WASHINGTON -- Democrats used their weekly radio address Saturday to lash out against the Bush administration's plan to store the nation's nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. [text of address below]
"The state of Nevada has vetoed this plan ... but now the president and the Republican leadership in Congress have indicated that they are going to move ahead with the plan anyway," said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.).
The Democrats' decision to use their radio platform to press the issue--the latest move in a furious campaign on both sides of the debate --appears to reflect the position of Democratic Party leaders, however, more than the anticipated votes of the party's rank and file. Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, last month vetoed the federal plan to ship 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste from across the nation for storage at Yucca, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
A House committee voted, 41 to 6, to override Guinn's veto, and 17 Democrats voted with the majority. The six opposed were all Democrats, including three from California. The House is expected to back the White House plan by a wide margin when it comes to a vote, likely this week.
Those opposed to the Yucca site believe their best chance for success lies in the Senate, where 51 votes to uphold Guinn's veto would kill the plan. President Bush in February signed off on the Yucca Mountain plan, saying it was "important for our national security and our energy future."
Those opposed to using Yucca Mountain warn that it sits in an earthquake zone. They caution against going forward with the plan before all scientific studies are completed.
"An even more devastating incident would be a terrorist attack," Berkley said in Saturday's address. "We already know that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are looking for a 'dirty bomb.' These waste transports are exactly the type of target-rich environment they are looking for."
To get the votes needed to block the plan, the anti-Yucca forces have said they would need to sway about 15 senators. They have conceded that the task will be difficult, despite having Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, who serves as whip, leading their side.
The anti-Yucca effort suffered a serious setback in March when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who had vowed to use procedural delays to block it if necessary, learned that a statute regarding votes in nuclear matters barred him from doing so.
In recent weeks lobbying by both sides has intensified.
Public Citizen, a Washington-based advocacy group, on Friday chided staff members from 22 congressional offices for taking part this weekend in a trip to Las Vegas sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute. The trip, they said, includes a visit to the site, as well as a stay at the Four Seasons Hotel.
"I did not hear Public Citizen whining when the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun [who is opposed to the plan] was overnighting in the Lincoln Bedroom when President Clinton was in office," said NEI spokesman Steve Kerekes. In 2000, Clinton vetoed a Republican-led bill designating Yucca Mountain as the nuclear waste repository.
Hi. This is Congresswoman Shelley Berkley from Las Vegas, Nevada. Next week, Congress will be voting on a plan to ship 77,000 tons of deadly high-level nuclear waste across this country to store at Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada. The State of Nevada has vetoed this plan, as is our state’s right, but now the President and the Republican leadership in Congress have indicated that they are going to move ahead with the plan anyway.
This nation has a serious nuclear waste problem. Every year our reactors create 2,000 tons of toxic nuclear waste. The only method of disposal this country has ever seriously studied is shipping the waste across the country and sweeping it under the carpet near my hometown of Las Vegas.
But there are major problems with the Administration’s plan. First of all, contrary to what the nuclear industry would have us believe, a central repository would not mean that reactor sites around the country would be cleaned out. According to the government’s shipping plans, in the year 2036, when Yucca Mountain is filled to capacity, there will still be 44,000 tons of nuclear waste stored at reactor sites. That means that after 38 years of shipping high level waste through our cities and towns we will have reduced on-site storage of nuclear waste by a mere 4%. These figures also pre-date proposals to increase our dependence on nuclear power, so this is a conservative estimate of how much waste would still be stored at reactor sites by mid-Century. Why would we want to ship nuclear waste across 45 states for 38 years if it makes no difference in the amount of waste stored on-site throughout the country?
There are also very serious scientific concerns about the government’s proposed dump. The mountain range they’ve selected for their nuclear waste dump is located in an earthquake and volcanic eruption zone. Also, studies have shown that groundwater can travel through fissures in the mountain in a very short time frame, dissolve the waste, and contaminate groundwater supplies, releasing deadly toxins into the environment of the Southwest. Recently an independent investigation found 293 unresolved scientific questions that the government had failed to address, and a technical review board expressed "limited confidence" in its success.
But despite all the scientific evidence, the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress want to move ahead with the plan anyway. There is no consideration at all for sound science, public policy, the consequences of our actions, or even for maintaining a reasonably healthy environment.
If Congress approves this project, as many as 108,000 shipments of nuclear waste will travel across 45 states. The government’s own statistical models show us we can expect between 50 and 300 accidents involving nuclear waste. People make mistakes; accidents happen. But an accident involving nuclear waste could be catastrophic, exposing whole communities to radiation and utterly destroying the environment for nearly a quarter of a million years. The cost of evacuation and remediation would be astronomic, not to mention the unspeakable costs of human suffering.
An even more devastating incident would be a terrorist attack. We already know that Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are looking for a "dirty bomb." These waste transports are exactly the type of target rich environment they are looking for. In the wake of 9-11 we cannot afford to be naive and believe that we are safe from people who would give up their lives to end ours.
Yucca Mountain would do nothing to fix the nuclear waste problem in our country. It will likely destroy vast tracts of our land for hundreds of thousands of years. And in the end, it will greatly exacerbate our vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks. With every truck, rail and barge shipment, our homeland security becomes more and more difficult to defend. The Yucca Mountain project would put us all at risk by transporting "mobile Chernobyls" through all our communities. If we can’t move the waste safely, then we shouldn’t move it at all.
Pennsylvanians have discovered an innovative approach to the problem. The PECO utility in Philadelphia has reached a kind of partnership agreement with the government, in which the Department of Energy will take title of the waste, allowing the government to secure it in reinforced facilities without moving it all around the country, and at the same time, allowing the utility to lower its tax payments and its bottom line. In the long term, this country needs to invest its resources into emerging technological solutions in which scientists can reduce the volume, toxicity, and half-life of high-level nuclear waste. And instead of expanding nuclear power in this country -- and increasing our stores of nuclear waste -- we need to focus on renewable energy sources, like we’ve done in my own home state of Nevada. Renewable energies, like geothermal, solar, and wind power can reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources, and at the same time, ensure a safe and healthy America for our children, and for their children.
This is Congresswoman Shelley Berkley from Nevada, urging all Americans to get involved and call your Senators and Members of Congress. Thank you, and God bless.
Washington, DC -- U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley offered the following statement on hearing reports of a nuclear waste shipment security breach. Reports of the breach detail how escaped convicts illegally boarded a train carrying spent nuclear fuel.
"If prisoners on the run can hop on board a nuclear train, how can anyone possibly suggest that these trains would be defensible from committed terrorists. This event proves that we can't protect these shipments of nuclear waste. They cannot be defended and they pose a tremendous security risk to the entire country. If we are serious about the health and safety of the American people, we need to immobilize the waste immediately and construct reinforced storage facilities near the reactor sites themselves. By storing the waste on-site, we minimize security risks posed by the transportation of nuclear waste."
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |