Yucca Mountain, the site of the US's 'cancelled' repository for high level nuclear waste. Photo: White House via Wikimedia Commons.
- Why did the US need toxic uranium munitions to destroy fuel tankers in Syria?
- Copeland by-election: opposing nuclear power, and voting Green, is the only rational choice
- And then he came for the animals - is Donald Trump trying to make puppy mills great again?
- Indigenous land rights could halt Australia's largest coal mining project
Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump is all too 'undead'
1st November 2014
The Yucca Mountain radioactive dump may have been officially 'cancelled', writes John LaForge, and with very good reason. But like all those zombies out for Hallowe'en last night, it's not dead yet, as US nuclear regulators declare that the site perfectly meets nuclear waste storage requirements.
Among the hazards are fast flowing water inside the mountain, earthquake faults, lava flows, and the risk of exploding waste canisters.
Although the Obama Administration cancelled the Yucca Mountain project for disposing high-level radioactive waste (uranium fuel rods) in 2009, the scheme stays amazingly undead.
Last month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the third in a series of reports in which it declared that the deep, engineered cavern inside the mountain - 90 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada - meet the commission's ever-changing (Eric Pianin, 'Rules changed for Nevada nuclear waste site plan', Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2001) requirements.
Still pending are two more reports and a final NRC ruling on the site's suitability. Actual operation of the dump also requires approval from the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Transportation and Energy (DOE).
Of course, lawsuits by the State of Nevada and dozens of environmental groups would follow a decision to start burying waste.
In spite of 70 years of head scratching, science and industry have not found a cheap way to 'dispose' of high-level radioactive waste. In 2008, the plan was estimated to cost at least $90 billion.
The DOE's 1999 draft environmental impact statement for Yucca, says that leaving the wastes at 72 US reactor sites in 39 states is just as safe as moving it thousands of miles toward Yucca Mt. - as long as it is repackaged every 100 years.
There is no need to rush the opening a dumpsite, except that reactor operators want to free-up storage space for freshly produced waste so they can keep running old reactors.
Yucca Mountain project cancelled for hundreds of reasons
While Republicans from nuclear-heavy states are pushing to revive the Yucca project and hoping for a November take-over of the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., broadcasts the science-based disqualifiers that prove Yucca unsuitable.
Among them are fast flowing water inside the mountain, earthquake faults, lava flows, and the risk of exploding waste canisters - like the one that burst and wrecked the Energy Department's Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico last February.
Joonhong Ahn, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an e-mail to ScienceInsider.com, "... there are still numerous hurdles ahead."
Indeed, the Government Accounting Office concluded in 2001 that 293 unresolved scientific and engineering problems hinder the plan. ('GAO Challenges Plans for Storage of Nuclear Waste', Washington Post, Nov. 30, 2001)
Responding to the new report, Nevada state officials made the same point. As Bob Halstead, Executive Director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, set out in a prepared statement:
"The NRC licensing board has admitted more than 200 Nevada contentions challenging the safety and environmental impacts of the proposed repository, and Nevada is prepared to aggressively prosecute these challenges. It is not apparent that the [NRC report] specifically addressed these and other safety contentions.
"For the NRC staff to publically release just this one volume of the 5-volume Safety Evaluation Report outside the proper context of an ongoing licensing proceeding, and in the absence of a complete SER, is unprecedented.
"It creates a false impression that the safety review has been completed. It is difficult to see what reason there could be for such a release except to provide political support and encouragement for Yucca Mountain supporters in Congress and elsewhere."
This false impression was spectacularly exaggerated by Rep. John Shimkus, R-Mich., who told the New York Times Oct. 17, "nuclear waste stored under that mountain ... will be safe and secure for at least a million years."
Nuclear waste production is kept alive by Yucca supporters
Yucca Mountain wouldn't begin to address the country's vast nuclear waste problem. There already are about 70,000 tons of it stored at reactor sites. This stockpile would fill Yucca to capacity and force the start of a search for Dump No. 2.
Waste that must be containerized for a million years is the 'animated corpse' that will forever haunt our clean, cheap too-safe-to-meter nuclear power complex.
The Yucca Mountain 'mobile Chernobyl' idea - and alternate plans for regional 'interim' dumps - also explodes the risks of radiation accidents contaminating waste handlers and the people along transport routes.
The DOE's planning maps show the waste passing through 40 states, 40 Indian Reservations and 100 major cities. In January 2008, former state transportation analyst Fred Dilger caused alarm when he told a Hillary Clinton campaign rally that if waste trains go through Las Vegas, "All of the casinos on the west side of Las Vegas Boulevard would be bathed in gamma radiation."
The shipments, using as-yet-untested waste casks, would expose between 138 and 161 million Americans to the risks of dangerous levels of radiation and to the consequences of inevitable truck, train and barge accidents.
Even the project's Final Environmental Impact Statement predicts between 150 and 250 rail or truck crashes over the plan's 25-year span - about 10 crashes every year for 25 years.
That's an undying prospect scary enough for a million Halloweens.
John LaForge writes for PeaceVoice, is co-director of Nukewatch-a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group-and lives at the Plowshares Land Trust out of Luck, Wisconsin.
This article was originally published on CounterPunch.
Using this website means you agree to us using simple cookies.