CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository: Difference between revisions
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository (view source)
Revision as of 00:23, 8 February 2025
, 8 FebruaryText replacement - "Associated Press" to "Associated Press"
m (Text replacement - "Los Angeles Times" to "Los Angeles Times") |
m (Text replacement - "Associated Press" to "Associated Press") |
||
| Line 269: | Line 269: | ||
In 2008, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works found that failure to perform to contractual requirements could cost taxpayers up to $11 billion by 2020.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Hylko |first=James M. |last2=Peltier |first2=Robert |name-list-style=and |date=May 1, 2010 |title=The U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Policy: Road to Nowhere |url=http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/The-U-S-Spent-Nuclear-Fuel-Policy-Road-to-Nowhere_2651.html |work=Power}}</ref> In 2013, this estimate of taxpayer liability was raised to $21 billion.<ref>{{cite press release|url=https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/07/30/563278/24300/en/Fertel-Tells-Congress-to-Act-Now-on-Used-Nuclear-Fuel-Legislation.html|title=Fertel Tells Congress to Act Now on Used Nuclear Fuel Legislation|first=Nuclear Energy|last=Institute|date=July 30, 2013|website=GlobeNewswire News Room}}</ref> In July 2009, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 30 on amendments to HHR3183 ({{USHRollCall|2009|591}}) to not defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the FY2010 budget.<ref name="2010funding"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3183/show |title=H.R.3183 – Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 |access-date=2010-06-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090724070455/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3183/show |archive-date=July 24, 2009}}</ref> In 2013, the House of Representatives voted twice during the 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations debate by over 80% majority to reject elimination of Yucca Mountain as the nation's only nuclear waste solution.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/|title=Las Vegas News | Breaking News & Headlines|website=Las Vegas Review-Journal}}</ref> | In 2008, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works found that failure to perform to contractual requirements could cost taxpayers up to $11 billion by 2020.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Hylko |first=James M. |last2=Peltier |first2=Robert |name-list-style=and |date=May 1, 2010 |title=The U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Policy: Road to Nowhere |url=http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/The-U-S-Spent-Nuclear-Fuel-Policy-Road-to-Nowhere_2651.html |work=Power}}</ref> In 2013, this estimate of taxpayer liability was raised to $21 billion.<ref>{{cite press release|url=https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/07/30/563278/24300/en/Fertel-Tells-Congress-to-Act-Now-on-Used-Nuclear-Fuel-Legislation.html|title=Fertel Tells Congress to Act Now on Used Nuclear Fuel Legislation|first=Nuclear Energy|last=Institute|date=July 30, 2013|website=GlobeNewswire News Room}}</ref> In July 2009, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 30 on amendments to HHR3183 ({{USHRollCall|2009|591}}) to not defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the FY2010 budget.<ref name="2010funding"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3183/show |title=H.R.3183 – Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 |access-date=2010-06-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090724070455/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3183/show |archive-date=July 24, 2009}}</ref> In 2013, the House of Representatives voted twice during the 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations debate by over 80% majority to reject elimination of Yucca Mountain as the nation's only nuclear waste solution.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/|title=Las Vegas News | Breaking News & Headlines|website=Las Vegas Review-Journal}}</ref> | ||
On April 13, 2010, [[Washington (state)|the state of Washington]] filed suit to prevent the closing of Yucca Mountain, since this would slow efforts to clean up the [[Hanford Nuclear Reservation]].<ref>{{Cite news |author=Dininny |first=Shannon |date=April 14, 2010 |title=Washington sues to keep Yucca alive |url=http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/apr/14/washington-sues-to-keep-yucca-alive/ |access-date=2012-03-14 |work=[[The Spokesman-Review]] |agency= | On April 13, 2010, [[Washington (state)|the state of Washington]] filed suit to prevent the closing of Yucca Mountain, since this would slow efforts to clean up the [[Hanford Nuclear Reservation]].<ref>{{Cite news |author=Dininny |first=Shannon |date=April 14, 2010 |title=Washington sues to keep Yucca alive |url=http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/apr/14/washington-sues-to-keep-yucca-alive/ |access-date=2012-03-14 |work=[[The Spokesman-Review]] |agency=Associated Press}}</ref> [[South Carolina]], [[Aiken County, South Carolina|Aiken County]] (the location of the Savannah River site) and others joined Washington state in the suit.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Appeals_court_rejects_Yucca_Mountain_lawsuit-0407115.html |title=Appeals court rejects Yucca Mountain lawsuit |work=[[World Nuclear News]] |date=April 7, 2011 |access-date=2012-03-14}}</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] dismissed the suit in July 2011, saying the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had not ruled on the withdrawal of the license application.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Mills |first=Chad |date=July 2, 2011 |title=Aiken County still optimistic after Yucca Mountain lawsuit dismissed in federal court |url=http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/07/02/1552655/court-rules-against-washington.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130618035624/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/07/02/1552655/court-rules-against-washington.html |archive-date=June 18, 2013 |access-date=2012-03-14 |work=[[Tri-City Herald]]}}</ref> Washington and South Carolina filed another lawsuit on July 29.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2011-07-30/washington-state-sc-file-suit-yucca-plans |title=Washington state, S.C. file suit on Yucca plans |agency=Associated Press |work=[[Augusta Chronicle]] |date=July 30, 2011 |access-date=2012-03-14}}</ref> | ||
With $32 billion received from power companies to fund the project, and $12 billion spent to study and build it, the federal government had $27 billion left, including [[interest]]. In March 2012, [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Lindsey Graham]] introduced a bill requiring three-fourths of that money to be given back to customers, and the remainder to the companies for storage improvements.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Rosen |first=James |date=March 13, 2012 |title=Graham wants Yucca fees repaid in rebates to electricity customers in S.C. |url=http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/03/13/2714903/graham-wants-yucca-fees-repaid.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319163712/http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/03/13/2714903/graham-wants-yucca-fees-repaid.html |archive-date=March 19, 2012 |access-date=2012-03-14 |work=[[The Sun News]]}}</ref> | With $32 billion received from power companies to fund the project, and $12 billion spent to study and build it, the federal government had $27 billion left, including [[interest]]. In March 2012, [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Lindsey Graham]] introduced a bill requiring three-fourths of that money to be given back to customers, and the remainder to the companies for storage improvements.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Rosen |first=James |date=March 13, 2012 |title=Graham wants Yucca fees repaid in rebates to electricity customers in S.C. |url=http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/03/13/2714903/graham-wants-yucca-fees-repaid.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319163712/http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/03/13/2714903/graham-wants-yucca-fees-repaid.html |archive-date=March 19, 2012 |access-date=2012-03-14 |work=[[The Sun News]]}}</ref> | ||