Re: Yucca Mtn.- Where did we go wrong?

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

I do understand that in 1957 the NAS published its first study on geologic disposal.  I just thought you were referring to the NWPA and Yucca Mountain.  In 1979, the USGS published a monograph on geologic disposal, but in 1980, the GEIS considered a number of alternatives, and deep-sea disposal survived that screening.  I believe the subseabed program ended around 1991, and I agree with you that it should have continued.  As i said, I am no foe of subseabed disposal.


However, in tracing the geologic disposal program I note that the more an alternative is studied, the more things are found wrong with it.  In characterizing a site or a method, you almost never find out what is good about it (the good things are why you decided to look at it it in the first place), you just find more and more faults.  Subseabed disposal is not a panacea either.


The Subseabed study was as much a "cash cow" for the University of Washington and Sandia as Yucca Mountain is for anyone.  I have worked on Yucca Mountain and the WIPP for one or another national lab and consulting compnay since 1988, and I don't know of a case where work was prolonged without either technical justification or the demands of some person or agency who opposed the project.  An additional cause of delay is a drastic cut in funding, the team doing the work is dissolved, then the funding agency decides to pursue the project again and a new team has to be built.  this happened on the WIPP in the early 1980s and delayed the project by about two years.  My experience has not been that projects are delayed by sheer money-grubbing.  





Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com