|
WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) today voted against moving forward at this time with a plan to open up Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a nuclear waste repository, saying that the plan would "solve no problems and create a few new ones" for Connecticut. By a vote of 60-39, the Senate today approved a motion to proceed to debate on the matter; that vote effectively served as the proxy vote for the site's approval.
Earlier this year, President Bush recommended that the nation's nuclear waste be stored at Yucca Mountain. After Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn vetoed the recommendation, Congress was given the opportunity to override Guinn's veto. In announcing his vote to sustain Guinn's veto, Lieberman expressed his concern about the scientific soundness of the proposed site, the false promise of quick waste removal when in fact waste would still have to be held at nuclear plants for several years and transported to Yucca over forty years, and the lack of a plan to safely transport the waste across Connecticut's roads and railways.
Lieberman said that, "the most important point for my home state of Connecticut is that, even if Yucca Mountain worked perfectly, with none of the potential problems that many experts have raised, it would not answer our problem of nuclear waste storage. It gives the people of my state the false hope of a solution to this serious problem."
"We need to deal with this nuclear waste—but no one has demonstrated yet that Yucca Mountain is the answer," he added.
Lieberman's complete floor statement on the Yucca site follows:
Mr. President, I vote today against the motion to proceed to the consideration of the Yucca Mountain Resolution. I have cast this vote for several reasons. First, on procedural grounds, I agree with the Majority Leader that to consider the issue now would be an unacceptable divergence from Senate practice and procedure. It is the right of the majority leader to schedule the consideration of legislation on the floor of the Senate, and for me to vote for this motion would be to sanction what I view as an inappropriate procedure.
But the biggest problem is the substance of this plan. I don't believe that the Yucca Mountain site is ready to be approved by the Congress.
There's an old saying: "underpromise, overperform." Unfortunately, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage plan overpromises and underperforms for the people of my state.
I have studied this issue carefully, mindful of how important nuclear power is to Connecticut, and of how concerned Connecticut families are about the health and safety effects of storing nuclear waste on site. Mr. President, they are right to be concerned. But after many months of deliberation, I have decided that the plans aren't ready. Voting to create a waste repository at Yucca Mountain today would solve no problems and create a few new ones for the people of my state. It is not wise policy.
I believe the most obvious indication of this fact is the Department of Energy's plans to apply for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Even though the Nuclear Waste Policy Act instructs the Energy Department to submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 90 days after Congress acts, Secretary Abraham has stated that his agency will not submit an application until December 2004 at the earliest. Obviously, the Energy Department is not ready to make their case for this site—why should we be endorsing the project long before the Department is ready?
From studying the plans for the site, I believe that the reason that the Energy Department is not ready to submit its application is because, simply, too many unanswered questions remain. In dealing with nuclear waste, we should first do no harm.
It's too soon to say conclusively that the Yucca Mountain plans meet that standard. Consider the storage problems. In a December 2001 report to members of Congress, the General Accounting Office wrote of "uncertainties" relating to the "longevity of [engineered] waste containers," and noted that "significant work is needed" before the safety of the containers can be substantiated. The GAO also felt that more studies needed to be completed before the physical characteristics of the site could be declared suitable for the project. Most notably, the report stated the GAO's uncertainty on "how the combination of heat, water, and chemical processes caused by the presence of nuclear waste…would affect the flow of water through the repository." Among the remaining physical "uncertainties," the GAO prominently listed: faulting and fracturing of the repository rock; the flow of water through the repository rock; and the stability of the repository rock under heated conditions and conditions involving seismic events as main concerns.
The GAO's view of uncertainties was seconded by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board—an independent review board that acts as a check for the Energy Department's view of the science. In a January 24, 2002 letter to Congress, the Review Board offered criticisms of the DOE study, finding that, "as a whole . . . the technical basis for the DOE 's repository performance estimates is weak to moderate."
But, Mr. President, the most important point for my home state of Connecticut is that, even if Yucca Mountain worked perfectly, with none of the potential problems that many experts have raised, it would not answer our problem of nuclear waste storage. It gives the people of my state the false hope of a solution to this serious problem. In fact, the plan may well create new problems in many areas of the state that are now free of nuclear waste problems.
It is not as if, if we were to approve this site, the tons of nuclear waste in Connecticut would be instantly transported to Nevada. Rather, it would take 40 years and thousands of shipments to transport that waste across the country, and by the time Yucca was filled, we would have generated just as much waste at each of Connecticut's nuclear sites. So the opening of Yucca Mountain will not free us of the terrorist threat at each of the sites. To the contrary, it will disperse the waste even more than it is currently dispersed.
And the most dangerous waste of all—the "hot" waste that has just been removed from the reactors—cannot be moved off of our sites in Connecticut until it has cooled for at least five years. Thus, as long as we are operating nuclear plants in Connecticut, we will have dangerous nuclear waste at those plants. In other words, the current Yucca storage plans do not resolve Connecticut storage issues.
Finally, I am concerned that the transportation of the waste would bring new problems to regions of Connecticut that do not face them. The Energy Department has formulated no logical and systematic plan regarding the transportation of waste. To transport the approximately 40,000 tons of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, over 100,000 truck shipments or 36,000 combined rail and truck shipments would be needed, to be spread over the next 40 or so years. This would include waste from other states coming across on Connecticut highways and railroads. The attacks on September 11 have created major new questions about the transport of this waste, which could have a major effect on my state and which have not been addressed. Until some safe and proven plan to transport this waste is offered, I am troubled by the danger on our roads and rails.
We need to deal with this nuclear waste—but no one has demonstrated yet that Yucca Mountain is the answer. With technology advancing every day, perhaps it will be the answer tomorrow. Or perhaps in the future we will find another, much better solution. Until then, the imperfect status quo is better than a highly uncertain and incomplete plan such as this one.
Mr. President, this proposal is simply not yet ready for our consideration. Unfortunately, the Energy Department has stated that it will not continue to consider the site if this vote does not go its way. I think that is the wrong approach—the questions I have raised today may be able to be answered satisfactorily with more planning and better technology, and if they are, I would probably support the site. But this proposal is not ready for prime-time, and I am concerned that it will not be responsible to proceed to its consideration at this point.
|
