|
The Nuclear Waste Crisis
By Mary-Kate Smith
Now that the U.S. has reaped the so-called benefit from "clean" nuclear power for decades, the time has come to solve the problem of the highly radioactive nuclear waste. Nuclear power is no longer "too cheap to meter," as the nuclear advocates declared in the 1960s and 1970s. Yet the problem and expense of disposal/ storage of 40,000 metric tons of radioactive waste as well as the projected 65,000 metric tons that will be produced in the years to come is not even close to being resolved.
On July 23, and over the strenuous veto of the Governor of Nevada, the President signed into law a joint resolution that approves the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must still approve the Department of Energy’s application to make Yucca Mountain the nation’s nuclear waste dump. But we can safely assume that the NRC will eventually approve Yucca Mountain, located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the site for the nation’s nuclear waste repository that will store 77,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste from across the nation. Sadly, storing the nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain will not solve America’s nuclear waste problem, and most likely will only create more problems.
Currently, the 72 operating and closed nuclear power plants in the U.S. store their nuclear waste on site. Spent fuel is first placed in cooling pools after it is removed from the reactors. The spent fuel is so hot it has to be cooled from 5 to 10 years before it can be removed from the pools. After the spent fuel is cooled, it may be removed and stored in dry casks constructed out of concrete or steel containers. Some of the reactor sites, like the Dominion Millstone Power Station in Connecticut, are reaching their maximum storage capacity.
The Department of Energy (DOE), the office that is responsible for overseeing the construction and operation of the repository, has not looked at other possible sites. Yucca Mountain has been the only site proposed for a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste. The decision to focus only on Yucca Mountain was more political than scientific. In fact, the scientific data that supposedly demonstrates Yucca Mountain’s suitability for storing nuclear waste is murky and questionable. As the Hartford Courant reported, three government agencies, including the General Accounting Office, which is closely reviewing the project, doubt that the DOE has the necessary evidence to ensure the safety of the repository.
In 1986, the federal government assumed responsibility of the nation’s nuclear waste and passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which provided that a permanent nuclear waste repository be built by 1998. In 1997, Congress selected Yucca Mountain as the only site to be considered. The federal government missed its 1998 deadline and the pressure mounted to establish a national repository. Before the site was even approved, the DOE began constructing the facility and investigating the site for suitability, spending at least $6 billion. The DOE has been studying Yucca Mountain for more than 20 years. It is unlikely that the government would turn away from the site after such an enormous investment. And at least seventeen lawsuits have been brought by energy companies, including one from Connecticut, seeking reimbursement for the costs of on-site storage and security that have been incurred because of the federal government’s failure to take the nuclear waste (which these companies produced as part of a profit-making venture).
The nuclear power industry has contributed more than $40 million in soft money to election campaigns. During the 2000 election, $13.8 million was contributed to candidates and more than two-thirds of it went to Republicans. More than $300,000 went to George W. Bush.
Nuclear waste such as that slated for "disposal" at Yucca Mountain remains extremely radioactive for thousands of years and therefore must be stored in a highly secure area completely isolated from the environment for over 10,000 years. Such high-level nuclear waste poses a threat to our safety and health and to future generations. Small doses of nuclear contamination, such as that which seeps into drinking water, can cause cancer or genetic defects.
Although Yucca Mountain is the approved site, critics argue that there are several problems that will compromise the security of the nuclear waste if it is stored and shipped there:
(1) The natural features of the mountain may not be able to secure the storage containers from water. Initially, scientists believed that the layers of compressed volcanic ash or tuff would protect the containers from water. Subsequent tests have established that rainwater travels through the tuff at a quicker rate than expected. Additionally, the high temperatures of the nuclear waste may cause water to seep from nearby rocks and condense on the containers, causing earlier corrosion than had originally been predicted. Since the site’s natural features will not secure the safe storage of the containers, the DOE has rushed to produce water barriers such as titanium drip shields. Many scientists have also warned that the groundwater under Yucca Mountain may rise up and flood the facility, further compromising the integrity of the containers.
Even if it does not rise and flood the storage area, it is uncertain whether the groundwater under the containers will remain safe. The water table underneath Yucca Mountain is not as deep as initially estimated. If the storage containers begin to decompose, the nuclear waste will likely contaminate the groundwater, allowing contaminated drinking water to spread its cancerous effects to those living nearby.
(2) Volcanoes, earthquakes and hydrothermal activity at Yucca Mountain threaten the safety of the site and the integrity of the containers. The area has tectonic plates that are active, with five major fault lines running under or near the mountain. In 1992, an earthquake measuring 5.6 on the Richter scale trembled the area. Nearby inactive volcanoes also pose a threat because at least one of them has the possibility of erupting.
Generally, the DOE has downplayed the potential destruction a volcanic eruption may cause. But the July issue of Geophysical Research Letters reported that an explosion from dormant volcanoes near the site could discharge lava at a rate of up to 600 miles an hour and fill the repository. The heat and pressure could burst the containers, releasing the highly radioactive waste material into the environment and possibly sending it to the surface. A team of English, Dutch and American scientists have established this report based on a computer program they developed, which models a possible volcanic eruption in the Yucca Mountain area.
(3) The transportation of the highly radioactive nuclear waste throughout the United States poses a very dangerous threat. The DOE and DOT have not yet published the definitive plans for transporting the waste, but we do know that 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste will pass over U.S. highways and railways in 44 states and the District of Columbia. If you are not concerned about the likely disastrous effects of transporting such an enormous amount of nuclear waste throughout the United States, then read "The Hazardous Roads to Yucca Mountain: Nuclear Waste Makes Haste" by Teal Krech in the July 31 issue of the Village Voice. Krech reports that the DOE estimates that there will be 66 truck accidents over the 38 years of the project and about 10 rail accidents. Krech also writes: "Immediate deaths predicted should a train accident occur involving nuclear waste, if that accident is commensurate to last year’s Baltimore tunnel fire, in which a train carrying hazmats derailed, exploded, and burned for four days: 250. Estimated cancer deaths in the 50 years following such an accident: 4,000 to 28,000."
In Connecticut, the routes will most likely include Interstates 91 and 84 as well as the railways through New Haven, Meriden and Hartford. The total shipments through Connecticut are currently estimated at 1,299 truck casks and 325 rail casks.
Yucca Mountain cannot solve all of our nuclear waste storage problems. It is not large enough to store all the nuclear waste produced in the United States. Yucca Mountain’s storage space is capped at 77,000 tons. Currently, we have at least 44,000 metric tons of radioactive waste that is earmarked for Yucca Mountain. Approximately 3,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is produced each year, which means there will be at least 24,000 tons of additional nuclear waste by the time Yucca opens in 2010. Even then it will take at least 30 years to transport the waste to Yucca Mountain. All the while, more waste accumulates.
Adding fuel to the fire, the people near Yucca Mountain have already endured many years of radioactive hardship. The land is already contaminated because the government has performed more than one thousand nuclear test explosions in the area. And the Shoshone Tribe, who oppose the repository at Yucca Mountain, are suing the federal government claiming that Yucca Mountain is part of their land pursuant to the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley.
What is an alternative to the present plan for transporting high-level nuclear waste across the country and storing it at Yucca Mountain? First, we must stop relying on nuclear power. Even though radioactive nuclear waste has caused such a toxic predicament, the Bush Administration’s energy policy supports increasing reliance on nuclear energy as a "clean" alternative to coal-powered energy. The nuclear power industry envisions the addition of 50,000 megawatts of electricity to the U.S. power supply from new nuclear plants and an additional 10,000 megawatts from extending the life of the existing nuclear plants. Following the nuclear power industry’s directive, the administration is advocating for the construction of more nuclear power plants and extending the life of plants that are currently operating.
Although nuclear power plants do not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, nuclear power does leave us with a legacy of toxicity for centuries, if not millennia. Both coal and nuclear power are dirty business. The only really clean energy alternatives are renewables, which are barely a footnote in the administration’s energy policy.
Second, we must ensure the safety of transporting the highly radioactive nuclear waste. The DOE and DOT must develop methods of safely transporting the nuclear waste before they can justify transporting thousands of tons of nuclear waste through the nation’s backyards.
Third, we must find an alternative site that is more environmentally sound for the storage of such dangerous and toxic materials. The government did not compare this site to any other site and did not investigate any other site whatsoever. For an in-depth alternative plan visit the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research website at <www.ieer.org/sdafiles> and check out Volume 7, Number 3.
It’s up to us to end the poisonous cycle of nuclear dependency so that there are no more Yucca Mountains. Your calls and letters are necessary to prod our congresspersons to oppose the administration’s nuclear- and coal-dependent energy plan. Write Representative Nancy Johnson at 2113 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515; Senator Joseph Lieberman at 706 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-0703; and Senator Christopher Dodd at 448 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-0702. Send a letter to President George W. Bush and let him know that you oppose his energy plan because it foolishly includes nuclear energy instead of wisely relying more on clean and environmentally sound renewables; his address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20500.
Ms. Smith is an intern at the Office of the Community Lawyer in Winsted, and a student at UConn Law School.
| 
