Congress should not approve plans to store highly radioactive nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which would pose too many risks along the transport route and to nearby Las Vegas.

When President Bush picked Yucca Mountain in Nevada to store the nation's nuclear waste, he set in motion a tight schedule that requires Congress to resolve the issue within the next three months. It's a shame the decision has to be made that quickly, because the details are complex and there is no room for error. Yet forced to act, Congress should say no to Yucca Mountain.

The odds are in favor of Congress' saying yes, however. The nuclear power industry has spent a lot of money trying to assure that outcome. The industry contributed $13.8-million to federal candidates during the 2000 election cycle and spent $25-million in one year lobbying Congress and federal agencies, according to Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization. So far, in every action it has taken, Congress has gone along with the wishes of the nuclear power industry.

Energy legislation in the House and Senate would give the industry tax breaks to expand nuclear power and make taxpayers underwrite liability insurance on nuclear reactors. The most pressing issue, however, is Yucca Mountain. Highly radioactive waste from spent fuel is stacking up at more than 100 reactor sites in 31 states, and utility companies need to resolve that problem before they can expand. (In Florida, there are two nuclear reactors on the Southeast coast and one on the central Gulf coast in Crystal River.)

A repository beneath the Nevada mountain could hold 77,000 tons of the waste, one of the most dangerous substances known to man. But there are great risks. The material poses a potential threat to Las Vegas, only 90 miles away, and to millions of Americans who live along the routes where the waste would be shipped. Stuck in traffic next to a truck carrying the waste, a person could be exposed to unnecessary radiation, about the equivalent of an X-ray. And an accident or act of terror that breached the waste container could have catastrophic consequences.

Who are we counting on to face a challenge of such magnitude? The U.S. Department of Energy, an agency not known for its competence. If Congress approves Yucca Mountain, the DOE would have 90 days to apply for a permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, yet "DOE is not prepared to submit an acceptable license application to NRC within the statutory limits that would take effect if the site is approved," concluded the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, in a recent report. The DOE has left more than 200 questions unanswered that relate to the ability of manmade and natural barriers to contain the deadly waste, the GAO found.

Even if Yucca Mountain were to be approved and meet all expectations, it would not lessen the threat to communities near a reactor. Spent fuel will still have to remain on the power plant site for five years as it is cooled in pools of water. Even if Yucca Mountain were opened in 2015 (GAO's best estimate), there would already be more than enough waste to fill it, so spent fuel would once again pile up at reactor sites.

In short, Yucca Mountain is at best a temporary solution to a longterm problem. Congress would be more responsible to reject the repository for now until DOE has studied the project more thoroughly and assured the nation of its safety. In the meantime, Congress should help the industry improve on-site storage, which will be with us as long as there is nuclear power generation.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page