Nev. Nuclear Waste Site Going Ahead

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

Friday December 18 12:27 PM ET 

Nev. Nuclear Waste Site Going Ahead

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department concluded today 
work should proceed in the development of an underground 
disposal site in Nevada for highly radioactive nuclear waste, though 
acknowledging some uncertainties remain.  

``No show stoppers have been identified to date,'' said the interim 
report on the proposed Yucca Mountain waste facility in the 
Nevada desert, which has been under study for nearly a dozen 
years.  

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson cautioned that the report was not 
a final decision, but an attempt to outline progress to date and to 
determine what issues remain to be resolved before final action is 
made in 2001 on the site's suitability.  

``Uncertainties still remain,'' said Richardson. ``...We need to 
continue to study Yucca Mountain'' to determine whether it can
be designed to ``protect the health and safety of the public and the 
environment for thousands of years.''

The Nevada site, on a desert ridge 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas, has been studied for 11 years at the cost of $2.2 billion
to determine whether its geology can isolate more than 80,000 
tons of used reactor fuel for 250,000 years or more.

Critics, including a number of environmental organizations, recently 
urged the department to scuttle the project. They cited studies by 
outside scientists that raise the possibility that radioactive material 
might seep into groundwater during the many centuries the waste 
will remain dangerous. Other scientists have raised potential 
problems with earthquakes and volcanic activity.  

But the interim report said, while ``uncertainties remain about key 
natural processes, the preliminary design, and how the site and the 
design would work together'' these issues can be resolved, and 
work on the project should proceed.  

Noting that the facility would hold radioactive waste for centuries, 
the interim report said, ``The performance ... over such long time 
periods cannot be proven beyond all doubt.''  

Nevertheless, it continued, ``While considerable uncertainties 
remain today, DOE believes that reasonable assurance should be 
achievable in the licensing process after the planned work is 
completed.''  

Even if it passes scientific muster, the facility - which would 
entomb the nuclear material in a system of tunnels 800 feet 
underground - will not be completed until 2010 at the earliest.  

Richardson said that while the interim study - known as a ``viability 
assessment'' - ``reveals no show stoppers'' to date, more technical 
work will be conducted to try to improve its design and resolve 
some of the issues about water flow and waste packaging that 
have been raised.  

``Today's document indicates we need to continue to study Yucca 
Mountain so that the secretary of energy can decide in 2001 
whether to recommend the site to the president,'' said Richardson. 
``These decisions will be based on science and the merits and not 
on politics.''  

Over three decades, the government has spent almost $6 billion in 
its search for a permanent site for keeping radioactive waste. In 
1987, Congress limited the search to Yucca Mountain. Since then, 
about $2.2 billion has been spent in research, including 
construction of a five-mile tunnel into the mountain.  

The nuclear industry hopes the interim report - while significant in 
moving ahead with the project - also will boost chances for 
congressional approval of a temporary waste storage facility in 
Nevada, pending completion of the permanent repository. Nevada 
officials have strongly opposed temporary storage, fearing it will 
become permanent if Yucca Mountain is found unfit.  

The project calls for wastes to be kept in metal cylinders, but those 
will deteriorate long before the some isotopes become safe. 
Therefore, the geology surrounding the burial site is critical in 
keeping the radioactivity isolated.  

Critics of the Yucca Mountain project have expressed fears that 
water might enter the repository and worsen container corrosion as 
well as allow material to seep into groundwater faster than 
previously thought.

------------------------
Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html