Nuclear Waste to Yucca Mountain: Politics Trumping Science.
Friday, November 13, 2009 at 10:05PM WILKERSON--Have you ever wondered why a site in Nevada was chosen as the nation's first and only long-term nuclear waste dump (which has been delayed indefinitely...not a speck of nuclear waste has made its way to the multi-billion dollar tunnels at Yucca)? To make a long story short, Congress created a policy in 1982 called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that gave the Department of Energy the power to find, build, and maintain a suitable site for long-term storage of the waste. The DOE skipped along pretty well, narrowing potential sites down from ten to three (one in WA, one in TX, and Yucca) by 1986. All three of these sites had passed preliminary tests and the DOE was just beginning more extensive testing when Congress stepped back in, took decision-making away from the DOE, and amended the NWPA to say that Yucca would be the place. Why did they cut off the extensive testing and objective comparison between the three sites? Reason: Nevada had only three votes in Congress and therefore was the easiest to silence.
Little did the Texans, Washingtonians, and all their friends realize that the newborn Nevada senator taking office in 1987 would become the majority leader with enough power in his little finger to shield his precious desert from the evil majority. And, of course, nobody in 1987 would imagine Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, would say in May 2009 that Yucca as a repository was "off the table." As a Nevadan, I must rejoice that even the worst-laid political plans sometimes fail.
Reader Comments (6)
But what if, after extensive testing was done on all three sites, Yucca came out as the top contender?
We'll never know. We will never know which was the best site scientifically. The point is we lost the ability to know what the best site was, and that's dangerous not only with nuclear waste but any subject in which science can inform and politics can derail.
But instead of playing into the politics why don't legislators say "let's change the law and go back?" This doesn't have to be a lesson, it could be an opportunity.
Even in Arizona, the Yucca site was too close to home! This was an issue that we were made aware of and debated in classes throughout middle and high school. In fact, the reason I remember the Yucca debate is that I had a particularly involved science teacher that was enraged that Yucca was singled out as the dump site (kudos to any teachers who leave that sort of lasting impression on an 8th grader). He told us horror stories about nuclear waste leaking into our water supply and trucks en route to Yucca crashing & dumping the waste onto highways... & come to find out, he was not exaggerating!
This is a particulary scary issue because unfortunately, there is no way to make nuclear waste just disappear and as of yet, there simply is no solution to this problem. NO ONE wants it near them or in their state. We have nuclear waste scattered throughout the country- It is ALL too close to home. If a site is chosen to bury nuclear waste, then it must all be transported, which is a huge risk in itself. Then, we are still just BURYING our waste and as of yet, the best anyone can say is that the containers we are putting it in MIGHT last 10,000 years (& the reality is that there are leaks already)? I mean, let's face it- that is dooming EVERYONE regardless of state or nation. This is an issue that should be a MUCH higher priority to policymakers.
The Yucca project has been in the works for over 20 years. An obscene amount of public & private money has already been spent on it. Yet only recently have scientists come forward to say that the containers in Yucca are prone to cracking due to earthquakes (not to mention that whoops... the contents of the containers may leak to the water supply within 50 years)? Most of my classmates in 8th grade could have pointed that out. I think that this is a prime example of when we need to be looking to science more than politics when creating policy.
I know a few Nevadans who don't care about the waste being deposited there. I'm actually surprised, Melissa, that you got such an education on the subject--I never did. Even the newspapers were often in favor of the Yucca storage. Of course there were those who said that there were dangers, but we mostly wrote them off as green-kneed pansies. Overall, I think the lesson is, as you said, that science must be the source to which we look when deciding how to store nuclear waste.
Jared, I'm curious as to why you seem to argue that a political decision which has been overturned by another political decision is a good thing? As a former long-term DOE intern at a nuclear site, I've had contact with the scientific processes used to determine the appropriate policies to address our legacy nuclear waste. The waste that would have been stored (and may still be) at Yucca Mountain would be subject to a process called vitrification, in which high level waste is processed with various types of minerals in order to form glass. Waste is stored in metal containers which have been extensively engineered to withstand various natural disasters as well as erosion over time. Currently, Savannah River Site (SRS) is processing and storing this waste in an underground warehouse facility until a permanent storage site is determined.
The need for a permanent storage facility is quite urgent. The techniques for storage used during the Cold War were completely inadequate and the legacy high level waste that is left in numerous storage tanks across the country needs to be processed and stored. SRS cannot store all of the waste it will eventually process in its current facility. Yucca Mountain has undergone extensive evaluations for suitability since the 1980s and is currently the best option; whether or not it was a political decision is up for debate.
Whether scientist or politician, politics always play a role. Scientists promote political agendas just like your local Representative or major political appointee (ahem Steven Chu). My concern is not letting politics play a role in sound science. Scare tactics and inaccurate depictions of how our waste is transported and stored only serve to inhibit accurate debate on this subject. Those individuals who develop technologies and engineer devices to contain this waste are those to whom we should look in determining the best path forward. Depositing of our legacy waste is not a question for debate; it must be done. The means by which we will complete this monumental task is unfortunately undetermined once again but will hopefully be resolved soon.