January 30, 2000
Deseret News
Opinion

Don't let myths perpetuate inaction
on nuclear waste storage

By Gary Sandquist

Over the last few years, the President's failure to resolve the problem has been elevated from a lack of focus to gross neglect.

He has recently threatened to veto a bill supported by more than 200 Democrats and Republicans in Congress that would establish an interim storage facility for nuclear waste in Nevada until a proposed repository becomes available for permanent disposal.

The implication is that this critical issue will again be postponed for a latter Administration and Congress to resolve.

Furthermore, the President signed the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which committed the U.S. to a drastic reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions.

This is an international commitment that the U.S can not realistically meet without the continued use of emission-free nuclear power.

Unless spent fuel is removed from nuclear plants within the next few years; it is highly likely that many plants will be forced to close. Nuclear plants provide over 20 percent of the nation's power and cannot be ignored.

That's worth considering in view of the Department of Energy public hearing on the Yucca Mountain repository in Salt Lake City on Jan. 13.

This meeting was one of a series of public hearings around the country concerning the proposed nuclear waste repository's impact on the environment.

There are several myths about nuclear waste management and disposal that should be addressed.

One myth is that we have no experience in transporting radioactive materials. The fact is that we ship millions of packages a year of such materials ranging from medical isotopes to spent nuclear fuel.

The record is that there has been not one radiation injury or death to the public from the transportation of radioactive materials. Another myth is that spent fuel and other high-level waste can remain indefinitely at the 72 nuclear power facilities and five DOF sites.

Responsible, safe management of this inventory of radioactive materials demands disposal that can be accomplished by geological disposal at a site such a Yucca Mountain.

The safety and technology of the Yucca Mountain site is supported by a large body of science documented in DOE's viability assessment and now presented in their Environmental Impact Statement.

"One way or another we've got to advance toward geologic disposal," DOE Undersecretary Ernest Moniz said recently.

Moniz, a former professor at MIT, is in charge of science at Yucca Mountain. Moniz said that scientists who have been examining the site's geologic characteristics have found no reason to delay construction of the repository. "We're pushing it hard. The science case is building up nicely. If we have to delay in the end, we'll delay. But I see no reason not to push forward."

Second, leaving radioactive waste at various, diverse sites around the country will eventually pose a danger to public health and safety.

While storage at these sites is safe today, these sites were not designed for long-term or perpetual waste disposal.

The irresponsible claim that this material can be left where it is cannot be condoned. This material exists, and it must be responsibly managed by proper geological disposal at a facility such as Yucca Mountain.

Continued inaction in resolving this waste management issue might please anti-nuclear activists who really seek to close all nuclear plants throughout the world.

However, if we significantly reduce nuclear power generation we must increased fossil fuel consumption, causing far greater quantities of sulfur and nitrogen oxides, methane, and ash to be spewed into the atmosphere.


Furthermore, the burning of coal and natural gas will increase levels of carbon dioxide, which is the major greenhouse gas that environmentalists believe, is linked to climate disruption.

Those considerations provide compelling reasons for qualifying and licensing the Yucca Mountain facility.

We cannot pretend that the waste issue will go away or postpone it for later congressional or administrative action.

If we are to have a reliable and non-polluting power system, the time to remove obstacles to nuclear power's future is now.

_________

Gary Sandquist is an engineering professor at the University of Utah.

Return to HOPE