Feb 7, 2000
Deseret News
Opinion

Safe Nuclear-Waste Storage Is Myth

By Joseph C. Strolin
The opinion piece by Gary Sandquist that appeared in the Deseret News on Jan. 30 ("Don't let myths perpetuate inaction on nuclear waste storage") demands some de-mythifying of its assertions.

Myth No. 1: There is no crisis that requires immediate — or even near-term — removal of spent nuclear fuel from the safe and secure locations where it is presently stored. Contrary to Sandquist's assertion, nuclear power plants are not in danger of being forced to shut down due to a glut of spent fuel.

The commercial nuclear power industry has for years been attempting to create a storage crisis in order to further its political agenda of accelerating the movement of spent nuclear fuel to what many believe is a flawed and unsafe disposal site being proposed in Nevada. Utahns, by the way, will bear the brunt of thousands of shipments of these highly radioactive materials en route to the Nevada site over more than three decades.

Myth No. 2: Past performance is not, as Mr. Sandquist asserts, indicative of the lack of risks associated with the shipment of spent nuclear fuel to a repository or central storage facility. The claim that "millions of packages of such materials" are shipped each year in the United States is dangerously misleading. Shipping minute quantities of radioactive materials, such as medical isotopes and the like, is in no way comparable to the risks associated with highly radioactive and extremely dangerous spent nuclear fuel.

The fact is that, in the first year of a repository shipping campaign alone, there will be more shipments of spent fuel than in all of the preceding 40 years of reactor operations combined. What's more, shipment distances — and hence risks of accidents — will be far greater (an average of 2,300 miles for shipments to a Nevada repository vs. less than 300 miles for past spent fuel shipments).

In addition, the shipping casks proposed for use will carry more spent fuel per container and will be less heavily shielded, mass produced and, arguably, more prone to release radiation in the event of an accident than older, heavier and essentially hand-built shipping containers. Spent fuel shipments of the type, volume and duration needed to move radioactive materials from reactor sites around the country to the proposed Nevada storage site will also be vulnerable and potentially appealing targets for sabotage and terrorism, something neither the federal Department of Energy nor the commercial nuclear power industry wants to acknowledge.

Myth No. 3: The Nevada respiratory site at Yucca Mountain is not a safe location for disposing of these highly dangerous and long-lived materials, and it is not a done deal. The site is prone to earthquakes and impacted by at least 34 known faults; it is highly fractured, providing pathways for radiation to escape both into the groundwater and to the air. There is evidence of hydrothermal activity in faults and fractures within the repository host rock itself.

Nevertheless, the commercial nuclear power industry is prepared to misleadingly promote the Yucca Mountain site at the expense of the health and safety of generations of Nevadans and Californians in order to further its own political and economic agenda. The industry's goal is to pressure Congress to bail out commercial nuclear utilities by unnecessarily moving spent fuel to Nevada. People in Utah or other states would not stand for such abuse of federal power, and Nevadans are not going to permit it either.

The best way to restore credibility and build public support for nuclear power is to assure that unnecessary risks not be visited upon states and communities through the location of unsafe storage or disposal facilities and the transport of thousands of tons of highly dangerous spent fuel through hundreds of cities and communities nationwide.

_________



Return to HOPE

1