Comments (27) | Add a comment
NRC nominees won't stand in way of Yucca Mountain shutdown
Tools
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 10:56 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Three officials nominated to fill seats on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicated this week that they would not stand in the way of a shutdown of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste program.
But one suggested that because it now looks as if radioactive spent fuel will remain at power plants for the foreseeable future, their steel-and-concrete storage canisters should be checked for safety.
"When we first started storing spent fuel at reactor sites, nobody was thinking it was going to be there for 100 years," said William Magwood, a former Department of Energy official. "I think we have to go back and take a look at what we have in place now and assure ourselves it is able to stay in place another 50 years if necessary."
The NRC has indicated that nuclear waste can remain on site for decades at least. But if there are places where it might not stay safe that long, Magwood said, he would call for "corrective action as soon as possible."
At a Senate hearing Tuesday, Magwood and two other NRC nominees said they would not "second-guess" a decision by the Obama administration to withdraw a license application for the Yucca Mountain waste repository that is pending at the commission. The administration has created a blue-ribbon commission to recommend alternatives for waste management.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, posed the question. She said it came from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is engineering the Nevada project shutdown with administration officials.
"You can just answer yes or no: If confirmed, would you second-guess the Department of Energy's decision to withdraw the license application for Yucca Mountain from the NRC's review?" Boxer asked.
Magwood, former director of the Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy: "No."
George Apostolakis, nuclear science and engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: "No."
William Ostendorff, former principal deputy administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration: "No."
Boxer said she expected a speedy confirmation for Apostolakis, Magwood and Ostendorff, who were nominated by President Barack Obama to fill three seats on the five-member NRC board.
The exchange at the hearing means that, if confirmed, a majority of the NRC board will be on record that they will not intervene to keep the Yucca project alive.
Reid wanted to get the nominees on record saying just that, spokesman Jon Summers said. Reid sought acknowledgement "that as regulators they are in no position to question DOE's decision to withdraw the license application for Yucca," Summers said.
A fourth member of the NRC board, Chairman Gregory Jaczko, may also be expected not to intervene. Jaczko worked as Reid's science adviser before being sworn onto the commission in January 2005.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal 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 use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
PS -
Just so that it is very clear, let me repeat my own position in this debate one more time.
If science, engineering, economics, and sound policy show that Yucca Mountain is a bad idea, then by all means shut it down. If all these things show that a better idea has come along, then, also, by all means shut it down. But please do so in an orderly, careful, civilized way that doesn't ruin the people whose livelihoods depend on Yucca Mountain - just for a cheap sense of victory or vengeance.
But if no-one comes up with a better idea, then leave Yucca Mountain running. And please, PLEASE do not just blow this question off for another fifty years, in the hope that someone might come up with a better idea during that time. Our nation needs answers to the climate change and energy independence problems NOW, not in fifty years.
This debate is far too important to carry on at the level of a WWE Smackdown, or at the level of Senator-Reid-is-Luke-Skywalker-and-Yucca-Mountain-is-the-Deathstar, as it seems to have been carried on so often in the past.
Thank you very much.
In some people's eyes Senator Reid is obviously a knight in shining armor, or a Saint George valiantly slaying the dragon. But in other people's eyes he is Herman Melville's Captain Ahab, blindly obsessed with killing the Great White Whale.
Let me add to what I said earlier, based on what I have heard here:
The available evidence suggests that Senator Reid is so consumed with hatred for Yucca Mountain that he is willing to shut it down in the middle of the worst recession in a generation - without fully understanding the impact of Yucca Mountain on Nevada's economy and residents, without having a plan ready to mitigate any economic effects of it's loss, AND evidently without fully understanding the legality of shutting it down.
I think it's highly likely that Senator Reid traded Yucca Mountain for his support of President Obama's legislative agenda. Possibly even traded Yucca Mountain for stimulus funds. How disappointing that the President would give Senator Reid Yucca Mountain without getting his legislative agenda in return! How shabby that Senator Reid would pull something like that!
If this is not the way it really happened, then the ball is in Senator Reid's court to get the real story out to his constituents. And to act more like a Saint George than a Captain Ahab.
So if a nominee to the Supreme Court were asked would he commit to violating a federal law in order to be confirmed and said yes, who would ever believe their judgment after taking office?
The NWPA clearly states that at this point in time that the NRC must review the license application. The DOE does not have the legal authority to rescind the license application.
The credibility of the NRC is apparently lost during Obama's term to Chicago politics.
Interesting, Jeff. Thanks.
I hadn't thought of the word "vindictive," but that's exactly what I was trying to say. Senator Reid really needs to consider trying to do something NOW for the people who will lose their livelihoods thanks to his shutting down Yucca Mountain. If he does not, he will leave himself open to the charge of vindictively trying to hurt or punish people whose only "crime" was to take Yucca Mountain "blood money." Surely he does not want to hand his election competition a bonus like that!
As to the storage of nuclear waste in 55 gallon drums, I agree with Jeff. I've heard stories of the same thing from other parts of the country.
Vindictive your name sounds like you definitely have a problem
As for you disputing my actual, visual experiences I will explain something to you.
Loring AFB in Northern Maine used to be called Limestone AFB during second war and later.
During that time, Loring (Limestone) was forefront of nuclear defenses against enemies we had in the Russians.
Since Limestone was on farthest reaches of Maine it would be able to transgress Atlantic Ocean and circumvent globe to strike Soviets during cold war.
Products of what I described were in not just one 55 gallon drum but several. Since a 55 gallon drum is normally use to house a liquid product, I would have to assume this product that were in the drums was used as cooling liquids or the like for the nuclear items.
I can not tell you exactly what they were in reality, because as soon as I saw the placard saying nuclear waste I did not want to stay in bunker knowing that Limestone was used to house nuclear weapons for use against Soviets during Cold War.
But when you consider that this area is surrounded with signs describing hazards associated with people not knowing what they were working with in the 40s/50s and even in 60s.
Now we are more aware of dangers of waste, however, during those years, we were not at all and as such, many injuries received were the result of mishandling nuclear waste.
Erego, simply storing in 55 gallon drums, or even 42 gallon barrels was and is normal for this waste at many destinations that were never revised or updated over years of us learning more about this product.
Vindictive, I would suggest for you to be informed listen to others who have knowledge of which evades you!
PS -
Michael Green,
As far as the process of Yucca Mountain site selection that is "hopelessly politicized against Nevada" is concerned, rest assured I've heard that story many times before. But I wasn't there, so I don't know.
Regardless, as you yourself say, that was twenty years ago. And I am quite sure that the vast majority of the people who today derive part if not all of their living from Yucca Mountain had nothing to do with that decision. Should they then be punished, by the loss or reduction of their livelihoods, for a decision with which they were not involved?
Until Senator Reid presents a plan for how he is going to replace those livelihoods now, and not fifty years from now, he will leave himself open to the charge that he either doesn't care about those people or is punishing them for a "moral crime" they did not commit. In either case, the moral righteousness of which Senator Reid and supporters like you seem to be so proud is considerably diminished.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Let's assume for the moment that Michael Green is right, that Senator Reid really has "driven a stake through the heart" of the Yucca Mountain Project. It certainly sounds like he might be right.
So what now? What are Senator Reid and his supporters going to do to replace the lost Nevada revenue and jobs that THEY zeroed out? If Nevadans "shouldn't have" nuclear jobs, what kinds of jobs should they be allowed to have? Who gets to decide? WHEN will those jobs become available? Fifty years from now? What are Senator Reid and his supporters going to do for an alternative about nuclear waste and our nation's energy problems? WHEN are they going to do it?
I'm still waiting for a plan about all of this, instead of just self-congratulation for having "slain the DOE dragon." WHAT'S NEXT?
It is essential that it not be forgotten that all those people who have lost their livelihoods as a result of this decision, or the current economy, can't eat moral self-righteousness. Or feed it to their children.