published by WISE News Communique on August 27, 1999
The US Department of Energy (DOE) released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the building, loading and monitoring of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The goal is to transform the YuccaMountain by 2010 into a permanent site to 70,000 tons of highly radioactive waste. The DOE has scheduled hearings at 16 places across the country over the next six months (only 5 outside Nevada).
(516.5069) WISE Amsterdam – The only alternative, mentioned in the report, is leave the waste on-site at the nuclear reactors and military bases in 34 states. The statement evaluates the safety of leaving the waste where it is and it finds little safety difference, if storage canisters at existing sites can be replaced every century. But leaving the waste there would be much more expensive than storage at Yucca Mountain. Officials estimate that the desert repository in Nevada can isolate the radioactive waste for at least 10,000 years; they even think the mountain can be made suitable for 100,000 years.
The statement acknowledges that some key issues – for example, the flow of water – are too uncertain to make a recommendation now to build the repository. One of the questions is how much radioactive material would escape and be washed into underground water supplies. Critics dispute the DOE’s theories that the seepage of rainwater would be very slow and that radioactive material would be move slowly with the flow of water deep underground. They say the rock of the site includes crystals which are evidence of intermittent upwellings of underground water, which would speed the spread of radioactive waste.
There are more questions about the mountain’s suitability as a storage site for radioactive waste. In February this year a scientific peer review panel convened by the DOE produced what it called a “highly critical” report on the department’s own assessment of Yucca Mountain. The review panel said its computer model about the waste when it is stored had so many uncertainties–the corrosion rates of the waste containers, the area’s vulnerability to earthquakes and how climate changes would effect rainfall–that its reliability was limited. The panel concluded that predicting how radioactive waste would behave once it is stored in the mountain “may be beyond the analytical capabilities of any scientific and engineering team.” (Final Report, Total System Performance Assessment, Peer Review Panel, February 11, 1999)
Serious questions have been raised as to whether the performance of the canisters can be characterized with confidence. According to a peer review panel: “Alloy C-22 (a corosionresistant metal – CRM) is susceptible to localized corosion only when wet in a critical temperature range. If C-22 remains passive in this range, its anticipated life, prior to penetration, is thousands of years. If it is not passive, then its life, prior to penetration, is as little as a few tens of years… The water seepage pattern during the period when a waste package is in the critical temperature range for CRM corosion is not well defined.” (Yucca Mountain Total System Performance Assessment, Third Interim Peer Review Panel Report, 1998)
Also, opponents give the report poor marks for not informing the public about transportation routes and other community concerns. Tens of thousands of shipments will continuously travelling across 43 states, for 30 years or more. There is no training program to help local planners; most of these professionals are unaware of the DOE’s proposal. Analysis of the highway and rail routes that would be used to ship spent fuel and highly radioactive wastes from locations around the country to Yucca Mountain shows that 43 states will be impacted. Within those states, 109 cities with populations over 100,000 will be affected along with thousands of smaller communities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will review the DOE’s statement; the NRC would issue a license to build and operate the dump at Yucca Mountain. The NRC has proposed a limit of 25 millirem of radiation and no limit on radiation in ground water. The NRC has said it will obey the limits of the Environmental Protecting Agency. The EPA, which is responsible for setting radiation standards, is expected to propose a limit of 15 millirem a year to protect people and the environment from radiation releases. In addition, the EPA is proposing to limit the amount of contaminated ground water that can escape from the mountain. The radiation would be measured at about 12 miles (20 km) from the actual repository. The limits would be in effect for 10,000 years. Environmental groups rejected the EPA’s proposed limit, because it is too lenient and it would lead to cancer and genetic defects.
Sources:
- Las Vegas Sun, 6 and 13 August
- Los Angeles Times, 5 August
- New York Times, 7 and 10 August
- NIRS, email 10 August
- Some Evidence of Yucca Mountain’s Unsuitability as a Repository, in: Science for Democratic Action, an IEER Publication, May 1999
- Reuters, 12 August 1999
Contact: The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER),
6935 Laurel Avenue, Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD 20912 USA.
Tel: +1-301-270-5500,
Fax: +1-301-270-3029
E-mail: ieer@ieer.org