Comments (34) | Add a comment
Nevada and counties split over ending Yucca
Tools
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The state of Nevada and Clark County say the Department of Energy has the power to terminate the Yucca Mountain Project. A half dozen rural counties in the state say it does not.
Legal documents filed this week with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provide a fresh picture of a split within Nevada over the nuclear waste plan that the Obama administration wants to end.
The commission has scheduled legal hearings for June 3 and 4 in Las Vegas over an Energy Department motion to withdraw a pending application to build a waste repository at the Yucca site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The legal briefs provide a preview of arguments that will be fielded by a three-judge administrative panel.
The question is whether DOE has the authority to bring the project to an end without new legislation from Congress, which passed a law in 1987 that set a process for the site to be evaluated and licensed if it was found to be safe.
Attorneys for Nevada and for Clark County, where anti-repository sentiment has run high, argue that nothing in the law prevents DOE from withdrawing the project if it does not intend to build it.
"The DOE has the lawful authority to withdraw the license application and has elected to exercise that authority. This board must honor that decision," said attorneys for Clark County.
Nye County, White Pine County and a consortium of Churchill, Esmeralda, Lander and Mineral counties argue there has been no final determination of the site's suitability.
The rural counties, where the Yucca project has been viewed generally as an economic panacea, said Congress needs to change the law to end the project, and until then the Obama administration cannot act.
In White Pine County's filing, District Attorney Richard Sears wrote that without an official act of Congress to withdraw the project, there is nothing that would prevent the next president from reversing President Barack Obama and "put Yucca Mountain back on the table again."
"We are a nation governed by laws, not men," Sears wrote.
Among other participants in the upcoming legal hearing, the state of California and the Joint Timbisha Shoshone Tribal Group said they side with the Department of Energy and Nevada.
The states of Washington and South Carolina, where high-level nuclear waste is stored, argued that the Energy Department legally cannot withdraw the project.
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
@ Inconvenient Truth
EXCELLENT point. You may very well be spot on.
Of course, that means that Harry committed at least one stunning political blunder. Namely, he assumed that EVERYBODY who was economically damaged by his shutting down YMP will be leaving the state before the election. You have to wonder if someone that shortsighted deserves to be Senate Majority Leader.
Suppose Harry and his supporters succeed in their obvious wish, of shutting down all the energy sources of which THEY disapprove. This includes nuclear, offshore drilling, and coal, at a minimum. What do you suppose the citizens of Vegas will say when there is no longer enough power to run their air conditioners during the summer? Probably something like,
"Oh, well - so what if it's 120 degrees in my bathroom? At least Nevada will not be a 'nuclear wasteland' in fifty thousand years!"
The more I think about it, the more amazed I am at Harry. He seems to be racing to totally shut down Yucca Mountain as fast as possible, even though he knows perfectly well he may have to start it right back up again. Just as soon as the courts decide the DOE does not have the legal authority to unilaterally shut it down. And all so he can claim victory right before the election.
The people of Nevada should be appalled and ashamed that their senior legislator is so utterly indifferent to the human suffering he has caused in order to make this political statement. And they should be equally appalled and ashamed at the way he seems to think his constituents are too stupid to notice that he may only succeed in shutting it down for a few months.
PS -
The book where I read about the demonization of nuclear power at Diablo Canyon is called "Getting Sued and other Tales of the Engineering Life," by Richard Meehan.
It's an interesting and enjoyable little book, for anyone who is so inclined. An autobiography of his adventures around the world, and not a dry engineering textbook at all.
The article barely touches on White Pine's filing that states we are a nation of laws, not me.
As noted therein, the US created a government totally unlike the kings of Europe where each one reversed the previous king's directions.
The US is a nation of laws.
What Obama and Reid are trying to do violates the NWPA.
If Obama wins on this one, he will cancel every other federal law that he is opposed to.
People, this is a very slippery slope not worth the price of stopping Yucca Mountain.
Millions of Americans and trillions of dollars have been spent to protect the US Constitution. If you can be bought for Obama illegally cancelling Yucca Mountain, shame on you. You are disrespecting 250 years of history and sacrifice.
Nevada's deserves to be boycotted even more than those who think Arizona should be boycotted over its recent citizenship law.
Reid needs to go. Obama needs to go. Chu needs to go. Fight for America, not for your ignorant NIMBYism.
Big picture people. BIG PICTURE!
Tom:
That's an interesting analogy.
The problem, however, with the opposition view is that it ignores both the real "event" and the actual "horizon" of the issue.
The EVENT is the problem of nuclear waste disposal, and merely demonizing the event does not make it go away.
Currently -- and here is the HORIZON part -- the U.S. possesses around 60,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
Moreover, approximately 160 million Americans live within 60 miles of a facility that stores nuclear waste, and nuclear waste is stored in close proximity to virtually every major waterway in the nation.
So, both the event (the problem) and the horizon (the extent or expanse of the problem) are unalterable realities, a fact that opponents of nuclear power and Yucca Mountain characteristically ignore.
In truth, the genie is out of the bottle; nothing can change the problem and the extent of the problem. Even the most optimistic reprocessing fantasies, apart from being decades away from being realized (if they can be realized), require deep geologic disposal.
Also, the opposition view that argues "leave it where it is" or "let the states that generate the waste keep it" stubbornly ignores the fact that most credible scientific studies suggest that the status quo of on-site temporary storage could result in an environmental catastrophe in the next 100 years if you include a loss of institutional controls (security, upkeep, replacement) in the scenario.
I've read these reports; they are truly scary. And yet, the Yucca Mountain opposition, most notably Harry Reid and even his hand-picked NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko, continue to promote the status quo of on-site temporary storage.
So, to the opposition: If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice, and this choice could far surpass your wildest nightmares.
Some years ago there was a reasonably entertaining science fiction movie called "Event Horizon." The plot had to do with an experimental (as I recall) star ship that accidentally opened a worm hole into a different space-time continuum where the literal biblical hell actually existed. I've often thought that this is how many opponents see Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste.
Similarly, I once read a memoir by an engineer who had worked on Diablo Canyon. I remember him noticing, at a public hearing, that to him and his colleagues nuclear power was a sensitive and complex problem to be solved. But to the opponents, it was literally a "demon to be placated."
My first point here is that for some people, nuclear power and nuclear waste is an issue which has NO reasonable solution. Ever. How can you reason with Satan?
My second point is that this article clearly shows that no matter how loudly they shout about it, the violent opponents who post here do NOT speak for all Nevadans.
All for Nye County, say "Aye"!
My apologies. I realized I am using two different words almost interchangeably: PERFECTION and CERTAINTY.
It has always been my impression that the opposition will accept nothing less than a nuclear waste solution that is PERFECT, in the sense of having absolutely no risks, and no unknowns, of any sort whatsoever. But it also is looking for absolute CERTAINTY, in the sense of knowing that the proposed solution is irrevocably, unchangeably perfect beyond any doubt whatsoever.
I respectfully suggest that this is not a reasonable expectation, no matter how often the opposition tries to claim that it is the most rational and reasonable side. Human beings rarely, if ever, have the luxury of waiting for that kind of PERFECTION and CERTAINTY.
It would be like saying, "I refuse to allow any form of motorized transport to be used, of any sort whatsoever," until someone comes up with an absolutely guaranteed working, safe design for a flying saucer."
Or, alternatively, it would be like refusing to feed your kids anything until you are absolutely CERTAIN that the available food is PERFECTLY safe and healthy.
The Yucca Mountain hearings on June 3 and 4 will be open to the public. They will also be web streamed for public viewing at the following links:
June 3:
http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=69198
June 4:
http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=69199
This web stream will be available for viewing for 90 days after the proceeding concludes.