Congress Needs to Wake Up to Nuclear Waste Disposal, Part 1

Over the past 24 years, each time your house oryear. Using the same yardstick since the 1960s, we
business consumed a nuclear-generated kilowatt-hourwould have 40 such mountains of carbon dioxide, but
of electricity, you were billed - by mandate of the U.S.one small football field of nuclear waste.
government - one-tenth of one penny to pay for theA Mountain Which Can Solve the
storage of nuclear waste. And those pennies add up.Current Waste Disposal Issue
Since 1982, the Nuclear Waste Fund has grown toAfter passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the
more than $28 billion. The plan back then was toU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) chose nine locations
safely dispose of the nuclear waste left over afterin six states as potential permanent repository sites.
providing 20 percent of the nation's electricity throughThe DOE whittled this list down to five sites after
nuclear energy. Instead, like a ticking time bomb, aboutvarious technical studies and environmental
40,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods are chilling out inassessments. After intensive scientific study, the DOE
141 concrete cooling ponds never intended forchose its finalists: Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Deaf Smith
long-term use. Many are within a few dozen miles ofCounty, Texas and Hanford, Washington. Following
large cities, such as New York, Philadelphia,lengthy environmental studies of all three sites,
Washington and Miami.Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in
Now, at least nine states are heating up over the1987 and designated Yucca Mountain to be studied as
localized nuclear waste issue. On September 13th,the final destination for nuclear waste.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined state"We've been studying Yucca Mountain for 22 years,"
attorneys general in California, Connecticut, Maine,Steven Kraft told us during a recent telephone
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,interview. Mr. Kraft is mechanical engineer who serves
Vermont and Wisconsin in calling on Congress toas the senior director for Used Fuel Management at
reject legislation enabling the federal government tothe Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and was part of the
designate nuclear waste storage facilities in all statesRecovery Team following the Three Mile Island
with nuclear power plants, superceding objections byaccident in March 1979. "It is the most studied piece of
the state's governor or state and local zoning andreal estate on the face of the earth. There isn't
environmental laws.anything we don't know about it."
The endless merry-go-round of deciding upon a finalWhy didn't they pick someplace far away like
resting place for nuclear waste has been studied forMongolia, Siberia or Greenland? "You're making the
more than two decades, has cost taxpayers moreassumption that somehow the remoteness of a
than $9 billion and has actually been solved. Unless oflocation makes it okay," Kraft responded. "You're
course, you are talking about an ideal solution which istalking about places where there are geologic
required to be as satisfactory for up to one millioninstabilities or the geology is very difficult to
years from now as it might be some 10,000 years intounderstand." There are also proposals suggesting ice
the future. That appears to be the most recent verdictsheet disposal, deep ocean disposal, or simply blasting
- let's keep nuclear waste in temporary storagethe waste into outer space. "Yucca Mountain meets all
scattered across geologically challenged locations,of the requirements, and I can't think of a better site,"
some near major cities, for decades to come,Kraft explained. "They have an awful good rock body
because a minority of environmentalists aredown there that has withstood a lot of scientific
"uncomfortable" with a well-studied, scientificallyscrutiny. It is by happenstance of geology they have a
satisfactory centralized disposal site in a remotegood location."
location. Instead of moving forward with a site, whichAnd what is the key to geology? "What makes
will reportedly store the waste safely for 10,000 yearsYucca Mountain such a good site is, in the formation
(and probably up to 80,000 years), the environmentalbelow the repository, are naturally occurring zeolites,"
lobby would prefer a toxic risk for tens of millions ofKraft pointed out. Water softeners rely upon zeolites
Americans from 'overcrowded' temporary storageas ion-exchange beds. "Zeolites strip out a lot of the
sites. They would like to stall matters until scientists canradionuclides and belays the flow of water,' he
prove a centralized storage site can survive allexplained. "By the time you get to the accessible
potential abuse for up to one million years.environment, the dose rate stays well below EPA
Unfortunately, even if Congress acts in early 2007, thestandards."
best-case scenario for a centralized nuclear wasteNo location is perfect. Even if all nuclear power plants
repository brings us to 2017. And that would requirewere turned off today, more than 108 million pounds of
quite a few politicians and bureaucrats coming to theirnuclear waste would require disposition. You can't burn
senses. While they haggle over whether the nuclearnuclear fuel pellets. Nuclear waste is not flammable; it is
waste can be safely stored for 10,000 years (which atoo weak to explode. Each year, the nation's 103
number of scientific studies confirm that it can), orreactors produce another 2,000 metric tons of waste.
whether the waste site must store the spent nuclearIt has to end up somewhere. The Yucca Mountain
fuel for one million years, electricity consumers arearea is geologically stable. The last volcanic eruption - a
annually paying $1 billion for temporary storage.small one - occurred 80,000 years ago. About 12 to 15
The amount of nuclear waste accumulating since U.S.million years ago, large eruptions north of Yucca
utilities began powering our homes with nuclear energyMountain laid down the sturdy bedrock which formed
comes to about 54,000 metric tons over the pastthis mountain.
forty years. To put this in perspective, it would take upThe Yucca Mountain area only receives about seven
the size of a football field with a depth of less than 10inches of rainfall per year. Ninety percent runs off the
yards. Nuclear energy does not generate carbonside of the mountain ridge and mostly evaporates or is
dioxide emissions. By contrast, the amount of carbonabsorbed by vegetation. The proposed repository is
dioxide released into the atmosphere through fossil1000 feet underground. And the site is 1000 feet above
fuels is enormous. According to one of the world'sthe water table. Rainwater seeping through rock
leading environmental scientists, James Lovelock, whofractures is negligible and would likely be trapped inside
recently authored "The Revenge of Gaia" (Basicthe mountain.
Books, 2006), one could freeze the annual carbonCOPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL
dioxide emissions and create a mountain one mile highRIGHTS RESERVED.
and twelve miles in circumference. And that's each