Nuclear Information & Resource Service http://www.nirs.org 6930 Carroll Avenue, #340, Takoma Park, MD 20912
Contact: Mary Olson, 301-270-6477, maryo@igc.apc.org fax: 301-270-4291
DOE Contact: April V. Gil (800)967-3477
REGULATorY ACTION ALERT January 16, 1997 Comments, Letters and Coordinated Press Work Needed
DOE Guts Nuclear Waste Regulation: Proposes Exemption of Yucca Mountain Site From Any Specific or Verifiable Disqualifying Factors in Evaluation for Permanent Repository
Transportation of Waste, Environmental and Socio-Economic Factors Would Not Be Considered
The proposed rule pertains to the below-ground repository under study at Yucca Mountain. DOE’s current proposal would have profound national impacts, including:
-> Transportation of irradiated fuel through your state will not be considered in the decision to proceed with the Yucca Mountain permanent repository. The Environmental Impact Statement is likely to exclude the possibility of considering any other site, making transport a ‘given.’
-> The legacy of the Nuclear Age–over 95% of the radioactivity generated by the nuclear industry and the military is slated to go to a repository. These should be our best decisions for the welfare of the planet and future generations, not ad hoc changes to the rules halfway through the game.
-> The relaxation of regulations in the middle of the program sets a terrible precedent for any other nuclear waste site, or future repository, possibly in your state.
The Proposal: The Department of Energy (DOE) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (Monday Dec 16, 1996 Vol. 61, Number 242, pages 66157-66169. The notice is available on NIRSNET on the Web, accessed at http://www.nirs.org. The proposed rule is a drastic revision to 10CFR960 “General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories.”
Another in a long line of exemptions for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, the proposed rule would !QD! all of the factors which might disqualify the site from development as a high-level nuclear waste dump, leaving only the requirement that the site be projected to meet the (yet to be announced) EPA standard being written especially for the site. Demonstration of compliance with this standard will have to rest on computer models since much actual data will be lacking. The thin excuse for these new regs is that Yucca is not being compared to any other site.
The current regs, written for the characterization of multiple sites, are being preserved for any future repository siting. These will apply to any site BUT Yucca Mountain, the only site which today may be considered for a repository, by law. However, it is likely that this proposed rule violates that same law (the Nuclear Waste Policy Act) which requires specification of factors that would disqualify a prospective site. It certainly violates the logic of the current regulation !QW! verifiable technical findings as guidelines for qualification or disqualification are given, and it is specifically stated that these apply to “any site.” Yucca Mountain is still “any site” whether other sites are being considered or not.
The proposed rule abandons the previous priority and commitment to assess the site on the basis of the natural barriers for waste isolation without reference to engineered components. Evaluation of the natural barriers in the current guidelines include specific criteria like groundwater travel time and heat load impacts. The proposed rule would preserve this rigorous approach for any site except Yucca Mountain. Yucca would be assessed only in terms of the “Repository System” — which includes “credit” for the waste package and engineered features that would be added to the Mountain by DOE. Again, by law, Yucca Mountain is the ONLY site can currently be considered for a repository. Preserving the other language is a smoke screen.
Further, the existing regulations require an assessment of socioeconomic, environmental and transportation considerations in evaluating a site prior to repository development. Again, these factors would be considered for any site except Yucca Mountain, which will have a new subpart “E.” The proposed rule states “…DOE is not specifying separate system guidelines for environmental, socio-economic, and transportation considerations in Subpart E, as it did in [existing regulation]. The DOE will not require or make findings with regard to such considerations as part of any evaluation of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for recommendation.” (FR Vol 61, # 242 page 66162)
Transportation will be one of the largest impacts of implementing the repository program, or of a centralized “interim storage” site being pushed by the nuclear industry. Shipments will travel though at least 43 states, and through the front yards of more than 50 million Americans who live within a half mile of the routes. The shipping campaign will last thirty years or more.
If this rule is accepted, there will be no difficult decision on Yucca Mountain’s “suitability” because there will be next to nothing left to decide. This is the “shoe horn” to make the hole fit the peg, or the fuel rod, in this case. It would leave not even a shred of scientific credibility in the US high-level nuclear waste program. The cascade of decisions that brought us here were purely politically driven. As they say on the Hill– “Screw Nevada” — but when it comes to nuclear waste transport, We All Live in Nevada!!!!
DOE is seeking public comments on the proposal, and we need to get them some — these are the decisions that affect the next 12,000 human generations. The current comment deadline is February 14 (Valentine’s Day). NIRS has requested an extension, but has not received a reply.
YOUR COMMENTS COULD INCLUDE: 1) The Department of Energy should consider transportation, socio-economic and environmental factors in evaluating Yucca Mountain for suitability as a permanent nuclear waste repository. The transportation of waste to the site will have impacts on at least 43 states. Over 50 million Americans live within a half mile of projected waste routes. For the rest of the nation, Yucca Mountain is a potential “Mobile Chernobyl.” Include information and concerns about nuclear waste transport in your community or state, and ask:
If transportation is not considered in choosing the Yucca Mountain site for development, when will it be considered?
2) DOE should not set the bad precedent of drastically changing the rules on a project far into the program. By doing so, DOE undercuts any remaining scientific credibility in a decision to develop Yucca Mountain as a waste repository. Further, such changes in a contract with a host state should be viewed by all states including (___your state) as an indication of what might be expected in dealings with the DOE. There is a loss not only of scientific credibility, but public credibility as well.
3) DOE should preserve specific technical parameters that will qualify or disqualify Yucca Mountain, and these should be the same as those that would be applied to any site, as current guidelines state. There should be no compromise when it comes to isolation of nuclear waste from the environment. The program must be demonstrably the most stringent possible and our best work. Anything less is unacceptable for 95% of the massive radiation burden nuclear activities in the US have created.
4) For these reasons (and any others you would like to add) DOE should withdraw its proposed rule.
Source Information:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act — in force today — which mandates these guidelines:
Section 112 (a) Guidelines
…”Such guidelines shall specify detailed geologic considerations that shall be primary criteria for the !QS!ion of sites in various geologic media.
Such guidelines shall specify factors that qualify or disqualify any site from development as a repository, including factors pertaining to the location of valuable natural resources, hydrology, geophysics, seismic activity, and atomic defense activities, proximity to water supplies, proximity to populations, the effect upon the rights of the users of water, and proximity to components of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge system, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the National Wilderness Preservation System, or National Forest Lands.
Such guidelines shall take into consideration the proximity to sites !QW! high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel is generated or temporarily stored and the transportation and safety factors involved in moving such waste to a repository…
…revisions are to be consistent with the provisions of this subsection.”
>From the proposed rule: “…the DOE is not specifying separate system guidelines for environmental, socioeconomic, and transportation considerations in subpart E [the new section specific to Yucca Mountain]….The DOE will not require or make findings with regard to such considerations as part of ANY evaluation of the suitability of Yucca Mountain site for recommendation. (Emphasis added.)
***This is also an opportunity to get (or keep) your local officials involved. Draft your Mayor or City Council a brief comment to send in…how about your State Rep too and your Fire Chief. cc to your U.S. Rep. and Senators.
Comments: — They want 8 copies !?! or you are to call April Gil at DOE (800)967-3477 to arrange an exception. Label all comments “General Guidelines NOPR, Docket Number RW-RM-96-100.”
Send BY FEBRUARY 14, 1997 — we are hoping for an extension, but don’t count on it…. to: 10cfr960@notes.ymp.gov or mail to:
April V. Gil U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office PO Box 98608 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608
OTHER ACTION STEPS:
Letters: Send a short letter to incoming Secretary of Energy Pena protesting the proposal, cc a copy to your local paper, your Rep and your Senators.
Hon. Frederico Pena, Secretary of Energy Designate, US Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20585 U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 and U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510.
PRESS ACTION: In 1995 we did a nation-wide release of maps from the State of Nevada showing projected high-level waste transport routes from the reactor sites to Yucca Mountain. Over 100 communities participated in a release of the information on the same day. We made a real impact across the country, mostly front-page stories since this was news that affected the hometown community directly. This year we want to do it again. We will re-release the maps (– doing so for the first time in new areas –) with the news that transportation impacts will not be considered — either for a Yucca Mountain permanent repository if the DOE’s new proposal goes through, or if Congress changes the law to enable a centralized “interim storage” site at Yucca Mountain. We will also highlight the fact that DOE is planning to privatize the transport of the waste and implications of that.
Get more details & sign up! Activities will include: a local press release to travel with a national press release and your comments to DOE and press calls to your local press. or Hold a press conference — whichever is more effective in your experience. You will also be listed as a participant in the national co-release and that list will be available to you to make a part of the story, if you want (folks outside Nevada seeing themselves affected). The date not set yet, but likely will be early/mid Feb.
Sign up now — e-mail Mary Olson at maryo@igc.apc.org or call 301-270-6477. Please indicate whether you need a copy of the projected transport map for your state.
HEARING:
DOE is also offering a “hearing” on the proposal. DOE says they want to foster public participation, but they think everyone in the US should go to Las Vegas to comment! If you can be in Las Vegas on January 23, 1997, GREAT. Otherwise write DOE asking for a hearing in your region. NIRS has requested 6 additional hearings — the locations based on a geographic spread and proximity to communities that have already been actively concerned about the Yucca Mountain project. Either ask for a hearing in your town or one of the following that we recommended: Portland, or; Tulsa, OK; Chicago, IL; Indianapolis, IN; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA. DOE Address given above — April V. Gil is !QW! to send this letter.
BACKGROUND
Yucca Mountain lies 70 miles from Las Vegas within lands of the Western Shoshone Nation, adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. In 1987, in what was a purely political decision, it was singled out as the only one, of 3 sites under consideration, to be characterized for a permanent repository for nuclear waste. The proposed permanent repository would be an underground maze of tunnels to receive the nation’s high-level nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power reactors, as well as DOE weapons-related high-level waste. The site is still being characterized, and there has yet to be a decision on whether the site is suitable for repository development. This rule would establish new, minimal rules for this evaluation.
Meanwhile, Congress is considering a new law that would put up a second facility at the same site — a parking lot !QW! nuclear waste in transport casks would sit as an “interim storage site.” Nuclear industry advocates are less and less concerned with the Yucca Repository since an “interim” site would relieve them of ownership and any further liability for the waste. This element is not covered by the proposed rule, but would trigger the transportation of waste even sooner than the permanent repository which, if approved would not begin to accept waste until 2010 or later.
Back at the ranch, DOE has been effectively constructing the repository by drilling a tunnel into the mountain that would serve as the access ports for waste emplacement. From what is obvious to the trained observer visiting this tunnel, the Mountain should have been disqualified already. It has 2 major fault lines through the waste area with at least 31 others in the study area. The region has a level of seismic activity in the same class as the San Francisco Bay Area. The rock of the mountain is fractured, guaranteeing that the site would not have been able to meet the EPA’s high-level nuclear waste radiation protection standards in place prior to 1992, which included a population dose criteria as well as an individual dose standard.
A series of erosions have undercut the rigor of standards used in the repository program. One of the most devastating of these was in 1992 when Congress waived the site from having to meet the EPA’s radiation protection standards, under the Energy Policy Act. The EPA standards continue to apply to ANY site except Yucca Mountain. Congress directed EPA to write a new site-specific standard, instructing them to start with recommendations from a National Academy of Science panel that worked with representatives of the nuclear industry. That report featured an approach to radiation standard setting that has never been used any!QW! in the world, and is contrary to international norms that take as their basis consideration of the group that is deemed to include those with the highest exposures. (No standard has really considered those at greatest risk, as they do not include infants and those in utero).
The new EPA standard for Yucca Mountain is not out yet. Finalization of the new EPA standard and the adoption of this proposed rule will force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to follow suit and write site-specifc regs for the licensing of Yucca Mountain. What was a science based program, governed by a law with the stated purpose: “operation of repositories that will provide a reasonable assurance that the public and the environment will be adequately protected form the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in a repository.” The only “reasonable assurance” we have today is that if radiation standards and any measurable objective criteria for site suitability have to be rejected in order for Yucca Mountain repository to “pass,” Yucca Mountain should have been rejected.
It is important to note that Yucca Mountain is part of the traditional lands of the Western Shoshone Nation. The Western Shoshone National Council opposes the Yucca Mountain site characterization, and the fact that the program goes forward is a violation of the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863.