Yucca Mountain News Clips
Saturday, August 13, 2005
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 13, 2005
Report: Some damaged containers expected to arrive at Yucca
Associated Press
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A small percentage of nuclear waste containers is expected to arrive at Yucca Mountain with undetected leaks and cracks, potentially exposing workers at the proposed repository to high levels of radioactive contamination, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Saturday.
Without special precautions, spent nuclear fuel contained in these damaged tubes could trigger chemical reactions when extracted from protective canisters in preparation for long-term storage, according to an Energy Department study obtained by the newspaper under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Completed in March by DOE and outside engineers, the study concluded the department had not fully evaluated the hazards associated with handling damaged fuel at the site, nor designed a process for effectively managing it.
"It is rather late in the day for these people to be thinking about this stuff," said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "It is truly astonishing that they have not thought about this issue thoroughly a quarter of a century after serious work on repositories began."
Earlier this year, DOE officials abandoned a 2010 opening date for the repository, saying it could be 2012 or later before Yucca Mountain could begin accepting nuclear waste. The government plans to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste at the Yucca Mountain site, located in the southern Nevada desert about 90 miles from Las Vegas.
"There have been a lot of meetings on this," a DOE official wrote in an e-mail to the Review-Journal on condition of anonymity. "You are talking about design, and you can't have a license application without a design."
The tubes carrying the spent fuel are expected to arrive at Yucca Mountain at a rate of about 9,000 per year for 25 years. About 4 percent are expected to have varying degrees of damage, according to the study.
Most are expected to be identified through reactor records, but a small percentage, about 0.4 percent, are expected to have unknown or undetected damage that could allow the fuel to oxidize and possibly trigger a chemical reaction during the storage process.
Although the tasks would be handled by machinery and robots, workers would be present.
The study identified areas to research, including the rates at which fuel might degrade, the potential exposure risk for workers and the chances of a chemical reaction.
"The process for handling failed fuel in damaged fuel cans is not yet detailed in current design documents, and the related hazards have not yet been evaluated," the study said.
Among the options considered by DOE is the addition of pools at the repository to handle damaged fuel rods underwater, a process currently used at nuclear power plants, according to the Review-Journal.
Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said it appears DOE has overlooked an important safety issue.
DOE "has not thought through the issues of the surface operations, from what we've seen," said Loux, who coordinates Nevada's opposition to the repository. If DOE decides to install such pools, it would create questions about earthquake vulnerability, Loux said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a Yucca Mountain opponent, said the study proves the project is flawed and should not move forward.
"At no point while moving waste off site, to transportation to proposed storage, can DOE protect workers and communities from being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation," Reid said.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 13, 2005
YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'
Report: DOE hasn't fully studied how to handle damaged fuel assemblies
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Thousands of fuel assemblies containing radioactive nuclear waste are expected to arrive damaged at Yucca Mountain, including some with undetected leaks and cracks, posing potential risks to workers and the public, according to a report prepared for the government.
Handled without special precautions, fuel with damaged cladding that is extracted from protective canisters and exposed to the air could trigger chemical reactions, causing gases to escape and fuel pellets to oxidize into micron-sized dispersible powders.
The released powders would result in "high levels of radioactive contamination" in fuel-handling areas of the repository complex, Energy Department and contractor engineers concluded in a study completed in March. The Review-Journal obtained a copy through the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Only months before the department has said it may apply for a license to build a Yucca Mountain complex, the engineers concluded DOE had not fully evaluated the hazards associated with handling damaged fuel at the site, nor designed processes for managing it effectively.
Experts outside DOE expressed surprise.
"It is rather late in the day for these people to be thinking about this stuff," said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "It is truly astonishing that they have not thought about this issue thoroughly a quarter of a century after serious work on repositories began.
"This is a big deal. It throws one more monkey wrench into the process of what issues are resolved and not resolved."
The Department of Energy wouldn't provide a representative to be interviewed about the topic but supplied written answers to e-mailed questions.
"There have been a lot of meetings on this," a DOE official said on condition of not being identified. "You are talking about design, and you can't have a license application without a design."
The report identified areas where more research was advisable. They include the rates at which fuel might degrade into powder form, potential worker doses, and whether under any circumstances oxidized fuel could provoke a nuclear chain reaction.
"The process for handling failed fuel in damaged fuel cans is not yet detailed in current design documents, and the related hazards have not yet been evaluated," the report's authors said.
DOE managers believe the matter can be addressed, "but it gets into cost and other things -- like time -- depending on the design," an official said. "They know what to do. It's a question of how they want to do it and what will be required. And I'm sure the schedule has come up."
DOE officials earlier this year abandoned a 2010 opening date for the repository, saying it could be 2012 and possibly later before Yucca Mountain could begin accepting spent fuel for burial.
Among the options DOE is considering, according to officials familiar with the issue, is adding a pool on the repository grounds so damaged fuel rods can be handled underwater, as they are at nuclear power plants.
In its written responses, the DOE said it was planning "confinement cells that include thick concrete walls and air locks to protect the worker and the public from exposure to radiation."
At a June 6 public meeting in Pahrump, DOE official Richard Craun said managers were working on designing rooms where oxygen would be pumped out and replaced with nitrogen to create an inert atmosphere in which to handle problem fuel.
"As a conservative measure, DOE will handle all assemblies in confinement cells, whether damaged or not, to ensure the safety of the worker and the public," the department said in its written replies.
"Operations may occasionally be interrupted to facilitate confinement cell cleanup. Potential risk to the worker and the public from repository operations are well within established federal radiation protection standards."
DOE added it was considering "other design and operational practices that would further prevent or mitigate the release of radionuclides. DOE is evaluating the various options described in the report for inclusion in the license application."
Potential fuel oxidation at Yucca Mountain has become a priority topic that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is monitoring as it awaits DOE's repository licensing request, Tim Kobetz, an NRC senior project manager, said at an Aug. 4 advisory board meeting.
NRC staff is preparing an evaluation of the issue, anticipating it could be raised during Yucca license hearings.
"Fuel oxidation is definitely a potential risk," said Marissa Bailey, engineering section chief in the NRC's division of high-level waste repository safety. "It is something (DOE) will have to address in the license application."
Nuclear utilities deal with damaged fuel on a regular basis, and it has been studied extensively, said Dan Bullen, an engineering risk consultant and former member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which evaluates Yucca Mountain science.
Even though Yucca Mountain would be a first-of-its-kind facility, Bullen said, he believed DOE could minimize risks. Over 25 years that fuel would arrive at the site, the number of damaged assemblies would be small, he said.
"If they keep it in an inert atmosphere, it will not be a problem; and I would agree with that," Bullen said. "I don't want to say it is easy, but it is a realistic engineering approach."
Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant for the state of Nevada, said, "Given time and enough experimental work, they can probably figure out how to run an industrial operation which doesn't have the risk of high exposures which they say are unacceptable.
"But either way, they haven't got enough knowledge of design of fuel transfer at this point to have a license application in six months," he said.
Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said DOE appears to have overlooked an issue important to safety.
DOE "has not thought through the issues of the surface operations, from what we've seen," said Loux, who coordinates Nevada's official opposition to the repository.
If DOE decides to install spent fuel pools, it would open a new set of questions about earthquake vulnerability, Loux said.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the report shows evidence of project flaws and more reasons why it should be ended.
"At no point while moving waste off site, to transportation to proposed storage, can DOE protect workers and communities from being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation," Reid said. "New so-called standards were released this week for supposedly a million years into the future; but according to this latest report, DOE can't even figure out how to remove the waste from plant sites safely."
While much public attention has been focused on the projected performance of an underground Yucca repository over thousands of years, nuclear waste would be handled routinely at an industrial complex on the east side of the mountain.
There, waste-bearing shipping casks arriving by train and truck would be unloaded, unpacked and repackaged into burial containers or aging canisters. Although the tasks would be handled by machinery and robots, workers would be present.
Spent fuel assemblies are expected to arrive at Yucca Mountain at a rate of about 9,000 a year, or 222,000 assemblies over 25 years.
The fuel study said about 4 percent, equating to 8,880 assemblies, "are expected to have varying amounts of cladding damage that could lead to fuel oxidation when the assemblies are handled in air."
Each of the damaged assemblies is expected to have an average of 2.2 failed fuel rods, the study said.
Most of the damaged fuel will be identified through reactor records, "but a small percentage of assemblies (approximately 0.4 percent or 1,000 fuel assemblies) is expected to have unknown or undetected cladding damage that could allow the fuel to oxidize."
During handling operations, a typical assembly is expected to be exposed to the air for more than 100 hours at temperatures up to 400 Celsius, the study stated.
"At these times and temperatures, fuel oxidation is expected for failed fuel during normal waste handling operations," the study stated.
The rate of oxidation would depend on time and temperature.
Frishman said the report appeared to show that damaged fuel cladding at the 400 Celsius temperature could be susceptible to failure after two hours of exposure to air.
DOE officials didn't comment on that point Friday.
During the oxidation process, the oxidized fuel would swell and could cause further failure, a process called "clad unzipping."
"The contamination levels and dose rates resulting from normal handling of commercial spent nuclear fuel are expected to be much higher than desirable," the study stated. "Oxidized material released from fuel rods will be difficult to control and account for."
According to government scientists, a preliminary analysis concluded the amount of oxidized material that would be released would not pose concerns for criticality, or a nuclear reaction. "However, the uncertainty with oxidation rates and release fractions needs further evaluation to determine if this preliminary analysis is conclusive," it said.
Bailey said the potential for criticality "is pretty low, because they are handling fuel in a dry environment. There is not an issue of criticality."
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 13, 2005
Nuclear agency denies request
State sought to revise technical rule on waste repository
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission turned down a request to alter a long-standing technical rule that Nevada attorneys had complained prejudges the completion of Yucca Mountain.
The commission said the state misinterpreted the rule and did not provide the proper information to allow the matter to be opened for reconsideration.
The agency, which regulates nuclear waste facilities, notified Nevada attorneys in an Aug. 10 letter that was made public Friday.
The state sought to challenge the NRC's "waste confidence" decision that was written in 1990.
For purposes of streamlining nuclear plant licensing, the waste confidence rule assumes that a nuclear waste repository will be operating by 2025.
The rule does not mention Yucca Mountain, but state officials said NRC might feel pressured to approve the Nevada site for nuclear waste disposal unless the regulation was changed.
The NRC in its response said its commitment to a "fair and comprehensive" review of Yucca Mountain "is not jeopardized by the 2025 date."
Joe Egan, the state's lead nuclear waste attorney, said to his knowledge this was the first time the NRC had turned down a petition without first publishing a formal notice and seeking public comment.
Earlier Friday, the NRC said it would gather public comment on another Nevada petition, clarifying what issues the agency could consider during licensing hearings for the Yucca repository, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
August 13, 2005
Reid, Ensign forging close ties
Erica Werner
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The home state of the Senate Democratic leader might not seem like the best place to be a first-term Republican senator up for re-election. But Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., is finding he could hardly ask for a safer haven.
Once bitter opponents, Ensign and now-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid emerged from a hard-fought 1998 campaign, which Ensign lost by 428 votes, to forge a close relationship.
Now Reid, in charge of growing the Democratic minority in the Senate, is signaling that Ensign is one Republican who won´t be in his cross-hairs.
“We´ve got other places where we´re going to focus our attention,’ Reid said.
“We don´t say anything negative about each other. That´s the only agreement we have,’ Ensign said.
So far, not a single prominent Democrat has shown interest in the Nevada Senate race. Ensign says potential candidates are drawn to other races, for governor and statewide offices. Political analysts also say that Ensign´s popularity and proven fundraising strength have scared off potential opponents.
But Reid´s apparent reluctance to work against the junior senator is a major factor in keeping the field clear, analysts agree.
“The most powerful Democrat in the country is essentially saying that in my home state, I cannot find a Democrat to run against John Ensign. I mean, it´s laughable,’ said Jon Ralston, a nonpartisan Nevada political analyst who writes a column in the Las Vegas Sun and produces a daily political newsletter. “I guarantee no one has a chance to beat John Ensign without Harry Reid´s help. And he´s not going to help. ... I think he thinks that relationship is just too important.’
Asked if he would like to see Ensign beaten, Reid responds: “Oh, I could always use another Democrat in the Senate.’ But he said that in the absence of a viable candidate to run against Ensign, the party will focus elsewhere.
With 15 Republican senators up for re-election next year and Democrats defending 18 seats, Reid has plenty of other races to worry about. But Nevada political analysts offer another explanation of his apparent indifference to the one Senate race in his own back yard: Campaigning against Ensign could be bad politics in Nevada, where Republicans slightly outnumber Democrats and voters tend to be independent.
Having opposite-party senators who work well together has helped the state fight the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, get public lands bills and protect the gambling industry. Donors and voters of both parties appear to like it that way.
“I think that they´re hearing a lot of positive reinforcement from the contributors and the other spheres of influence in Nevada saying this is working, don´t screw it up you guys, keep working together,’ said Billy Vassiliadis, a longtime Democratic consultant in the state.
The Nevada tourists and business travelers who turn out for the weekly breakfasts Reid and Ensign co-host in the Capitol also say they appreciate their relationship.
“It is nice to see that on issues where the two senators can work together, that they do,’ Richard Farris, 41, a 7-Eleven franchise owner from Las Vegas, said at one of the breakfasts last month. “It´s kind of refreshing.’
Farris said he´s a Republican, but supports Reid — a frequent phenomenon in the small world of Nevada politics, in which common interests, like support for gambling and opposition to nuclear waste, pit the state against the rest of the country regardless of party allegiance. Ensign´s father, Mike Ensign, a Las Vegas casino executive, even donated to Reid´s campaign last year.
That backing from Republicans and independents helped Reid win re-election to a fourth Senate term last year with 61 percent of the vote, a welcome change from his near-loss to Ensign six years before. Turning against Ensign now could only jeopardize that support, analysts said.
“Politics is still local, and I think Sen. Reid in a Republican state would probably cause as many problems as he would solve’ by campaigning against Ensign, said Pete Ernaut, a GOP operative and campaign chairman for Ensign´s successful 2000 Senate race. “That may play well in Washington, but it certainly doesn´t play well at home.’
In personal style Reid and Ensign are almost opposites. Reid, 65, is stoop-shouldered and slight, and speaks so quietly his comments are sometimes barely audible. Ensign, 47, is tall, good-looking and charismatic.
During their 1998 campaign, Reid mocked Ensign´s background as a veterinarian, and Ensign ran ads labeling Reid “that old card shark.’ They began mending their relationship after Ensign conceded defeat, and they now say they have a genuine friendship that helps the state.
It also helps each of them.
“I respect him, I disagree with him on a lot of issues and we fight for what we believe in on our various issues,’ Ensign told Nevada visitors at one of their recent breakfasts. “But we never attack each other personally, we give each other space when we disagree, and it works out very, very well.’
---------------------------
Cincinnati Post
August 13, 2005
Million-year guarantee
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.
---------------------------
East Valley Tribune
August 13, 2005
Court tells EPA: Go long
Tribune Editorial
Here´s the latest chapter in the now 18-year Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste controversy: According to its press release this week, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed "public health standards for the planned high-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., 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. 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 a federal appellate court 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.
---------------------------
Energy Daily
August 11, 2005
Yucca Critics Rip New EPA Standards
By Jeff Beattie
Yucca critics tore into the newly revised radiation safety standards for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository Wednesday, saying they are more lenient than comparable limits set in other countries and permit dangerously high exposures when any radioactive leakage would likely peak.
The criticism clashes sharply with the Environmental Protection Agency´s portrayal of the proposed standard, released late Tuesday, which limits the amount of radioactivity that could leak from the repository into groundwater.
EPA said the new standard would limit radiation doses to people near Yucca to levels that many Americans already receive from natural radiation sources, such as cosmic rays and radon gas.
The new standard was issued by EPA in response to a federal court ruling last year that tossed out the agency´s initial standards for the repository as too lax. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said EPA had to set a standard covering repository operations over several hundred thousand years, rather than for only 10,000 years, as provided for by EPA´s initial standard.
The court ruling virtually halted progress on the Yucca project, which was already limping due to budget woes and continued opposition from Nevada officials.
Yucca is crucial to the nuclear industry as the intended disposal site for tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel and nuclear waste currently stored at dozens of nuclear plants other sites across the country.
The radiation standard is key because the Energy Department—which is responsible for building and running Yucca—must prove to the NRC that the repository can meet EPA´s safety standards before NRC will license Yucca.
For the first 10,000 years of repository operation, EPA´s new plan would retain the agency´s initially proposed standard, which set a maximum radiation exposure limit of 15 millirem (mrem) per year for individuals living in the vicinity of the underground repository.
However, for operations following the initial 10,000-year compliance period, the agency would set a far more lax standard extending out 1 million years. That standard would set a maximum exposure of 350 mrem per individual per year.
In the proposed rule, EPA said Americans in many states are exposed to natural, background radiation far greater than would be permitted at Yucca under the new standard.
For instance, “Colorado´s average annual background radiation is estimated at 700 mrem/yr,’ EPA said.
Moreover, many “other states have comparable or...higher background levels with which people live routinely,’ EPA said. The agency cited North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa, for example, with estimated average annual exposures of 789 mrem, 963 mrem and 784 mrem, respectively.
But that argument does not satisfy Arjun Makhijani, president of the Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and a frequent critic of the federal agencies that regulate the nuclear industry.
“The EPA now has the dubious distinction of proposing a standard that would be the worst in the Western world, by far,’ said Makhijani in a press release late Tuesday. “No Western program explicitly allows as large as 350 millirem per year at the time of peak dose.’
Moreover, IEER said the revised standard seems tailored to fit Yucca Mountain so that it can be licensed, rather than designed to protect human health. IEER pointed to a 1998 DOE presentation to the congressionally-mandated Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which estimated the maximum dose from Yucca Mountain was expected to be 200 to 300 mrem annually after several hundred thousand years.
“This is just under the proposed limit’ set by EPA Tuesday, IEER noted.
An EPA spokesman declined comment Wednesday on any criticism of the proposed rule, which is open to public comment for the next 60 days.
Yucca backers remained quiet yesterday, with the industry trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), saying it would issue a statement later this week.
However, Yucca supporters may be hoping that a congressional fix to the radiation standard problem will avert what is likely to be a prolonged new fight over the revised EPA standard.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.), is widely rumored to be considering introduction of a “fix-Yucca’ bill this fall that would solve a variety of problems dogging the project. Among rumored provisions are a measure absolving EPA of the need to set a standard that extends beyond 10,000 years, and certain budget fixes.
Absent congressional action, the new rule is certain to be bashed by Nevada officials.
Joseph Egan, a Virginia-based lawyer who represents the state, called the standard a “really reprehensible proposal.’
EPA has proposed “a standard that is 100 times more lax for effluence from Yucca than compared to effluence from a nuclear plant...,’ Egan said.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 12, 2005
Editorial: More crazy numbers for Yucca Mountain
EPA betrays science with preposterous new radiation safety standards
Last year, when a federal court rejected the EPA's radiation safety standards for the nuclear waste repository being built inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada's politicians celebrated a rare victory in their 20-year fight against the federal project. Their lawsuit, literally their last line of defense, had temporarily halted the digging 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The three-judge panel said pledging to protect Nevadans from excessive radiation exposure for 10,000 years was wholly inadequate, because some of the radionuclides expected to be buried inside the ridge have half-lives of millions of years.
But the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia didn't take much issue with the science fiction the Energy Department used to come up with that ridiculous number in the first place. The idea that any scientist can accurately predict the effect of tons of decaying nuclear waste on area geology, groundwater and area radiation levels thousands of years into the future is as absurd as a local weatherman offering a 10,000-year forecast. Scientists can't guarantee what might happen 10 years from now, let alone 10,000 -- there are simply too many variables to consider.
The court's ruling effectively told the federal government to go make up an even bigger number -- which is exactly what it did Tuesday. In a calculation hilarious enough to have come from Dr. Evil, the megalomaniac of comedian Mike Myers' "Austin Powers" movies, the EPA promised Nevadans they would be safe from Yucca Mountain radiation for a period of 1 million years.
How can the EPA and the Energy Department guarantee safe radiation levels for so long? Their 216-page proposed regulation boils down to this: The estimated annual average background radiation level near the repository site is currently 350 millirem. In Colorado, the level is 700 millirem. Because people face no radiation health risks living in the Rockies, Yucca Mountain could vent enough radiation to double local background levels and no one would know the difference. That's it.
All this crazy talk, which the government has backed with billions of dollars, has been put forward because the Energy Department and the nuclear energy industry insist on entombing their high-level waste, rather than storing it in a manner that makes it retrievable. Instead of developing reasonable, short-term plans to manage the waste until new technologies are developed to reprocess it or dispose of it in a simpler manner, bureaucrats are actually trying to create safety regulations that will be enforceable 1 million years into the future.
"We've never tried to regulate for this period of time," said Kevin Crowley, director of the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board of the National Academy of Science. We can't imagine why.
There's nothing to suggest the judges will frown upon this new, preposterous standard -- they asked for it.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 12, 2005
Letter: Standards fine for Yucca's minimal health risks
The EPA's proposed health standards for a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository are more than adequate ("Yucca radiation limits unveiled," Wednesday).
They apply to a hypothetical human living less than 15 miles from the site, where no one lives now. They enforce a level of risk for an almost comical period of 1 million years that is no greater than what millions of Americans live with today because of naturally occurring radiation.
Americans, including Nevadans, have enjoyed the benefits of nuclear energy for decades. It's time to accept this minimal risk as the cost for reduced greenhouse gases, better homeland security and less reliance on foreign oil and natural gas.
You accept the risk of getting in your car and driving to work because you'd rather not walk, and the risk is small. We, as a nation, chose and accepted the risk of nuclear energy in exchange for its benefits. It's our responsibility to now minimize that risk by placing its byproducts in a safe place rather than stacked up in dozens of temporary locations near large populations and water sources.
NIMBYs who refuse this responsibility want something for nothing: a handout of clean and abundant electricity, a free lunch. Or even worse, a return to horse-and-buggy days. They should be ashamed.
Fred deSousa
Las Vegas
---------------------------
KLAS-TV
August 11, 2005
Reaction to EPA's Radiation Exposure Rule
Some of the state's biggest opponents of Yucca Mountain say new guidelines for the project are the equivalent of the federal government to tell Nevadans to, quote, "drop dead."
The executive director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects says the new radiation safety standards are too lax and, quote, based on scientific fraud he says over the course of the one-million year project, 10 million Nevadans could die because of radiation exposure.
Stece Frishman, with the Agency for Nuclear Projects, said, "Purposely try to make people aware of how ridiculous this standard is. And how a federal agency, that is supposed to be protecting the lives and health of people in this nation, how a federal agency will bend over backwards for the interest of a nuclear agency and Department of Energy just to try and make Yucca Mountain stick."
The proposal puts limits on how much radiation people living near the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump would be exposed to.
During the first 10,000 years the exposure would be limited to 15 millirems, which is about equivalent to a chest x-ray. But from that point out to one million years the level would increase more than 20 fold to 350 millirems a year.
The Department of Energy is happy with the new standard. It says it is based on the best available standard.
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
August 12, 2005
Nevadans will get hearing on new Yucca standards
Geoff Dornan
Appeal Capitol Bureau
Nevada Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign have been promised there will be a Las Vegas hearing on new proposed radiation standards for Yucca Mountain.
One of the more recent setbacks dealt to the nuclear waste-dumping project was a court order requiring much stronger radiation standards than proposed by the Bush administration. Based on that ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency is working on a new standard for total radiation that the public can legally be exposed to by Yucca. Public hearings will be required before that standard is implemented.
Reid, the Democratic minority leader, and Ensign, a Republican, issued a joint statement Monday saying EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has promised them a hearing in Las Vegas so the public can join the comment process.
The senators said they expect EPA to "fulfill their responsibility of making public safety and sound science a top priority and to include any opposition and concerns when setting the final limit for radiation exposure."
They also asked for hearings in Reno and Amargosa Valley or, at minimum, a satellite feed to those locations to enable Nevadans outside Las Vegas to participate.
"Finally, we urge you to personally attend the hearing so that you can hear and see the depth of Nevadans' opposition to a weak radiation standard that does not meet the National Academy of Sciences guidelines, thus needlessly exposing them to public health risks," the letter to Johnson stated.
Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.com or 687-8750.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
August 12, 2005
County Commission Preview
Another three-day meeting for officials
By Phillip Gomez
PVT
The Nye County Board of Commissioners have a packed workweek beginning Tuesday when they meet at the Bob Ruud Community Center in Pahrump to possibly approve numerous grants and contracts.
On Wednesday the commission takes up a loaded planning agenda and to adopt impact fees for new developments.
Thursday's meeting, beginning with a workshop at 8:30 a.m., is to discuss development agreements with Beazer Homes Holding Corp., for the Tesora subdivision, and with Concordia Pleasant Valley LLC and CHI of Nevada Inc., to adopt agreements for the Pleasant Valley subdivision. Both subdivisions are within the Pahrump Regional Planning District.
Beginning at 10 a.m., a public hearing is scheduled to adopt the two aforementioned development agreements. The hearings were continued from the July 18 meeting between the commissioners, the developers and their attorneys.
Among the main items also scheduled for Tuesday are the following:
• Approval to apply for a U.S. Department of Homeland Security grant in which Nye County's match would be $42,000.
• Approval of Federal Aviation grants for the Beatty Airport, the Tonopah Airport and the Gabbs Airport. The county's match for the Beatty project is $26,875; for the Tonopah project the match is $22,000 and for Gabbs it's $43,422. Total value for all three projects comes to $1.4 million.
• Approval of an amendment to an existing engineering services agreement with PBS&J to provide construction administration, inspection and materials testing for the county's perimeter fencing and apron lighting project for the Beatty Airport at a cost of $80,900.
• Approval of a contract's not-to-exceed amount in support of the Yucca Mountain oversight program from $137,000 to $212,000.
• Approval of a contract's not-to-exceed amount in support of the same oversight program from $50,000 to $200,000.
• Approval of the Nye County Community Protection Plan dealing with Yucca Mountain and to print the final report.
• Approval of a contract with Earth Knowledge on water resource management issues for $270,000.
• Approval for the interim manager of the county's nuclear waste repository project office to attend a fact-finding tour on nuclear waste processing facilities in France and England. The cost is $3,000.
• Approval of water quality sampling and a water rights survey and filing on a spring in Manhattan at a cost of $7,000.
• Possible decision to approve a resolution to protect the private property rights of Nye County citizens.
At Wednesday's planning session, the Resort at Sheri's Ranch is again back on the docket with a continuation of the owners' efforts to convert Brothel-zoned property to Mixed Use and develop a residential subdivision on South Homestead Road.
Other items planned to be heard include:
• At 1:30 p.m., approval of a bill adopting growth impact fees within the Pahrump Regional Planning District. The county's capital improvements advisory committee finalized its work on capital improvements planning for the district Thursday, and the Board of County Commissioners is expected to adopt the maximum allowable impact fees to cover development-driven growth in the Pahrump Valley.
• A bill to amend the Nye County code inserting signage requirements for master-planned developments. A resolution is also planned for establishing a $250 fee for the administrative review of a required master plan sign program within the Pahrump Regional Planning District.
• A conforming zone change at 921 E. Wilson Road that would allow for the expansion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
• A conforming zone change for property located at 1301 E. Calvada Boulevard, just west of Pahrump Valley Boulevard and Calvada Boulevard. If approved, it would allow for the conversion of the property into a mix of neighborhood commercial uses, including professional offices.
• A conforming zone change to Rural Estates Residential, two-acre minimum lot size, for property master-planned as Low Density Residential located at 1650 W. Jarvis Road, situated on the north side of the road west of David Street. If approved, it would allow for the establishment of a greenhouse farming operation.
• A conforming zone change to the Mixed Use District for property master-planned as Mixed Use, located at 5170 E. Manse Road and situated on the north side of Manse, east of its intersection with Fox Avenue.
• A conforming zone change to Multi-family located at 1370 S. Ogallala St., situated on Ogallala west of Red Butte Drive. If approved, it would allow for the development of a multi-family residential development.
• A conforming zone change and parcel map application to divide approximately 24 acres into four parcels, ranging in size from five to 10 acres and designate them Rural Estates Residential, one acre minimum lot size. The property was master-planned as Low Density Residential and is located at 1681 S. Thistle Lane, situated west of Barney Street and south of Maple Road. If approved, it would allow for the development of one-acre, single-family residential parcels.
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
August 12, 2005
Ground zero at Yucca Mountain
Nevada Leaders Denounce 'New' Radiation Standards
By Phillip Gomez
PVT
Elected officials in Nevada had harsh words for the United States Environmental Protection Agency's announcement Tuesday of a new, long-range radiation protection standard required to be met before licensure of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
Gov. Kenny Guinn and Attorney General Brian Sandoval released a joint press release calling the EPA's new 1-million-year radiation standard "a snub to the scientific community. ... It's an obscenely lax and dangerous new standard. They just threw up their arms and gave the project a pass."
The standard is the primary benchmark used to determine the repository's safety, setting the maximum permissible radiation dose to humans living near the waste site - Amargosa Valley.
EPA's new standard keeps the 15-millirem radiation dose limit as before, during the first 10,000 years of the repository's operation, but scientists expect no leakage from canisters of radioactive nucleotides into the environment at that time. It's after that period, when leakage is more likely, that raises scientific concern. At that time far in the future, the EPA "would permit the standard to become 23 times more lenient," Guinn and Sandoval said.
"We were pessimistic about the outcome (of EPA's revision of the standard to meet the court's approval), given EPA's record of pushing the repository," said Guinn. "But never in our wildest nightmares would we have anticipated such a ridiculous standard. The EPA's dangerous proposal is three-and-a-half times more lenient than even the nuclear industry had recommended in a formal report to EPA last spring."
EPA's new standard is the one by which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will evaluate the Department of Energy's long-range burial plans to safely protect the public from radiation at the waste site, unless the court again intervenes as it did in July 2004.
Other allegations made by Guinn and Sandoval regarding EPA's Yucca standard included in the release were:
--"It lets future residents of Nevada suffer 100 times more radiation exposure from releases than what the federal government currently permits for residents living near nuclear power plants.
--"It paradoxically applies a far stricter standard when the repository is not leaking than when it is leaking.
--"It is by far the most lenient radiation protection standard proposed for any nuclear waste disposal project in the world.
--"For the first time ever in the world, it seeks to establish the level of 'natural background radiation' received by Americans as a tolerable threshold for additional radiation from manmade sources."
(The natural radiation referred to is radon gas emitted from the ground and into houses and other buildings, normally about 350 millirem in rural areas like the Amargosa Valley. In large urban centers in the West residents are exposed to about twice that amount - the level at which the new standard is set for permissible radiation without ill-health effects.)
--"It completely abandons any separate groundwater protection standard during the time of expected leakage from the repository, applying it only during that time period in which no leakage is expected. Yet, EPA has admitted that groundwater contamination would represent as much as 80 percent of any total radiation dose to humans from Yucca.
"If this bogus new standard, or anything close to it, ends up being adopted by EPA, Nevada will sue them again," said Sandoval.
"I can't imagine how they could have done anything to make themselves more vulnerable in the court of law as well as the court of science," Guinn said. "This is junk science at its worst."
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., an ardent opponent of Yucca Mountain, also had harsh words for the EPA's decision. "The standard ... is arbitrary and grossly misguided. EPA has an obligation to protect public safety today, tomorrow and in a million years. Yet, the EPA thought it would be OK to increase its radiation standard from 15 millirem to 350 millirem - a 23-fold increase - when the clock hits 10,000 years and 1 day, simply because we don't know what the future holds. They have no scientific evidence to show such a dramatic increase is warranted or safe.
"The EPA should not speculate that a standard which is not deemed safe today could miraculously become a safe standard in the future. Public health and safety standards should not be based on speculation and supposition."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas, said, "This proposal is but the latest in a long line of attempts by the Bush administration to jump start stalled efforts to bury the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada. Backers of this failing project know they must have a radiation standard in place that can be met in order for Yucca Mountain to be licensed, and that fact - rather than public safety - is the driving force behind this effort.
"We know the longer that the waste is buried there, the more deadly it will become. The National Academy of Sciences spoke clearly when it said this standard should cover the peak level of danger created by waste slated to go to Yucca Mountain and it will be up to EPA to prove this new proposal meets that test. It must be noted that the National Academy found in June of this year that radiation exposure at any level increases cancer risks, and that there is no safe threshold.
"The courts rejected the last attempt to set a radiation standard that failed to fully protect the threat posed by this deadly waste, and Nevada will not hesitate to use all its resources to challenge this new rule.
"Cheerleaders for burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain will claim (this) puts to rest questions about the dump's future."
Berkley continued: "That is simply not the case, and burying nuclear waste in Nevada is as dangerous and ill conceived today as it was two decades ago when this process began. Even though they have proposed a new radiation standard, the Bush administration has yet to prove that the canisters holding the waste will not corrode and dump this radioactive garbage into our drinking water."
---------------------------
Media Matters for America
August 12, 2005
Special Report hosted author of debunked radiation study to discuss Yucca Mountain
In an appearance on Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Cato Institute adjunct scholar Steven Milloy cited his study of radiation levels at the U.S. Capitol Building to argue that the health safety standards recently imposed on the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, nuclear waste repository are unduly stringent. But Milloy's findings -- that the radiation exposure at the Capitol is far higher than it would be at the Yucca Mountain facility under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits -- were debunked shortly after he published them in 2001.
In June 2001, the EPA announced that the proposed storage facility in Nevada would be approved only if additional radiation exposure to nearby residents would not exceed 15 millirem annually during the first 10,000 years. Normal background radiation exposure amounts to approximately 360 millirem annually.
In April 2001, Milloy and his Cato Institute colleague Michael Gough released a study purporting to show that radiation levels at the Capitol were 65 times higher than the proposed standards for Yucca Mountain. The conclusion of the study read as follows:
We measured radiation dose rates inside the U.S. Capitol building and outside the Library of Congress' Thomas Jefferson Building to be substantially greater than the dose rates associated with background radiation, radiation from nuclear power production, ongoing worldwide radiation exposures from the Chernobyl accident and the radiation protection standards proposed by the EPA for the high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Potential exposures to these radiation sources may increase the risk of fatal cancer by as much as 0.5 percent based on EPA risk assessment practices.
In the accompanying press release, Milloy was quoted as saying: "We hope that Sen. [Harry] Reid [D-NV] will act immediately to protect Capitol building visitors, employees and future generations from this radiation hazard."
When a constituent contacted a member of Congress about Milloy and Gough's alarming findings, the architect of the Capitol (AOC) requested that the U.S. Public Health Service investigate the claims. But the public health officials' survey found only "normal background radiation" in the Capitol, according to an April 16, 2001, Roll Call article. The AOC communications officer, Bruce Milhans, surmised that Milloy and Gough "must have been measuring something they brought with them."
When confronted with the Public Health Service findings, Milloy disputed the apparent discrepancy and backed off from his characterization of the radiation levels as a "hazard." "I'm sure that the Architect measured the same levels of radiation that we did," Milloy said. "If you look at the study closely, I don't really think there's anything dangerous at the Capitol at all." These comments suggested that the radiation Milloy and Gough measured was, in fact, normal background radiation -- not the additional radiation that would be emitted by nuclear waste.
In a May 4, 2001, column on the Fox News website, however, Milloy repeated his misleading comparison of radiation levels at the Capitol and exposure standards at Yucca Mountain: "If radiation dose rates up to 65 times higher than those planned for Yucca Mountain aren't dangerous to Capitol building employees and visitors, what is the point of even more stringent standards for Yucca Mountain?"
But if the radiation rates Milloy measured at the Capitol merely represent the average "background radiation" experienced all over the world, then his argument is based on a flawed comparison -- between average background radiation and the additional radiation emitted at Yucca Mountain. The EPA's intent in setting the radiation standards at Yucca Mountain, after all, is to protect Nevada residents from radiation exposure beyond what they would normally encounter.
Nonetheless, in a one-on-one interview with guest host Jim Angle on the August 10 edition of Special Report, Milloy revived his debunked study of radiation levels on the Capitol to argue that the EPA's Yucca Mountain standards are "ridiculous." The interview focused on the EPA's recent announcement of its revised standards for the Nevada facility, which include the original 15 millirem exposure limit for the first 10,000 years, as well as a 250 millirem limit over the following 990,000 years. But Milloy again set up a false comparison between background radiation levels and the additional radiation that will be emitted by the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, claiming that "someone who works at the Capitol eight hours a day is going to be exposed to 20 times the radiation -- 20 times the radiation -- that comes out of Yucca Mountain."
From the August 10 Special Report with Brit Hume:
MILLOY: Well, we think these standards are really ridiculous. They're very low. As a matter of fact, so low, we went over to the Capitol to measure the radiation --
ANGLE: The Capitol behind --
MILLOY: -- the Capitol building, coming out from statues and all the granite and marble. You know, it's naturally occurring radiation.
We found that someone who works at the Capitol eight hours a day is going to be exposed to 20 times the radiation -- 20 times the radiation -- that comes out of Yucca Mountain in a year.
ANGLE: Wait a minute. Hold on, hold on. Congress is arguing over these standards, and we've got all these court cases, and you're saying somebody who works in the Congress gets 20 times more in a day?
MILLOY: Over the course of a year.
ANGLE: Over the course of a year, than you would if you were living next door to Yucca Mountain?
MILLOY: And Yucca Mountain, right. And you really can't even measure the amount of radiation you get out of Yucca Mountain, because it's within the natural -- it's so far within the margin of natural radiation exposure we get, it's really unmeasurable.
Later in the interview, Milloy suggested that the 260 millirem of radiation he and Gough found at the Capitol was a separate phenomenon from the "natural background exposure":
MILLOY: Well, the standard at Yucca Mountain is -- it's kind of technical -- 15 millirems per year. You go over to the Capitol, you're going to be exposed to as much as 260 millirems per year. The natural background exposure is about 350 millirems. So you can see, though, Yucca Mountain is very small in there.
Milloy has a long history of conducting scientific studies that benefit powerful corporate lobbies -- a strategy described as "sound science." The practice has been described in the American Journal of Public Health as "sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients."
Proponents of "sound science" purport to expose so-called "junk science," which Milloy has described as "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas" of personal injury lawyers, social activists, government regulators and the media." This description, as well as the Capitol radiation study, appears on www.junkscience.com, a website Milloy founded in 1996 in association with a nonprofit organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). As journalist Chris Mooney explained in a February 29, 2004, Washington Post op-ed, the idea of "sound science" originated at TASSC:
That use of the term goes back to a campaign waged by the tobacco industry to undermine the indisputable connection between smoking and disease. Industry documents released as a result of tobacco litigation show that in 1993 Philip Morris and its public relations firm, APCO Associates, created a nonprofit front group called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) to fight against the regulation of cigarettes. To mask its true purpose, TASSC assembled a range of anti-regulatory interests under one umbrella. The group also challenged the now widely accepted notion that secondhand smoke poses health risks.
Milloy currently writes a regular "Junk Science" column for the Fox News website. In recent columns, he has argued that global warming represents "flawed science," that pesticide use in schools poses no threat to students, and that "radical environmentalists" are the "real energy problem."
In addition to letting Milloy's viewpoint go unchallenged, Angle ignored other issues related to radiation exposure at Yucca Mountain. While providing a platform for Milloy's four-year-old Capitol radiation study, Angle failed to mention the recent revelation that government scientists may have falsified safety studies related to the storage facility in order to meet quality assurance standards. Emails written by the scientists suggest that they altered documents pertaining to how quickly radioactive material stored at Yucca Mountain would travel outside the boundaries of the repository. Both the FBI and Congress are investigating the allegations.
Angle also stated during his interview with Milloy that the "whole issue" surrounding Yucca Mountain "is about exposure for people living near the site." But the potential exposure created by the regular transport of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain from facilities nationwide is also a major concern.
— J.K.
---------------------------
Common Voice
August 12, 2005
Junk-science experts tweak Harry Reid
Steven Miller
If U.S. Senator Harry Reid honestly thinks human beings would be at serious risk under the Environmental Protection Agency´s new radiation standards, he should immediately start clamoring for an emergency program for the U.S. Capitol, where radiation exceeds those standards, say junk science specialists at the Cato Institute.
Reid lambasted newly proposed EPA standards Tuesday as the product of "voodoo science and arbitrary numbers," calling the criteria “the latest attempt by the Bush Administration to ignore sound science and disregard the health and safety of Nevadans."
The new EPA rules would limit exposure near the proposed Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada to 15 millirems a year for the next 10,000 years. Recently, researchers in Washington D.C. measured gamma radiation dose rates in a Capitol building hallway and outside the Thomas Jefferson Building. They found that individuals in those locations could receive anywhere from 60 millirems to 260 millirems of gamma radiation per year depending on the exposure scenario.
"These radiation dose rates are much higher than the EPA proposed to allow at the planned high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada," noted Cato Institute researcher Steven Milloy, who administers the Institute´s junkscience.com website project.
"We hope that Sen. Reid will act immediately to protect Capitol building visitors, employees and future generations from this radiation hazard,’ said Milloy.
“We've asked Sen. Reid to undertake a comprehensive radiation survey of the Capitol and recommended that radiation hazard signs be used until the radiation sources can be removed and disposed in accordance with hazardous waste regulations," he added.
The study, Radiation Sources at the U.S. Capitol and Library of Congress Buildings, is by Milloy and Michael Gough, Ph.D. Gough is a member of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services committee advising the U.S. Air Force on its study of the health effects of Agent Orange. The white paper, funded by a grant from Citizens for the Integrity of Science, is on-line at http://junkscience.com/apr01/crstudy.htm.
The Cato Institute defines "junk science" as “faulty scientific data and analysis used to further a special agenda.’ The junk science "mob," says junkscience.com, includes: media, personal injury lawyers, social activists, government regulators, businesses, politicians, individual scientists and individuals.
In June 2001, following initial publication by EPA of radiation standards for the Yucca Mountain repository, Reid, along with fellow Nevada senator John Ensign, had hailed the new standards as “a milestone in the battle to allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out the law.’ Both senators praised the extremely low radiation limits regarding mountain groundwater—approximately 4 millirems annually, the same as drinking water.
However, within the month the state Nuclear Projects Agency and a consortium of environmental groups filed separate federal lawsuits, challenging the adequacy of the EPA's standards. State Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux said the EPA's radiation rule-making should not deal with expected conditions at Yucca Mountain for a mere 10,000 years into the future, but should be designed to protect people for at least 800,000 years.
In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the EPA standards against the lawsuits on all counts except one: the 10,000-year time frame. Although recorded human history on this planet goes back less than 6,000 years, and though archeological records indicate that humans invented agriculture and settled down in cities only 10,000 years ago, a three-judge federal panel ruled that a million-year framework suggestion in a 1995 National Academy of Sciences report should be more strictly followed under a 1992 federal law.
The NAS report, “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,’ had recommended that the standard should be applied “within the limits imposed by the long-term stability of the geologic environment, which is on the order of one million years.’
In the EPA´s original 2001 rulemaking, however, the agency had noted that it is not possible to make reliable estimates of repository performance over such a long time frame. Given such uncertainties, EPA had adopted instead a 10,000-year compliance period, noting that this was “the time frame used for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico and for many international geologic disposal programs.’ It then included the million-year time frame within relevant technical advisory considerations.
However, in response to the 2004 court ruling, the EPA prepared its newly proposed standards and released them for review Tuesday. In addition to the original criteria for the first 10,000 years, the new standards now include a second “tier’ for the next 999,990 years. That rule would limit exposure for someone living near Yucca Mountain some 10,001 years from now to a maximum of 350 millirem per year from the repository. Since normal background radiation for Americans today—mainly from natural sources—comes to about 350-360 millirem, the new standards would allow about 700 millirems exposure annually for a nearby rural resident. That is about the same amount of radiation that Americans living in high-altitude cities like Denver currently receive.
Thus, in the unlikely event that there is still a U.S. government existing 10,001 years from now, that government, under the new EPA standards, would be legally responsible for dealing with a situation where radiation emissions from the Yucca Mountain facility exceed 700-710 millirems annually for people living close by.
An unmentioned irony in all of the sparring is that nuclear industry observers expect nuclear “waste’ stored at Yucca Mountain, should such storage even come nominally to pass, to be sold for re-processing within 20 years as a highly valuable commodity in an increasingly energy-hungry world. For more on the subject, see the Nevada Policy Research Institute´s 2001 white paper, Spare the Rods: The Free-Market Alternative to the Yucca Mountain Repository, by D. Dowd Muska.
The EPA´s full 217-page document released Tuesday—Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada—can be downloaded at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/rin-2060-an15.pdf .
---------------------------
Platts
August 10, 2005
Nevada to sue EPA if proposed Yucca Mt. standard finalized
Washington (Platts)--10Aug2005
Nevada made it clear it will sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if the proposed Yucca Mountain standard the EPA unveiled yesterday is finalized. Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval called the proposed 1-million-year radiation protection standard for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. "obscenely lax and dangerous." It's as though EPA "threw up their arms and gave the project a pass," Sandoval said. In a joint statement issued yesterday, Sandoval and Gov. Kenny Guinn said the proposal would allow Nevada's future residents to receive 100 times more radiation exposure than what the federal government now permits for residents near nuclear power plants. The proposal applies a far stricter standard when the repository is not leaking than when radiation releases would occur, they said.
---------------------------
Indian Country Today
August 12, 2005
Federal energy bill, economic opportunity or Bush's fire sale?
by Brenda Norrell
Indian Country Today
Revival of nuclear industry targets Indian country
Part two
WASHINGTON - Critics of the new federal energy bill point out that it provides billions in tax incentives to industries, while reviving the nuclear industry intent on dumping radioactive waste on Indian lands. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already approved in situ uranium mining on the borders of the Navajo Nation, which banned uranium mining and processing in April.
However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency delivered good news with a proposed new standard for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility on Western Shoshone ancestral land: protection for the people for 1 million years.
With more scrutiny placed on the Yucca Mountain facility, efforts have been accelerated to create a temporary nuclear waste dump on Goshute tribal land in Utah.
''The problem of nuclear waste is not solved when the 'solution' is to dump it on Indian lands,'' said Winona LaDuke, executive director of Honor the Earth, speaking out against revival of the nuclear industry in Washington.
''Dumping on the Goshutes opens the door to more nuclear waste, more dumps and more time lost to unsustainable and unjust energy development.''
Speaking out against nuclear waste dumping on Indian lands with LaDuke was Margene Bullcreek, Skull Valley Goshute. Bullcreek pointed out that American Indians have suffered a disproportionate share of disease and death from the weapons and nuclear industries.
Bullcreek said indigenous people within this nation have always been victimized to the point of genocide to provide national security.
''When will we be protected as our treaties indicated, to bring sovereignty to our indigenous lands, to be protected from large corporations exploiting our Native rights and our due process, our civil rights? Our health and livelihood has been affected,'' Bullcreek said.
The new federal energy bill, signed into law by President Bush in New Mexico, gives tax incentives to the nuclear industry. Bush said it would lead to new nuclear power plants before the end of the decade.
The first nuclear power plant to be built in the United States since the 1970s is slated for the Athabascan community of Galena, Alaska, where 65 percent of the 700 residents are American Indian.
The nuclear power plant demonstration project, approved by the community as a source of electricity, is awaiting approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 10-megawatt nuclear power plant, to be built by Japan's Toshiba, would have an underground nuclear reactor in the Yukon River community west of Fairbanks.
Navajo tribal members comprising the Eastern Navajo Dineh Against Uranium Mining are fighting the corporation, Hydro Resources, in court to halt in situ mining. Navajos say the solvents injected underground to bring uranium to the surface will affect the aquifer and drinking water of 15,000 Navajos in Church Rock and Crownpoint, N.M., already devastated by the worst uranium tailings spill in U.S. history in 1979.
However, along with the news devastating to American Indians came good news from the EPA. The agency is proposing public health standards for the planned high-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., sacred land of the Western Shoshone, that will protect the public from excess radiation for 1 million years.
Under the standards, people living close to the facility would not receive total radiation higher than natural levels experienced routinely in other areas of the country.
''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 for Air and Radiation Jeffrey Holmstead.
The proposed standards require that the facility withstand the effects of earthquakes, volcanoes and significantly increased rainfall while safely containing the waste during the 1-million-year period.
With the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump facing more hurdles for completion and increased questions about the safety of the site from whistleblowers and leaked e-mails, more attention has been focused on the Goshute temporary waste dump slated for Utah, which is opposed by some tribal members and the state of Utah.
Bullcreek said, ''The BIA is supposed to protect the well-being of our tribe and its members. Instead, they undermine our sovereignty by approving a lease for this dangerous project on our land without our consensus.''
A nuclear utility consortium is proposing to dump 44,000 tons of highly radioactive atomic fuel from commercial reactors onto the Skull Valley Goshute tribal land, located 45 miles from Salt Lake City. A final decision on the proposal, which would require 4,000 rail shipments of radioactive waste over the next 20 years, is expected soon from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
LaDuke and Bullcreek were joined in Washington by musician Ani DiFranco, the Indigo Girls and actor James Cromwell to oppose revival of the nuclear industry and passage of the federal energy bill.
''When it comes to nuclear energy and weapons, from the mining to the testing to the disposal of nuclear waste, Native communities have been a sacrificial lamb for our destructive and wasteful policies,'' said Amy Ray of Indigo Girls. ''Indeed, we all will suffer if nuclear energy is not shut down.''
''Dumping high-level nuclear waste on Indian land is environmental racism and absolutely unacceptable,'' said Emily Saliers of Indigo Girls. ''Nuclear power is not clean and there is nowhere on Earth to store its waste safely. It is time to shift the U.S. energy paradigm away from fossil fuels and nuclear power toward a safe and clean energy future.''
The delegation of American Indians and musicians said the new energy bill contains massive subsidies for building a new generation of nuclear power plants, including loan guarantees, tax credits, limited liability in the case of an accident, research and development funding, and demonstration projects.
''Enough is enough,'' said Cromwell. ''The legacy of 50 years of federal subsidies for nuclear power is 50,000 tons of forever-deadly radioactive waste. We need to replace nuclear power with renewable energy sources so we have a finite radioactive waste problem to deal with, not an infinite one.''
---------------------------
Homeland Response
August 12, 2005
Energy Bill Provides for Enhanced Security at Commercial Nuclear Facilities
The energy bill signed by President George W. Bush contains provisions long sought by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enhance security at nuclear power plants and other facilities, including authorization for licensee security guards to use more powerful weaponry and 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 J. 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 energy bill also contains specific security-related requirements that in large degree address measures already initiated by the NRC. These include revisions to the agency's design basis threat through rulemaking and establishment of a national tracking system for radioactive sources in the United States.
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 designated by the NRC.
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 NRC.
by James Nash ()
---------------------------
Provo Daily Herald
August 12, 2005
In Our View: Canyon explosion a warning shot
The Daily Herald
Wednesday's accident in Spanish Fork Canyon illustrates two things:
The highway needs safety improvements.
Shipping nuclear waste through Spanish Fork Canyon is a really bad idea.
The tractor trailer carrying more than 17 tons of explosives blew up after overturning in the canyon near Thistle.
Fortunately nobody was killed in the blast, which obliterated the truck and touched off brush fires in the surrounding hills. It also blew a deep crater into the road, closing off the canyon to traffic for 36 hours or so. Motorists were forced into a meandering detour to get around the blast site.
U.S. 6, the highway that traverses the canyon, has a reputation as one of the most dangerous roads in the nation. From 1999 to 2002, there were 90 deaths and 400 people injured in 3,000 collsions in the canyon, the main road that links the Wasatch Front to southeastern Utah.
The road is narrow, with steep grades and a number of sharp turns. While it's especially hazardous in the winter, when roads are slick, the danger doesn't go away with summer, as hoards of people with boats and campers head south to Lake Powell.
Utah has already taken some stopgap measures to make the road safer, such as widening the painted lines on the road, putting up signs warning of curves, designating no-passing zones and installing a rumble strip in the median to warn people when they're drifting into oncoming traffic. But it's not enough.
A lasting solution is to widen the road to four lanes, straighten out some curves and reduce grades. Unfortunately, such things cost money, and the state's resources are stretched thin. The federal highway bill is supposed to have $3 million earmarked for improvements on U.S. 6. It's not enough to completely fix the road, but it's a good start. Maybe this explosion will help our congressional delegation shake some more money loose.
The accident should also underscore the foolishness of shipping nuclear waste through the canyon en route to the Goshute reservation in Skull Valley.
While an accident involving a nuclear waste shipment won't blow a hole through two highway lanes and disrupt a railroad track, its effects could be even more devastating. If a nuclear waste cask is breached in an accident, bystanders and responders would be exposed to radiation. It may not be enough to kill immediately, but it could later.
Cleanup would be more difficult. After Wednesday's explosion, some quick work with a coupld of bulldozers will get the highway open in short order -- just as soon as the fires are put out, the remains of the truck are cleared and the crater filled in. A radiation release would require a serious environmental decontamination and would cost far more than a simple reconstruction of a small portion of road.
Nuclear energy advocates argue that the casks can withstand accidents like this, and there hasn't been an traffic accident in which radiation was released. But it's only a matter of time. If waste is shipped either to Skull Valley or to Yucca Mountain, that risk increases.
We shouldn't forget that engineers had assured people the World Trade Center's twin towers could survive a direct hit from an airliner. Unfortunately, their calculations didn't take into account a fully-fueled 757 ramming the towers at full speed. Safety claims for nuclear waste casks are no different. And it does not inspire confidence to know that little safety testing has been performed on the casks, and the money for additional tests was cut back.
It could be argued that shipping high explosives is relatively safe when precautions are taken, yet Wednesday's canyon blast shows that accidents can and do happen. The same is true with high-level nuclear waste.
The truck accident should be a reminder that putting the most dangerous materials known to man on roads or rails, especially through treacherous canyons, is a really bad idea.
---------------------------
Federal Register
August 12, 2005
[Federal Register: August 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 155)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47148-47151]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12au05-29]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[Docket No. PRM-51-9]
State of Nevada; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by the State of Nevada (petitioner). The petition has been docketed by the NRC and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-51-9. The petitioner is requesting that the NRC amend the regulation that governs adoption of an environmental impact statement prepared by the Secretary of Energy in proceedings for issuance of a construction authorization or materials license with respect to a geological repository. The petitioner believes that the current regulation, as written, violates the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), and a recent court of appeals decision.
DATES: Submit comments by October 26, 2005. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number PRM-51-9 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions
[[Page 47149]]
submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications staff.
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address comments about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; (e-mail cag@nrc.gov). Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publically available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999 are also available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading_rm/adams.html.
From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301-415-7163 or toll-free: 1-800-368-5642 or e-mail: MTL@NRC.Gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking dated April 8, 2005, submitted by the State of Nevada (petitioner) entitled ``Petition by the State of Nevada to Amend 10 CFR 51.109.'' The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR 51.109 because it believes the current regulation violates the NEPA, NWPA, and the decision in Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 373 F. 3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (NEI). The petitioner recommends that 10 CFR 51.109(a)(2) be deleted and proposes a new paragraph (h) to correct what it believes is an error regarding limitations on potential challenges to NRC's adoption of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. The petition has been docketed as PRM-51-9. The NRC is soliciting public comment on the petition for rulemaking.
Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner notes that sections 114(a)(1)(D) and (f)(1) of the NWPA require DOE to prepare an FEIS in connection with its recommendation of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site as a geologic repository for the disposal of reactor spent fuel and other high-level radioactive waste, and that DOE issued the FEIS in February 2002 (DOE/EIS-0250). The petitioner also notes that section 114(f)(4) of the NWPA provides that an FEIS ``shall, to the extent practicable, be adopted by the Commission in connection with the issuance by the Commission of a construction authorization and license for such repository,'' and that ``[t]o the extent such statement is adopted by the Commission, such adoption shall be deemed to also satisfy the responsibilities of the Commission under [NEPA] and no further consideration shall be required, except that nothing in this subsection shall affect any independent responsibilities of the Commission to protect the public health and safety under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.''
The petitioner also notes that 10 CFR 51.109 implements NWPA section 114(f)(4). The petitioner believes that the NRC has added three special provisions to Sec. 51.109 that are not in the NWPA. The petitioner states that 10 CFR 51.109 provides for special procedures for litigation of NEPA issues that are not in the NWPA and contradict procedures that apply to litigation of safety issues under the NWPA and Atomic Energy Act. The petitioner also believes that Sec. 51.109 provides for the NRC to adopt any supplement to the original DOE FEIS and notes that NWPA section 114(f) does not mention FEIS supplements. Lastly, the petitioner believes that Sec. 51.109 contains special provisions that specify precisely when the NRC will adopt the Yucca mountain FEIS that are not in the NWPA.
The petitioner states that ``[w]ith regard to the special litigation procedures, 10 CFR 51.109(a)(2) conditions the admissibility of a contention that the NRC should not adopt the DOE FEIS (or supplemental FEIS) on satisfaction, to the extent possible, of the standards for reopening a closed record under 10 CFR 2.326.'' The petitioner believes that the principal difference between this contention standard and the contention standard in 10 CFR 51.109(f) that applies to other issues is that Sec. 2.326 requires submission of admissible evidence, while Sec. 2.309(f) does not. The petitioner states that under Sec. 2.326 that is referenced in Sec. 51.109(a)(2), a motion to reopen must include admissible evidence. The petitioner cites 54 FR 33168, 33171; (August 11, 1989) and states that the regulatory history of 10 CFR 2.309(f) is clear that ``the factual support necessary to show that a genuine dispute exists need not be in affidavit or formal evidentiary form and need not be of the quality necessary to withstand a summary disposition motion.''
The petitioner states that the special adoption standards were promulgated by the NRC in 1989 (54 FR 27864; July 3, 1989) and appear as follows in 10 CFR 51.109(c):
The presiding officer will find that it is practicable to adopt any environmental impact statement prepared by the Secretary of Energy in connection with a geologic repository proposed to be constructed under Title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, unless: (1)(I) The action proposed to be taken by the Commission differs from the action proposed in the license application submitted by the Secretary of Energy; and (ii) The difference may significantly affect the quality of the human environment; or (2) Significant and substantial new information or new considerations render such environmental impact statement inadequate.
[[Page 47150]]
The petitioner states that this regulation was adopted over the objections of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The petitioner notes that the CEQ comments are available on the NRC's Licensing Support Network (NRC 000024546) and believes they support Nevada's comments on the 1989 rulemaking emphasizing that NEPA does not allow NRC to adopt the DOE FEIS without a full and independent review of that FEIS. The petitioner cites Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 372 (1989) and Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979) in stating that CEQ's views on NEPA requirements are entitled to ``substantial deference.''
The petitioner believes that the NRC conceded that ``Congress did not speak to the precise question of the standard to be used in deciding whether adoption of DOE's environmental impact statement is practicable'' and that ``our construction is not the only one that might be proposed'' (54 FR 27866; July 3, 1989) to defend the agency's interpretation of NWPA section 114(f)(4). The petitioner states that the NRC's approach cannot be reconciled with what it believes is the admonition in NEPA section 102 for agencies to follow the statutory procedures ``to the fullest extent possible.'' The petitioner cites Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1971) in stating that NEPA's procedural requirements must be enforced ``unless there is a clear conflict of statutory authority.''
The petitioner states that the adoption standard in 10 CFR 51.109(c) cannot be reconciled with certain portions of the NWPA's legislative history and cites the following excerpts from the Congressional Record: 128 Cong. Rec. S4302 (April 29, 1982): the NRC licensing process would include ``a detailed evaluation of the health and safety and environmental aspects of the proposed project'' and 128 Cong. Rec. S15669 (December 20, 1982) (statement on the Senate floor that the bill should ``preserve the integrity and full scope of the NRC licensing review and environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.'')
The petitioner states that in the NEI decision, Nevada challenged the adequacy of DOE's FEIS supporting the recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site. The Court held that any challenge to the FEIS that might be adopted in support of a future NRC construction authorization or licensing decision or used by the Department of Energy in support of a future transportation-alternative selection was not ready for review because ``the effect of the FEIS will not be felt in a concrete way by Nevada until it is used to support some other final decision of DOE or NRC'' and ``Nevada may raise its substantive claims against the FEIS if and when NRC or DOE makes such a final decision.'' 373 F.3d at 1313. The court noted the representation of NRC counsel at oral argument that ``Nevada will be permitted to raise its substantive challenges to the FEIS in any NRC proceeding to decide whether to adopt the FEIS'' and agreed with NRC's acknowledgment that ``it would not be `practicable' to adopt the FEIS unless it meets the standards for an `adequate statement' under the NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations.'' Id. At 1313-1314. The Court further stated that the NWPA ``cannot reasonably be interpreted to permit NRC to premise a construction-authorization or licensing decision upon an EIS that does not meet the substantive requirements of the NEPA or the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations.'' Id. At 1314.
The petitioner states that the Court specifically addressed the NRC adoption standards in 10 CFR 51.109(c) and noted the NRC's representation that ``NRC will not construe the `new information or new considerations' requirement to preclude Nevada from raising substantive objections against the FEIS in administrative proceedings.'' Id. The petitioner states that after oral argument the NRC sent a letter to the Court attempting to explain this regulation. The petitioner believes that contrary to NRC's representations at oral argument, the letter states that although 10 CFR 51.109(c) did not limit the NEPA issues that could be raised on judicial review, it would limit what NEPA issues could be raised in the NRC licensing hearing. The petitioner states that the Court responded in the NEI decision that the suggested distinction in the letter between what could be raised on judicial review and what could be raised in the NRC licensing hearing ``makes no sense. Nevada's claims have not been adjudicated on the merits here and presumably will not have been passed upon by any court prior to the relevant NRC proceedings. The [Nevada] claims thus would certainly raise `new considerations' with regard to any decision to adopt the FEIS. Moreover * * * any substantive defects in the FEIS clearly would be relevant to the `practicability' of adopting the FEIS.'' Id. The petitioner states that the Court concluded that ``Government counsel's unequivocal representation to the court during oral argument that Nevada will not be foreclosed from raising substantive claims against the FEIS in administrative proceedings comports with the terms of the regulation and reflects a reasonable and compelling interpretation.'' Id.
The petitioner has concluded that 10 CFR 51.109 must be amended because it believes that the NRC has not formally adopted the Court's interpretation of this regulation in the NEI decision. The petitioner has also concluded that the special litigation procedures in 10 CFR 51.109(c) violate NEPA. The petitioner believes that section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires an FEIS to be considered in the ``existing agency review processes'' [emphasis added] and that NRC is attempting to use a different review process applicable only to NEPA where interested persons must satisfy additional pleading requirements that do not apply. The petitioner cites Calvert Cliffs, 40 CFR 1505.1, and Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP, 422 U.S. 289, 320 (1975).
The Petitioner's Proposed Amendment
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 51.109 be amended by deleting paragraph (a)(2) and adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of any party or interested governmental participant to challenge in a licensing hearing any environmental impact statement (Including any supplement thereto) prepared by the Secretary of Energy on the ground that such statement violates NEPA or the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, provided that the challenge is not barred by traditional principles of federal collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel shall not bar the admission of a NEPA contention if the standards in subparagraph (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section are met, provided that the change in the proposed action or new information or considerations became known after the litigation in question.
The petitioner believes the proposed amendment gives explicit effect to the representations of counsel adopted by the court and provides ``appropriate effect'' to 10 CFR 51.109(c) ``within the appropriate context of traditional Federal collateral estoppel principles.'' The petitioner also believes issues raised regarding special litigation procedures in 10 CFR 51.109(a)(2) can be resolved only by deleting that paragraph ``with the result that the admission of NEPA contentions will be guided by the same principles in 10 CFR 2.309(f) that apply to other kinds of contentions.''
[[Page 47151]]
The Petitioner's Conclusion
The petitioner concludes that 10 CFR 51.109(a)(2) as currently written violates the NEPA, NWPA, and the decision in NEI v. EPA with regard to special litigation procedures. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR 51.109 by deleting paragraph (a)(2) and adding a new paragraph (h) as detailed in its petition for rulemaking.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of August, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-15990 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------