Editorial: Gore is a leader on nuke waste

Sunday, Jan. 23, 2000 | 9:01 a.m.

On Monday the presidential campaign officially gets under way. Iowans kick off the process, holding caucuses to determine how many of that state's delegates will go to the Republicans and Democrats seeking to capture the White House. Nevada's own presidential party caucuses are still months away, but this is a time when most voters start taking a serious look at the candidates and their positions.

Here in Nevada, as in other parts of the nation, issues sure to be high on the list include education, health care, Social Security, Medicare, taxes and the national debt. But the policy in our nation's capital that has the biggest potential to harm this state, especially Las Vegas, is the federal government's efforts to place a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. It is fitting, then, that the Sustainable Energy Coalition -- a group of more than 30 environmental and consumer organizations interested in promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies -- last week published a survey of presidential candidates' attitudes on a variety of environmental issues, including nuclear waste disposal.

The coalition's question on nuclear waste was straightforward: "Do you support establishment of a high-level nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada?" The responses were almost uniform among those vying for the nominations of the Democratic, Republican and Reform Party nominations. In fact, the silence was deafening. Democrat Bill Bradley, Republicans Gary Bauer, George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, John McCain and Reform Party candidates Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump all were listed by the group as having "no stated opinion." Republican Steve Forbes didn't do much better, saying he was "undecided pending further study." Republican Alan Keyes answered "yes" to building a repository in Nevada.

Of the candidates from the major parties, only Democratic Vice President Al Gore offered an explanation of his view, one that is consistent with President Clinton's record. "We need to address the very serious issue of high-level nuclear waste disposal based on sound science, not politics, and in a way that provides maximum protection to public health and the environment," Gore responded. "Until the scientific analysis of the Yucca Mountain site is completed, it is premature to make a determination about its use as a disposal site. For that reason, I have strongly supported the administration's vigorous and successful fight against legislation that would move waste to the Yucca Mountain site before the scientific evaluation is complete."

Powerful members of Congress and federal agencies, at the insistence of the influential nuclear power lobby, have for years tried to short-circuit genuine scientific research at Yucca Mountain; this attempt will be renewed again this year. If it hadn't been for opposition to these efforts by the Clinton administration -- where Gore's influence is considerable -- man's deadliest waste would have been here by now. In a way, it's probably not that surprising so many candidates would refuse to take a stand: There is no political gain in helping a small state like Nevada, which makes Gore's position that much more impressive.