Senate committee hears SJR 7 opposition to Yucca Mountain as Nevadans, local governments testify

The Nevada Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections opened and closed a hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR 7) on SJR 7 on the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a national repository for high-level radioactive waste and took testimony but recorded no committee vote. Senator James Orangehall (State Senate District 21) sponsored the resolution and introduced an intern who presented the measure; the committee heard testimony from state agency officials, local government and environmental groups and one member of the public who opposed the resolution.

The resolution, as presented, urges federal decision-makers to reject Yucca Mountain as the nation’s high-level radioactive waste repository and to pursue a consent-based siting process. Proponents said the site is geologically unsuitable, risks groundwater contamination and would present transportation hazards across the country. Opponents at the hearing argued that stronger nuclear deployment and siting of facilities on previously disturbed federal land should be considered.

"The threat to public health in the process of transporting the waste from sites across the country to Yucca Mountain is not only a concern to Nevadans, but to all Americans," said Nathaniel Allison, a political-science intern from the University of Nevada, Reno, who presented the resolution on behalf of Senator Orangehall. Allison also warned of the potential consequences of derailments and other transport accidents.

Fred Dilger, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, told the committee the state’s opposition is grounded in scientific findings about the site. He said the repository design relies on engineering fixes that are infeasible at the required scale, noting the repository plan envisioned placing titanium "drip shields" over each of roughly 11,500 waste packages and that the rock and hydrology at the site are problematic. "The plan itself is not optimal and our opposition to the plan is based on science and technology and it is confined to the Yucca Mountain site itself, not nuclear energy," Dilger said.

Kelly Crompton, representing the City of Las Vegas, said the city supports SJR 7 and has urged the U.S. Conference of Mayors to back a consent-based approach, citing rail and highway routes that would carry spent fuel past population centers. "For the City of Las Vegas those railroads and those highways are directly behind this, our City Hall," Crompton said, noting concern about transit risks through major cities.

Environmental groups also urged the committee to back the resolution. Christie Cabrera Georgeson, deputy director of the Nevada Conservation League, said reopening Yucca Mountain would jeopardize Nevada’s water, air and wildlife and risk contaminating the state’s groundwater. Olivia Tanager, speaking for the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter, said the chapter — which played a role in stopping the project previously — strongly supports the resolution and reiterated a preference for a consent-based siting process.

One member of the public, Ed Euhling of Clark County, opposed the resolution during public testimony, characterizing opposition as "hysteria" and arguing that expanded nuclear development and reuse of previously used federal lands should be considered to meet future electricity needs.

Senator Orangehall and witnesses emphasized three concerns cited in the presentation and resolution: (1) the geological and hydrological suitability of Yucca Mountain, (2) the risks and logistics of transporting high-level radioactive waste over long distances by rail or truck, and (3) the limits of Yucca Mountain’s statutory capacity relative to current spent fuel inventories. The presentation stated a statutory limit of 77,000 metric tons and said current national inventories exceed that figure (the presenter cited "about 98,000 metric tons").

No committee vote was taken. Vice Chair Daley opened the hearing and the committee took testimony in Carson City with participants connecting from Las Vegas; the committee then closed the hearing on SJR 7 and proceeded to general public comment, where no additional speakers appeared.

The hearing record includes multiple references to pursuing a consent-based approach to siting any future national repository and to continuing outreach to Nevada’s congressional delegation and the White House. The committee did not direct staff to prepare a committee report or draft amendments during the session, and no formal action on the resolution was recorded at the hearing.

Looking ahead, supporters asked the committee to consider the resolution as a formal expression of Nevada's position to federal authorities; the transcript records no dates for a committee vote or further committee action.