Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - News

Sunday
Sep 5, 2010
Sunny
Sunny 98° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

sponsored by
News


NUCLEAR WASTE SITE: EPA sets Yucca radiation standards

DOE must prove system can meet safety requirement




WASHINGTON -- The government on Tuesday issued long-awaited radiation standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, setting a key public health threshold for experts to judge whether the nuclear waste site should be built.

A regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency purports to set the acceptable levels of radiation that people could receive from the Nevada site up to 1 million years in the future -- no matter that nobody can tell what the Earth will look like then.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Angle faces copyright lawsuit over R-J articles
  2. Woman found dead amid clutter became compulsive
  3. Body of promoter Arum's son found in Washington mountains
  4. Fator grows his audience on road
  5. Border Patrol finds success in curbing illegal immigration, targets Las Vegas
  6. Man arrested after false bomb threat
  7. Employee focus of an earlier inquiry
  8. NLV judge: Some cases not being prosecuted
  9. Homicide at Sunrise Children's Hospital fuels speculation
  10. UNLV-Wisconsin: No. 12 Badgers beat Rebels 41-21 at Sam Boyd Stadium




Scientists vary in their confidence to predict climate and geology that far into the future, which helped explain why the EPA took three years to finalize the standards after floating a draft version in August 2005.

Now, in order to win a construction license, the Department of Energy must prove, through complex computer modeling, that the underground tunnel system it wants to excavate 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas to store spent nuclear fuel can meet the safety requirement.

"We believe we can meet the standard," DOE spokesman Allen Benson said. The department's case is laid out in a repository license application that is pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"With the issuance of the EPA standard for Yucca Mountain, the regulatory framework is in place for the nation to move forward to a regulatory decision by the NRC on Yucca Mountain," Benson said.

The EPA set a two-part standard.

For the first 10,000 years after the repository is filled with 77,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel, a theoretical farmer living 11 miles south of the Yucca site at Amargosa Valley could receive no more than 15 millirem of radiation exposure annually from materials escaping from the Yucca site.

For comparison, EPA officials say a chest X-ray exposes a patient to 10 millirem while a mammogram results in a 30 millirem exposure. Americans receive about 360 millirem a year from naturally occurring radiation in the environment.

After 10,000 years, and for up to 1 million years the allowable dose from the repository would be 100 millirems.

The time period was extended that far at the direction of the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded that the most dangerous levels of radiation from decaying isotopes could exist way beyond the initial 10,000 years.

The EPA regulation also requires the DOE to consider the effects of climate change, earthquakes, volcanoes and waste canister corrosion during the million-year period.

An earlier EPA standard that limited the standard to 10,000 years was thrown out by a federal court in 2004, sending the agency back to the drawing board.

The revised regulation is more stringent than the draft, which recommended a long-term radiation standard of 350 millirem annually.

Initial reaction from Nevada was mixed.

The director of state's nuclear projects agency said the rule was being studied but it appeared the EPA tightened the standards in several ways that would benefit public health.

"Clearly this standard is more protective than the previous one, no doubt about it," said Bob Loux, who announced his resignation on Monday but who is continuing until a replacement is named.

But Loux added that if the EPA changed directions entirely between the draft and the final regulations, the state might request a new round of public comments on the rules, which could also serve to delay them from going into effect.

"It may very well be the right number," Loux said. "But if they used a different rationale it may have to be reproposed and sent out for comment again."

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the leading repository foe in Congress, said the EPA standard still was unacceptable.

"Let me be clear, there is no way this weak standard will breathe life into the Bush-McCain plan to dump nuclear waste in Nevada," Reid said in a statement. "Instead, it will breathe life into more litigation against this terrible project."

The EPA said it set aside the 350 millirem standard after receiving a number of critical public comments.

It said the newly set dose level of 100 millirem per year "is well established as protective of public health under current dose limits, and as such represents a robust public health protection standard in the extreme far future."

Groups such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency "recommend its use as an overall public dose limit in planning for situations where exposures may be reasonably expected to occur."

At least one environmental organization, Beyond Nuclear, echoed Reid's criticism.

Representative Kevin Kamps said it was "incredible" that the EPA would allow future generations to be exposed to higher doses of harmful radiation than current generations.

"EPA's final Yucca radiation release regulations are unacceptable. All human generations are of equal importance and moral worth," Kamps said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

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

Comments (20)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

X

Register to comment

* Indicates fields that are required
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Male Female

Already registered? Log in now

X

Already registered to comment?

Log in below
E-mail
Password

Forgot your password? | Register
X

Forgot your password?

Enter your e-mail address below and a password will be resent to you.

Email
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.

Report abuse

viewridge wrote on October 04, 2008 09:05 AM: For Skeptical Nevadan:
Allowing more exposure to future generations runs counter to what I and many others do. When I drive with my grandchildren I always make certain their seatbelt is fastened. They are too young to make the choice themselves and I have no right to expose them to additional risk of injury. Occasionally when moving my car a short distance I do not fasten my seat belt. In this case I am only exposing myself to additional risk without affecting another person. Susanne E. Vandenbosch


Report abuse

viewridge wrote on October 03, 2008 11:08 PM: For Skeptical Observor:
The question I still have about the new radiation standards for Yucca Mountain is why are there different standards for different generations. Why should people living before 10,000 years be allowed to be exposed only to 15mr and those after 10,000 years be exposed to 6.7 times as much radiation. Will people living after 10,000 years be more resistant to radiation? Are we willing to tolerate more cases of cancer for those living after 10,000 years than for those living before 10,000 years? What is the rationale for this two-tiered standard? Why not set the same standard for all 1 million years instead of offering more protection for our generation than for those living after 10,000 years. In a previous draft of radiation standards the EPA justified allowing 350 mr after 10,000 years because there is more uncertainty after 10,000 years. This was illogical as an increase in uncertainty calls for more protection, not less. Susanne E. Vandenbosch


Report abuse

Yucca.Refugee wrote on October 03, 2008 03:37 PM: Dr. Vandenbosch:

Which is precisely why we have organizations such as the various National Academy of Sciences panels, including the BEIR commission, which has conducted an extensive review of the scientific literature and data, and has offered its conclusions with transparency.

These commission, as you no doubt know, are multidisciplinary and are empaneled not only with "our best and brightest," but also with provisions against conflicts of interest.

I'm not trying to sound shrill or disrespectful, but as a Nevadan I have been forced to listen to scores of politicians and fellow citizens who have not even bothered to examine the data and conclusions from reliable, credible, and yes neutral scientific sources.

This is not rocket science, as they say, or the kind of research you are describing. Rather, it is a simple matter of taking numbers (e.g., risks associated with dose levels) and plugging them into dose estimates.

And yet, most of my fellow citizens, and certainly all of my political representatives, remain unwilling to raise the debate even to this rudimentary level, where we could discuss social risks using actual data and projections provided by authoritative, neutral scientific organizations.

My bias is obvious, and I have declared it often in these blogs. But I have also attempted to back up my assertions with freely available data and conclusions provided by the scientific process rather than the political process.

And I would humbly argue that it is the attempt at intellectual honesty, in the face of our predisposition, that distinguishes "my side" from the majority of repository opponents.


Report abuse

viewridge wrote on October 02, 2008 10:57 AM: Dear Skeptical Nevadan:
I have a great deal of respect for employees of our national laboratories and universities here and abroad. This is not an uninformed endorsement as I have conducted research (and subsequently published my results peer-reviewed publications) at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago, the University of California Radiation laboratory (Now Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) and the Niels Bohr Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen. I think it is important to have transparency and extensive review of both the radiation standards and the assumptions used in setting theses standards as well as other scientific questions related to the Yucca Mountain repository. Gut NIMBY reactions to the repository should be discounted. Also, opinions of those with a conflict of interest should be discounted. Susanne E. Vandenbosch


Report abuse

Yucca.Refugee wrote on October 02, 2008 09:13 AM: To Dr. Vandenbosch:

And one other thing: Do not try to beat me about the head and neck with academic degrees or awards.

You are not the only person with a PhD. I happen to have one myself, but I don't go around declaring it publicly or using it as a basis on which to demand apologies. A degree entitles me to nothing as far as expressing opinions is concerned: It entitles me neither to assume that other people should take me seriously, nor to bully other people whose credentials are different from mine.

All that matters is the substance of what I express and the manner in which I express it; my opinion stands or falls on that basis alone.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to respect a small, Christian liberal arts college in Michigan (but I certainly won't apologize to it), without verging into questions of relative credibility.

But if that represents a "normative" reaction to academic institutions, then you and everyone else who opines on this subject should show comparable respect to the hundreds of National Lab employees who have contributed to the study of Yucca Mountain, and to the larger community of scientists who establish the guidelines on these issues.

They, too, have PhDs and represent respected academic institutions here and abroad. They, too, have won impressive awards for scholarship, demonstrated ability, and contributions to their respective fields. And they, too, take their work and their responsibility seriously when addressing the issue of a national repository.


Report abuse

Yucca.Refugee wrote on October 02, 2008 08:47 AM: To Dr. Vandenbosch:

Let me get this straight. You feel you are owed an apology because you presented a figure that could be read as a two-part expression OR a division problem???

Your original post could easily be read to suggest that you meant an increase in exposure of 100 times AND/OR 15 times, which corresponds to the two dose values provided by EPA for the two relevant time periods (15 mrem annually for the first 10,000 years and 100 mrem annually thereafter for up to a million years). It would follow, then, that you believe that a current standard of 1 mrem exists.

So perhaps you owe us an apology for offering an ambiguous figure that could be read either as a grammatical expression (the solidus functioning in the manner of "him/her") or a mathematical expression (the solidus marking the operation of division).

In any event, you still offer no context for your suggestion that we will be exposed to "6.7 times as much radiation."

6.7 times as much as what? That's the same universally deplored strategem used by advertisers who say their product is "three times more effective." Three times more effective than what? If Product A is only 1% effective, should I buy Product B because it is three times more effective?

Likewise, how can I appreciate or evaluate "6.7 times as much radiation" without any context?

Never forget the old expression that "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics." By merely providing a ratio without context, you are misleading people into assuming that "less protection" translates into some kind of risk worthy of our attention. If my risk of dying from a lightning strike is 0.0001 but wearing a baseball cap increases that risk by 6.7 times, I'm still only at risk by a factor of 0.00067.


Report abuse

viewridge wrote on October 01, 2008 09:03 PM: To Skeptical Nevadan:
My basic math is correct. By allowing 100 mr after 10,000 years and 15mr before 10,000 years the EPA will allow human beings 100/15 or 6.7 times as much radiation exposure after 10,000 years than before. In other words people will receive less protection after 10,000 years You should apologize not only to me but to Calvin College which awarded me the Rinck Prize in Mathematics in 1954. Susanne E. Vandenbosch, Ph.D.


Report abuse

It's the chemicals... wrote on October 01, 2008 08:43 PM: If Harry Reid really cared about the public health of Nevadan's 10,000 years from now, he would be demanding that Nevada's mining industry be forced to meet a one-million year safety standard for their wastes. Nevada had 40 deep, open pit gold mines. Once they are abandoned, they fill with ground water, and as the New York Times stated, become "giant sponges" that suck up and evaporate massive quantities of ground water, concentrating all of the heavy metals that they leach out of the ore bodies. Do you think that the water in the these 40 permanent lakes will meet EPA standards? If Harry actually cared, he would draft legislation that would require these mining companies to post bonds to pay for filling their holes back in. Yucca Mountain sets the gold standard for how we should require protection for future generations.


Report abuse

theroyprocess wrote on October 01, 2008 07:54 PM: Nuclear waste has already leaked out of
containment at Hanford, Washington in
the first 63 years of the atomic age.
Man-made radioactive fallout is still
in the atmosphere from the first atom
bomb test in N.M. in 1945.

Get a Geiger Counter! It's the only way
to see and hear radiation!

]Date: June 29, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340
Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm


Report abuse

michael.melder wrote on October 01, 2008 06:21 PM: Once again focus, we are setting on a gold mine, we have no money, let's take it like a politician bailing out his rich wall street buddy. They drop, tested, underground tested for years. No one is glowing in the dark so once again focus. It's coming if you like it are not, let's take the cash


Read More Comments