Eureka County Nuclear Waste Page - Newsletters

Current Issue: Fall 2001

● Crescent Valley residents attend Yucca Mountain hearing ● Eureka County releases Impact Assessment Report ● Public hearing on Yucca Mountain held in Las Vegas ● The Price-Anderson Act comes up for renewal ● State releases Yucca Mountain video ● Nuclear News in brief

● Special Nuclear Waste Update Insert: The International Nuclear Waste Dilemma

Special Edition: Site Recommendation

● DOE announces site recommendation hearings ● DOE releases site suitability report ● Important Dates ● Fact sheet: The decision process for a repository ● How would a Yucca Mountain repository impact Eureka County? ● Resources for more information

Past Issues of the Update:

Summer 2001

● County officials tour Yucca Mountain http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet.htm (1 of 4) [3/28/02 2:13:06 PM] Eureka County Nuclear Waste Page - Newsletters

● Supplemental impact statement released for comment ● Will the Senate power shift affect Yucca Mountain? ● EPA sets radiation standards for proposed repository ● Nuclear news in brief ● DOE releases science report on proposed repository ● County assesses transportation impacts

● Special Nevada nuclear history insert - The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada

Winter 2001

● DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Report ● County officials to tour Yucca Mountain ● NRC May Hold Informal Hearings on Yucca Mountain Repository ● County Oversees Yucca Mountain Activities in 2001 ● Scientists Discover New Material that Safely Contains Radiation ● Calendar ● New Nuclear News Yucca Mountain Project Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy EPA Radiation Rule Transportation Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects Radiation Compensation Goshute Private Spent Fuel Storage International Transmutation

Summer 2000

● DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines ● DOE Nearing Site Recommendation for Yucca Mountain ● Nevada Denies DOE Groundwater Request ● A New Report Evaluates the Possibility of Nuclear Waste Transportation Accidents in Las Vegas ● Interim Storage Facility Proposed for Goshute Indian Reservation, Utah ● Clinton Vetoes Nuclear Waste Legislation ● "Technical Voice" of Nye County Dies ● Fact Sheet: Roles of Federal Organizations with the Yucca Mountain Project ● Transmutation: An alternative to nuclear waste disposal?

● Special Nuclear Waste Update Insert: Project Faultless

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet.htm (2 of 4) [3/28/02 2:13:06 PM] Eureka County Nuclear Waste Page - Newsletters

Winter 2000

● February 9 Deadline for EIS Comments ● Crowd Objects to Yucca Rail ● Make Your Comments ● Tell It to the DOE ● Calendar

Fall 1999 - Special EIS Edition

● Draft EIS Released ● DOE Holding Hearings for Public comments in Nevada ● Important Dates ● Tell it to the DOE ● Possible Impacts of the proposed Carlin Rail Route

Summer 1999

● DOE Extends EIS Comment Period to 180 Days; Announces EIS Hearings ● Nuclear Waste Factsheet ● Beowawe Crescent Valley Nuclear Waste Committee: Announcements and Activities ● Why Nevada Opposes Yucca Mountain ● Comparative Radiation Standards Graph ● NRC to Publish Draft Yucca Mountain Rule ● Important Dates ● Interim Storage Dies in Congress ● DOE Briefs County Commission ● Guinn Opposes Yucca Mountain ● DOE to Study Water Flow at Yucca Mountain

June/July 1999 - Special EIS Edition

● Draft EIS Public Comment Time Cut in Half ● Important Dates ● EIS Hearing Schedule ● Participation Q&A

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet.htm (3 of 4) [3/28/02 2:13:06 PM] Eureka County Nuclear Waste Page - Newsletters

● EIS Impact Checklist ● Resources for More EIS Information

Summer 1998 Edition

● Change in proposed Carlin rail route ● Viability Assessment at Yucca Mountain ● WIPP, New Mexico certified as a nuclear dump ● Heat tests at Yucca Mountain ● Foreign reactor research fuel shipped through Nevada ● DOT nuclear waste transportation study released ● Nuclear waste legislation dies in Congress

Archived articles from past editions: 1993-1995

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet.htm (4 of 4) [3/28/02 2:13:06 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Crescent Valley Residents Attend Yucca Mountain Hearing

Also In This Issue: ossible damage to natural resources, the threat of a terrorist P ● Eureka County releases Impact attack targeting nuclear waste trains, and the lack of response to Assessment Report previous comments were all concerns expressed during the ● Public hearing on Yucca Mountain October 10th Yucca Mountain hearing in Crescent Valley. The held in Las Vegas Department of Energy (DOE) hurriedly organized the meeting so ● The Price-Anderson Act comes up that residents of the area could comment on the upcoming Yucca Mountain site recommendation decision. But short notice by DOE for renewal resulted in sparse attendance at most rural hearings. ● State releases Yucca Mountain video During the afternoon impromptu question and answer session, ● Nuclear news in brief DOE officials seemed unable to provide more than basic ● Special insert - The International information about the geology of Yucca Mountain and the status Nuclear Waste Dilemma of the site characterization project. To the frustration of those attending the hearing, the department’s representatives were also unprepared to address concerns about the proposed Carlin rail line, which may one day transport nuclear waste through the Crescent Valley. There were many questions but few adequate answers.

Participants asked about the possibility of radioactive contamination caused by a transportation accident. Nancy Louden reminded the group of two train accidents that had taken place in the region in recent months. In response, Mark Van der Puy, director of DOE’s Office of Public Support, referred to a poster depicting the nuclear waste shipping casks surviving rigorous safety tests. But Christopher Sewell remained skeptical. Pointing out that the containers are not being subjected to a “worst-case scenario,” he questioned the conditions under which the casks are tested. “There are drops bigger than 30 feet, water deeper than three feet, and fires that could burn longer than 30 minutes,” Sewell said.

The recent terrorist attacks of September 11th were also on peoples’ minds. Carrie Dann said she was “afraid that national defense will now be used as an excuse to push this project through.” Others also brought up the fear that trains transporting radioactive materials could be potential terrorist targets. Van der Puy admitted that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would now have to reconsider the possibility of a terrorist attack when evaluating cask safety.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (1 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Another question that came up repeatedly was why DOE is not looking into other options for nuclear waste disposal, such as transmutation. According to Van der Puy, “The international community has concluded that geologic disposal is the most preferable method of disposal.” Sewell disagreed. “Geologic disposal is the best way to deal with [nuclear waste] so that we don’t have to deal with it, which will allow the nuclear power industry to keep producing more waste,” he said. Dann stressed the importance of research into other alternatives: “The United States should try to work to neutralize nuclear waste instead of bury it.” She worried that DOE’s present course gives “no consideration to the future generations.”

In the testimonies that were officially recorded by the court reporter, worries about the potential damage to the county’s natural resources figured prominently. People were also concerned about the effect a nuclear waste rail line would have on their property values. Above all, participants worried about the health and safety of Nevada residents. Speaking of the lasting effects of atmospheric testing in Nevada, several Crescent Valley residents pointed out that DOE’s track record in issues of health and safety was not reassuring. “This obtrusive, poisonous, deadly stuff will be going by my house every day,” said Patti Leppala. “You don’t know how safe it is, but you’re going to say it’s safe anyway. My nephew [a downwinder] was supposed to be safe. But now he’s dead,” she said.

Joseph Carruthers read a statement from Governor Kenny Guinn, which was being presented at each of the 29 field hearings. Guinn also brought up DOE’s previous violations of public trust. “I don’t have to remind anyone here today that it was not long ago that Nevadans and all Americans were assured that nuclear testing was safe,” the statement read. “Given the history, I trust you can understand why I view this proceeding as morally illegal if not technically so.”

Commissioner Donna Bailey testified on behalf of Eureka County. She presented Eureka County’s Impact Assessment Report as part of her testimony, summarizing the main effects a rail line would have on the county. Bailey’s comments also focused on the lack of transportation analysis. “To decide to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, and not to decide how to get the waste to the repository is irresponsible,” she said. The Commissioner was also critical of the short notice given for the hearings, which were announced less than a week in advance.

Commissioner Bailey formally requested that another meeting – this time a full hearing rather than a poorly publicized mini-hearing – be held in Crescent Valley after the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Another theme present in several testimonies was the failure of DOE to respond to any of the concerns raised by Crescent Valley residents at the hearings on the draft EIS two years ago. “We’ve attended these meetings before, and as near as I can tell, we have received no feedback on our comments,” said William Leppala. “It’s presumptuous to ask us to come back and say the same things as before when you haven’t responded,” he said.

At the close of the meeting, Van der Puy assured the group that their concerns would eventually be addressed in a comment response document to be released to the public. Secretary Abraham is required by law to take public comments into account when making his final decision. The Secretary of Energy’s decision on whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to the president as a suitable site is expected before the end of the year.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (2 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Eureka County Releases Impact Assessment Report

One of the main focuses of Eureka County’s nuclear waste oversight program this year was the preparation of an Impact Assessment Report on the proposed shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through the county. Released in August, the purpose of the report is to identify and quantify potential impacts to the county of the construction of a rail line for the transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Currently the only site under consideration for a permanent geologic repository, Yucca Mountain may be the future home of over 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. The report provides present and future county commissioners with basic information on how the construction of a rail line in Crescent Valley could affect areas such as grazing, wildlife, flood control, and the county’s economy.

The “Carlin” route is one of five rail routes being considered by the Department of Energy (DOE). The decision on whether rail or truck will be the predominant mode of transportation has not been made, and the final routes have not yet been selected. If finally designated as a nuclear waste transportation route, the Carlin rail line would originate at the Union Pacific Railroad tracks near Beowawe and pass through the center of the Crescent Valley. The rail line would take at least two and a half years to construct with and require about 500 workers. The shipping campaign would last for at least 38 years and would involve the movement of over 40,000 shipments of nuclear waste.

Among the many concerns associated with the proposed rail route is the potential for accidents. The report points to the numerous serious railroad accidents that have taken place on the existing tracks in Eureka County and elsewhere in the United States. Although a severe accident is unlikely, there is a possibility that radioactive materials could be released into the environment in even the most minor of derailments. The report explores the probability of such an accident and analyzes the impacts.

According to the report, the construction and operation of a rail line would affect the county’s natural resources. A rail line would reduce wildlife habitat and create barriers to wildlife movement. Habitats for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and sage grouse are among those that would be disrupted. Extensive land disturbances would be required, especially given the shallow depth of the Valley’s water table, which would limit the depth of excavation. Two grazing allotments in Crescent Valley would also be affected.

The human environment in the proposed rail corridor would also be impacted. The rail line would pass through Western Shoshone territory, creating concern for traditional lands, archeological sites, and burial grounds. The report also outlines the possible effects a rail line would have on historic sites such as Maiden’s Grave, Gravelly Ford, and the California trail.

Economic sectors including mining, government, tourism, recreation, agriculture, and retail business would also be affected by construction and operation. The proposed corridor could include nearly 59 percent private land, a large part of which would be converted to public use. This conversion, which is contrary to Eureka County’s policy of encouraging the transfer of public land to private ownership, would have adverse impacts on the county’s tax base and economy. Almost 60 percent of the private parcels of land in the county are within 10 miles of the rail corridor. According to the Impact Assessment Report, property values of land located near a rail line would fall, even in the absence of an accident.

One of the greatest concerns of Eureka County is the health and safety of its residents. Even without any http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (3 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

accidents, the shipping casks for nuclear waste would still emit radiation and some latent cancer fatalities would likely occur among transportation workers and the public. If there were an accident, according to DOE, the worst- case scenario would entail at least 31 latent cancer fatalities among the exposed population. A severe accident would also have numerous other impacts such as the contamination of the Humboldt River or the Crescent Valley aquifer; wildfire; soil contamination; spread of noxious weeds; permanent loss of range resources and wildlife habitat; damage to scenic resources; distress sales of private property; damage to county infrastructure; and severe and long-lasting economic impacts.

The Impact Assessment Report also includes a discussion of the measures required to mitigate the impacts detailed in the report. According to the report, mitigation measures must involve rigorous monitoring and follow- up, during both construction and operations of a rail route to minimize the potential impacts on human health and the environment. The county’s emergency response capabilities would need to be enhanced. State and local authorities would most likely oversee all monitoring efforts, but DOE must pay all monitoring costs.

The report was prepared by the county’s consultant Abby Johnson, who tapped the expertise of a rural economist, an engineer with knowledge of emergency management and rail construction, a natural resource specialist, and a researcher to complete the report. The maps were prepared by Michael Mears of the Eureka County Assessor’s Office using GIS technology.

For a copy of the report, contact the Eureka County public works office in Eureka at 775-237-5372 or in Crescent Valley at 775-468-0326. Click here to view the full report online.

Public Hearing on Yucca Mountain Held in Las Vegas

Emotions ran high at the September 5th Las Vegas public meeting, the first of three scheduled Yucca Mountain hearings in southern Nevada. The hearing was intended to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the Department of Energy's (DOE) possible recommendation of Yucca Mountain as a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. However, many came away from the first meeting discouraged and frustrated, complaining of the failure of the hearing to give participants an adequate forum to voice their concerns.

Hundreds of people crowded into DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration's meeting room. The hearing had been scheduled for the Suncoast Hotel and Casino, but was moved due to security concerns. The standing room only crowd of Nevadans who had turned out to participate in the public review process spilled into the hallway and an adjacent cafeteria where people watched the proceedings on television. People in Carson City, Elko, and Reno also participated in the hearing via closed-circuit television. Nearly 500 people gathered to respond to DOE's latest scientific report, the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation (PSSE), which found no major obstacles to making Yucca Mountain a permanent repository for over 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (4 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

The first speaker of the night was Governor Kenny Guinn. Pointing to the unfairness of the hearing process, Guinn criticized DOE for holding the hearings before the release of the final Environmental Impact Statement. “Public comment in the absence of this all-important evidence is premature and grossly irresponsible,” Guinn said. “We demand fairness, and we demand accountability in this process. We will not sit idly by and let the Department of Energy run roughshod over our citizens with empty promises and bad science.” The Nevada governor vowed to take his complaints to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and President Bush.

Guinn's testimony was followed by comments from Nevada's congressional delegation, who testified from Washington via a video link. They expressed their disappointment over both the hearing process and the absence of Secretary Abraham who, despite formal requests from the delegation, did not attend the meeting.

Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev., criticized DOE for not publicizing plans for nuclear waste transportation before going ahead with the site recommendation process. “They won't tell us which railways and highways this poison will be transported on because it will be going by houses and schools. They have to have an environmental impact study for that, and I don't think they can do it,” Reid said.

Senator John Ensign, R-Nev., advocated more research into less dangerous solutions to the problem of nuclear waste. He urged DOE to consider storing the waste onsite at reactor facilities while scientists pursue different alternatives to permanent geologic burial. “We have to look at new technology for recycling this waste,” Ensign said, calling the estimated $60 billion Yucca Mountain project “the most expensive construction project in the history of this world.”

Representative Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., called the proposed repository “misguided and irresponsible” policy. “The bottom line is, whether it's five years, 50 years or 40,000 years, disaster is a real possibility in this project,” he said.

Representative Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., found the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation to be “implausibly optimistic.” Berkley urged DOE to accept that the site and the project are fundamentally flawed. “As a country, we must stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Instead of trying to change the rules and dance around the law, we should immediately begin the decommissioning of the Yucca Mountain Project,” she said.

About 130 people signed up to testify, many after they had arrived. The speakers who took the podium first had pre-registered via a 1-800 number that was not advertised in the newspapers. The hearing room was packed and tense, as citizens both opposed to and in favor of the repository project took the podium to voice their concerns. While the vast majority of the crowd had turned out to criticize the proposed repository, six of the first nine speakers were in favor of DOE’s Yucca Mountain project.

One proponent of the proposed repository was Gary Sandquist, a professor at the University of Utah. He attended the meeting on a request from the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear power industry. “Are you willing to give up 20% of your electricity?” Sandquist asked the audience. He said that nuclear waste is a consequence of nuclear energy, which provides one-fifth of the nation's power. “Let's be practical. We've got the waste; we've got to put it somewhere.”

His testimony was interrupted several times by hecklers in the crowd. At one point, the moderator threatened to end the hearing unless the crowd quieted down and allowed the pro-nuclear professor to finish his statement.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman was among those who turned out to criticize the repository project. He threatened to arrest anyone who attempts to haul nuclear waste through the city of Las Vegas. “Don't dare me because I'll be out there to make the arrest myself, and let's see that truck driver try to get out of jail in my city.”

http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (5 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Representatives of the Western Shoshone and Paiute tribes also attended the meeting. They voiced concerns over the DOE's ability to fairly evaluate the suitability of Yucca Mountain. John Wells, a spokesman for the Western Shoshone National Council, said “our unfortunate experience as downwind victims informs our policy against the proposed high level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain no matter how much has been spent. We believe that the DOE does not want to know the truth,” Wells said. “For the DOE, their truth is from an origin in a culture of secrecy.”

The hearing ended around 2:00 a.m., after more than 8 hours of testimony. Many people who had signed up to speak grew tired and disillusioned, leaving before they had a chance to express their concerns. Others gave their statements to a court reporter, who was taking down official testimonies in a separate room. By 10:00 p.m. nearly 100 people had grown impatient and left.

Responding to the widespread criticism of the meeting, Secretary Abraham announced the expansion of the public comment process. The dates and times of 29 additional hastily-scheduled meetings appeared in a statement released September 28. The hearings, including two in Crescent Valley, were held in all Nevada counties as well as Inyo County in California. However, last minute location changes, insufficient publicity, and hurried planning led to poor attendance at most field hearings.

The two other originally planned southern Nevada meetings were delayed after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Amargosa Valley and Pahrump hearings were rescheduled for October 10 and 12, respectively. Those who attended voiced many of the same concerns as Las Vegas residents had at the first site recommendation hearing. However, people commenting at post-Sept. 11 hearings expressed much more concern over the possibility of a terrorist attack targeting a repository and the trains and trucks transporting waste to it.

Secretary Abraham must consider public comments before making his recommendation to the president. In a letter to Senator Reid, Abraham expressed his commitment to this process: “Any decision on the possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site will be reached in accordance with all applicable laws, will be based on sound science and technology, and will consider the views expressed by the state of Nevada, the public and other interested entities.” Many Nevada residents, however, came away from the hearings doubting whether DOE really intends to give their comments due consideration.

Who Foots the Bill in the Event of a Nuclear Accident? The Price-Anderson Act comes up for renewal

Currently up for reauthorization in Congress, the Price-Anderson Act was first passed in 1957 as an amendment to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. Originally enacted to help an infant industry get off the ground, the purpose of the act is to protect the nuclear industry from a potential accident liability so large that it would threaten the future of nuclear power, and to ensure that the public would be compensated for any damage resulting from a nuclear accident. The act was amended in 1998 to bring the nuclear-related activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors under the same liability coverage – meaning that any accident occurring during the transportation and storage of nuclear waste would also be covered under the Price- Anderson Act.

Under the act’s “no-fault” liability system, the amount nuclear power utilities must pay in the event of a catastrophic reactor accident is capped. Reactor owners must obtain $200 million in liability coverage from a private insurance company. If an accident were to exceed $200 million in damages, each of the country’s 103 reactor operators must pay up to $88 million per reactor. Therefore, privately financed insurance would cover a http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (6 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

total of $9.3 billion in damages. In exchange for this limit on financial liability, in the event of an “extraordinary nuclear occurrence,” nuclear utilities must waive legal defenses against paying claims. This is intended to relieve victims of the necessity of proving negligence.

In the event of an “extraordinary” accident involving DOE contractors, as would be the case with nuclear waste transportation, an indemnity agreement would be arranged. This means that the contractors would not be held liable – even if proven so in a court of law – and the government would pay all damages incurred up to the commercial reactor liability limit. In both cases, whether the accident involved a nuclear power utility or a DOE contractor, if the damage costs exceeded the $9.3 billion liability limit, it would be up to Congress to enact legislation to provide full compensation to the public.

However, critics of the Price-Anderson Act question whether the coverage it provides is adequate. A 1982 Nuclear Regulatory Commission study found that a severe nuclear accident could cost as much as $560 billion in today’s dollars. The $9.3 billion provided by the industry would therefore cover less than two percent of the damages incurred in such an accident, leaving the industry largely immune while the government foots the vast majority of the bill. “The nuclear industry is the only industry in America that is absolved of any guilt or liability for any accident, even if it is their own fault,” said Representative Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, some consumer and environmental groups are calling for a thorough reassessment of nuclear security before Price-Anderson is reauthorized. The act has also been criticized for precluding victims of a nuclear accident from directly suing those companies responsible. Yet another concern is that by absolving DOE contractors of accountability, the indemnification clause of the act discourages safe and conscientious handling of nuclear materials.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved a 15-year renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, H.R. 2983. The bill will be voted on in the full House sometime this month. If the bill does not pass, the act will expire in 2002.

In Brief . . . . Recent Nuclear News

NRC approves new siting guidelines for Yucca Scientists tout method for reprocessing nuclear Mountain . . . On September 24, the Nuclear wastes . . . DOE scientists at Argonne National Regulatory Commission (NRC) endorsed the Laboratory-West have come up with the first changes DOE plans to make to the Yucca Mountain laboratory-scale process to “transmute” radioactive guidelines. The NRC's concurrence was needed for waste into something that can be stored safely or DOE to finalize the site guidelines and move recycled. Called pyroprocessing, the process has forward in the recommendation process. Critics say the potential to “reduce waste streams and enhance that instead of relying on the mountain’s geologic proliferation resistance.” Environmental groups still features to contain radiation, the revised guidelines worry that reprocessing could speed up nuclear put too much emphasis on the ability of the storage proliferation and some DOE officials question the containers and other “engineered barriers” to economics of such an expensive project. According contain the waste. Critics say this shift in policy is to one estimate, initial research into pyroprocessing inconsistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of could cost hundreds of millions of dollars in the next 1982 and will make it easier for Yucca Mountain to decade. The Bush administration supports the idea be found suitable. “We are complying with the law,” as a way to prolong the life of the nuclear power countered Yucca Mountain Project spokesman industry. (Wall Street Journal, 8/21/01) Allen Benson. “The law expects us from time to time to update the siting guidelines as we learn more as DOE looks into possible Yucca Mountain we go along.” (LV Review-Journal, 10/26/01) terrorist attack . . . The September 11 terrorist attacks have prompted DOE to re-evaluate the House panel examines increased security for threat of a plane crash at the proposed nuclear nuclear waste . . . The House Energy and waste repository. One DOE engineer said that Commerce Committee has approved legislation that scientists have yet not analyzed a scenario urges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to involving an aircraft crashing into an aboveground develop new rules requiring armed escorts for all building where spent nuclear fuel rods would be http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (7 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

shipments of spent fuel. The bill requires security repackaged before placement inside the mountain. inspections to take place at a nuclear waste Once the waste is entombed 1,000 feet repository, among other facilities, at least once underground, a plane crash is expected to have every two years. If passed, the bill would also little effect. DOE had previously considered the expand the law on sabotage involving nuclear possibility of such an attack so remote that materials to cover acts committed at a nuclear analyzing the consequences was not necessary. waste repository, such as the one proposed for But in light of recent events, “we need to evaluate Yucca Mountain, nuclear waste treatment plants, what, if anything, additional needs to be done,” said and fuel enrichment facilities. (LV Review-Journal, the Energy Department spokesman. (Associated 10/4/01) Press, 9/27/01)

DOE asks Congress for lump-sum funding . . . In Fighter jet goes down near Death Valley . . . A a move criticized by Nevada lawmakers, the Navy pilot ejected safely from a fighter-attack jet Department of Energy requested that Congress that crashed northwest of Pahrump on October 23, consider paying for the proposed Yucca Mountain according to a Nellis Air Force Base spokesman. repository in one lump sum rather than doling out Part of an aerial combat training exercise, the F/A- smaller amounts in annual budgets. The possibility 18C Hornet was carrying two live 500-pound of lump-sum funding was unveiled in a DOE report bombs, both destroyed in the fireball that ensued requested by the House Appropriations after the crash. The cause of the crash is still subcommittee, which is seeking proposals for a unclear, but initial reports point to aircraft failure. At Yucca payment plan. Nevada lawmakers have the time of the crash, the Navy planes were about questioned where the estimated $58 billion would 25 miles southwest of Yucca Mountain. Critics of come from. “That’s going to take an enormous the proposed repository have argued that 20,000 amount of money away from other programs – it will military flights a year over the area is reason take money from education, from health care, from enough to warrant concern for the possibility of a defense,” said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. (LV Sun, catastrophic accident involving nuclear waste. (LV 9/28/01) Review-Journal, 10/24/01)

State Releases Yucca Mountain Video

The State of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project Office has recently released a video about the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. Through animated graphics, the video demonstrates how the Department of Energy (DOE) believes the Yucca Mountain system will function. Because water is Athe vehicle by which radiation can and eventually will escape from the repository,@ the video concentrates mainly on the cycle of water flow through the geologic formations of the region. The graphics depict the movement of water from original surface precipitation and downward migration through Yucca Mountain=s volcanic tuff, to the eventual breach of the engineered barriers in the repository and release of radioactive material into the water table.

DOE has predicted that the engineered barriers will remain intact for at least 10,000 years, the minimum federal standard for isolation of waste. However, research conducted by the State of Nevada has shown that radiation could escape much sooner. According to the state, the titanium drip shields and nickel-alloy waste canisters may be breached in as little as 1,000 years. The video depicts the eventual contamination of the water table which lies below the repository, pointing out that once the waste reaches the aquifer, radioactive particles will be found in wells in the area.

To obtain a copy of the video, contact the State of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project Office at 1-800-366-0990. Their web address is www.state.nv.us/nucwaste.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (8 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/fall01.htm (9 of 9) [3/28/02 2:17:48 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - An International Perspective

With over 400 nuclear reactors operating worldwide today, the problem of nuclear waste has become an international dilemma. Nuclear energy is a source of electricity for 31 countries and provides about 16 percent of the world’s power. Several countries – notably Japan, China and Russia – plan to continue aggressive nuclear reactor construction programs. Others, however, have come to see nuclear power’s toxic byproduct as too great a liability to continue reliance on it as an energy source. Germany, Sweden and Belgium are among the countries that have declared a moratorium on nuclear power. Nevertheless, whether a country decides to build more nuclear power plants or decommission those that already exist in favor of less risky energy alternatives, each of these 31 nations is still left with finding a solution to the problem posed by existing waste.

After years of study, most countries have concluded that permanent geologic burial is the most acceptable solution for the final disposition of high-level nuclear waste. Countries in Europe and Asia also reprocess their nuclear waste. Reprocessing both reduces the volume of nuclear waste and provides uranium and plutonium that can be used to produce more energy. However, some nations regard spent fuel as waste and have rejected reprocessing as a viable option due to economic, environmental, and proliferation concerns. Those countries that do reprocess nuclear waste are planning to entomb the remaining wastes in underground repositories with other high-level wastes that have accumulated. Those that do not reprocess plan to bury their spent fuel as is. In the meantime, the wastes are being kept in various types of interim storage facilities.

The issue of nuclear waste storage and disposal is complex and fraught with controversy. As in the United States, nearly every nuclear waste disposal program around the world has fallen behind schedule due to scientific uncertainty and public opposition. The following is a brief synopsis of how other countries in the world are dealing with their own nuclear waste dilemmas.

Canada’s 14 operating nuclear reactors supply 12 percent of the country’s energy demand. The reactors are owned and operated by the provincial government utilities, which have the primary responsibility for the management of nuclear waste. Canada has identified geologic disposal as its nuclear waste management policy and has no plans to reprocess any of its spent fuel. Atomic Energy of Canada Unlimited (AECL) spent several years researching and developing a repository concept, coming to the conclusion that the waste should be buried in stable granite-like rock formations called plutons, which are found in the Canadian Shield.

However, even though the project was deemed technically safe, strong public opposition at hearings in the potential siting areas of Ontario and Manitoba led the Canadian government to abandon the project. The waste will be kept in an interim storage facility while a new nuclear waste management agency, set up in 1998, examines the potential of other disposal concepts.

The repository was originally scheduled to open in 2025 and take 40 years to fill, but due to

http://www.yuccamountain.org/international.htm (1 of 6) [3/28/02 2:19:13 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - An International Perspective

siting difficulties, a repository is not expected to be operation before 2035. Currently, Canada is looking into the possibility of initiating a voluntary siting program.

China currently has three operating reactors and plans to significantly increase nuclear power generation in the future. China intends to reprocess all of its spent fuel after a five- year cooling period at the reactor sites. A long-term program has been underway since 1986 to carry out research into the eventual development of a permanent repository for the remaining high-level waste. A central Spent Fuel Wet Storage Facility opened in 2000 in northwest China.

Before permanent underground burial, the wastes left over from reprocessing will be incorporated into glass – a process known as vitrification. Granite has been identified as the preferred rock for disposal of the vitrified high-level waste. China has one candidate site for a repository, the Beishan site located in the Gobi desert in northwest China. Site characterization studies began there in 1989 and are scheduled to continue until 2010. China intends to begin the process to license the site in 2020 with waste disposal beginning in 2040.

Finland’s four nuclear reactors produce 32 percent of its electricity. Finland’s two nuclear power utilities are responsible for the safe management of wastes and for the research and development of a repository. No Finnish spent fuel has been reprocessed since 1996. Currently, it appears that Finland will be the first country to actually begin construction of an underground repository for high-level waste.

After studies of four different locations, the Olkiluoto site, where a low-level waste repository has been in operation since 1992, was deemed the most suitable. The proposed repository will be built on a flexible “design-as-you-go” basis, depending on actual geological conditions found during development.

Finland’s program has been deemed both technically feasible and publicly acceptable. Finland’s nuclear waste policy gives the community near a possible disposal site the right to veto the proposal, however, about 78 percent of the designated site’s surrounding population support the repository project. Once the government gives its expected confirmation of the site, development of an underground research laboratory will begin. Construction of the actual repository will follow in 2010 and last for approximately ten years.

France’s 59 operating nuclear reactors produce 76 percent the country’s electricity, making France the most nuclear-reliant country in the world. Under French law, producers of nuclear waste must arrange and pay for its disposal at a facility approved by the government.

France currently plans to reprocess all of its spent fuel. Cogema’s La Hague plant in northern France reprocesses not only French spent fuel, but fuel from Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Eventually high.level waste, in the form of vitrified glass logs, will be permanently disposed in a deep geologic repository. The waste is currently being stored at reactor sites and reprocessing facilities.

Four potential areas for a geologic repository were initially selected for study. Each had a specific geologic formation: clay in the northern part of the Parisian Basin, granite and shale http://www.yuccamountain.org/international.htm (2 of 6) [3/28/02 2:19:13 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - An International Perspective

in western France, and salt in eastern France. After a seven-year long process of public inquiries and technical assessments, it was decided that research should proceed at two sites. An underground laboratory is currently under construction at Bure in the east of France. A granite site is still to be selected but inquiries into potential granite sites were halted last year due to strong local opposition. French law requires that at least two underground research laboratories be developed prior to a final decision on a repository, one in crystalline rock and another in a sedimentary formation. The French parliament is expected to select the final site in 2006.

In 1998, Germany’s coalition government proposed the complete abandonment of nuclear energy. The country is now in the process of phasing out nuclear power, with plans to shut down each of its remaining 19 reactors at the end of their operating lives. Germany has had its spent fuel reprocessed in France and Britain, but as of 2005 all nuclear fuel will be directly disposed of without reprocessing. A 1998 Coalition Agreement stipulates a single repository for all types of nuclear waste, in a rock type yet to be decided.

Interim storage facilities have been built to house spent fuel at Ahaus, near the Dutch border, and at Gorleben. The transportation of spent fuel to these two facilities has been a heated issue in Germany. All nuclear waste transportation was suspended in 1998 after it was found that waste containers were externally contaminated. The German government has since reauthorized shipments, but faced intense opposition from the public and local governments.

Germany had initially intended to investigate only the Gorleben salt dome as a potential site for a geologic repository, but after a significant drop in public support for the project, the entire disposal policy is being re-evaluated. Although geologic disposal remains the preferred option, other rock types will be studied before a siting decision is made. Exploration work at Gorleben has been suspended for three to ten years while other potential repository sites are being identified. Germany plans to begin operations at a repository around 2030.

India currently has 14 nuclear reactors in operation. India intends to reprocess all the spent fuel generated by its nuclear reactors and is currently developing the capability to do so domestically. A “semi-commercial” reprocessing facility is in operation in Kalpakkam, where spent fuel is stored prior to vitrification.

India plans to dispose of its high-level waste in a deep geologic repository after at least 20 years of interim storage. The process of identifying potential sites for a repository is currently underway with crystalline rock as the favored geologic formation to be studied. The Kalpakkam site, underlain by granite, is one of the sites under consideration along with several abandoned mines.

Japan currently has 54 operating nuclear reactors. Japan’s policy is to reprocess its spent nuclear fuel both domestically and abroad at France’s La Hague facility. High-level waste is vitrified and stored underground for 30 to 50 years for cooling. Japan ultimately plans to dispose of the high-level waste in a geologic repository. A Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NUMO) was established in 2000 to oversee this process.

Accepting that the possibility of earthquakes cannot be ruled out at any potential site in http://www.yuccamountain.org/international.htm (3 of 6) [3/28/02 2:19:13 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - An International Perspective

Japan, officials are developing repository designs that combine massive engineered barrier systems to complement the surrounding geological environment. In 2004 two sites will be selected for detailed characterization studies. Japan’s tentative target for the commissioning of a repository is sometime in the 2030’s and no later than 2045.

Pakistan has two commercial nuclear reactors. One is located near Karachi in the southern part of the country. The second nuclear power plant, which became fully operational in March of this year, is located near Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. Nuclear power provides only 1.7 percent of Pakistan’s electricity, but there are plans to greatly expand nuclear capacity in the future. This expansion includes the eventual development of a complete domestic nuclear fuel cycle, including reprocessing.

The Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority was established in January 2001 to oversee the country’s nuclear activities. Currently, all of Pakistan’s spent fuel is stored in pools at the two reactor sites. These storage facilities are expected to be sufficient until 2012. As of yet, there are no plans to build a repository for the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste.

Russia’s 30 nuclear reactors provide about 15 percent of the country’s electricity. Russia’s nuclear waste policy does allow for reprocessing, but only for spent fuel from certain reactor types. Several concepts for final waste disposal are currently under investigation, including both mined cavity and deep borehole emplacement. Eventually, Russia intends to establish four geologic repositories for high-level waste.

Two potential repository sites were identified in 1996: the Itatskiy and Kamennyi sites, both located in Siberian granite. Investigations are currently taking place at the Kamennyi site, which appears to be the more suitable of the two. Russia has plans to construct an underground laboratory at one of the sites to conduct further research. While site characterization activities are taking place, the waste will be stored in an interim facility for three to ten years and then vitrified prior to disposal.

Sweden currently has 12 reactors which produce about 46 percent of the country’s electricity. In a national referendum in 1980, Sweden voted to phase out nuclear power. Because there will be no future need for recycled nuclear fuel, Sweden has decided against reprocessing. The country has opted instead to bury the waste in a geologic repository, most likely in crystalline bedrock.

Public opposition to a deep geologic repository in Sweden has considerably slowed down the process of locating a suitable site. In the past, protests have halted exploration of several potential sites. The final site designation was originally scheduled to take place in 1997, but now even initial investigations into three potential sites are not expected to begin until 2002. While sites for a permanent repository are being evaluated, Sweden will store its nuclear waste in a central interim storage facility called CLAB. Irradiated fuel is shipped to the facility by sea in order to avoid transportation controversies.

Sweden is also home to an international research project that focuses on the movement of fluids through fractures in granite rock systems. As granite is a common repository rock type, the information about fluid movement is useful for the nuclear technology field. http://www.yuccamountain.org/international.htm (4 of 6) [3/28/02 2:19:13 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - An International Perspective

Switzerland’s five nuclear power plants provide about 39 percent of the country’s electricity. The density of population in Switzerland prevents shallow land burial of any radioactive waste. Therefore, even fairly short-lived low-level wastes have to be buried in a geologic repository. The Wellenberg site is under investigation for the disposal of low-level waste and is a possible candidate for a high-level waste repository as well.

Switzerland sends its spent fuel to facilities in France and Great Britain for reprocessing. The remaining wastes will be stored for 30 to 40 years and then disposed of in a geologic repository. Once a final site is chosen, the concept for a repository must be successfully demonstrated in an underground laboratory onsite. There are currently two different repository concepts, which depend on the type of rock chosen – crystalline rock or clay. Switzerland is planning to have an active nuclear waste repository sometime after 2050. Until a repository is built, the waste will be kept in the ZWILAG interim storage facility in northern Switzerland. Consideration is also being given to cooperative multinational projects.

Twenty-two percent of the United Kingdom’s energy demand is met by nuclear power. The UK reprocesses its spent fuel at Sellafield, a facility operated by British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), a state-owned corporation responsible for Britain’s high-level waste. As in France, Britain reprocesses both domestic and foreign spent fuels. Currently, high-level nuclear waste is stored onsite at Sellafield in liquid form. BNFL plans to vitrify the waste into glass logs and after a 50-100 year cooling period, permanently bury it in a deep geologic repository.

The British government will make a final decision regarding waste burial sometime during the 50-year cooling period. Up until 1981, a disposal program involving limited exploration into crystalline and sedimentary rock was conducted. Detailed studies took place at a site called Altnabreac, but were abandoned due to intense public opposition. Now only general research is conducted. The British government has recently stressed its commitment to develop a nuclear waste management policy in a transparent and open-minded way to ensure maximum public acceptance before decisions about the future siting of a geologic repository are made.

This report was prepared by the Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office for the Fall 2001 edition of the Nuclear Waste Update Newsletter.

Last Updated 11/2001

http://www.yuccamountain.org/international.htm (5 of 6) [3/28/02 2:19:13 PM] Fall 2001 Newsletter - An International Perspective

http://www.yuccamountain.org/international.htm (6 of 6) [3/28/02 2:19:13 PM] September 2001 Newsletter - DOE Announces Site Recommendation Hearings & Releases Site Suitability Report

DOE Announces Site Recommendation Hearings, Releases Site Suitability Report

On August 21, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced the dates of Important Dates three public hearings to be held in Nevada this September. The purpose of the hearings is to give members of the public an opportunity to comment DOE Public Hearings on the upcoming recommendation of Yucca Mountain, currently the only site under consideration for a national repository for high-level nuclear ● September 5: Las Vegas, waste. Coinciding with the announcement of the hearings was the release National Nuclear Security of a new report, titled the Yucca Mountain Preliminary Site Suitability Administration facility Evaluation (PSSE), which assesses how a repository at Yucca Mountain would perform in light of new radiation standards that were finalized in ● October 10: Amargosa Valley, June. Longstreet Inn and Casino, 3-9 pm

Before Secretary Abraham can make his final recommendation on Yucca ● October 12: Pahrump, Bob Ruud Mountain to the president, he is required to consider comments made by Community Center. 3-9 pm the public. Mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, public comments are an indispensable part of the process of approving and licensing such a facility. Citizens’ opinions on “technical, policy, or other issues related to the possible recommendation” are being solicited by DOE – it is important ● October 19: Deadline for written that those who could be affected by the construction and operation of a comments on DOE’s Yucca repository at Yucca Mountain voice their concerns. Comments can be Mountain site recommendation given verbally at one of the scheduled hearings in Las Vegas, Amargosa process Valley, and Pahrump. Written comments can be mailed to both DOE and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, who will make the final recommendation to President Bush. DOE is also accepting comments by fax and e-mail (see below for details). All comments must be received no ● September 10-12: Nuclear Waste later than October 19. Technical Review Board meeting, Las Vegas. www.nwtrb.gov Preliminary Site Suitability Report Released for Public Review ● October 16-18: NRC’s Advisory While the PSSE offers no conclusions on the suitability of the site, DOE’s Committee on Nuclear Waste, Las findings show that a repository at Yucca Mountain would perform well Vegas. within the health and safety standards set earlier this year by the www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The final radiation standards http://www.yuccamountain.org/siterec.htm (1 of 5) [3/28/02 2:20:19 PM] September 2001 Newsletter - DOE Announces Site Recommendation Hearings & Releases Site Suitability Report allow for no more than 15 millirems a year for people living beyond 11 miles of the repository. The rule also includes a separate 4 millirem limit for groundwater. ● Eureka County Board of Commissioners: Meets 6th and 20th of every month (unless these DOE believes that the largest expected dose a person could receive from dates fall on weekends) the repository in the first 10,000 years would not be more than 0.1 millirem, even in the worst-case disruptive scenario. The report also concludes that the amount of radiation released into the groundwater ● Crescent Valley Town Advisory would fall below the limit stipulated by the EPA. In addition, the report Board: Meets on the 12th and 26th states that a Yucca Mountain repository would perform as designed of every month (unless these dates regardless of volcanic activity, earthquakes, or undetected flaws in the fall on weekends) metal canisters that will hold the highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Nevada lawmakers, however, have been critical of the report’s conclusions about the long-term safety of the proposed repository. Representative Shelley Berkley, D-NV, said “the DOE is basing its methods of waste management on man-made structures that they hope may last 10,000 years. But the DOE conclusions are based on a flawed standard offered by the EPA, which ignores the fact that the waste will remain toxic long after the man- made structures have rotted away.” Nevada lawmakers are also critical of the continuing absence of an analysis of transportation options. According to Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, “the one thing DOE keeps ignoring is how they’re going to get nuclear waste to Nevada, and there is only one answer: train and truck.”

The information contained in the PSSE will be crucial to Energy Secretary Abraham’s upcoming decision of whether or not to give the Yucca Mountain site a favorable recommendation to the president. “Any decision regarding a permanent repository for this nation’s nuclear waste will be made based on sound science,” Abraham said. “The measures I am taking today are designed to assist me in this effort. I am committed to making sure that we arrive at the right decision for America.”

Commenting by mail

Download and print the two comment forms (PDF file), fill them out and send one to DOE:

Carol Hanlon S&ER Products Manager U. S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office P.O. Box 30307 M/S 025 North Las Vegas, NV 89036-0307

and the other to the Secretary of Energy:

Secretary of Energy U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585

DOE is also accepting comments by fax (1-800-967-0739) and email ([email protected])

http://www.yuccamountain.org/siterec.htm (2 of 5) [3/28/02 2:20:19 PM] September 2001 Newsletter - DOE Announces Site Recommendation Hearings & Releases Site Suitability Report

Fact Sheet: The Decision Process for a Repository Adapted from DOE’s Yucca Mountain Project website: www.ymp.gov

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) established a comprehensive process for the disposal of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to research and design a deep geologic repository for these highly radioactive materials. The NWPA outlines the process for a recommendation by the Secretary of Energy, for a decision by the president, for approval by Congress, and for licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NWPA requires DOE to develop and provide scientific information as a basis for repository decisions and to provide opportunities for the public and affected units of government to participate in the decision process. The following steps describe the process leading to a decision by the Secretary of Energy on whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to the president as a suitable site for a repository:

Step 1: Perform site characterization activities.

The NWPA requires DOE to perform scientific studies at Yucca Mountain to provide specific information for evaluating the suitability of the site for a repository. Since 1986 scientists have carried out this plan by performing specific in-depth analyses of the area's geology, hydrology, chemistry, and climate.

Step 2: Develop a preliminary repository design.

Using the results from these studies, engineers are developing a preliminary design for a repository that would safely isolate highly radioactive waste for more than 10,000 years. The repository design includes man-made barriers to complement and work with Yucca Mountain's specific climate and geology to provide additional protection against the movement of radioactive materials into the environment.

Step 3: Prepare an environmental impact statement.

The NWPA requires DOE to prepare an environmental impact statement for constructing, operating and monitoring, and eventually closing a repository. In 1999, DOE issued for public comment its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS provides information to help policy-makers and the public understand the potential impacts of the proposed repository on people and the environment. DOE will not respond to the public's comments and publish a final environmental impact statement until site recommendation.

Step 4: Conduct public hearings.

The NWPA requires the department to conduct public hearings in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain site to inform residents of the area that the site is being considered for a possible recommendation for development of a repository and to receive their comments. DOE appears to be interpreting “vicinity” to be within 100 miles of Yucca Mountain, which excludes most Nevada counties affected by transportation.

The secretary's decision

The Secretary of Energy will decide whether to recommend to President Bush that Yucca Mountain be developed http://www.yuccamountain.org/siterec.htm (3 of 5) [3/28/02 2:20:19 PM] September 2001 Newsletter - DOE Announces Site Recommendation Hearings & Releases Site Suitability Report as a repository. The NWPA requires the secretary to provide a comprehensive statement of the basis for the recommendation to the president and the public. The recommendation must be based on information required by the act, including

● the final environmental impact statement, ● preliminary comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the sufficiency of site characterization analysis ● comments from the governor or legislature together with a response to these comments by the secretary, ● any impact report submitted by the state of Nevada.

If, after recommendation by the secretary, the president considers Yucca Mountain a suitable location for a repository, the president would recommend the site to Congress. According to the NWPA, the governor and legislature of Nevada would then have 60 days to submit a notice of disapproval. Congress then has the option to propose and pass a joint resolution for repository siting approval within the first 90 calendar days of continuous congressional session after receiving the notice of disapproval. If Congress acts within this specified time and the joint resolution becomes law, the site would be approved. If the Yucca Mountain site is approved for development, DOE must submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within 90 days to obtain authorization to construct a repository.

How Would a Yucca Mountain Repository Impact Eureka County?

If a nuclear waste repository is built at Yucca Mountain, 77,000 tons of radioactive materials will have to be transported from the reactor sites to Nevada. That could mean the construction of a rail spur through Eureka County. How would the proposed Carlin rail route impact you and your community? Here are some issues to consider when you tell DOE your opinion of the Yucca Mountain Project:

Human Health and Safety: What are the long and short term effects of a rail accident involving nuclear waste? Who would respond? Who would be liable for the damages?

Mining: Could a rail route interfere with future mineral development? Current mining activities? There are 92 patented mining claims in Eureka County within 10 miles of the proposed Carlin rail corridor.

Grazing: Would a rail route bisect grazing allotments? What would be the effect on agriculture?

Wildlife: Could a rail line disturb the habitats of the natural wildlife? The southern corridor of the Carlin route http://www.yuccamountain.org/siterec.htm (4 of 5) [3/28/02 2:20:19 PM] September 2001 Newsletter - DOE Announces Site Recommendation Hearings & Releases Site Suitability Report would disrupt 740 acres of desert tortoise habitat, an endangered species. The corridor also crosses the Bates Mountain antelope release area, 3 designated riparian habitats, and Simpson Park habitat management area.

History and Culture: Would a rail line disrupt archeological sites, sacred Indian grounds, and other places of historical and cultural value? There are at least 21 archeological sites along the Carlin rail corridor in Eureka County, including Maiden’s Grave and Gravelly Ford.

Environmental Justice: Will a rail route in Central Nevada affect some communities more than others? Could minorities like the Western Shoshones be the recipients of more adverse impacts than the rest of the population?

Property/Land Use: Who owns the land that the proposed railroad would run through? About 55% of the land in the Eureka County portion of the corridor is private land.

Railroad: Would the impacts of a rail line be different if it was used to ship things other than nuclear waste? Who will own and operate the railroad during nuclear waste shipments and after the shipments of radioactive waste stop? Will DOE ship low-level nuclear waste to the Nevada Test Site on the rail spur?

Resources for More Information:

● Eureka County Public Works: P.O. Box 714, Eureka, NV 89316 (775) 237-5372

● Crescent Valley Public Works: 5045 Tenabo Ave, Crescent Valley 89821 (775) 468-0326

● State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office: Evergreen Center, 1802 N. Carson, Suite 252, Carson City, NV 89701 (775) 687-3744 or 1-800-366-0990. www.state.nv.us/nucwaste

● Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office: P.O. Box 30307, North Las Vegas, NV 89036 (702) 794-5555. www.ymp.gov

● Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force: 4550 W. Oakey, Suite 111, Las Vegas, NV 89102 (702) 248-1127 or 1- 800-227-9809. www.nvantinuclear.org

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/siterec.htm (5 of 5) [3/28/02 2:20:19 PM] Summer 2001 Newsletter - County officials tour Yucca Mountain and more

County Officials Tour Yucca Mountain

In This Issue: ureka County Commissioners, members of the Planning E ● Supplemental impact statement Commission, Public Lands Commission, and county staff had the released for comment opportunity to tour the proposed nuclear waste facility at Yucca ● Will the Senate power shift affect Mountain, Nevada. The county also invited Steve Frishman, a Yucca Mountain? geologist with the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, to ● EPA sets radiation standards for provide the state’s perspective on the site characterization process taking place at Yucca Mountain. proposed repository ● Nuclear news in brief ● The Eureka County representatives visited the five-mile tunnel DOE releases science report on and witnessed various scientific tests being conducted on what is proposed repository possibly the most studied geologic formation in the world. The ● County assesses transportation tour group included Commissioners Donna Bailey, Pete impacts Goicoechea, Wayne Robinson; Michael Mears, Ted Beutel, ● Special Nevada nuclear history Hollen Moll, Ronald Damele, Dodi Moyle, Vicki Drenon, Ellen insert - The Atomic Frontier: Rand, Leonard Fiorenzi, Abby Johnson, Ronald Rankin, Maxine Atmospheric Testing in Nevada Rebaleati, Jon Hutchings, and Kenneth Washburn.

On the morning of April 30, the county delegation boarded a bus in Beatty and headed for Yucca Mountain via the Nevada Test Site. During the ride, DOE science engineer Patrick Rowe briefed the group on status of the repository project and concentrated on the history of the Nevada Test Site.

To date, nearly $8 billion has already been spent scrutinizing the fault movements, sediment layers, and chemical content of the rock – yet many of the results are less than conclusive. Scientists working for the state of Nevada, such as Steve Frishman, contend that DOE has an insufficient understanding of the complexities of water movement through the mountain, one factor that will prove fundamental to the repository’s ability to contain the deadly waste for the 10,000-year regulatory period.

Wearing hard hats, protective goggles and safety belts, the tour group boarded a mining train which transported them down into the mountain. Deep below the desert surface, DOE representatives demonstrated the thermal testing processes and explained the complex instruments measuring the rate of water flow through the mountain. Despite the uncertainty of the project’s fate, the officials optimistically fielded questions about earthquakes, volcanoes, and groundwater contamination.

One of the tour guides, engineer Jim Niggemeyer, stated that “we have found nothing that would disqualify this as a site.”

After the tour of the inside of the subsurface facilities and lunch, the delegates went up to the top of the mountain. The ridge of Yucca Mountains is 1,200 feet above sea level. Eureka delegates took in the view – http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett01.htm (1 of 7) [3/28/02 2:21:31 PM] Summer 2001 Newsletter - County officials tour Yucca Mountain and more

hillsides filled with sage and wildflowers sweeping down to the sun-drenched desert floor below. In the distance were cinder cones of extinct volcanoes rising up among the desert hills. On the far horizon, the snow-capped peak of Mt. Whitney was visible.

State representative Steve Frishman briefed the group on the state’s primary concerns about the project including earthquakes, volcanoes, water movement, and radiation containment.

Rowe gestured toward the north, pointing out where the repository may expand if it reaches capacity. If President Bush’s energy plan moves successfully through Congress this year, more nuclear power plants could be on the way – inevitably generating more nuclear waste. According to Rowe, nuclear power has “an incredible future” in the United States. Its toxic byproducts, however, will have to be disposed of somewhere. Current law limits to 77,000 metric tons the amount of waste Yucca Mountain would be able to receive.

On the trip back to Beatty, the bus stopped briefly at the site of MX missile test shelters – a vestige of a government project in the 1980s. The shelters serve as a reminder of another federally-initiated project that targeted Nevada, and was canceled. The fate of the Yucca Mountain project is yet to be determined.

DOE Issues Supplement to Draft EIS

In July of 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a precursor to the Final EIS. However, the site characterization process has continued to evolve since then. Over the past two years DOE has been investigating various ways to further reduce the uncertainties in the long-term performance of the proposed waste facility. The evolution in the design of the repository that has taken place since 1999 has resulted in the need for a “supplement” to the impact statement. The Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain was released in May of this year, with the purpose of updating the information presented in the Draft EIS.

As with the Draft EIS, public comments were also accepted on the Supplement. DOE initially allotted a 45-day comment period, ending June 25, 2001. The state and local governments requested an extension on the deadline and were granted an extra 10 days. Over 700 individuals and organizations, including Eureka County, were also granted an extension until August 13 because they did not receive their requested copies of the document until late June. DOE must take comments on the supplemental document into consideration when preparing the final impact statement.

While the fundamental aspects of the repository design remain the same as those discussed in the Draft EIS, there are new additions that must be evaluated from an environmental impact standpoint. A new flexible design focuses on controlling the rock temperature by factors such as the spacing of waste canisters inside the repository. One option would heat the adjoining rock to temperatures above boiling during the 10,000-year regulatory period. Another would keep temperatures at about 185 degrees Fahrenheit or just below the boiling point. The potential impacts of the differing heat scenarios are analyzed in the document and compared to those assessed for the original repository design described in the Draft EIS.

Two additional features have been added to the design. DOE has proposed both a blending pool – where thermally hot wastes would be mixed with cooler wastes before emplacement into the repository – and an above ground spent fuel storage area, where nuclear waste would be placed for a 50-year cooling off period.

State officials and others have recommended that the waste remain at reactor sites for a similar length of time to

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett01.htm (2 of 7) [3/28/02 2:21:31 PM] Summer 2001 Newsletter - County officials tour Yucca Mountain and more

reduce the dangers of transport and to allow time for consideration of other waste management strategies. State and local officials have also expressed concerns about elements of the new flexible design described in the supplementary impact statement. Primary among those concerns is the lack of one single agreed-upon repository design. Opponents of the project do not believe a set of evolving design scenarios with variable operational modes is a sufficient base on which to recommend the site.

Critics have also pointed out the document’s failure to address the comments made on the Draft EIS. The Supplement does not attempt to analyze the inadequacies in DOE’s impact assessment, as pointed out by the comments of state and local governments and concerned citizens. Questions about the impacts of the transportation of high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain remain unanswered. The socioeconomic impacts of the proposed repository for the surrounding communities are also inadequately addressed. According to state officials, “the Supplement does nothing to redress the deficiencies” inherent in the impact analysis of the Draft EIS.

The information contained in Draft EIS and the Supplement will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Statement, as mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The document will be a fundamental part of a site recommendation and construction authorization. A thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the repository is required support for the Secretary of Energy’s recommendation to the President. According to DOE, the Secretary’s final decision on the suitability of Yucca Mountain – currently the only site under consideration for a nuclear waste repository – is due sometime before the end of the year.

Click here to view a graphic of the components of the Waste Handling Building

Senate Power Shift: Will the Yucca Mountain Project be Affected?

In an unprecedented shift in congressional power, the Democrats took control of the Senate in June when Vermont Senator James Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent. The Jeffords switch surprised Republicans and left the Democrats with a narrow 50-49 majority in the Senate. Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a vocal opponent of the Yucca Mountain Project and the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate, now holds the position of majority whip.

According to new majority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the positions he and Reid now hold in Congress “will allow us to put Nevada’s agenda on the national agenda.” This may have important consequences regarding one of the issues most important to Nevadans, the proposed waste facility at Yucca Mountain. Daschle went on to say that he believes “the Yucca Mountain issue is dead” as long as Democrats remain in the majority.

As new chairman of the Senate’s energy and water subcommittee, Reid’s influence is already being felt. On July 12, he introduced a spending bill that would cut the budget for the Yucca Mountain project by 38 percent in 2002. The bill also contains $70 million for research into transmutation. Researchers are trying to use this process to shorten the lifetime of some long-lived radio nuclides.

Yucca Mountain, located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site being considering for a nuclear waste repository. If the site meets the approval of the Secretary of Energy and the President, Congress would still have to override an expected veto by the state of Nevada in order to set the project in motion.

EPA Sets Radiation Standards for Proposed Repository

In June the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the final radiation standards for the proposed http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett01.htm (3 of 7) [3/28/02 2:21:31 PM] Summer 2001 Newsletter - County officials tour Yucca Mountain and more

nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The final standards, which are based upon a 10,000-year regulatory period, are nearly identical to the radiation exposure limits proposed by the EPA last year under the Clinton administration. A separate limit to protect groundwater flowing from the repository site is included in the new health and safety standards.

Under the final EPA rule, the annual limit for radiation emitted from the repository would be 15 millirems. A separate 4 millirem standard has been stipulated for groundwater. A millirem is one-thousandth of a rem, the standard measurement of a radiation dose. For example, a chest x-ray exposes a person to about 5 millirems of radiation. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), the average person receives an annual dose of 360 millirems from natural sources, such as the sun, and exposure to residual fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),DOE, and nuclear industry officials exerted pressure on the EPA to set a less stringent standard and eliminate the separate groundwater protection provision. They claimed EPA was overstepping its bounds. The NRC had proposed a less rigorous 25 millirem limit, however in May the Bush administration reaffirmed the EPA’s jurisdiction over the health and safety standards for Yucca Mountain. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the EPA has the clear authority for establishing the final rule.

Government officials hope these standards are stringent enough to protect residents of the area, many of whom oppose the proposed repository, but not too strict as to derail the project entirely. According to EPA administrator Christine Whitman, the exposure limits will adequately protect the health and safety of residents: "These are strong standards, and they should be. We designed them to ensure that people living near this potential repository will be protected now and for future generations."

However, the standards – which officially took effect July 13, 2001 – did not satisfy repository supporters or its many opponents. Lawsuits have been filed by the nuclear power industry, the State of Nevada, as well as various environmental groups opposed to the project.

The Nuclear Energy Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of the industry, charging that the EPA went too far in proposing a separate standard for groundwater. The industry argues that the radiation limits are too stringent and will cost taxpayers and electricity customers billions of dollars without making the proposed repository any safer.

State officials and environmental groups, on the other hand, criticized the health and safety standards for being too lenient. On June 27, the state and a consortium of environmental organization filed separate suits challenging the radiation limits. The opposition’s main concern is that the 10,000-year period during which the regulations would be in effect is inadequate. According to scientists, radiation escaping from the repository will cause peak dosage to occur between the 200,000 and 800,000 year time period. State officials are also contesting the point at which the standards takes effect. The compliance boundary is now set at 11 miles from Yucca Mountain. Opponents believe that there should be no contamination outside the repository boundary, and that the standards should not rely on dilution and dispersion of radioactive materials instead of effective containment.

The EPA ombudsman has also waded into the fray. Robert J. Martin, an independent investigator within the EPA, is often called in to referee disagreements between the agency and communities affected by its hazardous waste management programs. He has begun an initial inquiry and is inviting comment from state, local, and public oversight groups.

The health and safety standards are fundamental to determining Yucca Mountain’s ultimate suitability as a site for a permanent nuclear waste repository. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham has stated that DOE will be able to meet EPA’s radiation standards. Abraham is expected to make the final site recommendation to the President sometime before the end of the year.

In Brief . . . . Recent Nuclear News

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett01.htm (4 of 7) [3/28/02 2:21:31 PM] Summer 2001 Newsletter - County officials tour Yucca Mountain and more

Bush’s energy policy: more nuclear power Former Senator appointed to state nuclear plants may be on the horizon . . . The current commission . . . Former U.S. Senator Richard energy crunch that has been causing rolling Bryan, a longtime opponent of the proposed nuclear blackouts in California and rising electricity costs waste facility at Yucca Mountain, was recently throughout the country has prompted officials to named to the state’s Commission on Nuclear explore ways to boost energy production. Vice Projects, which oversees federal activities President Dick Cheney is championing a return to concerning the repository. Bryan said that the nuclear energy as a source of clean, safe, proposed repository is “an issue I feel strongly affordable power. Nuclear reactors do not produce about. It’s a threat to the health and safety of carbon emissions like coal plants, however, the Nevadans.” (LV Review-Journal, 6/11/01) problem of the toxic waste produced by nuclear power poses a formidable and costly obstacle that Residents comment on Yucca environmental must be resolved before any new reactors can be report . . . Over 80 residents of Clark County gave built. (USA Today, 6/18/01) their opinions on the impacts of the proposed repository at a county-sponsored meeting. Many Investigators: no bias found in Yucca Mountain spoke out against the project, urging DOE to look program . . . Nevada’s congressional delegation into better alternatives. Las Vegas resident Celeste was outraged last year when a document attached Thomas said that “funding and finding alternatives to a draft report jumped to conclusions about the to burying nuclear waste is a wise plan . . . it would site’s suitability. However, despite internal eliminate the citizens’ concerns on burying nuclear documents that were deemed “inappropriate,” a waste for thousands of years.” A few people were in four-month-long probe found no conclusive favor of the repository. William Price, a retired evidence that a DOE bias hurt the integrity of the nuclear engineer from California, believes “the nuclear waste disposal project. (LV Review-Journal, nuclear industry needs a place to park the 4/24/01) materials.” (LV Sun, 6/7/01)

Derailment increase concerns opponents of Researchers plan international nuclear waste proposed repository . . . New statistics show that information exchange . . . Scientists from the U.S. there has been an 18 percent increase in train and around the world have agreed to participate in derailments nationwide since 1997. As reported by an examination of the problem of nuclear waste the Federal Railroad Administration, derailments management. The information exchange would jumped from 1,741 in 1997 to 2,059 last year. involve an inquiry into options ranging from geologic According to Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, “This really burial to transmutation to short term storage of highlights what Nevadans have been saying all radioactive waste. Japan, South Korea, China and along. Transporting nuclear waste to Nevada is Taiwan reached a preliminary agreement to study dangerous business.” (LV Sun, 4/2/01) the problem with the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in July. (LV Sun, 7/11/01) Bill would remove budget restraints on nuclear waste fund . . . Members of the House Energy Law firm lobbied for nuclear industry while Committee are preparing legislation that would advising DOE on Yucca Mountain . . . A Chicago- make it easier for DOE to gain the funding it needs based law firm, Winston & Strawn, was being paid to keep the Yucca Mountain project on schedule. by DOE to help determine if the site is suitable for a The bill would take the nuclear waste fund “off- repository while simultaneously taking money from budget” and out of the jurisdiction of spending limits the industry to assure that the site is approved by set by Congress. The fund, built from fees charged Congress. According to critics, this conflict of to consumers of nuclear energy, has about $9 interest casts doubt on the integrity of years of legal billion now. Nevada officials worry that such a and technical work on Yucca Mountain. Nevada budget change would make it more difficult to keep officials are considering asking for an official outside tabs on the program. (LV Review-Journal, 7/10/01) investigation of the law firm, which has denied any conflict of interest. (New York Times, 7/28/01)

DOE Releases Scientific Report on Yucca Mountain Studies: Volcano and Earthquake Disruption Not Likely http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett01.htm (5 of 7) [3/28/02 2:21:31 PM] Summer 2001 Newsletter - County officials tour Yucca Mountain and more

In May, the Department of Energy (DOE) released a report detailing the progress of scientific studies for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report is a summary of research completed for the site characterization process. The information in the report will be used to support the site recommendation, which is due sometime before the end of the year.

The 1,000-page document describes the results of tests and studies conducted at the proposed repository location. These scientific investigations “include site characterization studies of the geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical environment, as well as an evaluation of how site conditions might evolve over time.”

The report further describes a new “flexible” repository design plan that has evolved significantly from the design originally presented in DOE’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement of 1999. Based on a thermal management strategy, this flexible design evaluates different waste emplacement options that would allow variations in the temperature of the repository. For example, if the waste packages are placed closer together, the thermal energy generated would heat the surrounding rock to temperatures above boiling. The resulting steam might limit the amount of water that could contact the waste containers. In another option, temperatures would be kept well below boiling which would have less of an effect on the surrounding rock, reducing the complexities scientists face in predicting the future performance of the repository. Lower temperatures may also reduce the rate of canister corrosion.

In this report, DOE chose to focus on the higher-temperature operating mode in more detail. The lower- temperature option is presented as a feasible variation in thermal management strategy. The potential impacts from this new flexible design scenario are evaluated in the recently published Supplement to the Yucca Mountain Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The supplement to the Draft EIS was also released in May of this year.

The Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report also details the results of studies on water flow. Issues involving how water flows through the repository are significant given the many cracks and fractures found in Yucca Mountain. If water enters the repository, it could corrode the waste containers and carry radiation into the surrounding environment. However, in the report DOE concludes that heat from the waste will drive water away from the metallic waste packages. With the addition of titanium drip shields, an extra barrier designed to further limit water contact, the waste packages are expected to remain intact during the “compliance” period of 10,000 years. It should be noted that while adding hundreds of titanium shields would increase development costs by billions of dollars, the waste packages will still eventually be breached, releasing radioactivity to the biosphere.

The danger posed by potential earthquakes and volcanic activity has also been studied. The chances of a volcanic eruption occurring within the 10,000-year time frame have been estimated at one in 6,250. Seismic activity is much more likely to take place, but according to DOE scientists, earthquakes tend to affect underground structures much less severely than those above ground. Extensive analysis of possible repository failure has led DOE to conclude that “no potentially disruptive processes or events are likely to compromise the repository’s performance.” However, DOE also concedes that “. . . uncertainties will always remain because of the long time frames over which the performance of a repository must be assessed, the natural variability in features and processes at the site, and limitations on the amount of data that can be collected.”

According to the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Secretary of Energy must have a comprehensive scientific statement to use as the basis for any site recommendation. In part, the Secretary will use the information contained in this report to help determine whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to the President as a suitable site for a permanent repository. The site recommendation report is due before the end of the year.

If both the Secretary of Energy and the President find the Yucca Mountain site suitable for a repository, the State of Nevada can file a protest. However, the state’s veto can be overridden if both the House and Senate pass resolutions approving the site. If ultimate approval is obtained, the repository could start receiving waste as early as 2010.

Click here to view a graphic of the waste package and drip shield

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett01.htm (6 of 7) [3/28/02 2:21:31 PM] Summer 2001 Newsletter - County officials tour Yucca Mountain and more

County Assesses Transportation Impacts

The county is currently preparing an Impact Assessment Report to identify and quantify the potential impacts of nuclear waste transportation in Eureka County. The county plans to submit the report to the State of Nevada for inclusion with its Impact Report and to the Secretary of Energy for his consideration. The report also will provide present and future county commissioners with basic information on how the construction of a rail line in Crescent Valley could affect areas such as grazing, wildlife, flood control, and the county’s economy.

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett01.htm (7 of 7) [3/28/02 2:21:31 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

"Operation Ranger” began the first atmospheric atomic testing, January 27, 1951 at the Nevada Test Site, which was secretly placed within the Tonopah Bombing and Gunnery Range. Although “Operation Ranger” officially ended ten days later the fallout from atmospheric testing, personal and political, is still being felt in 2001, the fiftieth anniversary.

At the beginning of my research, I was interested in nuclear energy, then I realized it would be fascinating to study the local history of atmospheric testing in Nevada, since what people who were there said seemed the opposite of what I read in Government publications from that time.

The first nuclear testing took place at the missile range outside Alamogordo, New Mexico, an air base 120 miles south of Albuquerque at 5:30 a.m. on July 16, 1945. In that same year, Leo Szilard and 68 other scientists working in Chicago issued “The Franck Report.” This petition, sent to President Truman, stated that the first Atomic Bomb to attack Japan should not be used but, might best serve as a demonstration to show the power of this new weapon. These scientists had witnessed the mass destruction it caused and felt it would be inhumane to use it against the Japanese, no matter how savage and ruthless they were felt to be, they were still human. If that failed, and Japan still didn’t surrender, the second bomb would be used to counterattack. The decision was left to the Commander-in-Chief. As we know today, this petition was ignored.

The Atomic Bomb, created by fission, where uranium (isotope U-238, isotope U-235) or plutonium (isotope Pu- 239), the main ingredients, explode spontaneously if a specific amount of material (critical mass) was assembled. Fission is a nuclear reaction in which an atomic nucleus splits into fragments (usually two of comparable mass) with the evolution of approximately 100 million to several 100 million volts of energy, expelled explosively and violently. (Dyson, J.D) Following the Manhattan Project, the Atomic Energy Commission sought a test site on the mainland to serve as “A location where its basic security and general accessibility cannot be jeopardized by enemy action.” (United States. AEC Memo 141/7 p. 2) While it seemed to the AEC that Southern Nevada was almost ideal for atmospheric testing, the people living in this sparsely populated area were to pay the highest price of everyone, even to the point of death because they felt, as their ancestors preceding them, it was indeed an ideal place to live and raise their children. These “downwinders,” as they later became known, were in the way even though generations of families lived before them on this desert land. Their life and livelihood was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the 1950s, when the tests began, very few Americans knew the dangers and health risks related to atomic fallout. The entire program was cast in a very patriotic light by official releases circulated by the press. For the few people that feared the sometimes fatal effects from radiation, the Government continually announced assurances to downwind residents: “There is no danger.”

Soon after the tests began, rural residents noticed wildlife, such as deer and birds, thinned from large rangelands regularly dusted with fallout from the upwind Nevada Test Site. Mrs. Mary Jean Etchegaray recalled men going riding and coming back with their faces hurting like they had severe sunburn, following a blast. (Interview with Mary Jean Etchegaray, March 14, 2001) William Marshall remembered cattle coming into Alamo with spots of hair turned white from fallout exposure. (Interview with William Marshall, February 18, 2001) Pietrina Etchegaray http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (1 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

said, “We were 180 miles away. It was like an earthquake. Our cow’s milk was tested for radiation.” (Interview with Pietrina Etchegaray, March 10, 2001)

After thousands of sheep died immediately after a radiation cloud passed over them, some southern Utah ranchers brought unsuccessful suits against the federal government in 1955. The government response in court was that “a combination of factors including malnutrition, poor management, and adverse weather conditions” led to the animals’ death. (Killing Our Own [36]) Internal memos to the contrary from AEC researchers were suppressed. Sworn statements by sheepherders, testifying such epidemics among their herds of livestock had never happened until the fallout clouds went over them, were discounted and the ranchers were ridiculed by government officials. Many of the communities in Southern Utah constantly dusted with fallout were predominantly Mormon. They didn’t drink or smoke, as their religion commanded, so cancer was not prevalent. However, in 1956 and 1957, many people were diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, other types of cancer or acute thyroid damage. Prior to this, cancer was rare. By 1960, there was an epidemic. (Killing our Own)

Booth Bailey

I was fortunately able to interview several people who were first hand witnesses to some of the Nevada Test Blasts. My great Uncle Booth, whom the army assigned to the Nevada Test Site at that time, was one of the soldiers placed at ground zero. He told me that for a surface detonation, trenches were dug with a backhoe about 2400 yards from ground zero. There were more than two hundred men in a trench, all of them standing up. The bomb went off and he said that it was beyond his capability to describe the force of the air. Immediately following the explosion, the trench caved in. To quote him, “It buried me up to my shoulders. I eventually got my arms free and I only had my helmet to dig myself out.” About thirty to forty other men were buried just like him. Through all this, they were told that there was no danger, but after witnessing each blast, they were made to take off everything they were wearing, including shoes and even helmets. They then had to take a shower and put on new clothes and shoes. This was a daily happening. The Pentagon had appealed to the AEC to allow troops to be stationed closer to ground zero than the previous policy prohibiting anyone to be within six miles of the blast. Shields Warren, Director of Biology and Medicine for AEC, strongly opposed this, however, in the end, the AEC yielded to the pressure and abdicated all safety and health responsibilities to the Pentagon who “accepted full responsibility for the safety of all participating troop units and troop observers.” The amount of radiation to which soldiers were exposed was doubled from 3 to 6 rems while AEC standards for civilian workers remained at 3.9. (Titus p. 62)

One of Booth’s worst memories was at Camp Desert Rock (later known as Camp Mercury) when they tried an experiment on farm animals. He recalled that for one particular nuclear detonation, the military decided to test various animals to see how they would fare from a nuclear blast. The distances of the animals varied from three quarters of a mile to two miles from ground zero. The results were a complete disaster. No animals survived. There were such severe burns from the heat that the sheep’s wool was on fire and the cattle’s hide was burned off their backs. They never tried this again. This proved the military knew what would happen to rancher’s animals exposed to the fallout, as was revealed in the atomic compensation hearings, which began in January of 1978. “Documentation from the files of AEC veterinarians investigating sheep deaths in 1953 revealed not only disregarded data linking the losses to radioactive fallout but also fabricated agreements between AEC and various health officials discounting radiation as the cause of death.” (Titus, p. 132-133)

One interesting point in this interview was that Dr. Robert J. Oppenheimer, the “Father” of the Atomic Bomb, spoke daily to my great uncle. Oppenheimer talked to him about what would be required for the next test blast. They received daily and/or weekly assignments for upcoming tests.

About three to four months before his discharge, Booth was elevated to drive the camp water truck from Camp Desert Rock to Indian Springs, a town nearby; it took 14 to 15 hours a day. He hauled all the camp’s water http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (2 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

because they could not drink contaminated ground water. “ It was not a very exciting job,’ he was telling me, ‘but a job I enjoyed.” Booth believes he was chosen because of the tremendous amount of radiation he received. The amount was recorded on a badge he was required to wear. His level was too high. (Interview with Booth Bailey, March 1, 2001)

Jerry Etcheverry

My great Uncle Jerry Etcheverry was also a witness in a different capacity. In 1951 he was 18 years old and on the desert herding sheep with his father, my great grandfather. Their camp was about 50 miles northwest of the test site on Highway 6 between Rattlesnake and Warm Springs. Not being told the government was going to test, the first detonation scared him badly. To quote him, “The bomb rocked the earth and lit up the entire sky.” He said he thought it was the end of the world. During the interview, he also told me that they knew testing was going to take place when about three days before a test, people would drive up and down the roads to different stations to monitor the winds with balloons. They also watched the weather very carefully; we now know from declassified documents that the military wanted the radioactive fallout to move away from Las Vegas and Southern California. If everything appeared to be satisfactory then the test would go forward on schedule. Even if asked these men wouldn’t tell him anything at all. That is how secretive the government was. (Interview with Jerry Etcheverry, January 9, 2001)

Helen Uhalde

My interview with Mrs. Helen Uhalde was from a very different point of view. She lived on a ranch downwind from the tests, so the fallout clouds passed over them every time there was a test. She told me a doctor would come around and tell her he wouldn’t live there, it was in a bad spot. He also told her that it was better not to have a garden because the food grown would be contaminated. Her kids wore badges that read the amount of radiation they received from the fallout. Weekly, scientists would come and test their water, also going in the house, from up in the attic clear down to the basement with Geiger counters to test the radiation. Luckily, they were never evacuated.

Behind the ranch house, there was an old Witte generator that provided electricity. She was paid by the Government to change the air filters often. One point of interest was what the fallout looked like when it came over their ranch. She said it looked like a light snow once, that the particles were as big as snowflakes. They were often told their Geiger counter read so high because it was much finer tuned than the ones the scientists used, and it was no good. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission’s 1957 book, Atomic Tests in Nevada, said, “Reports about Geiger counters…going crazy…many people worry unnecessarily. Don’t let them bother you.” (United States. Atomic Energy Commission)

Locally, there were quite a few people that got sick. Butchie Bardoli, a neighbor boy that lived on a ranch down the road died from leukemia. He was only eight or nine years old. Many people died of or had some form of cancer. A neighboring lady by the name of Mrs. Sharp lost all her hair and had to wear a wig. Mrs. Uhalde’s own children were affected. Her daughter had a brain tumor. It was so unique that after it was taken out, it was sent back east to the advanced physicians so they could study it. Her son had bladder cancer. This family was lucky. Nobody died and the only livestock affected were the cows and calves in the meadow beyond the house that received bad radiation burns on their backs. (Interview with Helen Uhalde, March 1, 2001)

At this time, AEC printed and distributed throughout Nevada, a booklet entitled Atomic Tests in Nevada. The text read, in part, “The effects of a detonation include flash, blast, and radioactive fallout. Your potential exposure to these effects will be low… Every test detonation in Nevada is carefully evaluated as to your safety… Every phase of the operation is likewise studied from the safety viewpoint.” (Titus p. 81) Perhaps Mrs. Uhalde’s definition of safety wouldn’t have agreed with the AEC considering the price her family paid.

The first atmospheric test detonated at the Nevada Test Site, named Able, took place January 27, 1951. Atmospheric testing did not end until July 1962, when the United States signed a treaty with Moscow stating that it would limit further testing to underground. One hundred atmospheric tests had been conducted within those eleven years. So far, 804 total tests have been conducted. (United States. Department of Energy, The Nevada http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (3 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

Test Site.)

Conclusion

I learned that atmospheric testing affected many people in many ways. Since then it has been proven that many people exposed to fallout have gotten different forms of cancer, thousands of sheep died and cattle got radiation burns, and even though all this was obviously caused by radioactive fallout, the Government for many years denied all responsibility for deaths and injuries to animals and humans alike. However, on July 14, 1981, Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah, while introducing the radiation compensation bill, S. 1483, stated; “A great wrong was committed by the federal government in exposing thousands of Americans to radioactive fallout while simultaneously conducting a massive campaign to assure the public that no danger existed… There are now many innocent suffering victims of the mistakes made by Government officials over two decades ago… We must make sure that it does not happen again.” (Titus p. 137) As of March 2001, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program has approved 5,301 downwinders and on site claims for a total of $100,557,807 in compensation. Finally, the Government is beginning to take responsibility and become accountable to those that suffered the consequences of atmospheric testing.

A Frontier in History was discovered when the energy formerly locked within the core of the atom became available to mankind, offering great promise for the use of this energy. However, the possibility for mass destruction was underestimated and little understood. The words “atomic energy” and “radioactivity” assumed new significance in the affairs of men. The AEC and the military used this time to move the Atomic Age from theory to reality. With the reality came a nuclear arms race with Russia, the missile age, and the development of nuclear medicine. Without the discovery of the Atomic Age, we would not be as advanced in these technologies as we are today.

Radiation is still an issue for Nevada today as our state is being looked at as a nuclear repository site for the country’s nuclear wastes. During my interview with State Senator and author of Bombs in the Backyard, A. Costandina Titus, she stated she was very skeptical of the Department of Energy’s public comments regarding the safety of nuclear waste. (Interview with Senator A. Costandina Titus, March 15, 2001) Nevada knows firsthand that we don’t want to be a recipient because we learned early on about the devastating effects of atomic and nuclear testing. We understand the effects to groundwater, soil, livestock, air, and humans, and we are wary when the government tells us that nuclear waste will be safe at the NTS, with no danger to people, animals, or the environment. It has all been said before.

Julie Etchegaray is a 9th grader at Eureka County High School. She won the Nevada History Day competition with this essay and went to Washington D.C. in June to represent Nevada in the National History Day competition.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Bailey, Booth, interviewed by Julie Etchegaray, March 1, 2001.

Booth Bailey, my Great Uncle, told me about what it was like to be a soldier placed at ground zero at the time of the atmospheric testing.

Etchegaray, Mary Jean, interviewed by Julie Etchegaray, March 14, 2001.

Mrs. Etchegaray, my Grandmother, shared what she remembered living on a ranch out of Eureka, NV.

Etchegaray, Pietrina Damele, interviewed by Julie Etchegaray, March 10, 2001.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (4 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

I learned, from this interview, what it was like on a ranch that was about 150 to 200 miles away from the testing site. Mrs. Pietrina Etchegaray is my Great Grandmother.

Etcheverry, Jerry, interviewed by Julie Etchegaray, January 9, 2001.

This interview told me about what it was like to be herding sheep at that time in history. Mr. Etcheverry is my Great Uncle.

Marshall, William C, interviewed by Julie Etchegaray, February 18, 2001.

Owned and was living at the Siri Ranch, Eureka County, NV at the time. He talked about the children at the ranch school having to wear radiation detection buttons and about cattle out of Alamo, NV, coming into the ranch with white spots on their backs. William C. Marshall is my Grandfather.

Titus, Senator A. Costandina, interviewed by Julie Etchegaray, March 15, 2001.

Senator Titus is the author of Bombs in the Backyard and is an associate professor of political science at the University of Las Vegas in Nevada. She told me about why she decided to write this book, and how she currently is involved with the nuclear issue.

Uhalde, Gracian N, interviewed by Julie Etchegaray, February 22, 2001.

Mr. Uhalde had first hand knowledge of the affects of radioactive fallout on wildlife and livestock as he lives on a down wind ranch. He is also a "downwinder" cancer survivor.

Uhalde, Helen, interviewed by Julie Etchegaray, March 1, 2001

Mrs. Uhalde told me about what it was like to live on a down wind ranch at the time of the first atmospheric testing in Nevada.

Secondary Sources

American Chemical Society. Chemical and Engineering News. http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/950717/art02.html.

Chemists recall their work on the Manhattan Project, the first atomic bomb test, and the ethics of using the bomb against Japan.

"Atomic Energy." Encyclopedia Britannica. 1970 ed.

A defined Atomic Energy in depth, subcategories were the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb.

"Compensation Bill OK'd." http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2000/oct/13/510900712.html.

Article on Senate Bill providing compensation to former nuclear bomb builders and testers exposed to radiation.

"Damage Due to the Atomic Bomb." http://hiroshima.tomato.nu/English/park_ma/morgue_w14.html.

Graphic descriptions were shown on this site of damage to humans and structures.

Dyson, J.D. "Documentation and Diagrams of the Atomic Bomb." Out Law Labs. http://serendipity.magnet.ch/more/atomic.html.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (5 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

The information contained in this document began with the history of the Atomic Bomb including development (The Manhattan Project), detonation (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, by products of Atomic detonation, break down at the Atomic blast zone), nuclear fission and nuclear fusion explanations. The mechanism of the bomb: altimeter, air pressure detonator, detonating heads, conventional explosive charges, neutron deflector, uranium and plutonium lead shield, and fuses. Diagrams of both the uranium and plutonium bombs.

Eckles, Jim. Building the Bomb. http://www.dtic.mil/soldiers/july95/p29.html.

This following information was available at this site: the goal of the Manhattan Project, the lead scientist's name: Dr. Robert J. Oppenheimer, a simple explanation of an atomic explosion, explanation of the simulated atomic blast on May 7, 1945 using TNT, simple explanation of the first atomic test on July 16, 1945 at 5:29:45 mountain war time, first hand description by Hans Berthe, a contributing scientist of the blast, the fact that the army kept the test a secret by announcing that an ammunition dump had exploded, the true story was released August 6, 1945 and today the test blast crater no longer exists but is marked by a lava Obelisk.

"Globe-How the Bomb Works." http://wso.williams.edu/~globe/buildbom.htm.

This site provides a simplified scientific explanation of the atomic fission bomb, with clear illustration of the kind of uranium bomb used on Hiroshima.

"Hiroshima." Encyclopedia Britannica. 1970 ed.

An overview of Hiroshima, Japan.

"Killing Our Own." http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/k003.html.

Compilations of first person accounts of radiation effects on people witnessing atomic tests and living within the fallout zone. Also a history of the Government's (Atomic Energy Commission) public relations claims that neither the detonations nor the fallout were harmful.

Kroff, Sarge A. "The Geiger-Mueller Counter." The Book of Popular Science. Volume 9. New York: Grolier Incorporated. 1963.

An explanation of the Geiger-Mueller counter, better know as the Geiger counter.

Lapp, Ralph E. "Perils of the Atomic Age." The Book of Popular Science. Volume 9. New York: Grolier Incorporated. 1963.

Simplified explanation of atomic energy and radioactivity, also a simplified explanation of an atomic blast and its perils.

McCracken, Robert D. A History of Beatty Nevada. Tonopah, Nevada: Nye County Press. 1992.

A part of the Nye county town history project. Beatty came to life again with the atomic testing work at the Nevada Test Site.

"Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945." http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html.

A summary of the Target Committee on May 10 and 11, 1945 with a listing of scientists present.

"Nagasaki." Encyclopedia Britannica. 1970 ed.

An overview of Nagasaki, Japan. http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (6 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

"Nevada Test Site." http://oz.net/~Chrisp/nts.htm.

Contains public tour dates and times for the Nevada Test Site.

"Nevada Test Site." Area 51 Research Center. http://www.ufomind.com/area51/orgs/nts/.

A general description of the Nevada Test Site with an extensive listing of external links regarding the Nevada Test Site.

"Nuclear Engineering." Encyclopedia Britannica. 1970 ed.

In depth description of nuclear engineering. Explanation of special techniques developed to solve unique problems encountered in dealing with nuclear fission.

"Orrin Hatch, United Stated Senator for Utah." www.senate.gov/~hatch/press266.html.

A press release on Senator Orrin Hatch introducing two bills that will fully fund the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Trust Fund for Fiscal year 2001 and beyond.

"The Franck Report." http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Franck.shtml.

This web site gave me information on the Franck Report, a petition signed by 68 members of the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago.

Titus, A. Costandina. Bombs In The Backyard. Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press. 1986.

Examines the history and politics of our countries atmospheric atomic testing and the ongoing questions of government liability for alleged victims of that practice.

Truman, Harry S. Diary. July 25, 1945. http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html.

Quotes from President Harry S. Truman's private diary regarding Truman's apparent belief that he had dropped the bomb of a "Purely military" target.

United States. Atomic Energy Commission. Atomic Tests in Nevada. 1957.

Public Relations publication developed to alleviate fears of Nevada residents relating to atmospheric atomic testing.

United States. Atomic Energy Commission. Location of Proving Ground for Atomic Weapons. AEC Memo 141/7. 13 Dec. 1950.

Memo from AEC's director of military application outlining logistical requirements for a mainland site for nuclear testing.

United States. Department of Energy. Device Assemble Facility, Nevada Test Site. U.S. Department of Energy. March 2000.

Publication touting safety and security of conducting nuclear explosive tests at NTS.

United States. Department of Energy. Guide to Frenchman Flat. U.S. Department of Energy. August 1999.

This was published for the employees of the U.S. Department of Energy's Nevada Operations Office, it's http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (7 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

contractors and members of the public. This publication contained maps, timelines of nuclear tests, and pictures of specific sites within NTS.

United States. Department of Energy. Guide to Frenchman and Yucca Flats. U.S. Department of Energy. no date provided.

History of tests and facilities on Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat as well as data and facts regarding drilling, craters, preparation to conduct a test, balloon shots, and test area names and numbers.

United States. Department of Energy. The Nevada Test Site. U.S. Department of Energy. January 2001.

This was an overview of the Nevada Test Site.

United States. Department of Energy. U1a Complex Subcritical Experiments, Nevada Test Site. January 2001.

Introduction of an underground laboratory of horizontal tunnels accessible by a vertical shaft. A nuclear test was conducted in a horizontal tunnel attached in 1990.

U.S. News and World Report. 15 Aug, 1960. "Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand." http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html.

An authorized web-reprint of the full text of "President Truman Did Not Understand."

United States. 97th Congress. 1 April, 1982: H.R. 6052 Atomic Bomb Fallout Compensation Act of 1982.

A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide a remedy against the United States for damages to certain individuals resulting from nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site, and for other purposes. Introduced by Representative Marriott, 04/01/82.

United States. 97th Congress. 15 July, 1981: S. 1483 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1981.

Introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch, 7/15/1981, a bill to amend title 28, of the United States code to make the United States liable for damages to certain individuals, to certain uranium miners, and to certain sheep herds, due to certain nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site or employment in a uranium mine for other purposes.

United States. 101st Congress. 19 April, 1990: National Atmospheric Nuclear Testing Compensation Act of 1990.

Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish the National Atmospheric Nuclear Testing Compensation Program to pay for injuries or death from radiation from nuclear testing and uranium mining. Introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch 4/19/1990.

United States. 101st Congress. 19 April, 1989: S. 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

Establishes in the Treasury the Atmospheric Nuclear Testing Compensation Trust Fund for claims for injuries and death due to exposure to radiation from nuclear testing and uranium mining in specified States. RECA was introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch 04/19/89.

United States. 106th Congress. 5 August, 1999: S. 1515.

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 - Amends the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to revise eligibility requirements for claims relating to: (1) atmospheric nuclear testing and leukemia; (2) uranium mining as it pertains to individuals employed in the transport of uranium ore or vanadium-uranium ore and additional designated eligible State sites; (3) written documentation of pertinent diagnoses; (4) determination and payment of claims; (5) application of Native American law and Native American considerations to claims; and (6) resubmittal of previously denied claims. Sponsored by http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (8 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Summer 2001 - Newsletter -- The Atomic Frontier: Atmospheric Testing in Nevada, The Two Sides By Julie Etchegaray

Senator Orrin Hatch, 8/05/1999, became Public Law No: 106-245 on 7/10/2000.

United States. 107th Congress. 1 March, 2001: S. 448. Paul Hicks Memorial Act.

To provide permanent appropriations to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund to make payments under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Introduced by Senator Domenici (for himself and Senator Hatch) March 1,2001.

United States. 107th Congress. 20 March, 2001: H.R. 1131. Paul Hicks Memorial Act.

To provide permanent appropriations to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund to make payments under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Introduced by Represenetive Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. Matheson) March 20,2001.

United States. 107th Congress. 1 March, 2001: S. 449. Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi.

To ensure the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Introduced by Senator Domenici (for himself and Senator Hatch) March 1st, 2001.

United States. 107th Congress. 13 March, 2001: H.R. 996. Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi.

To ensure the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Introduced by Representative McInnis March 13, 2001.

United States. 107th Congress. 20 March, 2001: H.R. 1132. Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi.

To ensure the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Introduced by Representative Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. Matheson) March 20,2001.

Last Updated 08/2001

http://www.yuccamountain.org/julie.htm (9 of 9) [3/28/02 2:22:26 PM] Winter 2001 Newsletter - DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Report and more

Winter 2001

In This Issue ● DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Report

● County officials to tour Yucca Mountain

● NRC May Hold Informal Hearings on Yucca Mountain Repository

● County Oversees Yucca Mountain Activities in 2001

● Scientists Discover New Material that Safely Contains Radiation

● Calendar

● New Nuclear News Yucca Mountain Project Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy EPA Radiation Rule Transportation Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects Radiation Compensation Goshute Private Spent Fuel Storage International Transmutation

DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Consideration Report

After years of study, the Department of Energy (DOE) is nearing the point where it must determine whether Yucca Mountain is suitable for the construction and operation of a permanent nuclear waste repository. One of the final steps in DOE’s evaluation of the suitability of Yucca Mountain is the Site Recommendation Consideration Report (SRCR). The document is not required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but DOE has proposed it as a “draft” of the anticipated Site Recommendation. The SRCR will include descriptions of the proposed repository and waste packaging, site characterization data and repository performance analysis.

Its December, 2000, release date was postponed because of an Inspector General’s investigation of possible contractor bias in the preparation of the report.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet11.htm (1 of 6) [3/28/02 2:23:54 PM] Winter 2001 Newsletter - DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Report and more

The SRCR along with the final Environmental Impact Nuclear Waste Update Statement (EIS) will provide the technical basis for the Eureka County Nuclear Waste Repository Program Secretary of Energy’s decision on whether or not to officially The Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update is recommend the site to the president. According to DOE’s Office published by the Eureka County Yucca Mountain of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the key issue to be Information Office, P.O. Box 714, Eureka, NV addressed in the SRCR is whether a repository would present 89316, (775) 237-5372. The purpose of the Update “any unreasonable long-term risk to the public after permanent is to provide information to the public about issues closure.” related to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

DOE is expected to hold “consideration hearings” near the The newsletter is funded by a grant to Eureka Yucca Mountain site after the release of the SRCR, but dates County from the U.S. Department of Energy. and locations have not been set.? Articles in this newsletter may not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of the Eureka County Board of Commissioners.

Newsletter Staff: Abby Johnson: Editor and Layout Sarah Walker: Technical Writing and Layout

County officials to tour Yucca Mountain County commissioners, members of the Planning Commission, Public Lands Commission, and Crescent Valley Town Board will tour Yucca Mountain on April 30. The tour will involve an on-site visit to the tunnels at Yucca Mountain, and tests being conducted there. The county has invited a representative of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office to provide the state’s perspective on the tour.?

NRC May Hold Informal Hearings on Yucca Mountain Repository

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed to Congress the option of holding informal rather than formal hearings on future licensing proceedings. If approved, the proposal could affect the hearings on the Yucca Mountain site, which may be under review for an NRC license as early as next year.

An informal hearing means that there is no admittance of evidence, due process, or other procedures normally used in regulatory hearings. In the past, the law required all NRC licensing hearings to be formal.

The proposal has drawn criticism from Nevada officials and those opposed to a repository at Yucca Mountain, the only site currently under study for permanent geologic disposal of the country’s nuclear waste. They are not convinced that an informal hearing process would provide an adequate and official forum to express doubts and concerns about a facility that could have a direct impact on so many lives.

It is unknown when NRC will decide whether to keep the formal hearing process for Yucca Mountain licensing ?

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet11.htm (2 of 6) [3/28/02 2:23:54 PM] Winter 2001 Newsletter - DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Report and more

County Oversees Yucca Mountain Activities in 2001

The main focus of Eureka County’s nuclear waste oversight program this year is the preparation of an Impact Assessment Report to identify and quantify potential impacts to the county of the construction of a rail line from Beowawe south through Crescent Valley to transport nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. The Report will be submitted to the Secretary of Energy and to the state of Nevada for its Impact Report to DOE.

The “Carlin” route is one of five rail routes being considered by DOE which has not decided on whether rail or truck will be the predominant mode of transportation, and has not selected routes.

The county also continues to participate in meetings of DOE and other agencies such as NRC and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. This website (www.yuccamountain.or)is attracting about 40,000 “hits” per month. If you have questions about Eureka County’s nuclear waste program, call the public works office at 775/237-5372.

Scientists Discover New Material that Safely Contains Radiation

An international team of scientists has discovered a new crystalline material that could contain nuclear waste for thousands of years without leaking deadly radiation. Researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Osaka University in Japan, and London's Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine say that this new special blend of ceramics can withstand pounding radiation and might provide a safer grave for high-level nuclear waste.

Spent nuclear fuel is currently stored in containers made of glass-like chemicals that may only last 100 years. Because of the relatively short life-span of these containers, scientists are considering permanent burial in a geologic repository, such as the one proposed for Yucca Mountain, as a means of containing the waste once the canisters fail. However, if this team of researchers can confirm its findings, radioactive materials could be contained above-ground for much longer — making the need for a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain much less urgent.

The new material, which has sapphire-like properties, results when fluorite is blended with other ceramic materials. According to scientists, the material’s crystal lattice grabs and traps radioactivity, resisting the damage that usually occurs from long-term exposure to high levels of radiation. The research results were published in the August 4, 2000 edition of the journal Science.?

Calendar

Eureka County Board of Commissioners — meets 6th and 20th of every month (unless these dates fall on weekends)

Crescent Valley Town Advisory Board — meets on the 12th and 26th of every month (unless these dates fall on weekends)

April 30 - Eureka County public official tour of Yucca Mountain

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet11.htm (3 of 6) [3/28/02 2:23:54 PM] Winter 2001 Newsletter - DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Report and more

May 22 and 23 (tentative) — Nuclear Regulatory Commission public meeting on licensing hearing process, locations TBA, Las Vegas and Nye Co. Information: 775/237-5372

September 11-12 — Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Meeting, Las Vegas. Information: 703/235-4473. Web address: http://www.nwtrb.gov

New Nuclear News Editor’s note: Since the Summer 2000 issue, the nuclear waste issue has continued to make news. Here is a summary of some of the developments that have happened.

Yucca Mountain Project . . . TRW has been replaced as the management and operations contractor for the Yucca Mountain project by Bechtel Corp. which has partnered with SAIC to manage the Yucca Mountain project for DOE, and has a five year $3.1 billion renewable contract. (LV Business Press 2/12/01)

Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy . . . President George W. Bush appointed former U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mich) to be Secretary of Energy. At his confirmation hearing he said that Yucca Mountain “has to move forward.” (Las Vegas Sun 1/18/01) “My commitment is to make progress on the nuclear waste program while ensuring sound science governs decision on site recommendations.” (Las Vegas Review Journal 1/19/01)

EPA Radiation Rule . . . During the final days of the Clinton administration, EPA released its rule on radiation limits for Yucca Mountain. However, the rule is being rereviewed by the Bush administration and the Office of Management and Budget.

The EPA is proposing a 15 millirem annual release of radiation each year for 10,000 years. 4 millirems could be released into groundwater, consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA’s standard is more stringent than that proposed by the NRC, which would allow 25 millirems per year to escape from the repository with no separate standard for groundwater. (LV Sun 1/22/01) . . . Nevada’s senators, governor, and environmental and consumer groups urged President Bush to keep stricter limits on radiation releases at the proposed nuclear waste repository.

They want the President to require that ground water be measured for contamination at the repository, not 12 or 20 miles away. They also want Bush to maintain the stricter groundwater standard. (LV Sun 2/15/01). . . The National Academy of Sciences Board of Radioactive Waste Management stated that the EPA has made what appear to be “several arbitrary modifications” in applying safe drinking water regulations to the Yucca Mountain proposed repository. The board is concerned that a 10,000 year compliance period proposed by EPA would not adequately protect the public. (NCSL RW News 1/2001).

Transportation. . . Shipments of nuclear waste to the proposed repository could cause 400 people to die of cancer nationwide over 34 years because of exposure to radiation, according to the state of Nevada’s transportation expert Bob Halstead. DOE estimates 31 people would die of cancer during the 34 year shipping campaign. While DOE estimates cleanup costs from a nuclear waste accident involving trucks or trains would cost $10-20 billion, Halstead pegs a highway accident at $20-50 billion to clean up, with rail costing between $63 and $108 billion. (LV Sun 9/12/00)

Regional . . . Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects wrote a letter to Elko County stating that, “Selection of the Beowawe alterative would have significant implications for Elko County and the cities of West Wendover, Wells, Carlin and Elko. Almost all of the waste destined for Yucca mountain would come into http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet11.htm (4 of 6) [3/28/02 2:23:54 PM] Winter 2001 Newsletter - DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Report and more Nevada on the Union Pacific mainline and pass through Elko County en route to the proposed rail spur.” (Ely Times 11/2/00). . . Wells City Council heard from Joe Strolin and Bob Halstead from the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects regarding proposed spent fuel transportation through northeastern Nevada. The duo disagreed on when transportation might start. Strolin guessed between 2010 and 2020, while Halstead believes that nuclear waste could be moving to Yucca Mountain within 5 years.

(Elko Daily Free Press 1/10/01) Strolin and Halstead briefed the Elko County Commissioners on January 25 . . . The City of Las Vegas is now a nuclear-free zone, at least symbolically. The city council passed a resolution on September 7, 2000 (LV Sun 9/8/01). On February 8, the Las Vegas City Council unanimously authorized filing a lawsuit to stop the transport of high-level nuclear waste through Las Vegas. No schedule was disclosed for when the suit would be filed. (Las Vegas Sun 2/8/01)

Radiation Compensation . . . DOE has examined 60 years of records to find all facilities that used radioactive materials, as a first step to compensating workers at nuclear weapons facilities. At a January 2001 news conference, then Energy Secretary Richardson said, “The burden of proof is on the government, not the worker. We will be open and candid this time, not like in the past.” DOE has found 317 sites that employed 600,000 persons in 37 states. Most were private companies that did work for the government. The list can be found on the DOE website . . . . In Nevada, the list includes the Nevada Test Site, Project Faultless Nuclear Explosion Site, Central Nevada Test Site, Project Shoal Nuclear Explosion Site near Fallon, and the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project.

The inclusion on Yucca Mountain was a surprise, since there is no radioactive contamination at the mountain, according to local DOE officials. Workers can call DOE toll free: 877/447-9756. Access the Energy Employees Occupational Initiative at (Nevada Appeal 1/13/01) . . . . Under a bill approved by Congress, some DOE workers who developed cancer after radiation exposure, as well as those with lung disease from beryllium or silica, can receive government-paid medical care plus $150,000. New legislation proposed this year would give workers a choice between the lump sum payment and compensation for lost wages. ( NV Appeal 1/13/01)

Goshute Private Spent Fuel Storage. . . . NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report on the application of Private Fuel Storage, LLC to build an above-ground spent fuel storage facility on the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes reservation near Toole, Utah, determined the facility would be safe and meet regulatory requirements (Nuclear Waste News 10/12/00)

The NRC ruled in early October that the interim storage facility will meet all safety standards during normal, unusual and accident conditions. Storage casks used would be invulnerable to floods, fires, lightening, earthquakes and tornadoes, and will withstand explosions, aircraft crashes, and impacts from cruise missiles gone astray, according to NRC. (NCSL Radioactive Waste News 1/01)

The 200-page SER is available on the NRC web page at www.nrc.gov . . . . DOE officials have indicated that they are willing to discuss an agreement with Private Fuel Storage under which DOE would cover the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel at the temporary storage facility on the Skull Valley storage site. DOE would consider a settlement agreement with any company that incurred costs resulting from DOE’s failure to accept spent fuel for permanent disposal by January 1998 as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act regardless of whether storage is on or off site. (NCSL RW News 1/01)

The NRC was expected to issue the Final EIS on the PFS project in February, with a final agency decision expected in November 2001, despite opposition from Utah’s governor and U.S. Senators . . . Federal Surface Transportation Board has given preliminary approval for a 32 mile rail line that could transport 40,000 metric tons of spend nuclear fuel to the PFS facility in Skull Valley. The Great Salt Lake and Southern Railroad Co. estimates the rail line would cost $20-41 million, including a “run-around” track for locomotives to turn around. http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet11.htm (5 of 6) [3/28/02 2:23:54 PM] Winter 2001 Newsletter - DOE Delays Release of Site Recommendation Report and more

The railroad’s application states that the storage facility is “urgently” needed. (Utah Deseret News 2/21/01)

International . . . Russia’s lower house of parliament has approved a proposal to bring spent nuclear fuel to Russia. The estimated revenue of $20 billion over 10 years could be used to clean up radiation spills in Russia, proponents argued. The proposal must pass both houses and be signed by the President of Russia. Opponents argue that countries should handle their own wastes. The proposal if approved would allow Russia to import up to 21,000 tons of nuclear waste for reprocessing. (LV Sun and LV R-J 12/21/00)

Transmutation . . . Los Alamos National Lab in NM has begun a $34 million research project to develop transmutation which would take spent fuel and make it less radioactive. The process would yield a small quantity of high level nuclear waste and a large amount of low-level waste, which could be disposed of in landfills. The goal of the technology is to use up the plutonium, and leave waste with a 300-year half-life. (LV R-J 1/19/01)

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet11.htm (6 of 6) [3/28/02 2:23:54 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter - DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines and more

DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines

The Department of Energy is proposing a revision in the rules under which a permanent geologic repository for high level nuclear waste, namely Yucca Mountain, would be considered suitable. In order to "align the suitability guidelines with the latest science and scientific analytical techniques for assessing repository performance," DOE is proposing revised Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Guidelines, 10 CFR 963.

Among other issues, DOE's proposed rule making (10 CFR 963) would alter the criteria for determining whether a potential repository is likely to meet the radiation standards both before and after closure. These standards would be set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and subsequently adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). DOE says that the proposed revision is necessary in order to remain consistent with the regulations proposed by these two agencies.

However, critics of the proposed repository hold that the new guidelines will make it possible for DOE to declare Yucca Mountain suitable for a permanent geologic repository when it may actually be unsafe. The original guidelines weighed several factors separately such as the amount of time it takes radiation to travel through ground water, the likelihood of seismic and volcanic activity, and the cost to build a repository. If Yucca Mountain fell short in any one of these areas, DOE could have been forced to abandon the site.

Under the proposed rule this checklist is replaced by a single guideline so that no one factor can disqualify the project. The new guidelines also shift reliance from the geologic features of the mountain to man-made barriers such as waste canisters and underground shielding.

Nevada officials protested the revision when it was first proposed last November because they believed that Yucca Mountain would fail on the basis of groundwater movement. With the proposed changes, potential groundwater contamination alone would not be enough to disqualify the Yucca Mountain site.

DOE held a 90-day comment period on the proposed regulation change that ended in February. But although DOE received and considered 100 comments on the new guidelines, the final version sent to the NRC for approval in May was not substantially changed. DOE hopes to include the approved guidelines in the Site Recommendation Consideration Report, which is currently scheduled for a November release.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett00.htm (1 of 8) [3/28/02 2:25:40 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter - DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines and more

DOE Nearing Site Recommendation for Yucca Mountain

After years of study, the Department of Energy (DOE) is nearing the point where it must ultimately decide whether or not the proposed Yucca Mountain site is suitable for permanent geologic disposal of the country's high level nuclear waste. Since 1987, when Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to target Yucca Mountain as the sole site for study, DOE has been testing and gathering evidence about its potential to store more than 70,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years.

In 1998, DOE published the Viability Assessment, a document presenting "comprehensive site information" that found the Yucca Mountain site "viable" and concluded that studies should be continued. The next step in the process was the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which was released for public comment in July of 1999. The document analyzed the predicted performance of the proposed repository as well as the potential effects it could have on the surrounding environment. The report concluded that a "repository would pose little risk to future populations near Yucca Mountain."

While Department of Energy officials believe Yucca Mountain remains "viable" citizens voiced their doubts in more than 11,000 comments submitted on the draft EIS. The EIS comment period lasted nearly 200 days ending in February of this year. DOE is currently analyzing these comments and preparing responses that will be documented in a final EIS comment response document. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE must complete the final EIS as part of the site recommendation process. According to DOE, the final version is set to be released in July of 2001.

DOE is also preparing the Site Recommendation Consideration Report (SRCR) which will include descriptions of the proposed repository and waste packaging. It will also discuss site characterization data and repository performance analysis. Set to be released in December, the SRCR along with the final EIS will provide the technical basis for the Secretary of Energy's decision on whether or not to officially recommend the site to the president. According to DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), the key issue to be addressed in the SRCR is whether a repository system would present "any unreasonable long-term risk to the public after permanent closure."

Ivan Itkin, director of OCRWM, says that the project is "nearing a point where the scientific information will be adequate to determine whether a repository for spent fuel and high-level waste at Yucca Mountain could be operated, monitored, and closed while protecting the health and safety of current and future generations and the environment."

Like the EIS, the SRCR document will be opened to public comment. It will also undergo an in-depth site characterization and engineering design review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The SRCR will then be forwarded to the secretary by June of 2001. If the secretary finds the results favorable and decides to recommend the site to the president, the governor and state legislature of Nevada will be notified immediately so that they may voice their disapproval.

In turn, if the site is deemed suitable by the president and Congress, Yucca Mountain will be effectively designated as a future high level waste repository and DOE will continue with the license application process. Construction will only begin after the site has been licensed by the NRC with waste emplacement planned to begin as early as 2010. http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett00.htm (2 of 8) [3/28/02 2:25:40 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter - DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines and more

Nevada Denies DOE Groundwater Request

The Nevada state engineer has denied a Department of Energy request to pump groundwater at the Yucca Mountain site. The decision, made this February, stated that the application would not serve the public interest and could lead to litigation between the state and federal governments. Following testimony from the state attorney general, the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency and environmental groups, the engineer — who previously had issued water permits — determined that "it may not be in the economic interests of Nevada to have a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, and that the siting . . . at Yucca Mountain causes considerable public concern." The engineer based his decision on a state statute that prevents any person or governmental entity from storing high-level radioactive waste in Nevada.

Adapted from the April 2000 issue of Radioactive Waste News, a newsletter published by the National Conference of State Legislatures

A New Report Evaluates the Possibility of Nuclear Waste Transportation Accidents in Las Vegas

A new report commissioned by the City of North Las Vegas says that the chances of an accident involving radioactive material in the Las Vegas valley are 1 in 90 within the next 24 years if shipments of nuclear waste are taken on the Las Vegas Beltway en route to Yucca Mountain. The still incomplete northern leg of the beltway runs through North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, and Clark County. The study, conducted by Lewis Berger & Associates, assumed that 50,000 shipments of nuclear waste would travel this road to Yucca Mountain. Based on traffic statistics and the information in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published by the Department of Energy (DOE) last year, there could be up to 3 accidents within 24 years, according to the report. Nevada Senator Harry Reid said, "This study confirms what common sense always has told us — the more material you ship through an area the higher the chance of an accident that will spill the material in that area."

The study also points out that there would be hazards even if no accidents occur. The drivers of the heavy-haul trucks that carry the waste would be exposed to measurable doses of radiation, as well as people who live or work close to the roads used as shipping routes. The beltway, scheduled to be completed in 2001, passes through 7,500 acres of land that may be turned into master-planned communities, bringing in an estimated 197,000 residents living within 2 miles of the roadway. City officials claim that DOE did not take such growth http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett00.htm (3 of 8) [3/28/02 2:25:40 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter - DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines and more and transportation issues into account in the draft EIS — DOE has yet to comment on this most recent report. The final EIS, which will attempt a thorough and conclusive evaluation of all the possible impacts of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, is due by summer of next year.

Interim Storage Facility Proposed for Goshute Indian Reservation, Utah

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has just finished the draft Environmental Impact Statement for a reactor-waste storage site proposed for the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah. In 1997 a consortium of nuclear power-plants, the Wisconsin-based Private Fuel Storage (PFS), applied for a license to store up to 40,000 metric tons of uranium wastes on 40 acres of the reservation, located about 85 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The facility, if approved, would temporarily store the spent fuel rods until the federal government provides permanent storage. Yucca Mountain is currently the only site under consideration for a permanent waste repository.

Members of the tribal government invited the company to bring the waste to its Utah land in hopes that the jobs and revenue brought in by such a facility will rejuvenate its economy. There are strong supporters and strong opponents of the project within the tribe. Utah officials, however, are staunchly opposed to the proposed dump. Utah Governor Mike Leavitt holds that temporary storage will increase risks to public health and safety as well as the environment. State officials also fear that the facility could become permanent if the Yucca Mountain site is not approved. But because the temporary storage area would be on tribal land, the state has no jurisdiction over the decision.

Nevada officials, who are keeping a close eye on the proceedings due to the effects the outcome may have on the licensing process of the proposed Yucca Mountain site, have joined Utah in opposition to the potential storage facility. State officials contend that "a central interim storage facility — especially one located in the west, thousands of miles from the most of the country's power reactors — is not needed." And that "by considering PFS's application for a facility, NRC is exposing thousands of communities around the nation to transportation risks and impacts that are not being assessed and that are wholly unnecessary." Nevada officials are concerned that the proposal for the Utah facility is based on the assumption that the Yucca Mountain site will ultimately be proved suitable for a permanent repository, which they are opposed to.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett00.htm (4 of 8) [3/28/02 2:25:40 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter - DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines and more The consortium needs NRC approval before it can build the storage facility and the permit review currently underway will take at least another two years. Construction and waste shipments could begin as early as 2003.

In late July, NRC held hearings in Utah on its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed facility. The level of interest was so great that NRC added a public hearing on August 21 in Salt Lake City before the September 21 Draft EIS comment deadline.

If you would like a free copy of the draft EIS for the proposed spent fuel storage area on the reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, fax a request for NUREG-1714 to (301) 415-2289, email [email protected], or write to Office of the Chief Information Officer Reproduction and Distribution Services Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Clinton Vetoes Nuclear Waste Legislation

As promised, President Clinton vetoed legislation in April that would have allowed for the storage of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. SB 1287 would have cleared the way for thousands of tons of spent fuel building up at reactors in 31 states to be shipped to Nevada starting in 2007. Earlier this year the House of Representatives approved the bill 252-167 with the Senate approving it 64-34; neither had the two- thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.

Nevada's political leaders, who have spent years fighting the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Congress, were pleased with the decision. The nuclear industry, however, criticized Clinton's decision, stating that the federal government should be moving faster to resolve the country's dilemma over nuclear waste.

The White House's objection to the bill was based in large part upon a provision that would have blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting the radiation exposure standards for the proposed repository until the next president takes office. The bill would have also taken away the Secretary of Energy's power to unilaterally increase the fees the nuclear power industry must pay towards repository development.

"Technical Voice" of Nye County Dies

In his seven years as Nye County's main technical voice on the Yucca Mountain Project, Joseph "Nick" Stellavato earned a reputation as a jovial, no-nonsense expert who valued good science above all else. Stellavato died July 21st at Sunrise Hospital in Las Vegas shortly after undergoing five-way heart bypass surgery. He was 58.

"Geology has lost a good friend," said Tom Buqo, consulting hydro-geologist for the Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office. "He was a fine scientist who has done more than anyone else in the last five

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett00.htm (5 of 8) [3/28/02 2:25:40 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter - DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines and more years to further the studies at Yucca Mountain, because he put his efforts where they were needed." And he didn't get distracted by politics, despite his involvement with such a politically charged issue. "He had scientific ethics and morals, and he stood by those beliefs," said Kevin Rohrer, the Department of Energy's liaison to Nye County. He was also a "stellar guy" with a "heart of gold" who brought credibility to Nye County's oversight efforts, Rohrer said.

"The people of Nye County have lost a huge ally in our attempt to get the best science possible," said County Commissioner Cameron McRae. Buqo echoed that sentiment. "His loss is going to be felt not only by Nye County, but by the whole program." Buqo added that the staff at Nye County's oversight office is committed to finishing the work Stellavato started.

Fact Sheet: Roles of Federal Organizations with the Yucca Mountain Project

Department of Energy

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for characterizing, and if authorized to do so, constructing, managing, and operating the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. To ensure the health and safety of workers on-site, DOE must follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. DOE is currently studying Yucca Mountain to determine if it is suitable for a permanent repository; DOE works with the Department of Interior's U.S. Geological Survey on site characterization issues and activities. If the site is approved to accept radioactive waste, DOE would obtain a license to construct, operate, monitor, and close the repository from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). More information on DOE's role in the Yucca Mountain Project can be found at http://www.doe.gov or http://www.ymp.gov.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an independent regulatory agency responsible for determining whether DOE will receive a license to construct and operate a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The NRC is also responsible for developing the technical requirements for geologic disposal and implementing health-based radiation standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NRC will issue a license to DOE only if DOE demonstrates that it can construct and operate a repository safely and in compliance with NRC's regulations — NRC licenses bear the primary responsibility for the safe use of radioactive materials. The NRC also regulates the design, construction, use and maintenance of containers used to ship nuclear waste. These casks must be designed to withstand a series of impact, puncture, and fire environments to ensure that they would not be breached in a serious transportation accident. The NRC reviews the cask design and then must issue an approval certificate for the design before the cask can be used to transport radioactive material. A schedule of public meetings is located at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/meet.html. Their web address is http://www.nrc.gov.

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the development of site-specific, health-based standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. These standards are designed to protect the public health and environment from harmful exposure to radioactivity from the nuclear waste that would be disposed of in the http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett00.htm (6 of 8) [3/28/02 2:25:40 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter - DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines and more proposed geologic repository. EPA's standards address environmental pathways: air, groundwater, food, and soil. The standards developed by the EPA will be implemented and enforced by the NRC. Find out more information at the EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca.

Department of Transportation

The Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates shippers and carriers of nuclear waste as well as the conditions of transport, such as routing, tie-downs, vehicle requirements, handling and storage. If waste transportation to Yucca Mountain is authorized, DOT must ensure that waste carriers comply with routing regulations and guidelines. Radioactive waste carriers must be trained to tackle a variety of transport conditions and situations which include rough terrain and severe weather conditions. Drivers must complete a First Responders Course to help them prepare for the prevention and response to any possible incident. Go to http://www.dot.gov for more information.

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) is an independent oversight body that provides technical advice to the NRC. The scope of the ACNW's advising includes transportation, storage, and disposal of radioactive waste including interim storage, materials safety, decommissioning, application of risk-informed, performance-based regulations, and evaluation of licensing documents, rules, and regulatory guidance, among other issues. The ACNW reports directly to the Commission on the NRC staff's nuclear waste management activities and interacts with representatives from the public and other Federal and State agencies in order to provide a public forum for the various stakeholders to express their concerns. Find more information at http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) is an independent agency of the U.S. Government. Its purpose is to provide independent scientific and technical oversight of the U.S. program for management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear power plants. Their web address is http://www.nwtrb.gov.

Transmutation: An alternative to nuclear waste disposal?

Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, N.M. say a process that reduces the harmful effects of radioactive waste and could lead to a new alternative for the disposal of the country's spent fuel is currently

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett00.htm (7 of 8) [3/28/02 2:25:40 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter - DOE Revises Yucca Mountain Suitability Guidelines and more under development. The process is called transmutation and it dramatically reduces the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste, such as plutonium, by bombarding it with neutrons from a high-powered accelerator. Scientists predict that transmutation will yield much smaller amounts of toxic waste that would only need to be stored for 300 years. This is opposed to the 10,000 year minimum that wastes buried in a geologic repository would take to decompose to safe levels. Transmutation could make the need for a permanent repository, currently proposed for Yucca Mountain, much less urgent.

However, technology this advanced is still some years and millions of dollars worth of research away. According to the Department of Energy, the first full-scale transmutation machine would take 20 years and $187 million to finish. In addition, some are not convinced that the benefits of transmutation outweigh the drawbacks. In May, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a group of independent scientists, released a report that advised the government to abandon research on transmutation. The report held that the process is extremely expensive and would create large volumes of low level radioactive waste while transforming only a small portion of highly radioactive waste.

Even still, scientists think that transmutation could be a viable alternative to dealing with the country's high level nuclear waste and the method is still under investigation — if not to solve the problem of the waste that exists today, at least to help prevent such a buildup of toxic radioactive material in the future. Congress has already spent $4 million on transmutation research and approved another $9 million this year.

Special Insert: Nevada's Nuclear History

● Project Faultless: Central Nevada's Near Miss as an Atomic Proving Ground

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslett00.htm (8 of 8) [3/28/02 2:25:40 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter -- Project Faultless: Central Nevada's Near Miss as an Atomic Proving Ground

Project Faultless: Central Nevada's Near Miss as an Atomic Proving Ground

By Michon Mackedon

The whole notion of testing nuclear bombs is startling, like testing tornadoes or simulating the "Big Bang." Nevertheless, the United States has been engaged in testing nuclear weapons since July 16, 1945, when the atomic test code-named Trinity was conducted in Alamogordo, New Mexico. On that day, in the predawn hours, the nucleus of an atom was split to create a weapon of such overwhelming power that all those witnessing the event were forever affected by what they had seen there.

It has been said that the Trinity test let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, but it learned to dance on the deserts of Nevada. In 1951, the Nevada Test Site (NTS), located 90 miles north of Las Vegas was selected to serve as the nation's continental atomic proving ground. Earlier, in 1946 and 1948, atomic bombs had been tested in the Marshall Islands, but weapons designers living in New Mexico wanted a proving ground closer to their laboratories, and the Korean War increased the pressure to improve atomic weapons designs.

Over the next four decades, The Nevada Test Site became home to 928 nuclear tests. (A testing moratorium halted nuclear testing in 1992). One hundred of the tests conducted there were atmospheric tests--dropped by aircraft or exploded from towers, balloons, or cannons-- producing the signature mushroom cloud and dangerous radioactive fallout. In 1963, under the terms of a Limited Test Ban Treaty signed by President Kennedy and Russia's Kruschev, all the tests were moved underground. The remaining 828 NTS nuclear tests were conducted in shafts and tunnels.

After nuclear testing was moved underground, a series of problems at NTS drew the eyes of nuclear planners to a section of land in Nye County's Hot Creek Valley, approximately midway between Eureka and Tonopah, where plans were quietly laid to develop a supplemental nuclear proving ground.

One of the problems faced by test administrators was the growing tourist economy in Las Vegas. In the early years of atomic testing, the Las Vegas community was quite small, and most of the residents and tourists who visited there accommodated atomic testing as part of the overall Las Vegas experience. Visitors even scheduled special trips to the area during "bomb season" to drink "atomic cocktails" while they awaited the dramatic spectacle of an exploding atomic bomb.

The move to underground testing, while reducing fallout danger, produced ground motion which could be felt in Las Vegas. The larger the test the greater the ground motion: the swaying earth and occasional shattered glass window were making tourists, residents, and casino operators quite nervous. At the same time, in the mid 1960s, the military was developing a Spartan anti-ballistic missile, capable of carrying and delivering a multiple megaton warhead, and they planned to test the effectiveness of even larger nuclear weapons than had been tested before.

So, with some urgency, the search for a supplemental test site was launched. By 1965, the potential sites had been narrowed to Amchitka, Alaska and Central Nevada . However, before the Central Nevada site could be granted full status as a Proving Ground, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) wanted to determine how the http://www.yuccamountain.org/faultless.html (1 of 5) [3/28/02 2:26:35 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter -- Project Faultless: Central Nevada's Near Miss as an Atomic Proving Ground geology of the area would respond to multi-megaton underground explosions. As a result, the first test scheduled there, and, as it happened, the only test to take place there, was categorized as a calibration test (as opposed to a weapons effect test, where the effects of the bomb on animals, homes, military equipment and bomb shelters were measured). The test was planned to yield just under one megaton, qualifying it as a very large test, yet the projected size of the event was never announced to the public.

In 1967, the AEC public relations teams headed to Eureka and Tonopah to prepare the residents for the calibration test, which was assigned the code-name Project Faultless and tentatively scheduled for early 1968. The AEC faced a larger than usual challenge in trying to convince residents of Central Nevada that the test would be beneficial to their communities, as the area slated for the calibration study lay in the fallout path of over half of the atmospheric tests of the 1950s. In particular, people there still felt the loss of eight year old Butch Bardoli, who had succumbed to leukemia in 1957, a disease which his family felt was directly related to atomic fallout over their Nye County ranch.

The AEC at first proposed to deal "openly" with the test, so as to head off the accusations of "secrecy" so often leveled at nuclear testing. From past experience they knew that closing off the test area would leave the whole endeavor vulnerable to wild speculation. The military, however, wanted to keep observers away from seeing the predicted 14-16 foot ground swell, which might alert them to size of the Faultless device. The compromise between the positions is, in retrospect, quite funny and serves as an indication of how the public relations arm of nuclear testing manipulated language to get the job done.

An AEC internal memo proposed closing "the line of sight" to the test but setting up cameras to televise images of the shot back to the base camp. The memo states, "observe does not mean 'see,' but rather be on hand at a selected area. ...the 'observer' site might be established with no line of sight to ground zero. The 'observer' area will be at the AEC base camp, about 30 miles from the base camp."

Another memo which seems retrospectively humorous discusses the sticky dilemma of keeping the public "informed" about the test without really giving out information which might lead to uncomfortable questioning or even protest. It reads, " Statements as to 'how soon' nuclear detonations can be arranged should be couched only in general terms. No readiness dates should be given...and it should be clearly explained that a readiness date is not a schedule...."

The public relations procedures for selling Project Faultless to the people of central Nevada are of interest to those who listen to the current debate over using Yucca Mountain as a high level nuclear waste dump. Among the techniques used to sell nuclear projects, then and now, are emphasizing necessity, stressing local benefits and downplaying risk.

A transcript of a Tonopah town meeting, called by the AEC three months in advance of the January 1968 test, discloses efforts made by the AEC's advance team to convince central Nevada residents to open their arms to nuclear tests. Necessity was emphasized by invoking the Cold War: "First, the United States [Atomic] Energy Commission [and] the Department of Defense has been able to maintain reasonable parity with the Soviet Union by conducting an aggressive and certainly expensive underground nuclear test program...."

The Local Benefits were emphasized by alluding to the economic gains netted in Fallon, Nevada, where a relatively small (12 kiloton) device had been detonated underground in 1963 in a test code-named Project Shoal: "We think we have interfered as little as possible with their way of life, and we sincerely hope that we http://www.yuccamountain.org/faultless.html (2 of 5) [3/28/02 2:26:35 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter -- Project Faultless: Central Nevada's Near Miss as an Atomic Proving Ground have contributed something to their economy..... We need places for our engineers; we need places for our technicians; we need fuel for our vehicles.... A large amount of money and effort will be expended in studying the water area systems of the area..."

As for the risk, those in attendance were told, "The worst it can do to the public is inconvenience [them]."

The extent to which the potential economic boon to the area became a selling point for the project is underscored by a letter sent by a central Nevada rancher to Nevada Senator Alan Bible in late 1967. He wrote:

"A lot has been said by the AEC spokesmen and representatives of the Government about the economic benefits to the local communities, when the AEC moves in men and equipment. Indeed I understand that different states exerted all effort and influence to get the test sites located in them, because of the tremendous amount of money this program would bring in.

This kind of temporary prosperity is hollow and false and is promoted by people who can see no farther than their cash register. It is prosperity for a few local merchants and gamblers, at the expense of the state's lands and water resources, land and water, that if they are not damaged, will produce far more real prosperity than this testing program."

As the preparations for Project Faultless proceeded, the legendary Howard Hughes stepped into the picture to add more pressure on the AEC to move megaton testing away from Las Vegas to central Nevada. Mr. Hughes was a walking paradox--a mysterious hermit and well-known casino mogul, whose odd habits and immense bank account made him a force to reckon with in Las Vegas politics and atomic planning. Hughes became convinced that the increasingly large underground tests at NTS would ruin the Vegas gaming industry. He became quite vocal in his opposition to megaton testing at NTS, and his organization even tried to delay one of the larger NTS tests. He began to pressure AEC to move all underground testing away from Las Vegas to the proposed site in central Nevada or to the supplemental site being studied in Amchitka, Alaska.

A personal memo kept by Test Site manager J.T. Reeves reveals what the situation was in early 1968. He noted that Howard Hughes had called him "approaching hysteria" over the Boxcar test planned at NTS for the spring of 1968. Hughes was "under the impression" that the AEC had informed its people that they were going to discontinue tests at NTS and move future testing to central Nevada and Alaska. Hughes told Reeves that he was not about to "invest money in the development of a new airport in Clark County with the AEC continually permanently damaging buildings in the area and contaminating the atmosphere and ground water...."

Much was riding on the success of the Faultless Test. Three deep emplacement holes were drilled on the Central Nevada site, one for Faultless and the other two in anticipation of tests which would immediately follow a successful calibration of the site. A second test was even assigned the code-name, Adagio. The size of the Adagio drillhole suggests that it was planned to be a test in the multi-megaton range, three or perhaps 4 megatons. (The largest underground test ever conducted by the U.S. was 5 megaton Cannikin, in 1971, at Amchitka, Alaska.)

On January 19, 1968, the Faultless Test commenced, with observers from the public stationed, as planned, out of the line of sight. What they would have witnessed was a dramatic fifteen foot upheaval of the earth above ground zero. Then, the earth collapsed north and south of ground zero, leaving massive fault blocks extending http://www.yuccamountain.org/faultless.html (3 of 5) [3/28/02 2:26:35 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter -- Project Faultless: Central Nevada's Near Miss as an Atomic Proving Ground for thousands of feet. In some places the drops measured 10 feet. Eighty-seven miles away from the explosion, windows broke at White Pine High School in Ely.

The surface damage was dramatic proof that the experiment to calibrate the site had overreached itself. The Central Nevada Test Area was eventually declared unsuitable for further underground nuclear tests. Adagio was cancelled, and Hughes was distraught.

There are two epilogues to the Faultless story. One is the resolution of the Hughes dilemma. In about May of 1969, a year following the Faultless failure, Hughes began to withdraw his objections to testing at NTS. John Meier of the Hughes Organization visited Robert Miller of the AEC Nevada Operations Office saying that there had been confusion and "division of opinion" within the Hughes Tool Company regarding nuclear testing. Meier "admitted the paradox that it was clearly in their interests from a financial point of view to support the administration's [nuclear anti-ballistic missile] position." The Hughes Company was ready to do business again with NTS. The last note in the Howard Hughes file, now held in DOE archives in Las Vegas, is a letter sent to AEC's Miller from the Hughes Tool Company on January 31, 1972: "We wish to take this opportunity in starting another year to thank you for your business and support. All of us at Hughes are grateful for the privilege of serving you."

Marketplace economics had apparently resolved the issues.

The second epilogue is of more contemporary interest and concerns the future of the Central Nevada Test Area. When an underground nuclear test takes place, a huge subterranean cavern is formed, trapping within it intensely radioactive particles. The surface then collapses into the cavity creating what is called a rubble chimney, a funnel of debris linking the surface and the cavity. Over time, ground water will seep into the chimney and cavity, allowing the radioactive particles to migrate away from ground zero toward populations. Many of the radionuclides remaining from an underground nuclear test are extremely dangerous and very long- lived. Plutonium, the most dangerous residue, has a half-life of 24,500 years.

The Faultless site is now marked by a bronze tablet attached to a steel pipe protruding from the ground above the cavity. The marker posts restrictions on drilling, but does not provide reasons for the restrictions, nor does it notify the public that it will be thousands of years before the radioactive materials decay. Who will carry the story forward through eons of time and warn others of the atomic danger beneath the ground?

If there are lessons to be learned from past mistakes, then the legacy left by Project Faultless and other nuclear experiments should serve as warning to those committed to emplacing high level radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain. Buried radionuclides, whether the result of a nuclear explosion or a nuclear repository, will remain dangerous through dozens of millenniums, posing a threat to water supplies essentially forever.

Another lesson from the past is the uncertainty involved in predicting the performance of Mother Earth. The code-name assigned to Faultless reflects the "scientifically-based" prediction made by the planners of the test that the site would prove geologically stable, literally fault-less, under the pressure of a megaton blast. The failure of that prediction colors the code-name with unintended irony and suggests that prediction is risky business, especially when the stakes are as high as they are when we deal with dangerous radionuclides. Yet Yucca Mountain planners continue to predict that the repository will not be disturbed by earthquakes, miners or curiosity seekers, upwelling or downpouring water, or anything else, for at least 10,000 years.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/faultless.html (4 of 5) [3/28/02 2:26:35 PM] Summer 2000 Newsletter -- Project Faultless: Central Nevada's Near Miss as an Atomic Proving Ground

Michon Mackedon teaches English and Humanities at Western Nevada Community College in Fallon, Nevada. She has served as Vice Chairman of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects since 1986 and is writing a book about nuclear projects in Nevada.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/faultless.html (5 of 5) [3/28/02 2:26:35 PM] Winter 2000 Newsletter - February 9 Deadline for EIS Comments and more

Yucca Mountain EIS Comments Needed Now

● In this Issue: Eureka County ● February 9 Deadline for EIS Comments Yucca Mountain Information Office

● Crowd Objects to Yucca Rail P.O. Box 714

● Make Your Comments Eureka, Nevada 89316 Telephone (775) 237-5372 ● Tell It to the DOE

● Calendar

February 9 Deadline on Impacts of Massive Project

Time is running out for Eureka County residents to have their say about the impacts of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The Department of Energy (DOE) has held hearings in Nevada and nationally, including Crescent Valley on December 9 (see article below), on the Yucca Mountain Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office has prepared a comment form to encourage residents to participate.

"Just fill it out and send it in to let DOE know how the Yucca Mountain project could affect you, the county, and Nevada," said Leonard Fiorenzi, Project Director.

Eureka County is in the process of preparing detailed comments on the draft EIS.

DOE is proposing to transport 70,000 metric tons of high level radioactive waste and spent fuel from nuclear power plants and defense facilities to Yucca Mountain, in Nye County. The EIS looks at three modes of transportation for the 24 year shipping campaign – legal weight truck, rail, or rail to heavy haul truck.

One rail line under consideration, known as the "Carlin route" would be built from Beowawe southwest

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet10.htm (1 of 5) [3/28/02 2:28:43 PM] Winter 2000 Newsletter - February 9 Deadline for EIS Comments and more

through Crescent Valley, and into Grass Valley. South of Highway 50, the EIS proposes that the rail line be built either through Big Smoky Valley or Monitor Valley. The rail line would terminate at Yucca Mountain.

At DOE’s Crescent Valley hearing on December 9, all members of the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission attended. Commissioner Goicoechea expressed the County’s concerns about a lack of information in the EIS about Crescent Valley itself. He said the document does not contain enough information to choose between truck or train, or among possible rail routes. He also said the EIS lacks basic information on rail such as fencing, and ownership and operation of the rail line.

At the morning hearing, Commissioner Green stated the County’s concerns about the potential impacts on property values and future development in the area.

Comments must be postmarked by February 9, 2000. DOE is also accepting faxed comments, and submissions through their website at www.ymp.gov.

The EIS is available at the Eureka Public Works Office and the Crescent Valley Town Center. For more information call the Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office at 237-5372

Crowd objects to Yucca rail

By Mark Waite Elko Daily Free Press Friday, December 10, 1999

Dozens of Crescent Valley residents said they felt they were being railroaded by the U.S. Department of Energy's plan to construct a rail line through their community to Yucca Mountain. They offered their views during a public hearing yesterday on a draft environmental impact statement.

The DOE proposes to ship 70,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste from 2010 to 2047 to the Yucca Mountain repository about 70 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Four options for new rail routes are being considered, one of them, called the Carlin route, would branch off from the Union Pacific tracks at Beowawe and run through Crescent Valley and Austin to Yucca Mountain. There is also an option to haul the waste by truck.

"If this rail line goes through Crescent Valley, it will put the people here in a no-win situation. If we stay we get nuked. If we leave, we lose our property," said Nancy Louden, who owns the Crescent Valley hot springs.

Jamie Gruening of Crescent Valley, clutching a parcel map, said she would live 3,000 to 3,500 feet from the proposed rail line. "How, how much and when would I be compensated?" she asked.

"Approximately 12,227 shipments of nuclear waste will come over the Carlin route via the rail scenario," Gruening said. "I can expect 12,227 personal low-level radiological exposures over 24 years."

"I'm awfully curious why you'd pitch this area to build a railroad through one of the most highly mineralized areas in America,"" said Elwood Wright. "There's going to be many, many more deposits found in this three county area."

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet10.htm (2 of 5) [3/28/02 2:28:43 PM] Winter 2000 Newsletter - February 9 Deadline for EIS Comments and more

"This is a beautiful valley we all love to live in. This railroad will destroy it, in my view," said Lance Paul. "This is a horrendous act of arrogance to think we can safely store radioactive waste for 10,000 years."

Carrie Dann, a member of the Western Shoshone tribe, said the DOE should spend its money on finding ways to neutralize the radioactivity of the waste, instead of spending it on Yucca Mountain.

"There's so much contamination in this world already, and we're still doing more," Dann said. "If we cannot control the things we created, then those things should not be created at all."

Bob Halstead, transportation advisor for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the DOE underestimates the difficulty of constructing the rail line, which would be the longest,

new rail construction project in the U.S. since the "59% of the assessed parcels in Eureka County are within World War I era. The construction period could be 10 miles of this proposed route." five to seven years, not 2.5 years as stated in the Pete Goicoechea County Commissioner EIS, considering the difficult terrain, environmental sensibility and high probability of finding Indian artifacts, he said.

The EIS lacks information about operating speeds, crew changes, way station requirements and shared use of the rail line, Halstead said. "Nevada is particularly concerned that DOE contractor studies have recommended operating this line without a state-of-the-art computerized train control system. DOE's cost-saving measures include shipping rail casks loaded with highly radioactive spent fuel in general freight trains, which will require switching cars at the connection point. DOE's proposal to routinely park loaded rail cask cars on a side track for up to 48 hours is unprecedented and will result in a separate legal challenge," Halstead said.

Eureka County Planning Commission Chairman Ron Rankin said numerous parcel maps have been approved for property lying along the proposed rail corridor, many of them for retirees. The county also spent millions of dollars for infrastructure in the Crescent Valley area and Rankin also had concerns over the emergency response time.

"Fifty-nine percent of all the assessed parcels in Eureka County are within 10 miles of this proposed route. The proposed route is within five miles of the second largest population center in Eureka

County," Eureka County Commission Chairman Pete "DOE’s proposal to routinely park loaded rail cask Goicoechea said in a prepared statement. "The EIS cars on a side track for up to 48 hours is makes little mention of impacts on these people. It does unprecedented and will result in a separate legal not adequately address the effects of building and challenge." operating a rail line so near private property and it does not address the possible stigma effects on property Bob Halstead Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects values."

DOE representative Jozette Booth told Goicoechea the rail line would not have a tie-in at the southern end to link up to other rail lines, for private users in the area who may want to use it to ship their products.

Jennifer Viereck said she had concerns about train safety around the U.S. The waste would be shipped from 72 commercial power plants and five DOE sites around the country. She said 80 percent of the rail crossings in the U.S. don't have signals, there is a rail accident in the U.S. every 90 minutes and a toxic spill every two weeks.

Charlie Voos, Elko County community development director, said the Elko County Commission didn't approve a statement for the public hearing, but would submit written comments. The rail line would go through all four http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet10.htm (3 of 5) [3/28/02 2:28:43 PM] Winter 2000 Newsletter - February 9 Deadline for EIS Comments and more

cities in Elko County and crew changes would take place in Elko, Voos said.

"That means those trains, those hot loads, will be sitting in the downtown area," Voos said. He added, "we've had people killed on our rail lines in Elko County and I know we have many unprotected crossings."

The county has begged the railroads to repair right-of-way fencing after the summer range fires, Voos said. "The president told our senators and everybody else he'd veto Yucca Mountain. It looks like it's kind of a moot point," said John Filippini, from Carico Lake Valley.

DOE representative Lee Norton said President Clinton merely "wants science to finish before politics sends the waste here."

Reprinted with permission from the Elko Daily Free Press

DOE Proposes Guideline Changes

By Abby Johnson

On November 30, DOE released proposed changes to the Guidelines for siting a repository. The comment deadline is February 14, 2000. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes two actions. The first action amends the original siting guidelines (10 CFR Part 960) so that they apply only to the site screening and selection process leading up to a selection of sites for characterization, not for repositories. This makes the original guidelines no longer applicable to the Yucca Mountain site. The second action is the promulgation of a new set of “Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Guidelines" at 10 CFR Part 963. These guidelines would be used by the Secretary of Energy as a basis for deciding whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to the President for development as a repository.

The regulations would formalize the "total system performance assessment" method used by DOE to estimate whether Yucca Mountain will meet EPA individual radiation dose standards over time. This is a change from the existing guidelines which set subsystem requirements such as a groundwater travel time limit. While under the existing guidelines, a site could be disqualified based on any one of a number of conditions, the new guidelines have no specific disqualifiers. Thus, under the proposed guidelines, which permit a "balancing" of favorable and unfavorable conditions, there is no way to disqualify the Yucca Mountain site.

DOE will hold public hearings on the Guidelines on January 18 in Pahrump at Terrible’s Lakeside Casino, and January 19 in Las Vegas the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Marjorie Barrick Museum of Natural History Auditorium, 4504 Maryland Parkway, from 11 am-2 pm and 6-10 pm each day. For more information, call Dr. Jane Summerson at (800) 967-0739.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet10.htm (4 of 5) [3/28/02 2:28:43 PM] Winter 2000 Newsletter - February 9 Deadline for EIS Comments and more

Eureka County has asked DOE to extend the comment period and postpone the hearings due to conflicts with the EIS review period.

Send written comments to : William Boyle, DOE, PO Box 98608, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608 or email at [email protected]

Calender

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will meet January 25 and 26 in Las Vegas at the Alexis Park Hotel. For more information call Karyn Severson (703) 235-4473; website www.nwtrb.gov Board members will discuss the sources and types of technical and scientific uncertainty associated with an assessment of the performance of a potential Yucca Mountain repository as well as DOE's proposed safety strategy for such a repository. For additional details see the NTRB press release

Nuclear Waste Update

The Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update is published by the Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office, P.O. Box 714, Eureka, NV 89316, (775) 237-5372. The purpose of the Update is to provide information to the public about issues related to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The newsletter is funded by a grant to Eureka County from the U.S. Department of Energy. Articles in this newsletter may not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of the Eureka County Board of Commissioners.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet10.htm (5 of 5) [3/28/02 2:28:43 PM] Fall 1999 Newsletter - Draft EIS Released DOE Holding Hearings for Public Comment in Nevada

Draft EIS Released

DOE Holding Hearings for Public Comment in Nevada

On August 6, the Department of Energy (DOE) released the Draft Important Dates Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The document evaluates the construction, operation, and eventual closure of an underground repository for disposal of up to November 18: Nuclear Waste 70,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Awareness Committee, Crescent Valley Town Ctr, 7 pm. DEIS also addresses various transportation options at the national and statewide level including the proposed "Carlin" rail route that could run through Crescent Valley in Eureka County. November 26: Comment deadline for EPA proposed radiation standards. An environmental impact statement for the project is mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (as amended) and the final version will be used to support DOEs site December 2: How To Participate in the EIS Process recommendation to the Workshop, sponsored by the President. The President will in State Nuclear Waste Project turn use the EIS to support his Office & Eureka County, recommendation to Congress on Crescent Valley Town Center, 7 the potential suitability of Yucca pm. Mountain. If the site is ultimately found suitable, DOE will then December 7: Austin DOE EIS seek a license to construct and Hearing, Town Hall 11-3, 5:30- operate the facility from the 9:30 pm. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December 9: Crescent Valley When preparing the final EIS, DOE is required to take into account DOE EIS Hearing, Crescent the concerns of the affected citizens. DOE is holding ten hearings in Valley Town Ctr. 10-1, 6-10. Nevada where citizens can give their comments, including ones in

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9.htm (1 of 4) [3/28/02 2:31:33 PM] Fall 1999 Newsletter - Draft EIS Released DOE Holding Hearings for Public Comment in Nevada Crescent Valley and Austin. Comments can be given orally at any of Feb 9: EIS Comments Due. the hearings or written and mailed. DOE can also be reached by fax and e-mail.. The comment deadline is February 9, 2000. Tell It to the DOE The best way to participate in the EIS process and help determine the future of the proposed repository and transportation routes is to Here’s how to express your first obtain a copy of the DEIS and become familiar with it. (Call DOE opinion during the EIS comment at 800/967-3477 to get a copy, or contact Eureka County at 775/237- period. 5372. ). Make sure to read the summary and the sections relevant to Eureka County, especially the Carlin Route option. Attend an EIS hearing and give oral comments or turn in a written comment. Focus on how the proposals set forth in the document would affect you and your community -- think especially about the people, Fax your written comments to environment, economy, and way of life of the area you live in. When DOE at (800) 967-0739. making comments it is important to relate them to the document. You Comment over the Internet via DOE’s Yucca Mountain website can make a statement regarding an issue that was not raised in the http://www.ymp.gov. DEIS that you think should be addressed. You can also discuss changes to the existing information that you think would make the Mail your comments: document a more adequate study of the proposed repository and Ms. Wendy R. Dixon, EIS transportation alternatives. Project Manager, M/S 010 U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Issues that are more technical in nature are better addressed in Office P.O. Box 30307 North written statements that can be mailed, faxed, or e-mailed to DOE. Las Vegas, NV 89036 Comments that are made orally at one of the hearings should be fairly simple and easy for a room full of people to understand. Remember, you can give both written and oral comments, each on completely EIS different aspects of the DEIS if you want -- there is no limit to the number of comments you can give. You can also be creative. A poem, Hearing Schedule an excerpt from a book or document, or a letter from your child can all be effective ways to get your point across as long as they stay on topic. November December The most important thing is to have a clear idea of what you want your January comment to accomplish and choose a format that will best allow your concerns to hit home. Nov. 4 Lone Pine CA Finally, make sure you attend the "How to Participate in the EIS Hearing" workshop that will be held December 2 at 7:00 p.m. in Nov. 9 Caliente Crescent Valley. Participants will learn more about what to expect at the hearings, what"s in the EIS, and how to most effectively participate Nov. 16 Denver in the EIS process and make your concerns known to DOE. Dec. 1 Reno

Dec. 2 Carson City Possible Impacts of the Proposed Carlin Rail Route: Some Issues to Consider Dec. 7 Austin Dec. 9 Crescent Valley Mining: Could a rail route interfere with future mineral development? Current mining activities? Cortez Gold Mine, Inc. is planning a http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9.htm (2 of 4) [3/28/02 2:31:33 PM] Fall 1999 Newsletter - Draft EIS Released DOE Holding Hearings for Public Comment in Nevada pipeline project that would intersect the proposed rail line in two places. Jan. 11 Las Vegas

Grazing: Would a rail route bisect grazing allotments? What would be Jan 13 Salt Lake City the effect on agriculture? Jan. 20 St. Louis, MO Wildlife: Could a rail line disturb the habitats of the natural wildlife? The southern corridor of the Carlin route would disrupt 740 acres of Written Comment Deadline desert tortoise habitat, an endangered species. The corridor also February 9, 2000 (transmitted crosses the Bates Mountain antelope release area, 3 designated riparian or postmarked) habitats, and Simpson Park habitat management area.

Wild Horses: Could a rail line and potential fencing interfere with the Resources More EIS migration routes and grazing patterns of the area"s wild horse population? The proposed corridor crosses six wild horse and burro Information: herd management areas. ● Eureka County Public Works P.O. Box 714, Eureka, NV History and culture: Would a rail line disrupt archaeological sites, 89316 (775) 237-5372 sacred Indian grounds, and other places of historical and cultural value? There are at least 21 archaeological sites along the Carlin rail corridor in Eureka County. ● Crescent Valley Public Works 5045 Tenabo Ave, Crescent Valley 89821 (775) 468-0326 Environmental Justice: Will a rail route in Eureka County affect some communities more than others? Could minorities like the Western ● State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Shoshones be the recipients of more adverse impacts than the rest of Project Office 1802 N. Carson, the population? Suite 252, Carson City, NV 89701 (775) 687-3744 or (800) Property/Land Use: Who owns the land that the proposed railroad 366-0990 would run through? In addition to private land, the rail line would

cross land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management and the Air ● Department of Energy Yucca Force. Mountain Site Characterization Office, P.O. Box 30307, North Railroad: Would the impacts of a rail line be different if it was used to Las Vegas, NV 89036 (702) 794- ship things other than nuclear waste? Who will own and operate the 5555 or (800) 967-3477 railroad during nuclear waste shipments and after the shipments of radioactive waste stop? ● Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 4550 W. Oakey, Suite 111, Las Vegas, NV 89102 (702) Human health and safety: What are the long and short term effects of 248-1127 or (800) 227-9809 a rail accident involving nuclear waste? Who would respond? Who would be liable for the damages?

Floodplain: Would the rail line disrupt the natural flows of water? The corridor crosses one spring, one river, and five riparian areas.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9.htm (3 of 4) [3/28/02 2:31:33 PM] Fall 1999 Newsletter - Draft EIS Released DOE Holding Hearings for Public Comment in Nevada

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9.htm (4 of 4) [3/28/02 2:31:33 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

In this edition:

● DOE Extends EIS Comment Period to 180 Days; Announces EIS Hearings

● Nuclear Waste Factsheet

● Beowawe Crescent Valley Nuclear Waste Committee: Announcements and Activities

● Why Nevada Opposes Yucca Mountain

● Comparative Radiation Standards Graph

● NRC to Publish Draft Yucca Mountain Rule

● Important Dates

● Interim Storage Dies in Congress

● DOE Briefs County Commission

● Guinn Opposes Yucca Mountain

● DOE to Study Water Flow at Yucca Mountain

Past Issues:

● Click here to read the Special EIS Edition of the Nuclear Waste Update (June/July 1999)

● Click here to read the immediate past issue of the Nuclear Waste Update (Summer 1998)

DOE Extends EIS Comment Period to 180 Days; Announces EIS Hearings

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (1 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:47 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has agreed to extend from 90 days to 180 days the period for public comment on the Yucca Mountain Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on July 27. DOE bowed to pressure from Nevada's congressional delegation, Governor Guinn, the affected counties, and members of the public all of whom had requested the 180 day comment period. Release of the Environmental Impact Statement is delayed, likely until mid-August, according to DOE.

DOE has also announced that it plans to hold public hearings in Nevada on the Yucca Mountain Draft EIS. Locally, hearings are planned in Crescent Valley and Austin.

Eureka County will hold a pre-hearing meeting on September 16 in Crescent Valley to help residents prepare for the hearings. Participants will learn about what to expect at the hearing, what's in the EIS and how to prepare comments. Public comments provide a complete and legal record of the public's concerns about the impact that a repository would have on the affected communities and the environment.

The DEIS will evaluate the construction, operation, and eventual closure of an underground repository for disposal of up to 70,000 tons of commercial and DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It will also analyze rail, truck and intermodal options at the national and statewide level to ship the waste to the proposed Yucca Mountain site. The "Carlin" rail corridor, proposed to run from Beowawe through Crescent Valley, is one of five being considered in Nevada.

Originally, DOE committed to a 180-day public comment period in its 1997 Scoping Comment Summary Document. However, citing budget cuts and the necessity to "compress the EIS schedule," DOE cut the comment time in half, to only 90 days. Lake Barrett, Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), denied both the State of Nevada's and Eureka County's requests for re-extension.

In a recent letter to DOE Secretary Richardson, Governor Kenny Guinn expressed concern that "OCRWM's insistence on shortening the comment period for the draft EIS may be based on the perceived need to make up EIS schedule slippage rather than on the imperatives for adequate and meaningful public review of this crucial decision document."

DOE will make the DEIS available in document form and on CD-ROM. Copies will also be available at the Crescent Valley Town Center and the Eureka Public Works Office. To order your copy call 1-800-967-3477.

Nuclear Waste Factsheet

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (2 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:47 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update Radiation -- Particles or waves from atomic or nuclear processes. Exposure to these particles and rays can be harmful. Radioactivity refers to the rate at which radioactive material emits radiation.

Background Radiation -- Radiation that occurs from natural radioactive material that is always present in the environment. This includes solar and cosmic radiation, and radiation from soil and rocks, radon gas, and the human body.

Millirem -- A millirem is one-thousandth of a rem, which is the unit used to measure the effect that radiation has on humans. 100 millirems per year is equal to about one-third of the average American's annual dose from nature.

High-Level Waste (HLW) -- Highly radioactive material that results from the chemical reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. It contains fission products, traces of uranium and plutonium, and other transuranic elements. High-level waste is produced in a liquid form and must be solidified before disposal.

Transuranic Waste -- Protective clothing, equipment, glassware, tools, soils, and sludge contaminated with manmade radioactive elements. The majority of transuranic waste is a byproduct of nuclear weapons research, production, and cleanup. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, which recently opened, is designed to store this type of nuclear waste.

Low-level Waste (LLW) -- All radioactive waste that is not classified as high-level waste, spent fuel, transuranic waste, or by-product material.

Civilian Waste -- Any radioactive waste generated by manufacturing industries, institutions (for medical or research purposes), and commercial nuclear power plants. Civilian waste includes both high-level and low-level nuclear waste. "Spent nuclear fuel" refers to nuclear waste from commercial power plants.

Defense Waste -- Radioactive waste that results from the research and production of nuclear weapons, the operation of naval reactors, the reprocessing of defense spent fuel, and the decommissioning of nuclear-powered ships and submarines.

Repository -- A permanent disposal facility where radioactive waste would undergo deep, geologic burial. If Yucca Mountain is designated as a permanent repository and licensed by the NRC, it would become the resting place of the nation's high-level waste.

Transportation Cask -- During the transportation of radioactive material, casks are the containers that provide shielding against waste leakage and prevent radiation from reaching the outside world. Typically, they are about 12 feet in diameter and measure 22 feet long with a weight of 200 tons. Lead and steel are common materials used in the manufacture of casks, which must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (3 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:47 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Reprocessing -- Refers to the process by which spent fuel is separated into material such as plutonium and uranium to be reused and waste material that must be disposed of.

Transmutation -- The process of transforming one element into another by a series of nuclear reactions, changing the molecular structure and in radioactive substances, reducing radiation hazard. Though untested and extremely costly, transmutation has been considered as an alternative to geologic burial.

Beowawe Crescent Valley Nuclear Waste Awareness Committee: Activities and Announcements

The Beowawe Crescent Valley Nuclear Waste Awareness Committee has formed to increase public awareness about the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. Specifically, the Committee is concerned that Crescent Valley is being considered as one of five rail routes to take waste to Yucca Mountain. The "Carlin route" would be constructed from the Union Pacific tracks in Beowawe and proceed southwest through Crescent Valley and into Grass Valley.

At the July 8 Committee meeting, Steve Frishman of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office and Judy Treichel of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force spoke about the state's position on Yucca Mountain, and scientific, technical and public health and safety concerns. These include:

● The ability of the geology of Yucca Mountain to contain the waste over 100,000 years ● The dependence on a new alloy as a canister material to contain the waste within the mountain ● The explanation of how the waste is projected to escape into the groundwater and environment over time, and how that might affect individuals in Amargosa Valley, down gradient from Yucca Mountain. ● The effects of thermal loading, the heat generated by the nuclear waste, on how the mountain will contain the waste and how the water in the mountain will move as a result of that heat.

The Committee's August 11 meeting will focus on identifying potential impacts from the proposed rail corridor.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (4 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:47 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

● September 16, 7:00 p.m. EIS Pre-meeting Workshop, conducted by the Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office in the Crescent Valley Town Center, 7:00 p.m. Learn what's in the EIS and how you can comment on it. Find out what to expect at the hearing. For more information, call Vicki Drenan at 468-0326 or Leonard Fiorenzi at 237-5372.

● The Beowawe Crescent Valley Nuclear Waste Awareness Committee will meet Wednesday, August 11 at the Crescent Valley Town Center, 5045 Tenabo. For more information, call Nancy Louden at 468-0299 or Vicki Drenan at 468-0326.

● The Beowawe Crescent Valley Nuclear Waste Awareness Committee entered a float in the Crescent Valley 4th of July parade. They were awarded third place for their depiction of a nuclear waste train.

Why Nevada Opposes the Proposed Repository at Yucca Mountain

According to the latest public opinion poll taken by the University of Nevada in 1998, 75% of Nevadans oppose the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. While the people in Nevada are adverse to the idea of a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, if the site is found suitable and subsequently licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), it could become the final resting place for as much as 70,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste.

The State's deep rooted opposition to the repository is ubiquitous throughout Nevada. Not only are most of Nevadans opposed to the repository, their opposition is shared by the State's political leadership. In fact, when Congress singled out Yucca Mountain as the only site for detailed study in 1987, the State's political leaders reacted by establishing a firm policy opposing the project. Today that policy remains as the State's official position.

Since 1987 the State's opposition to Yucca Mountain has also intensified. Today Nevada's political leadership contends the project has become tangled in issues of money, questionable science, and political power. State officials contend that issues related to the safety and health of Nevadans have been lost in the political and economic struggle over the final disposal of nuclear power's waste products.

Beyond these political concerns, State officials maintain that the Yucca Mountain controversy also "involves fundamental issues of a state's right to determine its economic and environmental future and to consent or object to federal projects within its borders." Many citizens believe that not only does the project pose very real environmental and safety threats for them, but that it is also a breach of state sovereignty.

Specific technical issues are often cited as the basis of opposition to the idea of irretrievably http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (5 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:47 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update burying thousands of tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is in an area that, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is classified as very prone to earthquakes. There are at least thirty-three known faults in the area of the proposed repository. Faults can cause problems because they create underground paths in the rock where water and gasses can flow, increasing the risk of waste package (canister) dissolution and groundwater contamination. Fault movements could also potentially breach the waste containers, leading to even faster groundwater contamination. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) contends that earthquakes would not pose a major threat to a repository because any shaking effects that would occur would not be severe enough to disrupt underground structures or alter groundwater beneath the mountain.

Opponents to the proposed repository also cite volcanic activity as a problem facing permanent burial of nuclear waste at the site. There is evidence that volcanic activity has taken place in the immediate vicinity of the mountain within the recent geologic past. If in the next 10,000 years any volcanic activity were to resume in the area, it could have disastrous consequences for a repository. DOE holds that the chances of renewed volcanic activity near the proposed repository are slim enough to be considered insignificant.

Other scientific uncertainties that concern State officials are thermal heat generated by the radioactive waste, accidental human intrusion, a possible rise in the level of the water table, and future climate changes.

In addition, some Nevadans are convinced that a repository at Yucca Mountain would have many unwanted economic effects for the state. The fear of an accident during the transportation of highly radioactive nuclear waste could be harmful to Nevada's image as an attractive tourist destination, damaging the state's most important industry. DOE maintains that the chances of an accident where radiation is released are slim, citing its past nuclear waste transportation record.

Overall, State officials have raised a myriad of issues about the Yucca Mountain repository that Nevadans believe cannot be readily dismissed. According to the State, many questions concerning political, legal, scientific and public safety issues still remain unanswered.

A Comparison of Existing and Proposed Radiation Standards

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (6 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:48 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

This chart shows the differences between existing radiation standards and those proposed for the Yucca Mountain repository. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing a 25 millirem per year limit for people living near the repository. It is possible that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will propose a 15 millirem standard for Yucca Mountain as well as a separate groundwater standard. There is also a bill in the U.S. Congress that would override both these rules and set the limit on the amount of permissible radiation from a Yucca Mountain repository at 100 millirems per year — chart source: Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office

NRC Publishes Draft Yucca Mountain Rule

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published a draft rule for licensing criteria for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

The rule has a "place-holder" standard with an all-pathways dose limit of 25 millirem per year for the repository, until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can complete its rule. The NRC has decided not to wait for the EPA to finish its environmental standards for the proposed repository; the EPA is two years overdue in finalizing the standards.

The philosophies of the EPA and the NRC differ regarding the radiation protection standards. The EPA may argue that a separate groundwater standard is necessary to protect potable water at Yucca Mountain. The NRC believes it is unnecessary and that an all-pathways standard provides sufficient

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (7 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:48 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update protection. S608, the latest nuclear waste disposal legislation, gives the NRC, not the EPA, final authority to develop radiation standards.

The EPA reportedly is considering a 4 millirem (mrem) groundwater protection standard for the repository proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nev. Some federal officials believe this standard is unrealistic for Yucca Mountain, although it is the standard for the Waste isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. NRC Chairman Shirley Jackson testified before a House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power that the standard is "unrealistic." The draft EPA proposal is purported to also contain a 15 mrem all-pathways annual dose limit; this limit would be separate from the proposed groundwater requirement. Adapted from the National Conference of State Legislatures High-Level Radioactive Waste News, April, 1999

Important Dates:

Beowawe Crescent Valley Nuclear Waste Awareness Committee: Public meetings will be held August 11, September 16, and October 14 at 7:00 p.m. in the Crescent Valley Town Center

"How to Participate in the EIS Hearing": September 16 at 7:00 p.m. in Crescent Valley

Eureka County Board of Commissioners: Meets 6th and 20th of every month (unless these dates fall on weekends)

Crescent Valley Town Advisory Board: Meets on the 12th and 26th of every month (unless these dates fall on weekends)

White Pine County EIS Public Meeting: September 8, Ely. Call 775-289-2033 for details

Senate Scraps Plans to Send Nuclear Waste to the Nevada Test Site

Last month the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 14-6 to abandon plans to send nuclear waste to the Nevada Test Site, ending the possibility for interim storage in Nevada in the immediate future. It was agreed instead to keep the highly radioactive nuclear waste onsite at the commercial nuclear power plants where it is currently stored until a permanent waste repository is completed and operational. Nevada Senator Richard Bryan called the vote a "real victory for Nevada." http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (8 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:48 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Frustrated by the threat of a presidential veto and staunch opposition by the entire Nevada delegation, committee chair Senator Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, proposed keeping the nuclear waste at the reactor sites, with DOE taking title to the waste, until a permanent repository is ready. Other substantial changes were also made to the bill. If passed, the new amended version of the bill would speed up the Yucca Mountain process, mandating the site to start receiving waste by 2007 instead of 2010. It would also allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to set the standards for radiation exposure instead of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This last provision is somewhat contentious as it is widely believe that the EPA would hold the proposed repository to higher standards than the NRC.

Surprisingly, an amendment to study transmutation and other alternatives to permanent geologic burial was also added to the bill. Part of the implementation of this provision could allow "temporary" storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain as part of the study.

Senator Murkowski has predicted that the bill will reach the floor by August. The bill must pass the full Senate and then be approved by the House of Representatives before it goes to the president to be either signed into law or vetoed.

DOE Briefs County Commission

Max Powell of DOE's Yucca Mountain Project briefed the Eureka County Board of Commissioners at their May 20 meeting. Powell informed the Commissioners of the status and progress that DOE is making to study Yucca Mountain, and described the work being done now to answer questions that remain about the site. Powell distributed transportation route maps of the routes likely to be considered in the EIS. He answered questions from the Commission and the public about DOE's Yucca mountain plans, research, schedule and funding.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (9 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:48 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update Guinn Sustains Opposition to Yucca Mountain

Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn addressed the nuclear waste disposal issue in his state of the state address to the Legislature. Guinn indicated he will continue to support the state's opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain by boosting funding for the Nuclear Waste Projects Agency. Guinn's budget, approved by the Nevada Legislature in May, included more than $1 million in state funds for the agency in addition to $400,000 in Nevada Department of Transportation funding and $320,000 from the federal government for oversight activities.

In early February, Governor Guinn testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Power about HR 45, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. In his testimony, Governor Guinn concentrated on two central themes -- political fairness, and equity and safety. Governor Guinn's position was bolstered by the passage immediately before his testimony of Nevada SJR 4, which also opposes the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Governor Guinn also held a "State Summit on Nuclear Waste" with congressional members, state executive branch officers and legislative leaders on February 16 at the capitol. The summit allowed leaders to map political, legal and scientific strategies to prevent nuclear waste from entering the state. After the summit Guinn stated, "This [nuclear waste] is clearly the most devastating environmental and economical problem that Nevada's citizens will face." Adapted from the National Conference of State Legislatures High-Level Radioactive Waste News, April, 1999

DOE to Study Yucca Mountain Water Flow

DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management will focus its studies for the next several years on water movement through the mountain and the design of the proposed repository. DOE has determined that -- to protect public health and the environment for thousands of years -- there must be limited water contact with the waste package and a low rate of release of radionuclides from waste packages that are breached by water corrosion. DOE scientists must determine whether they can ensure that there will be limited infiltration of water contacting the waste packages after they are placed in the repository. The Viability Assessment has several findings that indicate that water may move through the mountain by methods that the scientists need to further understand. In early 1996, DOE scientists found evidence indicating that some water may be traveling from ground surface to the repository level in 50 years or less. DOE is conducting joint studies at Yucca Mountain with the State of Nevada University System. Adapted from the National Conference of State Legislatures High-Level Radioactive Waste News, April, 1999 http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (10 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:48 PM] Summer 1999 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet9902.htm (11 of 11) [3/28/02 2:32:48 PM] July 1999 Newsletter - Special EIS Eddition -- Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

● Draft EIS Public Comment Time ● Participation Q&A Cut in Half ● EIS Impact Checklist ● Important Dates ● Resources for More EIS Information ● EIS Hearing Schedule

DOE Cuts Public Comment Time for Draft Environmental Impact Statement in Half

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (DEIS) will be released July 30th of this year, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). The DEIS is precursor to the final EIS. The final Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate the construction, operation, and eventually closure of an underground repository for disposal of up to 70,000 tons of commercial and DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high- level radioactive waste. The EIS will further address various transportation options at the national and state-wide level. Examples include shipping all spent nuclear fuel by truck, or by rail or some combination of both. Several Nevada rail corridors, including one that runs through Eureka County, will also be evaluated along with alternative locations for rail to truck “intermodal” waste transfer facilities.

Mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (as amended), the EIS is required to support DOE’s site recommendation to the President as well as the President’s recommendation to Congress on the potential suitability of Yucca Mountain. If Congress finds the site suitable, then DOE will seek a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct and operate Yucca Mountain as permanent repository.

As part of the process for completing the EIS and obtaining approval to and build the repository, DOE must conduct hearings in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. Hearings will be http://www.yuccamountain.org/update.htm (1 of 5) [3/28/02 2:33:41 PM] July 1999 Newsletter - Special EIS Eddition -- Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update held in locations where residents could be affected by shipments and/or burial of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The hearings are used to collect public comments on the information contained in the DEIS; DOE must respond to the comments in a “comment response” document attached to the final EIS. Public comments are vital to understanding the total impact that a permanent repository would have on the surrounding community and environment.

Because public comments could have significant bearing on the final Yucca Mountain decision, the State of Nevada and affected local governments, including Eureka County, requested DOE to provide 180 days at a minimum to prepare comments on the DEIS. Originally, DOE committed to 180 days in its 1997 Scoping Comment Summary Document as 180 days. According to Pete Goicoechea, chairman of the Eureka County Board of Commissioners, 180 days was “an appropriate and necessary review period for a document as complex as the Yucca Mountain Repository DEIS.” The DEIS is reported to be 1,600 pages in length.

However, citing budget cuts and the necessity to “compress the EIS schedule,” Lake Barret, Director of DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, denied the requests for re-extension. The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project is already massively behind schedule (Yucca Mountain was originally slated to begin receiving waste in 1998), and DOE is hoping to speed up the process by cutting the comment time in half. On a more positive note, Barret did offer to make “reference documents that support the DEIS” available in public reading rooms and on the Internet and release a DEIS CD-ROM. DOE plans to hold eight public hearings in Nevada during the public comment period which begins as soon as the DEIS is released (see schedule on front).

EIS Hearing Schedule Important Dates

● August 31 — Pahrump ● The Beowawe Crescent Valley ● September 2 — Goldfield Nuclear Waste Awareness ● September 7 — Caliente Committee meets the 2nd Thursday ● September 9 — Las Vegas of each month at 7:00 pm at the ● September 14 — Washington D.C. Crescent Valley Town Center . . . ● September 16 — Atlanta, GA July 8th — Steve Frishman from ● September 21 — Reno Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Project ● September 22 — Austin Office speaks on “Scientific and ● September 23 — Crescent Valley Technology Concerns” ● September 28 — Denver, CO ● September 30 — Boise, ID ● The EIS Hearing in Crescent Valley ● October 5 — Salt Lake City, UT is scheduled for September 23 ● October 7 — Amargosa Valley http://www.yuccamountain.org/update.htm (2 of 5) [3/28/02 2:33:41 PM] July 1999 Newsletter - Special EIS Eddition -- Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

● A meeting called “How to Participate in the EIS Hearing” will also be held in September, exact date yet to be confirmed

Participation Q & A

How can I prepare? DOE will make materials available that will help you to comment on the Draft EIS. These include a summary of the document, a fact sheet, a CD-ROM, as well as the document itself. Fill out and return the bottom portion of page one to receive these items. In addition, Eureka County will be holding a meeting called “How to Participate in the EIS Hearing” in September which will address how to prepare for and participate in the EIS process.

When will I receive the EIS from DOE? The EIS is slated to be released July 30th so fill out the bottom portion of page one and return it as soon as possible to ensure prompt delivery of your copy. Or, you can also call DOE’s toll-free information line (1-800-967-3477) and order a copy by phone.

How can I participate? There are several ways to voice your opinion during the EIS comment period. Citizens can give their comments verbally at one of the hearings (mark your calendar for the Austin hearing on September 22nd or the Crescent Valley hearing on September 23rd). DOE can also be reached by fax machine and regular mail. DOE has also set up a toll- free phone line and an e-mail address to receive your comments and concerns. DOE says all comments will be given equal importance, regardless of how they are received.

● Phone: 1-800-967-3477 ● Fax: 1-800-967-0739 ● E-mail: [email protected] ● Mail: Wendy R. Dixon, EIS Project Manager, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 1180 Town Center Drive, M/S 010, Las Vegas, NV 89134

How can I make my comments stand out? The key to maximizing the impact of your comments is an understanding of the process. http://www.yuccamountain.org/update.htm (3 of 5) [3/28/02 2:33:41 PM] July 1999 Newsletter - Special EIS Eddition -- Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Be familiar with the relevant facts and information and make sure to focus on how the proposed repository would affect you and your community. Relate you comments to the document. Ask yourself, what do I want my comment to accomplish?

EIS Checklist; Resources for More EIS Consider the Impacts Information:

● Mining Eureka County Public Works — P.O. ● Wildlife Box 714, Eureka, NV 89316 (775) 237- ● Grazing 5372 ● Roads ● Emergency Response Crescent Valley Public Works — 5045 ● Terrain Tenabo Ave, Crescent Valley 89821 ● Property/Land Use (775) 468-0326 ● Wild Horses ● Military Land and Airspace State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Project ● Construction Impacts Office — Evergreen Center, 1802 N. ● Railroad Carson, Suite 252 Carson City, NV ● Wilderness 89701 (775) 687-3744 ● Human Health and Safety ● Floodplain Department of Energy Yucca Mountain ● Environmental Justice Site Characterization Office — P.O. ● Soils Box 30307, North Las Vegas, NV ● Historical and Cultural 89036 (702)794-5555 ● Utilities ● Local Government Impacts ● Hazardous Materials Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force — ● Land Use Conflicts 4550 W. Oakey, Suite 111, Las Vegas, NV 89102 (702) 248-1127 or 1-800- 227-9809

http://www.yuccamountain.org/update.htm (4 of 5) [3/28/02 2:33:41 PM] July 1999 Newsletter - Special EIS Eddition -- Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/update.htm (5 of 5) [3/28/02 2:33:41 PM] Summer 1998 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

In this issue:

● Change in proposed Carlin rail route

● Viability Assessment at Yucca Mountain

● WIPP, New Mexico certified as a nuclear dump

● Heat tests at Yucca Mountain

● Foreign reactor research fuel shipped through Nevada

● DOT nuclear waste transportation study released

● Nuclear waste legislation dies in Congress

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet8.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:34:46 PM] Summer 1998 Newsletter - Eureka County Nuclear Waste Update

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/newslet8.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:34:46 PM] Newsletter Index - 1993, 1994, and 1995 Eureka County Newsletter Archives The Nuclear Waste Update Also See Yucca Mountain in the News 1998 and 1999

National Academy of Sciences Research Council Issues November 1995 Recommendations on Yucca Mountain Health Standard

November 1995 What Does Interim Storage Mean to Nevada?

November 1995 Citizen Input Crucial in Repository EIS Scoping

Emergency Response Report: Volunteers Dedicate, but November 1995 Lack Equipment and Training

June 1995 MPC Scoping Ends, Draft EIS Due in Fall 1995

June 1995 TBM Encounters Fault; Cave-In Occurs at ESF

June 1995 Explosion Theory Gains National Attention

DOE to Release Preliminary Transportation Strategy June 1995 for Nevada

April 1994 Eurekans Remember Atomic Testing

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archive.htm (1 of 3) [3/28/02 2:35:28 PM] Newsletter Index - 1993, 1994, and 1995

April 1994 The Nuclear Waste Fund

April 1994 NWTRB Presses for Idependent Review

April 1994 New Fault at Yucca Mountain

December 1993 Report IDs Possible Rail Impacts on County

December 1993 Price-Anderson Act

December 1993 Study: Eureka County Has Lowest Tax Rate

December 1993 DOE Lacks Overall Strategy, Says Technical Board

July 1993 What's the County Doing About Nuclear Waste?

July 1993 Tour Raises More Questions

July 1993 Eureka Yucca Mountain Tour

July 1993 Beatty Site Closed to Low-Level Waste

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archive.htm (2 of 3) [3/28/02 2:35:28 PM] Newsletter Index - 1993, 1994, and 1995

Site Index

Last Updated 02/2002

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archive.htm (3 of 3) [3/28/02 2:35:28 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - National Academy of Sciences Research Council Issues Recommendations on Yucca Mountain Health Standard National Academy of Sciences Research Council Issues Recommendations on Yucca Mountain Health Standard

November 1995

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health standard for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain should be based on limiting risks to individuals who live and work nearby, rather than limiting risk for one maximally exposed individual, concluded a report released in August by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council.

One scientist on the committee, Thomas H. Pigford, dissented on some of the report's findings. In a recent interview, Pigford said that the methods and assumptions the panel proposed to estimate radiation exposure scenarios for Yucca Mountain were flawed, unscientific, and much less stringent than what has been traditionally used in the United States and other countries.

Pigford says that the committee's approach would greatly underestimate the actual cancer risk in the immediate vicinity of Yucca Mountain. He believes that about 3,000 times more radioactivity would be allowed to be released under the committee's health standard than by the one he advocates.

Pigford, who has served as a professor of nuclear engineering at Berkeley since 1959, said he considers the councils' recommendations "an unjustified departure" from traditional safety standards for repositories.

In his dissent to the report, Pigford emphasized that the subsistence farmer exposure scenario, in which a farmer relies on contaminated groundwater for drinking water and to raise his own crops for food, is the most conservative scenario for estimating long-term dose and risk predictions, and offers the public the highest level of safety.

"For years and years, the U.S. and other countries have used the subsistence farmer approach when we don't know how people will behave. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (a repository for low-level defense waste in New Mexico) is using this approach, so are Sweden, Switzerland, England, and Canada. Why did the committee choose to depart from the traditional approach?"

But for Robert Fri, chairman of the Committee on the Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, said the subsistence farmer scenario was not at issue.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv10.htm (1 of 3) [3/28/02 2:36:08 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - National Academy of Sciences Research Council Issues Recommendations on Yucca Mountain Health Standard

"In my own view, the issue boils down to do you assume that this person (farmer) is going to drill a well into the area where the radioactive nuclide component is highest? The majority view of the committee said no."

Fri said there is currently much debate in the National Academy of Sciences about whether a worst-case scenario is reasonable considering the scenarios that sometimes play out. "The trouble that everybody is dealing with is that for the long term you can come up with scenarios that either pass or fail the project."

"The Environmental Protection Agency said there were concerns about using the theoretical upper bound (the worst-case scenario). Many of the group felt this scenario was more reasonable than the worst-case approach," Fri said in a phone interview.

Pigford says the panel turned away from the subsistence farmer scenario after early documentation by Yucca Mountain contractors applying the traditional subsistence farmer method showed that much higher radiation doses would be released from the proposed repository than are now acceptable, a dose of about 1 rem/year.

"All of them showed doses much, much higher than would normally by acceptable (10-30 millirems per year)," said Pigford.

By Pigford's calculations, the probability of cancer based on the 1 rem/year dose would amount to "one chance out of 30 for a person living in the area to develop cancer during a lifetime."

Once those kinds of dose rates were shown, Pigford said, discussion on the panel turned to what effect the dose standard would have on the Yucca Mountain project.

In the report, the committee acknowledged that there was no scientific basis for predicting where future people will live or how they will act. Nevertheless, after hearing from a contractor with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the committee decided to adopt the probabilistic approach. For the purposes of illustration, the EPRI contractor assumed that most residents would live only part-time in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, would rely manly on outside food sources, that contaminated water would seldom be used for farming, and that residents would seldom dig wells into the contaminated groundwater.

"There's no scientific basis for these assumptions," says Pigford, "but the panel adopted the EPRI probabilistic concept."

Although the committee did not define the critical group that would be affected by releases, leaving that to the EPA as a policy making decision, it did lay out a calculation method to determine who the critically affected group would be. Despite the fact that subsistence farmers now live in the Amargosa Valley, the committee's stipulations offer no assurances that this http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv10.htm (2 of 3) [3/28/02 2:36:08 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - National Academy of Sciences Research Council Issues Recommendations on Yucca Mountain Health Standard maximally dosed individual would even be included in the critically affected group.

You can't do that with people who will live 10,000 to 100,000 years from now," Pigford said. "You don't know what they will do. This is an unscientific method under the guise of policy."

I've written 15 National Academy of Sciences reports, and I've never before written a dissent. But on this one I was so shocked, I had to do it."

If the EPRI assumptions are adopted, Yucca Mountain will easily meet the health standard, said Pigford, even though actual cancer risk will be much higher than what the standard depicts.

The committee's report does not describe the early data and dose rates that resulted, nor does it state why the subsistence farmer approach was not used, but does make the following statement:

"Although not a purely scientific issue, we believe that a reasonable and practicable objective is to protect the vast majority of members of the public while also ensuring that the decision on the acceptability of a repository is not prejudiced by the risks imposed on a very small number of individuals with unusual habits or sensitivities."

Last Updated 10/99

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv10.htm (3 of 3) [3/28/02 2:36:08 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - What Does Interim Storage Mean to Nevada? What Does Interim Storage Mean to Nevada?

November 1995

With all the confusion in Congress, it's hard to tell where the nation's nuclear waste program is heading. One thing is for sure: the words "interim storage" are on everyone's lips. But just exactly what does that mean?

Interim storage refers to above-ground, temporary, retrievable storage of spent fuel rods. Repository storage, on the other hand, refers to permanent (generally irretrievable), deep geologic disposal of commercial spent fuel, with some defense waste as well.

Under legislation now proposed in Congress, interim storage could last from 20 to 100 years, and perhaps much longer, depending upon whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed an interim storage facility's license.

If an interim site were congressionally approved, the DOE would be looking to build an above- ground facility for dry-cask storage of commercial fuel, much like what now occurs at the nuclear utilities that presently store their own spent fuel rods.

Even DOE is receiving mixed messages over the quick change from permanent to interim storage. Under current law, interim storage cannot occur in a state that is being considered for permanent storage.

Gregory Cook, a public affairs officer with the Nevada Test Site, said the DOE is in a position where it can't officially plan for interim storage, but at the same time, an appropriation bill and other legislation is seriously considering interim storage.

"It puts the department in a difficult position. Unofficially, we'd be stupid if we didn't (plan for interim storage)."

Some say chances are good that an interim disposal facility would be built at the Nevada Test Site. One Washington trade reporter who covers nuclear waste issues said the same forces that put Yucca Mountain in the position as the nation's sole nuclear waste repository are still at work.

"Nevada is still the weakest state politically, and if legislation passes that cites an interim facility, I would bet on it being at NTS," said the reporter, who requested anonymity.

The shift in emphasis from a permanent site at Yucca Mountain toward interim storage is that site characterization and licensing of the proposed Yucca Mountain site will not be complete by http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv8.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:36:41 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - What Does Interim Storage Mean to Nevada?

January 31, 1998. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act set the 1998 deadline as the date when the federal government would begin accepting spent fuel at a repository.

Many utilities have run out of storage room for the radioactive waste and claim that they are paying twice for the waste, first by paying into the Nuclear Waste Fund to develop a permanent repository, and a second time when they pay to manage and store the waste while the federal government attempts to build a permanent repository. Lobbyists for the nuclear industry have brought pressure to bear. Lawsuits have been filed against the government claiming damages if no waste storage site is available by January 31, 1998 as promised.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv8.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:36:41 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - Citizen Input Crucial in Repository EIS Scoping Citizen Input Crucial in Repository EIS Scoping

November 1995

Many people may wonder why they should participate in the EIS scoping process by writing DOE with their comments on the proposed project at Yucca Mountain. This is one of the few times that the public will have the opportunity to comment on the scope of this project, for the record. Legally, DOE is bound to consider each scoping comment, and address it in the draft EIS for the Yucca Mountain repository.

The Repository EIS will discuss the proposed action of constructing, operating, and closing a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, and will also discuss alternatives to that action, including a No Action Alternative. The DOE has said that under the No Action Alternative, nuclear utilities would continue to store nuclear waste on-site until they run out of room. At that point the utility reactor would be shut down.

In this initial phase of the Repository EIS called "scoping," the document preparers offer the public the chance to determine what the boundaries of analysis of the project should be. It is the public's chance to state what issues, concerns, and impacts should be discussed in relation to the proposed action. Although a second phase of public review and comment is available after the draft EIS is released, this initial is very important in setting the stage for what will be analyzed. Public comments can voice concerns about the project, point out issues that should be addressed, and identify impacts that the DOE may not have considered.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv7.htm [3/28/02 2:37:08 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - Emergency Response Report: Volunteers Dedicated, But Lack Equipment and Training Emergency Response Report: Volunteers Dedicated, But Lack Equipment and Training

November 1995

Three case studies show need for more coordination, training, and equipment

The Eureka County Board of Commissioners recently issued a report on the county's ability to respond to shipments of nuclear waste through the county in the event that the Yucca Mountain repository becomes operational.

A study of three hazardous waste incidents in Eureka County shows that the country has a large number of dedicated volunteer emergency responders, but lacks adequate training and equipment for them. In addition, the study found that access to a hazardous materials team may be inadequate for future needs.

The report evaluated three past hazardous waste incidents -- a fire at the Newmont Mine in a northern Eureka County; a roll-over accident at I-80 a few miles west of Carlin involving a van loaded with explosives; and a fire at the Barrick Goldstrike Mine in northern Eureka County.

In all three hazardous waste incidents, the study found that the number of responders and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) was adequate. It cited the dedicated involvement of both individual volunteers and crews from private companies such as mines and chemical companies, a reinvigorated Local Emergency Planning Committee, and a near-complete Mutual Aid Agreement. In general, the report found that local emergency responders worked well together.

Report shows lack of cooperation from state, federal agencies

However, communication and cooperation among local responders and state and federal agencies were found to be somewhat lacking. Response time was often a factor, and insufficient training and inadequate equipment often adversely affected the outcomes of the hazardous waste incidents.

Example -- a van roll over on August 3, 1993, involving weapons, explosives, and chemicals. The study shows that local responders did not receive ful cooperation from state and federal agencies, and a hazardous materials team did not arrive on site until six hours after the explosives were discovered.

As a result, a 42-mile stretch of I-80 remained closed for 16 hours. As it turned out, a chemist

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv2.htm (1 of 3) [3/28/02 2:37:36 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - Emergency Response Report: Volunteers Dedicated, But Lack Equipment and Training from Newmont Gold Mine, together with members of the Wendover hazmat team, helped identify the explosives and chemicals.

In two of the accidents, a fire at the Newmont Gold Mine on November 3, 1994, and a fire at the Barrick Goldstrike refinery on April 15, 1994, inadequate equipment and training by the mines' own volunteer crews were found to be factors that adversely affected emergency response. The report states that in both incidents, self-contained breathing apparatus were in short supply, emergency response equipment was either old or not available, and training and communication were often inadequate.

Insufficient training and equipment a factor

The report also recognizes that a lack of control and coordination, coupled with separate teams of emergency responders who had not trained together, led to confusion in response to the mine fires. A lack of hand-held radios or field programmable-radios was also though to complicate matters. As a result, not all the responders could communicate by radio with each other. In each case, no incident command post was initially instituted, which led to confusion and a lack of coordination. One fire fighter died in the Barrick Goldstrike fire.

Although all three incidents were successfully resolved, emergency responders themselves stated that luck often played a major role in emergency response.

Sandy Green, project coordinator for the Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office, says luck won't be good enough if the county is required to handle radioactive waste emergencies. In addition, it is unclear who would foot the bill for the sophisticated equipment required for handling radioactive waste emergencies.

In the even of a nuclear incident, local emergency responders would be the first to reach an emergency site and would be responsible for setting up command posts and activating communication with outside agencies. The report showed inadequacies in both areas.

Green questioned whether volunteers cold donate the time for the extensive training that might be required to learn how to appropriately handle a nuclear incident.

"I don't know if you can just rely on volunteers for emergency response for these incidents, it's a big, big responsibility," Green said. "The Department of Energy may have to provide trained professionals for initial response."

Site Index http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv2.htm (2 of 3) [3/28/02 2:37:36 PM] November 1995 Newsletter - Emergency Response Report: Volunteers Dedicated, But Lack Equipment and Training

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv2.htm (3 of 3) [3/28/02 2:37:36 PM] June 1995 Newsletter - MPC Scoping Ends, Draft EIS Due in Fall 1995 MPC Scoping Ends, Draft EIS Due in Fall 1995

June 1995

The scoping and preliminary comment period on the Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) formally ended January 6, and work on an implementation plan to disclose preparation plans on the EIS will be available sometime in June, says Jerry Parker, MPC EIS director for the DOE.

The MPC is a system of overpacks for spent fuel rods assemblies that allows for storage, transport, and possibly emplacement in an underground facility. The MPC EIS does not include impacts linked to geologic disposal because to date, no decision has been made on the suitability of the proposed geologic repository site at Yucca Mountain. Also, it is not yet known whether the MPC would be acceptable as a waste container for burial at Yucca Mountain.

Parker said a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would probably be out this fall, and said he expected public hearings on the MPC to occur early next year.

Since the close of the scoping period, it has been learned that use of the MPC for storage and transport of Naval submarine and ship reactor fuel will also be considered in the EIS. The U.S. Navy is a cooperating agency in the development of the MPC EIS and will provide information on the characteristics of the Naval nuclear reactor fuel.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv20.htm [3/28/02 2:38:11 PM] June 1995 Newsletter - TBM Encounters Fault; Cave-In Occurs at ESF TBM Encounters Fault; Cave-In Occurs at ESF

June 1995

The Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) excavating the Yucca Mountain Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) encountered the Bow Ridge Fault and fracture zone February 1, causing a flow of material that brought work to a standstill.

The TBM ran into soft ground causing a 12-15 foot natural arch cavity to open above the tunnel. According to Department of Energy (DOE) reports, TBM operators observed that the conveyor belt had been overloading, and the cutterhead amperage had decreased. Work was stopped and an opening became apparent.

Within 24 hours, the opening was pumped with cement. During the downtime, the ESF Test Coordination Office, U.S. Geologic Survey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Sandia National Laboratories evaluated the fault and the adequacy of existing conditions and test controls. The construction team decided to apply stabilizing measures before proceeding with excavation. They concluded that patching the cavity would not pose a significant problem for scientific studies.

The DOE is bound by Administrative Procedures to report any significant geologic conditions that occur during the tunneling operations. If a condition is reportable, tunneling would have to stop, and an evaluation of the condition and how it might affect site characterization would be required. The DOE has stated that the incident did not constitute a significant geologic condition because personnel fully expected fault zones and associated structures during tunneling. In a report on the incident, DOE states that "off-normal" geologic conditions are expected as tunneling continues.

Carl Johnson, of the state's Nuclear Waste Project Office disagrees. "We've said it should have been reported as a significant geologic condition. In our view this is symptomatic of the project: they really have not characterized the sub-surface of Yucca Mountain well enough that they can predict what geologic conditions will be. The criteria are written so that nothing is reportable, anything is possible." In addition, Johnson believes DOE should have taken more time to investigate the cavity before it was patched.

Site Index What's New | Newsletter | EIS Data | Legislative Information | Calendar

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv18.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:38:44 PM] June 1995 Newsletter - TBM Encounters Fault; Cave-In Occurs at ESF

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv18.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:38:44 PM] June 1995 Newsletter - Explosion Theory Gains National Attention Explosion Theory Gains National Attention

June 1995

Two physicists, Dr. Charles D. Bowman and Dr. Francesco Venneri, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, NM, recently released a thesis claiming that geologic disposal of high-level nuclear waste at the proposed Yucca Mountain site could potentially cause a nuclear explosion, dispersing radioactivity into the wind and water. The theory gained national attention after it was reported in a front page article of the New York Times in early March.

Dr. Bowman, the originator of the theory, has stated that he believes there is "a generic problem with putting fissile materials underground." Fissile materials are those that fission, or split apart, during a nuclear reaction.

Bowman believes that serious dangers could arise thousands of years after high-level radioactive waste is emplaced in an underground repository such as the proposed Yucca Mountain site. He theorizes that over time, the steel canisters holding the nuclear waste will disintegrate. He postulates that plutonium 239 could migrate into the surrounding rock, through water movement. If the plume is the right shape and dimension, contains as little as one kilogram of plutonium, and the rock-water ratio is correct, an explosive nuclear chain reaction could take place when the mass becomes critical, causing an explosion in the underground repository.

A press release response from DOE's Yucca Mountain Project Office stated that the Department of Energy will evaluate Dr. Bowman's theory regarding Yucca Mountain, and will seek independent peer review by outside experts if the theory raises issues that are not already addressed.

Sandy Green, with the Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office, said she continues to have concerns about the theory. "They had three internal groups review the theory (at the Los Alamos Laboratories). If they couldn't dismiss the theory internally, then there are still some questions and concerns."

Carl Johnson, Administrator os Technical Programs for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the state is taking Bowman's theory seriously. Johnson admonished the DOE for not discussing the theory openly at an earlier time. "This is one scenario they should have been studying and evaluating all this time. Why did one of their laboratory scientists have to bring it up? Why only now do we learn about it? Why do we have to learn about it in the press first?"

Some questions remain about Bowman and Venneri and the release of their theory to the New York Times. The two have worked on accelerator-transmutation of high-level waste into non-

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv1.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:39:15 PM] June 1995 Newsletter - Explosion Theory Gains National Attention radioactive elements, not geologic disposal. Funding for transmutation has decreased, and work on geologic disposal has increased. Some wonder whether the two scientists released their theory to the press in order to raise doubts about geologic disposal and increase funding for their work in transmutation.

Although the thesis was disputed by teams of scientists at Los Alamos, scientists from the Department of Energy at the Savannah River nuclear site near Aiken, SC, supported the theory, calling it a "discovery," and an "original piece of work."

In May, scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California released a 17- page report refuting the explosion theory. Bowman fired back, charging that the critics did not do a thorough scientific investigation.

The Bowman-Venneri paper has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Those Los Alamos scientists who disagree with the paper will submit a response paper in an attempt to discredit the theory.

Last Updated 10/99

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv1.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:39:15 PM] June 1995 Newsletter - DOE to Release Preliminary Transportation Strategy for Nevada DOE to Release Preliminary Transportation Strategy for Nevada

June 1995

The DOE will soon release a Preliminary Transportation Study describing the potential rail and highway routes in Nevada that could be used to transport high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. The study is a preliminary scoping document for a repository Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that includes transportation.

Phil Gehner, a DOE contractor in charge of the transportation study, said its purpose is to determine and document the processes, timelines, and costs associated with developing a radioactive waste transportation system in Nevada. The study is partially based on previous data compiled in preliminary rail access studies but includes rail corridor costs estimates and changes from the earlier studies, including one new rail route, two modified rail routes, and a heavy haul option for highway transport.

Highway Issues: Heavy Haul Truck Option

The Preliminary Transportation Strategy Study identifies three routes for heavy haul transport: Caliente, Arden, and the Valley/Dike Siding route. The state of Nevada defines heavy haul trucks as those shipments that exceed 129,000 pounds, gross vehicle weight. The larger multi- purpose canister, loaded with spent fuel, would weigh 250,000 pounds, excluding the weight of the truck. In order to use heavy haul transport, DOE would construct intermodal transfer stations, to be transfer stations between rail transport and highway transport. At the intermodal transfer stations the spent fuel would be loaded from the trains onto the huge trucks, which are about 148 feet long, the same size as a triple semitrailer.

Bob Halstead, transportation specialist for the state of Nevada, said there are many concerns about use of heavy haul and intermodal transport.

"When you start putting thousands of heavy-haul trucks on the road, you've got problems," said Halstead. "There are steep grades on some of those routes and the trucks would be operating on roads used by lots of hazardous materials shippers."

Halstead said the state is concerned about the increased potential for worker exposure due to the handling of radioactive waste casks at the intermodal transfer stations, and risks of heavy haul truck shipments on public highways. In any scenario under which all shipments to Yucca Mountain used an intermodal facility, there would be heavy haul trucks on the roads virtually

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv14.htm (1 of 3) [3/28/02 2:39:52 PM] June 1995 Newsletter - DOE to Release Preliminary Transportation Strategy for Nevada every day of the year for 30 years.

The Transportation Study identifies issues with the various highway routes, including frost and width restrictions. The Caliente route has frost restrictions about three months out of the year. Gehner, the DOE contractor, said the study considers the option of changing the length and axle loading of heavy haul trucks during frost restrictions. "We're considering what a rig would look like with additional axles, what the turning radius would be like. We're looking to get more information there."

The Sate of Nevada Department of Transportation said triple semitrailors are used regularly in Nevada. However, Sharon Powers, a permit agent in the overdimension permit section at the agency said she would be concerned about the increased traffic of heavy haul trucks in the state, especially around Pahrump, where growth has increased dramatically. "There has been so much progress and development out there, everyone thinks it's the boondocks, but we issue permits for heavy haul equipment all the time for construction materials they're hauling out there."

In addition, the Arden route on State Route 160 between Pahrump and Blue Diamond has width restrictions that under existing conditions would make the road about two feet too narrow for DOE trucks. Gehner said the road is being upgraded in the Spring Mountains area, and would probably be acceptable as a potential route in the near future.

Rail Corridor Issues

The Transportation Study recommends four rail routes for detailed evaluation, and gives cost estimates for each of the following: the Caliente, Carlin, Jean, and Valley Modified routes. The Jean and Valley Modified routes are updated versions of routes described in the preliminary rail access study of 1990.

Gehner said the potential rail routes could cost from $355 million to $1.4 billion. According to the study data, the Caliente route is the most expensive, costing $1,437,500. The Modified Valley route is least expensive, at $355,400,000. The Carlin route is predicted to cost $1.1 billion. Estimates were determined based on a previous study and were modified to include engineering, construction, and administrative costs. Costs associated with environmental mitigation or litigation were not included.

The study proposes two versions of the Carlin route, which would bisect Eureka County. DOE is now looking at an option to route the radioactive waste through the Smoky Valley as the route heads south from southwestern Eureka County.

Steve Campbell, Senior Associate with Planning Information Corporation which is a contractor for Eureka County, voiced concerns that environmental issues and land use considerations in the Monitor and Smoky Valleys are not addressed in the study. In addition, Campbell cited

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv14.htm (2 of 3) [3/28/02 2:39:52 PM] June 1995 Newsletter - DOE to Release Preliminary Transportation Strategy for Nevada environmental concerns about the wetlands in the Palisades area at Pine Creek. "The option is to go 3-4 miles northeast and come through some heavy slope changes, that's pretty heavy terrain," he commented.

Halstead, the state's transportation expert thinks the focal point will be on the Modified Valley Route, proposed for Clark and Nye counties, due to its short length and ease of terrain. The route is described in Sen. Bennett Johnston's (D-La.) bill as a designated rail corridor.

Halstead said there are many concerns about the area: that it is a rapidly developing residential and commercial area; that it is currently used for recreational activities; that the whole area is subject to sever flooding; that the proposed route would traverse the Nellis and Quail Springs Wildlife Study Areas; that there are potential conflicts with Native American land use; and that the area is subject to military training overflights.

"I would be really surprised if there were no endangered species conflicts," said Halstead. "It is also possible that the risk of military overflights is an issue that cannot be resolved by DOE and the Air Force," he said.

Gehner said the Preliminary Transportation Study is the beginning of an information gathering phase, and that the DOE will be looking for data on a number of issues. He cited the Monitor and Smoky Valleys, and Beowawe and Palisades as areas where information is being collected related to the Carlin route.

"The DOE sees that there are obstacles regardless of the route. Caliente is a long distance, the same as Carlin. The Valley Modified route is a short distance, but it's close to a large and expanding population (Las Vegas). The Jean route would go through Pahrump, which is also an expanding population," said Gehner.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv14.htm (3 of 3) [3/28/02 2:39:52 PM] April 1994 Newsletter - Eurekans Remember Atomic Testing Eurekans Remember Atomic Testing

April 1994

In an attempt to increase public trust and confidence in the Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary recently released files showing that the federal government conducted human radiation experiments between 1940 and 1973. Calls have flooded the DOE's hotline with reports of government scientists using humans as guinea pigs in radiation experiments.

The institutional radiation testing is different from the above ground nuclear bomb testing that occurred in Nevada in the 1950s and early 1960s, when atomic blasts erupted at the Nevada Test Site and two other off-site locations, and downwinders were exposed to radiation from fallout. But in one way, the effects of the tests were essentially the same: those who were being experimented upon were all unknowing victims.

In light of the DOE's new emphasis on openness, some members of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects have called on Secretary O'Leary to fully account for all past nuclear tests in the state. They say the public has a right to know how much radiation was released into air and water during atomic blasts that occurred both on and off the Nevada Test Site.

Recent news stories about the atomic tests have stirred up some Eurekan's memories. Isadore Sara, 82, a retired rancher and county worker, remembers that a team of scientists equipped with radiation gages came to Eureka dressed in radiation suits sometime during the test period. "They had all this testing equipment. I knew they were here but I didn't know why. To tell you the truth, I didn't pay them any attention. But I guess maybe I should have; look what's come up lately in Utah and St. George with the downwinders there and cancer."

LeRoy Etchegaray, 65, a Diamond Valley rancher, remembers a few times that ranchers complained of burning skin on test days. "We were always listening to the radio to know when they did the test. I remember eight to ten people complaining about feeling something like a severe sunburn on their face and on any skin open to the air, but I don't know if anybody was severely damaged." Etchegaray said it seemed like the burning sensation occurred on windy days.

He remembers hearing rumors of the tests' effects in Diamond Valley, Kobeh Valley, and at the south end of Pine Valley. "It seemed like the men out riding were most affected," he said.

Joan Shangle, Eureka County Clerk and Treasurer, believes her father-in-law, Floyd "Dick" Pack, was affected by the fallout from the Atomic Energy Commission's above ground tests in

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv15.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:40:15 PM] April 1994 Newsletter - Eurekans Remember Atomic Testing the early 1950s. She remembers two times when he received severe burns while working outdoors at the Fish Creek Ranch where he was manager.

"At the time we thought it was just a terrible, terrible sunburn. I remember them (her husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law) sitting at the kitchen counter with their arms up while we put potatoes on their arms to try and remove the heat. He suffered that type of burn two distinct times, maybe more." Pack died in 1960 of skin and lung cancer.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv15.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:40:15 PM] April 1994 Newsletter - The Nuclear Waste Fund The Nuclear Waste Fund

April 1994

Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary has proposed an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The amendment will create a new funding approach so that site characterization studies at Yucca Mountain can receive adequate funding to stay on schedule.

The Nuclear Waste Fund is a federal fund designed to provide money to site, design, construct, and operate a deep geologic repository for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The fund was authorized under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and is paid into by utilities that produce nuclear waste.

Based on the idea that consumers of nuclear-power-generated electricity should bear the costs of disposing of the related waste, the fund assesses two kinds of fees. The first is a one-time charge for commercial high-level waste or spent fuel that existed before April 1983. The second fee is a one mill (one tenth of a cent) per kilowatt hour fee charged to rate-payers for electricity generated by nuclear reactors after April 1983. This adjustable fee is subject to annual review, and the General Accounting Office has expressed concern that the 1 mill is inadequate for the costs of waste disposal. Despite such concerns, DOE has not recommended a fee increase.

O'Leary's plan is to continue to request money from the NWF, but to allow a portion of each year's utility fee receipts to be available to the DOE's civilian radioactive waste management program. Under her proposal, one-half of each year's utility fee receipts (in excess of the President's discretionary budget for the Program) and one-half the utility fee receipts remaining from previous fiscal years (beginning with fiscal year 1995) would be available for the waste management's site characterization program at Yucca Mountain. The proposal will be considered this year by Congress, but is not expected to fare well. Even staunch nuclear power supporter Senator Bennett Johnston (D-LA) has stated that it will be difficult to pass, given other priorities in Congress this year.

The Nuclear Waste Fund had received $7 billion in fees and interest by mid 1992. Annually, the fund is expected to receive $800 million from fees and interest. Money for the fund is stored in the U.S. Treasury, but cannot be used for outside projects. Congress maintains control of the fund through the federal budget and has traditionally used this money as a hedge against the federal deficit, even though it could not legally be used. About $3.3 billion has been spent from the fund so far, and DOE estimates that the Yucca Mountain site characterization will cost more than $6.5 billion to finish.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv16.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:40:39 PM] April 1994 Newsletter - The Nuclear Waste Fund

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv16.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:40:39 PM] April 1994 Newsletter - NWTRB Presses for Independent Review NWTRB Presses for Independent Review

April 1994

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a civilian committee that oversees the Department of Energy's repository studies, is again pressing for an independent review at Yucca Mountain. The Board sent a letter report to Congress in late February recommending that an independent review of the DOE's civilian radioactive waste management program be conducted "sooner, rather than later."

Board members repeated a recommendation made last March, and stated that given the Secretary of Energy's recent request for money from the Nuclear Waste Fund, an independent review of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) program should be conducted as soon as possible. The report states that increased funding will not solve the problems caused by OCRWM's large and unwieldy organizational structure.

The NWTRB suggested that a small, independent group of internationally known experts should be appointed to handle the OCRWM review. The NWTRB members believe such a review should be conducted concurrently with ongoing site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain.

In the letter report, the Board also recommended that the Yucca Mountain site characterization studies be sufficiently funded. The Board reported that too little funding is going to site characterization studies that will determine whether the site is suitable.

The Board's members criticized OCRWM for postponing underground excavation at Yucca Mountain (due to budget concerns) while increasing the number of contract employees by thirty- four percent since July 1991.

The Board's members believe that "at the very least, sufficient money should be guaranteed for those activities that facilitate finding any obvious features that could disqualify the site."

Finally, the Board recommended that the OCRWM build on Secretary O'Leary's recent public involvement initiatives by expanding current efforts to integrate stakeholder's views into its decision-making process.

The NWTRB was created by Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of activities undertaken by the DOE in its program to manage the disposal of the nation's spent fuel and defense high-level waste. It members are appointed by the President from a list of scientists and engineers nominated by the National http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv17.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:41:16 PM] April 1994 Newsletter - NWTRB Presses for Independent Review Academy of Sciences.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv17.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:41:16 PM] April 1994 Newsletter New Fault at Yucca Mountain New Fault at Yucca Mountain

April 1994

A new earthquake fault has been identified in the Yucca Mountain region. In early January, a federal geologist identified and named the Sundance Fault, a northwest trending fault that appears to intersect the previously discovered Ghost Dance Fault that runs though the center of the proposed repository site at Yucca Mountian.

It is unknown how deep or wide the new fault is. That will not be determined until scientists can drill far enough into Yucca Mountain to explore the fault zone area.

Carl Johnson, administrator of technical programs for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the two fault zones could reduce the proposed high-level nuclear dump area by 20%, but DOE spokesmen have said that figure is a broad generalization.

The DOE maintains that a possible fault zone in the area was identified but unnamed on a 1984 map. The state claims the fault was not included on the 1984 map. Yucca Mountain Project scientists counted thirty-two faults, or earthquake fracture zones, in the Yucca Mountain area, not including the Sundance Fault.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv19.htm [3/28/02 2:41:46 PM] December 1993 Newsletter -- Report IDs Possible Rail Impacts on County Report IDs Possible Rail Impacts on County

December 1993

Agriculture and grazing could be "substantially disrupted" by the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed Carlin Rail Route, according to a report for the Eureka County Commission. The route through Pine Valley could affect water, flood plain, wetlands, wildlife, and land use.

The Issues Identification Report for the Carlin Rail Route Option projects that "the existence of a highly visible and secured rail line bisecting Eureka County, carrying extremely noxious material, and potentially a target for protest or sabotage will have many unforeseeable but potentially severe impacts on the country and its citizens." The report was funded by Eureka County's Nuclear Waste Repository Program through a grant from DOE.

The proposed Carlin rail route is a 365-mile corridor that would link the northern rail lines of the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific, bisecting Eureka County, to bring high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository site at Yucca Mountain. Two other rail spurs, the Jean and Caliente options, are also under consideration; only the Caliente option has been studied by the DOE.

DOE estimates that the Carlin rail option would cost about $760 million in 1990 dollars, with a projected annual cost of $2.9 to $3.3 million for operation and maintenance.

The report states that the rail route could provide economic benefits by allowing for agriculture, mining, and light industry transportation if the rail line has shared use. Tourism and business attraction could be negatively affected as a result of concerns about the safety of nuclear transport. Radiological emergencies would be the biggest burden for local government.

The report contains maps of the county with color overlays to show potential impacts. The maps were made using the computerized Geographic Information System being developed for the county by Planning Information Corporation (PIC), which prepared the report. Included are maps which pinpoint private land areas, ranches, military operations areas, and historic rail routes in the vicinity of the Carlin route.

Steve Campbell of PIC is scheduled to make a presentation about the Carlin Route impacts at a public forum on nuclear waste transportation at the Eureka High School in March of 1994. All readers of the Update will be notified about the Forum.

The report is available at area libraries, and at the Yucca Mountain Information Office in Eureka. For more information, call Carol Bleuss at 237-5407. http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv3.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:42:14 PM] December 1993 Newsletter -- Report IDs Possible Rail Impacts on County

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv3.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:42:14 PM] December 1993 Newsletter -- Price-Anderson Act Price-Anderson Act

December 1993

The Price-Anderson Act, an amendment to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, was created to protect the nuclear industry from a potential accident liability so large that it would threaten the future of nuclear power, and to ensure that the public would be compensated for any damage resulting from a nuclear accident.

First passed in 1957, the act has been renewed in 1966, 1975, and 1988, and provides coverage for accidents involving commercial reactors, nuclear research, fuel processing, waste management and weapons production activities performed by DOE contractors.

The act has a bi-level system of insurance for nuclear accidents and a "no-fault" liability system for large accidents. A company buys the first layer of insurance from private insurance firms. The second level of insurance is applied only to operators of large licensed power reactors. If a nuclear accident causes damages exceeding $200 million, each licensed commercial reactor would be assessed a prorated share of the damages in excess of $200 million, up to $75 million per reactor per accident.

In exchange for limiting liability this way, the Price-Anderson Act effectively imposes "strict liability" on the utility involved in an accident determined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence." Strict liability means the utility must waive legal defenses against paying claims, relieving victims of the necessity of proving negligence.

For Eureka County, liability for accidents involving transportation is probably the highest concern.

In the event of an accident involving DOE contractors, as would be the case if Yucca Mountain opens, DOE arranges as indemnity agreement with the contractor to cover damages up to the liability limit. This limit means that the government will not hold the contractors liable, even if they are proven liable in a court of law. In effect, the government agrees to pay all damages incurred up to the commercial reactor liability limit.

If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or DOE determines that the accident is an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence," then the strict liability provision described above is in effect. So far, there have been no accidents for which this determination has been made. If the accident is smaller, with a release of radioactivity but not of an "extraordinary" amount, then the liability would be determined under state law.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv6.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:42:52 PM] December 1993 Newsletter -- Price-Anderson Act

Nevada Deputy Attorney General Harry Swainston stated that in his opinion the state courts would probably view this a an activity for which the defendant, whether it be DOE or the contractor, would be held strictly liable.

If claims exceed the liability limits, the Act says it would be up to Congress to enact legislation to provide full and prompt compensation to the public. However, as an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" has never been declared, it remains unknown how congressional action would proceed. The financial allocation would be considered as part of the political budgetary process, and would not be an automatic reimbursement for loss.

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv6.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:42:52 PM] December 1993 Newsletter -- Study: Eureka County Has Lowest Tax Rate Study: Eureka County Has Lowest Tax Rate

December 1993

A study of the socioeconomic conditions in Eureka County shows that county residents have the lowest average county-wide tax rate in Nevada, with the mining boom playing a large part in the overall economy. The study also shows that with a huge migrant work force, only one out of every four workers actually resides in the county.

The purpose of the report, Eureka County Nevada, Socioeconomic Conditions and Trends, 1992, is to document fundamental information on the county's historical and current socioeconomic status. The report includes information on population, housing, employment, income, local government fiscal conditions, and education.

The study was prepared by Planning Information Corporation for the Eureka County Board of Commissioners and funded through the Eureka County Nuclear Waste Repository Program. The report is part of baseline data collection efforts to determine what impacts the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository might have on Eureka County residents.

In general the study shows Eureka County to be in a fiscally strong condition, with per capita personal income exceeding that of the state as a whole by about fifty-seven percent since 1985. Nearly all of the increase came with the advent of the mining boom, a clear indicator of the county's reliance on the mining industry. In 1991, according to the report, mining (not including the construction of service jobs associated with the industry) accounted for almost eighty-two percent of all jobs in the county. Only five years earlier, mining had accounted for about sixty percent of the jobs in Eureka County.

The only other area that has shown significant growth is state and local government, which have added sixty-one jobs to their payrolls between 1986 and 1991. Total employment for the county rose from 1,290 positions in 1986 to 4,232 in 1991, an increase of about 230 percent.

But the growth in jobs has not led to increased growth in the resident labor force, perhaps due to the lack of housing near employment centers. Instead, Eureka county jobs have always attracted workers from outside the county. As a result, only one out of every four workers in Eureka County is a resident. The other three, transitional workers, reside outside of the county.

Information and numbers in the report come from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Nevada Department of Taxation, the Nevada State Demographer's office, U.S. Department of Commerce, and other local, state, and federal agencies.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv5.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:43:22 PM] December 1993 Newsletter -- Study: Eureka County Has Lowest Tax Rate

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv5.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:43:22 PM] December 1993 Newsletter -- DOE Lacks Overall Strategy, Says Technical Board DOE Lacks Overall Strategy, Says Technical Board

December 1993

A board charged with overseeing U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) activities at Yucca Mountain released a report in mid-October saying its members were concerned that DOE is making important technical decisions about the design and excavation of the exploratory facility at the site "without sufficient analysis."

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was created by Congress through the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of DOE's plans and activities to manage the disposal of the nation's radioactive waste.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board says that despite an improved record over the preceding four years, past delays in initiating excavation and current attempts to comply with overly optimistic schedules are forcing quick decisions that could extend program schedules and increase costs.

DOE has deemed underground excavation to be a central element in its efforts to evaluate the site's suitability for the proposed nuclear waste repository. The current site characterization program involves tunneling throughout the site to better understand the complex geology there, which includes a number of faults.

The report criticizes the DOE for lacking an overall strategy for exploration and testing, and recommends three actions which board member say can be implemented at Yucca Mountain without slowing momentum of the ongoing site characterization:

● Develop a comprehensive strategy that integrates exploration and testing priorities with the design and excavation approach for the exploratory facility.

● Initiate underground thermal testing as soon as possible

● Take maximum advantage of existing experience in the underground construction industry and establish a geoengineering board with member expert in the engineering, construction, and management of large underground projects. The geoengineering board should work with the management regularly to review detailed decisions and help guide the design and excavation of the underground facility.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv13.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:43:48 PM] December 1993 Newsletter -- DOE Lacks Overall Strategy, Says Technical Board

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv13.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:43:48 PM] July 1993 Newsletter -- What's the County Doing About Nuclear Waste? What's the County Doing About Nuclear Waste?

July 1993

Eureka County is one of nine Nevada counties receiving funds from the U.S. Department of Energy. The funds are used to oversee and protect the interests of the county in relation to the DOE's proposal to study Yucca Mountain as a proposed site for the nation's high-level radioactive waste.

Eureka receives grant funds from DOE because the county is contiguous to Nye County and is considered to be an "affected local government" under the law. The money comes from the Nuclear Waste Fund, collected from the consumers of nuclear power.

Eureka's approach to the Yucca Mountain project is cautious. From the first, the Commissioners identified the need to inform residents about the project and to ensure that an ongoing program of public education was available. An office was established, an information officer, Carol Bleuss, was hired. Public meetings and this newsletter were developed with the assistance of nuclear waste consultant Abby Johnson.

Eureka also identified the need to develop historical and current socio-cultural data about Eureka County, laying a base for analysis of projected impacts that might occur. The county hired Robert McCracken to conduct oral histories. A socioeconomic trends and analysis report is also in the preliminary stages and will be completed by Planning Information Corporation (PIC) of Denver.

PIC was chosen by the Commissioners to provide a variety of services related to Yucca Mountain impacts. In addition to the socioeconomic report, they will prepare a needs assessment and recommendations on the development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to track possible Yucca Mountain impacts. A GIS is a computerized system of data and maps, used as a tool to analyze geographic information graphically. For example, the system could display land use and flood zones within the county and is an asset for any mapping, planning or development project.

PIC will also prepare an issues identification report on the DOE's proposed "Carlin rail route." The report will highlight the key issues the Commission and residents should be concerned about regarding the proposed rail route which would bisect the county. The first phase of PIC's work will be completed by the end of the summer. We will report in upcoming ussues about the findings of the rail route report and GIS progress.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv12.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:44:45 PM] July 1993 Newsletter -- What's the County Doing About Nuclear Waste?

Last Updated 10/99

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv12.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:44:45 PM] July 1993 Newsletter - Tour Raises more Questions Tour Raises more Questions

July 1993

Eurekans who visited the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain agreed that the tour was informational, but many came away with questions.

Rob Smith, a science teacher at Eureka High School, felt information offered on the tour was excellent, but he still has questions about the transportation of high-level waste across unfit road and rail areas, about the length of time scheduled for waste isolation, and about overall attitudes about the project. He says some of his questions went unanswered, while others were answered with "We're just doing what the Congress has instructed us."

Smith found the "don't blame us" attitude disturbing. "It's a dangerous mind set." Nevertheless, he felt a great deal of confidence in the DOE scientists and their ability "-- if they are allowed to do their work."

When Smith asked scientists what could possibly disqualify the site from consideration as a waste dump, he received few responses. One scientist said that if the area was "terribly faulted" it might be disqualified, but couldn't define what "terribly faulted" meant. It seemed to Smith that there were few predetermined criteria as to what would disqualify the site.

Scientists also had no answer when asked why the repository would be required to isolate high- level waste for only 10,000 years, when some radioactive materials there would be highly poisonous for much longer spans of time. For example, plutonium-239 takes 24,000 years to lose half its radioactivity.

Tour members questioned other variables that could change over the 10,000 year life span of the repository. Henry C. Johnson, who works for the City of Carlin, wondered if the water table could change radically over 10,000 years. "Over geologic time, 800 feet (distance between repository and water table) isn't much. Water could get in, then what happens if they (the contaminants) leach down into the water table? Where would they go?"

"Would the proposed Carlin rail spur be dual use (accessible to other rail carriers) or dedicated use (strictly for DOE use)?" Johnson was concerned that the likelihood of accidents would increase greatly in the dual use scenario.

Tom meal, a Pine Valley rancher, figured most people in the area don't care that much about the high-level waste repository, but was concerned about frequent rail passage through Pine Valley. "My concern is with diesel trains going up and down the quiet valley," said Meal. http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv4.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:49:37 PM] July 1993 Newsletter - Tour Raises more Questions

Others were frustrated with the site characterization study in general. Charley Harper, a retired fire fighter who now runs a machine shop and lives in Beowawe, said he thought the government was wasting money on a study site that is the only one of its kind. "They're going to do it no matter what the tests show, so why don't they go ahead with it? They're wasting money on sitting and it boils me."

Barbara Dugan of Crescent Valley enjoyed the tour and found it interesting, but found herself wondering afterward how mankind gets into these problems. "It seems to me it's a big, mad circle. I'd like to see something else done with it rather than burying it."

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv4.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:49:37 PM] July 1993 Newsletter - Eureka Yucca Mountain Tour Eureka Yucca Mountain Tour

July 1993

Forty-one local citizens from Eureka, Beowawe, Crescent Valley, Diamond Valley, Pine Valley, and Carlin plus thirty White Pine County residents toured Yucca Mountain March 29 and got a firsthand look at the proposed nuclear waste repository site.

A wildlife biologist and a geologist from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Yucca Mountain Project Office staff, and two contractors to the State Nuclear Waste Office joined the tour buses for the trip to the site.

On the way to the Field Operations Center (FOC), the scientists discussed ongoing environmental studies. Air quality, meteorological, and radiological monitoring, a cultural resources program, and studies of ecosystems, water resources, and reclamation are in progress. Many small wildlife habitat study areas and meteorological testing stations can be seen along the road to the Yucca Mountain Crest.

At the crest, short presentations were made about the geology, biology, and background of the project. Russ Dyer, head scientist at the FOC, said that the repository would be required to safely isolate 77,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste for 10,000 years. After that time the hazard to health would remain about equal to that of a naturally occurring ore, such as is found at a mined uranium deposit.

He discussed volcanism and earthquake studies that are part of the project. The volcanoes are 20,000-50,000 years old and are not expected to be active any time in the next 10,000 years. Seismicity studies at Yucca Mountain are planned to determine whether fault movement or earthquakes could affect the suitability of the site. Scientists want to study the fault zones that crisscross the area to determine how much movement occurs during earthquakes and aftershocks. DOE scientists didn't know the Skull Mountain fault existed until two Southern California earthquakes triggered a 5.6 earthquake along the fault last June.

Trenches and test holes in Midway Valley near the proposed repository site have confirmed seismic activity within the past 100,000 years, but none in at least 12,000 years. State scientists, however, say the fault are active and could renew activity at any time. In addition, they point to documented evidence showing that minor volcanic activity occurred just south of Yucca Mountain within the past 5,000-7,000 years.

The tour continued to Midway Valley, where initial work has begun on an Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF). Earth-moving equipment was scraping out the side of a hill and scientists expect

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv11.htm (1 of 3) [3/28/02 2:50:12 PM] July 1993 Newsletter - Eureka Yucca Mountain Tour to begin tunneling into the mountain soon to evaluate whether the area's geologic barriers can sufficiently isolate the deadly waste.

State project office members say the DOE has greatly expanded plans for the ESF to get a head start on the actual repository, rather than developing another testing area as part of the agreed-to site characterization plan. They point to designs for underground tunnels that have grown from two miles to thirteen miles and two planned small diameter shafts that have been replaced by two twenty-six foot or larger diameter ramps, sized for later repository use. DOE scientists say the design changes were necessary to enhance studies of faulting in the area.

According to Dyer, one good aspect of Yucca Mountain as a repository is that the area is remote and dry. Drawbacks include the fact that the area is subject to faulting from earthquakes and that it has been difficult to characterize due to mixed geological strata.

After lunch at the FOC, the tour group visited the geology and hydrology labs. At the hydrology lab a scientist discussed studies of the movement of water through rock. Yucca Mountain is made up of layered volcanic ash, known as tuff, in various geologic states. The zone where the repository would be located is about 1200 feet below the crest, 800 feet above the current water table. A geological map on the lab's wall showed a number of faults zigzagging through and around the repository site.

In the Sample Management Facility, a clearinghouse for geologic materials, visitors saw rock saws and examples of various rock types in the area. A video on a specialized drilling rig called LM-300 was also shown.

Eureka County residents who participated in the tour included Norma Jean Allison, Carolyn Bailey, James and Vera Baumann, Carol and Frank Bluess, Beth and Lonny Brown, Barbara and Kenneth Dugan, George and June Espen, Stephen Farnum, Luther Fiorenzi, Charlie Harper, Bertrand and James Ithurralde, Floyd, Judith, and Kolbe Klindt, Henry Johnson, Sarah Layer, John Malloy, Cindy and Shiloah Manuel, Lloyd Martin, Tom Meal, Mary and Robert Michna, Evelyn Naillon, Jason Neugebauer, Eric Pastorino, Mary Pearson, Barbara Perez, Dick and Sedalia Rasplicka, Deborah and John Schweble, Laura Scott, Robert Smith, and Joy Snowden.

Last Updated 10/99 http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv11.htm (2 of 3) [3/28/02 2:50:12 PM] July 1993 Newsletter - Eureka Yucca Mountain Tour

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv11.htm (3 of 3) [3/28/02 2:50:12 PM] July 1993 Newsletter - Beatty Site Closed to Low-Level Waste Beatty Site Closed to Low-Level Waste

July 1993

Many people remain confused over the difference between the proposed Yucca Mountain high- level waste repository, and the low-level site at Beatty that was closed January of this year.

Although the two sites are only twenty-five miles apart, their functions are completely different. The waste that would come to Yucca Mountain is highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants and high-level defense waste.

The waste that came to Beatty included low-level medical waste from hospitals and university laboratories, plus low-level waste from routine operations at nuclear power plants. During its thirty year life span, from 1962-1992, Beatty received 4.3 million cubic feet of low- level waste which was disposed of in shallow burial sites. Eighty percent of Beatty's radioactive waste came from commercial nuclear power plants.

Disposal sites at Beatty, Barnwell, SC and Hanford, WA were established as low-level radioactive disposal sites years ago, and were required to remain open until January 1, 1993 by the Low-Level Waste Amendments Act. That law made states, or coalitions of states called compacts, responsible for disposal of low-level waste. Nevada joined the Rocky Mountain Compact, made up of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, and negotiated with the Northwest Compact to send low-level waste to Washington State.

John Vaden, low-level waste project manager for the Nevada State Division of Health, said the Beatty site does have uranium, plutonium and thorium, some of the same materials that would be disposed of at the Yucca Mountain repository, but low-level wastes are generally short- lived and are less intensely radioactive than high-level wastes.

Vaden said that there is no set date when the Beatty site would be sage again, but said that thorium, one of the materials at the site, has a half-life of a million years.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv9.htm (1 of 2) [3/28/02 2:50:47 PM] July 1993 Newsletter - Beatty Site Closed to Low-Level Waste

Last Updated 07/2000

http://www.yuccamountain.org/archiv9.htm (2 of 2) [3/28/02 2:50:47 PM]