Monday, June 24, 2002 | 11:14 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The Denver Post on Sunday became the largest daily newspaper to oppose Yucca Mountain, as newspapers continue to weigh in on the controversial project.
With a final vote in the U.S. Senate pending in the next few weeks, opponents of the proposed nuclear waste repository hope editorials like the Post's make their case -- and influence readers and lawmakers.
"Not only are people in the states reading the editorials, so are these senators," Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman of Sen. Harry Reid, said. "They pay attention to what the largest paper in the state is saying."
In its editorial, the Denver Post, which has a Sunday circulation of 801,000, argued that scientific studies at Yucca should be completed before Congress approves the site, saying "the solution should be driven by rational science, not political hype."
"The DOE also hasn't been entirely upfront with Congress about how the Yucca Mountain plan mutated over the years, as scientists discovered new problems and political bosses ordered them to just ignore the issues or work around the potential show-stoppers," the editorial says.
Nevada officials have tried to make similar arguments and rally senators against the proposal by using personal pitches, TV ad campaigns and grass-roots organizing efforts. In addition, Nevada officials and environmental groups have lobbied editorial boards to sway public opinion nationwide against Yucca Mountain. The tactic is one direct way to grab the attention of lawmakers.
Outside Nevada, the Post joins the St. Petersburg Times as the only large daily papers to oppose Yucca Mountain.
So far, state officials have had little luck swaying many senators to their cause. Yucca Mountain proponents, including Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, say they have a majority of senators lined up to vote for the project.
It's unclear what, if any, effect the Post editorial will have on senators preparing to vote on the nuclear waste dump project, but it demonstrates that serious doubts about the site have taken hold nationwide, Nevada senators said.
"I think that what this shows is that (Yucca) is a national issue," Reid, D-Nev., said.
Among those lobbying editorial boards are former National Transportation Board chairman Jim Hall, now a paid consultant for Nevada, who has made personal pitches to several newspapers.
So has Ken Cook, president of Washington-based Environmental Working Group, which launched a website (mapscience.org) that allows users to pinpoint how close they live to a proposed nuclear waste transportation route. The site as of today had received 122,000 hits since it was launched June 11.
"We are aggressively talking to editorial boards of every ideological bent to point out the inconsistencies in what the government has been telling the news media," said Mike Casey, Environmental Working Group spokesman.
The Denver Post editorial urges the Senate to defy federal law and delay a vote on Yucca. The delay would "prod the DOE into addressing lingering, serious concerns about the site -- and put an embarrassing spotlight on the DOE's cheerleading for the $58 billion project," the newspaper said.
"The editorial lays out the arguments very clearly against Yucca Mountain," said Traci Scott, spokeswoman of Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "Anything like this will help us."
Ensign has been trying to convince his fellow Republican senators to vote against Yucca Mountain, or at least support the Nevada senators in an attempt to block a Yucca vote with procedural maneuvering. Ensign has only one GOP ally: Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, who has long been opposed to Yucca.
A call to the office of Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., was not returned today.
Colorado has been split in the debate. The state has nuclear waste and residents have made arguments for getting rid of it. But others, such as Campbell, argue that transporting nuclear waste over the Rockies is dangerous. Campbell also believes there is a moral issue involved in dumping waste in another state.
The Post in the past has examined transportation, but in its Sunday editorial attacked the way the federal government came to the decision on Yucca Mountain.
In contrast, a number of leading U.S. newspapers have taken pro-Yucca stances, including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.
The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Portland Oregonian, Seattle Times, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Detroit Free Press and Detroit News, and Boston Herald also support Yucca.
"In the end, even though no one really wants the spent nuclear fuel storage facility around, it has to be somewhere, and the House was right to say to the Nevadans that, due to their topography, demographics and experience in nuclear matters, they get it," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said in a May 18 editorial. The Senate should follow suit, the newspaper said.
"The editorial positions of major newspapers in the country are overwhelmingly in favor of Yucca Mountain," said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the top industry trade group.
The St. Petersburg Times said the project poses a potential risk to Las Vegas and millions who live along transportation routes.
"Congress would be more responsible to reject the repository for now until the DOE has studied the project more thoroughly and assured the nation of its safety," Florida's largest newspaper said in a May 2 editorial. Florida has five reactors where waste is stored on-site.
archive
