Attempt at Yucca budget cut fails
WASHINGTON — Despite criticism over the past five years aimed at exposing perceived flaws at Yucca Mountain and shortcomings in its management, a vote on Wednesday showed Nevada lawmakers still have a way to go to persuade Congress to abandon nuclear waste burial in the state.
The House brushed aside an amendment that would have cut $202.45 million from the Energy Department’s budget for the nuclear waste project next year. The vote was 80 in favor of the cut and 351 opposed, a surprisingly large margin with its three Nevada sponsors on the short end.
The budget cut drew fewer votes to the Nevada side than in 2002, when the House voted 306-117 to select Yucca Mountain for the repository. Last year, an amendment to restrict activity on the DOE’s nuclear waste Web site lost, 271-147.
“The conventional wisdom has said in Nevada that Yucca Mountain is dead. This is proof that Yucca Mountain is alive and well,” said Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.
Meanwhile, Ward Sproat, director of the Energy Department’s civilian nuclear waste office, said he was appreciative of the outcome.
“Yucca Mountain is critical to the nation’s current and future energy and national security needs,” Sproat said.
The vote cleared the way for the House to pass a 2008 spending bill containing $494.5 million for the Yucca program, the amount DOE requested.
The Yucca Mountain vote was the first one in Congress since Democrats gained control this year, but that did not make a difference. Fifteen Republicans and 65 Democrats voted for the Yucca budget cut, while 167 Democrats and 184 Republicans voted against it.
Berkley noted Democrats outnumbered Republicans in favor of the amendment, while Porter and Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., pointed to pro-Yucca sentiment from both parties.
“It is apparent that support for dumping nuclear waste in Nevada is shared by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress,” Heller said.
Political science professor Eric Herzik said the House vote will put pressure on Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., to deliver Yucca budget cuts when the energy bill reaches the Senate.
The lopsided vote “doesn’t help Reid,” said Herzik, who is department chairman at the University of Nevada, Reno.
Reid, the Senate majority leader, has reduced Yucca spending in the past, “and he will continue to do so,” spokesman Jon Summers said.
During debate, Porter and Berkley replayed the criticisms that have been leveled at the Yucca program since the Nevada site was designated in 2002.
E-mails that suggested science documentation had been faked forced DOE to rework chunks of research at great cost, they said.
But Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, accused the Nevadans of “NIMBY: not in my back yard.”
“At some point we all have to go beyond parochial politics and do the right thing for the entire nation,” Hobson said.
Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., energy subcommittee chairman, said stopping Yucca Mountain will stall approval of new nuclear power plants and license extensions at existing plants.
“This amendment will constrain our ability to grow our economy without emitting any more greenhouse gases,” Visclosky said.
As long as there are members of Congress who have nuclear waste in their districts and want it gone, Nevada will be a target, Berkley said. There is waste in 38 states.
“I can see it from the look in their eyes,” she said. “As soon as you start talking about Yucca Mountain, their eyes glaze over.”