Re: Transportation Impacts

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 4/8/02 7:05:21 AM Mountain Daylight Time, rorthen@earthsciences.net writes:



> * Ruth Weiner is correct in her portrayal of the transportation impacts
>
> (accident dose-risk) analysis in the YMEIS.  She did not mention, however,
>
> that pure accident consequences (i.e., doses not weighted by the conditional
>
> probability of each accident "cell" in the matrix) are calculable using the
>
> competitor ANL code RISKIND.  I believe these impacts were also provided in
>
> the FEIS.



In fact I only mentioned RADTRAN in passing -- yes we used RISKIND -- I didn't mean to shortchange RISKIND.  We used both RADTRAN and RISKIND in the EIS.  I use both.  I even train people on both.  Is that satisfactory?


> * John Andrews brings up a great point in that the current analyses stop
>
> short of identifying the full scope of potential accident consequences since
>
> they ignore the costs and potential health effects incurred in the aftermath
>
> scenarios...


Health effects (potential consequences) are EXHAUSTIVELY covered in the EIS.  Costs of cleanup are also discussed.  I was addressing ONLY the fact that the economic module in RADTRAN is not used.  DOE didn't "truncate" anything.  Perhaps Rick Orthen should read the EIS.

  
> * We all should remind ourselves that, while in NEPA-space, we're trying to
>
> identify environmentally-preferred alternatives, not exact answers.


The National Environmental Policy Act requires assessment of the environmental impact of a proposed Federal action and consideration of alternatives, including a "no action" alternative.  A "preferred alternative" is often identified, but need not be.  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act exempted DOE from having to consider alternative repository sites, or alternatives (except for the "no action" alternative) to repository disposal.  Re transportation: many alternative routes and four alternative transportation modes are included in the EIS.  Neither DOE nor anyone else is in a position to identify a "preferred transportation alternative" ten years before transportation begins. 


NEPA is not a vehicle for stopping a project (P. A. Graham wrote an article to this effect in SCIENCE in 1978).  The arguments over EISs are over their adequacy (viz. the Alaska Pipeline EIS).  DOE has gone to considerable lengths to ensure that the Yucca Mountain EIS is adequate in its analyses.   



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com