Monday, Jan. 5, 2004 | 11:14 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the Energy Department has not provided enough information to support its answers to questions the commission posed regarding Yucca Mountain.
In a letter sent late last month, a commission staff member reviewing the documents said she could not determine whether the department has answered the questions fully, leaving many issues still unresolved about the proposed nuclear waste dump's safety.
The Energy Department has been working since September 2001 on answering 293 scientific questions, or "key technical issues," that revolve around Yucca Mountain's ability to keep radiation from contaminating the surrounding environment once nuclear waste is stored there.
The department plans to store 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. So far, answers to 83 questions have been completed and accepted by the commission.
Since September the Energy Department has submitted 53 responses to the commission as it tries to finish the remaining questions by this summer. It wants to submit its license application to the NRC by the end of this year. Of those responses only 14 "appear to have adequately addressed" the original question, said Janet Schlueter, head of the commission's high-level waste branch, while 39 of the responses review "do not appear to fully satisfy the agreements."
Schlueter's Dec. 23 letter lists about 50 documents it still needs from the Energy Department to move ahead with its review of how water could seep into the tunnels holding the waste, how water moves through the mountain and possible volcanic activity. The NRC is also looking at other issues related to the safety of Yucca Mountain.
Water is detrimental to the Energy Department's plan since it could not only transport radiation faster than expected, but also could lead to corrosion of the waste containers holding the spent fuel, which could lead to leaks.
Schlueter said this morning that the Energy Department is not providing all of the documentation it refers to in its answers, leaving her staff "digging" for information. She said the answers will refer to a specific technical document the department may have but did not submit with its answer.
"DOE has not routinely provided supporting information, most of which is also not publicly available," Schlueter wrote. "NRC expects DOE to provide NRC with all information requested in the original agreements. To date the summary explanation contained within the various technical basis documents has not been sufficient."
Joseph Ziegler, director of the Energy Department's office of License Application and Strategy on the project, wrote the commission on Dec. 23 with a new plan on how to provide access to the right documents.
Schlueter said the letters "crossed in the mail" and her staff is still in the middle of evaluating Ziegler's plan.
Nevada's congressional members were unhappy with what they heard about the Energy Department's responses.
"DOE is trying to skate by on a shoestring in order to get this repository approved," said Amy Spanbauer, spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. "They are trying to do the least amount of work, and that's not good enough for the people of Nevda."
Spanbauer said Nevada residents have a right to have full documentation of the process and have the answers regarding the site's safety answered fully.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said, "This letter only serves to show that the DOE continues to not do their homework and fails to provide critical information to the public."
Public Citizen, a nonprofit that strongly opposes the project, said it's par for the course for the DOE.
"Every time I think I have a good idea of how incompetent the Energy Department is, something like this comes up. They never let me down," said Brendan Hoffman a Public Citizen organizer.
"How can this inspire any confidence in DOE's ability to design a safe repository?"
archive
