[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 59 (Friday, May 10, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              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.

                          ____________________