Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

News


Nevada files challenge to Yucca license



Photo by Cathleen Allison/Associated Press

A day after the Energy Department submitted its 8,600-page application to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, the state on Wednesday filed 21 pages of "get lost," asking regulators to reject the plan.

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed the petition asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to send back to the DOE its application to construct and license the repository for high-level nuclear waste at the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: Penthouse wants piece of the Strip
  • RAMPAGE ENDS IN SUICIDE: Man runs amok in Las Vegas
  • ROBBERY-HOMICIDE CASE: Juror sent flirtatious messages
  • Father mourns his daughter
  • NORM: 'Joe the Plumber' too booked for LV
  • Judge asks court to release son arrested after crash that killed girl
  • NORM: Strip club owners, 'Vinny' part ways
  • Police ask: Are there others?
  • Anger over cuts reaches fever pitch
  • Working beneath Lake Las Vegas



  • "The whole world will be watching and judging whether the NRC is capable of a fair and full review. ... Many distant generations will look back at NRC's licensing decisions with gratitude or regret," Masto said.

    The petition asks the NRC to reject the application on a number of grounds:

    • There is no final radiation health protection standard against which the repository is to be evaluated. That alone, the state said, is enough to kill the license.

    • A final design for the repository is absent.

    • There is no final design for the canister system intended to store, transport and dispose of spent fuel.

    • Drip shields designed to delay corrosion of canisters won't be installed until 100 years after the waste is buried. They'll cost "many billions of dollars" by then and it's unknown whether government officials will even want to undertake the task.

    Masto also said the Energy Department's application calls for keeping some elements of the Yucca Mountain Project secret, even from Nevada officials with security clearances, because of national security concerns.

    "If accepted, DOE's assertion of authority to dictate to NRC what parts of the license application Nevada may be allowed to review would make a mockery of the NRC licensing process," the attorney general said in the petition. "The Congress never authorized DOE to file an application under these conditions."

    Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson was brief in his response.

    "We are confident that we have met the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's requirements for submittal of the license application," he said.

    In Washington, Nevada lawmakers said they planned to sign a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission endorsing the state's bid to have the Yucca Mountain license application rejected for docketing.

    Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said he also wanted to organize a meeting where officials could take their case against the license application directly to the top NRC commissioners and deliver their letter in person.

    Porter said he initiated contact with the commissioners' office "and they were very amenable to meet with the delegation. This takes it to another level."

    There are four commissioners, with a fifth seat being vacant.

    NRC officials were not available on Wednesday evening for comment. In earlier briefings agency spokesman David McIntyre said it would be unusual for the commissioners to involve themselves directly in a license matter at such an early stage where reviews are customarily performed by technical staff.

    Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., contends the Energy Department submitted its application despite the gaps so the Bush administration would be able to show progress before it leaves office.

    "This was an incomplete application, and the reason for that is the time of this administration is running out, and there was enormous pressure to get something filed," Berkley said.

    The Nevadans also questioned whether the Energy Department and the NRC would have money available to carry out a comprehensive multi-year license review.

    NRC chairman Dale Klein told an energy forum on Tuesday that the agency lacks the funds to complete a Yucca license review within four years, as called for in federal law.

    "If they expect us to maintain that three- to four-year time frame, we will have to have the financial resources to do it," Klein said, according to a Reuters report. "Otherwise it will take longer."

    There is no penalty if NRC fails to finish in four years, and many experts believe it will take the agency years longer to complete a complex Yucca Mountain license case.

    But as Nevada lawmakers were strategizing against the repository, a group of state and industry officials who favor its completion said the Energy Department finally submitting its bid should energize DOE allies on Capitol Hill.

    Members of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition said they plan new rounds of lobbying to revive bills that could increase federal funding to build the repository and take other steps to advance the project. The coalition consists of state utility regulators and attorneys general, electric utilities and vendors from states where nuclear waste is generated and stored.

    "We're going to go where we need to go to educate members and to get what we think is necessary," said David Wright, a member of the South Carolina Public Service Commission. "Our goal is to advance the ball, and the license application advanced the ball."

    "We have always been told that (Congress) needed to see DOE do something, and that nothing would proceed until the license application," Wright said, "Now we can go back and say what they never thought would happen has happened."

    Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he doubted DOE will get a big bump on Capitol Hill. He noted several key Yucca supporters are retiring or have cooled in their enthusiasm for the project.

    "I don't know who will be energized," Reid said.

    Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said the project has run out of gas in Congress.

    "It does not have the momentum, and if it does not have Capitol Hill behind it, it has no chances to succeed," Ensign said.

    Bob Loux, director of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects, said as much while joining Masto at a news conference in Carson City. For more than 25 years, he has been the state's primary lobbyist against Yucca Mountain.

    He said key members of Congress and even some in the nuclear power industry now back construction of interim storage facilities where spent fuel roads would be stored. Then in the future, when technology has been perfected, the fuel rods would be reprocessed.

    The repository would hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel rods generated at nuclear power plants across the nation.

    But Loux said in about 40 years it will become financially advantageous to reprocess nuclear fuel.

    The state also objects to the Energy Department's plan to store spent reactor fuel above ground on "aging pads" at Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act "expressly forbids" that type of storage, the petition said, adding the waste above ground "will be exposed to potential acts by terrorists."

    Loux added state attorneys are prepared to file as many as 600 license challenges to proposals contained in the DOE application. Those would be in the form of contentions, such as technical challenges to science research and engineering designs.

    The NRC will initially review the application for completeness. If the paperwork is in order, the agency would docket the application and start safety reviews that might take the next 11/2 years.

    Though not present at the news conference, Gov. Jim Gibbons supports Masto's petition challenging the Yucca Mountain application, spokesman Ben Kieckhefer said.

    "The governor strongly believes the Yucca Mountain project is not safe for the people of Nevada," he said. "He has been against Yucca Mountain since the beginning."

    Masto and Loux said the application was submitted because of political considerations.

    President Bush backs the project, as does presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama opposes the repository. Masto, a Democrat and a superdelegate to the summer convention, on Tuesday announced her support for Obama.

    By submitting the application now, the DOE hopes the NRC will not summarily reject it, according to Loux.

    That could have been the agency's position if a critic of the project was president, he added.

    Contact Review-Journal Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901. Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.



    Leave Your Comment 26 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Summerlin Res wrote on June 05, 2008 10:14 PM: Yucca Mtn is the safest place to store our nuclear waste. What makes you fear it? Why do you believe it so dangerous? Go ahead and use your brain, it's ok it won't hurt. You don't have to go through life being so angry. It's ok, breath in breath out.


    Angel Goodman wrote on June 05, 2008 09:58 PM: PLEASE DONT PUT THE NUCLEAR WASTE ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN THATS SOOO DANGEROUS !!! COM ON NOW USE YOUR BRAIN IF IT WASNT SO DANGEROUS THAN WHY DID THE PEOPLE GIVE IT TO YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE THEY SHOLD HAVE JUST KEPT THE NUCLEAR WASTE


    Summerlin Res wrote on June 05, 2008 09:39 PM: slick rick, sorry to disappoint. If you can believe this I work and sometimes work is so demanding that I do not have the time to comment on all the articles.
    I am glad to hear you enjoy what you gibberish when you and I both know it is not.


    Skeptical Nevadan wrote on June 05, 2008 09:21 PM: One last thing before I leave you anti-Yucca reactionaries to the comfort of your pious but wholly unrealistic propaganda:

    If I'm right in assuming that most of you are states' right advocates or environmentalists (and there's nothing wrong with either of these positions), I would tell you of the following:

    I recently heard a distinguished oceanographer's prediction of what the effects of burning fossil fuels will be over the next 50 years.

    You all probably know about the sea-rise consequences: the loss of 20% of the earth's species, the loss of coastal regions, etc.

    But you may not know the similar consequences of the acidification of the oceans. The excess carbon in the atmosphere is absorbed into the water, leading to a rise in carbolic acid. Carbolic acid is toxic to shellfish or any organism that builds its "shell" from carbonate. So the shellfish and the coral starts to die. The organisms that produce much of the oxygen we breathe start to die. The organisms that feed on those other organisms begin to starve off, and in turn the organisms that feed on those organisms start to starve off (and at some point, as part of that food chain, we are affected, in terms of food source and oxygen supply).

    At this point, and in the next few decades, solar, wind, and nuclear are the only viable energy sources that don't contribute to these problems. And as we all know, nuclear is the only one of the three ready RIGHT NOW and in the near-term to contribute toward solving the problem.

    If the repository is as far away as 2020 (assuming it gets approved), and solar and wind as significant contributors are even farther out, we need to discuss this issue seriously, and without parochial or selfish interests or political propaganda.


    Skeptical Nevadan wrote on June 05, 2008 08:57 PM: Mama Bear:

    Obviously, your propaganda is YOUR propaganda. You have offered only assertions without proof, without reference to the relevant statues or the acutal documentation.

    All you have given us is an assertion that you worked "VERY closely" with an undisclosed number of "the so-called experts" responsible for the analyses collected in the 8,600 pages of the license application for the repostitory submitted on Tuesday. You don't say how many you worked with, in what capacity, and with what "access" to the relevant scientific facts.

    For all I know, you were a secretary who scheduled the meetings of a handful of scientists and engineers among hundreds. Or, you were an actual high-level participant in one aspect of the project, perhaps a disgruntled one who was laid off in one of the many cutbacks we've read about.

    All I know is, projects such as these encompass dozens of disciplines and no single person has adequate knowledge to pass judgment on the so-called "total system performance assessment" presented in the license application -- which itself is an abstraction (simplification) from hundreds of separate supporting documents devoted to fleshing out the details of a specific aspect of the repository.

    There is simply NO WAY you can be qualified to pass judgment on the totality of the case made for the repository. If you were the best geologist on the planet, you would not be able to pass judgment on the hydrological or thermal aspects of the repository, let alone the engineering or criticality aspects.

    You can pretend all you want that you "know the facts," while presenting none in your posts, but the simple truth is that no one person can adequately assess the case for the repository in its entirety, which is why a large contingent of technical experts has been given the job.


    slick rick wrote on June 05, 2008 07:07 PM: where've you been summerlin res. i've missed reading your gibberish the past few days?


    Summerlin Res wrote on June 05, 2008 06:52 PM: mama bear, please do all of us a favor and move back to California.


    slick rick wrote on June 05, 2008 06:28 PM: Get Real, so just because other dangerous things are stored in Vegas, I should want more dangerous things stored here?

    Are you trying to say that there's nothing dangerous about nuclear waste? If that's what you believe, keep drinking the Kool Aid.

    Exactly how much money is NV going to get as a result of this?

    With respect to my reply to fluffy, you can suck a fat one too.


    Mama Bear wrote on June 05, 2008 05:53 PM: Skeptical Nevadan - obviously your ignorance is YOUR bliss. For those of who know differently, we are glad and thankful we know the facts.


    Get Real wrote on June 05, 2008 05:46 PM: Slick rick, What exactly do you fear about Yucca Mountain?

    The froth about "risks" is so out of whack, when compared to things that can actually kill you-- that are stored and moved through Vegas daily-- I'm surprised you can even leave your house.

    We have teachers who can't afford to live here, students who are failing proficiency exams in droves, water supplies running dry, gasoline at $4.15 per gallon... now those are real problems.

    Finally, your reply to 'fluffy' shows your true intelligence, so why did I even waste my time on you with logic?


    Read All Comments