[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1158]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                   YUCCA MOUNTAIN IS THE BEST OPTION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 12, 2002

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following editorial from the February 5, 2002, Norfolk Daily News. The 
editorial stresses the need to move forward on the construction of a 
nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As the editorial 
indicates, the Yucca Mountain location has been thoroughly studied and 
reviewed. Now that it has been chosen as the preferred location, 
Congress should approve the decision and facilitate the development of 
this site. Such an action would greatly enhance national safety and 
security.

  Further Delay Not an Option--Yucca Mountain Now Officially Declared 
                        Best Nuclear Waste Site

       Nearly 40 years after the federal effort began to find a 
     permanent place to store high-level nuclear waste, a suitable 
     site has been identified. It is now 20 years after Congress 
     promised to have such a facility opened; five years after 
     Congress named the preferred location--Yucca Mountain 90 
     miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nev.
       Exhaustive scientific review has affirmed that site's 
     suitability. The federal Department of Energy has now 
     officially declared that the Nevada site meets the stringent 
     standards prescribed for storing 70,000 tons of high-level, 
     long-lived radioactive waste.
       It does not mean transfer of such materials from 130 
     separate sites across the nation, much of it from nuclear 
     power plants, will occur soon. The next step in the process 
     is for President Bush to approve the recommended site and 
     apply for a federal license. Nevada officials aim to derail 
     the project, and a 1987 law gives that state veto power. 
     Congress can then override the veto.
       The process will still consume years, rather than months. 
     And so will design work and construction once an irreversible 
     decision is made. While it is projected now that the 
     repository could be ready to accept waste by 2010, experience 
     proves that is an optimistic timeline.
       Opponents lack a key argument, however: that there surely 
     are other, better sites available in the continental United 
     States. Those were weighed long ago, and the sparsely-settled 
     mountainous desert terrain in Nevada, already probed, 
     tunneled and extensively surveyed for its stability, was 
     chosen on justifiable scientific grounds. That the state has 
     a small population might have been a political plus, but 
     determined opposition on the part of its leadership has kept 
     the issue in doubt long after the site should have been 
     ready.
       Now it is up to Congress once again to reaffirm its earlier 
     decision, and to offer the best protection against future 
     risks from nuclear waste by proceeding with deliberate speed 
     to store the nuclear waste where it can be monitored 
     carefully for the safety of generations of Americans yet to 
     come.
       The sensible majority of today's national political leaders 
     must recognize that the greater good for the greater number 
     is the issue. One state cannot have veto power over 49 others 
     in a matter of vital national importance. Further delay only 
     increases the risks and makes the nation more vulnerable to 
     terrorists and the hazards that nuclear waste represents.

     

                          ____________________