Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
October 05, 2005

EPA's Yucca Mountain standard criticized

Speakers say proposal for protecting public contradicts intent of court ruling

By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal

In stark contrast to the previous night, more than a dozen speakers Tuesday castigated the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for protecting the public from radioactive releases at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

One critic, Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux, said the EPA's proposal is an absurd attempt at "morally bankrupt standard-setting," that fails to protect future generations of Nevadans.

He said the proposal for a more lenient standard between 10,000 years and 1 million years after the repository opens, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, contradicts the intent of last year's court ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the EPA's first attempt at setting a radiation safety standard in 2001 didn't cover the time when peak doses will occur in hundreds of thousands of years.

Loux said EPA representatives told Nevada officials that the reason for proposing a less protective standard over 1 million years than for the first 10,000 years is because a tougher standard "would disqualify Yucca Mountain, and EPA has been directed to assure that doesn't happen."

"EPA has manufactured a standard tailored to fit the site, not to protect public health and safety," he told a panel that included Elizabeth Cotsworth, director of the EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.

"If adopted the proposed Yucca Mountain standard will permit countless generations of Nevadans to be intentionally exposed to levels of radiation that would never be tolerated elsewhere either in the United States or internationally," Loux said.

Before Monday night's hearing, Cotsworth acknowledged that the EPA's attempt to set a standard to cover 1 million years "is unique. ... We don't intend that the approach we have used at Yucca Mountain would apply in other regulatory programs."

Loux's comments were echoed by 14 others who called for the EPA to strike its proposal and produce a standard that at least extends protections for the first 10,000 years out to 1 million years, including the part that limits radioactivity in groundwater.

The only two speakers at Monday night's hearing in Amargosa Valley, the community closest to Yucca Mountain, said the EPA's proposed dose limits of 15 millirem and 350 millirem per year for 10,000 and 1 million years, respectively, are more than adequate.

The EPA notes that a chest X-ray exposes a patient to 10 millirem and a mammogram results in a 30 millirem exposure.

But at Tuesday's hearing and roundtable discussion at the Cashman Center, industrial hygienist Jacob Paz said that comparison is misleading because radiation from 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel destined for Yucca Mountain is more penetrating and doesn't just pass through the body like X-rays, but is deposited in bone matter at higher energy levels.

About 75 people attended the discussion and hearing, including 30 from Culinary Local 226 who carried signs that read, "No Nuke Dump in Nevada."

Shannon Raborn, who called the EPA's work "voodoo science," delivered a statement from Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that said, "EPA's standard is wholly inadequate, does not meet the law's requirements and does not protect public health. It is another example of this administration's myopic pursuit of Yucca Mountain in the face of scientific uncertainty, falsification of information and massive public opposition."

In written testimony, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., stated that "the EPA has an obligation to protect public safety today, tomorrow and in a million years. It should not speculate that a standard which is not deemed safe today could miraculously become a safe standard in the future."

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

Las Vegas SUN
October 05, 2005

Columnist Tom Gorman: Trying to make sense out government's plans for Yucca Mountain

Tom Gorman can be reached at 259-2310 or tom.gorman@ lasvegassun.com.

For years I waffled on whether to support the government's campaign to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

But after sitting in on an Environmental Protection Agency hearing this week up in Amargosa Valley, I'm now a real cynic. The only optimistic news to come out of the hearing is the government's technical assumption that, a million years from now, there will be something around here to protect.

I was struck that the EPA has proposed holding its cousins at the Energy Department to two different levels of safety when it comes to tolerating radiation leakage.

For the short term (meaning, for the first 10,000 years), the EPA doesn't want more than 15 millirems of radiation to be released, on average, any given year. That's about the same as a chest X-ray.

The EPA came up with that standard a few years ago. It is unclear to me what the EPA will do if the Energy Department fails us. Take away the keys to Yucca Mountain? Throw more sand over it? Rush over to Home Depot and buy better caulking?

But because the worst leakage isn't expected to occur for 200,000 or 300,000 years, give or take, a judge ordered the EPA to set some safety standards for the folks living here at that time.

The EPA proposal would allow up to 350 millirems of radiation to be accidentally released annually, during the time span of 10,000 years to 1 million years from now.

In other words, it is relaxing its safety standards. This won't personally affect me. I'll be dead. But if we're going to assume there will be future generations -- and we have to make that assumption, don't we? -- then to tell them they don't deserve the same level of safety as we deserve, creates a troublesome ethics problem. We should squirm in our pews.

I'm not a rocket surgeon, but it looks suspiciously that the EPA is loosening its safety standards to accommodate the expected increase in radiation leakage. Not so, according to the EPA folks.

"We are accepting a greater level of risk over the long time period," said Elizabeth Cotsworth, director of the EPA's office of radiation and indoor air. "But we believe both (standards) are protective."

Maybe. But remember that the levees in New Orleans were supposed to hold up better against hurricanes. The Army Corps of Engineers will be reviewing its previous assumptions about levee construction and the Louisiana geology, and I wonder what that says about government work.

The EPA people never explained to my satisfaction why it is loosening its safety standards over time. It's an unprecedented policy decision, as far as I can tell. If you attend the EPA's hearings today and Thursday in Las Vegas, maybe you'll be more successful in wringing an answer out of them.

The EPA says it came up with the 350-millirem standard this way: Nevadans already are exposed to about 350 millirems of natural background radiation a year -- and Colorado residents are exposed to about 700 millirems.

The EPA logic says that if Yucca Mountain leaks about 350 millirems a year, we'd still be no worse off than our brethren in Colorado.

Here's my suggestion. Coloradans obviously have acclimated to radiation, and there must be an available mountain somewhere in the Rockies. Let's store the used fuel rods there. It'll save transportation costs, too, what with the price of gasoline, since Colorado is closer to most of the nuclear waste producers.

What do we do, then, with Yucca Mountain?

The feds so far have spent about $8 billion on it. That's probably the cost of Steve Wynn's next casino. The government should sell the place before it drops any more into the money pit.

Maybe Donald Trump or his ex-wife could develop it as a subterranean condomonium complex, to mitigate the high rises going up along the Strip.

Or, given suburban sprawl, Station Casinos could begin working on its next themed casino, Yucca Station.

Because the place would always be dark and cool, it would be the perfect wine cellar for the sommeliers from Mandalay Bay.

And I'm sure the folks at Drai's could turn it into the ultimate nightclub. If it were up to me, I'd call it Glow in the Dark.

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

KLAS-TV
October 05, 2005

Public Hearing on Yucca Mountain

Edward Lawrence
Reporter

The Environmental Protection Agency held the second of three public hearings concerning the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository.

The federal agency is developing a safe radiation level standard for storing nuclear waste at the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Las Vegas resident, J.T. Smith says, "I am looking for the protocol on how they selected Yucca Mountain. Also concerned about the directive that was issued by the nuclear waste policy in 1982 in terms of what other sites were suited."

Smith took notes and fashioned questions about the decision to store nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain Repository. "To me I smell a rat here. So I just wanted to come down and investigate what's going on and why is it going on here in the state of Nevada," he said.

He wanted to quiz Environmental Protection Agency scientists about the safety of storing nuclear waste. Wednesday's hearing will help develop an acceptable nuclear waste radiation level and put some people familiar with the project in one room.

Smith says he is a researcher. He did not want to get the questions he had answered through the news. That is why he showed up at the meeting to talk face to face with the EPA Director of the Office of Radiation Elizabeth Cotsworth.

Cotsworth says her agency is comfortable with the level it proposed. "Yes. We would not have proposed it if we had not felt it was protective." It sets the limit at 15 millirem for 10,000 years. Then ups the level 2,233% to 350 millirem from 10,000 years to one million years.

Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn remains skeptical. "As you know we have made substantial progress in the court system. It's too bad you have to go there, but in this case it's very important to the state of Nevada and it's people."

Smith adds, "This is a city that appeals globally. So it has tremendous ramifications for generations to come." The next 25,000 generations to be exact. That is how long the EPA will look into the future when setting an acceptable radiation level. Governor Guinn hopes all Nevada residents voice their concern for the Yucca Mountain project. Click here to learn how you can comment.

The governor was signed up to speak during the first hearing day. He says it's important to comment because he feels the EPA will listen. "I think they will listen because for them to make progress they have to bring the American people along with them especially the people in Nevada."

Cotsworth says every comment will be important. She pledged that each would be read and looked over. "We very seriously analyze all public comments and will be sharing those with our senior decision makers." The radiation level standard deemed safe for the project will be finalized in the next couple of months.

The public hearings became necessary because a Federal Court of Appeals set aside the original radiation level standard in the summer of 2004. The EPA then raised the acceptable level from 10,000 years to one million years of storage to meet Yucca Mountain requirements.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
October 05, 2005

Southeast Inyo fights for disaster response equipment, manpower

By Robin Flinchum
Special to The PVT

Even before the awful devastation of Hurricane Katrina turned official eyes to the often flawed and neglected emergency preparedness documents moldering in drawers across the country, Southern Inyo Fire Protection District Chief Paul Postle was making a big squeak in the local disaster preparedness wheel. Last week, Inyo County officials sent a little oil his way in the form of a trailer filled with emergency response supplies.

A number of similar trailers were deployed throughout Inyo County's Owens Valley, Postle said, but the arrival of the Southeast Inyo trailer had been delayed by paperwork problems.

The vehicle was finally delivered last week by Lt. Bill Lutze of the Inyo County Sheriff's Department and contains three power generators, a small number of emergency cots, blankets and personal hygiene items, as well as hazardous material cleanup equipment including radiation meters and low level protective suits and face masks.

Postle was grateful to receive the trailer, he said, but it was just "the tip of the iceberg" in terms of what needs to be done in Southeast Inyo to prepare the local communities for disaster management. It has long been a concern of Postle's, something he brings up, or attempts to bring up, at every multi-agency responder's meeting he attends, he said. And this past summer some of his fears about local preparedness were realized.

Last July Postle faced a sort of mini Katrina of his own. It wasn't a hurricane or a flood of colossal proportions, just a couple of downed power lines that left his community without air conditioning or water during some of the hottest weather of the summer. Based on erroneous information from Southern California Edison, Postle believed that the power would be restored before he could activate a disaster response team from the Inyo County seat four hours away. As it turned out, however, in some areas the power remained out for as long as 52 hours.

Postle's emergency medical response and firefighting crews set up an emergency shelter in the Tecopa Community Center and went door to door in Tecopa handing out bottled water and offering to transport residents to the shelter, where a small generator kept a fan running and food was available. But when all was said and done, Postle felt that his team's efforts fell short and that at the heart of the problem was a lack of good planning.

And, he said, even if he had contacted the county's Office of Emergency Services, he wasn't entirely sure what the response would be. Inyo County has a hefty Emergency Response Plan, and Postle has a copy of it on his desk but "it was written by people on the west end of Inyo County. It doesn't seem to cover things that could happen here. The resources on this side of the county are not the same. In the Owens Valley you can't walk anywhere without bumping into some agency and they can all call on one another for resources to fill in the gaps. Out here there's only one agency that's always present and that's us."

Although the current plan is in the process of revision by the county, Postle says he hasn't seen the new document yet or had a chance to review whether it might better serve Southeast Inyo.

Postle and his crew, with the limited help of a local representative from Inyo County Health and Human Services, are the only line of defense between a community largely comprised of retired and disabled seniors and whatever disaster might be looming in their future. That's a responsibility Postle doesn't take lightly.

After the power outage in July, Postle wrote a report of the incident, including a summary of his agency's response and detailing areas where he felt the Southeast Inyo Fire Protection District might have improved operations. He submitted the report to the county in hopes of encouraging dialog about improving disaster response in Southeast Inyo.

Postle is frustrated by what he sees as a lack of communication among the various agencies necessary to create a truly workable plan, one that will benefit Southeast Inyo as well as other parts of Inyo and even Nye counties, since the two are so directly linked by water sources and common roadways, not to mention proximity to the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository.

Currently, he said, if he were to work from Inyo County's plan as it is, he would "have to improvise to make it work."

The plan, for instance, doesn't cover electrical outages, Postle said. These tend to occur most often during the summer electrical storms and, in an area where temperatures can rise to 120 degrees, and most water is delivered by electrical pumps, "that is a disaster." Although his recent experience was "insignificant compared to Katrina, it has a lot of similarities in terms of problems identified."

For Postle, it's frustrating that most agencies "have to wait for a big disaster to take action. Most agencies are reactive rather than proactive and this all has to do with funding. I think that's pretty sad. With the national economic situation we're in, I don't understand why we spend so much money planning manned missions to Mars. I'm a big science fiction fan and would love to see that, but not when you've got cities falling apart and an infrastructure that is decaying."

Postle's ideal would be to see all involved agencies come to the table to discuss the possible disaster scenarios, then brainstorm solutions, and most importantly, field test preparedness plans to identify the glitches before real people are affected by any planning flaws.

"Let's talk emergency planning in simple terms, make sure all jurisdictions and agencies are on the same page and focus on how we can help each other out. Currently, we have no mission of unified command to help each other."

Meanwhile, Postle continues in his efforts to build up Southeast Inyo's ability to respond on its own by soliciting input from local residents and attempting to generate interest in a Southern Inyo Fire Department Auxiliary. A well-organized auxiliary could take care of emergency shelter needs if necessary, leaving trained response crews to tend to any fires and medical situations, Postle said.

Chief Postle encouraged all interested parties to attend Southern Inyo Fire Protection District board meetings at 5 p.m. on the third Tuesday of every month at the fire station in Tecopa.

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

Platts
October 04, 2005

DOE appeals NRC panel's decision on Yucca Mt. draft document

Washington (Platts)--4Oct2005

DOE is appealing an NRC licensing board decision granting Nevada's request for a copy of DOE's draft license application (LA) for a spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. In an appeal filed yesterday with the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer (PAPO) Board, DOE asserted that the ruling opens "the floodgate to the production of virtually all preliminary drafts" on the licensing support network (LSN) because the board had not provided any "meaningful standard or principled basis to bound the participants' obligation to produce drafts." Nevada had requested the draft LA so it could begin work on contentions that the state will file during a repository licensing proceeding. In a related move, DOE told the PAPO Board that it likely would have been ready to certify its LSN document collection this month but now won't issue the certification until its appeal has been decided.

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

UtahPolicy
October 05, 2005

Letter from Rep. Stephen H. Urquhart to Senator Orrin Hatch, Re: To encourage you to quickly change your position on Yucca Mountain

Rep. Stephen H. Urquhart, House Majority Whip
37 W. 1070 S. Ste. 102, St. George, Utah 84770

Honorable Orrin Hatch
VIA FACSIMILE
104 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax No. (202) 224-6331

Senator Hatch:

I write to encourage you to quickly change your position on Yucca Mountain and to legitimately address the issue of nuclear waste storage, in order to protect Utah.

By supporting the storage site at Yucca Mountain, you currently are (1) working to promote transportation of nuclear waste through Utah, (2) working to promote the temporary storage facility in Skull Valley, and (3) wasting critical time and alienating valuable allies.  I will address each of these points below.

One, likely transportation routes to Yucca Mountain will funnel the nuclear waste directly through Utah.  This, of course, raises concerns of accidents occurring in Utah during transportation.  While it is right to oppose Skull Valley, you should be aware that transportation to Yucca Mountain would involve even more road and rail miles through Utah.  Thus, your support of Yucca Mountain makes little sense.  It is like trying to save someone from a bus by throwing him in front of a train.

Two, the basic premise behind the Skull Valley site is that it would store the waste temporarily, until Yucca Mountain is completed.  Though none of us believes the storage truly would be temporary, Skull Valley´s purported reason for being is that the Yucca Mountain facility will be built.  If Yucca Mountain is scuttled, that ruse goes away and Skull Valley goes away with it.  That is why your deciding vote to authorize Yucca Mountain and the importation of nuclear waste to the West was such a devastating blow to Utah, and why your continuing support of the site, despite the better reasoning of all your Congressional colleagues from Utah, makes so little sense.

Three, let´s not kid the people of Utah.  The legislation you propose is a political reaction to Senator Bennett´s changed position on Yucca Mountain, and it does not have a prayer of passing.  Instead of offering up such a sham, I encourage you to seriously involve yourself in this important issue.

Though I understand you are hoping for favors from the current administration, I remind you that this administration only has 3 years remaining.  Whatever it might do on this issue, a subsequent administration could reverse.  In any event, the deal you currently seek – help with Skull Valley in exchange for your invitation of nuclear waste to and through Utah for permanent storage upwind of Southern Utah – is a bad deal.  Thus, Utah´s hope should rest with Congress.

The minority leader of the Senate is poised to help.  Unless you doubt your ability to muster support on your side of the aisle, the best strategy would be to join with the rest of Utah´s delegation and Senator Reid in opposing importation of nuclear waste to the West.  Nuclear waste should stay where it currently is located, until a better, permanent solution is reached.  Congress should shift funding away from short-sighted solutions like Yucca Mountain toward technology that can more effectively address the problems and opportunities presented by the spent rods.

If you are not willing to join in this fight to protect Utah, I am.

Sincerely,
Steve Urquhart

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

Salt Lake City Weekly
October 05, 2005

In the Money

Utah Democrats´ new leaders are flush with cash from the national party. Do they know how to spend it?

by Ted McDonough

In  a political year with only city elections on the ballot, state Republican Party headquarters appears closed. At the Utah Democratic Party, however, there´s a campaign buzz.

Old campaign signs blanket one wall. A wrapped apple turnover snack sticks out beneath papers littering a table. New party Executive Director Todd Taylor´s shirttail is untucked. New party Chairman Wayne Holland Jr. is dickering over press release wording with new communications director Jeff Bell, one of three full-time paid staffers who joined the party three weeks ago courtesy of an infusion of cash from the national party.

The scene has the flavor of a legit political operation run by people who believe their party might be relevant. The old guard now in power appears to have made up with a liberal faction by putting its leader on the payroll.

Then again, the operation could just as quickly devolve into intra-party fighting. Following a hard-fought battle for control of the party, some of the losers, including some of the Democrats´ most energetic members, remain on the sidelines.

The press release Bell and Holland are hashing out blasts Republican Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch for supporting nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. Holland tells Bell to add a line stating, “Utah´s best representative in the Senate is a man elected in Nevada.’

That´s a reference to Sen. Harry Reid, a Mormon and the highest-ranking Democrat in the U.S. Senate. Sen. Reid is one of the big reasons Utah´s new Democratic Party leaders see hope as they plan a two-year campaign to rebuild the party in the reddest of red states. Democrats are winning in parts of the Mountain West, if not in Utah. National Democratic leaders are taking notice, Holland said.

The Democratic National Committee won´t say how much it´s spending in Utah as part of the “50-state strategy’ of DNC Chairman Howard Dean. Utah leaders are coy. It´s enough to pay for three new full-time staff, with benefits, for at least two years. In addition to a new communications director, two DNC-paid field directors—one to organize the party at the county and neighborhood level, a second to support candidates—plot strategy.

Traveling western states with John Kerry´s presidential campaign, Holland said he saw evidence of the “new demographics of the West,’ making the region more welcoming for Democrats through increased numbers of Latinos and inland migrations from both coasts.

States such as Arizona and Colorado have seen “blue bases’ of Democratic city support, in Phoenix and Denver, spread out to elect Democrats in regional contests.

In the 2004 elections, Democrats took over state senates in Montana, Oregon and Washington. The formerly red state of Colorado went nearly all blue as Democrats took both the state House and Senate, and elected Democrat Ken Salazar to a formerly Republican U.S. Senate seat.

In 2004, Utah Democrats took the Salt Lake County mayor´s seat and gained one seat on the county council. Holland points to those gains as evidence that “blue base’ expansion is possible here, too.

Utah´s new party leaders haven´t yet determined a strategy for making it happen. A lot will hinge on what the DNC wants done, Taylor said. Utah party leaders will head East for training sometime this month.

Holland believes the Utah Democrats´ odd mix of office staff is evidence his chairmanship values a “big tent,’ including party liberals, but inclusive enough to lure moderate Republicans “frustrated with the far, far right.’

Bell, the new communications director, has roots in the Reform Party. But staffer Craig Axford boasts the most travel under his belt.

As the Democrats´ new “party organizer,’ Axford is officially “The Man.’ It´s a long way from the guy who left the Democratic Party in disgust a few years ago and took a number of delegates with him to form Utah´s Green Party.

He blended into the Democratic fold three years ago as head of its Progressive Caucus. He´s stepping down from that position to enable his work with a variety of different Democratic constituencies.

Axford ran for party chairman himself, but threw his support toward Holland after being knocked out in the first round of voting. His hiring for one of the DNC-paid jobs brings two of the party´s formerly disputing wings within spitting distance of each other. Utah Rep. Jim Matheson, a conservative “blue-dog’ Democrat, backed Holland for chairman, as did many past party leaders.

To succeed, Holland said Democrats must tone down intra-party fighting and, “let Democrats be the types of Democrats they are.’ This may be the first test of Holland´s new effort. Axford may be part of the establishment now, but other wounds from the chairmanship race haven´t fully healed.

Those who made the Democrats´ new push possible, the “Deaniacs,’ have yet to be fully brought in from the cold. Members of Democracy for Utah, the state´s version of Dean´s Democracy for America project, formed the backbone for the campaign of Jan Lovett, a party newcomer who finished second to Holland in the party chair race by matching Holland´s establishment endorsements with volunteer teams new to party politics. Others who backed Lovett´s candidacy included Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and party activists closely aligned with County Mayor Peter Corroon, a cousin of DNC Chairman Dean.

Lovett and her supporters made it to the second ballot but came up 25 votes short. Some haven´t forgiven Axford for helping Holland´s Matheson-backed campaign.

Holland said he reached out to Lovett after the election, asking her to sit on the party´s candidate recruitment committee. She declined, citing other commitments, but has agreed to advise future candidates.

“No [Democratic Party] positions were offered to me, but I didn´t apply,’ Lovett said. “I didn´t make any deals during the campaign, either. I don´t feel like my votes are for sale.’

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

Lincoln County News
October 05, 2005

Feds Okay Public Use of Maine Yankee Site

Greg Foster

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notified Maine Yankee on Monday that it has amended the company´s operating license to release about 167 acres of Bailey Point land in Wiscasset for unrestricted public use.

The news signals the official federal recognition of the site´s being decommissioned in accordance with NRC procedures, according to company spokesman Eric Howes.

Since it began operation in 1972 until it ceased in 1996, Maine Yankee produced 119 billion kilowatt hours of electricity for its New England customers.

“Today´s milestone marks the first time a commercial nuclear power plant in the United

States has been fully decommissioned with all plant buildings removed,’ he said. “The nearly eight-year project was performed safely to a significantly higher radiological cleanup standard than federal regulations require and within the $500 million cost estimate to Maine Yankee´s electric customers.’

However, nothing significant is expected to happen with the land as far as sale or use of it, Howes said. That fact tends to dampen any immediate hopes for use in the foreseeable future.

“The NRC has released the land for unrestricted use, but we still have spent fuel there

so Maine Yankee will restrict access to the peninsula,’ he said.

Maine Yankee completed transfer of the spent fuel from the spent fuel pool to the dry cask storage facility in February 2003.

Meanwhile, there have been efforts from nuclear power companies to hasten the construction of a federal repository for high-level nuclear waste from decommissioning and operating plants throughout the United States. It is uncertain when that will happen, however.

“The future of the property is uncertain unless the fuel is removed,’ Howes said.

Now, with the amended license, Maine Yankee´s operating property is the remaining 12 acres including the spent nuclear fuel storage installation and surroundings.

There are 64 concrete canisters located there containing highly contaminated spent fuel rods as well as other high level nuclear waste. “We have security requirements regarding that,’ Howes said.

That fact precludes any immediate sale of the property for public use. Speculation has run high for potential uses such as expansion of Wiscasset´s current technology park on former Maine Yankee land, but is tempered by the reality.

The NRC reported it has released the land, since it meets its requirements of a maximum radiation dose of 25 millirems per year, as well as the state´s cleanup standards of 10 millirems per year from all pathways and four millirems per year from groundwater sources of drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency standard is 15 millirems per year.

“At the end of the day, the remaining dose is more like one millirem,’ Howes said.

According to the NRC, the average person in the United States receives about 300 millirems from background radiation each year.

“Release of this land for unrestricted use poses no threat to public health and safety,’ the NRC report states.

Besides the federal repository proposed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a consortium of nuclear power companies have been pushing for the removal of their nuclear waste to Private Fuel Storage in Utah, which likely will soon receive an NRC license, according to Howes.

Maine Yankee´s license in the meantime will still apply to the 12 acres related to the storage facility where spent fuel from the plant´s 23 years of operation still sits plus a small parcel of land adjacent to the installation.

Maine Yankee actually completed the work of decommissioning this June.

The company used that parcel as a loading area for excavated soil awaiting offsite shipment and disposal during the decommissioning of the plant that began in 2003 subsequent to its closure in 1996.

“Congratulations to the dedicated Maine Yankee project team for safely restoring the plant site to an outstanding condition while overcoming many challenges along the way,’ said Gerald Poulin, president and board chairman. “Maine Yankee´s decommissioning broke new ground in many areas and will be studied as a success story for years to come.’

Poulin praised the efforts of the NRC, the State of Maine, the company´s Community Advisory Panel and other stakeholders who worked on the project.

The company listed several accomplishments in the decommissioning including the low level cleanup, zero time lost for injuries in over three years, first ever use of explosives to safely demolish a containment building, 450 million pounds of waste safely removed from the site, largest single campaign to move spent nuclear fuel from wet to dry storage, creation of an upland marsh area, donation of 200 acres of land for conservation and environmental education, and sale of 400 acres for economic development.

Maine Yankee is required to maintain a radiation monitoring program, according to the NRC.

Recently Maine Yankee completed the last thing it had to do for cleanup, which was the removal of soil containing low levels of contamination. Howes said that Maine Yankee will be doing the monitoring where the company piled the soil for transportation to a low level nuclear waste dump site.

The monitoring will be done on the model of subsistence farming on the land there and its safety for that purpose for humans and animals. Thus inspection of the soil for planting, drinking water, and feeding of animals from the land are part of the all inclusive pathways inspection, Howes explained.

From now until the nuclear waste is transported elsewhere, Maine Yankee´s primary purpose will be the safe storage of the plant´s spent nuclear fuel and greater than Class C waste at the storage installation on Bailey Point while pursuing options for its removal.

Maine Yankee will continue to hold its public Community Advisory Panel meeting periodically as a vehicle for public input and information. The next session is scheduled for Oct. 20 from 6-8 p.m. at the Chewonki Foundation.

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