Columnist Benjamin Grove: Withholding of Yucca information won’t fly

Benjamin Grove

Friday, June 27, 2003 | 5:41 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION

June 28-29, 2003

Benjamin Grove covers Washington, D.C., for the Sun. He can be reached at grove@lasvegassun.com or (202) 662-7245.

NEVADA OFFICIALS FOR YEARS have cataloged what they believe to be the numerous flaws in the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository project, ranging from the obvious to obscure.

On the obscure end of the range is the possibility that a jet could crash into the surface facility of the site. I wrote a story earlier this month about a June 2002 study of the jet-crash scenario, drafted by top Yucca contractor Bechtel SAIC. It concluded that more analysis was needed of the Nellis Air Force Base jets that fly within 30 miles of Yucca.

But it turns out there's a whole lot more analysis of Yucca aircraft hazards already out there -- specifically, three other Yucca project reports I had not seen until last week.

I had heard about the June 2002 report and requested it specifically from the Energy Department using the Freedom of Information Act. Charlie Fitzpatrick, one of Nevada's Yucca Mountain lawyers, had requested all reports relating to aircraft hazards, and he eventually obtained the other three through a FOIA request of his own. I looked through them last week.

In a nutshell:

A 62-page September 1999 report, "Monitored Geologic Repository Aircraft Crash Frequency Analysis" ultimately concluded that a jet crash at Yucca is "not a credible event."

A 48-page February 2003 report, "Frequency Analysis of Aircraft Hazards for License Application" concluded that the chances of a plane crashing at Yucca are so remote that the issue doesn't warrant "further consideration."

A December 2001 report, "Consequence Analysis of Aircraft Crash into Transportation Cask" was heavily redacted, so it's conclusion is unknown. Citing mostly national security reasons, the department withheld all but 23 pages of the 101-page report, leaving nothing but dull descriptions of airplanes that could conceivably crash in Nevada.

Since the most recent February 2003 report, we have learned that unlike the DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does see a need for "further consideration" of aircraft hazards. The NRC is tasked with the awesome responsibility of licensing Yucca and agency officials are required to take the issue seriously. The NRC in March delayed the licensing of the proposed temporary waste storage area in Utah not based on project flaws cataloged by Utah officials, but because NRC officials wanted more analysis on -- of all things -- possible jet crashes.

NRC officials have told the Energy Department that they want more data about the likelihood of a crash at Yucca, too -- and much more information about the consequence of one. In a May 19, 2003, internal memo, NRC high-level waste branch chief Janet Schlueter requested that the same NRC specialist who reviewed the Utah jet-crash analysis, Dr. Kazimieras Campe, spend 480 hours over the next 12 months reviewing DOE jet-crash analysis at Yucca.

As for the mysterious December 2001 report, it naturally raises more questions than it answers. Among them: If the DOE has studied the issue of a jet crash into a moving waste container, where is the consequence report about a crash at the massive, fixed-target surface facility at Yucca?

And why the redactions? The department won't release the interesting parts of the report because it would cause "considerable harm and circumvention of matters of national security and risk the protection of sensitive critical infrastructure information," according to the DOE letter to Fitzpatrick.

It should be noted that the critical infrastructure doesn't even exist -- Yucca is still seven years or more from being constructed. If the report says the attack would be a fiery awful mess, shouldn't state leaders and emergency responders nationwide know that? And shouldn't that information be released so the public can hold the department accountable for devising a waste container that best withstands an attack?

"By withholding the information, they are essentially saying, 'We are reserving the right to go to field with the cask we have, regardless of the consequence analysis,' " Fitzpatrick said.

And if the report concludes that the massive high-tech waste containers would hold up well in such a highly unlikely attack, then shouldn't that information also be public, and in the hands of terrorists?

Fitzpatrick last week filed an appeal to obtain the missing material.

In the end, aircraft hazards still may seem like an obscure issue. It probably won't be the show-stopper that Nevada officials have long sought. But it matters because it's one more factor in the larger case that Nevadans have made against the project.

And it matters because it matters to the NRC, the last federal agency to decide the fate of Yucca Mountain.