2. STATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES UNDER SECTION 114(a)(1)(F) OF THE NWPA
This section contains the views and comments of the governors and legislatures of any state regarding the Yucca Mountain site recommendation process and the possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site by the Secretary of Energy to the President for development of a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. As required by Section 114(a)(1)(F) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), Section 2 also includes the responses of the Secretary to such views and comments. Comments are provided alphabetically by state and the response to each comment letter can be found immediately after the comment letter.2.1 ALABAMA
2.1.1 Alabama—Governor's Office
2.1.1 (13987) Alabama Governor Siegelman| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Alabama, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220016 |
| Siegelman, Governor Don |
As you know, the state of Alabama and the rest of our nation still face a critical need to permanently dispose of used fuel from nuclear energy plants. Although significant scientific results have been achieved, past delays have delayed the federal repository program by more than a decade. More than 20 years and $7 billion have been spent in detailed scientific and engineering studies to ensure that the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, will protect public and worker safety and health. Since 1983, the electricity consumers of my state have paid more than $761 million to the Nuclear Waste Fund for permanent disposal of used nuclear fuel. Currently, 2,033 metric tons of used nuclear fuel is being stored at power reactors in Alabama. Nuclear power accounts for 25.3 percent of electricity generation in Alabama and plays a key role in maintaining reasonable electricity rates and reliable service for Alabama consumers. Inaction on the part of the federal government could jeopardize the continued use of nuclear energy, a key component in maintaining a diverse energy supply. With the completion of the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation, there is a second scientific basis for the Department of Energy to proceed expeditiously with the development of a federal repository. International scientific consensus supports geologic disposal as the safest and most reliable method currently available for the disposal of used nuclear fuel. As governor, I again strongly urge you to recommend Yucca Mountain as the repository site.Response Governor Siegelman indicates support for a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) the need to permanently dispose of used fuel from nuclear power plants within his and other states, (2) that since 1983 electricity consumers of Alabama have paid more than $761 million to the Nuclear Waste Fund for permanent disposal of radioactive material, (3) continued spent nuclear fuel storage at sites in Alabama, (4) inaction on the part of the federal government could jeopardize continued use of nuclear energy, and (5) international scientific consensus supports geologic disposal as the safest and most reliable method for the disposal of used nuclear fuel. The NWPA provides for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect public health and safety and the environment. With the passage of the NWPA, the national policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was defined to be geologic disposal. In 1990, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences reconfirmed the overall concept of geologic disposal, noting that there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that geological disposal, the approach followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report entitled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2 Although, as stated in the NWPA, the federal government has the responsibility, the cost of developing a repository is the responsibility of the generators and owners of the waste. Specifically, in the "Findings" section (Section 111(a)(4)) of the NWPA, Congress stated that "...while the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the costs of such disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel...." Since the passage of the Act, nuclear power generating utilities and their ratepayers have paid about $9.8 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for development of a repository. Expenditures from the Fund have been used for the purposes specified in the NWPA, such as site characterization and development of preliminary engineering specifications. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. Awaiting the development of a repository, the owners of nuclear power plants are currently storing the waste and spent fuel at reactor sites. At-reactor spent nuclear fuel storage systems, such as spent fuel pools, have been operated for decades without undue risk to the general public or nuclear plant personnel, but they were not designed for long-term permanent storage of this material. Spent fuel pools, by design, require multiple active support systems to maintain the spent nuclear fuel in a safe manner. Such systems require continuous technical and management oversight. Moreover, according to utility reports, the spent fuel pools at many reactor sites already have or soon will run out of storage space. In order to avoid potential premature shutdowns and a significant loss of electrical generating capability, a number of utilities have decided to add dry storage systems to provide additional onsite storage. While dry storage systems do not require active components to keep the spent nuclear fuel cool, such systems must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. In addition, 24-hour security must be provided to safeguard the stored materials. The Secretary is committed to proceeding with the site recommendation process, as established by the NWPA. This process will be based upon the scientific and technical information gathered to date and with due consideration of the views and comments of the public.
2.2 GEORGIA
2.2.1 Georgia—Governor's Office
2.2.1 (13983) Georgia Governor Barnes| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Georgia, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220015 |
| Barnes, Governor Roy |
As you know, the State of Georgia and the rest of the nation still face a critical need to dispose permanently of used fuel from nuclear energy plants. While significant scientific results have been achieved, past delays have put the federal repository program more than a decade behind schedule. Over $7 billion has been spent during the past 15 years in studying Yucca Mountain. Projections show that the proposed repository will be able to contain the radioactive materials safely for 10,000 years or longer. The electricity consumers of my state have committed over $621 million to the project, while 1,635 metric tons of used nuclear fuel has accumulated at power reactors in Georgia. It seems quite clear that the Yucca Mountain option is far superior to continued storage at our reactors along the shores of the Altamaha and Savannah Rivers Nuclear power accounts for 26.8 percent of electricity generation in this state. Inaction on the part of the Department of Energy could jeopardize our continued use of nuclear energy: a key component in maintaining a diverse energy supply and meeting our clean air goals. The responsibility for managing spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste should not be shifted to future generations, but should be taken care of by those who benefit from its use. It is imperative that progress be maintained on the evaluation of Yucca Mountain. Critical milestones must be met this year including the issuance of the Site Suitability Evaluation Report and ultimately, a recommendation to you that the site is suitable for long-term storage of waste. I urge you to make used nuclear fuel disposal one of your highest priorities.Response Governor Barnes indicates support for a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) the need to permanently dispose of used fuel from nuclear energy plants, (2) the payment of over $621 million dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund by consumers of electricity in Georgia, (3) continued spent nuclear fuel storage at-reactor sites along river shores, (4) inaction on the part of the federal government could jeopardize continued use of nuclear energy, and (5) the responsibility for managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste should not be shifted to future generations. The NWPA provides for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect public health and safety and the environment. With the passage of the NWPA, the national policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was defined to be geologic disposal. In 1990, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences reconfirmed the overall concept of geologic disposal, noting that there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that geological disposal, the approach followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report titled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2 Although, as stated in the NWPA, the federal government has the responsibility, the cost of developing a repository is the responsibility of the generators and owners of the waste. Specifically, in the "Findings" section (Section 111(a)(4)) of the NWPA, Congress stated that "...while the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the costs of such disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel...." Since the passage of the Act, nuclear power generating utilities and their ratepayers have paid about $9.8 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for development of a repository. Expenditures from the Fund have been used for the purposes specified in the NWPA, such as site characterization and development of preliminary engineering specifications. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. Awaiting the development of a repository, the owners of nuclear power plants are currently storing the waste and spent fuel at reactor sites. At-reactor spent nuclear fuel storage systems, such as spent fuel pools, have been operated for decades without undue risk to the general public or nuclear plant personnel, but they were not designed for long-term permanent storage of this material. Spent fuel pools, by design, require multiple active support systems to maintain the spent nuclear fuel in a safe manner. Such systems require continuous technical and management oversight. Moreover, according to utility reports, the spent fuel pools at many reactor sites already have or soon will run out of storage space. In order to avoid potential premature shutdowns and a significant loss of electrical generating capability, a number of utilities have decided to add dry storage systems to provide additional onsite storage. While dry storage systems do not require active components to keep the spent nuclear fuel cool, such systems must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. In addition, 24-hour security must be provided to safeguard the stored materials. The Secretary is committed to proceeding with the site recommendation process, as established by the NWPA. This process will be based upon the scientific and technical information gathered to date and with due consideration of the views and comments of the public.
2.3 KANSAS
2.3.1 Kansas—Governor's Office
2.3.1 (13976) Kansas Governor Graves| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Kansas, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220014 |
| Graves, Governor Bill |
As you know, the State of Kansas and the rest of the nation still face a critical need to permanently dispose of used fuel from nuclear energy plants. While significant scientific results have been achieved, past delays have put the federal repository program more than a decade behind schedule. This delay may lead to additional increased taxes for our nation's citizens. We can avert the problem by acting decisively. Kansas has only one nuclear plant, but consumers who use the energy from that plant have committed more than $170 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund for permanent disposal of used fuel. The owners of that plant report that 387 metric tons of used nuclear fuel are being stored at the plant site. Over $7 billion has been spent over 15 years in studying Yucca Mountain. These studies have shown that the proposed repository will be able to safely contain the radioactive materials for 10,000 years or longer. The scientific evidence supports going forward with a repository at Yucca Mountain. Scientists have found no reason to doubt that the remote and arid mountain site is well suited for disposing of used nuclear fuel. It appears that this option is more secure than continued storage at many sites across the country. It is imperative that we make progress on the evaluation of Yucca Mountain. Critical milestones must be met this year including the issuance of the Site Recommendation Consideration Report and ultimately, a recommendation from the President that the site is suitable. Action on the part of the Department of Energy is a key component in maintaining a diverse energy supply, maintaining secure domestic energy sources, and meeting our clean air goals. I encourage you to make used nuclear fuel disposal one of your highest priorities.Response Governor Graves indicates support for a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) the need to permanently dispose of used fuel from nuclear power plants, (2) the payment of more than $170 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund by electricity consumers in Kansas, (3) continued at-reactor spent nuclear storage, (4) that the scientific evidence supports going forward with a repository at Yucca Mountain, and action on the part of the DOE is a key component of maintaining a diverse energy supply. The NWPA provides for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect public health and safety and the environment. With the passage of the NWPA, the national policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was defined to be geologic disposal. In 1990, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences reconfirmed the overall concept of geologic disposal, noting that there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that geological disposal, the approach followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report titled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2 Although, as stated in the NWPA, the federal government has the responsibility, the cost of developing a repository is the responsibility of the generators and owners of the waste. Specifically, in the "Findings" section (Section 111(a)(4)) of the NWPA, Congress stated that "...while the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the costs of such disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel...." Since the passage of the Act, nuclear power generating utilities and their ratepayers have paid about $9.8 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for development of a repository. Expenditures from the Fund have been used for the purposes specified in the NWPA, such as site characterization and development of preliminary engineering specifications. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. Awaiting the development of a repository, the owners of nuclear power plants are currently storing the waste and spent fuel at reactor sites. At-reactor spent nuclear fuel storage systems, such as spent fuel pools, have been operated for decades without undue risk to the general public or nuclear plant personnel, but they were not designed for long-term permanent storage of this material. Spent fuel pools, by design, require multiple active support systems to maintain the spent nuclear fuel in a safe manner. Such systems require continuous technical and management oversight. Moreover, according to utility reports, the spent fuel pools at many reactor sites already have or soon will run out of storage space. In order to avoid potential premature shutdowns and a significant loss of electrical generating capability, a number of utilities have decided to add dry storage systems to provide additional onsite storage. While dry storage systems do not require active components to keep the spent nuclear fuel cool, such systems must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. In addition, 24-hour security must be provided to safeguard the stored materials. The Secretary is committed to proceeding with the site recommendation process, as established by the NWPA. This process will be based upon the scientific and technical information gathered to date and with due consideration of the views and comments of the public. 2.3.1 (10551) Kansas Adjutant General Gardner
| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Kansas, State of, The Adjutant General | SR220007 |
| Gardner, Gregory |
On behalf of Governor Graves, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Federal Register notice (66FR43850). Kansas supports the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which establishes a Federal responsibility for final disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the United States. We believe the Department of Energy (DOE) not only has a moral responsibility for identifying a long-term repository, but also has the legal mandate as established by federal courts to commit to a long-term safe, credible, and secure repository site. Although not all the tests have been validated, we take the position that current site characterizations for the Yucca Mountain site have been positive. Staff is working closely with DOE and the Committee of Midwestern States on high-level radioactive waste, and we are confident with the preliminary characterization of Yucca Mountain as a suitable site. In light of the current terrorism incident on September 11, 2001, we would urge DOE to re-evaluate all security measures regarding storage, transportation, and coordination with state agencies regarding high level radioactive waste. Our nuclear industry in the United States and Kansas has invested approximately $17 billion toward a permanent repository and will soon run out of space. Likewise, the rest of the nuclear industry faces this dilemma. Our state does not advocate any dry cask storage at the industry site. In conclusion, if the final environmental analysis and the confirmation of state's technical staff in conjunction with EPA and NRC support the suitability study, Kansas would support the Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository.Response Writing on behalf of Governor Graves, Adjutant General Gardner indicates support for a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) the NWPA calls for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste; (2) the moral responsibility and legal requirements calling for disposal; (3) the need to reevaluate all security measures in light of the September 11, 2001, terrorism incident; (4) payments made to the Nuclear Waste Fund; and (5) the fact that nuclear utilities are running out of space to add additional at-reactor storage, which the State of Kansas does not advocate. The NWPA provides for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect public health and safety and the environment. With the passage of the NWPA, the national policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was defined to be geologic disposal. In 1990, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences reconfirmed the overall concept of geologic disposal, noting that there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that geological disposal, the approach followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report titled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2 Although, as stated in the NWPA, the federal government has the responsibility, the cost of developing a repository is the responsibility of the generators and owners of the waste. Specifically, in the Findings section (Section 111(a)(4)) of the NWPA, Congress stated that "...while the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the costs of such disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel...." Since the passage of the Act, nuclear power generating utilities and their ratepayers have paid about $9.8 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for development of a repository. Expenditures from the Fund have been used for the purposes specified in the NWPA, such as site characterization and development of preliminary engineering specifications. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. Awaiting the development of a repository, the owners of nuclear power plants are currently storing the waste and spent fuel at reactor sites. At-reactor spent nuclear fuel storage systems, such as spent fuel pools, have been operated for decades without undue risk to the general public or nuclear plant personnel, but they were not designed for long-term permanent storage of this material. Spent fuel pools, by design, require multiple active support systems to maintain the spent nuclear fuel in a safe manner. Such systems require continuous technical and management oversight. Moreover, according to utility reports, the spent fuel pools at many reactor sites already have or soon will run out of storage space. In order to avoid potential premature shutdowns and a significant loss of electrical generating capability, a number of utilities have decided to add dry storage systems to provide additional onsite storage. While dry storage systems do not require active components to keep the spent nuclear fuel cool, such systems must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. In addition, 24-hour security must be provided to safeguard the stored materials. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has requirements for physical security for all licensed facilities, including repositories. The DOE and other federal agencies continually examine the protections built into their physical security and safeguard systems to improve security at key facilities across the country. The DOE would examine security issues as they evolve and would comply with all federal legislation or regulations of the NRC regarding repository safeguards and security. The same design features that make transportation casks capable of surviving severe accidents also limit their vulnerability to sabotage. Also, programs and processes to guard against potential sabotage would be developed by the DOE and submitted to the NRC for review and approval before any spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste is transported to Yucca Mountain. The DOE would continue to evaluate the need for additional transportation and disposal safeguards, as well as the need for greater coordination with appropriate state agencies. The Secretary is committed to proceeding with the site recommendation process, as established by the NWPA. This process will be based upon the scientific and technical information gathered to date and with due consideration of the views and comments of the public.
2.4 MICHIGAN
2.4.1 Michigan—Governor's Office
2.4.1 (2063) Michigan Governor Engler| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Michigan, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220001 |
| Engler, Governor John |
Along the scenic shores of the Great Lakes states, there are thirteen nuclear power generating facilities, four of which are located in Michigan. Because America continues to lack a deep geologic repository, each of these facilities must store used nuclear fuel on-site, and because spent fuel pools are now full, many store this waste in large concrete casks within a few hundred meters of the lakes. The use of "dry cask" storage is the direct result of the federal government's failure to establish a single, safe, centralized storage area for the inevitable byproducts of nuclear power generation. As Governor of the Great Lakes State, I urge you to consider the implications of continuing to store over 5,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, spread out in so many places, so close to the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are a drinking water reservoir for 40 million people. Indeed, the plenty and purity of these sweet-water seas are the envy of the world. For the sake of these vast and vital resources, it is imperative that progress continues to be made towards concluding the evaluation of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Recall that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act anticipated the opening of a centralized federal repository for used nuclear fuel by 1998. Yet, even after over two decades and $12 billion in consumer contributions (more than $250 million from Michigan consumers), of which $7 billion dollars was devoted to scientific studies, this statutory obligation remains years from satisfaction. The recently released Science and Engineering Report on Yucca Mountain reaffirms and further substantiates previous findings regarding the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a national disposal site for greater than Class C radioactive waste; it is the single most thoroughly analyzed piece of real estate on the planet. The science is clear: Yucca Mountain is safe, secure, and suitable. At a time when there is growing global concern about the prospect of planetary warming due to the release of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel combustion, nuclear power is an increasingly attractive energy source. Since 1971, nuclear power generation in Michigan alone has prevented the release of some 94 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In addition, our nuclear power plants annually prevent some 79,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 37,000 tons of nitrogen oxide - the antecedents of acid rain and smog - from entering our atmosphere had coal been burned instead. The risk from used nuclear fuel is quite different from that posed by fossil fuels, and the public understanding of fuel and their relative risks needs to be put into perspective. The radiation from used nuclear fuel is concentrated and bound up in metal fission byproducts; it can be easily contained and isolated from the environment. On the other hand, the gasses and ashes resulting from coal combustion are widely dispersed and difficult to contain. Ironically, kilowatt for kilowatt, more radiation is released into the environment from coal combustion than from nuclear fission. Clearly, no source of energy is without its environmental impacts and we must continue our search for more benign supplies, but energy security is vital to our national security and America's future leadership of the free world. I was pleased that President Bush's National Energy Policy seeks to balance energy conservation, modernizing our energy infrastructure and increasing our energy supplies, including the amount of nuclear power production. Expanding the amount of nuclear power in our nation's energy portfolio can be accomplished in an economically and environmentally sound manner. Nuclear power is home grown and supplies cannot be choked off by politically unstable parties half a world away. But in order for nuclear power to continue to meet our nation's growing energy needs, the federal government must continue to move the ball down the field instead of moving the goalposts. That is, Yucca Mountain must stop being the political football it has been for the past twenty years, and it must start being the safe, secure repository for used nuclear fuel that was promised so long ago. It is my understanding that you will continue to release additional scientific information regarding Yucca Mountain throughout the coming months, and that this information will be made public beyond the requirements of federal law. I applaud your policy of open door science and peer review because good science will lead to good decisions. I also understand that based upon the scientific studies, you will soon make the decision on whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to the President as America's repository for used nuclear fuel. By way of this letter, I want you to know that I am comfortable that the science already supports the suitability of Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and greater than Class C disposal. Therefore, I strongly urge you to recommend Yucca Mountain to President Bush for America's deep geologic repository. It is important that this decision is made this year-further delay and debate is simply not warranted.Response Governor Engler indicates support for a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) a desire to move spent nuclear fuel away from current locations close to navigable and potable water supplies, (2) the statutory obligation of the DOE to accept fuel from utilities by 1998, (3) the payment of over $250 million by Michigan consumers into the Nuclear Waste Fund, and (4) nuclear power's contribution to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and nuclear power's role in helping maintain energy security. The Governor also indicates his belief that the site investigations associated with Yucca Mountain have been extensive and sufficient to support a decision by the Secretary. The NWPA provides for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect public health and safety and the environment. With the passage of the NWPA, the national policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was defined to be geologic disposal. In 1990, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences reconfirmed the overall concept of geologic disposal, noting that there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that geological disposal, the approach followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report titled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2 Although, as stated in the NWPA, the federal government has the responsibility, the cost of developing a repository is the responsibility of the generators and owners of the waste. Specifically, in the "Findings" section (Section 111(a)(4)) of the NWPA, Congress stated that "...while the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the costs of such disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel...." Since the passage of the Act, nuclear power generating utilities and their ratepayers have paid about $9.8 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for development of a repository. Expenditures from the Fund have been used for the purposes specified in the NWPA, such as site characterization and development of preliminary engineering specifications. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States while emitting virtually zero greenhouse gases. Awaiting the development of a repository, the owners of nuclear power plants are currently storing the waste and spent fuel at reactor sites. At-reactor spent nuclear fuel storage systems, such as spent fuel pools, have been operated for decades without undue risk to the general public or nuclear plant personnel, but they were not designed for long-term permanent storage of this material. Spent fuel pools, by design, require multiple active support systems to maintain the spent nuclear fuel in a safe manner. Such systems require continuous technical and management oversight. Moreover, according to utility reports, the spent fuel pools at many reactor sites already have or soon will run out of storage space. In order to avoid potential premature shutdowns and a significant loss of electrical generating capability, a number of utilities have decided to add dry storage systems to provide additional onsite storage. While dry storage systems do not require active components to keep the spent nuclear fuel cool, such systems must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. In addition, 24-hour security must be provided to safeguard the stored materials. The Secretary is committed to proceeding with the site recommendation process, as established by the NWPA. This process will be based upon the scientific and technical information gathered to date and with due consideration of the views and comments of the public. 2.4.1 (13971) Michigan Governor Engler
| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Michigan, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220012 |
| Engler, Governor John |
I have written to you on previous occasions to voice my support for the Department of Energy's evaluation of Yucca Mountain and for continued progress toward the establishment of a centralized repository for our nation's used nuclear fuel. Therefore, I was pleased that the recently released Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation (PSSE) adds even further scientific support to the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site to host such a repository. There is broad agreement among national and international scientific organizations that deep geological disposal offers the safest and most economical way to dispose of used fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, as well as high-level radioactive waste from our nation's defense activities. Years of exhaustive scientific investigations, conducted by the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, our national laboratories, and others have examined every environmental facet of Yucca Mountain, from hydrology to geology, seismology, and more. These studies have found no evidence that would disqualify the site for a permanent repository. The Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation provides further evidence that the site would be safe. The report evaluates the site's expected performance against the rigorous safety standards and dose limits recently established by the Environmental Protection Agency. The report concludes that the Yucca Mountain site would meet, in both the operational and post-operational stages, the stringent dose limits in the final EPA standard and the proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations for the protection of the public from radiological exposure. I applaud the fact that this research has been continually reviewed by regulatory, advisory, and scientific peer groups such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, and the U.S. Geological Survey. This comprehensive, peer-review approach leads credibility to the conduct of the research and to the conclusions that have been reached. Twenty years of accumulated scientific evidence clearly shows that a deep geological repository at Yucca Mountain would be safe and secure. It would provide the necessary long-term containment of the waste, while protecting the citizens of the State of Nevada, now and into the distant future, from radiological harm. I urge you, therefore, to recommend the Yucca Mountain site to the President, as provided for by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.Response Governor Engler indicates support for a recommendation by the Secretary citing the additional information provided in the PSSE and broad agreement among national and international scientific organizations that deep geologic disposal is the safest and most economical way to dispose of used fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The DOE has conducted a series of investigations and evaluations (the site characterization program) to assess the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site as a geologic repository. The results of these investigations and evaluations have been documented in a series of documents that have been made available to the public, including the S&ER, issued May 7, 2001, and the PSSE, issued August 21, 2001. The results of the investigations and evaluations performed by the DOE, along with the opinions of the other agencies that have been actively involved with the program, will serve as a basis for any recommendation that the Secretary may make to the President regarding the development of a repository at Yucca Mountain. As noted by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that geological disposal, the approach followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report titled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2
2.5 NEVADA
2.5.1 Nevada—Governor's Office
2.5.1 (2065) Nevada Governor Guinn| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Nevada, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220004 |
| Guinn, Governor Kenny |
Good evening to all of you who are here to listen to us and hopefully in an honest fashion. On behalf of the citizens of the state of Nevada, we want to welcome you here this evening and hope that my remarks and the remarks of the many concerned Nevadans who will speak later will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended. That is honest, and constructive, and impassioned public input on an issue that is paramount to the health and safety of every Nevadan, and lest we not forget, every American whose home or school or place of business is along the proposed paths that the deadliest substance on earth, if the DOE has its way, will be brought to Nevada. This debate... This debate is not new. As many of you know, Nevada's fight to keep the nuclear waste repository from coming to Yucca Mountain has raged on for nearly 20 years. Unlike many of the policy battles that grip Washington, however, this fight transcends many party affiliations. All party affiliations. Transcends socioeconomic classes, race or gender, and galvanizes all Nevadans practically from every corner of this state in opposition. Though the debate is not new -- although it is not new, I must say that recent developments, and those that bring us here tonight, are quite alarming and raise a number of new concerns that we're truly concerned with, panel. The very purpose for this meeting is in question. You invited me and many of these good people here tonight so you and the Department of Energy can gather public comment on scientific evidence that is not complete, and that has not been made public to me nor the people in this room. Public comment -- Public comment in the absence of all important evidence. It's premature, and is grossly irresponsible to ask us to comment on what we do not have before us. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the way we do business in Nevada. And certainly this is not the way the government should handle its affairs. I am very disappointed you have chosen to disregard essentially all of our offices and my office's recommendations and decided to hold these hearings and these meetings prematurely and over our reasonable and faithful objections. We in Nevada will not stand for it. Therefore, I would strongly advise you today, and formally request at the same time, you schedule additional hearings, which you've already had announced today by Secretary Abraham after we had written a letter. I just got it today, about 3:30, so we know it's been extended for 15 days, which isn't much time to go over the detail we've been given in the last few weeks. Of course, we'll have these over the coming months across Nevada, and hopefully it will give more citizens and their elected leaders a fair and appropriate chance to respond to your completed findings, should you have them. And I assure you, my outrage at the lack of protocol that has permeated this process will be detailed in letters directly to Secretary Abraham and to the President of the United States. It is my sincere hope that you recognize this error and your duty to correct it as quickly as possible. I don't have to remind anyone here today that it was not long ago that Nevadans and all Americans were assured that nuclear testing was safe. It was less than 50 years ago, and since that time, the DOE admitted that the aftermath of testing of the hydrogen bomb at Yucca Flats caused innocent Americans to die, and that cancer benefits should be paid to the families of dozens of men and women who were contaminated by the fallout from the nuclear testing. I'm not talking about casualties of war in some distant country. I am talking about the small farmers in our neighboring Utah who tragically suffered from contaminated nuclear air. And I'm talking about the Nevada workers and their families who took the government at their word, and as workers trekked to and from the test site every day -- and I knew many of them -- they were assured that they were not in harm's way. And I'm talking about the generations of patriotic American families, financially wiped out fighting cancer while they awaited some word of admission or assistance from their government. The DOE pathetically only made that admission just a few years ago, and it came only after years of denial and government red tape. And just yesterday, just yesterday, we learned for the first time that germ warfare testing -- imagine -- germ warfare testing was conducted at that same test site without any knowledge whatsoever by our own congressional delegation and my office as Governor. With a track record like this, it is no wonder the Department of Energy lacks credibility, not only in Nevada, but also in our neighboring states. Given the history, I trust you can understand why I view this proceeding as morally illegal, if not technically so. It violates -- It violates everything we believe in as Americans. It duplicates all that was wrong in the past, and gives credence to the mistrust and cynicism harbored by so many of our people. Our concerns are clear. This wonderful state has been ignored for far too long. We demand fairness, and we demand accountability in this process. We will not sit idly by and let the Department of Energy run roughshod over our citizens with empty promises and bad science. Let's remember, we did it once in good faith as proud and loyal Americans, but sadly we did not get back what we gave. So we have learned from the past, and we are not about to repeat the past this time.Response Governor Guinn indicates opposition to a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) the danger of transporting spent nuclear fuel, (2) a need for additional public hearings and an extension of the comment period, and (3) a lack of trust in the DOE's past and future performance. Based on the results of the impact analyses presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix J of the FEIS, as well as the results published in numerous other studies and environmental impact analyses cited in the FEIS, the DOE is confident that spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste could be safely transported to Yucca Mountain. The DOE also believes, as the FEIS reports, that the potential impacts of this transportation would be so low for individuals who live and work along the routes that these individual impacts would not be discernible even if the corresponding doses from such shipments could be measured. The analysis presented in the FEIS factored in the characteristics of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, the integrity of shipping casks that would be used for transportation, and the regulatory and programmatic controls that would be imposed on shipping operations (see FEIS, Appendix M). The FEIS analytic results are supported by numerous technical and scientific studies that have been compiled through decades of research and development by the DOE and other federal agencies of the United States, including the NRC and the U.S. Department of Transportation, as well as by the international community, including the International Atomic Energy Agency. The shipping casks used to transport these materials are massive, with design features that comply with regulatory requirements to ensure that the casks perform their safety functions even when damaged. Numerous tests and extensive analyses, using the most advanced analytical methods available, have demonstrated that these types of shipping casks would provide containment and shielding even under the most severe kinds of accidents. Since the publication of the DEIS, the NRC published "Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates."1 Based on the revised analyses, the DOE has concluded in the FEIS that casks would continue to contain spent nuclear fuel fully in more than 99.99 percent of all accidents. Of the approximately 53,000 truck shipments over 24 years, under a "mostly truck" scenario, there would be an estimated 66 accidents, each having less than a 0.01 percent chance that radioactive materials would be released. The chance of a rail accident that would cause a release from a cask would be even less. The corresponding chance that such an accident would occur in any particular locale would be extremely low. Section J.1.4.2.1 of the FEIS reports potential consequences for accidents that could release radioactive materials. "Real life" transportation accidents involve collisions of many kinds, such as with other vehicles and obstacles, that could result in fires and explosions, inundation, or burial of a cask containing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. These accidents are caused in turn by a variety of initiating events including human error, mechanical failure, and natural causes such as earthquakes. Accidents occur in many different kinds of places including mountain passes and urban areas, rural freeways in open landscapes, and rail switching yards. The combinations of accident conditions, initiating events, and locations is very large. Analyzing an extensive array of accident scenarios is neither practical nor meaningful. However, it is meaningful to analyze a range of reasonably foreseeable accident scenarios that consider, in effect, common initiating events and conditions having similar characteristics. Thus, for example, the FEIS analyzes the impacts of various collision accidents in which a cask would be exposed to a range of impact velocities (see FEIS, Section J.1.4.2.1). The FEIS also analyzes a maximum reasonable foreseeable accident, an accident with a probability of occurrence of about 3 in 10 million per year. To put this in perspective, this accident would occur once in the course of about 5 billion legal-weight truck shipments. In this scenario, a truck cask, not involved in a collision, would be engulfed in a fire with temperatures between 750 degrees Celsius and 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,400 degrees Fahrenheit to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) (see FEIS, Section 6.2.4.2). The conditions of the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident analyzed in the FEIS envelope conditions reported for the Baltimore tunnel fire (a train derailment and fire that occurred in July 2001 in a tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland). Temperatures in that fire were reported to be as high as 820 degrees Celsius (1,500 degrees Fahrenheit). The DOE acknowledges the concern regarding Nevadans' ability to participate in the public hearing process. DOE extended the public comment period until October 19, 2001, and held hearings in all 17 Nevada counties and in Inyo County, California. DOE complied with the requirement for public hearings specified in Section 114(a) of the NWPA by holding numerous public hearings in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. On May 7, 2001, DOE issued a Federal Register notice announcing the initiation of a public comment period on a possible Secretarial recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site as a geologic repository. This notice specifically requested that the public submit comments on a potential action by the Secretary and established a mail address, e-mail address, and telephone number for the submission of comments by electronic facsimile. On that same day, DOE released the S&ER to facilitate public comment and review. The Federal Register and media announcements providing information on the hearings requested participation by all those choosing to attend. Once present, all those wishing an opportunity to speak were afforded such an opportunity. On August 21, 2001, the DOE issued a Federal Register notice that announced the release of the PSSE for public review and established the closure of the site recommendation comment period as September 20, 2001. Included in that notice was the announcement of public hearings to be held in Las Vegas, Amargosa Valley, and Pahrump, Nevada on September 5, September 12, and September 13, 2001, respectively. In an August 30, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 45845), DOE announced that "[I]n order to encourage and facilitate public participation in the [comment] process," it had forwarded a letter requesting comments on the overall site recommendation process and a possible decision to "a list of governmental officials and members of the public whose interest in commenting [on such matters] the Department has anticipated." The Las Vegas hearing was held as scheduled and included teleconferencing connections to three other cities within the State of Nevada -- Carson City, Elko, and Reno-- and connections to the Congressional studio for comments from the Nevada Congressional delegation. However, the events of September 11, 2001, warranted the postponement of the Amargosa Valley and Pahrump hearings. These hearings were rescheduled to and held on October 10 and October 12, 2001, respectively. In response to requests from the Nevada Congressional delegation and others, the DOE extended the comment period by 15 days to October 5, 2001, in a Federal Register notice (66 FR 47644) dated September 13, 2001. Subsequently, the period was extended further to October 19, 2001. On October 2, 2001, the DOE announced in the Federal Register (66 FR 50176) that the DOE's Yucca Mountain Science Centers in Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Beatty, Nevada would be staffed with DOE representatives and public stenographers to receive comments through the end of the established comment period. On October 3, 2001, the DOE announced "...additional opportunities, in various localities in Nevada and California, for the public to provide comments on the possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for development...." These opportunities consisted of 29 hearing sessions that were held in each of Nevada's counties and California's Inyo County during the period extending from October 3 through October 12, 2001. Subsequently, a Federal Register notice (66 FR 51027) dated October 5, 2001, extended the comment period through midnight Friday, October 19, 2001. By the conclusion of the initial comment period, the DOE had held 57 public hearings on the consideration of Yucca Mountain across Nevada's 17 counties, and in Inyo County, California, providing 165 days of public comment and 345 hours of public hearing time. In addition, on November 14, 2001, after the NRC finalized 10 CFR Part 63 and the DOE finalized 10 CFR Part 963, the Secretary announced a supplemental 30-day comment period, including nine supplemental hearings in Nevada to provide citizens an opportunity to comment on information that was not available at the conclusion of the initial comment period. The DOE is committed to applying lessons learned from past programs and applying knowledge gained from research to develop sound plans for effective construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. For more than 50 years, the U.S. Government and various commercial organizations have engaged in nuclear activities for defense, power generation, and related purposes. These activities have resulted in the production of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, which are long-lived, highly radioactive materials. Management and disposition of these materials in a manner that ensures that these materials do not adversely affect the public health and safety and the environment for this or future generations pose challenging long-term problems. The DOE is working to eliminate adverse environmental impacts from its past programs and to conduct its current activities with minimum environmental impact. The DOE continues to incorporate lessons learned from past waste management practices and the knowledge gained from research and development in new management programs. The Secretary is strongly committed to protecting the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment. The DOE's policies and practices emphasize safety and environmental considerations above other goals. In addition, the Secretary places great emphasis on openness and public involvement, consistent with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and national security interests. This is demonstrated by recent releases of information regarding past programs and practices, such as those associated with worker exposures to hazardous and radioactive materials during the Cold War era. Unlike some of its past operations, the DOE's work on Yucca Mountain is subject to external oversight by other federal agencies and has been reviewed by international professional organizations. Site characterization information for Yucca Mountain, for example, was collected under quality assurance plans reviewed by the NRC. Four national laboratories and the U.S. Geological Survey collected most of the field data and interpreted the results. These laboratories commissioned independent reviews of their results, as did the DOE, often as formal independent peer reviews. Since the start of data collection for site characterization, the DOE has engaged in informal consultation with the NRC, as directed by the NWPA. As a result of this consultation process, the NRC has made known its views on the correctness of the data and the validity of the DOE's interpretations. The DOE has formally committed to resolution plans for those areas where professional views and interpretations differ. The DOE is following the path advocated by nearly all the world's organizations of nuclear waste experts. Among these groups are the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. In 1990, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences specifically noted that there is "a worldwide consensus that deep geologic disposal, the approach being followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report titled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2 2.5.1 (2998) Nevada Governor Guinn
| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Nevada, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220005 |
| Guinn, Governor Kenny |
Mr. Secretary, given the gravity of the decision that the Department is apparently ready to make and the impact that decision will have on Nevada, as well as the nation, we are requesting that the public comment period be extended for a total of 90 days, with public hearings scheduled for late in the public comment period. Providing less than 15 days for the public and others, to review and prepare substantive comments on the most critical decision that the Department will have made in this program, to date, is unreasonable and unnecessary, given that the program is already over 12 years behind schedule. In the interest of providing the maximum public input and thorough review of the documents we request an extension to 90 days for public comment and the rescheduling of the hearings for a date at least 60 days after release of the documents. We look forward to your response.Response Governor Guinn requests an extension of the comment period and rescheduling of hearings to maximize public input. The DOE originally announced a plan to hold three public hearings in Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Amargosa Valley to enable the Secretary to receive the comments of members of the public regarding a possible recommendation of Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel. The Las Vegas hearing was held as scheduled and included teleconferencing connections to three other cities within the state of Nevada: Carson City, Elko, and Reno, and connections to the Congressional studio for comments from the Nevada delegation. However, the events of September 11, 2001, warranted the postponement of the Amargosa Valley and Pahrump hearings. Due to concerns raised by Governor Guinn, the Nevada Congressional delegation and others, the DOE extended the comment period by 15 days to October 5, 2001, in a Federal Register notice (66 FR 47644) dated September 13, 2001. Subsequently, the period was extended further to October 19, 2001. The two previously postponed public hearings were also rescheduled to October 10 and October 12, respectively. On October 2, 2001, the DOE announced in the Federal Register (66 FR 50176) that the Science Centers in Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Beatty, Nevada would be staffed to receive comments through the end of the established comment period. On October 3, 2001, the DOE announced "...additional opportunities, in various localities in Nevada and California, for the public to provide comments on the possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for development...." These opportunities consisted of 29 hearing sessions that were held in each of Nevada's counties and California's Inyo County during the period extending from October 3 through October 12, 2001. Subsequently, a Federal Register notice (66 FR 51027) dated October 5, 2001, extended the comment period through midnight Friday, October 19, 2001, 60 days after release of the PSSE and providing a total public comment period of 165 days. By the conclusion of this public comment period, the DOE had held 57 public hearings comprising 345 hours of hearing time. In addition, on November 14, 2001, after the NRC finalized its licensing regulation at 10 CFR Part 63 and the DOE finalized its guidelines at 10 CFR Part 963, the Secretary announced a 30-day supplemental comment period, including nine supplemental hearings in Nevada, to provide citizens an opportunity to comment on supplemental information regarding the site recommendation consideration process. 2.5.1 (14647) Nevada Governor Guinn
| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Nevada, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220011 |
| Guinn, Governor Kenny |
Please accept this letter as the State of Nevada's comments in response to the Federal Register Notice of August 21, 2001, in which the Department of Energy (DOE) announced public hearings and solicited public comment with respect to the possible recommendation of Yucca Mountain for development as a high-level radioactive waste repository. Nevada considers the current site recommendation process to be premature and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (Act). The fact that critical information essential to evaluate and comment upon your consideration of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository has not been made available to the public is a major impediment to meaningful public participation and renders the hearings and the entire site recommendation comment period meaningless. For example, the report that is to form the basis for any such recommendation, the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation Report, is itself based on site suitability guidelines that do not exist, while completely ignoring the current, legally binding regulations specifying criteria for determining site suitability. Moreover, the Final Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the key report required by the Act that forms the basis by which DOE is to evaluate the potential impacts of the Yucca Mountain site on the State of Nevada and the nation, has not been made available to the public. How can I as Governor, our State Legislature, and the citizens of this state provide meaningful comment on the consideration of Yucca Mountain as a repository when documents critical to the site recommendation process have not been made available? Additionally, I believe it is impossible for you to make a sound decision on whether to recommend Yucca Mountain to President Bush when critical EPA radiation standards are being challenged in Federal Court by our state and the nuclear industry. Section 114 of the NWPA requires: (i) that the DOE provide to me and the Legislature the final and complete site recommendation decision package it submits to you; (ii) that we have an opportunity to submit comments to you on the decision package, and; (iii) that you respond to our comments prior to making any recommendation to President Bush. The Act further requires that my comments and those of the Legislature be included in any recommendation you submit to the President. In summary, the current site recommendation process and related hearings do not satisfy the requirements of Section 114 of the Act, and DOE's current schedule for making a recommendation to the President does not provide sufficient time for obtaining and responding to the views and comments of myself and the Legislature on the final site recommendation decision package. Moreover, for this process to be fair to the citizens of Nevada and the nation, I urge you to correct the errors which have been made throughout the site recommendation process and adhere to the letter and spirit of the Act by requiring DOE to produce the requisite documents and thereafter schedule a process that allows myself, the Legislature, and our citizens to provide meaningful comment on those documents.Response Governor Guinn indicates opposition to a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) the DOE's failure to follow the letter and spirit of the NWPA, (2) reliance on the use of draft siting guidelines in developing the PSSE, and (3) failing to provide the governor and the public with the FEIS prior to making a recommendation to the President. The DOE has and will continue to follow the directives contained in the NWPA in carrying out its responsibilities related to Yucca Mountain. The DOE initiated the public comment process on a possible site recommendation on May 7, 2001, and, concurrent with the initiation of the public comment period, released the S&ER. This report contained data and information that would be used in forming the bases for any site recommendation, and was made available in advance of public hearings to facilitate public review and comment on a possible site recommendation. On May 4, 2001, the DOE published a notice of availability of the SDEIS (66 FR 22540) and initiated a public comment period on that document. Since issuance of the S&ER, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on June 13, 2001, promulgated its final rule establishing public health and environmental radiation protection standards for a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada at 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074). In addition, on August 21, 2001, the DOE issued the PSSE report to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on DOE's preliminary analysis of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. The PSSE was prepared based on proposed 10 CFR Part 963. Those guidelines represented a reasonable basis upon which to conduct a preliminary assessment of site suitability since they were developed specifically to reflect EPA's new public health and safety standards and NRC's new proposed licensing criteria. In September and October 2001, the DOE held 57 public hearings on the site recommendation process in all 17 counties in Nevada and in Inyo County, California. The public comment period closed on October 19, 2001. By the conclusion of the initial comment period, the DOE had provided 165 days of public comment and 345 hours of public hearing time. Subsequent to the close of the public comment period on October 19, 2001, the NRC issued final licensing regulations establishing a 10 CFR Part 63, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, (66 FR 55732) on November 2, 2001. The NRC also conducted an assessment, consistent with Section 114(a)(1)(E) of the NWPA, of the extent to which the at-depth site characterization analysis and waste form proposal seem to be sufficient for inclusion in any application for licensing Yucca Mountain as a repository. Their conclusions were transmitted to the DOE on November 13, 2001, in the form of a letter from Richard Meserve, Chairman of the NRC, to Robert G. Card, Under Secretary of the DOE. The letter noted that "the NRC believes that sufficient at-depth site characterization analysis and waste form proposal information, although not available now, will be available at the time of a potential license application such that development of an acceptable license application is achievable." In addition, the DOE issued 10 CFR Part 963, Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Guidelines, at 66 FR 57298 on November 14, 2001. The DOE provided a 30-day supplemental public comment period to afford the public an additional opportunity to comment on information that was not available during the comment period that ended on October 19, 2001, including the final NRC licensing regulations and DOE guidelines. Any recommendation by the Secretary to the President will be accompanied by, among other things, the FEIS, which includes the response to public comments on the DEIS and SDEIS. In addition, the SSE, which is an evaluation of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site based on the final 10 CFR Part 963 suitability guidelines, and the statutorily required comments from the NRC, as described above, would also accompany any recommendation to the President. Accordingly, the DOE believes that the site recommendation process is not premature and that data and information are available to support any site recommendation by the Secretary. As required by the Energy Policy Act (Public Law No. 102-486), the EPA and the NRC have established final standards and licensing regulations, respectively, applicable to Yucca Mountain. The EPA standards, established at 40 CFR Part 197, Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV, were published at 66 FR 32074 on June 13, 2001. Although these standards have been challenged, the DOE does not believe it is either legally required or appropriate to hold consideration of a possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site in abeyance until litigation concerning 40 CFR Part 197 is completed. The final NRC licensing regulation, 10 CFR Part 63, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was promulgated at 66 FR 55732 on November 2, 2001. In addition, the DOE promulgated 10 CFR Part 963, Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Guidelines, at 66 FR 57298 on November 14, 2001. In November 2001, the DOE posted several additional documents to its Yucca Mountain Internet Site (www.ymp.gov). These documents included: (1) "Total System Performance Assessment—Analyses for Disposal of Commercial and DOE Waste Inventories at Yucca Mountain—Input to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Site Suitability Evaluation";1 (2) "Total System Performance Assessment Sensitivity Analyses for Final Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations";2 and (3) "Technical Update Impact Letter Report."3 The DOE announced a supplemental 30-day comment period to afford the public an additional opportunity to comment on information that was not available during the comment period that ended on October 19, 2001, including the final NRC regulations and DOE guidelines, and the documents cited above (66 FR 57049). The DOE also held nine additional public hearings around the State of Nevada to provide the public with additional opportunities to raise issues that could not have been raised during the prior comment period, such as the final DOE guidelines and NRC regulations and the additional documents cited in the preceding paragraph. Under Section 114 of the NWPA (42 U.S.C. 10134), the Secretary of Energy must decide whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain Site to the President for development as a repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Consistent with NWPA Section 114(a)(1), any recommendation by the Secretary would be supported by a comprehensive statement of the basis for any site recommendation. This statement must accompany any site recommendation and be made available to the public. The comprehensive statement would include information related to the items listed in NWPA Section 114(a)(1)(A-G), including the Secretary's response to comments from the State of Nevada and the comments of the governor and state legislature of any other state, or the governing body of any affected Native American tribe. The DOE believes that its process complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
2.5.2 Nevada—Office of the Lieutenant Governor
2.5.2 (14739) Nevada Lieutenant Governor Hunt| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Nevada, State of, Office of the Lieutenant Governor | SR220010 |
| Hunt, Lieutenant Governor Lorraine |
As President of the Nevada State Senate, I am responding to your request for comments from the Nevada State Legislature. The issue is your pending decision whether or not to recommend to the President that Yucca Mountain be developed as a repository for high-level radioactive waste. I am writing to bring your attention to an issue of tremendous importance to my home state of Nevada, the nation and the world. The issue is the transportation of nuclear waste and the potentially hazardous effects it would have on the citizens in Nevada and across the country. The risk of transportation accidents and radiation exposure from an accident is very real and would create a catastrophe beyond our comprehension. Clark County is ranked as the fastest growing county in the nation, the growth has led to increasing congestion along the transportation routes being considered. This is [sic] turn increases the likelihood of an accident. While it is true this is a critical decision with serious consequences, there is no reason to centralize interim storage of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that irradiated fuel can safely remain at the reactors for up to 100 years. To move 95 percent of the nation's waste through our hometowns in casks that are governed by inadequate standards is not only irresponsible, but also negligent, particularly in light of the new threat of homeland terrorism and the many uncertainties this new danger poses. Transporting the waste poses special health concerns because of its intense radioactivity. According to the Clark County Nuclear Waste Project Office, the canisters that hold the waste cannot prevent a small amount of radiation from escaping. While transportation routes have not been selected yet, it is estimated that 43 states encompassing hundreds of small communities and major cities across the country will be at risk. A major task of state and local government is to prepare for possible emergencies and to assist in ensuring that the public and the economy are protected from any adverse affects [sic] of nuclear waste transportation and storage. An estimated $276 million is needed by public safety agencies in order to be adequately prepared for the worst-case scenario. Moreover, the affects [sic] of transporting nuclear waste through our American communities are unknown. What will the affects [sic] be - on our economy, on property values, and most important of all, on the health and safety of our citizens? Tourism constitutes Nevada's economic lifeblood. As such, the Nevada Resort Association passed a resolution in opposition to the proposed repository. The resolution states in part that "any diminution in the image that Nevada now conveys....would reduce tourism and severely damage the welfare of Nevada's citizens." This indicates very serious risk from the stigma of an accident involving the shipment of high-level waste. Currently, 15,000 people have lost their jobs in Las Vegas as a consequence of the tourism downturn nationwide resulting from the devastating attack on New York City last month. This very real situation clearly indicates our state's dependence on tourism. Because many very serious questions have yet to be answered, I urge you to move forward with great caution and not to recommend Yucca Mountain as a viable storage site for high-level nuclear waste.Response Lieutenant Governor Hunt indicates opposition to a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) there is no reason to centralize interim storage of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada, (2) transporting the waste poses special health concerns, (3) lack of emergency response preparation by state and local governments, and (4) the economic effect of siting a repository in Nevada. Recognizing that the accumulation of spent nuclear fuel from commercial and naval nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and defense activities has created the need for a national solution, Congress enacted the NWPA (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.). The NWPA provides for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect the public health and safety and the environment. With the passage of the NWPA, the national policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was defined to be geologic disposal. Information on the rationale for geologic disposal can be found in Section 1.3.2 of the S&ER Rev. 1. At-reactor spent nuclear fuel storage systems, such as spent fuel pools, have been operated for decades without undue risk to the general public or nuclear plant personnel. Such at-reactor storage systems were not designed for permanent storage. Spent fuel pools, by design, require active support systems. Such support systems require continuous technical and management oversight of a substantial amount of process equipment. Moreover, according to utility reports, the pools at many reactor sites already have or soon will run out of storage space. In order to avoid potential premature shutdowns and a significant loss of electrical generating capability, a number of utilities have decided to add dry storage systems to provide additional onsite storage. While dry storage systems do not require active components to keep the spent fuel cool, such systems must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. In addition, 24-hour security must be provided to safeguard the stored materials. The purpose of a repository is permanent disposal rather than indeterminate storage. The concept of permanently disposing of radioactive waste in a deep geologic repository stems from studies initiated in the 1950s by the National Academy of Sciences. Continued studies in the United States and abroad have concluded that deep geologic disposal can keep radioactive waste isolated from the environment in geologic formations known to have been stable for millions of years, thus providing a safe location for the waste to decay into a stable form. The DOE will draw on comprehensive knowledge, experience, and technology in safely transporting radioactive materials. Spent nuclear fuel has been transported safely in the United States for over 30 years. The DOE would use casks certified by the NRC when transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The NRC certifies that a cask meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 that prescribes Normal Conditions for Transport (see 10 CFR 71.71) and Hypothetical Accident Conditions (see 10 CFR 71.73). These latter conditions represent the kinds of forces that a cask could encounter in a severe transportation accident. These conditions have been adopted as international safety standards by the member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Numerous tests and extensive analyses, using the most advanced analytical methods available, have demonstrated that transportation casks would provide containment and shielding even under the most severe kinds of accidents. Since the publication of the DEIS, the NRC published "Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates."1 Based on the revised analyses, the DOE reports in the FEIS that casks would continue to contain spent nuclear fuel fully in more than 99.99 percent of all accidents. The DOE also believes, as the FEIS reports, that the potential impacts of this transportation would be so low for individuals who live and work along the routes that these individual impacts would not be discernible even if the corresponding doses could be measured. The analysis presented in the FEIS factored in the characteristics of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, the integrity of shipping casks that would be used for transportation, and the regulatory and programmatic controls that would be imposed on shipping operations (see FEIS, Appendix M). The FEIS analytical results are supported by numerous technical and scientific studies that have been compiled through decades of research and development by the DOE and other federal agencies, including the NRC and the U.S. Department of Transportation, as well as by the international community, including the International Atomic Energy Agency. Appendix J.1.4.2.1 of the FEIS presents consequences for accidents that could release radioactive materials. Section 180(c) of the NWPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10175(c)) would provide funding to eligible states and tribes for the preparation of these plans, as well as emergency response and safe routine transportation planning and coordination activities. As part of this program, every eligible jurisdiction would receive an up-front planning grant to determine their specific needs to provide an additional increment of preparedness specific to the shipments under the NWPA (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.). Subsequently, eligible states and tribes would receive annual funding and technical assistance for planning, coordinating, and implementing training in a timely manner. Additionally, the DOE has several programs available to provide assistance to the state, local and Native American tribal governments in response to radioactive material accidents. The Radiological Assistance Program, for example, provides trained personnel with equipment to evaluate, assess, advise and assist in the mitigation and monitoring of potential immediate hazards associated with a transportation accident. As part of the Program, the DOE maintains eight Regional Coordinating Offices across the country. These are staffed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The staff consists of nuclear engineers, health physicists, industrial hygienists, public affairs specialists, and other personnel who provide field monitoring, sampling, decontamination, communications, and other services as requested. In addition, the DOE Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site can provide rapid medical attention to persons involved in radiation accidents. The Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site maintains a 24-hour response center to provide direct or consultative support, including deployable equipment and personnel trained and experience in the treatment of radiation exposure. The DOE recognizes that nuclear facilities could be perceived to be either positive or negative, depending on the underlying value systems of the individual forming the perception. Perception-based impacts would not necessarily depend on the actual physical impacts or risks from repository operations or transportation. Further, people do not consistently act in accordance with negative perceptions, and thus the connection between public perception of risk and future behavior would be uncertain or speculative at best. For these reasons, the DOE determined that including analyses of perception-based and stigma-related impacts in the DEIS would not provide meaningful information. For the purposes of the FEIS, the DOE examined relevant studies and literature on perceived risk and stigmatization of communities to determine whether the state of the science in identifying future behavior based on perceptions had advanced sufficiently since scoping to allow the DOE to quantify the impact of public risk perception on economic development or property values in potentially affected communities (see FEIS, Section 2.5.4 and Appendix N). Of particular interest were those scientific and social studies carried out in the past few years that directly relate to either Yucca Mountain or to DOE actions such as the transportation of foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel. The DOE also reevaluated the conclusions of previous literature reviews such as those conducted by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the State of Nevada, among others. The DOE has concluded that: (1) while in some instances risk perceptions could result in adverse impacts on portions of a local economy, there are no reliable quantitative methods whereby such impacts could be identified with any degree of certainty; (2) much of the uncertainty is irreducible; and (3) based on a qualitative analysis, adverse impacts from perceptions of risk would be unlikely or relatively small. While stigmatization of southern Nevada or along transportation corridors can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is neither inevitable nor quantifiable. Any such stigmatization would likely be an aftereffect of unpredictable future events, such as serious accidents; based on analysis of potential accident scenarios, the DOE does not expect such accidents to occur.
2.5.3 Nevada—Representing Office of Governor
2.5.3 (14423) Nevada Office of the Governor, Loux| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Nevada, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220009 |
| Agency for Nuclear Projects Loux, Robert |
On August 21, 2001 the Department of Energy issued a notice in the Federal Register on the planned Yucca Mountain "Site Recommendation Consideration Hearings and End of Public Comment Period," [sic] together with an announcement of the availability of the Yucca Mountain Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation (PSSE). The announcement states, on page 43851, that, "The PSSE contains a preliminary evaluation of the suitability of the Yucca mountain [sic] site for development as a geologic repository based on the Department's proposed (emphasis added) site suitability regulations, to be codified as 10 CFR 963." Since the Department has an existing set of site suitability regulations, codified as 10 CFR 960, please explain why the Department of Energy is not evaluating the Yucca Mountain site under those regulations, and providing the public the opportunity to see the Department's evaluation of the site under those regulations. We find that basing an evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site on proposed regulations, when there are existing regulations that have gone through the public notice and comment process and have been codified since 1984, is unethical and violates not only the Administrative Procedures Act, but also the public trust that this program is supposed to engender. Nevada is, therefore, insisting that the Department immediately suspend the current notice that is in the Federal Register, conduct an evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site under the 10 CFR 960 guidelines, and publish the results of that evaluation in the Federal Register for public review and comment. The only possible reason why the Department would not conduct an evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site's suitability under the existing site suitability guidelines is that such an evaluation would almost certainly disqualify the site from further consideration. Changing regulations for the Yucca Mountain site at the eleventh hour not only violates the public trust, but it also shows the lengths to which the Department is prepared to go in attempting to salvage a project that, under any truly objective and scientific criteria, would have long since been abandoned. It is this type of manipulative and duplicitous action that continues to undermine the efforts of this country to find a credible and workable solution to the nuclear waste problem. It is wholly unacceptable for DOE to utilize a set of proposed site suitability regulations that have no legal or substantive basis as the vehicle for evaluating the Yucca Mountain site. This action only serves to reinforce the perception that DOE's sole concern is to support its predetermined and technically flawed conclusions about the site's suitability while reflecting DOE's willingness to cast fairness and objectivity aside in its single-minded attempt to make Yucca Mountain work at any cost. I urge you to reconsider this course of action and, instead, commit to evaluating the site against the existing regulations.Response Mr. Loux, writing on behalf of Governor Guinn of Nevada, asks why the DOE is evaluating Yucca Mountain against the DOE's then-proposed 10 CFR Part 963 guidelines rather than against the existing guidelines at 10 CFR Part 960. He states that evaluating the site against proposed guidelines when there are existing guidelines that have been through the public comment period is unethical, and violates both the Administrative Procedures Act and the public trust. He asks that the DOE suspend actions and conduct an evaluation under 10 CFR Part 960. Mr. Loux's comment was responded to in a letter dated October 22, 2001, from Mr. Lake Barrett, Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which stated as follows:
The Department's proposed part 963 guidelines are structured to conform to a new regulatory framework. The part 960 guidelines are no longer consistent and, in some cases, may even conflict with the regulatory framework that would be used to consider a license application for a Yucca Mountain repository. Since the Department adopted part 960 in 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized its public health and safety standards for a Yucca Mountain repository at 40 CFR part 197, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is finalizing new licensing criteria for Yucca Mountain, to be codified at 10 CFR part 63. The actions by EPA and NRC represent substantial changes in both regulatory approach and standards that would be used in considering a license application. In preparing documentation to be used to assess whether the Yucca Mountain site should be recommended by the Secretary to the President, the Department has conducted its analyses to reflect what it would be expected to demonstrate in a licensing proceeding. The Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation is one of the documents prepared to reflect the most current state of information and regulatory guidance. This report describes a preliminary assessment of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site based on the Department's proposed part 963 site suitability guidelines. Those guidelines represent a reasonable basis upon which to conduct a preliminary assessment of site suitability since they were developed specifically to reflect EPA's new public health and safety standards and NRC's new proposed licensing criteria. The old part 960 guidelines reflect public health standards and licensing criteria that no longer apply to a Yucca Mountain repository. It would be irrational to use the part 960 guidelines to evaluate the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. Rather than promote public trust, use of the part 960 guidelines to assess current information on the Yucca Mountain site would undermine confidence in the evaluation.Subsequent to that letter, final NRC licensing regulations and DOE guidelines specific to Yucca Mountain, 10 CFR Part 63, and 10 CFR Part 963, respectively, were promulgated. The DOE performed supplemental analyses, to the extent necessary, to evaluate performance against the final standards established by the EPA, as implemented by the NRC. In November 2001, the DOE posted several additional documents to its Yucca Mountain Internet Site (www.ymp.gov). These documents included: (1) "Total System Performance Assessment—Analyses for Disposal of Commercial and DOE Waste Inventories at Yucca Mountain—Input to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Site Suitability Evaluation";1 (2) "Total System Performance Assessment Sensitivity Analyses for Final Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations";2 and (3) "Technical Update Impact Letter Report."3 On November 14, 2001, the DOE announced a supplemental 30-day comment period to afford the public an additional opportunity to comment on information that was not available during the comment period that ended on October 19, 2001, including the final NRC licensing regulations and DOE guidelines, and the documents cited above (66 FR 57049). The DOE also held nine additional public hearings around the State of Nevada to provide the public with additional opportunities to submit comments on information that was not available at the close of the initial comment period. 2.5.3 (14621) Nevada Office of the Governor, Loux
| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Nevada, State of, Office of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects |
SR220017 |
| Loux, Robert |
This letter responds to your letter dated May 4, 2001, sent to Governor Guinn as well as to Governors and Legislatures in other states. The letter stated that that [sic] the Department of Energy has initiated the public comment period on the Secretary of Energy's consideration of a possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada to the President for development as a spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste geologic repository. In that letter you indicated that sometime this summer the Department will announce the dates, locations and times for public hearings on the possible recommendation, and will also announce the date for the end of the public comment period. As discussed below, requiring public comment and hearings to take place now - prior to release of the Final EIS and publication of the final regulations governing the site - would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) and other applicable federal laws. The Department's accompanying proposed federal register notice ("Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report; Site Recommendation Consideration and Request for Comment") describes, in "B. Site Recommendation Process", [sic] its view of the statutory requirements contained for this process in section 114(a)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). These requirements include conducting public hearings to inform the residents of the area under consideration, and receiving their comments regarding the possible recommendation of the site. In section "C. Information for the Public Comment Process" on page 9, the Department describes three sets of regulations applicable to the site that have not proceeded beyond the proposal stage. These regulations, respectively, are the proposed Environmental Protection Agency public health and safety standards for a spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed licensing requirements for that repository; and the Department's proposed site suitability guidelines. Despite the Department's recognition that these regulations are not final, the proposed notice cryptically concludes that "[t]he currently proposed regulations provide a reasonable basis for the consideration of a possible site recommendation." In our view, this conclusion is neither reasonable nor in accordance with the requirements of the NWPA and other laws. This conclusion puts the residents of the area in the compromised position of receiving information about the Secretarial consideration of the site and providing comments on the same, without ever being informed of the final regulatory framework governing that consideration. In addition, it puts the Secretary in the position of making an arbitrary decision about the consideration of the site due to the lack of radiation protection regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the lack of site suitability guidelines from the Department of the Yucca Mountain site. Prematurely calling for comments and holding hearings under these preliminary circumstances would fail to honor the Secretary's duties under NWPA section 114(a) to inform the residents of the area and receive their comments and base any site recommendation on the full record of information prescribed in the statute. Doing so would also compromise well-established norms of administrative procedure. While the Department apparently assumes that that [sic] all regulations will be finalized as proposed, limiting public comment on a possible Secretarial action to a time when it is based only upon draft rules would not satisfy the requirements of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. The Department has also impermissibly deferred the analysis of potential qualifying and disqualifying conditions from the site suitability guidelines to the environmental impact statement, avoiding timely analysis of such critical issues as transportation and socioeconomics, and thereby violating the requirements of section 112(a) of the NWPA. The final environmental impact statement for the Yucca Mountain site, along with the final versions of applicable regulatory standards (Environmental Protection Agency standards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing requirements, and Department site suitability guidelines) must be in place in order for the public and others to understand the basis for the Secretarial consideration, and for public hearings to take place. Without the final EIS and these key elements of the regulatory scheme, the Department is asking the public to comment upon an inchoate proposal supported only by proposed regulations and preliminary environmental review. For the foregoing reasons, this office requests that the public hearings and public comment period required by section 114(a)(1) of the NWPA, as amended, be postponed until the Department has issued a final environmental impact statement for the Yucca Mountain site; and until applicable regulations (including the health and safety standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Yucca Mountain site, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed licensing requirements for that repository, and the Department's proposed site suitability guidelines required by section 112(a) of the Act) have been issued in final form. I look forward to your prompt and specific response to this request. Please confirm that your response reflects the Department's final determination on how it will proceed with respect to the hearings, comments and timing of the release of the final environmental impact statement. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.Response Mr. Loux, writing for Governor Guinn, indicates opposition to a recommendation by the Secretary citing: the lack of a final environmental impact statement and final regulations before hearings are held, requesting a postponement of public hearings and the public comment period until those documents are issued. Mr. Loux's comments were specifically addressed in a letter dated July 18, 2001, from Mr. Lake Barrett, Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, to Mr. Loux. Mr. Barrett's letter stated:
This letter responds to your May 15, 2001, letter in which you express concern regarding the Department's notice to Governor Guinn, as well as the Governors and Legislatures in other states, of the initiation of the public comment period on the Secretary's consideration of a possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada to the President for development as a spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste repository. I understand your objective to ensure that Nevadans have adequate information upon which to formulate their comments on the Secretary's consideration of the Yucca Mountain site for recommendation to the President. We believe the Department's initiation of a public comment period at this time supports this objective, and is not inappropriate or unlawful. To facilitate public review and comment on the large amount of information the Department has compiled over the years regarding the Yucca Mountain site, the Department issued this May the Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report (YMS&ER). The information and data compiled in this report addresses the subjects described in section 114(a)(1)(A)-(C) of the NWPA, as amended. By providing this information to the public well in advance of public hearings, the Department sought to enhance the ability of the public to review and comment on the data the Department has compiled to date. Of course, members of the public are free to comment on matters not covered in the YMS&ER, such as transportation or socioeconomic issues, as they deem appropriate. The scientific and technical work on the Yucca Mountain project is continuing, as it should, to produce the best available data and information to support a site recommendation decision by the Secretary. Other activities are also planned to provide the public with additional data and information. For example, the Department plans to issue this summer another report providing updated scientific data and analyses and a preliminary evaluation of the suitability of the site for a repository. After the [sic] issuing these reports, the Department plans to announce dates for public hearings on a possible site recommendation and will set a closing date for the public comment period. The Department welcomes your views, along with other members of the public, throughout this process. You also requested in your letter confirmation that my response reflects the Department's final determination on how it will proceed with respect to hearings, comments, and the timing of the release of the final environmental impact statement. I cannot confirm for you that our present plans for proceeding toward a site recommendation decision are our final plans. I can assure you, however, that any decision on the recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site will be reached in accordance with applicable laws, will be based on sound science and technology, and will consider the views expressed by the public, the State of Nevada, and other interested entities.Subsequent to that letter, final NRC licensing regulations and DOE guidelines specific to Yucca Mountain, 10 CFR Part 63, and 10 CFR Part 963, respectively, were promulgated. The DOE performed supplemental analyses, to the extent necessary, to evaluate performance against the final standards established by the EPA, as implemented by the NRC. In November 2001, the DOE posted several additional documents to its Yucca Mountain Internet Site (www.ymp.gov). These documents included: (1) "Total System Performance Assessment—Analyses for Disposal of Commercial and DOE Waste Inventories at Yucca Mountain—Input to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Site Suitability Evaluation";1 (2) "Total System Performance Assessment Sensitivity Analyses for Final Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations";2 and (3) "Technical Update Impact Letter Report."3 On November 14, 2001, the DOE announced a supplemental 30-day comment period to afford the public an additional opportunity to comment on information that was not available during the comment period that ended on October 19, 2001, including the final NRC licensing regulations and DOE guidelines, and the documents cited above (66 FR 57049). The DOE also held nine additional public hearings around the State of Nevada during this period.
2.6 NORTH CAROLINA
2.6.1 North Carolina—Governor's Office
2.6.1 (13974) North Carolina Governor Easley| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| North Carolina, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220013 |
| Easley, Governor Michael |
As you know, the State of North Carolina and the rest of the nation face a critical need to permanently dispose of spent fuel from nuclear energy plants. Significant scientific results have been achieved in this effort; yet, delays have put the federal repository program more than a decade behind schedule. Over the past 15 years, the federal government has spent approximately $7 billion in studying Yucca Mountain. The electricity consumers of North Carolina have supported this effort with payments of more than $964 million to the Nuclear Waste Fund for permanent disposal of spent fuel. Following intense scrutiny and oversight by more than a dozen state and federal organizations, scientists have found no substantial reason to doubt that the remote and arid Yucca Mountain site is well suited for disposing of spent nuclear fuel. Studies indicate that the proposed repository can contain these radioactive materials safely for 10,000 years or longer. The scientific evidence collected to date supports an affirmative decision on Yucca Mountain. It seems clear that this option is far superior to continued temporary storage at 78 separate sites throughout 35 states. Since the federal government has not met its disposal obligation, North Carolina has accumulated 2,248 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at its existing nuclear plant sites. In order to move beyond this temporary solution, it is imperative that progress be maintained on the evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site. Critical milestones must be met this year by the Department of Energy, including issuing the Site Recommendation Considerations Report and, ultimately, a recommendation by the Secretary on the suitability of the site. I urge you to make spent nuclear fuel disposal a key priority for your administration at this critical point in the approval process for Yucca Mountain.Response Governor Easley indicates support for a recommendation by the Secretary citing: (1) the need to permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel in North Carolina and the rest of the United States, (2) the payment of over $964 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund by electricity consumers in North Carolina, (3) the scientific evidence supporting a decision on Yucca Mountain, and (4) continued at-reactor storage. The NWPA provides for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect public health and safety and the environment. With the passage of the NWPA, the national policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was defined to be geologic disposal. In 1990, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences reconfirmed the overall concept of geologic disposal, noting that there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that geological disposal, the approach followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report titled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2 Although, as stated in the NWPA, the federal government has the responsibility, the cost of developing a repository is the responsibility of the generators and owners of the waste. Specifically, in the "Findings" section (Section 111(a)(4)) of the NWPA, Congress stated that "...while the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the costs of such disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel...." Since the passage of the Act, nuclear power generating utilities and their ratepayers have paid about $9.8 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for development of a repository. Expenditures from the Fund have been used for the purposes specified in the NWPA, such as site characterization and development of preliminary engineering specifications. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. Awaiting the development of a repository, the owners of nuclear power plants are currently storing the waste and spent fuel at the reactor sites. At-reactor spent nuclear fuel storage systems, such as spent fuel pools, have been operated for decades without undue risk to the general public or nuclear plant personnel, but they were not designed for long-term permanent storage of this material. Spent fuel pools, by design, require multiple active support systems to maintain the spent nuclear fuel in a safe manner. Such systems require continuous technical and management oversight. Moreover, according to utility reports, the spent fuel pools at many reactor sites already have or soon will run out of storage space. In order to avoid potential premature shutdowns and a significant loss of electrical generating capability, a number of utilities have decided to add dry storage systems to provide additional onsite storage. While dry storage systems do not require active components to keep the spent nuclear fuel cool, such systems must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. In addition, 24-hour security must be provided to safeguard the stored materials. The Secretary is committed to proceeding with the site recommendation process, as established by the NWPA. This process will be based upon the scientific and technical information gathered to date and with due consideration of the views and comments of the public.
2.7 OHIO
2.7.1 Ohio—Governor's Office
2.7.1 (2064) Ohio Governor Taft| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Ohio, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220002 |
| Taft, Governor Bob |
I am rather concerned about the continued increase in storage of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power plants along the shore of Lake Erie. The perpetuation of such storage along the Great Lakes will increase the risk of potentially affecting these waters over time. Last fall, I unveiled a comprehensive Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan to improve the environmental, recreational and economic assets of our great lake. Thus, I am compelled to speak out against such endangerment without just cause. Accordingly, I strongly urge the Department of Energy to move forward expeditiously to establish an operable repository for the ultimate disposal of such waste. I am keenly aware of the current effort by the Department of Energy to pursue establishment of a repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982. As a matter of policy, this also includes Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) radioactive waste. The proposed site in Nevada has been studied for quite some time. In fact, after fifteen years of study, the Viability Assessment report on this site did not reveal any information that the site was unsuitable. It was recognized by the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, who is responsible for evaluating the technical and scientific validity of activities to characterize the suitability of this site, that not all uncertainties about the repository may be resolved fully at the time of determining site suitability. Nonetheless, it is their understanding that this process would move forward with the expectation of minimizing any such uncertainty. In consideration of the extensive scientific studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the effort to determine site suitability should be accelerated. This will permit a recommendation to the President this year, as planned, on whether the site is suitable as a repository. This can only benefit all of those impacted by the absence of adequate disposal for such waste, including the citizens of Ohio.Response Governor Taft indicates support for a recommendation by the Secretary citing a desire to move spent nuclear fuel from locations close to the Great Lakes. The Governor also indicates his belief that the site investigations associated with Yucca Mountain have been extensive and are sufficient to support a decision by the Secretary. The NWPA provides for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to protect public health and safety and the environment. With the passage of the NWPA, the national policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was defined to be geologic disposal. In 1990, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences reconfirmed the overall concept of geologic disposal, noting that there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that geological disposal, the approach followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste."1 The Academy in 2001 again confirmed the geologic disposal concept in a report titled "Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges."2 Although, as stated in the NWPA, the federal government has the responsibility, the cost of developing a repository is the responsibility of the generators and owners of the waste. Specifically, in the "Findings" section (Section 111(a)(4)) of the NWPA, Congress stated that "...while the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the costs of such disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel...." Since the passage of the Act, nuclear power generating utilities and their ratepayers have paid about $9.8 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for development of a repository. Expenditures from the Fund have been used for the purposes specified in the NWPA, such as site characterization and development of preliminary engineering specifications. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. Awaiting the development of a repository, the owners of nuclear power plants are currently storing the waste and spent fuel at the reactor sites. At-reactor spent nuclear fuel storage systems, such as spent fuel pools, have been operated for decades without undue risk to the general public or nuclear plant personnel, but they were not designed for long-term permanent storage of this material. Spent fuel pools, by design, require multiple active support systems to maintain the spent nuclear fuel in a safe manner. Such systems require continuous technical and management oversight. Moreover, according to utility reports, the spent fuel pools at many reactor sites already have or soon will run out of storage space. In order to avoid potential premature shutdowns and a significant loss of electrical generating capability, a number of utilities have decided to add dry storage systems to provide additional onsite storage. While dry storage systems do not require active components to keep the spent nuclear fuel cool, such systems must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with regulatory standards. In addition, 24-hour security must be provided to safeguard the stored materials. A repository developed in accordance with the NWPA could only receive spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. A change either by legislation or NRC rule would be required to permit disposal of greater than Class C materials in a repository at Yucca Mountain. The Secretary is committed to proceeding with the site recommendation process, as established by the NWPA. This process will be based upon the scientific and technical information gathered to date and with due consideration of the views and comments of the public.
2.8 TENNESSEE
2.8.1 Tennessee—Governor's Office
2.8.1 (14661) Tennessee Governor Sundquist| Commenter | Comment Document No. |
| Tennessee, State of, Office of the Governor | SR220008 |
| Sundquist, Governor Don |
I am writing on behalf of the State of Tennessee concerning the Yucca Mountain preliminary site suitability evaluation. We are presenting these comments for consideration by the Secretary of Energy as he develops his recommendation to the President regarding the development of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as a spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste geologic repository. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this nationally significant issue. Tennesse