NRC: Terrorism not factor in nuke licensing

Benjamin Grove and Cy Ryan

Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2003 | 11:15 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ruled that it does not need to consider terrorism risks when it licenses nuclear facilities, but it's not clear if that would apply to Yucca Mountain.

If it does, the ruling would deal a blow to Nevada officials and other opponents of the planned nuclear waste repository. As part of a long anti-Yucca campaign, they have prodded federal officials to consider terrorism risks to the site, as well as the risks of shipping waste.

"This administration is calling upon Congress to spend billions of dollars for homeland security," Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said. "To remove the most vulnerable areas of this nation, which are our nuclear facilities, from a study of potential terrorist threats is absolutely the most foolhardy decision possible."

The NRC, which licenses all nuclear facilities and would license the Yucca Mountain repository, handed down the ruling last month in a case involving a proposed temporary waste storage site in Utah; a waste storage facility in Connecticut; and three nuclear reactor facilities owned by Duke Energy.

The NRC said it would not consider terrorism risks when licensing the facilities because the risk was too speculative. The NRC can't calculate the probability of an attack, the ruling said.

The commission also said discussing terrorism as part of licensing hearings would give information to terrorists and could "unduly alarm the public."

NRC officials said today that it is not clear yet if the ruling will also apply to the Yucca project, which aims to construct a national nuclear waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Department of Energy, which manages the project, intends to apply for an NRC license in December 2004, and it would take the NRC three to four years to review and act on the license application.

"It's just too early to say," NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner said.

But the ruling clearly sets a bad precedent, several anti-Yucca activists said.

For the NRC to ignore a terrorism risk because it is speculative is "absurd," said Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute.

"For a government agency to make such a statement in today's elevated threat environment is irresponsible and dangerous," Lyman said.

Lisa Gue an analyst with Public Citizen, an environmental and consumer advocacy group, predicted the NRC would likely apply the ruling to Yucca Mountain, unless Nevada officials and other project opponents can make persuasive arguments against it.

"This is an indication of a very concerning posture the NRC is adopting," Gue said. "Just because the NRC can't calculate a danger doesn't mean that the danger doesn't exist."

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed. "The NRC may be unable to factor the risk of a terrorist attack, but the consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility would be catastrophic," Reid said in a statement released by his office.

The NRC recognizes the threat, "so they've come up with this ruling to further preempt any kind of honest evaluation of the merits of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain," Reid said.

That's not true, a nuclear industry spokesman today said. Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobby group, said the Department of Energy and the NRC are carefully considering terrorism risks in Yucca Mountain's design, whether or not the risks are at issue in licensing.

"It is still a factor in all the planning, even if it is not a codified factor in the licensing process," Singer said.

Nevada's leading Yucca watchdog did not seem too concerned about the NRC ruling.

"I understand this will be challenged in court by other parties,"said Robert Loux, director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency. He said lawsuits might be filed by the Nuclear Control Institute and by groups in Utah and Georgia.

Loux argued that Nevada should be allowed to make its terrorism-risk arguments, but even if the NRC ruling ultimately applies to Yucca, it would not greatly hinder Nevada's wide-ranging legal case against the project. The NRC decision "is not a major show-stopper" for the state's case, he said.

Nevada has a number of suits filed in the U.S Court of Appeals in Washington challenging Yucca rules set by several federal agencies.

Loux stressed that Nevada officials have made many detailed arguments against Yucca, including an outline of flaws in the science behind the site selection.

"Terrorism is not our overriding issue," Loux said.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams, who is coordinating the legal fight against the dump, said she can't understand the NRC ruling in a post-Sept. 11 era. "Here they are trying to send us all these (radioactive materials)," she said. "It doesn't make sense to me."

The New York Times

and Sun reporter Mary Manning contributed to this report.