[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/