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

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

News


Documents about Yucca in tug of war

Licensing Support Network at issue

WASHINGTON -- Battle lines are forming in a dispute over whether the Department of Energy is withholding important documents from the public about its Yucca Mountain research.

Thirteen environmental groups have lined up behind the state of Nevada, which charges that DOE does not plan to make available all relevant documents in advance of certifying a key database for the proposed nuclear waste site.

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
  • Alleging fraud, authorities raid voter group
  • NORM: Simpson planned acquittal party
  • Nevada's economy dead last
  • NORM: Hard-core fans ask: Has Jacko moved?
  • NORM: Bobbitt trains for boxing bout in LV
  • NORM: Letterman gives an 'A' to O.J. jury
  • PALACE STATION ROBBERY: Audiotapes convicted O.J.
  • Judge: Attacker 'gleeful'
  • Circle of friends surrounds lost pal
  • The Biggest loser



  • The Energy Department has responded that the state's charge is unfounded and off-base. The pro-repository Nuclear Energy Institute and staff for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission agree.

    The dispute was aired in legal documents filed in the past week at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A three-judge administrative panel assembled by the NRC is expected to weigh in this fall on the argument.

    Lawyers have clashed off and on for the past three years over the ground rules for millions of pages of documents that will play into the government's bid to license a nuclear waste repository at the Yucca site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

    The Energy Department has said it plans to file a license application by June 30, 2008.

    Leading up to that, DOE says it has posted 3.4 million documents to a pre-licensing database made available to the state and other stakeholders preparing for NRC license hearings.

    The database, known as the Licensing Support Network, is required to be certified at least six months before DOE files its application.

    But Nevada attorneys filed an NRC complaint this summer that DOE is likely to omit important documents, such as analysis model reports that will serve as the building blocks for the license application. The application itself is a highly technical document that will run thousands of pages.

    Without access to key documents and time to review the supporting material, it will be difficult for Nevada to mount strong challenges against the project in license hearings, state officials have said.

    "Those are the documents that everyone needs to see in advance." said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "Otherwise, the whole LSN is pointless."

    Nevada called on the administrative judges to scrutinize DOE's database and to require "all documentary material" to be posted.

    Other groups that oppose the Yucca repository echoed the state's request in an NRC filing on Aug. 3.

    They included the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, the National Environmental Trust, Sierra Club, Citizen Alert, Public Citizen, and the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force.

    "As the representatives of many citizens of Nevada and members of the public throughout the nation, we must be able to know about the specific information upon which the U.S. Department of Energy will rely in making plans and decisions," the groups said.

    But the Energy Department says Nevada is being "alarmist" and that what the state wants "is impractical in the real world."

    "This is not a situation where a participant has deliberately delayed finalization of documents," lawyers said in an Aug. 3 NRC filing.

    Development of a licensing application "is an ongoing process," and the department will continue to generate supporting documents up to the time it submits its application, government lawyers said.

    The NRC already has recognized that would be the case, they added, and new documents would be added to the database on a rolling basis.

    "There is a wealth of information currently available for the participants to review," they said.

    The Nuclear Energy Institute said Nevada's request was "far wide of the mark" of what NRC requires and "in fact is inconsistent with common sense."



    Leave Your Comment 4 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:

    Sue wrote on August 10, 2007 01:31 PM: For anyone who would like review the 3.4 million documents already on the NRC database, visit http://www.lsnnet.gov/. I agree with Fred. Start researching today. Study the science, there's no shortage of studies on this site. I wonder Nevada representatives can't understand the studies. Asking for more won't help that issue...


    Fred wrote on August 10, 2007 08:59 AM: Kim T., I agree that the health of our citizens and economy is what we're talking about. Rather than some vague reference, please state specifically what health risks Yucca Mountain poses, and the likelihood of those risks.

    Then please compare those risks to the current alternatives of coal-generated electricity, such as airborne sulphur, mercury, and CO; as well as mining deaths and toxic wastes that are not contained and inventoried.

    You might also research how many square miles of wind farms or solar panels we would need to replace coal and natural gas.

    Do your research. Study the facts. You'll find it all boils down to this: IF we want electricity without global warming, nuclear must play a major role. And even if fuel is recycled, there are still wastes that must be kept in a secure, remote place.

    It's not about states, it's not about NIMBY, it's not about anybody being forced into anything. Do your research before it's too late.


    Kim T. wrote on August 10, 2007 08:13 AM: No kidding, Roger. And too bad if it's 'inconvenient' for them. This is the health of our citizens and economy we're talking about. Nevada isn't going to just lie down and take it in the shorts.


    Roger wrote on August 10, 2007 07:38 AM: DOE attempting to cover up their incometemce? Why am I not surprised?