Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Breaking News


Reid discloses plans for crippling cuts to Yucca Mountain project

WASHINGTON — The bleeding might soon begin.

A few weeks after Sen. Harry Reid declared that the Yucca Mountain project was going to “bleed real hard” in the coming year, he said Monday the already reduced budget for the controversial nuclear waste plan will be cut “significantly” for the remainder of 2009, and that a 2010 White House spending request will contain “little if anything at all.”


Most Popular Stories
  • Man shot by police identified as local attorney
  • Three children fall from vehicle; mothers arrested
  • Boy struck, killed by car pulling out of driveway
  • Second person dies after being restrained by police
  • Las Vegas police make arrest in 2008 slaying
  • Seven unrestrained children were in car when three fell out
  • Judge rules M Resort must reinstate two fired security guards
  • Boyd makes another move to get Station Casinos' assets
  • MGM Mirage reports $750.4 million quarterly loss
  • MGM Mirage reports $750.4 million quarterly loss
  • Travel club honors Nevada with more Five Diamond properties




  • The Nevada Democrat made the declaration after he brought up Yucca Mountain in a meeting with President-elect Barack Obama earlier in the day.

    The two have spoken about the project on several occasions since the election. After Monday’s meeting, Reid said Obama reiterated his opposition to the project that he had campaigned against during the presidential race.

    Afterward the Senate majority leader disclosed plans for what he characterized as a crippling attack on the proposal to store nuclear waste at the site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

    “The budget for Yucca Mountain, this time we are going to cut it by a significant number,” Reid said. “And I think for next year the budget we get from the president will have little if anything at all. I have no doubt this is true.”

    The comments ratchet up Reid’s drive to end the repository project now that he will have an ally in the White House.

    Yucca Mountain is unpopular with many Nevadans but also might be emerging as an issue in his 2010 re-election campaign. Several Nevada Republican leaders and at least one conservative advocate, Chuck Muth, have challenged Reid to “put up or shut up” in his bid to kill the repository.

    In a short interview, Reid shrugged off his critics.

    In Nevada, “people have been defeated for supporting Yucca Mountain, and people have been elected for being opposed to Yucca Mountain. I have been opposed to Yucca Mountain for decades now, and we have basically killed the project,” he said.

    Obama has not commented on Yucca Mountain publicly since the election, but officials from his transition office have said he remains opposed to the project and plans to keep his pledge to seek an alternative to the Nevada site as part of a reworked nuclear waste management strategy.

    Nuclear industry executives and Energy Department officials have said they read federal law to mean that Congress would have to amend or repeal the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act to change direction at Yucca Mountain. The law set up a search for a geologic repository to hold thousands of tons of high-level radioactive waste generated by the government and private utilities during and since the Cold War.

    But others, including some repository opponents in Nevada, believe there might be other ways to end the project, including having the incoming Energy secretary declare the site unsuitable and withdraw the license application that was submitted in June to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Reid said he was not certain “of all the things that might happen when we cut the money.”

    But, he said, “if it runs out of money, that takes care of itself.”

    Reid, the most ardent repository opponent in Congress, has attacked the project’s budget again and again in recent years.

    This year’s budget for the Energy Department program has been set at a prorated level of $386 million, its lowest amount in seven years. Because Congress was unable to finish its 2009 appropriations bills in the fall, spending for most federal agencies was set in a temporary bill that expires in March.

    House and Senate staffers have been at work updating the legislation so spending could carry through to the end of the fiscal year on Oct. 1. But they have been told that decisions on Yucca Mountain will be made at the highest levels, one source said.

    Reid did not disclose his targets for new funding cuts. Sources in the nuclear industry and in Nevada have indicated they could run in the range of $50 million to $80 million below the present level.

    Department of Energy officials declined to say how much money they would need to keep the program running in the face of further reductions. After cuts that Reid has engineered in the past, DOE reconfigured the program several times, keeping work going on priorities while placing other segments — for instance transportation planning — on the back burner.

    It was not immediately clear whether Reid also will try to cut spending for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is processing the Yucca Mountain license application.

    Monday’s meeting, held in Reid’s office, also was attended by Vice President-elect Joe Biden, incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and several other Obama and Reid senior aides.

    The main topic was the multibillion-dollar stimulus plan that Democrats are forming in hopes of rescuing the economy. Reid said he didn’t hesitate to bring up Yucca Mountain.

    “To me that is a big issue,” Reid said. “If it is a big issue to me, it is a big issue to him.”

     

    Contact Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 45 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    perry wrote on January 10, 2009 11:51 PM: lets take the carbage lets take the billions the government want to give hell i be dead when they find any contaminate in las vegas hehehehe


    Report abuse

    Roger King wrote on January 07, 2009 06:25 PM: Reid has never had a solution for the disposal of our nations nuclear waste. The waste is presently being held in locations across this nation that all would agree is unsafe and dangerous. Reid has fought to kill this project long before any studies were completed or licenses issued. Yucca Mtn is the most studied location by scientist in the world. Reid sees the project as being political, not scientific...and that's the problem. He is the rat in the bottom of a rotten ship. We have no possible solution for this huge problem now for in the forseeable future. Sen. Reid...What is your solution???? You're been such a great critic...what should we do as a nation to solve this problem? As you stated, you have fought this project for decades, surely you must have developed a solution by now. Come out of the closet and give us a clue.


    Report abuse

    stuck in the middle with you wrote on January 07, 2009 10:38 AM: BOCO, you hit the nail on the head. Science should determine if this is right. The economy is down, why not have jobs? All of this spent fuel will eventually be reprocessed and reused. If we think further ahead than our next meal, we might understand the long term job implications.
    To the rest of you, if you don't know what you are talking about, go read some information. Read both sides of the argument, then decide what is best in the long run. Until then, enough with the asinine comments, already.
    My educated guess is that once this facility opens, you'll never hear about it again, other than talking to neighbors who are employed out at the site and sustaining your economy.
    For those of you who want to take no chances, I would suggest a deep dark cave somewhere...how do you get out of bed in the morning?


    Report abuse

    Mike Thurgood wrote on January 07, 2009 10:08 AM: As a strong nuclear proponent,I have been following the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository saga from afar for a long time.

    There is a lot of opposition to this project, especially from relatively "local" people, not unexpectedly.

    There are all those spent fuel elements under water in the spent fuel element buildings at the numerous power stations, in all countries where there are nuclear power stations, just as we have here at South Africa's Koeberg nuclear power station.

    What always intrigues me is that the Yucca Mountain repository seems to attract far more criticism than all those spent fuel storage facilities at the nuclear power stations.

    Now, seemingly by 2010, it is hoped that the funding for this project will dry up, with no more funding being voted for it. The anticipated hope is that the project will come to a complete halt.

    But even I, as a strong nuclear proponent, cannot envisage all those isolated spent fuel storage facilities remaining permanently at long defunct nuclear power stations, as their life comes to an end.

    The simplistic solution to me is this: as the long term storage of spent fuel elements inevitably becomes ever more important in people's minds, a mechanism must surely have to be implemented, preferably sooner rather than later, to get these opponents together to properly acquaint them with the sheer magnitude of the storage problem, and find out how they see a solution, with which they must necessarily be happy to agree.

    Obviously it's not a problem limited to the USA, but nearly all countries with nuclear power seem to be locked in a similar hiatus. And that includes South Africa.

    in my opinion, and because nuclear power is at the threshold of great expansion, something positive has to be done.

    Well, there's my 300 word count up!


    Report abuse

    Bobo wrote on January 07, 2009 04:59 AM: Nuclear power plants have been required to pay the US Government to handle nuclear waste from the spent fuel for over 25 years and the US Government has not provided the location for storage. So what has happen to all the money the was paid? Where do you thing all the spent fuel is right now? Addressing the spent fuel issue is a huge issue for the progress of nuclear power. Does anybody still thinks Oboma still supports nuclear power?

    There are other solution to the issue such as reprocessing the spent fuel. But again, politics gets in the way of good science.

    Since the government did such a good job of collecting money to handle nuclear waste and doing nothing in return, is there any other thing we want the government to take more control over? How about some federal health care?


    Report abuse

    Martin Bensky wrote on January 06, 2009 01:07 PM: So we are betting all our marbles on wind. I'm already 74, so it's unlikely that I will see the disastrous result of this irrational decision. Yucca Mountain is one of many perfectly adequate geologic formations that could be used to dispose of nuclear waste without ever causing an iota of harm to people or the environment. Opposition to Yucca Mountain may win votes and look good to people who know zero about the science of nuclear waste disposal, but it puts a nail in the coffin of America's hopes to continue as a strong, prosperous nation.


    Report abuse

    Cutting funding a bad idea wrote on January 06, 2009 10:20 AM: "It was not immediately clear whether Reid also will try to cut spending for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is processing the Yucca Mountain license application."

    Is it really a good idea to cut funding to the regulatory agency? Their job is to determine if a site is safe and complies with federal law. They also oversee much more than nuclear reactors. If Reid cuts NRC funding and a dirty bomb finally hits the streets due to lack of special nuclear material oversight then he should be indicted under federal charges for public endangerment, aiding in terrorism, etc. Think before you act.

    Second Shayne's comment on the lawsuits-the industry already paid the money, alot of it. Do taxpayers want to give it all back?


    Report abuse

    boco wrote on January 06, 2009 10:18 AM: Does it matter to anyone else what the 3 to 4 year review by the people with the qualifications and authority will determine about the license application to build and operate the repository proposed at Yucca Mountain?

    All the elected officials seem to have taken the claims by State of Nevada consultants as valid and dismissing as flawed and otherwise sinester the massive amount of site investigation and forecast of radiological effects included in the 8,600 page application.
    The Bush administration was often criticized for not respecting "sound science," yet Reid seems to be imploring Obama to do the same.


    Report abuse

    Nuke is the Cleanest wrote on January 06, 2009 08:47 AM: Interesting that people think spent nuclear fuel would be the dirtiest hing in Nevada...Las Vegas? Give the NRC the opportunity to determine how safe and effective Yucca Mtn would be.


    Report abuse

    Shayne Tenace wrote on January 06, 2009 08:47 AM: So, if funding is cut off to actually finish the project, what funding will be made available to pay for the legitimate lawsuits that will ensue?

    How will previous contributions be paid back?


    Read All Comments