January 23, 1997, Las Vegas, Nevada
Mary Olson Testifying on behalf of:
Nuclear Information & Resource Service
6930 Carroll Avenue, #340, Takoma Park, MD 20912 www.nirs.org
301-270-6477 nirs@nirs.org
WITH:
Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project, Washington, DC
Military Production Network, Washington, DC
Greenpeace, USA, Washington, DC
Nuclear Energy and Information Service, Evanston, IL
Citizens Action for Safe Energy, Claremore, OK
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, State College, PA
Syracuse Peace Council, Syracuse, NY
Grandmothers For Peace, International, Sacramento, CA
Citizen Alert, Las Vegas Nevada
Prairie Island Coalition, Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Citizen Awareness Network, Shelburne Falls, MA and Haddam, CT
GANE (Georgians Against Nuclear Energy), Atlanta, GA
Alternatives in Action! Winder, GA
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Boulder, CO
National Environmental Coalition of Native Americans, Prague, OK
Snake River Alliance, Boise, ID
Peace Farm, Amarillo, TX
Save Ward Valley, Statewide, CA
Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch, NJ
Downwinders, UT
Radioactive Waste Management Associates, New York, NY
Shundahai Network, Nevada
Action for Nuclear Abolition, Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles, CA
Mothers For Peace, San Luis Obispo, CA
Arizona Safe Energy Coalition, Tucson, AZ
GE Stockholder’s Alliance, Tucson, AZ
NO Escape, NY
Indian Point Project, NY
Alliance to Close Indian Point, Ossining, NY
Southwest Toxic Watch, El Paso, TX
Global 2000, Austria
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Toledo, OH
Affinity, Ohio’s Environmental Newspaper, Statewide, OH
Wise Use Movement of Washington State, Seattle, WA
Virginia Earth First! Charlottesville, VA
Pennsylvania Environment Network, Statewide, PA
Conservation Council of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
WESPAC (Westchester People’s Action Coalition),
White Plains, NY
Committee to Bridge the Gap, Los Angeles, CA
Blueridge Environmental Defense League, Glendale Springs, NC
WITH RESPECT TO: 10CFR960, General Guidelines for the “Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories.”
Federal Register, Monday Dec 16, 1996 Vol. 61, Number 242, pages 66157-66169
Addressed to: April V. Gil,
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office
P.O. Box 98608 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608
On behalf of our members and the public that we serve, these organizations forcefully request that the Department of Energy (DOE) withdraw the proposed changes to 10 CFR 960 and apply existing guidelines to Yucca Mountain. The DOE Yucca Mountain study assessing the site to determine whether it is suitable for a nuclear waste repository is a program with impacts which affect citizens nationwide, and for many generations to come.
The proposal is unacceptable in that it undermines the nation’s high-level nuclear waste program, including:
–> The proposal to change to site evaluation guidelines for Yucca Mountain experimental waste repository study site is not in keeping with the provisions of law.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act in force today in Section 112 (a) “Guidelines” states :
…”Such guidelines shall specify detailed geologic considerations that shall be primary criteria for the selection of sites…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 defense activities, proximity to water supplies, proximity to populations, the effect upon the rights of the users of water, and proximity to components of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge system, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the National Wilderness Preservation System, or National Forest Lands. Such guidelines shall take into consideration the proximity to sites where high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel is generated or temporarily stored and the transportation and safety factors involved in moving such waste to a repository…”
While the Act states that the guidelines may be revised from time to time, it specifies that these revisions must be “consistent with the provisions of this section.”
The proposal specifically exempts the Yucca Mountain study site from defined technical factors or a specified range of values for physical parameters that can be measured. Thus the provision of law stating that hydrology, geophysics, seismic activity, water and population will be the basis for qualification or disqualification of the site is not being followed. The proposed rule states that transportation of radioactive waste to the site will not be evaluated in the site suitability assessment, which is also not consistent with the provision of the Act.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also instructs the DOE to work with the Council on Environmental Quality, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey and interested Governors in development of guidelines. It is reasonable to assert that any changes to such guidelines would be in consultation with these entities. It is not clear that this proposal was developed with their in-put.
–> Changing the criteria and basis of measurement in the middle of an assessment undercuts both scientific and public credibility.
“The original suites of technical guidelines in subparts C and D consider characteristics that might be important at any type of site in any geologic or hydrogeologic setting and provide the basis for comparing sites. Corresponding technical guidelines are not proposed in subpart E. ” The current objective guidelines are verifiable and important at “any site” and should still apply to Yucca Mountain whether other sites are being considered or not.
The new scheme to evaluate the Yucca Mountain study site to determine whether it is suited for the goal of isolating 95% of the radioactive burden generated by nuclear activities in this country is so radically different from the original protocol that it effectively removes any scientific basis for the decision. Recent changes including a congressional mandate to write a site-specific radiation standard already have eroded the scientific rigor of this project. This erosion makes the existing, technically rigorous, measurable, verifiable and explicit site guidelines that much more important. Exemption of Yucca Mountain from the current guidelines will reduce the program to an engineering project.
The difference between science and engineering is that while engineering can build a structure to house the waste, it is quite different to be able to have hard data to show in credible, scientifically defensible terms that the site will isolate radioactivity in this generation and in the 12,000 human generations to come as this material decays. In an engineering project, cost and schedule are the primary considerations. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act as cited above, established very specific additional factors to be considered. According to DOE documents, much of the data required to make evaluations will not be in hand at the time of the system assessment, and so key portions of the assessment will be based on models rather than measured parameters. This is not acceptable.
The proposal drops any examination of the site solely with respect to the natural system including geologic and hydrologic factors. Substituting an analysis that includes engineered barriers, waste package and any other features that DOE would install at the proposed site represents a loss of credibility for the scientific basis of choosing this site for development. It is entirely credible that any other engineered location could perform as well as an engineered site in Yucca Mountain. (On that reasoning, perhaps existing engineered structures should have been considered in selecting sites for characterization.)
Without a defensible basis for choosing the geology at Yucca Mountain it becomes clearer that selection of this site will be a combination of a politically driven compromise and the fact that money already has been spent on this site. Neither of these are a credible or defensible basis for developing Yucca Mountain. In fact, the geology may contribute a number of hindrances to suitability of this site over the near and long term, and thus should be the basis for considering disqualification of the site under existing guidelines.
These factors also undermine any remaining public credibility in the DOE’s high-level nuclear waste program. It is not acceptable to change the rules halfway through the game. This sets a dangerous precedent for other nuclear waste sites, other DOE projects, and indeed, other federal projects of any kind.
The proposed Rule references Executive Order 12612, as it should. However, we disagree with the DOE when the Order’s relevance is dismissed. This proposed change is to a rule that has substantial impact on the relationship between the Federal government and the States. 10 CFR 960 is the implementation of a promise made by federal government in law with respect to how a major federal facility will be sited. Therefore this regulation is likewise effectively a promise to any prospective host state or tribe within whose lands such a facility might be sited. A change to this regulation that substantially departs from the promises contained in the statute sets a precedent not only for this project, but all other federal projects involving selection of a site.
We also note that DOE has failed to reference the Executive Order directing Federal agencies to consider environmental Justice as a factor in any agency actions. It s necessary for the Department to do so in this case, not only for the action of changing the bases of site suitability, but also in dropping any consideration of transportation of the waste to the site.
–> Transportation is one of the largest impacts in implementation of a single high-level nuclear waste repository program and must be considered in the evaluation of any site.
The commentary to the proposed rule states “…DOE is not specifying separate system guidelines for environmental, socio-economic, and transportation considerations in Subpart E, as it did in [existing regulation]. The DOE will not require or make findings with regard to such considerations as part of any evaluation of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for recommendation” (FR Vol 61, # 242 page 66162).
In order for the irradiated fuel to reach a Yucca Mountain repository, it will travel through at least 43 states. DOE already has projected that more than 50 million Americans live within one-half mile of the rail transport routes. The shipping campaign is projected to last 30 years or more. For the rest of the nation, a Yucca Mountain repository has the potential to be a Mobile Chernobyl. This impact must be assessed. The existing regulation requires an assessment of transportation factors in evaluating a site for repository development. The proposal that these factors would be considered for any site except Yucca Mountain–the only site which currently may be considered for development under the law–is unacceptable. If transportation is not considered in choosing the Yucca Mountain site for development, when will it be considered? Our members and friends need to know, since when it comes to nuclear waste transport, We All Live in Nevada!!!!
This rule should be withdrawn from consideration. If it were to be accepted there will be virtually no decision to make on Yucca Mountain’s “suitability” because there will be no external objective criteria left upon which to make a judgment. This is a “shoe horn” to make the hole fit the peg, or in this case, the fuel rod. It would leave not even a shred of scientific credibility in the US high-level nuclear waste program. The cascade of decisions that brought us here were purely politically driven. This is not a tolerable or acceptable approach to solving the very real problem of nuclear waste isolation. We demand that this rule be withdrawn, and the existing guidelines be applied.
We again request an extension of the comment period for an additional 120 days. Because this proposed change affects the entire country, it is not adequate to hold a single hearing. We therefore request that additional hearings be held in geographic regions, including the following: Portland, OR; Tulsa, OK; Chicago, IL; Indianapolis, IN; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Olson Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Washington, DC
Auke Piersma Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project, Washington, DC
Maureen Eldredge Military Production Network, Washington, DC
Bill Walsh Greenpeace, USA, Washington, DC
Carrie Dickerson Citizen’s Action for Safe Energy, Claremore, IL
Judith Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
David Kraft Nuclear Energy and Information Service, Evanston, IL
Bill Mazza Syracuse Peace Council, Syracuse, NY
Bernice Kring Grandmothers For Peace, International, Sacramento, CA
Rick Neilson Citizen Alert, Las Vegas Nevada
George Crocker Prairie Island Coalition, Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Deborah Katz Citizen Awareness Network, Shelburne Falls, MA and Haddam, CT
Glenn Carroll GANE (Georgians Against Nuclear Energy), Atlanta, GA
Dana Smith Alternatives in Action! Winder, GA
Michelle Foy Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Boulder, CO
Grace Thorpe National Environmental Coalition of Native
Americans, Prague, OK
Robert McEnaney Snake River Alliance, Boise, ID
Mavis Belisle Peace Farm, Amarillo, TX
Molly Johnson & Tori Woodard Save Ward Valley, Statewide, CA
William deCamp Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch, NJ
Preston Truman Downwinders, UT
Marvin Resnikoff Radioactive Waste Management Associates, New York, NY
Corbin Harney Shundahai Network, Nevada Reinard Knutsen Action for Nuclear Abolition, Las Vegas, NV
Jonathan Parfrey Los Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles, CA
Elizabeth Apfelberg Mothers For Peace, San Luis Obispo, CA
Betty Schroeder Arizona Safe Energy Coalition, Tucson, AZ
Patricia Birnie GE Stockholder’s Alliance, Tucson, AZ
Daryl & Margo Schepart NO Escape, NY
Marilyn Elie Indian Point Project, NY
Barbara Hinkernell Alliance to Close Indian Point, Ossining, NY
Richard Boren Southwest Toxic Watch, El Paso, TX
Hugh Esco Atlanta, GA
Manuela Krauter, Nuclear Campaigner Global 2000, Austria
Alice Hirt Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Toledo, OH
Stephanie Mugridge, Editor/Publisher Affinity, Ohio’s Environmental Newspaper, Statewide, OH
David Ortman Wise Use Movement of Washington State, Seattle, WA
Kirsten Randall Virginia Earth First! Charlottesville, VA
Mike Ewald Pennsylvania Environment Network, Statewide, PA
John Runkle Conservation Council of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Julie Carran & Charles Margulis, Co-Directors WESPAC (Westchester People’s Action Coalition), White Plains, NY
Daniel Hirsch Committee to Bridge the Gap, Los Angeles, CA