Finding a Radioactive Dump

If Not Yucca Mtn., Where?

By Richard Martin, 6-06-08

	Caption: It's under here somewhere

After 30 years of often acrimonious argument between the federal government and the state of Nevada, the Department of Energy this week submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to store radioactive waste at the underground facility at Yucca Mountain.

Unfortunately, the state’s case against storing containers nuclear material underneath the barren plateau gained some credence this week when Holtec International, a big manufacturer of nuclear waste storage systems, released a report sharply criticizing the Yucca Mountain plan. Containers stored temporarily aboveground to await burial, Holtec claims, could become “a chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts” in the case of an earthquake at the site.

The Los Angeles Times story on the Holtec comments waits until paragraph eight to mention that the company has a vested interest here: “In May, the government rejected a proposal from Holtec for a temporary underground storage system that the company says would maintain safety in the event of earthquakes and airplane crashes.”

Meanwhile, the 77,000 tons of radioactive waste awaiting permanent disposition is scattered at nuclear plants around the country, often stored in aging barrels in “temporary” holding pools of water that have been in place for a couple of decades. As Graeme Wood writes on The Atlantic Web site, the DOE’s solution to this slow motion disaster may not be perfect – “But the waste has to go somewhere, and Yucca Mountain is the right spot.”

[End of article]

I'm pretty sure Holtec's interest is merely for itself. However it is a valid, if far fetched, concern. One reason Yucca mountain was chosen (among many others) is that it's tectonically/geologically very stable. Earthquakes are unlikely there. More likely yes is the crash of a plane into it. Reasonable steps should be taken to protect against disasters like that mostly because it can be nearly impossible to clean up that much high level waste should it escape. It's never going to be foolproof, or 100% safe. Nothing is mistake-proof. *far* more likely than any of those scenarios is the human factor, one or more people making a mistake or mistakes resulting in the release of dangerous amounts of nuclear waste. There's no foolproof way to avoid that, the best that can be done is to have a culture of safety, not complacency, and one of studied and intelligent caution. It has to be moderated though, being too cautious can cause just as many deaths as not being cautious enough! The situation right now is worse as there's far more danger of accidental (or malicious) contamination. Yucca mountain is better, but it's not perfect. And yes I'd feel the same way if I were living near Yucca in Nevada.

Is there water running out of western slope Utah anywhere..?

The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil fuel plant. Nuclear power is one of the least cost-effective ways in which to cut CO2 emissions

With its high cost, long construction time, high environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change.

What are the real options? A mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions.

A lot of information on Yucca Mountain is getting out to the public and a lot is not. There has been some notable recent seismic activity in Nevada that may not fit the accepted patterns and studies now suggest that the speed of moisture movement within the formation may have been underestimated. These may indicate that the geologic timeline for the formation may be on a faster clock than we thought. So, it may be that Yucca Mountain is not as "tectonically/geologically very stable" as we thought and earthquakes might not really be so "unlikely there" after all.

Yucca Mountain may be a good place for nuclear waste and it may not be. I don't know for sure; it depends on your point of view. But, I do know one thing, if you listen to any one industry group and their commercial/political minions, you'll get railroaded down one path, regardless of the other options. I believe nuclear does have a place in the mix, at least the nearterm mix; but, 1) it isn't a silver bullet (for all the reasons mentioned by Jon Cheever and more); 2) it is temporary (those big high energy isotopes are also a finite resource, even with breeder technology, and, at the rate we are burning energy, fission appears to be a 50 to 80 year fix at most and then it's gone (they don't explain that to the public either, do they?)); and 3) it is another centralized "we at the corporate office will control it and dole it out to you little people at the rate we need to support our, not necessarily your, lifestyle" subscription approach that perpetuates the MBA as dope dealer and spreads the kind of counterproductive political, social, and economic corruption that makes it so hard for us to make rational choices as a species. If we have to use it to bridge our past foolishness, then so be it; but, let's make it a leashed tool for our use and not the next pitcher of toxic corporate kool-aid.

If not Yucca how about the most viable solution to the problem.

The University of Utah Center for Public Policy and Administration stated in a December 12, 2005, article “Nuclear Waste Summary” “The subductive waste disposal method is the most viable means of disposing of radioactive waste. Subduction refers to a process in which one tectonic plate slides beneath another while being reabsorbed into the Earth's mantle. The Subductive Waste Disposal Method involves the formation of a radioactive waste repository in a subducting plate where the waste will be absorbed along with the plate and dispersed through the mantle. The most accessible site is on the ocean floor at a point above where subducting plates meet and, once filled, the repositories would be virtually inaccessible. This method would prevent radioactive waste from mixing with the water table, provide inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material, remove radioactive waste completely from its threatening position, and be safe for marine life."