10/
02/
2004
09:
11
AM
To:
Betsy
Forinash/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Ray
Clark/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Elizabeth
Cotsworth/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
Re:
Your
comments
on
the
EPA
Standard
for
Yucca
Mountain
Betsy,
I
would
be
pleased
to
respond
if
you
have
further
questions.
I
would
like
to
add
a
couple
of
points
here
that
I
did
not
make
in
my
comment
to
Jeff
Holmstead:

1.
The
proposed
change
to
Part
197.35
can
be
issued
as
a
final
rule
immediately.
I
cited
the
specific
words
that
EPA
used
in
choosing
between
the
two
alternatives
(
applying
the
standard
out
to
peak
dose
or
staying
with
10,000
years)
because
I
believe
that
EPA
discussed
the
points
thoroughly
and
made
a
policy
choice
to
stay
with
"
reasonable
expectation
of
compliance
out
to
10,000
years.
The
Court
decision
appears
to
have
the
force
of
a
remand
of
that
choice
back
to
EPA.
Since
EPA
has
already
noted
that
"
such
long­
term
projections...
need
to
be
considered
cautiously",
I
believe
that
EPA
can
modify
Part
197.35
to
apply
the
standard
in
the
cautious
manner
I
propose
by
immediately
effective
rulemaking,
without
the
need
for
issuing
the
change
for
public
comment.

2.
This
same
gap,
applying
the
compliance
standard
beyond
10,000
years,
exists
for
40CFR
Part
191.
However,
I
believe
that
the
one
case,
WIPP,
does
not
pose
a
problem
since
the
long­
term
projections
appear
to
meet
the
compliance
standard.

Bob
Bernero
