoron.
12:23 AM on 04/03/2011
Thanks Gelfling. I live in N. NV and it is far from being a wasteland. I will say at first you think - why have I moved here and then the beauty of the desert gets to your soul.
photo
Thumbody
just for the halibut!
07:50 PM on 04/01/2011
How about using it as a prison for sexual predators, sex offenders and child molesters they don't deserve visitors and they all should be classified as "hazardous waste."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ninthraphael
i have my god! He/she doesn't look like yours!
07:48 PM on 04/01/2011
i would suggest placing the spent fuel rod repository to all red states that like nuclear power. spare us please!
11:22 AM on 04/03/2011
Perfect, you get my vote.
07:26 PM on 04/01/2011
What so few people understand is that Yucca Mountain does not need to be a permanent storage vault for "nuclear waste". Most of the high level, long half life materials can be "burned" with thorium in either molten salt fluidized bed reactors or in fuel rods containing thorium in existing conventional boiling water reactors.

Yucca Mountain is so over-engineered that it is 100,000 times safer than leaving the old fuel rods in ponds onsite with the reactors. The fact that leaving old fuel rods at the reactor site in ponds is extremely dangerous was proven already in Japan. We cannot continue to do that any longer.
07:33 PM on 04/01/2011
I understand that I don't want the risk of nuclear waste from other localities transporting through my community. If a community decides to implement a nuclear facility, they and they alone should bear all the risk of the waste. Keep it on site. A community considering a nuclear plant should ponder long and hard the potential consequences to their children of their choice.
07:48 PM on 04/01/2011
There are all kinds of things being transported through your community every day that are much riskier than a concrete cask full of old spent fuel rods. How safe are the casks? Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_JhruRobRI
07:42 PM on 04/01/2011
Yes, we could do reprocessing on the spent fuel, separate out the uranium and other fissionable nuclides, and reduce the size of the waste by quite a lot. I'm not sure what's keeping us from doing that now, and finally building a breeder reactor. It's not like Jimmy Carter has any authority over the process any more.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beau taylor
one piece at the time
08:54 PM on 04/01/2011
Hey man, quit kicking Carter. He's a better man than you, me and most of us will ever be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onasphere
Small business owner. Democrat.
10:27 PM on 04/01/2011
Carter worked on a nuclear sub.
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
07:18 PM on 04/01/2011
Gee, that new alternative couldn't be the new first of its kind and largest radioactive waste treatment plant, in Washington state, Bechtel National, Inc.has designed and is constructing and commissioning for the US Dept. of Energy?

This plant will process 53 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste through a virtification process, which entails blending radioactive waste with glass-forming materials and heated to 2,100 degrees F. and poured into stainless steel canisters for safe keeping.

This is a project which is equivalent to building two nuclear power plants. The site spans 65 acres and includes 4 major nuclear facilities.

Haven't heard much about this plant in the news, not even in this article.

Wonder why this is being kept such a secret, and if this project was included in the $28 billion DoE's budget for 2011.
07:40 PM on 04/01/2011
This is only for the decommissioning of the Hanford Site, the place where Plutonium for nuclear weapons was created during the Manhattan Project up until the 1980s. There were a whole bunch of underground storage tanks in the "200 Area" that contained some pretty hot solid and liquid waste, and had been sitting there for many years. The reactors in the "100 Area" used to just dump their effluent into a "crib" trench and let it percolate through the soil until fairly pure water came out a spring into the Columbia River. All that stuff needs to be removed and stabilized so it doesn't get into the water table and the river.

Back in the 80s before I left there I recall being at a meeting where they were talking about a plume of Tritium that they had been monitoring for years. It was dropping down through the soil into the water table and was moving toward the Columbia. It was pretty interesting stuff although you couldn't help being concerned after hearing about some of it. Anyway, the new waste facility won't be accepting the spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Diablo Canyon
Sweet Baby James
07:16 PM on 04/01/2011
Get this stuff away from me. It belongs in the land of Saddam and Gomorah.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vincent Van Der Hyde
The truth will set you free.
08:41 PM on 04/01/2011
We already occupy the land of Saddam!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beau taylor
one piece at the time
09:01 PM on 04/01/2011
fanned you for Saddam and the fact he's no longer with us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:05 PM on 04/01/2011
Reps. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and John Shimkus, R-Ill., will want to keep it open with Sin City only 90 miles away and all them durn liberals in Los Angeles 170 miles away.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
luckyvanna
Dog lover
07:16 PM on 04/01/2011
This has been going around and around, leave it to the repubs to bring it back to life. They have nothing better to do!
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
07:24 PM on 04/01/2011
They have neglected to tell Americans about the new radioactive waste plant being built by Bechtel National, Inc. in Washington state.

http://www.energy.gov/news/8588.htm

http://www.hanfordvitplant.com/
07:31 PM on 04/01/2011
Yep, and the old Nuclear test site just 65mi north of Las Vegas isn't a concern, even though over 900 Nuclear B ombs were tested there..................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
luckyvanna
Dog lover
07:50 PM on 04/01/2011
Tourists used to flock to Vegas or there about, to watch the mushroom clouds. How sick was that!
But then the tests were conducted underground, to the disappointment to the tourist industry. It must have been a real job killer, right!
07:01 PM on 04/01/2011
Pro-nuclear people always seem to be saying it can safely be recycled. If that is such a great option why don't they do that?
photo
Boobuzuela
Satire identical to actual Republican positions
07:11 PM on 04/01/2011
Reprocessing of nuclear fuel is its own disaster, both economically, and environmentally.
07:53 PM on 04/01/2011
Jimmy Carter cancelled the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project. It was revived by Ronald Reagan but cancelled again by Congress in 1983.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinch_River_Breeder_Reactor_Project

We had the West Valley Reprocessing Plant that could have been used for the other part of recycling, but it was closed down in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Valley_Reprocessing_Plant

If we're going to start another round of nuclear power plant construction projects (and that's already in progress), reprocessing (or "recycling") could become an important topic again.
06:54 PM on 04/01/2011
Sorry, I meant 'onsite' in my previous post! Still getting used to this iPad typing...lol