Yucca Mountain News Clips - Monday, August 2, 2004

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, August 2, 2004
---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
August 02, 2004

Letters for Aug. 2

Yucca Mountain isn´t a waste ‘dump´

Every time you write something about the Yucca Mountain project, you refer to it as the “dump.’ Here is how the dictionary defines the word dump:

“dump’: (1) A place where refuse is dumped, (b) A storage place for goods and supplies, (3) An unordered accumulation, (5) (slang) A poorly maintained or disreputable place.

None of the above applies to the Yucca Mountain project for which hundreds of scientists and engineers (I have no association with the project) are working for years in order to construct and, eventually, operate a safe facility where nuclear fuel will be stored. You may not agree with the project; fine. But don´t you think you have a responsibility as journalists to use the correct words? Obviously you use the word “dump’ to bring into people´s minds a place where people go and throw away trash. You know very well that the Yucca Mountain repository is not such a place and will never be.

It is an insult to all the scientists and engineers who are employed by the project, people who are educated, sincere and responsible individuals (and most of them Nevada residents) to tell the world that all they are doing is they work for a dump.

Nick Tsoulfanidis
Reno

---------------------------

Jacksonville Daily News
August 02, 2004

Democrats whiff on energy policy

Last week in Boston, the Democratic Party went on record as supporting a 20 percent cut in the nation's supply of electricity.

No plank in the party's platform said this explicitly. But the approval of a platform opposing the storage of nuclear waste at a planned repository inside Yucca Mountain, Nev., amounts to the same thing.

"We will protect Nevada and its communities from the high level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, which has not proven to be safe by sound science," read a plank approved by convention delegates.

But without a viable option for storing spent nuclear fuels, the byproducts of plants that generate roughly 20 percent of the nation's electricity, we could before long have to begin shutting down these facilities.

Nuclear power companies currently store spent fuels at nearly 100 temporary holding areas across the country (each of which makes a tempting potential target for terrorists), while awaiting the much delayed completion of a single, secure, exhaustively studied central repository in remote Nevada. And when those temporary storage facilities reach capacity, and no Yucca Mountain is available, the reactors may have to be shut down.

Anti-nuclear activists in the Democratic Party understand this. Derailing Yucca Mountain, they know, will effectively kill off what's left of the nation's nuclear energy industry. And their presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, is betting the odds that opposing the site will win him Nevada. "Rest assured, Nevada, if I'm president of the United States, Yucca Mountain will not be a repository," Kerry not long ago declared during a Las Vegas fund-raiser.

But how Kerry and his fellow Democrats plan to supplant the 20 percent of electricity potentially put at risk by their position is unknown. Nor have they explained how they intend to deal with the tons of high-level radioactive waste now stored at numerous less secure and suitable sites around the country.

That's because at present, Yucca Mountain, though imperfect, remains the best storage option there is.

Also mystifying is how shutting down the nation's nuclear power plants squares with the call by the Democrats - notably Teresa Heinz Kerry - for more energy self-reliance. In a Kerry administration, she said, "not only will no American boy or girl go to war because of our dependence on foreign oil," but "our economy will forever become independent of this need."

But isn't our dependence on imported oil and natural gas only likely to grow if a President Kerry takes actions that effectively kill off an industry providing one fifth of the nation's electricity?

Both Kerry and running mate John Edwards in fact have flip-flopped on the issue over the years, suggesting that their current opposition is patently opportunistic.

In 1987, Kerry voted to fund planning for the repository. Yet today he opposes it - an echo of the senator's vote granting President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq and later vote against funding the war once it way under way. And Edwards, too, has voted inconsistently on Yucca Mountain.

Undoubtedly, some of the dim bulbs attending the convention in Boston delude themselves that a 20 percent electricity deficit can be made up with more federal wind- and solar-power subsidies. But if a political party is going to support a policy that potentially removes a power provider this significant from the nation's already strained energy portfolio, its leaders at least have the obligation to spell out a responsible, reality-based alternative.

---------------------------

NRC
July 30, 2004

NRC Staff Makes its Yucca Mountain Documents Available

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff today made available electronically its documentary material concerning a possible future hearing on a potential application from the Department of Energy (DOE) for a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

“As required, the NRC staff has certified that we have provided our documents related to the potential hearing,’ said C. William Reamer, director of the agency´s Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety. “This is consistent with the Commission´s interest in assuring the availability of information.’

The agency is still analyzing the July 9 decision regarding Yucca Mountain by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and its possible implications. In the meantime it is moving ahead to make its documents available on the Network in a timely manner.

NRC regulations require all potential participants in the Yucca Mountain proceeding to make their documents available to other potential participants and the public in electronic form. The documents that must be made available consist of the information that a party, potential party or interested government participant intends to rely on in the licensing proceeding for a high-level waste repository, and certain other relevant information.

The NRC has made more than 24,000 documents available to the agency´s on-line Licensing Support Network (LSN), at www.lsnnet.gov. All but about 100 of those documents have been indexed by the LSN and are available through that network. The remaining documents are available through the NRC´s electronic Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html and will be indexed later on the LSN. Help in using ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 301/415-4737 or 1/800/397-4209.

NRC regulations require that the NRC technical staff make its documents publicly available within 30 days after DOE certifies that it has made its documents available. DOE made that certification on June 30.

Other potential parties to a hearing must make their documents available no later than 90 days after the DOE certification.

An NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will resolve disputes regarding document submittal. G. Paul Bollwerk III, chief of the agency´s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, has named the following to serve on that board: Thomas S. Moore, Chair; Alex S. Karlin and Alan S. Rosenthal.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
July 30, 2004

Editorial: The real deception

Weekend Edition
july 31 - Aug. 1, 2004

During the 2000 presidential campaign George Bush said he would use "sound science" to judge the Yucca Mountain project. But soon after he was elected, Bush lobbied Congress to pass his plan to send nuclear waste to Nevada -- even though there still was a mountain of scientific evidence showing it to be unsafe. Congress passed the legislation and Bush happily signed it into law. One of the U.S. senators who voted against Bush's Yucca Mountain plan was John Kerry, who became the Democratic presidential nominee last week. It wasn't surprising that Kerry sided with Nevada: In 2000 he had voted to sustain President Clinton's veto of a bill that would have made it much easier to send nuclear waste to Nevada.

Despite Kerry's strength on this issue of critical importance to all Nevadans, Republicans have dredged up some votes from years ago that they say show that Kerry had favored moving the Yucca Mountain project forward. But Kerry clearly is opposed to Yucca Mountain. "Rest assured, Nevada, if I'm the president of the United States, Yucca Mountain will not be a repository," Kerry said in May at a campaign stop in Las Vegas.

For anyone still skeptical of Kerry's commitment, consider how Yucca Mountain supporters feel about him. Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, in a commentary written several months ago, cited Kerry's opposition to the Yucca Mountain project and noted that if Kerry were elected president it would mean nuclear waste would stay in Idaho and not be buried in Nevada. "It's as simple as that," wrote Otter. And just this past week an editorial in the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch warned, "A John Kerry win spells doom for the project." If even supporters of Yucca Mountain acknowledge that Kerry will kill the project, what should make us think otherwise?

Kerry has been one of the few consistent friends Nevada has had in the U.S. Senate regarding Yucca Mountain, the most important issue facing this state. Kerry understands our concerns, and has stood with us when Nevada has needed him, something that can't be said for Bush.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
July 30, 2004

Where I Stand -- Brian Greenspun: Hope for Nevada

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

Weekend Edition
July 31 - Aug. 1, 2004

Why am I working? I am supposed to be on vacation!

Actually, there are some in my family who will challenge the notion that the first couple of weeks in August are delineated as vacation time for me, choosing instead to consider the first twelve months of every year as coming within that loose definition.

The idea for an August vacation started with my parents, especially my father, who needed the month of August to escape the heat as well as get a respite from his five times a week "Where I Stand" column, which was the front page mainstay of the Las Vegas Sun while he was publisher.

In order to assuage his guilt and give the people of Las Vegas myriad viewpoints, Hank Greenspun offered his column space to numerous political, civic and community leaders to express their points of view while he ducked out of his writing obligations for the month.

Some traditions are worth continuing. This is one of them. And even though I have been a bit lax in my writing responsibilities the past few months, the idea of a month in which I can read what others in the community are thinking, and not have to consider what I should write about, is an idea worth pursuing.

Hence, the decision to not only continue my father's vacation tradition but also the community service aspect of giving others, many of whom are more knowledgeable, the opportunity to share their thoughts with our readers. Those columns begin this week.

To those who have agreed to put themselves and their thoughts on the line, thank you. This stuff isn't easy, especially when you consider the fact that every word is parsed by someone looking for a fight and not shy about telling you what they think. Your hard work will add to the base of knowledge of our citizens and, therefore, the quality of democracy that we will have.

But, since I have some space left before I sign off for the month, I want to share a couple more thoughts with you about Yucca Mountain and the latest attempt by some in this state to make all presidential candidates "equal" in their positions on the high-level nuclear waste dump.

Firstly, they are not equal. They are not even close. My colleague Jon Ralston's flashes notwithstanding, what President George W. Bush did to the state of Nevada overwhelms any single or multiple of Senate votes that Sen. John Kerry may have cast against our interests. Let me explain.

There is a former Republican governor of Nevada whose job it is to promote, and whose allegiance belongs to, the nuclear waste industry. In doing so, Bob List has made every effort to convince Nevada families that the dump is inevitable and that we might as well start negotiating for benefits because there is nothing we can do to stop the trucks and trains from rolling our way. He has been singularly unsuccessful in trying to persuade Nevadans to give up the good fight.

In fact, the recent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in Nevada's favor has given lie to the "inevitability" claim and given all of us more reason to double and redouble our efforts to stop the federal government's plan to bury our state, its people and its economy under 70,000 tons of the most deadly substances known to man.

The certain way to put a stake in the nuke waster's heart is to elect John Kerry president because he has promised this country to find a better way to deal with the waste other than transporting it through major cities across the country and, ultimately, 90 miles from Las Vegas.

If he becomes president, the Environmental Protection Agency does what he wants, the Department of Energy does what he wants and the Congress does what he wants or gets its act vetoed. A bonus to Kerry's election will be that our governor and other GOP elected officials in this state will be free to be more than "disappointed" in President Bush's decision to make Nevada the dumping ground of the nation, causing Nevadans to stop questioning whose side the leadership in this state is really on.

Contrast that picture with the current one in which President Bush decided -- all by himself because he was the only person on the planet who could make the call -- to send radioactive poison to Nevada for the next 30 years. And he did it in the face of what is now court-confirmed science that says the standards the government used were scientifically flawed and insufficient.

To continue his charade on behalf of his friends in the nuclear power industry, President Bush in a second term will have to make sure the EPA changes the rules, the DOE accepts those changes and the Congress does what it can to nullify any scientific safeguards that the court and the National Academy of Sciences say are essential for the health and safety of Nevadans.

Those are the choices we have in the upcoming election. There will be many reasons and issues to consider when deciding for whom to vote. But for those of us whose families and whose futures are on the line, in the bull's-eye and hanging in the balance of the nuclear waste issue, I believe there are no reasons more important than this one.

So bring on the rhetoric. Challenge the voting records and smother us in sound bites. The truth does not change. President Bush put the bull's-eye on our back and Sen. Kerry promises to take it off.

Which future for your kids has your vote?

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
July 30, 2004

Columnist Jeff German: Differences on Yucca clear, not confusing

Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4067.

Weekend Edition
July 31 - Aug. 1, 2004

Nevada Republicans claim to be confused about where John Kerry stands in the fight against Yucca Mountain.

They took great delight last week in disclosing that the Democratic presidential candidate's voting record in the Senate isn't as solidly against the nuclear waste dump as Democrats have been telling us.

Kerry, it turns out, voted way back in 1987 for the so-called "Screw Nevada" bill that singled out Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas, as the only storage site in the country worth studying.

The vote, though certainly an important one, came early in the Yucca Mountain fight, when Nevada didn't have many allies on Capitol Hill. Since then Kerry and other Democratic senators have seen the flaws in the Yucca Mountain project and have rallied strongly behind Nevada's congressional delegation.

But a vote's a vote, no matter how ancient. Republicans looking to provide cover for President Bush's dismal Yucca Mountain record whipped up the pundits and mounted a media blitz to cloud an issue that could decide who wins Nevada's five electoral votes -- and maybe the entire presidential race.

"I don't see a difference in George Bush or John Kerry as president on the Yucca Mountain issue," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said with a straight face.

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., proclaimed: "It's clear where Bush stands on this, but it is not clear where Kerry stands."

Porter was right about one thing. It is definitely clear where Bush stands on Yucca Mountain.

He is against us.

He is the Republican presidential candidate of 2000 who promised to recommend Yucca Mountain to Congress only if it was based on sound science and then turned around as president and recommended Yucca Mountain without sound science.

And he is the president who is moving forward with the project even though a federal appeals court has concluded that the standards the government set for storing the waste can't protect us in the long run.

As for Kerry, I have a news flash for Ensign and Porter. He's on our side.

"Whether it's some of the time or all of the time, Kerry has voted with us," said former Gov. Bob Miller, a warrior in the anti-Yucca Mountain trenches long before Ensign and Porter. "George Bush had one vote, and he voted to screw Nevada."

Kerry has been with us when it has counted most. He voted against Bush's Yucca Mountain recommendation in 2002 and, two years before that, against a bill to temporarily store nuclear waste in our backyard.

During a Nevada campaign swing in May, the Massachusetts senator made a bold pledge to the voters, one that no presidential candidate before him, including the popular Bill Clinton, ever made.

"If I'm president of the United States," Kerry said, "Yucca Mountain will not be a repository."

There is nothing confusing about that statement.

The truth is, Republicans can't defend Bush's position on Yucca Mountain because it is indefensible. This is why the president has yet to sit down with reporters here and discuss his decision to send the deadliest substance known to man our way.

The only thing the Republicans can do is what Ensign and Porter did last week -- pathetically try to muddy up Kerry's position. They can try to make Kerry look as bad as Bush.

No one can say for sure whether Kerry will live up to his pledge. But at least we have hope with Kerry that help is on the way.

We have no hope at all with Bush.

I keep waiting for Nevada Republicans to stop worrying about Bush's future and start worrying about ours.

---------------------------

Vacaville Reporter
August 01, 2004

Transporting nuclear waste makes no sense for anyone

Reporter Editor:

While watching a recent "60 Minutes," something caught my attention. They were talking about the current problem of nuclear waste. There was an idea of moving all of the nuclear waste produced in the United States to an isolated mountain in Nevada.

The waste would be placed in extremely strong cases and taken by train or truck to Nevada. The idea is to take these cases over a period of 24 years, taking one to six shipments a day. This is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

First, the trucks and trains are almost complete open to attack. Second, most of the trains and trucks would have to go through Chicago and Las Vegas. This is like asking for a terrorist attack on a major city. I understand that the waste is so dangerous that only a little would have to leak out and it would be lethal for an entire city. It would make us vulnerable to a horrible terrorist attack.

It takes 10,000 years for the waste to become neutral. In 10,000 years, who knows what will become of the waste or the mountain? The people of Nevada should have their opinions heard. They live there. If I lived there I definitely would not want this.

I don't know the answer, but what is being considered is not it. This is something that requires much consideration from our leaders and people who know the danger.

I'm a 14-year-old freshman in high school and I hope this letter will make a difference.

Brandon Ernst
Vacaville

---------------------------

Nevada Appeal
July 31, 2004

Scientists shift view on cask corrosion at Yucca

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS - Prominent scientists have shifted their stance on a key element of a national nuclear waste dump in Nevada, saying they no longer fear one type of corrosion would quickly weaken casks designed to contain radioactivity.

The new position by members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board boosts plans for the Yucca Mountain repository while the Energy Department prepares to seek a crucial operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Board executive William Barnard attributed the shift to the evolution of understanding about the first-of-its-kind repository.

"It's a learning process for DOE," he said, "and a learning process for the board." Opponents downplayed the effect the finding would have on state efforts to block the federal government from burying the nation's most radioactive waste 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Steve Frishman, a state consultant on Yucca Mountain, said that while it appeared the Energy Department had solved one corrosion problem, Yucca engineers had not addressed questions about other minerals that could create problems.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted Friday that "overwhelming scientific evidence shows that Yucca Mountain is not safe."

"Deciding which type of corrosion is most dangerous will not change that underlying fact," he said.

The Energy Department maintains the Yucca project will be safe.

The board outlined its position in a four-page letter Wednesday to Margaret Chu, director of Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which directs the Yucca project. Chu did not plan to comment, a spokesman said.

Technical Review Board staff members said that while some concerns had been allayed, more needed to be known before scientists can be confident the Yucca Mountain repository would work the way the Energy Department expects.

Congress in 2002 picked Yucca Mountain as the site to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from commercial nuclear reactors and military and industrial sites in 39 states.

The Energy Department wants to open the repository in 2010 and spend 24 years entombing the waste in casks made of nickel 22 metal alloy in tunnels 1,000 feet below ground.

The Technical Review Board threw a wrench into the plan last October, with a report based on Energy Department research that calcium chloride, a mineral compound, could react with moisture in the tunnels and form a brine that could corrode casks within 1,000 years. Such a finding would make it difficult for the repository to win an operating license.

The review board, created by Congress to evaluate Yucca science, convened a two-day seminar in May at which the Energy Department and other organizations presented updated analyses.

---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 31, 2004

Experts shift view on cask corrosion at Yucca project

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS — Prominent scientists have shifted their stance on a key element of a national nuclear waste dump in Nevada, saying they no longer fear one type of corrosion would quickly weaken casks designed to contain radioactivity.

Board executive William Barnard attributed the shift to the evolution of understanding about the first-of-its-kind repository.

“It´s a learning process for DOE,’ he said, “and a learning process for the board.’

Opponents downplayed the effect the finding would have on state efforts to block the federal government from burying the nation´s most radioactive waste, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted Friday that “overwhelming scientific evidence shows that Yucca Mountain is not safe.’

“Deciding which type of corrosion is most dangerous will not change that underlying fact,’ he said.

The Energy Department maintains the Yucca project will be safe.

The board outlined its position in a four-page letter Wednesday to Margaret Chu, director of Energy Department´s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which directs the Yucca project. Chu did not plan to comment, a spokesman said.

Congress in 2002 picked Yucca Mountain as the site to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from commercial nuclear reactors and military and industrial sites in 39 states.

The Energy Department wants to open the repository in 2010 and spend 24 years entombing the waste in casks made of nickel 22 metal alloy in tunnels 1,000 feet below ground.

The review board, created by Congress to evaluate Yucca science, convened a two-day seminar in May at which the Energy Department and other organizations presented updated analyses.

Based on those presentations, the board told Chu in its letter that the calcium chloride corrosion scenario “appears unlikely.’

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 31, 2004

Clarification

In Wednesday's Review-Journal, Sen. John Ensign was described as a supporter of interim storage of nuclear waste in Nevada during his freshman year in the House in 1995. Ensign voted for a budget resolution that, among many items, included proposed funding for interim nuclear waste storage. That resolution did not have the force of law. Ensign took steps to oppose interim waste storage in Nevada during that year.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 31, 2004

Letter: Playing politics

To the editor:

Tis the season for partisan politics. Steve Sebelius' recent column, "Kerry and Yucca Mountain," brings to light the voting record of John Kerry on the issue. Yet I wonder why the Republicans who vote for the project are enemies of the state, yet Mr. Kerry's votes "didn't matter." I wish Rep. Shelley Berkley and Sen. Harry Reid would explain this one to me.

Kyle Otto
Las Vegas

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
July 30, 2004

Scientists shift view on cask corrosion at Yucca Mountain

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Prominent scientists have shifted their stance on a key element of a national nuclear waste dump in Nevada, saying they no longer fear one type of corrosion would quickly weaken casks designed to contain radioactivity.

Board executive William Barnard attributed the shift to the evolution of understanding about the first-of-its-kind repository.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted Friday that "overwhelming scientific evidence shows that Yucca Mountain is not safe."

"Deciding which type of corrosion is most dangerous will not change that underlying fact," he said.

The Energy Department maintains the Yucca project will be safe.

Congress in 2002 picked Yucca Mountain as the site to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from commercial nuclear reactors and military and industrial sites in 39 states.

The Energy Department wants to open the repository in 2010 and spend 24 years entombing the waste in casks made of nickel 22 metal alloy in tunnels 1,000 feet below ground.

The review board, created by Congress to evaluate Yucca science, convened a two-day seminar in May at which the Energy Department and other organizations presented updated analyses.

Based on those presentations, the board told Chu in its letter that the calcium chloride corrosion scenario "appears unlikely."

---

On the Net:

Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: http://www.nwtrb.gov

Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
July 30, 2004

State: Yucca finding 'masks issue'

By Ed Koch
<koch@lasvegassun.com> and Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas SUN

Nevada officials say findings this week by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that one form of corrosion at Yucca Mountain is "unlikely" masks the real issue that the site is just unsafe for nuclear waste.

"The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that Yucca Mountain is not safe," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today. "Deciding which type of corrosion is most dangerous will not change that underlying fact.

"The courts have determined that the government can't license the Yucca Mountain dump site now because it is a flawed, dangerous plan. We need to stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on this project."

The board this week presented its findings to the Energy Department, which oversees the project at the proposed site of the nation's nuclear waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Those findings, the board says, are based primarily on information provided by the Energy Department two months ago.

In a four-page letter to Energy Department official Margaret Chu, Wednesday, the board explained the corrosion it once feared would happen is unlikely during the 1,000-year period after the repository is closed.

The findings center on a single corrosive issue, calcium chloride-rich brines.

The conclusion is that it is "unlikely that dusts that accumulate on waste package surfaces during the preclosure period would contain significant amounts of calcium chloride ... Thus the board concludes that deliquescence-induced localized corrosion during the higher-temperature period of the thermal pulse (about 1,000 years after the repository closes) is unlikely."

But state officials say there are other types of corrosion that could occur and say the board missed the crux of the issue.

"While this new analysis would appear to address a single concern about how canisters might corrode and allow radioactive waste to leak, it does not change the fact that Yucca Mountain remains to be proven safe," Rep. Shelley Berkley said today. "Science has yet to demonstrate that the mountain's own geology can stop waste from leaking into water supplies and the recent ruling of a federal court means that (the) DOE (the Energy Department) will have to prove that Yucca can meet radiation standards stretching for 200,000 years or more."

Berkley said that "by no means is the safety question now settled" because of this one finding.

"New concerns are certain to arise as research continues," Berkley said.

Nevada has relied on its own research and the opinion of the board as another element in its argument against storing nuclear waste at Yucca. If the special metal canisters holding the waste corrode, radiation inside could leak out and work its way through the mountain to the groundwater below, the state fears.

"The board is relying on data provided by the DOE, which we contend is made up," Bob Loux, executive director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects said today in response to the technical board's findings. "The state still maintains that no metal of any kind will last more than a couple hundred years because of local corrosion factors."

Loux said that many corrosive materials exist in the water in the tunnel at Yucca, including arsenic, mercury, fluoride and lead.

He said that tests have shown that lead particularly "is a killer" to nickel alloy 22, one of the metals to be used in the nuclear waste containers -- a metal proponents say will last thousands of years.

Loux, however, said the state has taken samples of the metal and under laboratory conditions has simulated Yucca Mountain conditions, including heat and humidity, and determined that nickel alloy 22 "fails very, very rapidly."

Yucca proponents say the addition of a titanium drip shield also would prevent corrosion. However, Loux said, tests by Nevada scientists and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have determined that fluoride in the water would breech that shield in 50 years.

Loux also says a titanium drip shield would add $8 billion of taxpayer money to the cost of the project.

Joe Egan, an attorney who represents Nevada on Yucca issues, said today that in its entirety the board's findings are "a tremendously helpful affirmation that supports our position that they (DOE) have not done their work."

"Throughout the letter (to Chu) the board says the DOE has a lot more homework to do," Egan says. "There is the one small technical issue that differs with Nevada (the corrosion finding), but overall the letter says we don't have enough here so, DOE, go back and do more work."

One of the arguments in the many lawsuits and legal papers Nevada has filed against the Yucca Mountain project is that the DOE did not do its job and complete tests before all other potential sites were scrapped and Yucca was rushed through as the only suitable site for the storage of nuclear waste.

Late last year, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board told the Energy Department it had concerns about waste canisters corroding because of moisture and a concoction of mineral deposits that would drip onto them.

The Energy Department held a meeting with the board in May outlining its science and plans for the project, which has now lead the board to believe corrosion -- at least in limited scope -- is not as serious a problem as once thought.

The board told Chu tests still need to be done, including some recommended by Nevada officials, and that there are still unanswered questions about what will happen inside the mountain over time.

---------------------------

Grist Magazine
July 30, 2004

Light One Up, Pass It Around

Andrew Light, an enviro-academic, answers readers' questions

What is your opinion on so-called "clean" nuclear energy, and what about the transportation and storage of the waste in Yucca Mountain?

Carrie Lucas
Georgetown, S.C.

Though I don't think that the construction of nuclear power plants is on the rise, our aging nuclear infrastructure and the legacy of decades of nuclear weapons production have left us with a problem that is extraordinarily difficult to solve. I seriously doubt that finding a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, or anywhere else, will lead to much of an increase in nuclear power, due to the continued uncertainty that most Americans have over the safety of nuclear power following from our experiences with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. This legacy presents a public relations problem that couldn't easily be solved by an army of MBAs.

From an ethical perspective, though, I'm fascinated by the recent federal court decision that halted the plans to open the Yucca repository. Part of the decision was based on a claim that the risk models used to design the facility needed to provide for a reasonable margin of safety for future generations for 10,000 years! While this argument turned on the half-life of the materials that would be deposited at Yucca Mountain, imagine the startling impacts this could have on environmental decision-making if it became some kind of precedent in other areas. Underlying the court's ruling was not only a recognition of the moral obligations we have to future generations (which is well established in much U.S. regulatory law) but implicitly that these obligations extend beyond any reasonable expectation of the longevity of our country. We're hard pressed to recognize our obligations to people in distant lands, but in this decision we see an acknowledgement of obligations to people we will never know, who will live in a community that may only be tangentially related to our own. If the decision holds then we will have surpassed the oft-cited precedent of the dictum that Native Americans planned for seven generations into the future!

---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------