Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nevada Governor Vetoes Yucca Mountain
Environmental News Service ^ | 04/08/2002

Posted on 04/09/2002 11:11:28 AM PDT by cogitator

Nevada Governor Vetoes Yucca Mountain

LAS VEGAS, Nevada, April 8, 2002 (ENS) - Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn has vetoed the Bush administration's recommendation to build a permanent repository for radioactive wastes at Yucca Mountain.

"Let me make one thing crystal clear - Yucca Mountain is not inevitable, and Yucca Mountain is no bargaining chip," Guinn said Monday morning in an address at the University of Nevada. "And, so long as I am governor, it will never become one."

"Yucca Mountain is not safe, it is not suitable," Guinn continued, "and we will expose the Department of Energy's dirty little secrets about Yucca Mountain."

Guinn traveled to Washington DC today to file his official Notice of Disapproval, also known as a Governor's Veto, with both houses of Congress. In 1982, Nevada was given the unequivocal right to veto the president's recommendation that Yucca Mountain become the nation's sole repository for high level nuclear wastes - the first time a state been given the power to veto a presidential decision.

Congress will have 90 legislative days to override Guinn's veto on a simple majority vote.

"This veto belongs to each and every one of you who have battled against a project that would be detrimental to the public health and safety of our citizens, our precious natural resources and our economy," Guinn said, "and to the other 43 states and hundreds of cities and towns in America through which this dangerous waste will be transported."

In 1987, Congress selected Yucca Mountain as the only site it would study for disposal of high level nuclear wastes, the most dangerous of radioactive wastes. Guinn argued that Yucca Mountain was selected because it is located in a section of Nevada with a population of less than one million, and just four legislative representatives.

But its isolation means that Yucca Mountain is thousands of miles away from 90 percent of the nation's 110 nuclear power plants, requiring the wastes to be transported across country, passing through populated areas along the way. The Department of Energy (DOE) plans to use Yucca Mountain for the disposal of 77,000 tons of high level radioactive waste and spent fuel from throughout the United States and 42 countries.

"The fact that the Yucca Mountain decision was made without any analysis of the transportation risks to the 123 million Americans in states through which this dangerous waste will travel is the dirty little secret," Guinn said.

Citing more than $100 million the nuclear power industry has spent to promote the project, Guinn asked all Nevadans to contribute at least $1 to the Nevada Protection Fund, which has now topped $6 million.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: energy; nuclear; storage; waste
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: Tijeras_Slim
Nevada and the Governor were more than happy to suck as much money out of this project as they possibly could, wait until it was built and then say "Forget it."

I've done work there, once on site, that waste won't go anywhere.

I've been in those tunnels, too. Short of a magnitude 15 earthquake (that would probably fracture the Earth anyway) that diverts the entire volumetric flow of the Colorado River through the fragmented remains of the storage casks, that stuff is staying put.

I helped with some of the early studies of fission product transport through those rock strata. We're talking about migration rates measured in microns per geologic epoch. My guess is that the material will get out someday - when the Sun swells to nova size and melts the crust of the earth away.

21 posted on 04/09/2002 12:00:30 PM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
Guess what governor, they didn't mine the nuclear fuel from underneath the powerplants.

How much of the uranium was mined in Nevada in the firat place?

22 posted on 04/09/2002 12:03:45 PM PDT by tubebender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73
No I didn't reply to the wrong poster. The liberals "care deeply" about a spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest or a stray caribou in ANWR. Enough to stop in its tracks oil exploration by a nation that desperately needs energy. They do NOT care about the lives or safety of the American people one hundreth as much.

I'm for ANWR drilling and I'm probably for the Yucca repository. But I care one hell of a lot more about the Yucca risk than I do about the Caribou in Alaska. You will see that the liberals don't. Neither ANWR or Yucca is in their states, but Yucca could affect their states' populations. They do not care about American people.

23 posted on 04/09/2002 12:12:00 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Let me guess it's an election year and Gwinn's a struggling incumbent that has to appear as though he's fighting for Nevada.

Bump for later.

24 posted on 04/09/2002 12:22:16 PM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
No I didn't reply to the wrong poster. The liberals "care deeply" about a spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest or a stray caribou in ANWR. Enough to stop in its tracks oil exploration by a nation that desperately needs energy. They do NOT care about the lives or safety of the American people one hundreth as much.

Well, you're right about one thing, the libs don't care about the energy security of this country. Here we have the Arabs about to turn off the spigot over the turmoil in the Middle East and even that won't sway the opposition of the Rat libs to the ANWR development proposals. They'd just as soon have us all riding Shank's Mare and a collapsed economy before they'd consider exploitation of proven, reliable, domestic energy resources, except for unworkable, wacko "alternative" source that won't reliably power your crapper on a cloudy, calm day.

25 posted on 04/09/2002 12:22:40 PM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Jenin, Gaza City, Ramallah, ...
26 posted on 04/09/2002 12:56:14 PM PDT by SR71A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
Actually, spent fuel is more highly radioactive than fresh fuel, due to the fragments of uranium atoms that are highly unstable and very anxious to shed excess neutrons, electrons, and gamma rays. Spent fuel is normally stored in large pools of purified water on site at the power plant, where it glows for a year or two with the eerie blue of Cherenkov radiation as the particles of decay slam into the surrounding water at faster than the speed of light in water.

If the fuel were reprocessed, the volume of the waste would be significantly reduced, we would have enough fuel to power nuclear reactors until the sun burned out with proper reactor design, and the remaining small volume of waste would decay to background levels in only a few hundred years.

27 posted on 04/09/2002 1:08:11 PM PDT by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Saudi Arabia sounds good to me!
28 posted on 04/09/2002 1:08:22 PM PDT by pulaskibush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL, cogitator
Saudi?

Er. Not just no, He|| no. Nuclear waste == Raw material for A-bombs. Think before you post please.

29 posted on 04/09/2002 1:11:43 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
How many Federal tax dollars have been spent on Yucca Mountain in the past 15 years?

Couple billion?

30 posted on 04/09/2002 1:18:40 PM PDT by CJinVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: vigl
None, the nuke plants pay into a fund for every MW generated. There are billions sitting in the trust to match the spent fuel sitting in the cooldown pools.
31 posted on 04/09/2002 1:20:57 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
It was a JOKE>........... get it.......
32 posted on 04/09/2002 1:23:51 PM PDT by KQQL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Like you, I've always been in favor of nuclear power, but I also have always been in favor of knowing what to do with the waste products before they were a problem. Our government, pushed by the likes of ENRON, put the cart before the horse - as usual.

In fact, there is no safe place on this earth to put all that radioactive garbage. Worse yet, as the Governor has pointed out, there is a significant hazard involved in transporting it to any site. However, now that the problem is upon us, the transportation problem is a given, one we have no choice but to deal with. The storage problem, on the other hand, is one we don't have to deal with.

Why not put NASA to work doing something useful? Why not package the stuff up and shoot it into the sun?

33 posted on 04/09/2002 1:26:25 PM PDT by oldfart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vigl
Couple billion?
Wouldn't doubt it.
34 posted on 04/09/2002 1:26:46 PM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
Why not put NASA to work doing something useful? Why not package the stuff up and shoot it into the sun?

One Challenger-type accident and then you've made the entire east coast of Florida uninhabitable for centuries.

(Did I make that sound like it was a bad thing?)

35 posted on 04/09/2002 1:28:38 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
Thanks. I forgot about that. Does the DOE manage the money?
36 posted on 04/09/2002 1:28:47 PM PDT by CJinVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
Talk about reality-challanged-liberal.

Actually, we're talking about the Republican governor of a conservative state.

37 posted on 04/09/2002 1:29:54 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Part of the problem with this "Let's dump it all in [fill in the state of your choice]" is that it means we have to truck or train that horrible waste across the country. An accident waiting to happen, as they say.
38 posted on 04/09/2002 1:31:24 PM PDT by in_troth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vigl
I think there's some sort of govt chartered non-profit managing the trust. Not sure.

It was govt mandated and is common sense. Bet it's still staffed by nephews.

39 posted on 04/09/2002 1:33:07 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chimera
OTOH, we have the process of scientific inquiry, which is beholden to no one other than Mother Nature, which has produced study after study indicating the site is safe and suitable for the intended purpose.

Apparently you have not been following this process. Congress decided a dozen years ago that Yucca Mounain would be the only site considered. Then it ordered the Energy Dept. to prepare studies justifying that decision. And in fact so many studies indicated that Yucca is not a geologically stable as they had hoped that they had to design a storage container that would keep the fuel safe regardless of geological conditions. Which means, as some posters have pointed out, that the waste could be stored anywhere.

40 posted on 04/09/2002 1:33:20 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson