Senate Vote in July: Congress Nearing Approval of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository

On May 7th representatives of national environmental, public interest, taxpayer and consumer groups joined members of Congress to highlight the upcoming vote on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Their press conference on that day alerted many to the dangers of the Yucca Mountain waste proposal, and urged lawmakers in both Houses to reject it.

But the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of H.J. Res. 87 just a day later; which would allow nuclear waste to be transported to, and stored in, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. And on June 5th, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved H.J. Res. 87, the veto override measure.

The full Senate is expected to take up debate soon, and "is required to take up the resolu- tion before July 25." Lawmakers appear to be working on a unanimous consent agreement to bring up legislation the second week of July that would overturn Nevada's veto of using Yucca Mountain.

At the May press conference, Debbie Sease, legislative director of the Sierra Club, said, "Stopping Yucca is a huge priority for the major national environmental, consumer and safe energy organizations because of the grave threat to public health and the environment that this project poses." Jill Lancelot, legislative director of Taxpayers for Common Sense, added: "The Yucca Mountain proposal is a bad solution to a very real problem. Support of Yucca Mountain is a roadblock to finding a cost-effective solution to the nation's nuclear waste problem."

Yucca Mountain Project Timeline

On February 14th, 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham officially recommended to President Bush that a nuclear waste repository be developed at Yucca Mountain. The next day President Bush approved the recommendation.

On April 8th, Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn issued a Notice of Objection, which serves as a veto to the site recommendation.

Congress can override Nevada's veto with a majority vote in both Houses. A vote was taken in the U.S. House of Representatives on May 8, with a majority (306-117) overriding the state-rights option. A vote is expected in July in the Senate, in accordance with the expedited procedure defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act -which has defined an expedited and tightly constrained process for Congressional approval of the proposed repository.

If Congress approves the repository proposal, the Department of Energy (DOE) must apply for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). If the license is granted, construction will begin. If all goes according to the DOE's plan, waste will be accepted at Yucca Mountain beginning in 2010 and will continue to arrive at Yucca Mountain for at least 24 years, with the final "emplacement" activities ending after 2035.

Why Oppose Yucca Nuclear Waste Dump?

According to Public Citizen's "Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program," the Yucca Mountain site is unsuitable for a high-level waste repository because:

• Thirty-three earthquake faults crisscross the area: the rock is fractured by seismic activity.
• The repository sits atop an aquifer that is a current source of drinking water.
• The Department of Energy's repository design relies mainly on underground storage containers to isolate the waste.
• The waste's dangerous radio- activity will outlast the storage containers, and eventually contaminate the surrounding environment.
• The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board notes, "the technical basis for the DOE's repository performance estimates is weak to moderate." (1/24/02)

Transportation Risks

The risks of transporting high-level nuclear waste cannot be justified:

• More than 50,000-and up to 100,000-shipments of radioactive waste would pass through 44 states and the District of Columbia by truck, train, and barge. This unprecedented nuclear shipping campaign would introduce new risks to major urban centers along shipment routes (including our nation's capital).
• Emergency response teams and public health infrastructure along shipping routes are ill-equipped to effectively respond to a nuclear accident.
• Currently licensed nuclear waste shipping casks have never been physically tested; limited physical test performed in the 1970s on now-obsolete casks have not been repeated.
• License requirements dangerously underestimate accident conditions on the roads and rails.

Background

Past claims that nuclear energy would be "too cheap to meter" have proven false. Storage of nuclear waste is extremely expensive. Rather than requiring the nuclear industry to be fully liable for the costs of long-term management of the waste it generates, the government has assumed this responsibility. Nuclear power plants add fees to their rate payers' bills for the Nuclear Waste Fund, established by the federal government in 1982 to research ways to dispose of nuclear waste. The money in this fund, supplemented by defense appropriations, is being used to pay for the Yucca Mountain Project.

Yucca Mountain, located 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, is the only site in the U.S. being considered for a high-level nuclear waste repository. The proposed repository would contain 70,000 metric tons (77,000 U.S. standard tons) of nuclear waste, including 63,000 metric tons of "spent fuel" from commercial nuclear power plants and 7,000 metric tons of high-level waste from the U.S. Department of Energy weapons complex.

High-level radioactive waste is currently in storage at 77 sites in the United States. Commercial nuclear power plants have generated about 45,000 metric tons of "spent fuel" to date. This amount is expected to at least double by 2035. In addition, U.S. weapons and research activities have produced more than 2,500 metric tons of "spent fuel" and approximately 100 million gallons of liquid high-level waste. Because a Yucca Mountain repository could not accommodate all the waste (its capacity would be capped at 70,000 tons), it is inaccurate to characterize the project as a proposal for nuclear waste consolidation. Moreover, since irradiated fuel must decay in a cooling pool for at least five years before it can be transported, at least five years worth of nuclear waste (100-150 metric tons) would remain at each operating reactor even if the proposed repository opens.

Suggested Action

Contact your two Senators immediately and tell them not to override Nevada's objection to a Yucca Mountain Repository. Tell your Senators that you oppose any transportation of hazardous nuclear waste to Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

The Capitol Switchboard phone number is 202-224-3121.

Please write to:
The Honorable ________
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Find E-mails at www.senate.gov

General Assembly

From "Resolution on the Responsible Management of High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal" the 199th General Assembly notes: [I]n the biblical witness one of the touchstones of justice is the care of the land;... the question of a responsible management of high-level nuclear waste disposal addresses the issues of good stewardship of human society and the environment, as well as the ability to have meaningful participation in decisions that affect one's life and the life of one's children; ... [The General Assembly] urges the United States Government to: Consider carefully the objections raised against the selection of Hanford, Washington, Deaf Smith County, Texas, and Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as prospective sites for such a permanent depository, because of the potential risk of contamination of the Columbia River Basin and the Ogallala Aquifer, areas of great human and economic significance. (Minutes, 1987, Part I, pp. 413-414)