Environmentalists today delivered “Don’t Waste America” petitions containing 40,000+ signatures to President Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, one day before the Senate Energy Committee is scheduled to vote on S. 104–better known as the “Mobile Chernobyl Act.” The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) also gave Clinton and Lott a list of 126 environmental and citizens organizations on record against S. 104 and the identical bill from last Congress, S. 1936.
Although S. 104’s lead sponsors are Sens. Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Craig (R-Idaho), informed sources indicate that the bill is a priority for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who has decided to make it a centerpiece of G.O.P. environmental legislation this year. President Clinton’s intention to veto the bill was reaffirmed by Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Thomas Grumbly in a Senate Energy Committee hearing last week. Last year, S. 1936 passed the Senate 63-37–a margin sufficient to sustain a presidential veto. The House did not vote on a similar measure (HR 1020), and comparable House legislation has not been introduced this year.
“S. 104 panders to the worst environmental instincts,” said NIRS Executive Director Michael Mariotte, “it reflects only outright NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard). But the American people are smarter than that. They want real solutions to environmental problems, not quick fixes that make problems worse. Nor do they want yet another financial bail-out for the irresponsible nuclear power industry, which this legislation shows to be the biggest NIMBY of all.”
“The nuclear industry has implied in numerous advertisements that centralized “interim” storage means that radioactive waste would only be located in one remote region of Nevada,” said Mariotte. “In fact, nuclear waste would continue to be stored at every operating reactor, meaning that the number of existing nuclear waste sites would increase by one and decrease by zero.”
S. 104 would establish an “interim” high-level nuclear waste dump near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which is being studied as a possible permanent storage facility. Current law explicitly prohibits placement of an “interim” dump in Nevada precisely to avoid prejudicing the site characterization process.
Under S. 104, transportation of high-level nuclear waste would occur over highways and railways in 43 states and the District of Columbia, leading to fears of a catastrophic “Mobile Chernobyl” in the event of a serious transportation accident. Upwards of 80,000 waste shipments could be made over the next 30 years under the bill, depending on the size casks used and transport methods chosen. To date, some 2400 shipments of high-level waste have been made in the U.S., mostly small amounts of fuel from nuclear submarines. Seven accidents have occurred–a rate of one accident every 343 shipments, which would predict some 268 accidents in years to come.
“While no high-level waste transport accident has yet resulted in radiation release,” said Mary Olson of NIRS’ Radioactive Waste Project, “the risks are real. The nuclear industry said the scenario for the Three Mile Island accident was “incredible,” but that disaster ruined their credibility forever. Russians were told the odds of an accident at Chernobyl were 1 in 10,000 years, but that year turned out to be 1986. Soothing assurances of safety sound hollow given this industry’s record and the enormous stakes involved.”
“S. 104 is an environmental nightmare in every way,” added Mariotte. “It would pre-empt every possible federal, state and local environmental law, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and more. It would unfairly limit the scope of the required Environmental Impact Statement to exclude such basic topics as whether an “interim” waste dump is even needed. It would set outlandishly high radiation exposure standards. If Sen. Lott stakes his party’s environmental claim on this unneeded and dangerous bill, he will lead his party to an environmental Waterloo.”
“Fortunately,” said Mariotte, “opposition to S. 104 is bipartisan and growing.”
“Radioactive waste is a terrible thing to mind,” added Olson, “but it is the responsibility of the nuclear utilities to mind their waste until a permanent solution is at hand. The nuclear industry isn’t seeking safety, they just want to hand off the title to and liability for the waste to the taxpayers.”
Environmental and citizens’ organizations against S. 104 (and S. 1936) include NIRS, Public Citizen, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, Military Production Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, Indigenous Environmental Network, and many more.
Besides unanimous environmental opposition to S. 104, such legislation is also opposed by major religious organizations, including Union of American Hebrew Congregations, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, National Ministries of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and office for Church in Society, United Church of Christ. In addition, numerous city governments are on record against the concept, including Los Angeles, Denver, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Decatur, GA; Takoma Park, Mt. Rainier and Greenbelt, MD, among others; as well as county governments such as Ventura and Santa Barbara, CA, Marshall and Anson, NC, and many more.
The “Don’t Waste America” petitions neither support nor oppose any specific legislation. Rather, they outline five specific points any radioactive waste legislation should encompass. S. 104 is in direct opposition to all five points. Signatures were collected by NIRS, local environmental groups, and the Greenpeace Tour Project.