Skeptical Nevadan wrote on June 25, 2008 09:04 AM: Another of the State's contentions, as mentioned by State mouthpiece Steve Frishman, is that the license application is missing a standard for radiation dose.

This, too, is not accurate. The EPA had presented a standard for 10,000 years, but the State protested it in the court of appeals and won -- not because to dose was too high, but because the time period was insufficient!

Can you imagine? The state basically said, "Okay, the standard is adequate for 10,000 years, but what about after 10,000 years?"

10,000 years is nearly twice the entire time span of human civilization, and the State is really concerned about the period between 10,000 years from now and a million years from now? Can you think of any human endeavor that requires predictions of that length? The State couldn't even predict its budget circumstances from last year to this year!

For the record, the EPA dose standard for the first 10,000 years of the repository is 15 mrem per year, about the same dose you would get from a chest x-ray. Sometime after 10,000 years, that dose is expected to peak at 350 mrem per year.

The State argues that this latter dose is unacceptably dangerous, and that Nevadans 10,000 years from now should not be subjected to such perils.

Come on. This whole fiasco is getting silly and embarrassing. Residents of Denver get a dose of 700 mrem per year in background radiation. A CAT scan of the chest can expose you to 750 mrem; the same test to the abdomen and the pelvis can expose you to 2,700 mrem. And bear in mind that those things place you inches from the source, as opposed to 90 miles from the source (the distance from Vegas to the repository site).

Skeptical Nevadan wrote on June 25, 2008 08:40 AM: The State's petition to halt the docketing of the Yucca Mountain license application is a canard that should embarrass all of us. We are clearly not getting our money's worth from the AG's crack team of lawyers.

Anyone who can read the regulations can see that the "final design" that State representatives such as Steve Frishman are clamouring about has no basis in law or regulation.

Everything in the regulation governing the proposed repository (10 CFR Part 63) points to a "detailed design" but not a final design. The design is left incomplete intentionally and will need to be updated as new engineering and scientific information is acquired. This is simple common sense for a facility that will take years to build and is intended by regulation to be refined throughout the construction phase. It is at the end of this phase that the license application will be updated to reflect the final design, and NRC will review the application again and decide whether or not to grant a license to receive and store the waste.

All of this is spelled out in the regulations and in the law (the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), and yet the State continually disputes these facts as if they hadn't read the relevant statutes.

Kent wrote on June 20, 2008 11:01 PM: Sen. Reid along with Sen. Ensign and our Congressional reps are urging us to sign a petition against Yucca. You should go to Sen. Reid's website. This is one issue both sides of the Nevadan aisle are on one page. Being a retiree, I can also sympathize with some the comments here seeking economic benefit from this project and thereby supporting Yucca's respository, but I for one am against it based on the shoddy results from the first submission DOE made couple of years ago.

Let the NRC Do It's Job wrote on June 20, 2008 11:03 AM: Our politicians should, for once, consider their Country vs their own political ambitions. I would let the NRC do it’s job, then we can logically evaluate it’s conclusions, and then decide what is best for the Country. They could very easily say Yucca is a bad idea and that is it. Alternatively, they can say it would work as is, or recommend changes.

Maybe Harry Reid would rather continue to subsidize foreign Governments that are bent on our destruction then doing the right thing.

Dennis wrote on June 20, 2008 09:47 AM: The NRC licensing boundaries are set by regulation. Complete designs are not required or necessary to evaluate the licensing basis. As the review and design proceed, the NRC will be given the opportunity to evaluate the complete design. Whether or not Nevada can comment is another issue. The issue being debated in the news is not the license application but Nevada's contention of the issue based on politics not science. Nevada will have their chance to legally contend the project. What is their (Nevada's politicians) real message to the people who are losing their houses and jobs because of the current economic depression in Nevada? They are saying we don't want the 60 billion that will be spent on the project along with all of the jobs! Why,because they don't want to store safe recylable material within a few miles of where the US tested hundreds of Nuclear Weapons because it is not politically endorsed by the likes of Harry Reid. Since 2006 nothing of significant importance has been passed by Congress due to the way Harry Reid runs the Senate. His inability to work with others to work out a compromise and accomplish the work of the people is a great failing on the part of Nevada for electing him. His priorities are wrong for Nevada and for the people of the United States.

Gut check time wrote on June 20, 2008 09:37 AM: It's one thing to make wild, fear-mongering accusations in the press. Let's see how those hold up before the NRC-- which uses actual science to judge.

If DOE's science is so bad, then the state and its lawyers (which I object strongly to paying for) should have nothing to fear.

Why aren't they trying get the hearing started as soon as possible, so this "shoddy science" can be exposed?

This issue is now where it needs to be. Let it play out.

tom wrote on June 20, 2008 07:36 AM: Do these attorneys and other officials representing NV think the DOE is going to stand up and claim the LA is solid in front of the NRC if what NV is saying was true. Come on....

wildbill wrote on June 20, 2008 06:57 AM: Most of us knew this was going to happen no matter how much political posturing was done. Let's hope we can still get something out of it for the state.