Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 17, 2005
Clark County projects Yucca Mountain costs at $3.7 billion
Associated Press
Clark County projects Yucca Mountain costs at $3.7 billion LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada's most populous county has estimated public safety costs at $3.7 billion over the 24 years the federal government plans to send radioactive waste to a planned nuclear waste repository nearby.
A Clark County official said Wednesday the county was not negotiating for federal benefits based on a consultant's projections the county alone could spend $2.5 billion on police, fire and emergency management services once trucks and trains start hauling radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain.
Las Vegas was projected to spend an additional $1.1 billion, with smaller municipalities spending a total of $100 million.
"This is stating again why the Clark County Commission is opposed to this," said Erik Mueller, spokesman for the county nuclear waste division. "This is an unfunded mandate that taxpayers are going to be burdened with."
An Energy Department spokesman said Wednesday he had not seen the 84-page report and could not comment.
The Energy Department has faced project delays in recent months, but plans to open the Yucca Mountain repository in 2012 or later.
The site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Nye County, is expected to entomb 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive waste now stored at military, industrial and commercial sites in 39 states.
Sheila Conway, a consultant with Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Urban Environmental Research, told the Clark County Commission on Tuesday the Energy Department should be responsible for reimbursing the county and local governments.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 calls for the department to "provide technical assistance and funds" to states, municipalities and American Indian tribes for training public safety officials in jurisdictions where high-level radioactive waste is transported.
Conway added costs of preparing for shipments increased $20 million since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In another development, a top industry lobbying group is preparing a public relations push to promote nuclear power, including waste burial at Yucca Mountain.
"We're trying to take the support that exists for nuclear energy and take it to another level," said Steve Kerekes, senior director of media relations for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C.
Kerekes said Wednesday a firm has not yet been hired for the work and declined to say how much the group was prepared to pay.
Disposal of spent nuclear fuel is a top issue in the debate, and Yucca Mountain is the only site in the nation selected to receive it. But Kerekes said it was unclear how much the campaign would focus on Yucca Mountain.
He said it will promote nuclear power to serve the nation's energy needs following the signing of a federal energy bill last week by President Bush. The law contains incentives for construction of new nuclear plants.
"There really is a new era unfolding," Kerekes said. "We want to do what we can to foster and sustain a favorable environment."
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 17, 2005
Nuke lobbyists to spend millions on new campaign
Yucca could be part of industry promotion
By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau Chief
WASHINGTON -- The nation's top nuclear power lobby group is planning another public relations campaign to promote the industry, and possibly to advance the stalled Yucca Mountain program.
The Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute is planning to hire a public relations firm to launch a campaign that would "dovetail" with a resurgence of interest among lawmakers and White House officials in constructing new nuclear plants, NEI spokesman Steve Kerekes said.
"We're in the midst of putting together a broad outreach effort to promote nuclear energy to the next level," Kerekes said.
The campaign would focus primarily on promoting nuclear power to serve the nation's energy needs, Kerekes said. Nuclear plants generate roughly 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and industry officials have been elated with the interest of President Bush and lawmakers in constructing a new generation of U.S. nuclear plants. A comprehensive energy bill signed by Bush last week contained industry incentives such as tax breaks for new plants.
Nuclear industry officials have long touted the emissions-free benefits of nuclear plant-generated electricity and in recent years have talked about a "renaissance" in nuclear power.
It's not clear how much the campaign would focus on Yucca Mountain, Kerekes said.
Yucca has suffered budget cuts in recent years and NEI plans to continue to goad Congress this year to approve new rules that would give the Energy Department more access to a national nuclear waste fund, Kerekes said. Many lawmakers have been reluctant to give up their authority to set Yucca budget caps.
The overall campaign likely would be long, possibly several years, Kerekes said. NEI is reviewing bids from public relations firms and could spend up to $8 million for the effort, industry newsletter Energy Daily reported on Tuesday. Kerekes would not confirm the amount.
"It could be more, could be less," he said.
The Energy Department's Yucca Mountain program has suffered some high-profile setbacks and bad publicity. Most recently, Nevada officials last week said they likely would challenge in court a radiation standard they view as "outrageously" lax. The Energy Department also launched an investigation after it revealed in March that Yucca worker e-mails suggested quality assurance documents had been falsified.
NEI is experienced with public relations campaigns. Along with a massive lobbying effort, the group in 2002 led an expensive campaign that included newspaper ads and television commercials designed to win the support of Congress for Yucca Mountain in a crucial vote.
Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency director Bob Loux said another NEI public relations campaign mounted in the 1990s in Nevada backfired, generating more negativity toward Yucca in the state.
Loux said he was not surprised, nor too worried, that NEI was launching a new public relations campaign.
"Historically, NEI has not been very effective at these kinds of things," Loux said. "So I'm not too concerned. You can't publicize away the fact that it (Yucca) is a bad scientific site."
The $8 million would dwarf what Nevada and anti-Yucca groups will spend on public relations this year. The state spends several million dollars a year on anti-Yucca legal work and watchdog activities. But Nevada pays only $2,500 a month for what could be called public relations.
The money is paid to keep Las Vegas firm Brown and Partners on retainer, mostly to produce an electronic newsletter, Loux said.
It's hard to believe a broad NEI public relations campaign would not contain a significant focus on Yucca Mountain, given that Yucca is a critical to the industry's plan to construct new plants, said anti-Yucca activist Kevin Kamps.
"From our perspective, Yucca has always been central to their nuclear renaissance plan, or nuclear relapse, as we call it," Kamps said.
Kamps noted that in 2003, one year after NEI worked to win Congress' formal approval of Yucca, NEI and Exelon Corp., along with public relations firm Direct Impact, detailed the industry's success in a presentation for the Public Affairs Council.
One slide reads, "Why We Were Successful" with a giant "$" underneath.
"It looks like they are up to their old tricks," said Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist with Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which obtained a copy of the presentation.
"It's ($8 million) a daunting figure, but we won't be daunted," Kamps said. "We'll fight it. Their attitude is let's have the best Congress and White House money can buy."
NEI serves as the top industry lobby group in Washington, and is a leader in advocating Yucca Mountain. The group was established in 1994 when several industry organizations merged. Its members include more than 250 corporate members in 13 countries, according to the organization.
NEI has its own in-house lobbyists and hires others. NEI also operates a political action committee that gives money to members of Congress. It gave about $150,000 to 82 lawmakers in the 2004 election cycle.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 17, 2005
Anti-nuke group's report: 'Congress should cancel' Yucca
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- An anti-nuclear group included the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump on a list of 10 Energy Department radioactive projects for which the group says Congress should slash or cancel funding.
The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability delivered its list to the House members and senators who will be finalizing the Energy Department budget once Congress comes back into session next month.
"Congress should cancel the Yucca Mountain project," the alliance proposes in its report released Tuesday. "The site cannot meet environmental protection standards, transportation through 43 states is dangerous and unnecessary and on-site storage facilities can continue to be used."
The alliance represents 34 grass-roots organizations from throughout the nation, including Citizen Alert and the Shundahai Network in Nevada.
The Energy Department requested $651 million for 2006 to fund the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The House approved $661 million for the program, with the additional $10 million earmarked to study a temporary storage site option.
The Senate approved $577 million for the nuclear dump. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that writes the bill.
The alliance says Congress could save almost $2 billion by canceling Yucca and other nuclear-related projects in the bill. They also oppose the Modern Pit Facility, a $7.7 million project that would build a new nuclear weapon trigger plant and $191 million in new nuclear power plant programs.
The nuclear industry strongly supports Yucca and wants Congress to provide even more money for it than the department requested. Nuclear power users pay a fee for every kilowatt of power used specifically to fund the repository.
The industry wants the government to fulfill its requirement to take and dispose of nuclear waste --the waste was supposed to be gone in 1998. The industry objects that ratepayers have put billions of dollars toward a solution they have not seen yet.
The nuclear industry says on-site storage is safe for now but not a permanent solution. The waste needs to go into a geologic repository, as the government has agreed is the best option.
It also insists that waste has been moved from place to place around the country for years without a dangerous release of radiation.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
August 17, 2005
Editorial: Yucca's cost is no object?
Las Vegas Sun
Anyone researching the cost of building Yucca Mountain would naturally turn to the Energy Department, which has been managing construction of the proposed nuclear waste site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas for more than 10 years. But the most current information being provided by the department dates to May 2001. The number given then for digging miles of underground tunnels, preparing them to safely contain the waste for thousands of years, and for building associated facilities for receiving and processing the waste, was $4.5 billion. That number is hopelessly outdated, but the department refuses to provide a more accurate accounting.
Since 2001, average costs for union and nonunion labor have mushroomed. Union labor costs are now increasing at the rate of 6 percent a year, and nonunion labor is going up even faster, according the Las Vegas chapter of the Associated General Contractors. A shortage of skilled workers, owing to all of the construction under way in Las Vegas, is pushing costs even higher for labor at Yucca Mountain, which is not the most desirable place to work given its remoteness and blotched safety record. The cost of materials, including steel, cement and petroleum products, has also been rising steadily. Las Vegas real estate consultant John Restrepo told Sun reporter Benjamin Grove that when labor, materials and other expenses are totaled, the cost of construction in Southern Nevada has gone up 40 percent just in the past two years.
The Energy Department says it will not release an updated Yucca Mountain construction cost until after its final design of the project is completed sometime next year. Why the secrecy? It is standard for the estimated cost of public projects to be known in advance, and for the public to be kept informed if the cost increases.
Also mushrooming is the long-term cost of Yucca Mountain, which has been estimated at $58 billion. This includes loading the mountain with 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste over the next 25 years, sealing it and monitoring it for umpteen decades. Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, gives $100 billion as a more accurate figure. And Clark County has calculated that local governments will shoulder costs totaling $3.7 billion over that same 25-year period as they provide security and emergency services for the waste as it moves through the Las Vegas Valley.
Our strongest objection to Yucca Mountain is based on the fact that scientists cannot prove, or even truthfully predict, that it will be safe. But we are also alarmed at the rising costs. The Energy Department should level with the taxpayers of Southern Nevada and the whole country. As the ones footing the bill, they should know how wide they will have to open their pocketbooks to fund this dangerous, scientifically unsound project.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 17, 2005
Nuclear group works on PR effort
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The nuclear industry's trade group is preparing a new lobbying and public relations campaign to promote nuclear power including waste burial at Yucca Mountain, a spokesman said Tuesday.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is planning a broad effort, said Steve Kerekes, senior director of media relations.
"We are looking to do possibly an outreach to capitalize on the resurgence that is unfolding in the industry at large," Kerekes said.
He cited the energy bill, which contains incentives for plant construction, that President Bush signed into law this month.
The campaign could dovetail with new efforts in Congress to jump-start the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, which is years behind schedule.
At an NEI conference on July 27, the chairman of a House energy subcommittee scolded nuclear power executives. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, said he "hasn't heard a peep out of the industry" as he has tried to boost Yucca Mountain spending.
"That tells me nobody cares," Hobson said. "If you want zero, you will get zero."
If Congress fails to fix flaws in the Yucca Mountain program, "it is the (Bush) administration's fault, and it's your fault you didn't get out front," Hobson said.
The NEI's new effort was reported Tuesday by The Energy Daily newsletter. The publication reported NEI will award a contract worth up to $8 million, and the field of candidates includes national public relations firms such as Burson-Marsteller and Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide.
Kerekes would not discuss the value of the contract and when it would be awarded. He said plans had not been finalized.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 17, 2005
Report says repository to bite county budget
Commissioners hear of Yucca Mountain's public safety costs
By Adrienne Packer
Review-Journal
The transportation of high-level nuclear waste to the planned Yucca Mountain repository could have a devastating effect on local government finances, according to a report accepted by Clark County commissioners Tuesday.
Environmental experts estimated that public agencies will have to spend $385 million at the start of the shipments. The cost over the 24-year period of nuclear waste shipments could total $3.7 billion.
The transportation effort was set to start in 2010, but the Department of Energy's current estimate is late 2012 at the earliest.
Public safety responsibilities when the repository opens are projected to cost about $291 million. Over the 24-year-period, the nuclear waste storage area is expected to cost the county $2.5 billion.
The Department of Energy is expected to pay for the effects of transporting and storing radioactive material in Southern Nevada, but officials expressed concerns whether local governments will be compensated fully.
"In the narrowest terms, these are the costs we're talking about that DOE should be held responsible for," said Sheila Conway, principal of the county's consulting firm, Urban Environmental Research, LLC.
The amount the county is reimbursed by the Energy Department, she said, is expected to be "far less than this magnitude."
Allen Benson, spokesman for the Office of Repository Development, said the department will "provide technical assistance and training through the corridor which we will be shipping nuclear waste." He said the definition of technical aid has "yet to be determined."
Conway, a former Energy Department consultant, said estimates for preparing for shipments swelled by $20 million since 2001. The increase is because of changes in communication needs after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the need for a regional training facility and emergency operations center.
Also, local governments have gained a better understanding of the shipment routes, both by train and truck.
"In the current projections, the public safety agencies have reduced some costs by eliminating some equipment and personnel needs they originally thought important, while they have identified other resource needs they originally overlooked," the report said.
Tuesday was the first time that the cost of public safety operations related to the Yucca Mountain storage site were revealed.
"That's a staggering amount of money," said Clark County Commissioner Myrna Williams, who has been an opponent of the planned nuclear waste shipments.
Clark County's $2.5 billion cost projection includes providing public safety through its police, fire and emergency management division. In Las Vegas, that cost is projected to be $1.1 billion.
Conway said frequent updates on costs are important to pass along to Nevada's representatives in Washington, D.C., who will be in discussions with the Department of Energy.
"It's important to have the data; it's important as we go forward to monitor the mode of transportation and monitor the way we'll be impacted, so we have the type of information we need," Conway said.
Williams expressed doubt on whether the Department of Energy will follow through on its obligation to pay for the costs. She said the agency has been less than honest in the past.
"We need to understand and define the costs because, otherwise, it's going to fall on the Clark County taxpayers," Williams said. "That's so unfair; the people who don't want it."
---------------------------
KLAS-TV
August 16, 2005
New Yucca Report: Nevada May Have to Pay $4 Billion
Brian Allen
Reporter
Billions of dollars in Yucca Mountain costs may have to be passed on to Nevada taxpayers. The 3.8 billion in estimated public safety expenses should be paid by the federal government, but Clark County planners believe we'll be the ones to shell out the money.
County leaders are bracing for what may lie ahead. The nearly $4 billion is an estimated cost of what Clark County, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and Mesquite will have to spend on public safety during the 24 years when nuclear waste will be shipped to Yucca Mountain.
Clark County commissioners got their first look at the report Tuesday that contains 84 pages of charts and graphs, and one big number -- 3.8 billion.
"Four billion dollars over a course of 24 years is a huge, huge burden." Irene Navis is the county's liaison to Yucca Mountain. This nearly $4 billion is money that is to come from the Department of Energy to be used to bolster public safety programs to handle any Yucca Mountain related accidents. "The DOE's own documents admit and acknowledge there will be accidents that there will be incidents with release of radiation," Navis said.
So where is the federal money? The report asserts the DOE is unlikely to hand it over, blaming tight federal finances and the DOE's history of not fully funding other projects. So where will this 4 billion come from?
Nevada taxpayers aren't happy. "Well this is insane from the beginning. Yucca Mountain, when they first started this, was like winning the lottery." John Baietti owns the Red Apple Grill. He supports the Yucca Mountain project, but says this latest turn is ridiculous and insulting to Nevadans. "What's amazing is the way this thing has been handled is disgusting beyond belief."
Yucca Mountain is a federal project to be paid for with federal money -- a project many in Nevada don't want. Ironically, they -- along with you and me -- may end up footing part of the bill.
Right now, all Clark County leaders can say is if no federal money comes through, Nevada taxpayers would have to pay up. They have no idea what type of tax could be increased or initiated that wouldn't exert some type of pain on taxpayers.
Leaders are very much at a crossroads.
---------------------------
KVBC
August 16, 2005
Yucca Mountain Shipping Could Cost A Bundle
Shipping nuclear waste through southern Nevada would create a financial burden on Clark County taxpayers. Today county commissioners are outlining their expense plan on how much money they would need to protect local families from high-level nuclear waste.
In all, they say the price tag would be around 2 and a half billion dollars. That would cover police, fire and emergency crews over the Department Of Energy's 24-year shipment schedule.
Spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste will come from more than 100 sites around the country. Most of it by rail and most of it from the eastern half of the country. Shipments coming from southern California and other southwestern states could travel right through Las Vegas, in specially designed casks. The train would use the existing Union Pacific rail lines.
Once the shipment arrives at Caliente, the DOE would move it onto a dedicated rail line to Yucca Mountain. Those shipments coming by truck from the southern California area would travel along 1-15, and then use the 215 beltway to avoid the congested Spaghetti Bowl.
The State of Nevada can request an alternative route for those truck shipments. Currently, Nevada has a agreement with the secretary of energy that low level waste not travel through the Las Vegas Valley.
---------------------------
Platts
August 16, 2005
NRC rejects Nevada petition to change 1990 waste decision
Washington (Platts)--16Aug2005
NRC rejected Nevada's requested change to the 1990 waste confidence decision, saying it didn't find the state's arguments persuasive enough to reopen the issue. That Waste Confidence finding stated that the commission believed there was reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository would be available by 2025. Nevada asserted in its March 1 petition that the rule prejudges the outcome of the adjudicatory proceedings for a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. because DOE would not have enough time to develop another repository by that date if NRC denied the department's application. In an Aug. 10 decision, the commission said it would reevaluate the 2025 availability date if it denied a license for Yucca Mountain and DOE abandoned the site.
---------------------------
San Luis Obispo Tribune
August 17, 2005
No new nuclear plants
Though the Bush administration is promoting more nuclear plants, experts say not in Californiaexperts say not in California
By David Sneed
The Tribune
SACRAMENTO - There is renewed interest in nuclear power in the United States, but experts say not to expect any new nuclear plants in California anytime soon, if ever.
At a daylong hearing Tuesday before the state Energy Commission in Sacramento, the owners of California's two operating nuclear plants -- Diablo Canyon, near San Luis Obispo, and San Onofre, north of San Diego -- told the commission that they have no plans to build new nuclear plants.
The Bush administration, however, strongly favors constructing new nuclear plants, in part to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
Several potential sites in the Southeast for new facilities have been identified. The recently signed federal energy bill provides loan guarantees, tax credits and additional insurance for new nuclear plants.
The administration's Nuclear Power 2010 program calls for at least one new nuclear power plant in the United States early in the next decade, said Rebecca Smith-Kevern with the federal Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
"The prospect of new nuclear power plants in the United States is looking better than it has in a generation," she said. "We are very hopeful that there will be an order for a new nuclear plant soon."
Adding a sense of urgency to the construction of new nuclear plants is the growing consensus among scientists that greenhouse gas emissions from plants that burn fossil fuels are causing climate change.
Not everyone agreed, however, that nuclear power is a necessary component in the energy mix.
Environmentalists and some state regulators say that renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, could replace the 4,000 megawatts of power produced by Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.
"There are superior ways to deal with global warming than nuclear power," said Robert Kinosian with the California Public Utilities Commission.
Amory Lovins with the Rocky Mountain Institute said that nuclear power has been heavily subsidized and is not competitive with renewable energy and other technologies.
"You can make a corpse jump with a defibrillator, but ultimately markets must prevail," he said.
A host of challenges
Nuclear power also faces a host of other serious challenges in California. The most significant is the issue of disposing of highly radioactive used reactor fuel. California prohibits the construction of any new nuclear plants until the waste problem is solved.
Delays in the construction of a national repository at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert mean that the disposal problem will not be solved for another decade at least. In addition, highly radioactive spent fuel will have to remain at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre until a repository can open.
Other challenges facing nuclear power in California include:
• Terrorism. Although nuclear power plants are heavily guarded, they remain potential terrorist targets. As the repository at Yucca has been delayed, spent fuel pools, which are outside a plant's containment domes, have become more densely packed with highly radioactive assemblies. Those pools are considered the most vulnerable part of any nuclear plant.
Gordon Thompson, a nuclear safety expert, told the commission that returning the pools to their original low-density configurations by devising new storage solutions should be a top priority.
Power plant operators and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission disagree. They believe that the spent fuel threat is exaggerated and that they have the ability to stabilize the pools in the event of an accident or terrorist attack.
• Equipment replacements. Both of California's nuclear plants face unanticipated replacements of key components such as steam generators, turbines and reactor vessel heads.
These items will cost state electricity ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars per replacement. They also will require prolonged shutdowns of the plants, temporarily disrupting the state's electrical supply.
• Aging work forces. The average Diablo Canyon employee is 48 years old. The bulk of the plant's work force is expected to reach retirement in the next decade or so. The San Onofre plant is experiencing similar problems. Plant operators say they have anticipated the problem and have hiring plans and training to replace those workers.
• License renewal. Diablo Canyon's operating licenses will expire in 2025. The utility plans to study whether it will apply for license renewal. However, nuclear power experts expect all operating plants to apply for renewal.
Federal law pre-empts state law in nuclear matters, and the NRC is typically the sole decision maker in license renewals. But state officials put the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the utilities on notice Tuesday that they expect to play a significant role in the renewal process.
Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, asked the NRC to incorporate a full review of new seismic information into the renewal process and to make the Energy Commission a partner in the relicensing process.
Kinosian, of the state utilities commission, said his agency wants PG&E to apply to it before it applies to the NRC for license renewal of Diablo Canyon. This will allow for greater public participation, he said.
• Marine impacts. Cooling systems used by nuclear plants use enormous amounts of ocean water. That causes significant damage to the ocean by killing fish larvae and heating billions of gallons of water a day by more than 20 degrees.
Michael Thomas with the Regional Water Quality Control Board in San Luis Obispo said trying to find a scientifically sound way to offset that damage is a "very difficult and extraordinarily contentious issue."
Biologists hired by the state believe that requiring utilities to fund the establishment of a series of marine reserves along the state's coastline is the best solution.
Biologists hired by PG&E disagree. They say the cooling water damage to the ocean is exaggerated.
---------------------------
Cincinnati Enquirer
August 17, 2005
Editorial: Washington's million-year safety plan
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new radiation exposure limit to protect people near Yucca Mountain's high-level radioactive waste dump for 1 million years.
And you thought you had a problem making your roof last another winter or two. EPA's new standard provoked radioactive comment from Nevada officials over the site 90 miles from Las Vegas. "Voodoo science" was among the milder remarks.
Even EPA balked a few years ago at projecting public safety beyond 10,000 years. But despite the technical problem of proving compliance over hundreds of thousands of years when we have trouble sticking to a diet over a two-week vacation, we still should ask ourselves: Do we want to reject altogether the validity of calculating safe exposures from long-term decay of radioactive isotopes? Because if we do, then no dump site could ever be licensed, and 77,000 tons of extremely radioactive waste would stay at commercial power plants and Defense Department facilities in dozens of our states.
Other than rattlesnakes, few live near Yucca Mountain today, but Las Vegas is a boom town, and given the cultural imperatives of urban sprawl and developers' profit motives, people are likely to sprawl in that direction. Congress selected the site in 1987, and engineers have been testing it ever since.
On July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia ruled that EPA's previous standard of 10,000 years disregarded a National Academies of Science study predicting maximum doses escaping from Yucca would last much longer.
Now, EPA is taking comment on a two-tiered standard that would allow a 15 millirems-per-year individual exposure for the first 10,000 years, and a 350 millirems-per-year individual exposure the next 990,000 years. A chest X-ray exposes a patient to 10 millirems of radioactivity; a mammogram, 30 millirems. The average American is exposed to about 300 millirems a year.
The new time-frame also requires the Department of Energy to assess the effects of earthquakes, volcanic activity, a rainier climate or corrosion over a million years. The scientists rely on a "reasonable expectation" rule for their million-year calculations.
It beats checking the morning-line odds in Vegas.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------