Editing Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository (section)

=== Related legislation (2017–2019) ===
On March 15, 2017, the Trump administration announced it would request congressional approval for $120 million to restart licensing activity at the Yucca Mountain repository, with funding also to be used to create an interim storage program. The project would consolidate nuclear waste across the United States in Yucca Mountain, which had been stockpiled in local locations since 2010.<ref name="Author for CNBC, 2017">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/16/the-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-dump-a-political-hot-potato-is-back.html
 |title=The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, a political hot potato, is back
 |last=DiChristopher
 |first=Tom
 |date=March 16, 2017 
 |publisher=CNBC
 |access-date=April 29, 2019
 }}</ref> The federal budget proposal<ref name="Brett McGinness for RGI, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/02/20/todays-debate-should-nevada-continue-fight-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-repository-dump/355398002/
 |title=Today's debate: Should Nevada continue to fight Yucca nuclear waste repository?
 |last=McGinness
 |first=Brett
 |date=February 20, 2018 
 |work=[[Reno Gazette Journal]]
 |access-date=April 29, 2019
 }}</ref> was refused by the U.S. Senate.<ref name="Fred Pearce for NYT, 2018">
{{cite news
 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/nuclear-power-radioactive-waste.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FYucca%20Mountain&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
 |title=Awash in Radioactive Waste
 |last=Pearce
 |first=Fred
 |date=May 24, 2018 
 |work=[[The New York Times]]
 }}</ref> Although his administration had allocated money to the project, in October 2018, President Donald Trump stated he opposed the use of Yucca mountain for dumping,<ref name="Judy Fahys for KUER, 2018"/> saying he agreed "with the people of Nevada."<ref name="Seung Min Kim for Washington Post, 2018">
{{cite news
 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-signals-opposition-to-nuclear-waste-site-in-nevada-despite-his-budget-proposals-to-fund-it/2018/10/21/50eff246-d571-11e8-9559-712cbf726d1c_story.html?noredirect=on
 |title=Trump signals opposition to nuclear waste site in Nevada despite his budget proposals to fund it
 |last=Min Kim
 |first=Seung
 |date=October 21, 2018 
 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]
 }}</ref>

On May 11, 2018, the bill H.R. 3053 was approved in a 340–72 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.<ref name="Parkinson for ABC, 2018"/> The bill directed the DOE to resume the licensing process for Yucca Mountain, with licensing for a permanent site at the mountain to "take up to five years."<ref name="Michael Collins for USA Today, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucca-mountain-congress-works-revive-dormant-nuclear-waste-dump/664153002/
 |title=Congress works to revive long-delayed plan to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain
 |last=Collins
 |first=Michael
 |date=June 3, 2018 
 |website=[[USA Today]]
 }}</ref> The [[Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act]] was sponsored by [[John Shimkus]]. ''The Hill'' clarified that the bill would "set a path forward for the DOE to resume the process of planning for and building the southern Nevada site, transfer land to the DOE for it, ease the federal funding mechanism and allow DOE to build or license a temporary site to store waste while the Yucca project is being planned and built."<ref name="Timothy Cama for The Hill, Year"/>

The bill would "direct [the DOE] to revive the licensing process for Yucca Mountain to be designated as the country’s permanent site for nuclear waste." The bill would bring together waste from 121 locations in 39 states. All Nevada representatives opposed the bill. The measure was scheduled to go to the U.S. Senate next, and if passed there, would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide on the matter within 30 months.<ref name="Parkinson for ABC, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nevada-lawmakers-push-back-effort-revive-nuclear-waste/story?id=55095388
 |title=Nevada lawmakers push back on effort to revive nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain
 |last=Parkinson
 |first=John
 |date=May 11, 2018
  |publisher=ABC News
 |access-date=April 29, 2019
 }}</ref>

''The Hill'' noted that the bill received widespread support from lawmakers arguing that nuclear waste was best transferred out of their districts to Yucca Mountain, a concept opposed by Nevada representatives, with politicians such as [[Dina Titus]] dubbing it the "Screw Nevada 2.0" bill. Titus proposed an amendment that would have required long-term storage to be kept in locales that consented, which the U.S. House of Representatives rejected, 332–80.<ref name="Timothy Cama for The Hill, Year">
{{cite web
 |url=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/387086-house-votes-to-advance-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-project
 |title=House votes to advance Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project
 |last=Cama
 |first=Timothy
 |date=May 10, 2018
 |website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]
 |access-date=April 30, 2019
 }}</ref> In their opposition to the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository, Nevada representatives were supported by U.S. Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]] of California and other politicians.<ref name="Staff for The LA Times, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-lame-duck-yucca-mountain-20181217-story.html
 |title=Don't let the window close on a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage deal
 |date=December 17, 2018
 |website=[[Los Angeles Times]]
 |access-date=April 30, 2019
 }}</ref>

In June 2018, the Trump administration and some members of Congress again began proposing using Yucca Mountain, with Nevada Senators raising opposition.<ref name="Michael Collins for USA Today, 2018"/> By early 2019, use of Yucca Mountain was in "political limbo" as opposition to the site led to an impasse. In January 2019, a panel of scientists introduced to Congress a 126-page report, ''Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste Management'', which proposed including Yucca Mountain as a potential repository with "development of a consensus-based siting process, but one that would still include Yucca Mountain as a candidate."<ref name="Martin for Review Journal, 2019">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/reset-on-nations-nuclear-waste-policy-includes-yucca-mountain-1606813/
 |title='Reset' on nation's nuclear waste policy includes Yucca Mountain
 |last=Martin
 |first=Gary
 |date=February 27, 2019
 |website=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]
 }}</ref>

[[Nevada National Security Site]] officials in April 2019 assured the public that the Device Assembly Facility on the Nevada security site was safe from earthquake threats. In contrast, Nevada officials claimed seismic activity in the region made it unsafe for the storage of nuclear waste.<ref name="Gary Martin for Review Journal, 2019">
{{cite web |last=Martin |first=Gary |date=April 5, 2019 |title=Government says Nevada site for plutonium storage is safe |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/government-says-nevada-site-for-plutonium-storage-is-safe-1634260/ |access-date=April 30, 2019 |website=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]}}</ref> On April 1, 2019, the ''[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]'' noted that "Nevada Democrats in the House" were seeking to block transfers of plutonium from the DOE into the state by the use of the appropriations process.<ref name="Gary martin for Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2019">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada-house-democrats-draw-lines-on-plutonium-yucca-1631187/
 |title=Nevada House Democrats draw lines on plutonium, Yucca
 |last=Martin
 |first=Gary
 |date=April 1, 2019
 |website=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]
 |access-date=May 13, 2019}}</ref>