Reader comments
Energy Department moves ahead with its Yucca plan

Not only are tax payer going to foot the bill for this waste dump, but all the railroad shipping of that waste through Salt Lake City and Las Vegas will require significant military protective services to keep the trains from being targets of terror. One terrorist attack on a nuclear waste train will create panic and economic havoc! I will Senator Hatch would think through his support of this disaster waiting to happen. Should the federal government invest in waste dumps or new clean energy technologies that are safe, benefit rural communities (wind on farms), and don't expand terrorist targets!?!

Congressman Matheson says that he believes that we should pursue an interim on-site storage policy. Last time I checked, interim in this case would mean that there is a long-term storage policy, and we hold the waste on-site until that long-term policy can be put in place. As far as I know, Congressman Matheson has not defined a long-term policy, so his use of the word interim is either a mistake, or more likely, a way of misleading us into thinking that there is some long-term strategy when there is no such thing.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not sure storing nuclear waste in Nevada is a good idea, but I hate it when weasly politicians use words to deceive us.

I still do not understand why nuclear waste that is created by a nuclear facility cannot be permanently stored near its source. This would eliminate all concerns for transporting it to a remote site. Burying the waste near the originating facility would not require the people of one region to "pay the price" for another region's energy consumption. Accordingly, any risk of terrorism or environmental accident would be borne by those who have benefitted from the facility's energy production over the years. As I understand it, the nuclear facilities already apply intense security measures, so additional resources would not be required for a new plant at Yucca Mountain.
I don't usually agree with Senator Reid, but I ABSOLUTELY agree with him on this issue . . . as well as with Senator Bennett and Utah's three Representatives in Congress (Bishop, Matheson, and Cannon). My question to Senator Hatch is: "What were you thinking?"

I worked on the Yucca Mountain Project for 9 years in a central scientific role. I've seen nearly all the scientific investigation data. All peer-reviewed literature, reviews, and panel investigations of Yucca Mountain have supported its safety, and all concerns raised have been addressed. The state of Nevada's hired nay-sayers have lost nearly every legal challenge and have not produced one single peer-reviewed scientific study that opposes the project.

Transportation of nuclear materials ALREADY has a 50 year safety record (how do you think nuclear fuel got to the 100+ nuclear reactors in the first place?). Spent nuclear fuel is metal rods that cannot explode, leak, or contaminate large areas. The transportationc casks are nearly indestructible, and cannot be opened by hand-launched missiles, grenades, or bombs. The long safety record speaks for itself. If you want to be afraid of something, be afraid of gasoline tankers--think of the routes they take through towns and neighborhoods.

Yucca Mountain is a scientific no-brainer and should be expedited ASAP.

Reprocessing spent waste is smarter and cheaper in the long run. It also allows the same "waste" to e used again and again as fuel a dozen times or more.

Yucca is too expensive and ridiculous overkill in design for storing spent waste that has been reprocessed. Reprocessed waste needs to be stored only 500 years, till it is "cooler" than native ore bodies

The tens of billions of dollars, paid by utilities, not taxpayers, will be wasted on Yucca.

Those billions should be plowed into the perfecting of reprocessing facilities.

Nevada officials should be focused on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel as the key to stopping the wasteful and ultimately unneeded Yucca vault.

Nuclear power needs supporters to facilitate its use to reduce global warming. Nuclear power is THE MAINSTREAM method to reduce GHG's. It has already prevented over 16 billion tons...that is a good demonstration of its capailities.

The Yucca Mountain Project is NOT funded by taxpayers. Its funds come from the nuclear power ratepayer fund from a surcharge on power produced at nuclear power plants. It's a user fee.

By the way, Congress uses the billions of dollars in this fund to fudge its books. Congress also doles out the money from the fund with a small eyedropper, crippling the DOE's efforts to complete the project in a sound and timely way. To me, this is a huge black eye on Congress worthy of public outrage.

Yucca Mtn. provides a near-term answer to bringing nuclear power on line by providing a single, safe repository for waste while the technology for other alternatives are being developed. How many places where waste is generated would be as safe for its storage?

Judge or no, the mandate of a million-year safety margin is ridiculous on its face. Nothing is that safe, including deposits of radioactive ore.
The real and pressing issue as it applies to nuclear energy, and its waste, is how to apply it to current problems: foreign oil dependency, biofuels for crop lands, and, if you believe in it, global warming caused by carbon-based fuels. Nuclear energy is currently the only viable option available to positively influence all of these pressing problems.

When I lived in Nevada none of the fear-mongering made sense to me and time has not changed that. If I owned Yucca Mountain I would gladly lease it to the fedgov or even any state government that had taken such steps as have been taken there, to store waste safely. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) coalition is costing this country valuable time needed to solve some very pressing issues.

Thank you for posting an educated comment. So many people are complaining about this issue based on what they have "heard" and how dangerous this waste is. Before you complain, educate yourself.

Remember that just a few years ago, mixed hazardous wastes and acids ate through the walls of a tanker rail car on a siding in South Salt Lake and required a square mile to be evacuated and I-15 and I-80 to be shut down. This kind of stuff is originating at businesses all over our communities and going down our streets.

By contrast, nuclear fuel is a solid material that would only be hazardous if you removed it from its stainless steel container and held it in your hand. The stuff is shipped all over the country from mines to refining facilities to fabrication plants and then to the power plants. The most dangerous part of a shipment is the diesel fuel in the truck. Rep. Matheson's opposition is silly and disproportional. By his logic, we should be banning gasoline powered cars because of the hazard of their fuel.

Putting nuclear materials in the ground near cities like New York and Boston is really crazy. Yucca Mountain is hundreds of feet above the water table, and no one lives within a hundred miles. Next door are a hundred nuclear bomb craters that leak radiation.

I have to agree with most of the last posts. The danger of radiation leakage has been mitigated to the point where it is extremely unlikely to cause any harm to the environment or to people. Currently the spent waste is sitting out in piles or in concrete caskets in yards surrounding the power plants in large population areas and next to major rivers and lakes. This is much more dangerous than putting the waste in an underground chamber that is monitores and accessible in case of any problems.

I have personally been inside of Yucca Mountain. The air is bone dry inside with is extremely rare for an underground tunnel. The area is very remote. The waste would be stored in extremely durable containers which would be monitored for leaks continuosly. If any leaks did occur, the waste would be contained before ever coming close to the groundwater. The area is also very secure (it is located adjacent to the supposed Area 51) and is on the Nevada Test Range site.

I think that most fear that surrounds nuclear waste, nuclear power plants, and uranium mining are fears that come from political pandering, overzelous media reports, and special interests.