Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, August 11, 2005
---------------------------
Business Wire
EPA to Nevadans: 'Drop Dead'
CARSON CITY, Nev.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 11, 2005--Nevada officials said Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed new radiation protection standard for a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain is so lax it would allow up to 10 million Nevadans to be killed by its radiation over the duration of the project.
"The more we look at this new rule, the more reprehensible we find it," said Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects.
He said the EPA concluded in its proposed rule released this week that 10 excess deaths per year related to radiation from the proposed dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas is an acceptable level of risk.
"For a million-year compliance period, that means 10 million excess deaths in Nevada are acceptable to the EPA," Loux added. "That's simply obscene."
Loux has dispatched Nevada's technical and legal experts to review the proposed standard in greater detail. Among their findings so far:
-- Congress required the EPA to set a Yucca standard that was "based upon and consistent with" the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. NAS defined the acceptable level of radiation exposure from the proposed repository as 2 to 20 millirems per year (see page 66 of the Federal Register, issue 32087). But the EPA's new standard is 350 millirems per year, or 17.5 times more lenient than the upper range recommended by NAS.
-- Nevada experts opposed to the project said the proposed EPA standard is 14 times more lenient than the 25 millirems that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits now for public radiation exposure resulting from a low-level radioactive waste disposal site.
-- Loux said the EPA defended a separate groundwater radiation standard for the Yucca Mountain Project in court last year when sued by the nuclear industry. However, he said the EPA abandoned any groundwater protection standard for Yucca after 10,000 years, the very time when the repository is expected to leak. It did this, Loux added, even though a court ruled last summer that cutting standards off at 10,000 years was arbitrary and impermissible.
-- In its original rule-making completed in 2001, the EPA concluded that "no regulatory body that we are aware of considers doses of 150 (millirems) to be acceptable ... for members of the general public." Now, Loux said, the EPA considers more than twice that amount to be perfectly fine.
"It's not just junk science," Loux concluded. "This is scientific fraud. And Nevada will not tolerate it."
---------------------------
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
August 9, 2005
Reid statement on EPA's proposed standards
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Harry Reid released the following statement on the Environmental Protection Agency´s (EPA) proposed radiation standards:
“I am astounded that the EPA actually put those recommendations on paper. What the agency released today is nothing more than voodoo science and arbitrary numbers. At the time when the public faces the highest risk of radiation exposure, EPA proposes easing the overall public health standard, including throwing out the groundwater standard.
“In addition to risking the health of the public, EPA is also trying to silence voices of opposition by limiting the comment period. It took EPA more than a year to put together this proposal, but the agency is giving the public less than two months to review hundreds of pages of documents and put their concerns on record.
“This is the latest attempt by the Bush Administration to ignore sound science and disregard the health and safety of Nevadans, and I vow to continue fighting on behalf of Nevadans against this ill-conceived project.’
---------------------------
Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
August 9, 2005
ENSIGN: NEW EPA STANDARD APPALLING
Washington, D.C. – Senator John Ensign issued this statement regarding the Environmental Protection Agency´s (EPA) proposed radiation standard:
“I am appalled at the complete arrogance of the EPA in announcing these standards. We´ve been down this road before. The federal appeals court already determined that the 10,000 year standard violated the law. This new standard is no better, and the EPA has provided no scientific basis for the 350 millirem figure. The EPA has also refused to take the public´s right to be informed on this issue into consideration. A 60-day comment period is absolutely unacceptable given the serious ramifications for the public´s health. I will continue to fight this blatant disregard for science, the law and the health of Nevadans.’
---------------------------
Congressman Jon Porter (R-NV)
August 9, 2005
Press Release
PORTER RESPONDS TO PROPOSED EPA RADIATION STANDARD
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Third District Congressman Jon Porter issued the following statement in response to the Environmental Protection Agency´s (EPA) proposed radiation standard:
“The EPA's so-called 'health standard' projections for determining what is a safe level of radiation exposure for Nevadans are irrational and misguided. Where´s the proof that an additional 350 millirem per year of radiation won´t have a negative impact on a human being? That contravenes 50 years of radiation science. The only real way to protect the health and safety of Nevadans is to make sure Yucca Mountain never becomes a repository for the nation's nuclear waste.’
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 11, 2005
Nevada officials, scientists continue to spar over Yucca radiation standard
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Health physicists and radiation experts say the new proposed radiation standard for Yucca Mountain poses no significant health threats.
But Nevada officials say the government would unfairly put future residents living near Yucca at higher risk for cancer and other radiation-related illnesses than residents of other states.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday renewed a debate -- and sparked a controversy that likely will land in court -- about just how much radiation could acceptably leak from the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The EPA announced that it had set a radiation-release standard designed to protect Nevadans for 1 million years -- an unprecedented scientific effort for the agency.
The EPA proposed a "two-tiered" rule. One tier sets a standard for up to 10,000 years at 15 millirem, roughly equivalent to a chest X-ray. That means the repository would be required to contain radiation for 10,000 years so that people living near Yucca would not receive a higher dose than 15 millirem in one year from the waste stored inside Yucca's underground tunnels.
The second tier would set a standard for 10,000 years to 1 million years at 350 millirem. That's unacceptably high, Nevada officials say.
"This is 350 millirem of involuntary exposure equal to about 35 chest X-rays a year," said attorney Joe Egan, who handles Yucca issues for the state. "Pregnant women aren't supposed to get any. This is a departure from all principles of radiation science."
Egan argues that the current regular allowable "public dose" from a nuclear power plant or other facility using radioactive materials is 100 millirem per year, based on recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and rules adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This alone makes the EPA's standard three times higher than what is deemed acceptable now, Egan said.
He said a low-level radioactive waste dump has a 25 millirem limit out to peak dose -- the time the radiation levels would be at their highest. Low-level waste is "far less dangerous" than what would be stored in Yucca, and it has a stricter standard, he said.
"This is increasing the level of risk to Nevadans," Egan said.
The exposure may not be enough to kill someone outright, but it could lead to serious illnesses over time, he said.
A person receiving 350 millirem in additional radiation exposure is put at higher risk than others, Egan said.
"It is a very significant increase in risk," he said.
Rod McCullum, senior project manager for waste at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's interest group, agreed that the agency standard is higher than what would be allowed from a nuclear power plant, but he said it is not a fair comparison.
"It's comparing apples to oranges over time," McCullum said. "Everything is known with a nuclear power plant. There is a known quantity. There is nothing else in the world that is regulated for 1 million years. It is not a legitimate analogy."
And while the proposed standard of 350 millirem for Yucca is more than three times the 100 millirem standard for nuclear power plants, the difference does not automatically translate into severe health problems, experts said.
Controversy exists over what level of radiation exposure would cause cancer. Some scientists argue that no level of radiation is safe, while others say small doses are good for you, said Richard Morin, chairman of the American College of Radiology Medical Physics Commission.
"Three-hundred-fifty millirem falls into an area with no conclusive scientific data that it would cause health problems," said Morin, who is the Brooks-Hollern professor at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. "That level is certainly consistent with natural background radiation."
Americans on average receive "background" radiation from a number of sources, including the cosmic rays from outer space, the earth, rock and radon gas often found in homes.
Several radiation experts, as well as EPA officials, point to the average 700 millirem of background radiation that people receive in the high-elevation city of Denver.
That's about the same level as what the EPA has said would be acceptable near Yucca after 10,000 years -- roughly 350 millirem in normal background radiation and 350 millirem from Yucca.
Phillip Patton, a UNLV assistant professor of health physics, noted there is no abnormal rate of cancer in Denver.
"By increasing our background radiation, we would be no different than if we all moved to Denver," Patton said. "It seems 350 millirem would cause no problems."
Ralph Andersen, NEI's Chief Health Physicist, said he has worked around radiation most of his life and would not be concerned about a 350 millirem exposure. He would not consider the level unsafe for his family either. He said he might try to avoid it, but he also would not pick up and move out of Colorado or other places with a high background level of radiation just because of exposure.
"I don't think people look at that as a dangerous level of radiation," he said.
Nuclear power plants or radioactive medical facilities no longer in use have a public exposure range of up to 500 millirem per year for up to 1,000 years, Andersen said. That rule has already been approved and is used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so the proposed Yucca limit could not be harmful, he said.
Andersen said exposure to 350 millirem could add incremental risk for people living around the repository but that no studies have shown cancer caused at that level. It is usually only seen at higher levels, he said.
The long-term effects of radiation are harder to argue and harder to measure, Patton said.
It is unethical to purposely expose someone to radiation to measure the risks, so there is a limited amount of data, experts said.
Experts say the more exposure people have to radiation, the more likely it is to cause cancer, but the exact level at which radiation triggers cancer is not known, Morin said.
Peter Caracappa, a radiation safety officer and a research associate at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, said there is a debate over the true effect of radiation at certain levels.
"This is not a line between safe and not safe," Caracappa said. "It is a continuous risk exposure."
Although there is no threshold, Caracappa said, the level is much higher than the 350 millirem the EPA would allow at Yucca.
"You are not talking about high levels of radiation," said Carol Kornmehl, a radiation oncologist, speaking of the 350-millirem level. "This is not a high exposure, it is not likely to cause health problems."
Kornmehl said a CAT scan to the chest can expose a patient to 760 millirem. The same test to the abdomen and pelvis has 2,760 millirem.
Kornmehl, author of "The Best News About Radiation Therapy," said the standard proposed for Yucca is "probably acceptable," but that the government needs to explain to the public what the 350-millirem radiation level means.
Morin said a 100,000 millirem single exposure to the eyes could cause cataracts and 200,000 millirem single exposure would redden skin and make a person ill.
Morin said international flight crews can receive more than 350 millirem in a year and some patients are exposed to that amount for certain procedures.
"A radiation worker in a plant can get 5,000 millirem per year," Morin said.
Nevada's Egan counters that a plant worker is there voluntarily, knows the risks and is compensated well for his or her work associated with that risk, while the EPA standard puts people involuntarily at risk.
Egan points out that in finalizing the initial radiation standard, which a court threw out last year, EPA acknowledged that the National Academy of Sciences recommended a 2 to 20 millirem limit per year for an unspecified amount of time.
"How is 350 'based upon and consistent with' this recommendation?" Egan asked.
The court required EPA to make a new standard based on the National Academy of Sciences recommendation, as Congress stated in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 11, 2005
YUCCA MOUNTAIN: EPA logic on radiation questioned
State official says 10 million cancer deaths would be acceptable under safety standard
By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal
Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency took issue Wednesday with the Environmental Protection Agency's logic for recommending a new radiation safety standard for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
In an interview from Carson City, state Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux said based on the EPA's estimates there will be 10 million cancer deaths over 1 million years that result from storing highly radioactive spent fuel in the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
While that appears to be a worst case affecting 25,000 generations, Loux said that means nonetheless that 10 million deaths from the repository's operation is acceptable under the EPA's new rule.
To satisfy a court ruling, the EPA on Tuesday issued a two-tiered standard, with one set of limits for the first 10,000 years of repository operation and a second set for the succeeding years, out to a million years. The radiation dose limits were set at 15 millirem and 350 millirem per year, respectively, above natural background.
A millirem is a small amount of energy that produces the same biological effect as a similar unit of absorbed dose from ordinary X-rays.
For comparison, a chest X-ray exposes a patient to 10 millirem while a mammogram results in a 30 millirem exposure.
A person living in the United States receives an annual average 300-millirem dose of radiation from natural and man-made sources. Radon accounts for 55 percent of background radiation components.
Loux also expressed concern that the EPA, in his view, has backpedaled from its previous stance that a 150 millirem is unacceptable.
He cited a June 2001 written response from the EPA in which the agency stated, "No regulatory body would consider doses of 150 millirem to be acceptable."
Four years later, the EPA has ignored its own stated position and instead proposed a standard for the Yucca Mountain project that's more than twice that, Loux noted.
An EPA spokesman said the EPA's technical staff will consider the state's concerns in the course of hearings on the revised standard.
"EPA welcomes the chance to review and consider comments and criticisms during the upcoming 60-day public comment period and during the three planned hearings -- two in Nevada and one in Washington, D.C.," the spokesman, John Millet, said in an e-mail.
Per F. Peterson, nuclear engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the recommended EPA standard goes beyond what is required for disposal of non-radioactive materials.
"Basically, there are no standards that specify performance limits past 10,000 years, so anything that the EPA would require for Yucca Mountain past 10,000 years would be more protective than what we currently require for the disposal of toxic chemicals and mining wastes," Peterson wrote in an e-mail.
Meanwhile, a couple of environmental watchdog groups and a local industrial hygienist who is an outspoken critic of the government's plans for Yucca Mountain asserted that the EPA's proposed standard fails to protect the public's long-term health and safety.
"I think it's a scam," said Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a statewide environmental group. "We've been worried about a two-tiered standard. ... I would imagine we'll be weighing in on a lawsuit with the state like we did in the original one."
Wenonah Hauter, director of the energy program for Public Citizen, a national organization, said in a statement setting two standards "is an arbitrary decision designed to facilitate the licensing of the project rather than make it safe for those who live near the site."
Jacob Paz, a former industrial hygienist for a Nevada Test Site contractor, said in a letter to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the EPA's proposal fails to consider the so-called "bystander effect," in which radiation produces changes in cells that were not directly hit by it but are in the vicinity of those that were.
"Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers," Paz wrote.
Stephens Washington Bureau chief Steve Tetreault contributed to this report.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
August 10, 2005
EPA releases Yucca radiation standards
Doug Abrahms
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency released a new radiation standard Tuesday for Yucca Mountain in hopes of restarting the stalled project to build a nuclear waste dump in Nevada.
The new rules are in response to a federal appeals court ruling last year that the EPA must come up with a radiation standard to protect Nevadans for more than 10,000 years from exposure to radiation can leak from the buried nuclear waste.
The new preliminary regulation would limit the amount of radiation that could seep out of Yucca Mountain to 15 millirems a year for the next 10,000 years — about the equivalent of a chest X-ray, officials said. After that, the limit would rise to 350 millirems annually for the next 990,000 years.
“We are quite confident ... that (the new radiation standard) will be upheld by the courts,’ said Jeffrey Holmstead, an EPA assistant administrator. “It is an unprecedented scientific challenge to develop proposed standards today that will protect the next 25,000 generations of Americans.’
The court decision pushed back until at least 2012 the date when Yucca Mountain is expected to start receiving 77,000 tons of nuclear waste from atomic power plants nationwide. The project also has been slowed by turnover at the Energy Department and investigations into whether scientific documents generated for Yucca Mountain were falsified.
Nevada officials intend to challenge the EPA´s new standard in court once it becomes final.
The legal maneuver is expected to further delay and possibly halt the project.
The standard of 350 millirems per year is more than 10 times higher than what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows to be emitted from atomic power plants, said Bob Loux, who heads the state´s Agency for Nuclear Projects, which opposes Yucca Mountain. People living close to Yucca Mountain, which lies about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would be exposed to an unsafe amount of radiation, especially since the contamination would leach into the water supplies, he said.
“There´s no scientific basis for this whatsoever,’ Loux said. ’Once again, it´s the triumph of politics over science. I have no doubt this will get thrown out (of court) as well.“
Joe Egan, a nuclear physicist and a lawyer hired by the state to fight the project, questioned how the EPA could set one health standard for 10,000 years and then a far higher standard starting the next year. He expects scientific groups to challenge the standard as unsafe before the EPA finalizes it.
’Its just so patently irrational,“ he said. ’I am very confident that this will not fly with the court of appeals, and it might be insulting to the court.“
Egan said the EPA set a low standard to make it easy for the Energy Department to get its operating license for Yucca Mountain approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The EPA plans public hearings in Las Vegas, Amargosa Valley and Washington later this summer on its new radiation standard.
The agency´s new standard would allow the Energy Department to move forward with its plans to build Yucca Mountain, said spokesman Craig Stevens.
“That´s a standard that I think we can certainly meet,’ Stevens said.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
August 10, 2005
Editorial: New standards don´t solve dump woes
When a judge threw out the EPA´s proposed radiation standard for the Yucca Mountain waste repository, it was clear that it would be just a temporary setback for the controversial plan.
Despite a promise to let science rule in the decision to open the repository, President George W. Bush has made Yucca Mountain a top priority of his administration. It´s become even more important with the approval of a federal energy bill that includes a proposal to jump-start the faltering nuclear power industry in the next 10 years. The government´s inability to find a good way to deal with the waste is the biggest roadblock.
The EPA tried to get Yucca Mountain back on track this week by offering new standards — 15 millirems per years for the first 10,000 years; 350 millirems per year for the next 990,000 years. But all it really accomplished was to provide additional fodder for the numerous lawsuits that are sure to keep the plan in limbo for many years to come.
The proposed new standard was roundly criticized by Nevada officials and every member of the congressional district. The rest of us were left scratching our heads: It´s hard enough to understand what 350 millirems means, but who can get his or her hands around the concept of 990,000 years?
What is understood, however, is that most Nevadans don´t want their state being used as a dumping ground for wastes that other states don´t want to be bothered with. Nevada doesn´t produce any nuclear power, its use of nuclear power is negligible, and it doesn´t want to be the final resting place of everyone else´s waste.
What´s also well understood is that, if the government succeeds at forcing the dump on Nevada, it will be too little too late by the time it comes on line. When all the issues finally are resolved, Yucca Mountain will be outdated.
So, if the feds really want nuclear power to play an important role in the nation´s quest for energy independence, they need to quit wasting money on Yucca Mountain and start a serious search for an effective, legally defensible solution to the waste problem. Nevada isn´t backing down from this fight.
---------------------------
Ventura County Star
August 11, 2005
EPA goes real l-o-n-g on Yucca
Dale McFeatters
It is tempting to say that by the time the Yucca Mountain controversy, now in its 18th year, is resolved, the nuclear waste it is supposed to house will have decayed into harmlessness.
Here´s the latest chapter. According to an Environmental Protection Agency press release this week, “EPA is proposing public health standards for the planned high-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, that will protect public health for 1 million years.’
One million. That´s a number that jumps out and grabs you.
The EPA was responding to a court ruling that found an earlier standard, for a relatively brisk 10,000 years, didn´t go far enough.
So the agency tacked on a regulation limiting radiation exposure for another 990,000 years, providing protection, it said, for the next 25,000 generations of people living near the site.
Human beings in their recognizable modern form have only been around for 150,000 years or so – some say as long as 195,000 – and only spread out of Africa and into the rest of the world 28,000 years ago.
Talk about hubris. Not only does the standard assume that we´ll still be around, but that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will be around to enforce it.
Then again, maybe the EPA knows something the rest of us don´t. Maybe by then radioactivity will be good for you.
Dale McFeatters is a Scripps Howard News Service writer. E-mail: McFeattersD@SHNS.com.
---------------------------
Nuclear Engineering
August 11, 2005
EPA Yucca Mountain standards to protect for a million years
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing public health standards for the planned high-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada that will protect public health for one million years.
The proposed standards set a maximum dose level for the first 10,000 years, more than twice as long as recorded human history, and to provide safety beyond 10,000 years to one million years, EPA is proposing a separate, higher dose limit based on natural background radiation levels that people currently live with in the USA. The proposed standards also require that the facility must withstand the effects of earthquakes, volcanoes and significantly increased rainfall while safely containing the waste during the one million-year period.
"It is an unprecedented scientific challenge to develop proposed standards today that will protect the next 25,000 generations of Americans," said EPA assistant administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, adding, "EPA met this challenge by using the best available scientific approaches and has issued a standard that will protect public health for a million years."
---------------------------
Public Citizen
August 10, 2005
Lax Radiation Standards for Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Will Leave Future Generations Vulnerable
Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director of Public Citizen´s Energy Program
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency´s new proposal to allow two different radiation standards for the high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada will fail to protect the long-term health and safety of the people living in the region.
The setting of two standards – 15 millirems per year for the first 10,000 years and 350 millirems per year thereafter – is an arbitrary decision designed to facilitate the licensing of the project rather than make it safe for those who live near the site. If a 15 mrem/yr standard has been determined necessary to protect health in today´s environment, such a standard should continue at least through the time of predicted peak dose from the dump site, as the National Academy of Sciences has recommended. Several studies have determined that the peak radiation dose will occur several hundred thousand years from now.
This latest development in the Yucca Mountain saga clearly demonstrates how the rules are being written for one specific site, rather than ensuring that this site adheres to a set of stringent standards that protect public health and safety. It is evident that the government cannot meet an adequate standard and is therefore deviating from scientific benchmarks to advance its agenda to open the country´s first nuclear dump. Just three years ago, the EPA said it did not approve of a two-tier radiation standard. The EPA has also dismissed the use of even a 25 mrem/yr standard in the past because of the increased cancer incidence that would result. But now, the second standard EPA has proposed for Yucca Mountain is 14 times this unacceptable value.
Thanks to the energy legislation recently signed by President Bush, nuclear energy companies are now enticed by taxpayer subsidies to build the first new nuclear reactors in this country in 30 years. It is now more important than ever that we monitor nuclear power – and its lethal leftovers – from cradle to grave to ensure that the American public and future generations are not harmed along the way. Pressure from the Bush administration to open Yucca Mountain should not deter the EPA from setting strict guidelines that are logical, sound and consistent with its mission of protecting public health and safety.
One strict standard should be set for radiation at Yucca Mountain, not a temporary strict standard for one time period, followed by a weak standard for the rest of time.
The problem of disposing of the growing piles of nuclear waste around the country remains the Achilles´ heel of the industry. The rules have been bent too often to promote Yucca Mountain. The EPA needs a reality check; protecting public health and safety shouldn´t have an expiration date.
---------------------------
Environment News Service
August 11, 2005
AmeriScan: Energy Bill Gives Nuclear Regulatory Commission New Tools
WASHINGTON, DC, August 11, 2005 (ENS) - The Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed by President George W. Bush on Monday contains provisions long sought by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to enhance security at nuclear power plants and other facilities, including the establishment of a national tracking system for radioactive sources in the United States.
The legislation includes authorization for security guards at licensed power plants and other nuclear facilities to use more powerful weaponry and it also authorizes more extensive background checks for personnel with access to nuclear materials or safeguards information.
“This wide-ranging legislation enhances our ability to ensure the protection of public health, safety and the common defense,’ said NRC Chairman Nils Diaz. “These provisions will make an industry that is already well protected even safer from the threats of terrorism and radiological sabotage.’
Under this legislation, the NRC will for the first time have regulatory authority over additional radioactive materials, including certain sources of radium-226 and materials produced in accelerators rather than in reactors.
The act also expands criminal penalties for anyone bringing in unauthorized weapons or explosives or committing sabotage at nuclear power plants and other licensee facilities.
Other provisions in the bill will facilitate NRC´s recruitment of engineers, scientists, security experts and other professionals at a time when the agency anticipates a greatly increased workload due to potential applications for new commercial power reactors and the proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository.
The NRC is now authorized to support university programs for academic fields critical to the agency´s regulatory activities and to establish partnership programs with minority institutions of higher learning.
NRC may also award financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate students in return for subsequent employment with the Commission.
---------------------------
Stamford Advocate
August 10 2005
Haddam seeks federal funds to for nuclear plant security
HADDAM, Conn. -- Officials want $50,000 in federal homeland security money to buy night-vision goggles and an all-terrain vehicle that could be used in case of a terrorist attack at the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant.
They also want monitors to gauge radioactivity near the closed plant, where more than 1,000 uranium-laden fuel rods are stored.
"It would definitely help the first responders enormously," said Resident State Trooper Jim Connelly.
The plant is surrounded by woods, and Connelly said an all-terrain vehicle would help emergency workers get to the area where spent fuel is stored.
Haddam First Selectman Anthony Bondi said he's uncomfortable with Connecticut Yankee's spent nuclear fuel remaining in town.
Bondi said he fears it will be 20 or 30 years before the federal government allows the radioactive fuel rods to be moved to a permanent storage area such as Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
"It would be nice if it left tomorrow," he said.
The uranium pellets and reactor metals stored on-site provided 110 billion kilowatt hours of electricity over 28 years at Connecticut Yankee. The plant shut down in 1996.
The uranium and highly radioactive metals are stored in 43 steel-reinforced concrete casks, each weighing 126 tons. The casks are stored about a mile from the plant on a thick concrete pad.
A private armed force now provides 24-hour security at the outdoor complex.
Connelly and Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman Kelley Smith said there have been no security problems at the fuel storage site.
Smith said the town's application for federal homeland security funds is a good idea.
"It's a sensible use of funds that will help the state police assist in responding to an incident at Connecticut Yankee, if necessary," she said.
Information from: The Hartford Courant, http://www.courant.com
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------