Nevada considered for new type of nuke waste

WASHINGTON -- Already at odds with Nevada over a proposed site to store spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, the Department of Energy is eyeing the state as a possible destination for another new stream of nuclear waste.

The DOE is proposing to evaluate the Yucca site and the Nevada Test Site for the disposal of decommissioned nuclear reactor parts, encapsulated sources used in medicine and industry, and contaminated debris from laboratory research.

The material is categorized as the most potent type of low-level contamination, potentially as risky as high-level nuclear waste, although their radioactive elements would not take as long to decay and become less dangerous.

Besides the two Nevada sites, the department proposes environmental studies of six other locations and could recommend one or more for disposal of what is called "greater than Class C" waste.

Other sites to be studied are the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Hanford site in Washington state, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Savannah River site in South Carolina, the Idaho National Laboratory and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.

Depending on the disposal strategy and the sites that are selected, the waste could be put in a deep underground repository, in deep bore holes or in near-surface trenches or vaults.

A draft recommendation is expected by spring or summer 2008, project document manager Jamie Joyce said.

Once studies are completed, the Energy Department will report to Congress, but it cannot act further until directed, said Christine Gelles, director of the DOE Office of Disposal Operations.

Besides the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, the Energy Department operates a disposal pit for low-level radioactive waste at Yucca Flat in the northeastern part of the sprawling Nevada Test Site.

Nevada officials already trying to kill the Yucca Mountain repository for high-level nuclear waste have signaled that they also would oppose efforts to ship additional forms of radioactive waste into the state.

"From a policy perspective, we don't want to see any additional waste stream brought into Nevada or the test site of any kind," said Bob Loux, director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., "is closely watching DOE's low-level waste management plans and will do everything in his power to protect the health and safety of all Nevadans," spokesman Jon Summers said.

The Energy Department has held scoping meetings near the potential sites. The proposal got negative reviews at meetings in the Pacific Northwest, while residents of Carlsbad, N.M., the site of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, were most welcoming, according to officials.

A Sept. 4 hearing in Las Vegas drew about 20 people, including a half-dozen speakers, officials said.

At a final scoping meeting Monday in Washington, representatives of nuclear activist groups urged the DOE to perform wide-ranging and deep environmental studies. Some recommended that the material be kept with tight security at current sites.

The material "in many regards is comparable to high-level nuclear waste," said Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear, an activist group.

DOE officials said the amount of radioactive material they are seeking to dispose is relatively small, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the low-level waste generated. DOE expects that 5,600 cubic meters will require disposal by 2062, roughly enough to cover half a football field to a one-yard depth.

But Gelles said the radioactivity generated by the materials is seven times greater than that of other low-level waste.

Yucca Mountain should be removed from the study list, said Diane D'Arrigo, radioactive waste project director at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

"Yucca Mountain isn't close to being licensed, and if it is licensed, it has a capacity problem," D'Arrigo said. "Yucca Mountain should not be on the table. It is a waste of taxpayer money for it to be considered for this."

Because much of the waste would come from nuclear plants, D'Arrigo said, government disposal was "an additional subsidy to the nuclear industry."