DOE Attempting to Weaken the Rules on Yucca Mountain and Future High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories

Further Update on Deadline for Comments on Proposed Changes to Yucca Mountain Siting Guidelines (10 CFR Parts 960 and 963)

DOE Attempting to Weaken the Rules on Yucca Mountain and Future High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories

As Amy Shollenberger at Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy Project summarized in an e-mail yesterday, the proposed rule basically eliminates “individual disqualifiers” from the Yucca Mountain Siting Guidelines. This means that there is no specific thing which would cause the DOE to say that Yucca Mountain is not suitable as a repository (such as the fast flow of water, which has been documented at Yucca Mountain). This elimination of individual disqualifiers violates the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which calls for specific “…factors that qualify or disqualify any site from development as a repository, including factors pertaining to the location of valuable natural resources, hydrology, geophysics, seismic activity, and atomic energy defense activities, proximity to water supplies, proximity to populations, effects upon the rights of users of water…” This proposal is simply an attempt by DOE to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can declare Yucca Mountain suitable no matter what.

February 28th was the original public comment deadline on the Department of Energy’s proposed changes to Site Suitability Guidelines for high-level nuclear waste repositories (10 CFR Parts 960 and 963). However, because DOE published an incorrect address in its Federal Register Notice last November 30th, people who have submitted comments are receiving them back in the mail marked undeliverable, forwarding order expired (and we’re supposed to trust DOE with high-level nuclear waste? They can’t even keep their mail straight!). Just yesterday, March 6th, the DOE published a new Federal Register Notice with the correct address and a two week extension to send in public comments — the new deadline is March 20th.

This short window of time is a great opportunity. Most of us were so focused on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (not to mention the Senate vote on S. 1287) that not much work has gone towards fighting this attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game at Yucca Mountain.

NIRS has sent out a group sign on letter to Secretary Richardson, calling on DOE to withdraw its proposed changes to the Yucca Mountain guidelines. Watch for it, and sign on! Any help spreading the word on that would be much appreciated.

Also, if folks can generate more comments, that would be great. Send comments to this correct address: Dr. William Boyle US DOE Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office PO Box 30307 North Las Vegas, NV 89036-0307 or FAX them to 1-800-967-0739. or submit them online at www.ymp.gov

See below at the end of this message for some “Draft Comments” bullets that folks can use to generate their own. Comments that are short and to the point are fine — and the more we send in to DOE, the bigger impact we make.You can view Public Citizen’s comments at www.citizen.org/cmep (click on Nuclear Waste). NIRS comments are posted at www.nirs.org. You can view the proposed rule and all of the other relevant documents at www.ymp.gov.

Nuclear waste repository siting is still a concern for all 50 States. Even if Yucca Mountain goes forward, there will be more waste in the U.S. than that one site could hold, and thus a SECOND repository must be sited. So, these attempts to weaken the rules don’t just threaten Nevadans. Spread the word to key activists in target States such as Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Washington and Texas — all States considered “finalists” in earlier attempts to site high-level nuclear waste repositories (such as during the crystalline repository site search in the early to mid 1980’s). This weakening of the rules might come back to haunt different regions of the country one day, so better to nip it in the bud now by submitting lots of comments, from all over the U.S.! —Kevin Kamps, nuclear waste specialist, Nuclear Information & Resource Service Phone 301-270-6477; Fax 301-270-4291

DRAFT COMMENTS TO USE TO GENERATE YOUR OWN:

— The proposed changes at 10 CFR 960 and 963 are so fundamentally flawed that we request they simply be withdrawn.

— This proposed change attempts to re-write the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which is illegal.

— According to current Guidelines, Yucca Mountain should be disqualified from further consideration for the national repository. Current “Hydrology Guideline, 960.4-2-1” states that a groundwater travel time to the accessible environment of less than 1,000 years shall be grounds for disqualification. The significant discovery of rainwater less than 50 years old at the level of the proposed repository (unmistakably containing traces of bomb test fall out in the form of Chlorine-36), coupled with the groundwater flow model indicates that the site likely meets the Guidelines condition for disqualification. In 1998, over 200 environmental and public interest organizations petitioned Energy Secretary Richardson to disqualify Yucca Mountain on these grounds. The petition was rejected. We are outraged that DOE is now seeking to remove those guidelines rather than disqualify Yucca Mountain.

— The Nuclear Waste Policy Act states: “Section 113 [Site Characterization](1)(A)…the plan shall include…(iv) criteria to be used to determine the suitability of such candidate site for the location of a repository, developed pursuant to section 112(a) [42 USC 10132(a)]

Section 112(a)…Such guidelines shall specify factors that qualify or disqualify any site from development as a repository, including factors pertaining to the location of valuable natural resources, hydrology, geophysics, seismic activity, and atomic energy defense activities, proximity to water supplies, proximity to populations, effects upon the rights of users of water…”

Thus, in the guise of the proposed rule change, DOE is attempting to rewrite the law.

— An underlying value embodied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was to put the collective good, protection of our health, safety and our environment first. This is one of the only justifications for the nuclear industry getting the tremendous corporate welfare check of passing responsibility for this most deadly waste to the taxpayer. It is the government’s obligation to put the taxpayer first in this program. This weakening of Site Suitability Guidelines threatens public health and the environment, not to mention the waste of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, allowing for the development of an unsuitable site.

— The proposed repository program is national in scope and national in impact, regardless of the repository’s location. Issues of natural resources, transportation to the site, and socio-economic impacts should continue to be encompassed by the Suitability Guidelines. If there is to be any change to the Site Recommendation Guidelines, it should be to explicitly require full application of the Executive order on Environmental Justice.

— Given the electric industry and federal government’s refusal to phase out nuclear power and replace it with safer, cleaner, renewable energy sources, it is very doubtful that a repository at Yucca Mountain would be large enough to contain all the waste yet to be generated in the U.S. Thus, nuclear waste repository siting is still a concern for all 50 States. Why did DOE hold only two public hearings on this proposed rulemaking, and both in Nevada? Might not others in this country have something to say, given that their State might be the next one to be targeted for a high-level nuclear waste repository?

— This current proposal is a covert attempt to move the nuclear waste management program away from geologic disposal, towards engineered management, with no open acknowledgement nor discussion of this fact. Under DOE’s current “total system performance assessment” model, engineered barriers would provide “credit” to offset the rate of water flow and ground water travel time, in an effort to mitigate the fact that Yucca Mountain will leak like a sieve. But this contradicts the “geologic isolation” concept that Yucca Mountain is supposedly based on, that the Earth itself would provide long-term isolation of radioactivity from the biosphere. We might support such a move away from geologic disposal, were it to be done in an honest way, with full public involvement and a cancellation of the current repository program at Yucca Mountain.

— Full stake-holder and public participation by concerned citizens and non-governmental organizations is essential in all aspects of nuclear waste policy and management. The publication of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking during the holidays and once-in-a-lifetime Millennium, concurrent with poorly promoted public hearings and the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Yucca Mountain repository, concealment of the national high-level radioactive waste transport route maps till very late in the EIS comment period, and the incorrect address in the Federal Register has seriously undermined meaningful public participation, created tremendous confusion, and destroyed any hope which the DOE might have of being seen as taking action “in good faith.”