Environmental Health Center
National Safety Council
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 293-2270
http://www.nsc.org/ehc.htm
-------
Errata Sheet (6/29/01) for
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
January 2001
Page 14, Table 1 — Common Sources of Everyday Exposure
to Radiation: Clarification of Medical X-ray source dose
listing:
The value given for dose to the public from medical
diagnostic x-rays is 40 millirem. This value is determined
by estimating the total dose to the US population from all
diagnostic x-ray procedures and dividing by the number of
people living in the US in the year the estimate was made.
The value for any individual can vary greatly from this
average value. If you don't have any medical diagnostic
procedures in a particular year, your medical dose that year
is zero. If you have a routine chest x-ray, it will probably
be below 10 millirem. If you have a complicated surgery
with extensive medical x-rays (e.g., from fluoroscopy), you
will get a dose much larger than 40 millirem. It is important
to keep in mind that your annual medical dose depends on
the number and type of x-rays you receive in that year.
Page 22, 1s* paragraph, last sentence, should read:
EPA considered and responded to all public comments
received before it issued its final public health and
environmental radiation protection standards for Yucca
Mountain, NV, in June 2001.
(see over)
-------
Errata Sheet (6/29/01) for
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
January 2001
Appendix A: Expert Contacts for Yucca Mountain: Page 43:
Paul Seidler is the point of contact for Lincoln County, not
Esmeralda County, as listed. The fax number is (702)870-8284,
and the e-mail is robiseid@aol.com.
The point of contact for Esmeralda County is:
George McCorkell
Esmeralda County
P.O. Box 490
Goldfield,NV 89013
Phone: (775)485-3419
Fax:(775)485-3429
E-mail: esmrop@sierra.net
Expertise: Repository oversight for Esmeralda County
Under Universities, Dr. Allison Macfarlane has a new position:
Senior Research Associate
Security Studies Program
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
292 Main Street [E3 8-620]
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: (617)253-0736
Fax:(617)258-5750
E-mail: allisonm@mit. edu
(see over)
-------
A Reporter's Guide to
Yucca Mountain
Produced by
Environmental Health Center
National Safety Council
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 293-2270.
www. nsc. org/ehc. htm
-------
A publication of the Environmental Health Center National Safety
Council, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC
20036 . January 2001
This guidebook was produced with funds from the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency under grant number 827378-01. The
contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the Agency's
views or policies. This guidebook was produced with support also
from the Environmental Health Center's parent organization, the
National Safety Council, a not-for-profit, nongovernmental public
service organization.
Permission to reproduce portions of this guidebook is granted
with use of the accompanying credit line: "Reproduced from A
Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain, with permission from the
Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council." EHC
thanks members of EPA's Yucca Mountain team in the Radiation
Protection Division, Office of Air and Radiation, for their support and
assistance in developing this publication.
-------
Table of Contents
Preface .-. , ;. 1
Yucca Mountain -A Potential Geologic Repository . 5
A Brief Chronology of Yucca Mountain-Related Events 5
Next Steps ; 7
Site Characteristics 9
Site Characterization and Environmental Impact Statement 9
The Disposal System 11
Issues Being Raised about Yucca Mountain ,.. 12
Radiation 14
Types of Radiation 14
Measurement of Radiation 15
Everyday Exposure to Radiation...: : 15
Effects of Radiation on Humans 16
Types of Radioactive Waste 16
Spent Nuclear Fuel 17
High-Level Radioactive Waste 17
Wastes Proposed for Yucca Mountain 17
Duration of Radioactivity at Yucca Mountain .'... 18
Public Participation and Federal Agency Decisions Related to
Yucca Mountain , 19
Public Participation in Yucca Mountain Decision Making 19
EPA's Regulatory Role Concerning Yucca Mountain 21
NRC's Regulatory Role Concerning Yucca Mountain 22
NRC's Key Technical Issues 23
Transporting Waste 25
Transportation Routes 25
Transport Vehicles 28
Transport Containers 28
Driver Training 30
Tracking Waste Shipments .., 30
Emergency Response 31
Privatization of the Transport System 31
Post-Closure Oversight of Yucca Mountain 32
Story Ideas for Articles on the Proposed Repository at Yucca
Mountain ....33
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 35
Appendix A: Expert Contacts for Yucca Mountain 41
Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Government 41
Private Organizations 44
Universities 45
-------
Appendix B: Other Resources 46
Books & Periodicals 46
On-Line Resources 48
-------
Preface
. The planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site outside
of Las Vegas is a national story ("writ big" as they say, with prime-time
network news and network "news magazine" coverage), but clearly one
with lots of important local angles.
And in many ways, the future of the Yucca site is also an emerging
local story, one spanning the continent from the Great Lakes to the
' Gulf of Mexico, from the Chesapeake Bay to the Oregon and California
coasts, and one that directly or indirectly could affect hundreds of
communities and transportation corridors spidering from all directions.
Whether the proposed Yucca Mountain waste site ever actually
opens is, to some extent, beyond the point in terms of its potential for
making news over the short- to near-term. As many as 72 commercial
and 43 research sites in 43 states across the country could be sending
commercial spent nuclear fuel, and also defense-related radioactive
wastes, to the previously little known 1,200-foot-high ridge some 100
miles northwest of Las Vegas, the nation's fastest growing metropolitan
area. That spent fuel raises environmental, safety, security, and manage-
ment challenges both for as long as it resides in current containment
facilities, and if decisions are finalized on its shipment to and disposal at
the Yucca Mountain facility. If it opens, it will operate 33 years and hold
as much as 70,000 metric tons.
Along with its potential status as the nation's first geological reposi-
tory for disposal of commercial radioactive wastes, Yucca also serves
up another milepost certain to capture headlines: In the 14 years of
research and development, planning, and engineering work, the Federal
Government through August 1999 had invested some $3 billion in
preparing the site.
So whether "first glances" suggest Yucca as a national story or as a
local story, it is likely that experienced reporters may come to see it as
either and both. No experienced journalist, after all, would likely stop at
first glance.
Look again and the local angles in what may become the nation's first
permanent geological repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive wastes begin to emerge.
-------
Page 2 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
It's a story involving how scores upon scores of local government
agencies, regulators, utilities, and even many local universities — all
those involved currently in managing the commercial spent nuclear fuel
and defense-related radioactive wastes — reach important decisions on
sensitive nuclear waste management issues.
It's a story of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel being moved from
commercial reactors, government-funded research centers, and univer-
sity R&D facilities along thousands of miles of public thoroughfares to a
previously little known 1,200-foot-high ridge about 100 miles northwest of
Las Vegas, the nation's fastest growing metropolitan area.
Yucca Mountain — its evolution, its current status, and its long-term
prospects for someday actually opening — is a story with news "pegs"
aplenty: years of courtroom jousting, billions of federal dollars invested
so far, decades in the planning stages, a half-dozen or more major
federal agencies and scientific bodies deeply involved, state and local
opposition, and substantial controversy. Add to that mixture a paradoxi-
cally pressing deadline in the face of what seems to some to have been
interminable delays in finally reaching a go/no decision on whether to
proceed with the Yucca site.
This guide is one of a series of companion resources developed by
the nonprofit, nongovernmental National Safety Council's Environmental
Health Center as a resource for news media and, importantly, forthose
dependent on the news media either as carriers or as sources of informa-
tion on timely issues.
Like its companion guides, this one tells of a broad national story.
It outlines the broad parameters that can serve as a start for the kind of
comprehensive national reporting the issue clearly demands. And, it
serves too as something,of a blueprint for the kinds of local stories best
able to meet the needs of diverse communities. The fine details in the
end can be filled-in at the local level only when local media do their job.
The geography most identified with the proposed Yucca Mountain
site — Nye County, Nevada, Nellis Air Force Range, and the Nevada
Test Site — may well seem remote and distant to many of your editors
and perhaps also to your audiences.
That may be the case as the proverbial crow flies.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 3
But the problem, the issue, that some hope Yucca Mountain will help
address — responsibly managing well into the future the radioactive
waste materials left from both national defense and peacetime uses of
nuclear power— are as close as the nearest nuclear reactor or research
laboratory, each eager to see its nuclear wastes safely and economically
shipped to the mystical "somewhere" presumably well-equipped to handle
them.
Journalists use a term to capture those parties strongly committed to
one side or the other of sensitive public policy issues: "true believers."
They're certain to encounter some of those in their coverage of
Yucca, just as in their coverage of virtually all other environmental
pollution or radioactive waste stories. That only heightens the respon-
sibilities they face in best informing their audiences on this issue.
At the risk of seeming old-fashioned indeed, reporters could do worse
than resort to the "5 Ws" (and "H" for How!) strategy they first learned in
Journalism 101.
But in this case, it will take more too. Editors and reporters willing to
delve into the sciences involved in this continuing story —• the geology,
the geography, the nuclear physics, and, yes, also the political science —
may in the end be best equipped to meet their audiences' needs for
timely and responsible information.
Note the term "continuing story."
No one should be surprised that our society's efforts to responsibly
deal with the leftovers of the Cold War era (and of domestic nuclear
power generation generally) have continued well beyond that era itself.
Whatever society's eventual decisions on Yucca Mountain — and the
ultimate decisions on actually opening or not opening the site may lie .
well off into the future — the long-term post-closure management respon-
sibilities associated with the site, if in fact it ever is opened, will extend for
decades into the future.
"Yucca Mountain," and all that's embodied in that shorthand term, has
been, continues to be, and no doubt will remain an important thread in the
complex fabric of this nation's energy picture. The issue will shift just as
the desert winds surrounding the site itself so frequently do. Keep in mind
that inherent in its being a story of where radioactive materials may be
-------
Page 4 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
shipped to, it's also an important story — and at the local level, in many
cases — of where those materials are shipped from. (And, of course, how
and how safely.) The combination of those two factors makes it both an
important national story, and an important local one.
Yucca Mountain, as with any other environmental story worth doing,
is by no means a "first glance" kind of story. Far from it.
Step back. Look hard and look again. Listen closely, and then more
closely still.
The media have their work cut out for them in fairly, honestly, and
comprehensively addressing the issues raised by the Yucca Mountain
facility, no less, perhaps, than scores and scores of decisionmakers in
and outside of government have their work cut out for them in making
sound decisions.
It's to the mass media that citizens in the end will look for input in
reaching their own decisions on Yucca Mountain and its suitability for the
purpose being considered for it.
First glances alone — either by citizens themselves or by the media
on which they will depend for drawing informed decisions — won't cut it.
Bud Ward
Executive Director
Environmental Health Center
National Safety Council
December 2000
-------
A Reporter's Guideto Yucca Mountain
Yucca Mountain -
A Potential Geologic Repository
The Department of Energy (DOE) is studying Yucca Mountain as a
potential repository for radioactive waste, if approved, the site would be
the nation's first geological repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste. Yucca Mountain is located in Nye
County, Nevada, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas on federally
owned land on the western edge of the Nevada Test Site. The northwest-
ern part of the site is located on the Nellis. Air Force Range, and the
southwestern portion is owned by the Bureau of Land Management.
The design goals of the potential repository are as follows:
* To protect the health and safety of both the workers and the public
during the period of repository operations
* To minimize the amount of radioactive material that may eventually
reach the accessible environment
» To maintain costs at an acceptable level, without jeopardizing public
health, safety, arid the environment
The repository would store as much as 70,000 metric tons of radio-
active waste from 72 commercial and 43 research reactor sites in
43 states across the country.
A Brief Chronology of
Yucca Mountain-Related Events
1955 More than 40 years ago the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study
disposal methods for radioactive wastes from nuclear weapons
production in the United States. (AEC was disbanded in 1974,
and some of its functions eventually became the responsibility
of the Department of Energy (DOE), the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).)
1 957 A NAS report to the AEC recommended that transuranic and
high-level radioactive wastes be buried in geologic formations
and that the feasibility of using salt beds or salt domes as a
disposal medium be investigated.
-------
Page 6 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
1970 The AEC tentatively selected a nuclear waste repository site in
salt deposits near Lyons, Kansas.
s
1972 The federal government withdrew the Lyons, Kansas, site from
consideration for the repository because of concerns that drilling
in the vicinity had compromised the salt deposits', geologic
integrity.
1982 The Nuclear Waste 'Policy Act (NWPA) was passed to help
resolve the issue of long-term safe disposal of radioactive waste.
The Act established geologic disposal as the United States', long-
term strategy for isolation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. The Act confirmed the federal government's
. responsibility for managing and disposing of commercial spent
nuclear fuel and identified specific roles for federal agencies.
DOE would design, build, operate, and close the underground
geologic repository. EPA would develop generally applicable or
generic public health and safety standards. NRC would license
the repository, incorporate EPA's Yucca Mountain standards into
its regulations, and implement them.
1983 DOE selected nine sites in six states for study as potential sites
for a first repository. In accordance with the NWPA, DOE
identified sites in 17 eastern states as potential locations for a
second repository.
1986 The Secretary of Energy nominated five of the nine sites for
further consideration, and the President approved three sites
(Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca
Mountain, Nevada) for further study (i.e., site characterizations).
1987 Based, in part, on a desire to keep costs down, Congress
amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to direct DOE to study
only Yucca Mountain.
1990s The 1990s brought a wave of Congressional and constituent
dissatisfaction, regulatory modifications, court cases, legislative
mandates, and projected cost increases that caused DOE's
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to reorganize
and redirect a series of programs. The scientific and regulatory
issues had become much more complex than most had antici-
pated. In addition, projected costs were significantly higher than
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 7
initial expectations. Initial cost estimates of site characterization
were less than $1 billion, but by 1996, $4 billion had already
been spent on the Yucca Mountain program.
1992 The Energy Policy Act was enacted, requiring EPA to develop
site-specific public health and safety standards for Yucca
Mountain, Nevada
1997 The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed
that by September 30,1998, the Secretary of Energy provide to
the President and Congress a Yucca Mountain Viability
Assessment.
1997 DOE completed construction of the Exploratory Studies Facility
at the site.
1998 The Yucca Mountain Viability Assessment was issued in
December. It addressed the design of the repository, how it
would work, what would be required to license it, and its expected
cost. It did not include a formal site recommendation. Following
submission of the Viability Assessment, Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson told the news media that the assessment "reveals
that no showstoppers have been identified to date," although a
number of independent oversight entities criticized the data and
analysis.
1999 DOE issued its proposed Environmental Impact Statement for the
facility in August.
1999 EPA proposed site-specific environmental radiation protection
standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in August.
Next Steps
Whether Yucca Mountain, Nevada will be the location of the first
geologic repository for disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent
nuclear fuel remains unclear. The following steps are required:
* EPA must finalize its environmental radiation protection standards for
Yucca Mountain (expected January 2001)
-------
Page 8 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
* DOE must prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(expected in 2001) and Site Recommendation Considerations
Report (expected in Fall 2001).
* The Secretary of Energy must decide whether to recommend to the
President if Yucca Mountain should be established as a commercial
nuclear waste disposal site.
* If the Secretary of Energy recommends the site and issues a Site
Recommendation Statement, the President must decide whether to
recommend the site to Congress.
* If the President recommends the site to Congress, the Governor of
Nevada or the Nevada Legislature has the right to submit a "Notice
of Disapproval."
* If the state does submit a Notice, Congress can then decide to
override the "Notice of Disapproval" and approve the Yucca Mountain
site, or concur with the Notice and disapprove the site.
* If Congress, through a simple majority vote of both the House and
Senate, approves the Yucca Mountain site, DOE is to submit an
application to the NRC to construct the repository.
Figure 1. Yucca Mountain Timeline/Milestones
Draft Final
Environmental Environmental
PocyAct Statement Statement
-.,:.• ..••• f •• '.-
•'.' V <:'
NWPA >:^VV1''sft^Ch1ara'oteij238on!'.::i'f;;;":::i1 Licensing S^Cohstfiicfioiv;*! Operation
«V;i,.a:,ii,i. ^..&-:.::i:A^:S'j^::»^:S-'s^J !&»i:»«i'.rta»-M::-.:- - - •
1982 1993 1994 19961997199819992000 200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012
/:\
ViabiiSy "
Assessment
! License Construction Updated First
Application Authorization License Possible Waste
site Application Emplacement
Recommendation
;x-"V"B??»Ti; i;"~5Y"i~s;«Kw?t •SM&KSSS.SR
!Gongress,fora.recomrnended'colirseof.action>ri
Source: Department of Energy, http://www.ymp.gov
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 9
* If NRC approves the application, DOE is to construct the repository
and apply to the NRC for a license to accept waste. Under this
schedule, if DOE receives the license, waste disposal could begin as
early as 2010.
The total cost estimate to complete the design, and to license,
construct, operate and monitor a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain
over the next century is $43 billion, according to Jon Christensen of the
New York Times.
Site Characteristics
As early as 1957, the National Academy of Sciences recommended
burying radioactive waste in geologic formations. After more than two
decades of additional study, DOE concluded that disposal in an under-
ground mined geologic repository is the preferred approach. Optimum
characteristics of a geologic repository would be high stability, no circu-
lating groundwater, location where severe earthquakes or volcanic
eruptions are highly unlikely, and deep enough to allow for buffers of
the same rock above and below storage.
Yucca Mountain is a 1,200-foot-high, flat-topped volcanic ridge
extending six miles from north to south. The mountain is comprised of
"tuff," a rock made from compacted volcanic ash formed approximately
13 million years ago. Yucca Mountain has a desert climate and receives
about six to seven inches of precipitation per year. The mountain has a
deep water table. The repository would be built approximately 1,000 feet
below the land surface and 1,000 feet above the water table.
Site Characterization and
Environmental impact Statement
DOE is conducting site characterization activities and preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act.
DOE's site characterization is an intensive scientific study that will
evaluate whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for developing a
geologic repository forspent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste. As part of this evaluation, scientists are studying Yucca
Mountain's geology, hydrology, biology, and climate to determine
whether any adverse conditions exist that would disqualify the site.
-------
Page 10
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Figure 2. Artist's Sketch of Yucca Mountain
Waste Handling Building #2
Warehouse
. SURFACE FACILITIES COMPLEX
Source: DOE, http://domino.ymp.gov/va/va.nsf
In April 1997, DOE completed construction of the Exploratory Studies
Facility — a five-mile-long, north-south horseshoe-shaped tunnel; a
smaller east-west drift off the main tunnel; and a series of test alcoves
that will permit scientists to conduct seismological, geological, hydrologi-
cal, hydrochemical, and thermo-rnechanical studies. Scientists have also
simulated the reaction of rock and water to the heat that would be re-
leased by the spent nuclear fuel placed in the repository. These data will
assist scientists in designing the repository and analyzing its perfor-
mance. The Site Characterization Report is to be completed in 2001.
DOE will also issue a Site Recommendation Considerations Report open
to public comment for 90 days. If DOE determines the site is suitable and
plans to recommend it for repository development, a Site Recommenda-
tion Statement will be prepared and submitted to the President in 2001.
The Environmental Impact Statement will assess the potential
environmental impact if the Yucca Mountain facility serves as a repository
forspent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including the
transportation and disposal of the waste. It will also assess the impact of
the alternative of not building the facility and leaving the waste at 72
commercial sites and 43 research sites in 43 states across the country.
DOE published the Draft EIS on August 13,1999, and accepted public
comments through February 26,2000. The Final Environmental Impact
Statement is expected to be completed in 2001.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Page 11
The Disposal System
The goal for the potential repository at Yucca Mountain is to isolate
the waste from the environment in the following ways:
* Position the waste above the water table where the relative dryness
of rocks would minimize exposure to groundwater
* Contain the waste in thick, corrosion-resistant packages
* Bury the waste deep — approximately 1,000 feet below the land
surface — preventing most kinds of accidental contact with the waste
from natural causes such as severe weather
Figure 3. Yucca Mountain Potential Disposal System
1 Canisters of waste,
I sealed in special
casks, are shipped
to the site by truck
or train.
| Shipping casks are
" removed, and the
® inner tube with the
waste is placed in a
steel, rnuliilayered
storage container.
Tunnel: 25 feet
i \ Cross-section
«•' i tunnels
& An automated \ • -
\ system sends j
storage containers '•
underground to •:
the tunnels.
Containers are stored;
along the tunnels, i
either on their side, as
shown here, or
standing upright in :
holes.
Source: Department of Energy and the Nuclear Energy Institute
-------
Page 12 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
The facility is being designed with an engineered barrier system that
will work with the natural geologic barriers. The current design includes
long-lived waste packages supported by concrete and steel and covered
by inverted U-shaped drip shields, host rock, and a concrete tunnel floor.
Under current DOE plans in the Viability Assessment, the under-
ground repository would consist of about 100 miles of tunnels. The main
tunnels would allow for moving workers, equipment, and waste packages.
Ventilation tunnels would supply air to the workers in the underground
repository. The emplacement tunnels (or drifts) would accommodate the
waste packages. Two sloping access ramps and two vertical ventilation
shafts would connect the underground and surface areas.
The current waste package design would have two layers: an outer
layer of a corrosion-resistant high-nickel alloy that is two centimeters
thick, and an inner layer of stainless steel, five centimeters thick that
provides physical strength to the package. Inside the waste package
would be additional barriers. Most spent nuclear fuel would be encased
in zircaloy, a metal cladding that is highly resistant to corrosion. The
high-level radioactive waste would be inside a cover to protect against the
possibility of dripping water contacting the waste package directly, and it
would be made out of a high grade of metal titanium, which is also highly
corrosion resistant. Because of the excessive heat from the high-level
radiation, a remotely-operated rail car would carry the canisters down a
ramp into a network of tunnels and robots would position the canisters.
The facility could hold up to 70,000 metric tons of waste, the limit
imposed by Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. However,
if authorized by Congress, the site could accept additional waste. DOE
estimates, that by 2010, approximately 64,000 metric tons of spent
nuclear fuel and 286,600 cubic meters of high-level radioactive waste
will be in temporary storage in the United States.
Issues and Concerns About Yucca Mountain
There is ongoing debate over whether the geologic features and
proposed manmade barriers at Yucca Mountain will provide sufficient
isolation. A number of interested parties believe Yucca Mountain has
certain characteristics that pose a concern for long-term isolation of highly
radioactive material. Others point to Yucca Mountain's location in an
active seismic (earthquake) region; the presence of numerous earth-
quake faults (at least 33 in and around the site) and volcanic cinder cones
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 13
nearthe site; evidence of hydrothermal activity within the proposed reposi-
tory block; and the presence of pathways (numerous interconnecting faults
and fractures) that could allow the rapid movement of groundwater (and any
escaping radioactive material) through the site to the aquifer beneath and
from there to the accessible environment.'
Water flow is a critical factor. Some groups maintain that using
chlorine-36 (a chemical isotope left by atmospheric atomic bomb testing)
as a tracer, rainwater residues less than 50 years old have been detected
at the level of the proposed repository.
Another concern surrounding water is the identification of calcite
crystals. Some believe the crystals may have been fed by minerals
carried by rainwater descending through the volcanic rock. Water in the
tunnels could corrode the canisters and help to spread the radioactive
material through the rocks and into the local water table, where it would
threaten future residents in the area.
Still others question whether the site can remain stable for 10,000
years. And barriers could be damaged from drilling new tunnels.
-------
Page 14 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Radiation
Radiation is energy — in the form of particles or waves that can move
through empty space. All matter is made up of atoms and some atoms
are unstable. As the unstable atoms, known as radionuclides, change to
become more stable, they give off energy waves or particles called
radiation.
Types of Radiation
Radiation is classified as either ionizing or nonionizing depending on
the amount of energy involved. Nonionizing radiation has lower energy
levels and longer wavelengths. It is not strong enough to affect the
structure of atoms it contacts. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to
change the electric charge of atoms or molecules. Ionizing radiation has
three main forms:
* Alpha particles can travel only a few inches in the air and lose their
energy almost as soon as they collide with anything. They are easily
shielded by a sheet of paper or the outer layer of a person's skin.
* Beta particles are generally less energetic than alpha particles.
They can travel in the air for a distance of a few feet. Beta particles
can pass through a sheet of paper but can be stopped by a sheet of
aluminum foil or glass.
* Gamma rays are waves of energy and are similar to x-rays. They
travel at the speed of light through air or open spaces. Concrete,
lead, or steel are used to block gamma rays.
Table 1, Common Sources of Everyday Exposure to Radiation
Radiation Source
Medical X-ray
Cosmic rays
Household radon
Dose (miilirem)
40
46 (annually)
200 (annually, U.S. average)
Source: EPA, http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 15
Measurement of Radiation
Radiation is measured in different ways. Measurements used in the
United States include the following:
* Curie is a unit of radioactivity. One curie refers to the amount of any
radionuclide that undergoes 37 billion atomic transformations per
second. A nanocurie is one one-billionth of a curie.
» Roentgen is a measure of exposure; it describes the amount of
radiation energy, in the form of gamma or x-rays, deposited in the air.
* Rad (radiation absorbed dose) measures the amount of energy
absorbed by a material, such as human tissue.
* Rem (roentgen equivalent man) measures the biological damage of
radiation. It takes into account both the amount, or dose, of radiation
and the biological effect of the type of radiation in question. A
millirem is one one-thousandth of a rem.
* Sjevert (Sv), a unit in the International System of Units that was
adopted in 1979 by the General Conference of Weights and
Measures, is now in general use throughout the world. One sieved is
equal to 100 rem. A millisievert (mSv) is one one-thousandth of a
sievert.
Everyday Exposure to Radiation
Individual exposures vary, but humans are exposed routinely to
radiation from both natural sources, such as cosmic rays from the sun
and indoor radon, and from manufactured sources, such as medical
x-rays. Even the human body contains natural radioactive elements.
On average, people in the United States are exposed to about
360 millirem each year, mostly from natural sources. The following table
shows average radiation doses from several common sources of human
exposure.
-------
Page 16 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Effects of Radiation on Humans
Ionizing radiation is powerful enough to alter cellular chemicals and
disrupt normal cell functioning. All three types of ionizing radiation are
potentially harmful to humans. Alpha and beta particles can cause
damage to tissue primarily through inhalation or ingestion. Inhaling or
ingesting particles that emit gamma rays is also potentially harmful; in
addition, gamma rays from.outside sources can penetrate and cause
damage throughout the human body.
i
Two types of cellular damage can result from exposure to ionizing
radiation:
* Genetic damage, which alters — or mutates — reproductive cells,
resulting in damage to future generations.
* Somatic damage, which alters ordinary, nonreproductive cells,
harms the exposed individual during his or her lifetime, but is not
passed on to offspring. Cancer, including some leukemias and bone,
thyroid, breast, skin, and lung cancer, is the dominant type of somatic
damage resulting from exposure to ionizing radiation. Other types of
somatic damage include burns and cataracts.
The nature and extent of damage caused by ionizing radiation
depend on a number of factors, including the amount of exposure, the
frequency of exposure, and the penetrating power of the radiation to
which an individual is exposed. Rapid exposure to very large doses
of ionizing radiation is rare but can cause death within a few days or
months. The sensitivity of the exposed cells also influences the extent
of damage. For example, rapidly growing tissues, such as developing
embryos, are particularly vulnerable to harm from ionizing radiation.
Types of Radioactive Waste
There are five general categories of radioactive waste: (1) spent
nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors and high-level waste from reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel; (2) transuranic waste, resulting mainly as by-products
from defense programs; (3) uranium mill tailings, from the mining and
milling of uranium ore; (4) low-level waste, from contaminated industrial or
research waste; and (5) naturally occurring radioactive materials.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 17
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent nuclear fuel is fuel that has been removed from a nuclear
reactor once it is no longer efficient at powering the reactor. Once a year,
approximately one-third of the nuclear fuel is replaced with new fuel. This
used fuel is called spent nuclear fuel and is highly radioactive, containing
Plutonium and other radionuclides.
Sources of spent nuclear fuel include commercial power plants;
government-sponsored research and development programs in univer-
sities; nuclear-weapons production reactors controlled by the federal
government; Naval and other Department of Defense reactors; experi-
mental reactors, such as high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors; and
American-owned, spent nuclear fuel originating from reactors located
outside the United States.
High-Level Radioactive Waste
High-level radioactive waste in the United States is primarily a
by-product of producing nuclear materials for defense uses. There is
a small amount of commercial high-level waste. High-level waste is
created when spent nuclear fuel is treated chemically to separate
uranium and plutonium, a process known as "reprocessing," which is used
to recover desired radionuclides. In the United States, only defense spent
nuclearfuel is reprocessed; commercial spent nuclear fuel is not currently
being reprocessed.
The high-level radioactive waste from reprocessing spent nuclearfuel
is stored in various forms such as sludge, liquid, or pellets. NRC regula-
tions (10 CFR 60.135) require that liquid high-level radioactive waste be
solidified before disposal. DOE plans to solidify this waste by mixing the
radionuclides that are not recovered with liquid borosilicate glass spe-
cially formulated for this purpose. The mixture is then poured into large
metal containers to cool and solidify. This process is known as "vitrifica-
tion." Only solid high-level radioactive waste will be allowed to be disposed
of in the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.
Wastes Proposed for Yucca Mountain
Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes make up most of
the material proposed for disposal in the Yucca Mountain repository.
-------
Page 18 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Approximately 90 percent of the material proposed to be disposed in
the repository will be commercial spent nuclear fuel, and approximately
10 percent will be high-level radioactive waste from defense programs.
However, small volumes of other types of radioactive wastes could be
identified for storage or disposal at Yucca Mountain.
Duration of Radioactivity at Yucca Mountain
Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste contain short- and
long-lived radionuclides. Most radionuclides in this waste will decay to
insignificant levels within several hundred years. A significant inventory of
radionuclides will take many thousands of years to decay to nonthreaten-
ing levels.
-------
Public Participation and Federal Agency
Decisions Related to Yucca Mountain
Public Participation in Yucca Mountain Decision Making
. Government decisions about the Yucca Mountain repository system
are governed by a range of laws and regulations covering nuclear waste,
hazardous waste, transportation, environmental pollution, and even the
procedures by which the government makes decisions. Some decisions
about Yucca Mountain have already been made, and citizens have been
involved in the decision making through comments and testimony to
federal agencies, such as EPA, DOE, and NRG, state government
agencies, and state and federal elected representatives.
The following federal laws address primary responsibility for storage
and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste:
* Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
» Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987
* Energy Policy Act of 1992
DOE, NRC, and EPA are the three primary federal agencies with
specific responsibilities. Each has sought public participation through
public meetings, hearings, comment periods, and other mechanisms.
EPA and DOE must follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which
stipulates that agency actions are subject to public comment. NRC
operates under the Sunshine Act, which also requires public comment.
DOE held 21 public hearings throughout the country in 1999 and
early 2000 and.received written public comments for more than 180 days
concerning its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Citizens can share
their comments and concerns at DOE's Yucca Mountain Web site (http://
www.ymp.gov).
Citizens can learn about NRC's rulemaking process and the status of
specific rules and'share their comments on proposed NRC regulations
through NRC's Web site (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov) and toll-free line, (800)
368-5642, and through NRC public meetings. Individuals can petition
NRC to initiate, modify, or terminate a rule.
-------
Page 20
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
EPA held public hearings on its proposed standards for Yucca Moun-
tain in October 1999 and received about 800 comments during the 90-day
public comment period. Information about EPA's Yucca Mountain activities
is available by calling the Agency's toll-free Yucca Mountain Information
Line. EPA also has a Yucca Mountain Web page (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca).
Table 2. Roles of Federal Agencies
Department
of
Energy
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is respon-
sible for the construction, management, and operation of
the potential geologic repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. DOE follows Occupational Safely and Health
Administration regulations to ensure the safety and
health of workers on-site. DOE is working with the
Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey on
site characterization issues and activities. If the site is
licensed and approved to accept radioactive waste, DOE
would obtain a license, construct, operate, monitor, and
close the repository. Before any waste could be trans-
ported to the site, DOE would route the carriers using
Department of Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission guidelines.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
responsible for developing site-specific standards for
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. These standards protect
public health and the environment from harmful expo-
sure to the radioactive waste which would be stored and
disposed in the proposed underground geologic
repository. EPA's standards address all environmental
pathways: air, ground water, and soil. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is responsible for implementing
the standards developed by EPA.
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
responsible for determining whether DOE will receive
the necessary licenses to dispose of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste in the potential reposi-
tory at Yucca Mountain. Once EPA's standards are
finalized, NRC would revise its regulations to be
consistent with EPA's standards. If the Yuc'ca Mountain
site is approved to accept waste, shipments by NRC
licensees to the site would be made in accordance with
NRC and DOT transportation regulations. NRC is the
approving authority for safeguard and security (theft and
sabotage protection) of spent fuel transportation.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Page 21
Department
of
Transportation
If waste transportation to Yucca Mountain is
authorized, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
would be charged with ensuring that waste carriers
comply with routing regulations and guidelines.
Radioactive waste carrier drivers must be trained and
retrained each yearto tackle a variety of transport
conditions and situations, including rough terrain and
severe weather conditions. Drivers must complete a
First Responders Course, to help them prepare for
incident prevention and response. Additional emer-
gency response support would be provided by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency which assists
state and local governments in developing emergency
response plans.
MineSafety
and Health
Administration
•The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
of the Department of Labor is responsible for ensuring
the health and safety of underground workers at the
Yucca Mountain facility. MSHA provides technical
assistance and consultation services and conducts on-
site safety and health visits at the facility.
EPA's Regulatory Role Concerning Yucca Mountain
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 gave EPA responsibility for setting
site-specific radiation protection standards — limiting the public's
exposure to radiation from management and disposal of the waste at
Yucca Mountain. In other words, EPA's radiation protection standards
are developed specifically for Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The Energy Policy Act requires EPA to set the standards based on,
and consistent with, the findings and recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences' "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,"
which was published in 1996 (http://books.nap.edu). During the develop-
ment of its Yucca Mountain standards, EPA considered the report, public
comments received on the report in public meetings, and additional
written comments. EPA also considered its generic standards at 40 CFR
Part 191, "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Manage-
ment and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-level and Transuranic
Radioactive Wastes," for this type of waste. These standards were used
to certify the safety of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant — a deep geologic
repository for disposal of transuranic waste located in southeastern New
Mexico near Carlsbad.
-------
Page 22 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
EPA worked with a variety of interested parties to develop its
standards including other federal agencies, the scientific community,
members of the public, and the Administration, A significant amount of
this time was spent addressing scientific issues in coordination with the
National Academy of Sciences, the Administration's Office of Science
Technology and Policy, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The Agency's proposed radiation protection
standards were available for public comment for 90 days. EPA held
public hearings on the proposal in Washington, DC; Amargosa Valley,
Nevada; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Kansas City, Missouri. EPA considered
and responded to all public comments received before it issued its final
environmental radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain, NV, in
January 2001.
NRC's Regulatory Role Concerning Yucca Mountain
NRC developed regulations for Yucca Mountain which address, for
the most part, licensing requirements for the proposed repository. The
proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on
February 22, 1999 (64 FR 8640). NRC has worked with EPA as EPA
has developed its standards for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste that consider NAS recommendations. NRC
must revise its licensing regulations to incorporate EPA's final standards
for Yucca Mountain. NRC's regulations must be revised one year after
EPA's final radiation protection standards are signed and published in
the Federal Register.
If Yucca Mountain is approved by the President and Congress,
current plans call for licensing of the repository to occur in three phases.
» Application for construction (Phase I)
Following site characterization, if DOE applies to NRC for
permission to build a geologic repository. NRC will have three years
to review the application, conduct public hearings, and make a
construction authorization decision by an independent licensing
board. NRC has already begun to review DOE's site characterization
research to find and resolve potential licensing concerns. However,
within the licensing process, all issues can potentially be reopened to
the licensing board and become issues of contention during the
hearing.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Page 23
Table 3. NRC's Yucca Mountain Licensing Schedule
HLW PROGRAM SCHEDULE
FY99 FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
Support Development of
EPA Standard
Site Specific Rule for J
Yucca Mountain Prop
Resolve KTIs J
Re
Develop Licensing
Capability (YMRP, PA)
Commission Preliminary
Sufficiency Comments on
DOE Site Recommendatio
Review DOE VA
Review and Concur on
DOE Part 963
Review DOE EIS
Review DOE License
Application
DOE Performance
Confirmation
£i "A |
Proposed EPA Sfandard Final EPA Standard?
L, ' JU JU _,^
sedRula ; Final Rule Draft Revised Final R
W J<~~~n 3*$** 63 part
•Rs IRSRs I IRSRs
1. 1 Rpv. 2 ( Rev. 3
; YMRP Rev.O YMRP Rev.1 YMR
! Staff
i i ommens 7""v-^'~""~~
A"H" /\
=A=- \ DOESile DOE
A ''^ Recommendation (SR)
LA NRC Comments Consideration Report
VA > 1
,„--- NRC Co
i ' U-^
Draft Final Part 963 & j
/rr~- "K^ — —fa ' ' "
L\- NRC UL
Draft Comments Final
DOE EIS DOE EIS
1 ' &
i DOE Fina!
i LA Design
\ ' '
i ' •
1 i
i i
is i ; ;
| i !
i i i
v i ; '
""III
' Rev.2 : : \
Commission 1 1
i |
SR !
1 1
cun-ence Decision '
i i
1
*L~ ""*"' A™Pl'"«f<«»«"H™«9»«» D-cisiononCA
DOE EIS / Request for Additional Itiformaiton ;
/ X Public Hearing j /
\ ,'M ^ J-, \ : ^
A A ^^M ^ """
! ..V._\ [ Draft SER (or =
DOE Ucense i Construcfion
Application | Authorization (CA)
i p ! S 1
^ NRC Milestone ^ DOE or EPA Milestone
Source: NRC, http://www.nrc.gov/NMSS/DWM/schedule.htm, May 2000
Application to receive waste (Phase II)
In the second phase, during construction of the repository, DOE will
apply for a license to receive radioactive material at Yucca Mountain.
If NRC issues the license, DOE will start emplacing spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste into the repository.
Application to decommission (Phase III)
In the third phase, once the repository is full, DOE will apply for and
request a license amendment from NRC to decommission and
permanently close the repository.
NRC's Key Technical Issues
One of NRC's main responsibilities is to analyze DOE's site charac-
terization program and identify any concerns that relate to licensing.
NRC also witnesses site characterization activities in the field, such as
drilling and tunneling, and reviews DOE's quality assurance audits.
-------
Page 24 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
NRC is most interested in the following 10 key technical issues:
. * Likelihood and results of volcanic activity
* Evaluation of earthquake and fault activity
* Modifications in the waste package environment over long periods of
time
* Forecasts of the waste package container lifetime, including
estimates of the types of radiation that may escape from deteriorated
waste packages and the rate of such release
* Understanding the effects of heat caused by the waste on moisture
flow around the repository
* Evaluating how heat from the waste may affect the mechanical
properties of the repository design
* Characterization of groundwater flow near the repository
* Identification of key geochemical processes that may control
radionuclide transport at Yucca Mountain
* DOE's capacity to conduct and review total-system performance
assessments
* Development of revised environmental standards and implementing
regulations for Yucca Mountain
NRC has discussed these issues in various public forums, and the
public has had opportunities to comment on them. New issues may be
added in the future. NRC plans to periodically reevaluate the priority of
these issues and offer progress reports to document resolution of these
key issues.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 25
Transporting Waste
Although DOE does not plan to make transportation decisions until
Yucca Mountain has been approved, many options are under consider-
ation. Current plans call for the shipments to originate in the 35 states
with nuclear reactors and government weapons facilities. Figure 4 shows
the location of sites from which nuclear waste may be transported to the
potential repository. The waste is expected to be transported by truck
and rail to Nevada. Transportation routes have been identified in 43
states.
Radioactive materials have been shipped in the United States for
more than 50 years. Each year, roughly three million packages of
radioactive materials are carried in the United States by trucks, trains,
boats, and airplanes. Most go by truck and most are small packages
involved in medical, commercial, and research uses, or low-level waste.
While some transportation accidents involving radioactive materials have
happened during the last 50 years, none has resulted in death or serious
injury from exposure to released radiation, according to DOE.
However, environmental groups and other interested parties point out
that the past record of shipping spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive
materials is not a sound basis for predicting risks from a repository
shipping campaign. Average shipping distances would increase dramati-
cally, from less than 200 miles to more than 2,000 miles, increasing the
risks of accidents or sabotage.
Transportation Routes
Highway transportation routes for high-level radioactive waste and
spent nuclear fuel shipments are governed by Department of Transporta-
tion (DOT) regulations (49 CFR 397). For transportation purposes, high-.
level waste and spent fuel are referred to as Class 7, or "Highway Route
Controlled Quantity" (HRCQ) materials. For these materials, DOT
regulations make the carrier responsible for using "preferred routes" and
for "minimizing radiological risk."
Carriers must consider several factors in minimizing radiological risk:
* accident rates on particular routes
* the time required to transit a route
* population density along the route
-------
Page 26
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
o ^
%S
I!
s&
I',
8 -
§
.o
I
*C3
8
1
!
CD
P
t8
8,
3
5
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Page 27
* human activities along the route
* time and day of week when the shipment will transit the route
Generally, the "preferred routes" are interstate highways, using
beltways and bypasses to avoid passing directly through a city. State or
tribal governments can specify alternatives to the preferred routes, if they
do so within DOT guidelines.
Shipments can deviate from preferred routes only for certain speci-
fied reasons — such as picking up or dropping off the shipment; stops for
necessary rest, fuel, or vehicle repair; emergencies; or unsafe conditions.
In general, routes must be selected to achieve the shortest transit time
along preferred routes, and the shortest distance for any necessary
deviations.
Prior to shipping waste, carriers must file a written plan which
specifies the points of origin and destination, the route between them,
all planned stops, estimated departure and arrival times, and telephone
numbers for emergency assistance in each state. They must file an
amendment if they vary from the plan.
Figure 5. Potential Transportation Routes to Yucca Mountain
Highway Routes
Rail Routes
Source: State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Nuclear Waste
Project Office
-------
Page 28 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
In addition, NRC regulations require shippers of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste to notify the governor of each state through
which it is to pass at least seven days before the shipment leaves its point
of origin. This is intended to allow time for police and emergency response
agencies to prepare. For security reasons, it is unlikely this information will
be shared with the media.
Using DOE preliminary plans and models, the Nevada Agency for
Nuclear Projects developed the map on page 27 of potential transporta-
tion routes. More detailed state-by-state maps can be found on DOE's
Web site at http://www.ymp.gov/timeline/eis/routes/routemaps.htm.
Transport Vehicles
To date, most high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel has
been transported by truck. Some waste has been transported by rail and
some — typically for shipments from abroad —• has been transported by
ship or barge. DOE is considering options for the waste to be transported
to Yucca Mountain but does not expect to make a final decision until after
approval of the site.
One advantage of rail over highway transport is that railroad cars can
carry more weight. If a large number of reactor sites decide to use large,
dual-purpose (storage/transportation) containers for shipment of spent
fuel, then the proportion of shipments going by rail may increase.
Transport Containers
Radioactive waste is currently shipped in specially designed contain-
ers, called casks that function as barriers against the release of radiation
during transport. Casks are heavily shielded to reduce the radiation to the
allowable limits established by NRC and must be certified by NRC to
withstand extreme conditions.
Several different kinds of casks are currently in use for different kinds
of shipments — and several others are being developed for possible
future use in shipments like those that would go to Yucca Mountain. One
cask that DOE has used frequently to transport spent nuclear fuel is
made of steel and lined with aluminum, has walls approximately eight
inches thick, and weighs 26 tons.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Page 29
Figure 6. Transportation Cask
Basket.
Fuel Assembl1
Waste Package
Corrosion Allowance
- Outer Barrier
Corrosion Resistant Inner Barrier
Inner Barrier Lid
Outer Barrier Lid
Source: DOE, http://domino.ymp.gov/va/va.nsf
Federal regulations do not dictate a particular kind of containerto be
used, but do specify particular requirements that any container must meet
before it can be certified for use. Casks forspent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste, called Type B transportation casks, must be
shown to retain their integrity and not leak radioactive material following
four tests — with the first three done one immediately after the other:
* A 30-foot drop iri which the container's weakest point strikes a flat,
unyielding surface
« A 40-inch drop in which the container's weakest point strikes a six-
inch-diameter steel rod eight inches long
•». Engulfment of the entire container in a fire of 1,475°F for 30 minutes
* Immersion of the entire container under three feet of water for eight
hours
Presently, there are no requirements for physical testing of transpor-
tation casks. Cask designs must only demonstrate that they meet
physical testing requirements through computer simulations. Scale model
tests are optional.
-------
Page 30 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
However, it is worth noting that in the 1980s Sandia National
Laboratories conducted full-scale crashes of transportation casks in
various scenarios, such as a train hitting a truck loaded with a cask, and
a train carrying a cask and running into cement walls.
Driver Training
Any driver of a vehicle carrying spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste must complete training in the characteristics and
hazards of HRCQ Class 7 materials. Training must have occurred within
the previous two years and must be in writing. Training includes federal
rules (49 CFR Parts 172,173, and 177), the properties and hazards of
Class 7 materials, and procedures to be followed in case of accident or
other emergency.
Drivers of vehicles carrying spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioac-
tive waste must have in their possession a certificate of training showing
the driver's name and license number, the dates training was provided,
and the name and address of the person providing the training.
Tracking Waste Shipments
DOE plans to constantly monitor and track all shipments of high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain. DOE
currently has a system in place known as TRANSCOM for tracking f
radioactive waste shipments. It has been used successfully to track
shipments going to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New
Mexico. DOE expects to use this system (or an updated version) to track
waste going to Yucca Mountain.
The system uses Global Positioning System (GPS) devices, similar to
those used by boaters, car owners, and hobbyists, to continually monitor
the position of shipments. TRANSCOM is currently used for all nonclassi-
fied high-visibility shipments of nuclear waste. It is managed by the
DOE's National Transportation Program in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Information on the position and status of a shipment can be shared
with individuals at other locations who have a need to know, such as
those at the waste receiving site and other federal agencies, security
personnel, or emergency responders. These individuals, when properly
cleared, can tap into the. system with only a personal computer and a
modem. For obvious security reasons, DOE plans to restrict this informa-
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 31
tion to people and agencies involved in getting the shipment safely to its
destination.
Emergency Response
Carriers and state, local, tribal, and federal governments all have
responsibility for preparing for and responding to radiological emer-
gencies. Local emergency response personnel and state radiological
emergency response teams are primarily responsible for initial response
and for protecting public health and the environment from radiation
exposure. Every state has a plan in place to respond to radiological
emergencies.
Several federal agencies also have responsibility for providing
support in response to any radiological incident, including DOE, NRC,
EPA, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA
helps states, local governments, and tribes develop emergency response
plans. This effort involves training and equipping emergency response
personnel, medical personnel, and others to deal with potential contingen-
cies. In addition, nuclear power plants in the United States have agreed
that regardless of who is shipping the radioactive materials, if an accident
occurs, the closest plant will provide equipment and technical assistance
to the emergency response team.
With proper handling and safeguards, spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste shipments can be, and have been, responsibly
managed and successfully completed. However, these materials are
extremely hazardous and require extraordinary precautions and vigilance.
Privatization of the Transport System
DOE, responding to a Congressional directive that private industry
be used to the maximum extent practicable in the repository shipping
program, is proposing that the system for transporting spent nuclear
fuel and. high-level radioactive waste to a repository be privatized and
"market-driven." Under such a system, decisions regarding the type of
shipping container, the shipment mode (rail or truck), and the shipment
routes to be used would be left to the carrier selected to transport the
waste. Critics of this approach contend that such a privatized system
could add greatly to the complexities and uncertainties of the trans-
portation system, thereby increasing risk, and could result in cost
considerations overriding public health and safety matters.
-------
Page 32 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Post-Closure Oversight of Yucca Mountain
If and when Yucca Mountain reaches its legal capacity (70,000 metric
tons) in an estimated 33 years, it is precluded by current federal law from
accepting more waste. According to DOE's Draft Environmental impact
Statement, by 2126 the repository is to be sealed with backfill, cement,
and other materials to isolate the waste from the accessible environment.
Then begins the long-term-process of keeping the waste isolated from the
environment.
DOE's current plan is to monitor the potential repository for at least
50 years once the last waste package has been disposed. After the
monitoring phase, DOE intends to seal the tunnels and post a guard at
the gate for as long as necessary. It is impossible to predict which
government institutions may evolve or disappear over the next 10,000
years, so at the time of permanent closure DOE plans to use "passive"
measures to warn people against disturbing the site. Monuments,
warning markers, and widely distributed records would be used to inform
people of the contents of the Yucca Mountain site and to keep them from
intruding onto it.
-------
ARepoirter'sGuidetoYuccaMountain Page 33
Story Ideas for Articles on the Proposed
Repository at Yucca Mountain
1. What are the latest issues that challenge Yucca Mountain as a
suitable repository? What still needs to be learned? What would
happen if gradual climate change made Nevada a wet area?
2. What sites containing highly radioactive nuclear waste are in or near
your readership area or broadcast market (see maps at http://
www.ymp.gov/timeline/eis/routes/routemaps.htm)? This could
include nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons production plants,
and research reactors. What condition is the waste in? How soon
will nuclear reactors in your area be decommissioned, i.e., shut
down? How is it stored? How safe is it? What risks might it present
to the local/regional population and the environment? What will
happen if there is no place to move it to?
3. What risk scenarios could follow from leaving the waste in place or
above ground? Nuclear proliferation? Acquisition by rogue states?
Terrorism? Natural disaster? Unintended criticality or catastrophic
release?
4. What are the key decisions that lie in the path ahead before the
nation makes a final decision on whether to go ahead and deposit
waste in Yucca Mountain? What is the timetable, legally "and
realistically? What are the prospects for resolving the unresolved
questions?
5. Congress is presently debating whether interim storage of high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel should occur at Yucca
Mountain. What do interested parties in your area think of this
option? How will this issue affect decisions regarding a long-term
repository at Yucca Mountain?
6. If the Yucca Mountain site is approved, how will it be managed? Will
DOE have authority to manage the site as it sees fit? Should it? Will
other agencies oversee DOE's decisions and actions? Should they?
What will happen to this arrangement if DOE is abolished?
7. What is the current thinking about a technical plan for emplacing
waste at Yucca Mountain? How tentative or final is this plan? What
-------
Page 34 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
are the chief technical/engineering problems to be dealt with? (For
example, decay heat, corrosion, water, material stability, seismic
activity, or radioactivity) What sort of "engineered barriers" are
contemplated?
8. If we were to imagine.some "worst-case" scenarios for failure of the
Yucca Mountain repository after waste was placed there, what sort of
human exposures might result? How would such exposures
compare to other radiological exposures and accidents?
9. What are the possible/likely transportation routes in your region for
waste going to Yucca Mountain, if any? What sorts of shipments
would be traveling these routes, and how often? What input has your
state had into selecting such routes? What procedures and
safeguards would your state apply to such shipments (e.g., police
escorts)? What emergency responders would deal with any
accidents, and how well prepared are they?
10. What has been the accident history over the 50 years during which
radioactive materials have been transported on the nation's railroads,
highways, and air corridors? How does this compare to the risks
and experience for other forms of transport — such as passenger
auto travel, passenger air travel, highway, or rail — to transport of
other hazardous materials?
11. On what grounds will NRC's decision to license the Yucca Mountain
facility be made? What must it consider and what can't it consider?
What will be the opportunities for public participation, and what effect
will public participation have? When would NRC's licensing decision
be likely made?
12. [This one for the science-fiction writers among you:] The Yucca
Mountain repository would have to contain wastes for at least 10,000
years — a period about as long as human civilization to date. What
sort of future might we imagine in which the repository will have to
perform? Consider changes in technology, climate, energy,
population, political institutions, warfare, etc. How have such
uncertainties been anticipated in planning the Yucca Mountain
facility?
-------
AReporter'sGyidetoYuiccaM^ Page 35
of Terms
Acronyms
AEC. Abbreviation for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. AEC was
disbanded in 1974, and its functions were assumed by the Energy
Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). ERDA later became the Department of
Energy (DOE). Part of the functions went to EPA in 1970.
alpha particle. A positively charged particle, consisting of two. neutrons
and two protons, emitted by certain radioactive materials. Alpha particles
can travel only a few inches in the air and lose their energy almost as
soon as they collide with anything. They are easily blocked by a sheet of
paper or the outer layer of a person's skin.
atom. The smallest part of an element that still has all properties of that
element. Its nucleus consists of protons and neutrons and is surrounded
by orbiting electrons.
beta particle. A negatively charged particle, emitted by certain radio-
active materials. Beta particles have the same properties (mass and
charge) as electrons. They can travel in the air for a distance of a few
feet and can pass through a sheet of paper. They can be blocked by
aluminum foil or glass.
CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations is
a codification of the rules published in the Federal Register by the Execu-
tive departments and agencies of the federal government.
cosmic rays. Ionizing radiation (chiefly protons, alpha particles, and
other atomic nuclei) which arrives on Earth from outer space.
curie. A measure of radioactivity. One curie of radioactive material will
have 37 billion transformations of atoms (disintegrations) in one second.
One curie of radium weighs approximately one gram.
disposal. Isolation of radioactive waste separated from the accessible
environment with no intent of recovery; occurs when a repository is
sealed.
-------
Page 36 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
DOE. Abbreviation for the United States Department of Energy. Yucca
Mountain is a DOE-owned facility.
DOT. Abbreviation for the United States Department of Transportation.
DOT regulates the transport of radioactive materials.
element. A substance composed of atoms with a unique number of
protons in each .nucleus. There are 92 naturally occurring and 15
manmade elements.
Environmental impact Statement. A document that describes the
potential environmental impact of a project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 mandates that all federal agencies and
departments consider potential environmental impact before beginning
projects or implementing rules and regulations. DOE must finalize its
Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca Mountain before the facility
can open.
Energy Policy Act of 1992. Act that gave EPA responsibility for setting
site-specific radiation protection standards to limit the public's exposure to
radiation from management of the potential Yucca Mountain facility. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission would license the repository, incorporate
EPA's Yucca Mountain standards into its regulations, and implement
them.
EPA. Abbreviation for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. For Yucca Mountain, EPA's responsibility under the Energy
Policy Act is to develop site-specific public health and safety standards,
which the NRC is responsible for implementing.
FR. Federal Register.
gamma rays. Waves of pure energy, similar to x-rays. Gamma rays
travel at the speed of light through air or open spaces. Concrete, lead,
or steel will block gamma rays.
genetic damage. A type of cellular damage that can result from ionizing
radiation. Genetic damage refers to the alteration or mutation of repro-
ductive cells, resulting in potential damage to future generations.
half-fife. Measure of the amount of time it takes for half the radioactive
atoms in a radionuclide to decay to a more stable form. The half-life of
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 37
plutonium-239, for example, is about 24,000 years. After one half-life, half
the radioactive atoms in a sample remain radioactive; after two half-lives,
one-quarter of the original number remain radioactive; afterthree half lives,
one-eighth of the original number remain radioactive; and so on. Half-lives
range from a fraction of a second to billions of years.
hazardous waste. A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which
because of its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical, characteris-
tics may (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality
or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible serious,
illness or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported,
disposed of, or otherwise managed.
high-level radioactive waste. Highly radioactive material resulting from
the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, or other highly radioactive material
that is determined to require permanent isolation.
HRCQ. Abbreviation for Highway Route Controlled Quantity. Radio-
active waste must be limited and transported on designated routes.
HRCQ is the most highly regulated class of radioactive materials.
ionizing radiation. Radiation that is powerful enough to alter atoms by
removing one or more electrons, leaving positively charged particles.
Alpha and beta particles, gamma rays, and x-rays are forms of ionizing
radiation.
isotopes. Different forms of the same element. Isotopes of an element
have different numbers of neutrons in the nuclei of their atoms, but the
same number of protons. Some isotopes, called radioisotopes, are
unstable and emit radiation.
millirem. One one-thousandth of a rem.
low-level waste. Radioactive waste that consists of contaminated
industrial or research waste. Most low-level waste is short-lived and has
low levels of radioactivity.
NAS. Abbreviation for the National Academy of Sciences. NAS was
required by .the Energy Policy Act to provide technical bases for EPA's
Yucca Mountain standards.
-------
Page 38 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountaii
nonionizing radiation. Includes visible light, ultraviolet light, infrared
light, and radio waves.
NRC. Abbreviation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nucleai
Regulatory Commission (NRC) would license the repository, incorporate
EPA's Yucca Mountain standards into its regulations, and implement
them.
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Act that provides guidance to NRC on how
and under what conditions NRC will issue licenses to DOE for various
stages of the potential geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The Act also established a deadline for EPA to issue generic environmen
tal radiation protection standards (40 CFR 191).
Rad (radiation absorbed dose). The amount of ionizing radiation
absorbed by a material, such as human tissue.
radiation. Energy in the form of high-speed particles (ionizing) or
electromagnetic waves (nonionizing).
radioactivity. The spontaneous emission of radiation from the nucleus
of an atom. Radioisotopes of elements lose particles and energy through
the process of radioactive decay.
radioisotope. An unstable isotope of an element that undergoes radio-
active decay toward a more stable form. One form of radionuclides.
radionuclide. An unstable atomic nucleus, such as a radioisotope.
radon. A colorless, odorless gas produced by the decay of uranium in
soil, rock, and water. Some radon isotopes are unstable and decay by
emitting alpha particles. The radiation hazard from radon is manifested
through inhalation.
rem (Roentgen equivalent man). A measure of the actual biological
effects of radiation absorbed in human tissue. A millirem is one one-
thousandth of a rem.
roentgen. A measure of exposure; it describes the amount of radiation
energy, in the form of gamma or x-rays, deposited in the air.
site characterization. An intensive study that provides the physical
description of Yucca Mountain and serves as a technical basis for
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain . Page 3!
deciding whether it is a suitable site for a spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste repository. Part of the evaluation is to study Yucca
Mountain's geology, hydrology, biology, and climate to determine whethe
any adverse conditions exist that would disqualify the site.
somatic damage. A type of cellular damage that can result from expo-
sure to ionizing radiation. Somatic damage refers to the alteration of
ordinary, nonreproductive cells. Cancers, including some leukemias and
bone, thyroid, breast, skin, and lung cancer, are the most common, types
of somatic damage resulting from exposure to ionizing radiation.
spent nuclear fuel. Irradiated fuel from a nuclear plant's reactor. Spent
nuclear fuel is thermally hot and highly radioactive. Most spent nuclear
fuel comes from commercial nuclear power plant operations.
TRANSCOWI. Abbreviation for the Transportation Tracking and
Communication System developed by DOE. TRANSCOM tracks and
communicates with vehicles transporting radioactive and certain other
types of hazardous waste. All shipments to Yucca Mountain will be
tracked through TRANSCOM, which has a 24-hour control center in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, and uses satellite communications and computer
networks to track shipments from beginning to end.
transuranic (TRU) waste. Waste that generally consists of protective
clothing, tools, glassware, equipment, soils, and sludge that have been
heavily contaminated with high concentrations of manmade radioactive
elements heavier than uranium on the periodic table of elements (atomic
number of 92). These elements include: plutonium, neptunium, ameri-
cium, curium, and californium. Transuranic waste is produced during
nuclear fuel assembly and during nuclear weapons research, production,
and cleanup.
Viability Assessment. A report from the Secretary of Energy to the
President in 1998 that discussed the design of the potential Yucca
Mountain repository, as well as operational, licensing, and cost
information.
WIPP. Abbreviation for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the nation's first
geological repository for permanent disposal of transuranic wastes and
transuranic mixed wastes, which are transuranic wastes that also have
hazardous chemical components. The WIPP facility is owned and
operated by DOE and is located in southeastern New Mexico. EPA has
-------
Page 40 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
certified that the WIPP meets its radioactive waste disposal standards.
The WIPP is now accepting TRU waste for disposal.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Page 41
Appendix A:
Expert Contacts for Yucca Mountain
Federal, State, Local, and
Tribal Government
Dennis Bechtel
Clark County Nuclear Waste
Division
500 South Grand Central Pkwy.,
Suite 3012
P.O. Box 551751
Las Vegas, NV 89155-1751
Phone: (702)455-5175
Fax: (702) 382-4593
E-mail: dax@co.clark.nv.us
Expertise: Local and national high-
level radioactive transportation, site
characterization
Les Bradshaw
Nye County Nuclear Waste Office
1210 East Basin Rd., Suite 6
Pahrump, NV 89048
Phone: (775)727-7727
Fax: (775)727-7919
E-mail: garciakl@aol.com
Expertise: Geology
Atef Elzeftawy
Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
1 Paiute Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89417
Phone: (702) 876-8702
Fax: (702) 876-8702
E-mail: alfaomga@intermind.net
Expertise: Tribal relations
Bonnie Duke
Lander County Manager Office
315 South Humboldt Street
Battle Mountain, NV 89820
Phone: (775) 635-2885
Fax: (775)635-5332
E-mail: bduke@landercounty.com
Expertise: Oversight of Lander
County operations
Michelle Edsall
Churchill County Yucca Mountain
Information
155 North Taylor Street, Suite 182
Fallen, NV 89406
Phone: (775)423-4635
•Fax: (775)428-0270
E-mail: ymp@phonewave.net
Expertise: Oversight for Churchill
County
Gayle Fisher
U.S. Department of Energy
Yucca Mountain Project
Site Characterization Office
P.O. Box 30307
North Las Vegas, NV 89036-0307
Phone: (702)794-1411
Fax: (702)794-5431
E-mail:
Gayle_Fisher@notes.ymp.gov
Expertise: Yucca Mountain media
relations
-------
Page 42
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountair
Steven Frishman
Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects
Nuclear Waste Project Office
1802 North Carson St., Suite 252
Carson City, NV 89701
Phone: (775)687-3744
Fax: (775)687-5277
E-mail:
ssteve@govmail.state.nv.us
Expertise: Geology, nuclear waste
policy
Jacqueline Johnson
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: (202) 586-5806
Fax: (202) 586-5823
E-mail:
jacqueline.johnson@hq.doe.gov
Expertise: Civilian radioactive
waste management media rela-
tions
Mary Kruger
Radiation Protection Division,
(6608J)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)564-9310
Fax: (202)565-2062
E-mail: kruger.mary@epa.gov
Expertise: Environmental radiation
protection standards, WIPP
certification process, EPA regula-
tory process, Yucca Mountain
standards
Frank Marcinowski
Radiation Protection Division
(6608J)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)564-9290
Fax: (202) 564-9629
E-mail:
marcinowski.frank@epa.gov
Expertise: Environmental radiation
protection standards, WiPP
certification process, EPA regula-
tory process, Yucca Mountain
standards
William Ott
White Pine County
Nuclear Waste Project Office
959 Campton Street
Ely, NV 89301
Phone: (775) 289-2033
Fax: (775)289-2066
E-mail: wpnucwst@idsely.com
Expertise: Nuclear waste issues
regarding White Pine County
Marcie Phillips
Duck Valley Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 219
Owyhee, NV 89832
Phone:(775)757-3211
Fax:(775)757-2219
E-mail: ShoPaiTr8@aol.com
Expertise: Tribal relations
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Page 42
C. William Reamer
High-Level Waste and Perfor-
mance Assessment Branch
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
2 White Flint North
11545RockvillePike
Rockville, MD 20852-2738
Phone: (301)415-6537
Expertise: Licensing and licensing
review of Yucca Mountain
Andrew Remus
Inyo County
Yucca Mountain Repository
Assessment Office
PO Drawer L
Independence, CA 93526
Phone: (760)878-0263
Fax: (760)872-2712
E-mail: amalgam@postmark.net
Expertise: Regional nuclear waste
impact
Paul Seidler
Esmeralda County
Repository Oversight
42 Caddy Circle
Henderson, NV 89014
Phone: (702)870-4043
Fax: (775)785-6351
E-mail: escocomm@sierra.net
Expertise: Repository oversight for
Esmeralda County
Judith Shankle
Mineral County
Affected Units of Local
Government
PO Box 1600
Hawthorne, NV 89415
Phone: (775)945-2485
Fax: (775)945-0702
E-mail:
mineral@oem.hawthorne.nv.us
Expertise: Oversight of Yucca
Mountain concerning Mineral
County
Joe Strolin
Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects
Nuclear Waste Project Office
1802 North Carson St., Suite 252
Carson City, NV 89701
Phone: (775)687-3744
Fax: (775)687-5277
E-mail:
jstrolin@govmail.state.nv.us
Expertise: General Yucca
Mountain
Richard A. Swedberg
Health Physicist
U.S. Dept. of Transportation
Office of Motor Carriers
555 Zang St., Suite 190
Lakewood, CO 80228-1010
Phone: (303) 969-6744 ext. 363
Fax: (303)969-6967
E-mail:
Richard.Swedberg@fhwa.dot.gov
Expertise: Transportation
-------
Page 44
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Private Organizations
Tom Cochran
Senior Scientist
Natural Resources Defense
Council
1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite
400
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202)289-6868
Fax: (202)289-1060
E-rnail: Tcochran@NRDC.org
Expertise: Nuclear weapons
issues
Kevin Crowley
National Research Council
Board on Radioactive Waste
Management
2101 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Phone: (202) 334-3066
Fax: (202)334-3077
E-mail: kcrowley@nas.edu
Expertise: Radioactive waste
management policy
Marge Detraz
Lincoln County Citizens Nuclear
Information Committee
143 East Broadway
Alamo, NV 89001
Phone: (775)725-3581
Fax: (775)725-3779
Expertise: Concerns of Lincoln
County residents on all nuclear
issues
Robert J. Halstead
P.O. Box 60
Portage, Wl 53901-0060
Phone:, (608) 742-3973
Fax: (608)742-0090
E-mail: bearhalstead@aol.com,
halsmcw@palacenet.net
Expertise: Nuclear waste transpor-.
tation, spent nuclear fuel storage,
repository impact assessment
John Hadder
Citizen Alert
P.O. Box 5339
Reno, NV 89513
Phone: (775) 827-4200
Fax: (775) 827-4299
E-mail: citizenalert@earthlink.net
Expertise: Yucca Mountain general
information
Christine Hoch
National Safety Council
Environmental Health Center
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202)293-2270
Fax: (202)293-0032
E-mail: hochc@nsc.org
Expertise: Yucca Mountain
general information
Kevin Kamps
Nuclear Information and Resource
Service
1424 16th St., NW, Suite 404
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202)328-0002
Fax: (202)462-2183
E-mail: kevin@igc.org
Expertise: Radioactive waste
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Page 45
Sharon Kerrick
American Nuclear Society
555 North Kensington Ave.
La Grange Park, IL 60526
Phone: (708) 579-8230
Fax: (708)352-0499
E-mail: skerrick@ans.org
Expertise: High- and low-level
radioactive waste, nuclear energy,
radioactivity
Doug Larson
Western Interstate Energy Board
600 17th St., Suite 1704S
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303)573-8910
Fax: (303)573-9107
E-mail: dlarson@westgov.org
Expertise: Transportation of .
radioactive waste
Mitch Singer ;
Nuclear Energy Institute
176131, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202)739-8009
Fax: (573)445-2135
E-mail: swp@nei.org
Expertise: Commercial nuclear
energy industry
Christopher Wells
Southern States Energy Board
6325 Amherst Court
Norcross, GA 30092
Phone: (770)242-7712
Fax: (770)242-0421
E-mail: wells@sseb.org
Expertise: Transportation policy
Universities
Dr. Rod Ewing
University of Michigan
Dept. of Nuclear Engineering
& Radiological Sciences
2355 Bonisteel Blvd.
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-2104
Phone: (734)647-8529
Fax: (734)647-8531
E-mail: rodewing@umich.edu
Expertise: Geochemistry and
materials science
Dr. Anthony Hechanova
University of Nevada - Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway
Box 454009
Las Vegas, NV 89154-4009
Phone (702) 895-1457 -
Fax (702) 895-3094
E-mail: hechanova@nevada.edu
Expertise: nuclear engineering,
health physics and radioactive
waste management
Dr. Allison Macfarlane ,:
Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs
Harvard University
Kennedy School of Government
79 JFK St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: (617)496-0518
Fax: (617)496-0606
E-mail:
allison_macfarlane@harvard.edu
Expertise: Radioactive waste,
geologic, repositories, plutonium
disposition
-------
Page 46 A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain
Appendix B:
Other Resources
Reports & Periodicals
Capurro, Regina. Transport of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent
Nuclear Fuel to the Proposed Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. Internet: http://
www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~ceeinfo/courses/ce258/Cap.htm. Accessed Novem-
b.er14, 2000.
Christensen, Jon. 1999. New Questions Plague Nuclear Waste Storage Plan.
The New York Times (10 August 1999). Pages D1-4.
The League of Women Voters. 1993. The Nuclear Waste Primer: A Handbook
for Citizens. New York, NY: Lyons & Burford.
National Academy of Sciences. 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain
Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Safety Council, Environmental Health Center. 1999. Frequently Asked
Questions on Yucca Mountain. Washington, DC: National Safety Council,
Environmental Health Center.
National Safety Council, Environmental Health Center. 1997. Frequently Asked
Questions on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Washington, DC: National Safety
Council, Environmental Health Center.
Nuclear Energy Institute. 2000. Used Nuclear Fuel Fact Sheet. Internet: http://
www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=625. Accessed November 14, 2000. ,
Nuclear Waste Project Office, State of Nevada. 1999. Why Nevada is Opposed
to Yucca Mountain. Internet: http://www.igc.org/citizenalert/fctshts/yucca2.html.
Accessed November 14, 2000.
U.S. Department of Energy, National Transportation Program. Spent Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Transportation. Internet: http://
www.ntp.doe.gov/spnucfue.html. Accessed November 14, 2000.
U.S. Department of Energy, National Transportation Program. 1999. Transport-
ing Radioactive Materials Answers to Your Questions.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. 1999. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a
Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain. Internet: http://www.ymp.gov/timeline/
eis/deis.htm. Accessed November 14, 2000.
-------
A Reporter's Guide to Yucca Mountain Page 47
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management Geology Overview. Earth Science Studies of Yucca Mountain.
Internet: http://www.ymp.gov/reference/photos/geology/geology.htm. Accessed
November 14, 2000.
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. History of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program.
Program Plan, Revision 2. Internet: http://www.ymp.gov/about/history/index.htm.
Accessed November 14, 2000.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management Transportation Fact Sheet. Internet: http://www.ymp.gov/
factsheets/doeympOl07.htm. Accessed November 14, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. EPA's Final
Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Internet: http://
www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca. January 2001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Environmen-
tal Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Background
Information Document for Final 40 CFR 197. January 2001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Evaluation of
Potential Economic Impacts of Final 40 CFR 197: Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. January 2001
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. High-Level Radioactive Waste. Internet:
http://www.nrc.gov/NMSS/DWM/background.htm.Accessed November 14, 2000.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Yucca Mountain Licensing
Schedule. Internet: http://www.nrc.gov/NMSS/DWM/schedule.htm. Accessed
November 14, 2000.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rulemaking Forum. NRC Rulemaking
Process. Internet http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/nrcforum/process.html. Accessed
November 14, 2000.
Wald, Matthew. 1999. Study Advances Plan for Nuclear Storage Site,
but Questions Remain. The New York Times (7 August 1999).
Wald, Matthew. 1998. Insiders Say the Yucca Mountain Report Full
of Contradictions. The New York Times (16 December 1998).'-
-------
On-Line Resources
U.S. DOE
U.S. EPA :
U.S. NRC
DOT
MSHA
State of Nevada
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Western Interstate Energy Board
National Academy of Sciences
International Atomic Energy Agency
National Safety Council/
Environmental Health Center
Nuclear Information & Resource Service
Nuclear Energy Institute
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Sierra Club Nuclear Waste Task Force
Southern States Energy Board
Nuclear Energy Agency
Western Governor's Association
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects
Eureka County, NV
Nye County, NV
Clark County, NV
Inyo County, CA
www.ymp.gov
www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca
www.nrc.gov
www.fhwa.dot.gov
www.msha.gov
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
www.nwtrb.gov/
www.westgov.org/wieb/
www.nas.edu/
www.iaea.org
www.nsc.org/ehc.htm
www.nirs.org
www.nei.org/
www.psr.org
www.sierraclub.org/nuke/
nuke.html
www.sseb.org/
www.nea.fr
www.westgov.org
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
yucca/links.htm
www.yuccamountain.org
www.nyecounty.com/index. htm
www.co.clark.nv.us/compplan/
, , '• nucwaste.htm
www.sdsc.edu/lnyo/yucca-
pg.htm
The following counties can be accessed at www.governet.net:
Lander County, NV
Esmeralda County, NV
White Pine County, NV
Churchill County, NV
Lincoln County, NV
Mineral County, NV
*This guide will be available at the National Safety Council's Web site;
http://www.hsc.org/ehc/yuccamt.htm
-------
------- |