"Newspeak" from Nuclear Dump Supporters at May 16 Senate Hearing
on Yucca Mountain
Contact Lisa Gue
lisa_gue@citizen.org
May 22, 2002
The May 16 hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository (Senate Joint
Resolution 34), included several noteworthy and dangerously misleading
instances of Orwellian "newspeak" by supporters of the proposed dump.
Highlights are chronicled below. The committee is scheduled to continue
hearings on the Yucca Mountain dump Wednesday, May 22.
1. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham cited environmental concerns as a
basis for his Yucca Mountain recommendation, claiming that a repository
would advance clean-up at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) weapons
sites and go "above and beyond" EPA regulations. Actually, EPA's lax
Yucca Mountain radiation protection standards are the subject of a lawsuit
brought by environmental and public interest organizations. The
standards, established last year by the Bush administration, permit a
12-mile (18 kilometer) buffer zone in which radioactive contamination from
the dump would not be regulated - a "radioactive septic field" in the words
of the Natural Resources Defense Council, lead attorneys in the case.
Dump opponents are concerned that the weakening of environmental
standards at Yucca Mountain not only threatens public health and the
environment in the vicinity of the Nevada site but also sets a dangerous
precedent for regulatory rollbacks at other DOE and commercial nuclear
operations. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reminded Abraham that more than
500 environmental and public interest groups oppose the Yucca Mountain
dump. Abraham, in his last term in the U.S. Senate, had a 0%
environmental voting record, according to the League of Conservation
Voters' 2000 scorecard.
2. Responding to Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-N.M.) questions about the
safety of nuclear waste transportation, Abraham first played a fatalistic
card. Like it or not, he stated, nuclear waste is going to be transported,
if
not to Yucca Mountain then to an "ad hoc alternative" that is "less
desirable," such as the proposed Private Fuel Storage (PFS) facility on the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Utah. The PFS license application is
currently being reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) -
the licensing agency of undesirable nuclear projects to which Abraham
wants the Yucca Mountain decision referred. Ironically, the Question of
the
Month on PFS' Web site is "If Yucca Mountain, Nevada is approved as the
permanent federal repository for high level nuclear waste and spent fuel,
will the Skull Valley temporary storage site be needed?" The answer on
the site is essentially "yes." In fact, only with a Yucca Mountain
repository
on the horizon can PFS claim that its facility would be temporary and
therefore licensable under NRC regulations. Abraham stopped short of
pledging to intervene in the PFS license application.
3. When pressed with Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell's (R-Colo.)
well-articulated concerns about transportation, Abraham discussed the
record of radioactive waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP) in New Mexico. But Abraham forgot to mention the 61 violations
detected on WIPP shipments entering New Mexico by state Department of
Public Safety inspectors and communicated to the DOE in an April 25
letter. Nor did Abraham mention the WIPP truck whose driver took a wrong
turn and ended up 27 miles off course headed into downtown Albuquerque
before police officials could locate the wayward radioactive shipment, or a
1999 survey that found 75 percent of emergency personnel along WIPP
shipment routes in New Mexico ill-equipped to respond effectively to an
incident involving radioactive materials.
4. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) attempted to come to Abraham's aid on the
issue of transportation. No need to worry about transport accidents
involving nuclear waste, he said, because the shipping casks are virtually
indestructible. In fact, currently licensed nuclear waste transportation
casks have never been physically tested, and regulatory requirements,
which date back to the 1970s, dangerously understate real-life accident
conditions. Craig referred to a display of a model nuclear fuel assembly
to
make the point that fuel rods are solid and cannot "leak." Nonetheless,
irradiated fuel rods are so intensely radioactive that a person standing
one
yard away from a 10 year-old assembly would receive a lethal dose in less
than three minutes. Had Craig's display been an actual irradiated fuel
assembly, the hearing would likely have been fatal - literally.
5. Sen. Mary Landreiu (D-La.) acknowledged that the DOE's Yucca
Mountain plan wasn't perfect but spoke in favor of the proposed dump,
saying that nuclear power plants in Louisiana are "dangerous sites."
Strangely, Landrieu is nonetheless a strong supporter of nuclear power
and earlier this spring co-sponsored the "Nuclear Power 2010"
amendment to the Senate energy bill which would promote an increased
reliance on [dangerous] nuclear power and result in the generation of
more [dangerous] nuclear waste. This apparent contradiction is perhaps
less surprising considering that Landrieu has accepted $98,000 from
nuclear industry PACs over the last three election cycles, making her the
second most popular Democrat and seventh most popular senator overall
with the industry promoting the Yucca Mountain dump. Unfortunately
Landrieu had left the hearing when Abraham admitted that waste would
continue to be stored at operating reactors across the country regardless
of whether a repository is opened.
Back to Yucca Mountain
|