Transcript of testimony by Shelley Berkley to Subcommittee on Power and Energy Nuclear Repository Hearing, June 23, 2000 (3 pages)

REP. SHELLEY BERKLEY Testimony - Subcommittee on Power and Energy Nuclear Repository Hearing June 23, 2000 I would like to thank Mr. Barton and Mr. Boucher for affording me the opportunity to speak about an issue that affects every single person in my district, and the entire State of Nevada. Oversight of the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project is crucial to the continued growth and development of my state, crucial to the health and well-being of all Nevada families, and crucial to the health of the environment. That is why I testify before you today?to share with you my concerns, and the concerns of my constituents, about the status of the Yucca Mountain Project. I understand the purpose of this hearing today is to address the oversight concerns surrounding the Yucca Mountain Project. I realize the subcommittee is discussing the time line, engineering, and regulatory aspects of the project. But when discussing oversight issues, we must also look at the scientific evidence and problems that have been raised regarding the suitability of Yucca Mountain to hold radioactive waste. On three separate occasions the State of Nevada has demonstrated, using DOE's own data, that the site should be disqualified under both the EPA standard and DOE's own internal site screening regulation. And each time, the DOE or Congress has changed the regulations to ensure that Yucca Mountain would not be disqualified, regardless of the health and safety consequences to Nevadans. In fact, DOE has found the geology at Yucca Mountain so poor that over 95% of the waste isolation capability of the proposed repository would have to be provided by metal waste container and other so-called engineered barriers around the waste, with only about 5% of the site's waste isolation performance depending on the natural conditions. When this project started, the idea was find a place with natural geologic features to contain the radiation. Clearly, that standard can not be met at Yucca Mountain Yucca Mountain is located in a young geologically active area, with 4 volcanoes within 7 miles of the site. Yucca Mountain is surrounded by 34 known earthquake fault lines, and has experienced over 620 earthquakes in the last 20 years. One of these earthquakes measured a 5.9 on the Richter Scale and caused over a million dollars in damage to DOE's own surface support facilities. An aquifer flows beneath Yucca Mountain, with water moving so rapidly that even with all the engineered barriers, radiation will unavoidably escape from the repository and contaminate the water flow. As recently as yesterday it was reported -again- that scientists have found strong evidence that the Yucca Mountain repository floor was once flooded with hot water, and fear the water could rise again. These are the real oversight concerns. I urge my colleagues to take into consideration the alarming scientific evidence when determining the status of the Yucca Mountain Project. The real question is, are we going to continue allowing political expediency to determine our nation's nuclear waste policy?Or, will we listen to science. The Yucca Mountain Project is a failed one. We need to invest in our future, and the future of generations to come, and work together to find a responsible and safe solution. 2 I thank you for allowing me to testify before the subcommittee on this important issue. I would also like to submit as part of my testimony recent articles that appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal and the Las Vegas Sun that further detail the scientific findings that disprove Yucca Mountain as a suitable site to hold radioactive waste. 3