Joint statements by Senators Paul Laxalt and Chic Hecht, October 9, 1985

Octob JOINT STATEMENT BY SENATORS PAUL LAXALT AND CHIC HECHT Nevada Senators Paul Laxalt and Chic Hecht -J?oJery challenged the Department of Energy's interpretation of a key provision in the law for selecting the nation's first high-leve1 Energy Secretary John Herrington in which they objected to DOE's interpretation of the law in designating sites as "preliminarily suitable" for the repository. sufficient number of sites should be deemed preliminarily suitable so that, even though some sites may prove unacceptable, three sites would eventually be recommended to the President. The DOE, on the other hand, wants to classify only three sites as being preliminarily suitable and wants to have the option of eventually recommending three or less sites to the President. repository. The Republican lawmakers Laxalt and Hecht told Herrington that a (Name) Page 2 (Date) In a joint statement, Senators Laxalt and Hecht said: The state of Nevada has always believed strongly in contributing its fair share toward the betterment of this nation. All we ask for in return is to be treated fairly. DOE's position on "preliminary suitability" is troubling to many Nevadans. Some of our citizens believe that the site-selection process is little more than a charade and that the DOE is merely targeting Nevada for the nuclear waste site. Consequently, the DOE is faced with a very serious credibility gap in Nevada and a particularly serious credibility problem nationwide in terms of this vitally important project. While we do not necessarily agree that the DOE is attempting to railroad the site into Nevada, we certainly empathize with the concerns expressed by some of our citizens. In addition, we strongly believe that the law requires more than three sites to be deemed preliminarily suitable in order to ensure that the (Name) Page 3 (Date) process is thorough and complete and that the best possible site is eventually arrived at. Our position is supported by the law and we will resist any efforts by the DOE to impose their interpretation of the law upon Nevada or any other potential site. We will not allow Nevada to be rolled on this matter. We feel that the credibility of the DOE's site-selection process rests on this issue. We hope they see the light and agree with our interpretation of the law.