[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Yucca Mountain Vote



I received this via another list server.  I think some of the comments are

of interest.  They may also show where the next lines against Yucca Mountain

will be drawn.



-- John 

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist 

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD  20715-2024



E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)      



-----Original Message-----

From: AIP listserver [mailto:fyi@aip.org]

Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 3:43 PM

To: fyi-mailing@aip.org

Subject: FYI #81 - Yucca Mountain Vote





FYI

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News

Number 81: July 12, 2002



Senate Vote Allows Yucca Mountain Project to Proceed



With a Senate vote on July 9, Congress has now played its role in

the approval of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the nation's central

nuclear waste repository.  The Senate vote of 60-39, coupled with

a House vote on May 8, effectively overrides the Nevada

Governor's veto of the project, enabling the Department of Energy

to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) (see FYIs #51 and #63).  Forty-five Republicans

and 15 Democrats voted in support of the project.  Only three

Republicans, John Ensign (NV), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO), and

Lincoln Chafee (RI), as well as Independent James Jeffords (VT),

voted against it.  



The Senate devoted four hours of debate to this issue.  A number

of Senators expressed concerns over the validity of the science

supporting the Yucca Mountain site, and over the safety of

transporting spent nuclear fuel to Nevada.  Many, however, felt

it was preferable to consolidate much of the nation's waste at

one location than let it continue to accumulate at current rates

at temporary storage sites around the country, or be moved to

other locations without a coordinated transportation plan. 

Supporters emphasized that congressional override of the Nevada

veto does not give the go-ahead for construction at Yucca

Mountain, but only allows DOE to submit an application for a site

approval license.  The NRC can then take up to four years to

examine the supporting documents and consider the suitability of

the site before making a decision on issuing a license.  Selected

excerpts from the debate are provided below:



JEFF BINGAMAN (D-NM): "The Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, which I chair...carefully considered the arguments

against the repository that have been raised by opponents of the

project.  I am the first to admit that not all of the questions

that have been raised by the opponents have yet been adequately

answered.  They have not been.  Many of those are questions,

though, that are best answered by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission in its licensing procedures and nothing in the record

before us justifies a decision, in my view, to terminate the

program at this stage."



JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV): "Currently we have 45,000 metric tons of

nuclear waste in America. By the time Yucca Mountain is supposed

to start receiving waste in 2010, we will have 65,000 metric

tons. When Yucca Mountain is completed in 2036, it will have

70,000 metric tons in Yucca Mountain, but because we are

producing new nuclear waste every year, spread around the country

still will be 47,000 metric tons, virtually the same as we have

today spread out all over the country....  It is not a question

of national security. It is going to be safer to have it in one

site. But we are still going to have all these other sites, so

national security is focused on transportation more than it is

anything else."



JON KYL (R-AZ): "Senator Ensign made the point that even if we

have a site such as Yucca Mountain, of course, we are still going

to have the other storage sites around the country.  That is very

true.  But I think it begs the question of what we are going to

do with the majority of this waste.  It is a little like saying

since every Wednesday morning everybody in my area of Phoenix is

going to put their garbage out, and because we keep producing

garbage, we should not have a dump to where all of that garbage

is taken.  It is certainly true that every Wednesday everybody is

going to put their garbage out.  We produce more garbage, and to

store it onsite is in effect storing it on the curb.  That

doesn't argue for the proposition that there should not be a

central repository where that material is taken and disposed of

in a proper way."



PETE DOMENICI (R-NM): "I am well aware that hundreds of

outstanding issues have been identified by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission....  In many meetings with the NRC chairman, as well

as many of the commissioners, I have always been impressed with

their intent to deal with this...through careful study of the

relevant scientific facts.  The NRC has the expertise to evaluate

these outstanding issues, and I am confident that they will do so

with great care."



BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL (R-CO): "I don't oppose nuclear power.... 

My opposition to designating Yucca Mountain is deeply rooted in

my strongly held belief in States' rights.... I cannot, in good

conscience, vote to override a Governor's veto, when the long-

term effect has the potential to destroy that State's economy.... 

I likened the issue to a homeowner who builds his big house on a

small lot, and then realizes that he failed to build a septic

tank for the house.  Rather than change his design, the homeowner

just puts the septic tank on his neighbor's property....  We

shouldn't force Nevada to be a septic tank for other States."

                                                  

RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): "[W]hile Yucca may be the right site, this

is the wrong time to have Congress 'approve' the site while so

many regulatory questions are yet unanswered....  For those of us

who represent states that are grappling with nuclear waste

storage questions, the short time frame mandated in law for the

consideration of this resolution has made it extremely difficult

to analyze its full effects on behalf of our constituents."



TOM DASCHLE (D-SD): "Let us be very clear: The claim that science

supports building a national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain

is simply not true.  The truth is, leading independent scientists

have raised troubling questions about the scientific basis for

the Department of Energy's recommendation regarding Yucca

Mountain....  We are being forced to decide this issue

prematurely - without sufficient scientific information - because

this administration is doing the bidding of special interests

that simply want to make the deadly waste they have generated

somebody else's problem.  That is wrong.  We ought to make this

decision on the basis of sound science, not pressure from the

energy industry..."



HERB KOHL (D-WI): "I understand the concerns some of my

colleagues have on the safety of the Yucca Mountain site.  What

we are asking science to do by proving that this site will be

safe for tens of thousands of years is unheard of, and may well

be beyond our current capabilities.  But this site, on the Nevada

Nuclear Test site, is certainly safer than leaving the waste at

132 sites nationwide.  Sites scattered around the country that

were never designed to be a permanent solution....  Burying our

waste problems for future generations to deal with is not

something we should be proud of.  I hope the Congress and the

administration will continue to fund nuclear research that will

investigate ways to neutralize this waste.  The repository at

Yucca Mountain doesn't have to be the last word on nuclear waste,

and I hope we can do better in the future."



###############

Audrey T. Leath

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

(301) 209-3094

http://www.aip.org/gov

##END##########

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/