Aug. 19, 1999
Environmentalists Reject EPA's
Yucca Mountain Radiation Standard
Nevadans likely to suffer increases in cancer and genetic defects
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A coalition of environmental and consumer organizations today strongly rejected the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Yucca Mountain radiation protection standard, saying the proposed regulations are too lenient and will likely lead to serious health problems such as cancer and genetic defects.
The EPA’s proposed rule would set standards for radiation exposure from the proposed storage facility for high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. In 1992, when it became clear that a radiation standard that would protect public health would likely disqualify the site, Congress ordered the EPA to set new standards.
"Drafting a standard that does not fully protect all Nevadans is an example of the federal government ignoring its moral obligation to protect its citizens," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project. "The children of the next 1,000 generations should not be cancer patients because the nuclear industry insists on less protection."
Legislation currently under review in Congress would set standards that would result in even more cancer deaths and ignore the critical issues of groundwater and complete isolation of radioactive particles.
"This is a clear indication of the standard being written to overcome the site's deficiencies," Hauter said.
The Department of Energy's models of Yucca Mountain suggest that the peak dose of radiation will occur in 300,000 years. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the standard should protect public health through the peak dose. However, the draft rule limits the applicable time frame of the standard to the first 10,000 years. The remaining 290,000 years of exposure to future generations is unacceptable. According to the Department of Energy, doses at 100,000 years will be 500 times greater than doses during the first 10,000 years.
"The Clinton administration started off on the wrong foot today. By suggesting a 10,000-year cutoff, future generations are sacrificed to placate the nuclear industry," said Hauter.
Another concern is the EPA’s choice to measure the radiation dose 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the dump as opposed to measuring from the edge of the dump itself. The purpose of a geological repository is to contain and isolate the waste. Therefore, it should have to comply with standards near the actual site of burial, not a dozen miles away.
Using distance to dilute radiation is dangerous because Amargosa Valley is only 30 kilometers from the proposed dump. More than 30,000 gallons of milk from Nevada's largest dairy -- in Amargoso Valley -- is shipped daily to Los Angeles. And crops from Amargosa Valley are shipped as far off as Japan for livestock feed.
The EPA recommends a 4-millirem annual groundwater standard. Protecting the groundwater is critical to the health and safety of future populations. Dilution over distance allows the EPA to claim that its standard is equal to the currently applicable standard for U.S. drinking water sources.
"Scientific studies have shown that Yucca Mountain leaks and would flunk the EPA's groundwater standard if measured at the site. So the administration has proposed a range of distances, all several miles from the dump," Hauter said. "That's like measuring toxic emissions several miles from the chemical plant instead of the smokestack."
Other groups opposing the radiation standard include Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Committee to Bridge the Gap, Friends of the Earth, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Safe Energy Communication Council, Sierra Club, SUN DAY Campaign, Women's Action for New Directions, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Women Legislators' Lobby.