July 10, 2002
J. Priest
6400 N Dixie Hway
Newport , MI 48166
Thank you . . .
. . for contacting me regarding your support for depositing nuclear
waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. I understand your view that we need
a
central, permanent storage facility for nuclear waste.
As you may know, on July 9, 2002, the Senate passed Senate Joint
Resolution 34 by a vote of 60-39. This resolution approves the site
at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the
disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel,
pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
My initial view was to support moving ahead with the Yucca Mountain
project at this time. However, a few weeks ago, I began to re-evaluate
my position given September 11th and the continued terrorist threats
to
our country. I have asked a series of detailed questions of the U.S.
Department of Energy and I am very concerned about the answers I have
received, particularly regarding the transportation and security
issues.
I recently released the following statement on this matter:
Since the tragic events in New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon,
Administration officials have repeatedly warned us about future
attacks. Specifically, on May 19, 2002, Vice President Cheney stated
on Meet the
Press that the prospects of a future terrorist attack against the
United States is "almost certain" and "not a matter of if, but when."
Furthermore, on June 10, 2002, the American people became aware of
a
plot to potentially detonate a so-called "dirty bomb" which could kill
thousands of people and send poisonous nuclear matter throughout the
air exposing hundreds of thousands of more people to nuclear radiation.
These developments put the issue of transporting nuclear waste to Yucca
Mountain in a brand new light. Specifically, I have been studying
how
the nuclear waste from Michigan's four storage sites would be transported
across Michigan to Yucca Mountain and how the Federal government would
ensure that it is completely protected from a terrorist attack.
As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I supported the
concept of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. However,
the events
of September 11th and our ongoing war against terrorism have changed
the
course of our country forever, and I do not believe that it is in the
best interest of this country or my constituents for me to support
the Yucca
Mountain resolution at this time, without more specific plans for
addressing these national security issues.
The opening of Yucca Mountain will generate thousands of nuclear waste
shipments by truck, rail or barge through cities and towns across the
country; however the Department of Energy (DOE) is only beginning to
look at developing a transportation plan and designating transport
routes.
I am also concerned that the DOE has not implemented any additional
security requirements for transporting nuclear waste since September
11th to
ensure the safety of Americans and to prevent a terrorist attack of
these
shipments.
I am deeply troubled that no government agency has conducted full-scale
physical tests of the casks that will be used to transport nuclear
waste to Yucca Mountain, nor have these testing requirements been reviewed
or
strengthened to take into account how the casks will perform under
a
potential terrorist attack. I am also concerned about the Bush
Administration's actions to weaken environmental regulations that
directly affect the safety surrounding the siting of Yucca Mountain.
This is
part of an ongoing pattern by this Administration of weakening important
regulations that safeguard our public health and the environment, in
order to benefit special interests.
And, last but certainly not least, as a strong advocate for the Great
Lakes, I find it disturbing that the DOE's Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Final EIS) describes barging nuclear waste on the Great
Lakes as a transportation option. The Final EIS estimates as
many as 431
barge shipments of nuclear waste could occur on Lake Michigan.
When I asked
the Secretary of Energy in a June 20, 2002 letter to respond to the
possible barging of the waste, he stated that the DOE "has made no
decision on
the matter." This simply is not a good enough answer. I
cannot support
any plan that would include a transportation option that endangers
one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply, and the source of safe
drinking
water for the entire Great Lakes region.
The U.S. Senate is being asked to vote on the Yucca Mountain resolution
before the end of this July. This vote will be the last time
Congress
will have a real voice on this issue, and this resolution would allow
the DOE to move forward with the opening of Yucca Mountain without
any
further Congressional action. Based on my examination of the
DOE's Final EIS
and other information, I do not feel that the Bush Administration has
a
safety plan for transporting waste to Yucca Mountain that protects
Michiganians or the Great Lakes, and therefore, I cannot support the
Yucca Mountain
resolution.
Thank you again for contacting my office about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator
RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:
The notion that the Senate vote went by who has nuke plants and wants to get rid of waste, etc., is simplistic and (excuse me) off the mark. First of all, in Congress, a lot is done by deals that have nothing to do with the substance of the resolution -- a sort of "if you vote with me on x, I will vote with you on y." Second, deals are made regarding going against your party. For example, the State of Washington split their vote. Both Senators are Democrats; in fact, Patty Murray, who voted FOR Yucca Mountain, is generally considered the more liberal of the two. My guess (and that's all it is) is that they got together and decided that one of them would represent the Seattle area and the other, the Tri-Cities/Spokane area.Also, I believe every Senator knew how many votes were needed and most of the votes were decided a while ago. The bottom line for any vote is how the constituencies will react. For example, New Mexico has no nuclear plants. However, Bingaman has a relatively pro-nuke constituency (the two labs, the WIPP, and the Air Force) so he was going to vote to override anyway.
Why did Chafee (R) and Leahy (D) both vote against their leadership? Why did Ben Campbell (R) vote against his leadership?
Most of what went on during the debate was posturing, and a great deal of the posturing was pandering to the current "liberal" canon. That is the big question in my mind: why does "liberal" and Democrat seem to equal anti-nuke? It sure wasn't that way 20 years ago.
Ruth
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com