Senate Gives DOE the Go-Ahead to Proceed With Yucca Mountain Project
VENUE CHANGE: State Pins Last Hopes on Courts
Licensing Yucca Mountain: What is the Role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Your Health: Radiation Exposure
Yucca Mountain Tour Has Large Turnout
Abraham Praises U. S. Senate Approval of Yucca Mountain
In a key procedural vote, senators voted 60-39 in favor of the Yucca Mountain Project on July 9, all but ending more than two decades of legislative fighting.
Yucca Mountain has been the only place under consideration since 1987, when Congress passed legislation that Nevada officials said all but ensured the state would become the nation’s nuclear dumping ground.
Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and John Ensign (R-NV) had lobbied their colleagues incessantly in the weeks preceding Tuesday’s vote.
"It feels like somebody has punched me about 100 times in the gut," said Senator Ensign.
Yucca Mountain supporters were in a decidedly sunnier mood.
"What happened today was good for this country," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said. "This was an important vote for our nation’s energy security and national security."
Governor Kenny Guinn expressed disappointment but vowed the state will mount a spirited legal battle.
"The U. S. Senate vote today is the beginning of Nevada’s legal and regulatory fight to stop the Yucca Mountain Project," Guinn said. "Now the process moves to the federal courts, where the playing field is level and Nevada’s factual, scientific arguments will be heard by impartial judges."
Guinn’s likely opponent in the fall election, state Senator Joe Neal (D-North Las Vegas), said the vote means Nevada should start negotiating for benefits to hold the repository.
"We must consider seriously changing our position and trying to get something out of a bad situation," said Neal. "We must get benefits."
Senator Reid said that is not in the cards.
"There’s no deal to be made," said Reid. Instead, the Senate’s majority whip said he will continue to keep the heat on the federal government through his leadership post and chairmanships of two key energy subcommittees. "I thought I’d feel worse than I do," the former amateur boxer said after Tuesday’s vote. "I feel kind of invigorated. I feel in my heart I did the right thing, and I’m energized to keep fighting. They may have knocked me down, but I’m not out."
Tuesday’s showdown capped a series of events precipitated by President Bush’s February recommendation that 77,000 tons of the nation’s deadliest waste be stored at Yucca Mountain.
In April, Guinn vetoed that recommendation. In May, the House voted 306-117 to override the veto. Senators followed in kind Tuesday.
Voting for the Yucca Mountain Project were 45 Republicans and 15 Democrats. Republicans Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island joined Ensign, 35 Democrats, and Vermont independent Senator James Jeffords in opposition.
Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), recovering from surgery, did not vote. The White House and Republican leaders did not require him to show up, an early indication they were confident of prevailing.
In the seven states where Nevada spent tens of thousands of dollars for television advertisements, three of the 14 senators took Nevada’s side.
Abraham said he hopes the Senate vote will mark a clearer path for the Yucca Program, which has been dogged by escalating costs and missed deadlines. The Yucca resolution will be sent to President Bush for his signature.
The Department of Energy (DOE) must submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before it can build the repository. The DOE says the earliest waste could be shipped to the site is 2010.
"Nevada has had its day," Abraham said. "Nevada had a chance to veto this, which they did. Nevada had a chance in the House and Senate to make its case, which it certainly has. My hope is that after this process a majority will support the (spending) levels we need to finish the job."
Reid and Ensign said their lobbying was picking up support in recent weeks. But they said they quickly lost ground when the Bush administration began a serious lobbying campaign of its own in the past 10 days.
"I don’t know if there was anything we could have done differently," Ensign said. "If anything, I learned you can’t beat the White House, and the White House weighed in very heavily."
Senators engaged in nearly five hours of debate, nearly all of it echoing arguments each side raised over the past year.
Ensign also argued that senators were setting a disastrous precedent by calling for a vote on Yucca Mountain over the objections of Majority Leader Tom Dashle (D-SD).
"This vote will make a loud noise and will change the way the Senate operates," he said.
Opponents disagreed, saying the 1982 federal nuclear waste law allowed for the process. "Nobody is trying to undermine the Senate leaders," said Senator Frank Murkowski, (R-AK).
Daschle said senators were being pushed to an early verdict.
"We’re being forced to decide this issue prematurely without sufficient scientific information," he said. "The administration is doing the bidding of an industry that wants to make deadly nuclear waste somebody else’s problem.
"I think we’ll regret this someday," Daschle said.
Yucca Mountain has been the only site under consideration for storage of the nation’s nuclear waste since 1987, when Congress passed legislation that Silver State officials dubbed the "Screw Nevada Bill." Before that, sites in Washington and Texas had been under consideration.
Near the close of Tuesday’s debate, Reid railed against nuclear power companies, saying "big money" had colored the issue. He motioned up to the visitor’s gallery, in which industry lobbyists and executives were ensconced.
"All you people here, bill your hours, because you’re perpetrating a travesty on our country," he said.
Alluding to a Robert Frost poem, Reid urged senators to "take the road less traveled" and surprise everyone by shelving the project.
Moments later, during the final voice vote in which senators were asked to approve the Yucca Mountain Project, Reid bowed his head and muttered, "No."
Source: Steven Tetreault, Stephens Washington Bureau, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7-10-02. Review-Journal staff writers Jane Ann Morrison and Ed Vogel contributed to the report.
WASHINGTON -- The fight over nuclear waste storage in Nevada has shifted from the U.S. Capitol to the federal courthouse, a quarter-mile in distance but a world apart in atmosphere.
State leaders failed to redirect the hot rhetoric that led Congress to finalize Yucca Mountain as the nation's waste repository site on Tuesday. They now will try to stop the project with dispassionate legal reasoning.
Having already committed millions of dollars to litigation, Nevada's elected officials like their chances.
"The Energy Department won't be able to hide behind its political allies in Congress when the courts begin their review of DOE's record on this project," Gov. Kenny Guinn said. "We are confident that we will prevail."
Yucca Mountain won't be debated in a trial atmosphere. There will be some public court sessions, but attorneys largely will argue matters of law and procedure among the quiet hallways and high ceilings of the federal appeals court at the bottom of Capitol Hill.
The District of Columbia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals will weigh the Yucca Mountain Project against environmental laws and administrative records that federal agencies have compiled to support the selection of the site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
It could take two years for individual cases to wind through the process. The state's first lawsuits, filed last summer, have oral arguments scheduled for February.
The cases could be wrapped up by the time the Energy Department submits a construction license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission late in 2004. Or, judges could throw the project into chaos, and years of delay, by sending key portions back for more work.
"Any one of our cases can wreak havoc on this project," said Joseph Egan, an attorney and nuclear engineer based in McLean, Va., who heads Nevada's special legal team. The state has committed $2.5 million to Egan's group through Sept. 30, 2004. There are currently seven lawsuits pending. Since last summer, Nevada has filed five lawsuits in Washington disputing segments of the Yucca Mountain Project.
One lawsuit contends repository radiation standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency won't protect Nevadans far into the future, when radiation escaping from Yucca Mountain should reach its highest levels.
Three lawsuits allege the Bush administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission made decisions based on Yucca Mountain site guidelines said to be wrongfully amended into the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
The most recentlawsuit, filed June 6, picks apart the Energy Department's massive environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain. The 57-page lawsuit claims there are dozens of violations of procedural law and the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act.
Two lawsuits, dealing with Nevada’s effort to stop the DOE from getting water rights at Yucca Mountain, are in the U. S. District Court in Las Vegas and the Nye County District Court in Tonopah.
Now that Congress has finished its action, another lawsuit will probably be filed soon, officials said. It will allege government decisions to single out Nevada for nuclear waste storage were unconstitutional. Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams said the state may argue the Yucca Mountain selection process violated Nevada's state rights.
"We think there's something there to argue that Nevada is being unfairly targeted to bear the brunt of the nation's nuclear legacy that is not being shared in any way by the nuclear-generating states," she said. "It's our view there's some real justice issues here."
Egan said such a case almost certainly would wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. "It would basically be, how far can the federal government go to screw one particular state?" he said. "If you didn't stop here (at Yucca Mountain), could Nevada end up being the national sacrifice area for everything? A toxic waste dump for everyone? What are the limits of equal protection under the federal system?"
Nevada has been suing the government over Yucca Mountain since 1985. It won its first case, obtaining federal funding to monitor Energy Department site studies.
But it has lost more than a half-dozen cases since then, including a challenge of 1987's "Screw Nevada" legislation, which eliminated sites in Texas and Washington state from study and made Yucca Mountain the nation's sole site under consideration for the repository.
Michael Bauser, associate general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said that case, Nevada v. Watkins, is noteworthy because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional arguments about the project. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear a Nevada appeal.
Adams maintains the project is ripe for lawsuits because the government has laid out its administrative record, and the Bush administration and Congress have made final decisions about Yucca Mountain.
The Nuclear Energy Institute has filed its own lawsuit against the EPA radiation standards and has entered the other Yucca Mountain cases to back the Energy Department.
"Our position will be to support the sufficiency (of the project) based on what we've seen so far," Bauser said.
Jay Silberg, a Washington lawyer who often represents the nuclear industry, said he doesn't think Nevada has a strong case. Silberg isn't involved in the lawsuits, but he says he may be hired to help the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Silberg, a partner in the Shaw Pittman firm, said judges won't "flyspeck" federal agencies on matters like environmental impact statements.
"The standard is a test for reasonableness. They don't require perfection or for people to foresee the future," Silberg said. "They look to see if the agencies made a good-faith attempt to take a hard look at what the impacts are, and anyone who has seen the (Yucca Mountain environmental study) expects it will pass.
But Jim Morman, a top environmental litigator in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration, said "there's never been a case like this one."
"If the plaintiffs can show there were shortcuts, I would think a court would be interested."
"A NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) case could put a real hole in the waterline of this project," Morman said. "It's happened many times. Agencies are frequently told by the court to go back and do it again."
"Chances of the government being upheld are better than 50-50, but on the other hand this is a unique law," Morman said.
Egan said an order for the Energy Department to redo key parts of the Yucca Mountain program would be as good as killing it outright. Nevada officials don't think the Yucca Mountain Project can pass muster if done the "right way."
"There are certain things (the Energy Department) cannot do right, and that's why they didn't do it right the first time," Egan said.
Egan says Nevada believes it has found enough problems to derail Yucca Mountain.
"I can't imagine we're going to lose every one of these lawsuits," Egan said. "There's just no way we're going to lose every case."
Sources: Steve Tetreault, Stephen’s Washington Bureau, Las Vegas Review-Journal, July 10, 2002; Cy Ryan, Sun Capital Bureau, Las Vegas Sun, July 10, 2002
The U. S. Nuclear regulatory Commission (NRC) is an independent regulatory agency. Its mission is to ensure that public health, safety, and the environment are protected when nuclear materials are used. The NRC also sees to it that nuclear materials are used in a manner that is consistent with the nation’s responsibilities to provide for the common defense and security.
The NRC will determine whether to issue a license to the Department of Energy (DOE) to construct, and later operate, a repository at Yucca Mountain for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The NRC will issue a license to DOE only if DOE can demonstrate that it can construct and operate a repository safely and in compliance with NRC’s regulations.
The NRC is also responsible for licensing the design, construction, use and maintenance of any shipping casks that may be used to move commercial waste by truck or rail to Yucca Mountain.
NRC licensees bear the primary responsibility for the safe use of nuclear materials. Federal regulations and the NRC regulatory program are important elements in assuring protection of the public and the environment. NRC fulfills its responsibilities to regulate the disposal of high-level radioactive waste through a system of licensing and regulatory activities that includes
Source: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Members of the White Pine Nuclear Waste Project Office and the Nuclear Waste Advisory Board had the opportunity to tour the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) on May 13, 2002.
INEEL, situated on 890 square miles (approximately 570,000 acres) between Idaho Falls and Arco, in southeast Idaho, is the setting for some of the most advanced energy research in the world.
Argonne National Laboratory-West
(ANL-W) was the first stop on the tour. ANL-W conducts nuclear research and development and operates facilities for the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE). The focus of the ANL-W segment of the tour was their newly developed pyroprocess, which ANL-W believes is the basis for a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle with improved waste management.Argonne claims that using the pyroprocess technology (recovering actinides from spent fuel and recycling back into the reactor for in-situ destruction) eliminates much of the long-term toxicity from the waste and considerably eases the technical performance requirements of a repository. They stress that pyroprocessing does not eliminate the need for a permanent repository but will allow the technical performance requirements to be met more easily and reduce the burden of long-term stewardship.
The area formerly known as the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) was the next location on the tour. The ICPP is a one-of-a-kind reprocessing facility for government-owned nuclear fuels from research and defense reactors. Facilities at ICPP include spent fuel storage in cooling pools as well as underground and above ground storage areas. The waste from the 1979 Three Mile Island accident is stored in above ground metal and concrete casks on the site. ICPP also houses reprocessing areas and a state-of-the-art waste solidification operation. Between 1953 and 1992, when the reprocessing mission was discontinued, the facility recovered over $1 billion worth of fuel at a cost of considerably less than that.
Test Area North (TAN) was the final destination. TAN consists of facilities for the handling, storage, examination and research of spent nuclear fuel. TAN houses one of the world's largest hot shops, storage pools, and examination operations, which supported analysis of the Three Mile Island accident.
Several of the areas of INEEL were inaccessible due to maintenance schedules or security classifications, but the trip still afforded close-up views of leading-edge technology in fuel processing, storage, transportation and long-term disposal options.
...radiation and health
How do we know radiation causes cancer?
Basically, we have learned through observation. When people first began working with radioactive materials, scientists didn’t understand radioactive decay, and reports of illness were
scattered.
As the use of radioactive materials and reports of illness became more frequent, scientists began to notice
patterns in the illnesses. People working with radioactive materials and x-rays developed particular types of uncommon medical conditions.
For example, scientists recognized as early as 1910 that radiation caused skin cancer. Scientists began to keep track of the health effects and soon set up careful scientific studies of groups of people who had been exposed.
Among the best-known long-term studies are those of Japanese atomic bomb blast survivors, other populations exposed to nuclear testing fallout (for example, natives of the Marshall Islands), and uranium miners.
Aren’t children more sensitive to radiation than adults?
Yes, because children are growing more rapidly, there are more cells dividing and a greater opportunity for radiation to disrupt the process. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) radiation standards take into account the differences in the sensitivity due to age and gender.
Fetuses are also highly sensitive to radiation. However, the period duringwhich they may be exposed is short.
...effects of radiation type and exposure pathway
Both the type of radiation to which the person is exposed and the pathway by which they are exposed influence health effects. Different types of radiation vary in their ability to damage different kinds of tissue.
Radiation and radiation emitters (radionuclides) can expose the whole body (direct exposure) or expose tissues inside the body when inhaled or ingested. All kinds of ionizing radiation can cause cancer and other health effects.
The main difference in the ability of alpha and beta particles and gamma and x-rays to cause health effects is the amount of energy they have. Their energy determines how far they can penetrate into tissue. It also determines how much energy they are able to transmit directly of indirectly to tissues and the resulting damage.
...non-radiation health effects of radionuclides
Radioactive elements and compounds behave chemically exactly like their non-radioactive forms. For example, radioactive lead has the same chemical properties as non-radioactive lead. The public health protection question that EPA’s scientists must answer is, "How do we best manage all the hazards a pollutant presents?"
Do chemical properties of radionuclides contribute to radiation health effects?
The chemical properties of a radionuclide can determine where health effects occur. To function properly many organs require certain elements. They cannot distinguish between radioactive and non-radioactive forms of the element and accumulate one as quickly as the other.
Radioactive iodine concentrates in the thyroid. The thyroid needs iodine to function normally and cannot tell the difference between stable and radioactive isotopes. As a result, radioactive iodine contributes to thyroid cancer more than other types of cancer.
Calcium, strontium-90 and radium-226 have similar chemical properties. The result is that strontium and radium in the body tend to collect in calcium-rich areas such as bones and teeth. They contribute to bone cancer.
Source: Health Effects (EPA’s Radiation Protection Program: Understanding Radiation) www.epa.gov
Twenty-two residents of White Pine County had the opportunity to tour the Yucca Mountain Project on June 10, 2002.
Among the highlights of the tour, participants were able to view the tunnel-boring machine, which was used to drill the 5-mile long tunnel within the mountain. They also rode the man-train 1.5 miles into the tunnel - termed the Exploratory Studies Facility (EFS) - to visit various alcoves which included the Thermal Test Facility, where heating tests are being performed, as well as other hydrologic and geologic studies.
The final stop on the tour was the crest of Yucca Mountain. There participants had an overview of the surrounding geology including cinder cones dated between 75,000 and 3.7 million years old in Amargosa Valley, Death Valley to the west, the Black Mountain caldera to the north and the Calico Hills to the northeast.
If there is adequate interest, another tour may be scheduled later in the year.
Department of Energy News
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, July 9, 2002
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham praised the U.S. Senate today for its overwhelming bipartisan support of the Administration's recommendation that Yucca Mountain be considered for development as America's first nuclear waste repository.
"After more than 20 years of debate, the Senate has rightfully chosen to allow the process of developing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain to proceed to the next step, recognizing that the independent experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) deserve the right to review the 24 years of scientific study of Yucca Mountain and to consider the site for a license.
"America's national, energy and homeland security, as well as environmental protection is well-served by siting a single nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Congress has recognized that the Government has safely transported nuclear waste for more than 30 years and, in doing so, has rejected the transportation scare tactics employed by those opposed to Yucca Mountain."
"Without Yucca Mountain, the nuclear waste simply stays where it is. However, by moving the process forward, we have the opportunity to dispose of nuclear waste that has piled-up at 131 sites in 39 states."
"Moving forward in the process also helps ensure that the clean energy generated by nuclear power will remain an important part of America's energy mix. We are pleased that the Congress agrees moving forward is the right thing to do, rather than cutting off the process now and leaving nuclear waste for future generations to deal with."
Media Contact: Joe Davis, 202-586-4940
Release No. PR-02-140