Yucca Mountain Transportation Impacts and Regulatory Challenges

Yucca Mountain Transportation Impacts and Regulatory Challenges
Bob Halstead
Transportation Advisor
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
Hazmat Explo 2008
Las Vegas, NV
November 5, 2008
Additional documentation available on-line at: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/trans.htm
Impact analysis reflects contributions of J.D. Ballard, PhD;
H. Collins, MD, PE, CHP; F.C. Dilger, PhD; R. Moore, PE;
M. Resnikoff, PhD; & J. Travers

Total pdf file may be found at;

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2008/pdf/hme2008halstead.pdf

Congresswoman Berkley speaks out against McCain, Yucca Mountain

The day before John McCain’s visit to Nevada, some Democrats are calling him out for his stance on Yucca Mountain.

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley and former Nevada Governor Bob Miller want McCain to apologize for comments he made about the safety concerns surrounding the nuclear dump.

“This will create thousands of jobs in Nevada. This will be a great boom for the economy,” says McCain. “I’m confident when we reprocess, which we can do, which the Europeans do, there will be a much smaller amount of nuclear fuel to be stored.”

Berkley believes Yucca Mountain could have devastating effects on our community.

“We need people coming to Southern Nevada to enjoy our entertainment. The last thing we need is a nuclear dump 90 miles away,” says Congresswoman Berkley.

McCain says he’ll support Yucca Mountain only when it meets environmental and safety standards, which he believes will happen.

realtipof5489http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9283401

Firm to run site at Yucca

Firm to run site at Yucca
Project goes to former SRS arm
By Rob Pavey| Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008

The U.S. Department of Energy awarded a $2.5 billion management and operating contract Thursday to USA Repository Services, a subsidiary of the URS Corp., whose Washington Division ran Savannah River Site from 1989 until this year. It continues to manage its liquid waste program.
storyPhotos();

The five-year contract, with a five-year renewal option, is to provide mission support to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for the nation’s first national repository for high-level radioactive waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

The new partnership’s principal subcontractors are Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Inc., and AREVA Federal Services Inc.

After two decades of debate, the Energy Department filed a formal application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June to build the Yucca Mountain project, which would become a final resting place for radioactive material currently stored at 121 temporary sites in 39 states — including SRS near Augusta.

Yucca Mountain, a remote ridge on federal land in the Mojave Desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been under study for such a repository since the 1980s. SRS has two glass waste storage buildings, where radioactive waste encased in glass is stored in steel cylinders that could be shipped to Yucca Mountain.

According to an Energy Department press release, the contract would take effect April 1, 2009.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/103108/met_481546.shtml

Yucca Mountain

As one of a handful of states the two presidential candidates have determined could decide the election this year, Nevada has seen a steady stream of visits by the two men vying for the White House.

But while some political observers predicted Nevada’s battleground status would translate into greater attention to Nevada issues, both U.S. Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama have mostly stuck to national hot topics when stumping here.

“I would have expected to have more discussion on the issues of Lake Tahoe, Yucca Mountain, grazing and mining laws, and that we would be looking at Western themes like where does our water come from, how do we manage growth,” said Fred Lokken, a political scientist at Truckee Meadows Community College. “But I don’t see any of those issues really.”

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, some argue. Nevada voters tend to decide their presidential preference based on national issues anyway, polls suggest.

Still, the Silver State has had some impact on the national dialogue. Because Nevada has long been the national leader in the rate of foreclosures, both candidates have talked about the foreclosure crisis in the state long before it reached a national breaking point on Wall Street.

Both also have talked fairly extensively about Yucca Mountain and are aiming rhetoric on immigration at the state’s Hispanic constituency.

Here is a look at where each stand on some of the issues important to Nevada voters:

Although polls indicate the nuclear waste repository isn’t at the top of voters minds when they make their decision, it’s a deeply unpopular project that presidential candidates usually address when they’re in the state.

Barack Obama: Obama hasn’t had to vote on the Yucca Mountain project during his tenure in the U.S. Senate. He opposes the project but says nuclear energy should remain an option in dealing with energy independence. Has opposed the temporary storage of nuclear waste in his home state of Illinois and has been supported by nuclear power companies there. He supports developing better technology for storing waste at the reactor sites.

John McCain: McCain has long been an advocate for the Yucca Mountain project. His energy platform relies on building 45 new nuclear power plants before 2030. While he’s said he believes the best way to deal with nuclear waste is to store it, he has talked about reprocessing and pursuing an international repository as well. He said communities near Yucca Mountain should be given a proprietary interest in the waste in order to benefit from reprocessing it when the technology becomes available.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008810190340

DOE Wants To Build Railroad To Yucca Mountain

DOE Wants To Build Railroad To Yucca Mountain

Updated: var wn_last_ed_date = getLEDate(“Oct 11, 2008 12:01 AM EST”); document.write(wn_last_ed_date);Oct 10, 2008 10:01 PM

A new railroad could run right through Southern Neva

da toward Yucca Mountain.

The Department of Energy announced Friday its intentions to build a rail line from Caliente to the Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain.

The decision opens the plan to legal challenges from the state and other opponents of the plan.

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9162653Farmers and ranchers will also be able to use the railroad.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: PART 2 of 2:

Next president has power, though not absolute, over waste dump decision

Image

Sam Morris

Chain-link gates block the portals to Yucca Mountain, although this one at the north portal has an open padlock during a recent visit. About 1,600 people work at the site, mostly scientists testing to see whether the site is viable and safe for waste storage.

Mon, Oct 13, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Atop Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, signs warn of possible radiation near a test well.

Atop Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, signs warn of possible radiation near a test well.

One thousand feet underneath Yucca Mountain is the horseshoe-shaped tunnel into which waste would be carried for disposal, should the Energy Department's plan for the dump be approved. Ventilation pipes jut out from its portals.

One thousand feet underneath Yucca Mountain is the horseshoe-shaped tunnel into which waste would be carried for disposal, should the Energy Department’s plan for the dump be approved. Ventilation pipes jut out from its portals.

Today, the Yucca Mountain project is a horseshoe-shaped tunnel under 1,000 feet of an unimpressive peak in Southern Nevada.

It’s 60 miles as the crow flies to the lowest point in the continental United States, Badwater in Death Valley National Park. From Yucca’s ridge it is also possible to see the highest point in the continental United States, Mt. Whitney, as well as ancient volcanoes and a major fault line.

Chain-link gates bar entrances to the tunnel.

Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led Democrats in cutting funding for the project again and again, the workforce at the mountain has dipped to 1,600, down from 2,750. Yucca Mountain Project workers seldom go into the tunnel, which has giant ventilation systems snaking from its depths.

The workers are geologists and hydrologists and other scientists performing tests to help the Energy Department prove Yucca will work and be safe.

With the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision this summer to begin considering the department’s application for a license to open Yucca for business, the project may well be back on track for approval.

Unless the next president intervenes.

Democratic nominee Barack Obama opposes the project and has said he will withdraw the Energy Department license application.

Republican nominee John McCain supports the project if it is safe and environmentally sound.

Those positions seem clear enough. But in reality, the future of the project will remain uncertain regardless of who is elected.

If McCain wins

If McCain argues, as President Bush does now, that scientific and environmental issues can be dealt with, Yucca may have a clear path through the administration at its most crucial moment: while the NRC is considering the license.

But the license and the project itself would by no means be guaranteed. State and congressional opponents will continue the tactics that have drawn out the process for two decades.

Bob Loux, former executive director of Nevada’s opposition organization, the Nuclear Projects Agency, says even if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves the license application in four years, as long as Democrats retain control of Congress, construction will never begin at Yucca.

“Budget stalling — that’s their best strategy,” said Eric Herzik, chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno, and an avid follower of the Yucca debate. “Stall until someone gives up.”

One other point: McCain said in a Las Vegas interview during the campaign that he opposes shipping the waste through Phoenix, in his home state of Arizona.

The McCain camp has said the comment was taken out of context or was made in confusion. McCain appears not have understood the question. Nevertheless, environmental groups have seized on the gaffe.

Campaign spokesman Rick Gorka explains that McCain “doesn’t want it transported through any cities if it’s not safe. It doesn’t matter if it’s Phoenix or Las Vegas, if it’s not safe … he doesn’t support it,” he said. “He doesn’t want to put any community at risk.”

If Obama wins

Herzik questions how much of a priority killing Yucca would be for a freshly minted Obama administration, because the issue doesn’t register with national audiences. Herzik said that although Obama has been clear that he opposes Yucca and has said that he would shut down the project, it is less clear how quickly or thoroughly that will happen.

Obama’s Nevada spokeswoman, Kirsten Searer, says the issue would rank high with the candidate.

“He understands how dangerous this would be, for nuclear waste to be transported and stored in Nevada,” she said. “It’s something he would take a look at as soon as he’s in office.”

Obama’s concern is safety, especially in the transportation of waste from nuclear sites across the country, Searer said. Transporting nuclear waste long distances to the mountain over outdated rail lines and roads would be too dangerous, she said.

If Obama does yank the license application, the project will wither but not necessarily die. That’s because the congressional act that requires the government to pursue a nuclear waste repository at Yucca remains in place, no matter who is president and whom he appoints as secretary of energy, said Allen Benson, an Energy Department official.

As Herzik explained, the secretary of energy “could pull the plug, zero out the budget. But Congress does have the ultimate say because the Nuclear Waste Policy acts of 1982 and 1987 designate siting of a repository specifically at Yucca Mountain.”

If Democrats are successful in widening their majority in Congress, amending or repealing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act might be possible.

If the act remains in place and years from now Republicans win control of Congress, Yucca could be resurrected.

“It would be interesting if President Obama were to say, ‘I’m canceling this,’ and if members of Congress said, ‘Wait a minute. This is our law.’ Then you’re back in court,” Herzik said.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct/13/next-president-has-power-though-not-absolute-over-/

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: PART I OF II

Two decades later, how we got here

A look back at the nuclear waste plan that unifies Nevada, divides Obama and McCain

Image

BLOOMBERG NEWS FILE

The U.S. Energy Department plans to store spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, an extinct volcano about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Sun, Oct 12, 2008 (2 a.m.)

A train operator waits for passengers at the Yucca Mountain Exploratory Studies Facility in 2006. The Energy Department plans to ship an average of 3,000 tons of waste to Yucca each year for 24 years.

A train operator waits for passengers at the Yucca Mountain Exploratory Studies Facility in 2006. The Energy Department plans to ship an average of 3,000 tons of waste to Yucca each year for 24 years.

Sun Topics

The sound bites are simple:

John McCain supports plans to store high-level nuclear waste 90 miles from Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain.

Barack Obama does not.

The question being asked by Nevadans who oppose the repository — and by those who support it, too — is whether that matters. What could each candidate actually do about it as president?

The short answer is that the next president may be the only thing standing between train loads of radioactive waste and a hole in the Nevada desert.

First, though, a more nuanced view of where they actually stand:

• McCain “supports Yucca as long as it meets environmental and safety concerns,” according to his Nevada spokesman, Rick Gorka.

McCain’s position harks back to Bush’s vow to let “sound science” dictate whether Yucca was the best site for a deep geologic repository for nuclear waste. Bush has been an advocate of the project.

“Sound science has become, in the nuanced language of nuclear politics, a wink and a nod to say, ‘I’m all for it,’ ” said Democrat Richard Bryan, a former Nevada governor who represented the state in the U.S. Senate for more than a decade. “Sound science is a euphemism.”

McCain wants 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, a goal that would be much harder to reach without a plan for long-term disposal of the dangerous waste. And he supports waste reprocessing, which is common in Europe but outlawed in the United States over fears it would lead to nuclear weapons proliferation.

• Obama, too, supports nuclear energy as “part of the mix,” although he doesn’t plan to support new plants with federal dollars, at least until safety and security problems are addressed. The industry has said more plants are unlikely without hefty federal support.

Unlike McCain, Obama has said he does not support a plan to store waste at Yucca. He said he thinks the mountain is unsafe as a geological repository. He does, however, say that another long-term storage option will be necessary.

Obama has pledged to lead a search for the safest way to store nuclear waste, said his Nevada spokeswoman Kirsten Searer. In the short term, storing waste at power plant sites across the country is the best option, she said, although it might not be the best long-term idea.

During the 1950s, Congress enticed private utilities to build nuclear reactors in part by agreeing to take on the liability for large accidents at power plant sites, a guarantee no private insurance company would provide.

The federal government also signed agreements with utilities to store their radioactive waste permanently, in part because of concerns it would fall into the wrong hands and be used to make nuclear weapons. The Energy Department was to take possession of the waste by 1998.

The nuclear power industry took off in the 1960s and 1970s. New power plants across the country churned out waste that they stored on site, waiting for the government to take possession.

Toward that end, Congress approved The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, ordering the Energy Department to select at least five storage sites for analysis.

By 1983, the department had nine sites in six states on its short list.

Then the landscape changed. By 1987, the department was considering just three sites, one in Texas, another in Washington, the third at Yucca Mountain.

During hearings in 1986 and 1987, it became clear that a repository would be controversial. When the Washington delegation asked the Energy Department for the data to back up conclusions that a repository in Hanford on the Columbia River was feasible, the department admitted it had lost much of the data, said Bob Loux, former executive director of a Nevada state office that exists solely to fight the project.

It was the first major blow to the Energy Department’s credibility, he said, and one that opponents would refer to when shoddy data gathering procedures were revealed almost two decades later.

As controversy grew, legislation was proposed in Congress in 1987 to scrap the selection process and start a new method of finding a site. But the bill failed.

Instead, Congress went the opposite way. It passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directing the department to study just one site: Yucca Mountain.

Opponents of Yucca pointed to the legislation, which they dubbed the “Screw Nevada Bill,” as proof that the site selection process had become political rather than scientific. Nevada in those days was a political lightweight compared with Texas and Washington.

The bill further galvanized Nevada against the project.

The state’s federal lawmakers arose in unanimous opposition and have not wavered.

The state had created the office dedicated to fighting Yucca in 1985. Now, led by Loux, the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency assembled armies of scientists and lawyers to fight the project at every turn, challenging the science and the legislation, and aggressively courting public opinion.

Over the years since, the issue has proceeded on many fronts. The highlights:

Temporary storage

In the 1980s, the Energy Department, wary of the approaching 1998 deadline on waste, looked for states or Indian tribes willing to store the waste temporarily while a permanent site was developed.

The only proposal was for a Goshute Indian reservation in Western Utah. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved an interim storage facility on the reservation in the ’90s.

But after much controversy, the Bureau of Land Management denied an application to transport waste to the site, thwarting the consortium of private nuclear utilities proposing the facility.

A law blocks temporary storage of the waste in Nevada.

When the 1998 deadline for the feds to take responsibility for nuclear waste nationwide passed, utilities began to try to force the issue by filing lawsuits against the government.

Radiation exposure

The single greatest issue with Yucca Mountain is whether the storage would be dangerous to people living nearby, or who live along highways and rail lines over which the waste would be shipped.

In 1992, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which directed the National Academy of Sciences to study what kind of radiation standard the Environmental Protection Agency should enact to best protect people living near the site.

The academy issued a report that said a standard should last as long as radiation from the mountain posed a risk to the public.

In 2001, the EPA finally released its standard. The agency set a conservative exposure limit for the first 10,000 years, but provided no standard for the years that followed.

Nevada sued, arguing that 10,000 years was not long enough. The peak exposure would occur sometime after that, the state said.

In 2004, a court ruled that the EPA must revise its standard. It did so last month, setting radiation limits for 1 million years.

Structural flaws

In the ’90s, flaws emerged in the Energy Department’s assumptions about how water moved through the mountain, according to the Nuclear Projects Agency. The department had thought water moved in what it called a matrix — meaning one rock must be saturated before the next would begin to absorb water. That would mean it would take many thousands of years for water to reach through a thousand feet of rock to where highly radioactive waste was being stored.

At the time, Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules said that if water moved from the site into an environment accessible to humans in less than 1,000 years, the site would be unsuitable, the agency says.

But because the mountain is made up of highly fractured rock, scientists found that water actually moved through the site much faster than expected.

Opponents seized on the finding to argue that radioactive water from the mountain would find its way along a natural course that would take it to nearby Death Valley National Park.

Rather than disqualifying the site, the Energy Department changed the rules, Loux said. Instead the Energy Department must demonstrate that it would meet the EPA’s exposure standard.

The department must also prove that the mountain provides a natural barrier between radioactive waste and the outside world — a hedge against radiation that might escape from the man-made containments. It’s the whole reason the department proposed burying waste in a mountain to begin with.

But opponents say water flowing through the mountain proves the mountain is no safeguard — and that Energy Department-designed canisters would be the only protection.

“It was no longer, ‘Is the site suitable,’ but ‘How can we engineer it to make it work?’ ” Loux said.

He said the issues remain today, and the Energy Department will rely on waste storage canisters and titanium drip shields to protect those canisters from water as the only safeguards.

Quality assurance

In 2005 and 2006, major Energy Department contractor Bechtel discovered disturbing e-mail messages between the department and scientists for the U.S. Geological Survey, a federal agency working on testing at Yucca.

The e-mail suggested that a USGS scientist had fabricated documentation of his work. He was studying how water flows through the mountain.

Opponents say the e-mail supports their main claim about the mountain’s safety.

The e-mail launched an investigation. Eventually, the Energy Department Inspector General ruled that scientists had not actually fabricated data that proved the mountain was safe, although their e-mail suggested they had.

Like a student who can solve a word problem correctly, but cannot explain how he arrived at the answer, the scientists had, essentially, not properly shown their work, the inspector found.

Recent history

On June 11, the Energy Department filed its application for a license to operate the repository. This is a major step, possibly the last hurdle standing in the way of approval.

The application is pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the agency has asked for more information from the department about a federal environmental review of the project, including how ground water will move from Yucca to Death Valley.

Although the law gives the NRC three or four years to consider the application, observers say the proceedings could stretch out a decade or more. And the Energy Department says the soonest the site could be ready to receive waste is 2017.

Transportation

Should the NRC approve the license application, Yucca Mountain could well open for business. However the plan to ship containers of waste across the country certainly will generate a nationwide debate over transportation routes to the mountain. Communities take a dim view of nuclear waste shipments through their back yards.

The Energy Department plans to ship an average of 3,000 tons of waste to Yucca each year for 24 years from more than 120 sites across the country. The shipping plans will not be approved by the NRC, although the waste containers will.

Truck shipments must stay on interstate highways, but carriers — rather than the Energy Department — will determine the routes. The department has proposed a 320-mile rail spur from the Union Pacific main line from Caliente to Yucca.

Right now Nevada, the Energy Department and the Surface Transportation Board are wrangling over who has jurisdiction over the rail line. The department has applied to the transportation board to build the line, but unless it agrees to open it up to other users, the state may have jurisdiction over the line.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct/12/two-decades-later-how-we-got-here/

EDITORIAL: The ‘science’ of Yucca Mountain

EDITORIAL: The ‘science’ of Yucca Mountain

‘Guaranteeing’ the safety of nuclear waste

Millions of years ago, Nevada and the rest of the Great Basin were covered by a shallow inland sea. The fossilized remains of creatures that lived in and along that sea can still be dug from exposed sand and gravel faces throughout this desert.

The sea eventually drained — cataclysmically — to the north, helping create the gorges of the Snake and Columbia rivers. If there had been man-made structures in the path of those waters (which there almost certainly were not), how would they have fared?

Between Europe and Asia, archaeologists report finding evidence of human settlements beneath the shallow waters of the Black Sea. In times recent enough to have been witnessed by mankind — far less than a million years ago — it seems likely there was dry land there, even though it sat beneath sea level. When the waters of the Mediterranean broke through and poured in, could there have been a flood so devastating that the tale comes down to us, altered over time, in the account of Noah and his ark? Could anything have stood in the path of such a deluge? How about written warnings posted by those long-ago occupants?

To pretend that we can foresee how the landscape around us will appear in a million years — or even 100,000 years, which far exceeds the length of recorded human history — is hubris on a biblical scale. To pretend that we can build structures whose architectural integrity will withstand such changes is even more absurd. Ice ages with their glaciers can come in go in such a time period, as can volcanoes. Compared to such time frames, the age of the pyramids of Egypt is the blink of an eye.

Yet, because the courts have ruled that guaranteeing the safety of radioactive waste storage at Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years is not sufficient (because wastes buried there could remain deadly for a million years), the federal Environmental Protection Agency has now required that those building the dump certify its safety for a million years. And Department of Energy spokesman Allen Benson blithely replied, this week, “We believe we can meet the standard.”

The motivations for the waste dump at Yucca Mountain are not scientific, but economic and political. Congress and the nuclear industry believe they will have less trouble building new nuclear power plants if they can say they’ve “solved” the problem of where to put their spent (but still highly radioactive) fuel. And so “science” is bent and shaped to bolster these political and economic needs.

A more sensible answer to the court’s ruling might be shorter-term, recoverable storage, based on the assumption our descendants will perfect better, safer means of reprocessing the waste. But if Congress and the Energy Department were to embrace such a plan, would a billion-dollar tunnel inside Yucca Mountain still be needed, at all?

Of course, if Nevada politicians really oppose the Yucca Mountain Project, it’s worth asking why they’ve never challenged federal ownership of and “exclusive” jurisdiction over the site, given that it’s never been “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be” — given that Washington can show no bill of sale for the land, as required under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Doesn’t that mean they’re subject to state permitting requirements?

But the question at hand is whether the builders can guarantee that a hypothetical farmer living 11 miles from Yucca Mountain 990,000 years from now can be protected by today’s engineering from receiving a dangerous dose of radiation from the stuff proposed for burial there. The builders confidently say they can issue such a guarantee, and that they can prove its validity “scientifically.”

“Science” cannot tell us whether it will rain on this date next year, or whether Idaho will be buried under a mile of ice in 5,000 years, but the Energy Department contractors insist they can program their computer to “prove” that said farmer will still be safe in a million years.

You know what? We bet they can program their computers to “prove” just that.

The question is how they can still call it “science.”

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/30483019.html

Nevadans deserve to hear different viewpoints about Yucca Mountain

Gov. Jim Gibbons asked for the resignation of the executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency (NNPA), Bob Loux, after he had unlawfully given pay raises of 16 percent to himself and his staff, only the latest in a series of missteps committed by that office.

The governor further ordered an audit to determine if other funds were misappropriated. But what is really needed is an overhaul of the agency to provide the citizens of Nevada with an unbiased appraisal of pros and cons of the proposed Yucca nuclear repository.

The state has spent more than $164 million in funding an agency that is supposed to oversee “nuclear projects” but instead has focused on one mission only — stopping the proposed repository. Many citizens are asking if the state should reconsider its opposition and negotiate compensation for hosting the facility, especially considering that the application submitted by the administration has been accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Legislature should direct the Nuclear Projects Commission to fulfill its supposed mission — to impartially and legally analyze any proposed nuclear project, including reprocessing nuclear waste as well as waste storage. The commission/NNPA should consider an approach that would analyze the possibility of placing nuclear waste at Yucca as a temporary site, not the unverified concept now extant that the waste would have to be secured for up to a million years. The proposal would also require the federal government to authorize the reprocessing of waste fuel, and to construct a specialized reactor (hopefully near Yucca) that would provide cheap energy to Nevada.

The commission should also require a reappraisal of questions relating to the transportation and storage of the nuclear waste. The current “wisdom” that both are unsafe might not hold up to intense scrutiny.

First, look at the Department of Homeland Security Web site. Of the transport of materials that concerns DHS, nuclear waste is not in the top 10! They are much more worried about methane gas, ammonia and the like, which are transported daily across our roads and rails in open containers. Nuclear waste is encased in robust containers designed to withstand serious accidents and will be accompanied by armed guards with immediate communications capability.

Second, while the safety of the waste stored underground at Yucca must be ascertained, the material is in metal rods encased in steel containers. This is a much safer alternative than leaving the waste at 75 unsecure sites across the country. What a tempting target for terrorists! In the meantime, particles from more than 60 years of blowing up real nuclear weapons lies above ground in Nevada — a more serious concern. Third, the nuclear industry has contributed over $27 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is specifically designed to finance the repository and the transportation and storage of the waste. Nevada would be eligible for a significant portion of assets for improving transportation, public safety facilities, communications sites, etc. Yucca, even in its current phase, represents a significant source of federal funding for the state. But so much more could be done. I envision establishing a world-class national energy research center there. This would bring high-paying jobs and high-tech industries that would stimulate the economy and diversify the tax base.

Economic advantages never trump safety. However, the citizens deserve to have an unbiased assessment of the pros and cons of the proposed repository conducted by an efficient and neutral agency. There is a compromise approach to Yucca that would combine changing the focus onto temporary storage of the nuclear waste, a federal commitment to reprocessing the waste (which eliminates 95 percent of the material), construction of a reactor to burn this fuel and appropriate offsets to the state for agreeing to accept the repository.

Time is running out. Don’t let the tarnished NNPA continue to present Nevadans with only one viewpoint. The stakes are way too high.

Tyrus W. Cobb served as special assistant to the president for national security affairs in the Reagan White House. He lives in Reno.

Yucca Mountain staying in Energy Department sights until 2022

RENO – The Bureau of Land Management signaled Friday that the U.S. Department of Energy wants Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as its potential nuclear waste dump site until 2022.

The bureau (BLM) said that it published a notice Friday in the Federal Register announcing that the department (DOE) in the Bush administration has proposed extending withdrawal of 4,255 acres at Yucca Mountain for an additional 12 years, which would move the current 2010 deadline to 2022.

“The public lands are withdrawn from leasing under the mineral leasing laws in order to maintain the physical integrity of the subsurface environment at Yucca Mountain,” the BLM said in a release.

Comments on the DOE proposal and requests for a public meeting to discuss it will be accepted for 90 days, which BLM said is until Dec. 11.

The lands initially were withdrawn for a dozen years from the prospect of leasing in 1990 via a public land order, then again for eight by another in 2002.

Comments or meeting requests may be made prior to the December deadline by mailing them to Nevada State Director, attention: Yucca Mountain Withdrawal, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, NV 89520.

Additional information is available by contacting

Jacqueline_Gratton@blm.gov.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.