Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - News

Tuesday
Mar 16, 2010
Mostly Sunny
Mostly Sunny 67° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News


Budget cut could trash Yucca data

Officials suggest retention of Licensing Support Network

A panel weighing the Energy Department's license application for building a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain wonders what will happen to 80 million pages of supporting documents if funding to keep track of them is slashed after September.

"If the system doesn't work and those documents can't be retrieved, that's roughly akin to tossing it in the waste basket," said Administrative Judge Thomas Moore of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Construction Authorization Board.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Man arrested, pair shot in car incident
  2. Off-duty Las Vegas officer shoots armed suspect in Henderson home invasion
  3. Ex-Green Valley Ranch manager arrested
  4. Goodman ditches firing plan
  5. Edwards mistress: 'We love each other very much'
  6. Arrest report details officers' actions to catch suspects
  7. Anti-Reid ads draw criticism
  8. Rebels will battle Northern Iowa on Thursday in Oklahoma City in first round
  9. Galardi makes case for freedom
  10. Woman arrested in fatal stabbing




His comment Wednesday during a hearing in Las Vegas was aimed at preserving more than two decades of scientific work about the site, 100 miles northwest of the Las Vegas Valley. That's where the Department of Energy had planned to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste and used reactor fuel.

After the license application was submitted in the waning months of the Bush Administration, the Obama administration and Energy Secretary Steven Chu have said the site now is not an option for a national nuclear waste repository. Nevertheless, the agency's effort to seek a license is continuing, at least through the end of the 2010 fiscal year.

None of the $8 million to $9 million needed to maintain the massive, computerized Licensing Support Network will be available if DOE's budget for defending the license application is terminated in 2011 as DOE officials have indicated.

Without a workable network to obtain documents for depositions and challenges to the application, parties, including Nevada, will have a difficult if not impossible task of challenging the license application.

An attorney for Nevada, Charles Fitzpatrick, said Nevada intends to preserve its opposition work in a searchable form on compact discs and DVDs. But the lion's share of the network -- 99 percent -- is the Department of Energy's scientific and engineering data that would be at risk of becoming unavailable, Fitzpatrick said.

"What if there is no LSN (Licensing Support Network) and you can't do discovery? We say you deny the license application," he said during a break in the two-day hearing sessions that ended Wednesday.

Moore directed the parties to submit written comments on the network archive issue for discussion in February. "We will have taken the first step to protect the LSN the best we can," Moore said.

In a related matter, representatives for the Native Community Action Council, were seated for the licensing proceeding.

The council released a statement quoting president Margene Bullcreek.

"We are here on behalf of the land and people of the Great Basin to ensure we are heard," Bullcreek said. "A Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository will disproportionately impact the land and the people ... sooner or later. That fact is lost in the NRC hearing."

Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0308.

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

Leave Your Comment 14 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:

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

Report abuse

john smith wrote on January 28, 2010 02:16 PM: Why not let this project continue? It will bring thousands of jobs and anything that brings jobs to Nevadans, where the actual unemployment rate is more than 20 percent, is good for the local economy. As more states are legalizing gaming, Nevada should diversify it it wants to survive this tough economic times and not let Las Vegas become another failed city just like Detroit. I came from San Diego and the San Onofre Nuclear Plant was just a few miles from were I lived and no residents in the area complained about its operations. The nuclear plant store the spent rods on an onsite cooling pool which I think far more dangerous than actually burying them in yucca mountain which is located in a no mans land.


Report abuse

JeanY wrote on January 28, 2010 12:41 PM: To LVN8ive,
interestingly the Sierra Club also formerly opposed the development of nuclear power stations. Their stance on that has been reversed. Perhaps it is time that they reviewed their stance on Yucca Mountain as well. This time, hopefully, using science as the basis for their opinion rather than politics.


Report abuse

Conservative Paul wrote on January 28, 2010 12:10 PM: Man all the what ifs in these responses. The only reason this is now a problem is because too many what ifs.


Report abuse

former_yucca_insider wrote on January 28, 2010 11:55 AM: @Virgil, DOE does not claim that anything it builds will last forever.

The repository is designed such that the mountain itself isolates the waste long after the many man-made elements fail (thousands of years from now). Even the state does not argue that EVERY man-made element will fail simultaneously-- though they like to imply it.

The license application explains how the mountain's natural systems will work, and the NRC is deciding whether to believe it. Which is how this process should work, by law.

Politics and budget chicanery is exactly NOT how the process should work, in fact, it's probably illegal and is exposing the government to billions of dollars in civil damages.


Report abuse

Kathy wrote on January 28, 2010 11:49 AM: Again, using scare tactics...
Thousands of trucks everyday transporting gasoline, explosives, chlorine gas, and radioactive materials, none of which have anywhere near the safety requirements that the nuclear waste would have. How many accidents do you hear about with all of these items? Yet, you want us to believe that transporting the nuclear waste is a death sentence. Why aren't you protesting the fact that there are several railroad cars with chlorine gas constantly lined up near downtown Henderson? This is far more of a real hazard than the solid pellets of nuclear waste.


Report abuse

LVN8ive wrote on January 28, 2010 11:20 AM: Just a couple more issues to think about in transporting the waste. (taken from Sierra Club website):
Estimated Accidents (DOE):
66 trucks accidents
10 rail accidents
Estimated Accidents (Transport Experts):
130 truck accidents
440 rail accidents
“Transportation of irradiated fuel to Yucca Mountain would involve truck or rail shipments through 43 states (many of which have chosen not to have nuclear facilities), within one half mile of the homes of tens of millions of people, and through over 100 of America's largest cities. Barge shipments would move through 17 port cities on the Atlantic seaboard and through the drinking water of the Great Lakes via Lake Michigan.”
“The Department of Energy (DOE) is predicting that 108,500 shipments will be required over 38 years. Sample Duration: 1 truck shipment of deadly high-level radioactive waste will be required every 4 hours, 24-hours a day, 365 days a year for 38 years.”
As for storage, if you want to check any facts about corrosion for yourself, read the reports that dispute the DOE on the independent US Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (www.nwtrb.gov). Pretty scary stuff…particularly the report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy December 19, 2003.
Of course the “license application” information and the DOE dispute independent findings, they have something to gain from going forward.
NEVADA is NOT a wasteland!!


Report abuse

Kathy wrote on January 28, 2010 10:03 AM: Why is it that people like Virgil are so upset about the prospect of Yucca Mountain and transportation of waste through the valley and yet these same folks were fine with actual nuclear weapons regularly being trucked right through town and blown up on the Nevada Test Site?


Report abuse

Pete wrote on January 28, 2010 10:01 AM: Groundwater issues aside...

Regarding this statement from the article:

"None of the $8 million to $9 million needed to maintain the massive, computerized Licensing Support Network will be available if DOE's budget for defending the license application is terminated in 2011 as DOE officials have indicated."

$8 to $9 million would not begin to cover the amount needed to respond to NRC inquiries during the license application process. It would only pay for a skeletal staff of less experienced IT personnel -- definitely not program managers and others with considerable experience on the project.

Therefore, whether or not DOE's budget is terminated in 2011 is a moot point.


Report abuse

abevanluik wrote on January 28, 2010 08:50 AM: DaveLV is correct, Yucca groundwater moves toward Death Valley. The license application suggests no impact to anyone even as near as 18 km from the site. Water in that basin eventually evaporates, either at Franklin Lake Playa at the south end of Amargosa Valley or in Death Valley itself.

It NEVER connects with any major rivers. If perchance Las Vegas steals water from this area, then the potentially contaminated water will be mixed in with all other water sources used in Las Vegas and will be monitored. Right now your water authority website shows the natural radoactivity levels in the water you use. Yucca would likely add an undetectable additional amount over a million years.

As to building something that lasts 10,000 years, the license application suggests the engineered systems will last many hundreds of thousands of years. There was a human body preserved for over 10,000 years in the Spirit Cave rock shelter near Fallon. The only place rotted away was where rabbits had burrowed into him to make a nest! The rest of him was so well preserved that his last, undigested meal of fish and pine nuts was studied.

The idea that nothing can be preserved for that long is bogus, we have metal nails preserved in Britain from Roman times, a few thousand years with no effort made to preserve them because Romans were hiding them from the "savages" (locals) as they withdrew.

The newspaper article is about preserving electronic records. Formats change all the time so it is a challenge faced by repository projects around the world. The IAEA is writing guidance on this "knowledge management" subject. Japan is a leader in this enterprise. NRC describes the challenge well on its website.


Report abuse

Sam wrote on January 28, 2010 08:49 AM: Facts, not "beliefs" should drive the decisions on this matter. The ground water beneath Yucca Mtn does flow toward Death Valley, NOT the Colorado River. This information is readily available in Yucca Mtn literature. The ground water divide is near Indian Springs. The issue of marking the disposal site for future generations is also discussed in the planning documents for the site. Finally, one feature that many people ignore in considering the site is the fact that the ground water in the area is very thoroughly and permanently contaminated by approximately 1000 nuclear explosions conducted at the adjacent test site. What better place to put the waste than a site that is already horribly contaminated?


Read All Comments