Senators Seek Explanation of Obama's Yucca Mountain Decision
WASHINGTON, D.C. thU.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with sixteen of his Republicans colleagues, sent a letter today to Energy Secretary Steven Chu asking about his comment that Yucca Mountain is "not an option" for disposing nuclear waste. Specifically, in the letter, the senators raise several questions about the legal, scientific, and technical justifications for the Obama Administration's decision to derail the Yucca Mountain project
(Media-Newswire.com) - WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator James Inhofe ( R-Okla. ), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with sixteen of his Republicans colleagues, sent a letter today to Energy Secretary Steven Chu asking about his comment that Yucca Mountain is “not an option” for disposing nuclear waste. Specifically, in the letter, the senators raise several questions about the legal, scientific, and technical justifications for the Obama Administration’s decision to derail the Yucca Mountain project, which has been studied for decades and supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading scientific organizations as a viable storage site for nuclear waste.
“The Obama administration’s approach to Yucca Mountain is nothing short of puzzling,” Senator Inhofe said. “Despite President Obama’s pledge that science will guide public policy and his commitment to an unprecedented level of openness, I find it difficult to understand Secretary Chu’s statement that Yucca Mountain is ‘not an option,’ made after only six weeks in office. This comment is of particular interest considering that, as recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including Secretary Chu, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy, which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.”
“The American taxpayer has invested too much money in Yucca Mountain to simply have it be pushed aside without a full explanation. As of today over $7.7 billion has been spent researching Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site, and neither the National Academy of Sciences, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, nor any of our National Labs involved in conducting studies and evaluating data have concluded that there is any evidence to disqualify Yucca Mountain as a repository. Taxpayers face up to $11 billion in liability costs if the Department of Energy begins accepting used fuel and nuclear waste in 2020 and an additional $500 million with each passing year of delay.”
Full Text of Letter below:
Dear Secretary Chu:
Since the first National Academy of Science ( NAS ) study in 1957, deep geologic disposal has been viewed as the safest approach to disposal of nuclear waste. In 1983, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act ( NWPA ) was signed into law providing for the siting and development of a repository for our nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste culminating in the recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site. In accordance with that law, electricity consumers have contributed $30 billion for the disposal of civilian spent fuel and taxpayers have paid $3.5 billion for the disposal of the nuclear waste legacy of the Cold War. Courts have affirmed the federal government’s obligation to dispose of spent fuel. Taxpayers face up to $11 billion in liability costs if the Department of Energy begins accepting used fuel and nuclear waste in 2020 and an additional $500 million with each passing year of delay. At present, the nuclear industry has nearly 60,000 metric tons of civilian used fuel awaiting disposal in addition to 20,500 metric tons of defense waste stored at Department of Energy facilities.
Since the 1950s, 55 studies have been conducted by the NAS, in addition to numerous studies conducted in our National Labs and in international scientific bodies, as to the options and alternatives to nuclear waste disposal. Additionally, the NWPA, as amended, established the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ( NWTRB, a standing blue ribbon commission ) to evaluate the scientific data and technical aspects of the Yucca Mountain Project. Over $7.7 billion has been spent researching Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site and neither the NAS, the NWTRB, nor any of our National Labs involved in conducting studies and evaluating data have concluded that there is any evidence to disqualify Yucca Mountain as a repository. As recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including you, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.
This scientific work resulted in a license application exceeding 8,600 pages and was successfully docketed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission, the independent agency with the expertise and responsibility to assess the safety of a potential repository at Yucca Mountain, will spend over four years evaluating the application. The Commission only commenced its review last September.
Given this history, President Obama’s memoranda that science will guide public policy and his commitment to an unprecedented level of openness, we find it difficult to reconcile your statement that Yucca Mountain is “not an option” made after only 6 weeks in office.
Please respond to the questions and provide the information requested in the attachment by June 1, 2009. We are eager to gain a better understanding of the basis for your decision and the process that was followed to arrive at that conclusion. Thank you in advance for your timely response on this matter.
Sincerely,
______________________ _____________________
James M. Inhofe David Vitter
______________________ _____________________
Jim DeMint Sam Brownback
______________________ _____________________
John McCain Thad Cochran
______________________ _____________________
Richard C. Shelby Mike Crapo
______________________ _____________________
Jeff Sessions James E. Risch
______________________ _____________________
Michael B. Enzi Jim Bunning
______________________ _____________________
Christopher S. Bond Olympia J. Snowe
______________________ _____________________
John Barrasso Michael Johanns
______________________
Jon Kyl
Release Date
This story was released on 2009-04-30. Please make sure to visit the official company or organization web site to learn more about the original release date. See our disclaimer for additional information.
