Written testimony (advance copy) by Shelley Berkley for public hearing regarding proposed change to Yucca Mountain site suitability guidelines, February 3, 2000 (1 page)

Representative Shelley Berkley Written Testimony, DOE 2/3/00 public hearing Re: Proposed Change to Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Guidelines Advance Copy This statement is given in response to the proposed rule change by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) of the Department of Energy (DOE) to the Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Guideline, 10 CFR 960. I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed rule change because it is not in compliance with current radiation exposure guidelines and does not have the consent of Congress. First, the proposed rule change is in clear violation of the guidelines set in Section 112(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The U.S. Congress has established detailed qualifying and disqualifying requirements to determine a site's eligibility for development of a repository, based upon its ability to store nuclear waste at minimal threat to the environment. The DOE's proposed rule change would overrule the statute of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, by establishing a new provision, 10 CFR 963, that would be applied strictly to Yucca Mountain. Instead of basing the eligibility of a repository on provisions that require the site to meet specific safety and health standards, the proposed siting guideline would replace the statute with a singular guideline, that will analyze the overall system performance of Yucca Mountain. Substituting the guidelines with one overall performance assessment plan is a transparent bureaucratic maneuver to retain Yucca Mountain as the repository site. It is evident that the DOE cannot lawfully justify the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, and has proposed to change the standard so it will meet a more convenient requirement for the purpose of resuscitating the fatally flawed Yucca Mountain Project. This proposal undermines the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and jeopardizes the health and safety of the citizens of Nevada by discarding the qualifying and disqualifying tests that have been mandated by Congress to be used as a determinant as to whether a site is capable of safely storing nuclear waste for a period of no less than 10,000 years. Second, Congress had the ability on several occasions to eliminate Section 112(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that requires the DOE to compare the finding of Yucca Mountain with what it knows about other sites as a means of evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository site, but Congress has never repealed or amended that specific section. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act became law after years of research, deliberation, and analysis by top scientists and policy makers. It would not only be irresponsible, but insulting, to soften these requirements because the Yucca Mountain Project is heading toward disqualification based on scientific findings. After more than a decade, the rules governing the Yucca Mountain Project must not be overturned for the sole political purpose of keeping the project alive. Now is the time to utilize the law for the reason it was created by rejecting the DOE's proposed change in the site suitability guidelines, and to say no to further insults against the scientists and law makers who, in good conscience, wrote the Nuclear Waste and Policy Act of 1982.