Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 12, 1999, FRIDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1049 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY BY THE HON.
JAMES A. GIBBONS
THE SECOND DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
BODY:
Mr. Chairman:
I would like to thank you
for this opportunity to join your distinguished Committee and to participate in
this very important hearing. I would also like to thank Secretary Richardson for
his diligent work and insight on this very critical issue.
Many times I have
addressed the issue of high-level nuclear waste, and I often begin with a quote
from H.G. Wells which I find to be especially true today.
He stated, "that
human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe,"
and I believe this statement should be the foundation for today's hearing.
As we all know, the Governor, the Congressional delegation, the citizens of
Nevada and I -- all, overwhelmingly oppose sending deadly, high-level nuclear
waste to the State of Nevada. I testified earlier this year, before your
Committee, and outlined why H.R. 45, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 is bad
for America -- because of health, safety, fiscal and environmental reasons.
Today however, I am encouraged by the Department of Energy and their
solution to solving one of the major problems with H.R. 45 -- the unnecessary
transportation and creation of a centralized interim storage facility.
It is
important to note that it was Congress who mandated that the Department of
Energy begin accepting nuclear waste in January 1998.
It was Congress in
their political know-with-all, not science, that created the current problem
this country now faces -- the billion dollar lawsuits that are pending against
the Department of Energy.
Science and common sense solutions should be the
driving force behind the problems associated with current radioactive waste.
After reviewing the Secretary's remarks before the Senate I believe that he
has come up with a way to ensure that our nation's citizens and highways remain
safe from the deadly reality of a nuclear waste accident.
Not only will with
this protect our communities, schools and homes but it is a practical,
cost-effective solution to the management of nuclear waste.
I would ask this
Committee and Congress to look past the emotional idea that, "We have to do
something with nuclear waste, and therefore the best solution is to send it to
Nevada," and look at the reality because, as H.R. 45 states, "spent fuel can be
safely stored at reactor sites."
And as you may know, The Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board, an organization created by Congress to provide technical
and scientific evaluation of nuclear waste storage concluded, in their March
1996 report, that there is no compelling technical or safety, reason to move
spent fuel to a central facility, and this holds true today.
If this
nonpartisan Review Board, whose purpose was to look at irrefutable, unbiased
science, made this determination, then I believe there is no justifiable reason
to move nuclear waste from its current locations.
And that is why we should
allow the Department of Energy -- the Department that is responsible for the
management of nuclear waste -- to solve this issue on their own.
We do not
need Congress to once again impose impossible goals and time lines, but we need
to listen to the experts -- allowing government and industry to work together to
solve their problems. You see, H.R. 45 will not reduce the number of sites
currently storing nuclear waste. In fact it will only increase it by one,
because none of the present sites will be closed before the site
characterization of Yucca Mountain is completed.
I would
anticipate that some industries would oppose Secretary Richardson's solution, I
mean why not?
They would love to receive billions of dollars from the DOE
for not taking their waste by January of 1998, and then they want the department
to pay for the removal of waste from their facilities, to build an interim
storage facility, and finally to pay for and build a permanent geological
dumping ground.
Well, I am not sure where we axe going to get the money to
pay for all of this. Several billion here for compensation to utilities, a
couple billion here to create an interim storage facility in Nevada, and a few
billion to transport this deadly material?
I hope we don't expect the
American taxpayer to pick up the tab. The people of Nevada do not have nuclear
power plants, they don't want nuclear waste and they shouldn't be required to
pay for it.
I would encourage Congress to look at the financial reality of
this nuclear boondoggle.In these times of tight budgets and fiscal
responsibility are we going to go back away from our promise to the American
people, are we forcing ourselves into a budget deficit?
That is why we
should truly listen to Secretary Richardson's proposal. If the government and
industry can work together, cheaper, safer and more efficiently -- then who are
we to inject our will -- the same will that got us into this mess.
Therefore, I fail to see the advantages of H.R. 45, and the Secretary's
solution seems to be the right solution for America.
We all realize that
few, if any problems, have become more challenging in recent years than the
disposal of nuclear waste.
However, this Committee and this Congress must
adhere to standards based on science, along with the protection and welfare of
this nation's citizens. This should be the fundamental threshold we use when we
address nuclear waste storage.
I encourage Members to step back from their
elected positions and look through the eyes of their constituents.
Which
option do you think they would chose -- the option that protects the environment
and the 50 million people who live along H.R. 45's transportation routes -- the
option that does not bankrupt our treasury or forces us to raise taxes?
Allow industry and government to work together to solve this problem. I
encourage this Committee to give Secretary Richardson a chance to work with the
utilities, I don't believe that is too much to ask --- considering our
alternative.
Again, Mr. Chairman I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee, and would request that you
include a letter from the Governor of Nevada and some additional written
information to be added in the record as part of my testimony.
If I can be
of any assistance to you or any other member of the Subcommittee, please let me
know.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 14, 1999
