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

Over the past 24 years, each time your house orcircumference. And that's each year. Using the same
business consumed a nuclear-generated kilowatt-houryardstick since the 1960s, we would have 40 such
of electricity, you were billed - by mandate of themountains of carbon dioxide, but one small football
U.S. government - one-tenth of one penny to payfield of nuclear waste.
for the storage of nuclear waste. And those penniesA Mountain Which Can Solve the
add up. Since 1982, the Nuclear Waste Fund hasCurrent Waste Disposal Issue
grown to more than $28 billion. The plan back thenAfter passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the
was to safely dispose of the nuclear waste left overU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) chose nine
after providing 20 percent of the nation's electricitylocations in six states as potential permanent
through nuclear energy. Instead, like a ticking timerepository sites. The DOE whittled this list down to
bomb, about 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel rodsfive sites after various technical studies and
are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds neverenvironmental assessments. After intensive scientific
intended for long-term use. Many are within a fewstudy, the DOE chose its finalists: Yucca Mountain,
dozen miles of large cities, such as New York,Nevada, Deaf Smith County, Texas and Hanford,
Philadelphia, Washington and Miami.Washington. Following lengthy environmental studies
Now, at least nine states are heating up over theof all three sites, Congress amended the Nuclear
localized nuclear waste issue. On September 13th,Waste Policy Act in 1987 and designated Yucca
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined stateMountain to be studied as the final destination for
attorneys general in California, Connecticut, Maine,nuclear waste.
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,"We've been studying Yucca Mountain for 22 years,"
Vermont and Wisconsin in calling on Congress toSteven Kraft told us during a recent telephone
reject legislation enabling the federal government tointerview. Mr. Kraft is mechanical engineer who
designate nuclear waste storage facilities in all statesserves as the senior director for Used Fuel
with nuclear power plants, superceding objections byManagement at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),
the state's governor or state and local zoning andand was part of the Recovery Team following the
environmental laws.Three Mile Island accident in March 1979. "It is the
The endless merry-go-round of deciding upon a finalmost studied piece of real estate on the face of the
resting place for nuclear waste has been studied forearth. There isn't anything we don't know about it."
more than two decades, has cost taxpayers moreWhy didn't they pick someplace far away like
than $9 billion and has actually been solved. Unless ofMongolia, Siberia or Greenland? "You're making the
course, you are talking about an ideal solution which isassumption that somehow the remoteness of a
required to be as satisfactory for up to one millionlocation makes it okay," Kraft responded. "You're
years from now as it might be some 10,000 yearstalking about places where there are geologic
into the future. That appears to be the most recentinstabilities or the geology is very difficult to
verdict - let's keep nuclear waste in temporaryunderstand." There are also proposals suggesting ice
storage scattered across geologically challengedsheet disposal, deep ocean disposal, or simply blasting
locations, some near major cities, for decades tothe waste into outer space. "Yucca Mountain meets
come, because a minority of environmentalists areall of the requirements, and I can't think of a better
"uncomfortable" with a well-studied, scientificallysite," Kraft explained. "They have an awful good rock
satisfactory centralized disposal site in a remotebody down there that has withstood a lot of
location. Instead of moving forward with a site, whichscientific scrutiny. It is by happenstance of geology
will reportedly store the waste safely for 10,000they have a good location."
years (and probably up to 80,000 years), theAnd what is the key to geology? "What makes
environmental lobby would prefer a toxic risk forYucca Mountain such a good site is, in the formation
tens of millions of Americans from 'overcrowded'below the repository, are naturally occurring zeolites,"
temporary storage sites. They would like to stallKraft pointed out. Water softeners rely upon zeolites
matters until scientists can prove a centralizedas ion-exchange beds. "Zeolites strip out a lot of the
storage site can survive all potential abuse for up toradionuclides and belays the flow of water,' he
one million years.explained. "By the time you get to the accessible
Unfortunately, even if Congress acts in early 2007,environment, the dose rate stays well below EPA
the best-case scenario for a centralized nuclearstandards."
waste repository brings us to 2017. And that wouldNo location is perfect. Even if all nuclear power plants
require quite a few politicians and bureaucrats comingwere turned off today, more than 108 million pounds
to their senses. While they haggle over whether theof nuclear waste would require disposition. You can't
nuclear waste can be safely stored for 10,000 yearsburn nuclear fuel pellets. Nuclear waste is not
(which a number of scientific studies confirm that itflammable; it is too weak to explode. Each year, the
can), or whether the waste site must store thenation's 103 reactors produce another 2,000 metric
spent nuclear fuel for one million years, electricitytons of waste. It has to end up somewhere. The
consumers are annually paying $1 billion for temporaryYucca Mountain area is geologically stable. The last
storage.volcanic eruption - a small one - occurred 80,000
The amount of nuclear waste accumulating since U.S.years ago. About 12 to 15 million years ago, large
utilities began powering our homes with nucleareruptions north of Yucca Mountain laid down the
energy comes to about 54,000 metric tons over thesturdy bedrock which formed this mountain.
past forty years. To put this in perspective, it wouldThe Yucca Mountain area only receives about seven
take up the size of a football field with a depth ofinches of rainfall per year. Ninety percent runs off the
less than 10 yards. Nuclear energy does not generateside of the mountain ridge and mostly evaporates or
carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, the amount ofis absorbed by vegetation. The proposed repository
carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere throughis 1000 feet underground. And the site is 1000 feet
fossil fuels is enormous. According to one of theabove the water table. Rainwater seeping through
world's leading environmental scientists, Jamesrock fractures is negligible and would likely be trapped
Lovelock, who recently authored "The Revenge ofinside the mountain.
Gaia" (Basic Books, 2006), one could freeze theCOPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc.
annual carbon dioxide emissions and create aALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
mountain one mile high and twelve miles in