Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, August 25, 2005
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 25, 2005
YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Lobby group backs EPA on radiation
Nuclear power industry says two-tiered standard will protect future generations
By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal
The nuclear power industry's chief lobbying arm gave its strong support Wednesday to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed radiation protection standards for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
Skip Bowman, president and chief executive officer of the lobby group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, issued a statement backing the EPA standards two days after the agency scheduled hearings on them in Las Vegas, Amargosa Valley and Washington, D.C.
"The EPA's concept for the radiation protection standard at the Yucca Mountain repository will protect future generations near the desert site," Bowman said, referring to the volcanic rock ridge 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
He noted, however, that "a standard that regulates beyond the internationally accepted 10,000-year standard to 1 million years, or 25,000 generations, is inconsistent with all other regulatory standards for non-radioactive and radioactive hazardous materials."
Nevada officials have criticized the EPA's logic for being too lenient when peak doses are expected to occur after hundreds of thousands of years.
Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux has also expressed concern that the EPA, in his view, has backpedaled from its previous stance that a 150 millirem radiation protection standard is unacceptable.
To satisfy a court ruling, the EPA issued a two-tiered standard this month, with one set of limits for the first 10,000 years of repository operation and a second set for the succeeding years, out to 1 million years.
The radiation dose limits were set at 15 millirem and 350 millirem per year, respectively, above natural background.
A millirem is a small amount of energy that produces the same biological effect as a similar unit of absorbed dose from ordinary X-rays.
For comparison, a chest X-ray exposes a patient to 10 millirem, while a mammogram results in a 30 millirem exposure.
A person living in the United States receives an annual average 300-millirem dose of radiation from natural and man-made sources.
The EPA announced in Monday's Federal Register that hearings and informational sessions on the proposed standards will be Oct. 3, in Amargosa Valley; Oct. 4-5, in Las Vegas; and Oct. 11, in Washington, D.C.
Exact times and locations will be released at a later date.
---------------------------
White County News-Telegraph
August 25, 2005
Interstate 3 opponents ask why
By Carolyn Mathews
Members of the multi-state Stop I-3 organization want to know why an interstate is being planned for Southern Appalachians.
Elizabeth Wells, Chairperson of the Georgia division of the anti-interstate group formed this spring as a reaction to a proposed interstate from Savannah to Knoxville, said Tuesday that U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson has communicated by letter with the group, telling them a $1.3 million feasibility study being financed by the federal government will determine if an interstate is a good idea. "However, he didn't answer the most important question," Wells said, "which is who wants this interstate and why."
Community speakers speaking on the subject of I-3 urged more than 200 people attending an informational rally at White County High School to fight efforts to build the interstate. Money for a feasibility study for Interstate 3 and another interstate that would run from Augusta to Mississippi was included in the recent highway bill signed by President George W. Bush. The feasibility study is expected to take 12-18 months.
Isakson, Wells said, did better than U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Congressman Charlie Norwood. Empty chairs sitting on the high school auditorium stage represented the absence of the two elected officials.
John Clarke, president of the North Carolina chapter of Stop I-3 has written a "white paper" on a suggested link between the transportation of nuclear waste and the plan for the highway. Clarke said the current federal energy bill encourages increased nuclear production and most of it is happening at Oak Ridge and at the Savannah River Nuclear Site near Augusta. "I just don't think it's any accident that highway is planned right now," he said. Clarke said a nuclear waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain probably won't happen and that nuclear waste may be disposed of at the Savannah River Nuclear Site instead. Clarke and Rabun County resident Lucy Ezzard Bartlett both cited twisting roads and foggy weather as potential causes for truck wrecks on an interstate placed through the mountains. Some of those trucks, they say, would carry hazardous wastes.
---------------------------
New London Day
August 25, 2005
Yucca Mountain Won't Be Needed For Very Long
Letters To The Editor:
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste, while envisioned for sustainability for one million years, won't need to be in operation for much more than 100.
America's energy policies are changing, along with the support of environmental groups, to proceed with licensing of fast breeder reactors using the lead-bismuth cooling system. These reactors will be able to consume our current nuclear waste as fuel and allow us to bridge the gap into fusion power that is about a century away from likely commercial uses.
Fast breeder reactors generate lower level (shorter half life; hundreds of years maximum instead of millennia) waste than pressurized water reactors. Also, the fast-breeder reactors lead-bismuth design is self-shielding when shut down — the coolant becomes the container until it can eventually be consumed through transmutation by fusion reactors.
Moving forward with fast breeder reactors is the solution to energy needs of the future, 42 percent of imported oil is used for power generation and solving the long-term waste issue for which Yucca Mountain is only an intermediate step.
Jefferson Harris
New London
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
August 24, 2005
Reid, Ensign want answers on nuke train
By The Associated Press
LAS VEGAS - Nevada's senators are demanding the Energy Department more fully explain its plan to use dedicated freight trains to haul spent nuclear fuel to a national radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nye County.
In a letter last week to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., complain of "gaps and inconsistencies" in a recently announced plan to have trains haul just one kind of cargo: highly radioactive waste.
"Like all things Yucca, the conclusions in this policy statement are seemingly pulled from thin air," the senators said in a joint statement released Thursday. Reid and Ensign oppose the Yucca Mountain project.
The Energy Department had not received the letter, and spokesman Craig Stevens declined to answer questions it raised.
"We remain committed to opening Yucca Mountain using the best science and technology available to ensure the safety and health of all citizens," he said.
The Energy Department has said it would rely more on trains than trucks to haul 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from sites in 39 states to a proposed underground nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain, 20 miles north and east of Amargosa Valley and Beatty, respectively, and 50 miles northeast of Pahrump.
The Energy Department announced July 18 it would use dedicated trains instead of linking cars carrying nuclear waste with cars containing other freight.
Nevada officials have long advocated dedicated trains. But Reid and Ensign said the plan was incomplete.
Among other questions, they asked how the Department plans to move waste from 24 reactor sites that have no train tracks; how long waste would sit in rail yards and whether rail employees would be exposed to radiation; how the public risk of radiation was evaluated; and when the Department would release a comprehensive shipping plan and cost assessment.
They sought answers by Sept. 1.
In another development, the nuclear power industry's chief lobbyist said in Washington, D.C., that reprocessing technology could make retrieval of spent fuel from the Yucca Mountain project more likely.
"A lot of people have the image that the idea is to put this stuff in, close the door, walk away, and that's the end of it," said Frank L. "Skip" Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. "Not true. That would be irresponsible, and it never has been the plan."
The Energy Department requires the DOE to be able to retrieve highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from Yucca Mountain for at least 100 years and possibly for as long as 300 years, Bowman said.
Bowman acknowledged that the United States has not reprocessed spent nuclear fuel since 1977.
Bob Loux, chief of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency, called it unlikely that radioactive material could safely be retrieved from tunnels where internal temperatures will be above the boiling point of water.
The Energy Department plans to submit a license application for the Yucca repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year. Recent setbacks have pushed back the target date for receiving waste from 2010 to 2012 or later.
---------------------------
KLAS-TV
August 24, 2005
EPA Public Meetings on Yucca Mountain
The Environmental Protection Agency has anounced its plans to hold public information sessions about the future of Yucca Mountain.
In October, the EPA will hold four hearings in Nevada and in Washington, D.C.
The information sessions will provide the public an informal opportunity to learn about the proposed standards for Yucca Mountain and talk with EPA staff.
The EPA will welcome public commetns on the rule for 60 days. Comments must be received on or before Oct. 21, 2005.
Monday, October 3, late afternoon and evening at the Amargosa Valley Community Center in Amargosa Valley.
Tuesday, October 4, late afternoon and evening in Las Vegas.
Tuesday, October 5, late morning, if necessary, in Las Vegas.
Tuesday, October 11, afternoon, in Washington, DC.
The Federal Register notice of the rulemaking is posted on EPA's Internet website along with additional information on the rule.
---------------------------
Provo Daily Herald
August 24, 2005
Homeland Security looks over Utah nuke waste site
N.S. Nokkentved
Daily Herald
State officials and others hoping the U.S. Department of Homeland Security might block a proposed nuclear waste storage site in Utah may be in for a disappointment.
The agency has no regulatory authority.
No one really knows what to make of a recent visit to Utah by officials of the federal Department of Homeland Security.
Officials came out last week to look over the site of a proposed storage facility for highly radioactive spent fuel from commercial power reactors.
"We're thrilled that they came out and made an assessment," said Connie Nakahara, special assistant attorney general. "But we're disappointed that it won't include transportation."
The state has long objected to the proposal by eight private utilities, known as Private Fuel Storage LLC, to establish a temporary storage site for spent reactor fuel on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation.
Every roadblock the state has tried to put in the path of the radioactive waste site has been rejected. Now the hope that the national agency might find a fatal flaw also may fade.
"Homeland Security made it very clear that (the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has jurisdiction on site," Nakahara said.
The federal security officials assured the state that an assessment would be completed within a couple of weeks and submitted to the secretary within a month, she said.
"What might come of this is not clear," she said.
NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner asserted the agency's authority over such a site.
"NRC has responsibility for a decision on licensing the facility," Gagner said. The commission is expected to make a decision on the license this summer.
State officials have concerns about transportation safety and the effects of fighter jet crash into the site, and about the financial viability of PFS and just how temporary the site would be.
The consortium, in an agreement with the Goshute Band, would lease 820 acres of the reservation for the 100-acre storage site that would hold 4,000 steel-and-concrete containers of spent fuel rods. The lease would be for up to 40 years.
Homeland Security agreed to look the site over at the insistence of U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who has complained about federal government involvement in the spent fuel storage project.
Hatch was able to extract a promise from Secretary Michael Chertoff to evaluate the site that Hatch says is too close to population centers and an international airport. The 44,000 tons of radioactive waste, sitting 52 miles west of American Fork and 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, is too tempting a terrorist target, he says.
Hatch has proposed legislation that would require such waste be stored only at federal sites or at the reactors where it was generated.
Many such sites, however, are equally close or closer to population centers, and many are running out of room to store waste, says John Parkyn, chairman of PFS.
Homeland Security's role is to provide coordination between federal agencies, to gather information, agency spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich said. Agency officials will report to the secretary, and it would be up to the secretary to make any recommendations.
But Homeland Security has no regulatory authority, Petrovich said. Any action would be up to the NRC.
"They're the ones that grant the licenses," she said. "They're the ones who would take any action under their regulatory authority."
Homeland Security officials who toured the site to evaluate security there were accompanies by a representative from the NRC.
"At the end of the day, the buck stops with them," Petrovich said.
---------------------------
Platts
August 22, 2005
EPA seeks public comment on proposed Nevada nuclear waste plan
Washington (Platts)--22Aug2005 Groups on both sides of the debate over the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada will have until Oct 21 to comment on a proposed US Environmental Protection Agency standard for radiation levels outside the facility, documents showed. EPA formally published its proposals, including the deadline, on Monday.
Nevada has threatened to sue the federal government over the standard if the proposal is adopted as now written. EPA developed the rule because the US Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a previous standard governing radiation levels for 10,000 years. The court said the earlier proposal did not address potential radiation during a peak dose period, which could occur a million years from now.
The latest EPA proposal would retain the court-rejected standard of 15 millirems for 10,000 years, then raise it to 350 millirems for the next 990,000 years.
The agency said a 350-millrem standard would allow for radiation levels comparable to background radiation levels now in existence in large cities. An Energy Dept spokesman said earlier in August that DOE could meet the proposed standard.
Repository foes said that engineering measures to prevent radiation outside the repository are inadequate. Nevada Gov Kenny Guinn, a Republican, said the EPA standard was based on "junk science."
---------------------------
GovExec
August 23, 2005
GAO criticizes Energy's plutonium disposal effort
By David Francis
Global Security Newswire
The Energy Department should develop a plan to consolidate storage of plutonium stocks that are currently located across the country, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
The report (GAO-05-665) called for moving the stocks to the department's Savannah River Site in South Carolina and also recommended improving monitoring systems for storage containers at Savannah to prevent plutonium leaks once the material is shipped to the site.
About 50 metric tons of plutonium no longer needed by the U.S. nuclear weapons program is now in storage at the department's Hanford facility in Washington state, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in Colorado, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the Savannah River Site. The 2002 Defense Authorization Act requires the department to develop a plan to store the material at the Savannah site until it can be shipped to the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository for permanent disposition.
Auditors found that the department has fallen far behind in this effort since it was called for in the 2002 defense authorization bill. The department lacks a plan to convert plutonium into a form that can be stored at the Savannah facility. Also, Savannah is not equipped to store the Hanford plutonium, which is still in the form of 12-foot nuclear rods. Savannah is only equipped for standard storage containers, which cannot hold the rods.
"Until DOE develops a permanent disposition plan, additional plutonium cannot be shipped to SRS [Savannah] and DOE will not achieve the cost savings and security improvements that consolidation could offer. Continued storage at Hanford will cost an additional approximately $85 million annually and will threaten that site's achievement of the milestones in its accelerated cleanup plan," the report says.
The GAO also found that Savannah's safety systems cannot properly monitor storage containers. "Without a monitoring capability, DOE faces increased risks of an accidental plutonium release that could harm workers, the public, and/or the environment," the report states.
The report points out that the department has twice scrapped plans to build facilities at Savannah that would have been capable of storing and monitoring excess plutonium as well as processing the material for eventual shipment to Yucca Mountain. Due to these cancellations, "DOE has no means for processing its most heavily contaminated plutonium into a form suitable for permanent disposition," the report says.
It urges the department to develop a strategy that assesses "the storage, monitoring, and security capabilities of all of DOE's sites currently storing plutonium. Furthermore, the strategy should analyze the environmental impact, national security implications, costs, and schedules to safely consolidate, store, and eventually dispose of DOE's plutonium at existing facilities and/or at a new storage facility constructed at one of its sites."
"When this comprehensive strategy is completed," the report continues, "we further recommend that the secretary of energy ensure that each of DOE's facilities' cleanup plans are reviewed to ensure that each site's cleanup goals time frames are consistent with the department's comprehensive strategy for plutonium consolidation, storage, and disposition."
Independent nuclear expert Tom Clements, former senior adviser to Greenpeace International, blasted the department for its failure to develop a plan. Clements also criticized Congress for lax oversight of the department's disposal efforts.
"The report affirm[s] what many in the public have long pointed out - that DOE has no comprehensive plan to manage, consolidate or dispose of plutonium," Clements said in a press release. "But Congress is very late in beginning serious oversight of this program. It has already been a decade since the program to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium began and DOE still hasn't developed a workable plan to handle this deadly material. Lack of such a plan, which should have been developed years ago, means a tremendous waste of taxpayer money and a continued threat to public health and safety."
Clements told Global Security Newswire that it is difficult to gauge how much money has been spent on plutonium disposition because the funding has been scattered throughout various spending bills over the last few years. "It's got to be in the billions of dollars," he said.
Clements said all plans to ship plutonium to Savannah must be stopped while the department develops a plan for storing the material. Congress should not allocate more money for construction of a Savannah facility to convert weapon-grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear power reactors until comprehensive safety plans are in place, he said.
"DOE has tried for many years to fool the Congress and the public that a plan existed to dispose of plutonium. While many in the public have not been fooled, Congress is to share the blame with DOE for this programmatic failure as it has not conducted adequate oversight of the troubled and costly plutonium program," Clements said. "Congress has thrown money at the program without first demanding of DOE a comprehensive plan. Such abuse of the taxpayer must stop and Congress must now hold DOE's feet to the fire."
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------