The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY SITE APPROVAL ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E768 on May 10, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY SITE APPROVAL ACT
______
speech of
HON. TAMMY BALDWIN
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 8, 2002
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, today the House will vote on H. Res. 87, which will allow the Department of Energy to move forward in the process of licensing Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear waste. Although I realize we must find an answer for storing all of the Nation's nuclear waste, including that in Wisconsin, I oppose this resolution for several reasons.
Over the last two decades, there have been thousands of shipments of nuclear waste on the highways and railways that crisscross America. If Yucca Mountain is granted a license to receive nuclear waste, the number of shipments could increase exponentially. This is particularly troubling because the proposed routes will pass through 44 states and over 700 counties--passing near our schools, churches, and homes, including possibly in my district. While there have been few accidents when moving waste through the U.S. to date, increasing shipments by the thousands will only increase the probability of a devastating catastrophe. The events on September 11 have shown that anything is possible, and that common mishaps are not the only aspects we should take into account when examining safety and security concerns.
Throughout the debate over Yucca Mountain, numerous questions have been raised about the lack of sound science that went in to deeming the site safe. Very early in the testing process, the DOE retroactively changed the rules for site eligibility after it became apparent that the original rules could not be met for Yucca Mountain. Ever since, the credibility of the scientific standards and evidence has gotten progressively worse. Three federal agencies have released reports about Yucca Mountain--all three reports have expressed doubts and grave concerns about the suitability of the site.
The General Accounting Office (GAO), which is the investigative office of the federal government, indicated there are more than 293 unresolved technical issues with Yucca Mountain, including how quickly the containers will leak radioactive waste, the amount and speed of water flowing through the waste area, and the likelihood of volcanic activity. The GAO has yet to get answers to the majority of these questions. I believe we have no choice but to make certain we base this decision on sound science. Nuclear waste is the most dangerous substance we have ever created and will be deadly for thousands of years. Future generations depend on us being absolutely sure Yucca Mountain is safe, and science has not concluded that as yet.
Despite the scientific uncertainties of storing and shipping nuclear waste, there has been a sense of urgency to move forward with a decision on Yucca Mountain. Unfortunately, I believe this urgency has been fueled by politics--not by policy concerns regarding nuclear waste. The Nuclear Policy Act amendments of 1987 eliminated alternative sites, and billions of dollars have been devoted to Yucca Mountain. I believe some legislators may feel there is no turning back because of the tremendous federal resources that have already been invested in the project. Money concerns should not come before any policy that could threaten public safety.
Furthermore, DOE Secretary, Spencer Abraham, has also said that a permanent site for nuclear waste will promote energy security by removing a roadblock to expanding nuclear power. This also leads me to believe that the sense of urgency is not driven by an understanding of the properties of the Yucca Mountain site, but rather larger-scale issues regarding America's overall energy policies. Approving Yucca Mountain could lead to an unfettered expansion of nuclear power at a time when I believe we can be promoting other energy sources--like renewable and alternative energy technologies--that do not have harmful bi-products and the potential for devastating long-term effects on the health of our environment and on our families.
Overall, I believe Congress is rushing to make this decision regarding Yucca Mountain a decision that our future generations may have to live with for thousands of years. It is inevitable that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain will continue to be a contentious issue over the next several years as technical details are sorted out. It is my hope that an expanded national debate on this issue will eventually lead to a final decision based on the merits of sound science, rather than on political arguments or larger-scale energy policy issues.
____________________
