Letter: State GOP must never concede on nuclear dump

Friday, July 22, 2005 | 9 a.m.

I appreciated Richard Rychtarik's letter in reply to my July 8 letter on Yucca Mountain. But nowhere in my letter did I imply that we should not increase our fossil fuel usage. I complained about subsides for nuclear plants, which pose safety risks. If they are not risky, then why is the industry still insisting on coverage under the Price-Anderson Act, which guarantees that taxpayers would pay most of the damages in the event of a nuclear accident?

We will not have a new nuclear plant online for at least another 10 years, and even if new plants are twice as efficient as the current aged plants, we will need at least 52 more. Instead of heavily subsidizing this large number of plants, why not subsidize alternative technologies that are becoming more realistic with oil at $60 a barrel?

The main thrust of my letter was the reluctance of Nevada Republicans to use political pressure against President Bush, the Energy Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in an effort to get them to stop ignoring the major problems surrounding Southern Nevada's Yucca Mountain. These include a faulty radiation standard and the e-mails by scientists casting doubt on the ability of the mountain to safely contain the nation's nuclear waste. These problems have been widely reported, as has the suit against Yucca Mountain by the Western Shoshones, who have a good case that turning the mountain into a nuclear waste dump violates the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863.

In his letter, Rychtarik said, "Regardless of Nevada's stand on Yucca Mountain, the nuclear waste storage site will probably come to pass." I believe such statements are defeatist and a resignation to the Bush administration's apparent policy of allowing political expediency to determine whether Yucca Mountain opens instead of the president's promise of sound science.

FRANK PERNA