April 30, 2002
United States House of Representatives
Washington , D.C. 20515
Oppose H.J. Res. 87– Oppose the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and irradiated nuclear fuel; uphold the Governor of Nevada’s veto.
When It Comes to Nuclear Waste Transportation, We All Live in Nevada
Dear Representative,
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) is the information and networking center for citizens and environmental organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy issues. NIRS has thousands of members across the country, including along the transportation routes in 44 states that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has targeted for hauling high-level radioactive waste by truck, train, and barge to the proposed dumpsite at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Transporting high-level radioactive waste is risky business. DOE projects that if Yucca Mountain were to open, many tens of thousands of cross-country shipments would be required, on highways, railways, and waterways. Given the unprecedented shipment numbers and distance involved, accidents would be inevitable. The transportation containers that would be used have never undergone full-scale physical safety testing, and are vulnerable to severe accidents.
A July 2001 train tunnel fire in Baltimore burned hotter and for much longer than nuclear waste transport containers are designed to withstand. Had nuclear waste been aboard that train, there could have been hundreds to thousands of radiation-induced deaths and injuries, as well as nearly $14 billion in clean up costs (Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, Radioactive Waste Management Associates, “Radiological Consequences Of Severe Rail Accidents Involving Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments To Yucca Mountain: Hypothetical Baltimore Rail Tunnel Fire Involving SNF,” September 2001). Recent fatal train wrecks in Florida and on a route targeted for high-level nuclear waste shipments in southern California, as well as yesterday’s chlorine leak on the Beltway north of Washington, D.C. begs the question, “What if high-level nuclear waste had been aboard?”
High-level nuclear waste shipments would also be vulnerable to terrorist attack. High-level nuclear waste currently is not located in downtown metropolitan centers. Yucca-bound atomic waste trucks, trains, and barges would carry these deadly wastes near or through such cities as Albuquerque, Atlanta, Cheyenne, Chicago, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Kansas City, Lansing, Louisville, Milwaukee, New York City, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Washington, D.C. (yes, on the Beltway, as well as on rail routes right through the District), Wilmington and many more.
A recently uncovered video shows that even a dated TOW anti-tank weapon test fired at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1998 was able to breach a nuclear waste transport container. In the event of a successful terrorist attack, a catastrophic amount of radiation could be released. Energy Secretary Abraham suspended nuclear materials shipments last Sept. 12 th and Oct. 7 th (the day the war began in Afghanistan), showing that DOE recognizes the potential for terrorist attack. Sec. Abraham has argued that Yucca Mountain would consolidate nuclear waste in one location. But his own acting director at the Yucca Mountain Project, Lake Barrett, recently admitted under questioning at a House committee hearing that even if Yucca were to open and fill up, in the year 2040 there would still be as much waste on-site at reactors around the country as there is today. Shipments to Yucca would not consolidate waste, but would represent dirty radiological bombs on wheels rolling through our major cities.
Nuclear waste transport is risky, and should only be done if it makes the nuclear waste problem better, not worse. But the Yucca site is not even suitable for nuclear waste disposal. It is an active earthquake zone, guaranteed to leak radiation into the drinking water supply below over time. In addition, Yucca belongs to the Western Shoshone Indian Nation according to the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley signed by the U.S. Congress; dumping nuclear waste there would represent environmental racism. Besides, Yucca would become just one more nuclear waste site, as operating reactors across the U.S. quickly would replace Yucca-bound shipments with newly generated high-level radioactive waste that would have to be cooled in on-site storage pools for a minimum of five years after removal from the reactor core. Yucca would not solve the problem that nuclear waste will remain at reactor sites across the country for decades into the future.
On behalf of our members in your area, we urge you to oppose Yucca and uphold Nevada’s veto.
Sincerely,
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director