Las Vegas, NV, September 5th, 2001. My name is Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, and I am the Director of the public interest group HOME. I am a resident of Tecopa, Inyo County, California. While Yucca Mountain has mainly been framed as a Nevada issue, our county is only 18 miles away. Our water is immediately impacted by any runoff from Yucca Mountain and portions of the already contaminated Nevada Test Site.
I have already registered in writing to the Secretary of Energy our concerns about the violation of First and Fifth Amendment rights, concerning the scheduling of this and the Amargosa Valley and Pahrump hearings.
I have followed this issue closely since 1987, to the detriment of my family and other responsibilities. I have traveled to many hearings at my own expense. I have struggled through tomes, and learned to discuss topics completely unknown to me—hydrology, seismology, geology, and so on. I would like to be able to give you an educated response to the suitability of the proposed Yucca Mountain site. However, I am unable to do so for the following reasons:
First and foremost, despite repeated requests from myself and others, the U.S. has never at any time, in court or out, provided proof of ownership for the land surrounding Yucca Mountain. The most recent legal precedent is a case brought before the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States, which last year ruled against the U.S. request to dismiss the case. It upheld the U.S. Treaty with the Western Shoshone Nation, ratified in 1863, known as the Treaty of Ruby Valley. In light of this, all current activities at Yucca Mountain appear to be trespass actions against the Western Shoshone Nation. Iraq got bombed for the same thing.
Secondly, even if you ignore this treaty, the State of Nevada has refused to give water rights to a project so clearly against the public interest.
Thirdly, despite repeated requests from numerous entities including myself, no comprehensive study has been done on the enormous impacts of massive waste transportation.
During the Draft Environmental Impact Hearings, I asked questions at three different hearings. DOE staff present were unable to provide answers and said they would mail responses. Later, I made inquiries. I was told my requests would only be processed after the Final EIS was out. So, since neither my comments nor my requests have yet been addressed, and the Final EIS is not complete, I am unable to reasonably evaluate Site Suitability at this time.
During the Supplemental DEIS hearing in Amargosa in May, I again raised issues and questions, as a member of the CAB for Inyo County. That SDEIS document was based on a number of highly speculative design components, such as fuel storage ponds and above ground storage facilities. These would legally require substantial scientific study, of surface water, earthquake impact, containment research, etc., as well as technical review and public hearings. I asked the DOE to consider a USGS water report in the EIS, which directly pertains to the effects the Project would have on my community. Again, since the Final EIS is not complete and my concerns have not been addressed, I am unable to reasonably evaluate Site Suitability.
When the EPA Radiation Standards for Yucca Mountain were considered, I and many others raised important concerns about demographics, dose calculations, and the arbitrary period of time under consideration. The standards were issued without addressing these concerns, resulting in several lawsuits. Since these lawsuits are not resolved, we do not know the final outcome on the radiation standards. I am therefore unable to reasonably evaluate the Site Suitability.
In regards to existing Site Suitability Guidelines, it seems assured that the Yucca Mountain Project could not meet them. However, the evaluation for the purposes of these hearings is based on proposed new guidelines, apparently hoping to change the rules to fit the short-comings of the site. Since these new guidelines are not law, but the legal guidelines were not used, I am unable to reasonably evaluate Site Suitability.
Furthermore, other critical information is not yet available, such as the study of Metal Alloy-22, key to the containment of the waste, or the NRC’s criteria for a license. Therefore, I cannot reasonably evaluate Site Suitability.
And lastly, as to the document specific to this hearing today, I have been unable to obtain a copy at all. When first made aware of the August 21st announcement, I was told that it wasn’t yet available. Later, I was told the copies were all gone. I received a CD a few days ago, which is not very helpful. For serious review, I need something that I can bookmark, notate, and share with members of my community. Since I have not even received the document, I cannot reasonably evaluate Site Suitability.
OK, so, let’s encapsulate the few things that we DO know and see where we are.
¨
Under existing legal site suitability guidelines, DOE’s own research for the past decade and a half says this site cannot safely contain high-level nuclear waste.¨
The demographic data on which the DOE based its dose estimates is over 10 years old, and was seriously flawed then, in the fastest growing population area in the entire United States.¨
Under existing DOE studies, the water on which this precarious desert environment depends for life cannot be definitively protected.¨
Vast documentation exists proving that all existing DOE sites leak, most on a genocidal level.¨
It is well documented that the DOE has consistently lied and covered up, since inception, to advance its own agenda.¨
The United States has been unable to prove title to the land, land already poisoned by over 50 years of nuclear weapons detonation. Like the gift of smallpox blankets, this project appears to be a racist attack on the Western Shoshone people, unprecedented in human history.For all the above reasons, I must emphatically ask:
¨
That Secretary Abrahams refuse to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for any further consideration;¨
That taxpayer monies not be depleted further on this essentially criminal enterprise;¨
That reparations be made to the Western Shoshone Nation for the violations committed thus far, and responsibility taken for full mitigation of the site, as much as possible.I understand that the DOE has been trying to fulfill a morally corrupt mandate imposed on it by Congress in 1987, to solely study this site, for high-level waste disposal. I have spoken with Project employees over the years and asked them how they can be a part of it. They assured me that they were supplying objective scientific information, and privately concurred in the last few years that responsible review would terminate the project prior to Site Recommendation.
Well, here we all are, at a Site Recommendation Hearing.
However, we all have to go on from this point, and we must return our nation to a sane and responsible path in containing this deadly poison that we have created. I pray that all of you at the DOE have the moral courage to do the right thing. And if you don’t, we WILL find a way to stop you.
Thank you all for your time.
Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, Director