Melven D. Bauer
Amargosa Valley, NV
I would like to comment on two (2) issues of the
proposed Yucca Mountain Repository that I do not believe were given full
consideration at previous hearings and were not addressed by public
comment prior to this opportunity.
The first of these two issues has two elements
concerning nuclear waste security from terrorist actions are they relate
both now and in the future.
(1) If the repository were to be built and nuclear
waste were transported to that site the potential for terrorism en
route transporting the waste would place a great number of communities
and travelers in jeopardy as it is virtually impossible to address all
avenues of terrorist access to the waste during shipment. Certainly,
some aspects can and would be addressed but in light of the unexpected
and devastating result of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks
there exist without doubt an extreme number of variables that could be
employed that involve not only conventional weapons, but our own
transportation and utility systems as weapons.
(2) Later when the repository is filled (2020-2030)
with nuclear waste it will itself become a prime target for
terrorists. This is envisioned not for access to the radioactive
waste, but to inundate the area by supplementing a large conventional
blast within the mountain or possibly by using a nuclear blast to form
the dirtiest of dirty explosions. Access by light aircraft, including
the ultra-light type, could for example elude detection by radar and
deliver a suitcase atom bomb before fighter aircraft could be
scrambled. Even the alternatives of a long term or permanent disabling
of the ventilation system of the facility would have a long term
affect on millions of residents and visitors to the areas National
Park as the facility disintegrated under the extreme heat that would
remove the moisture from the rock that would result in the collapse of
the mountain and the eventual release of radioactive into the air as
well as into the groundwater.
The second issue of concern is that of the law firm
that represented both the Nuclear Power Industry and the Department of
Energy at the same time. Whether improprieties exist or just give the
appearance of being improper, it has fatally tainted the whole process of
evaluation of this site for use as a repository. Anything less than a new
unbiased evaluation by certifiably independent scientists, engineers, and
members of the public, cannot be considered acceptable by those who have
paid the bill to date, the taxpayer. Perhaps that law firm should be held
responsible for funding the next evaluation of this site.
cc: Sen. Reid
Sen. Ensign
Rep. Berkley
Rep. Gibbon
Gov. Guinn
|