Controversy Over Yucca Mountain May Be Ending

by: Steve Vogel  |  The Washington Post

Controversy Over Yucca Mountain May Be Ending
A worker walks in a tunnel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada. (Photo: Laura Rauch / AP)

    More than two decades after Yucca Mountain in Nevada was selected to be the national nuclear waste repository, the controversial proposal may finally be put to rest by the Obama administration.

    In keeping with a pledge President Obama made during the campaign, the budget released last week cuts off almost all funding for creating a permanent burial site for a large portion of the nation's radioactive nuclear waste at the site in the Nevada desert. Congress selected the location in 1987 and reaffirmed the choice in 2002. About $7.7 billion has been sunk into the project since its inception.

    "Yucca Mountain is not an option, and the budget clearly reflects that," Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, said yesterday.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), a staunch opponent of the Yucca project, called the Obama action "our most significant victory to date in our battle to protect Nevada from becoming the country's toxic wasteland."

    Reid, who during primary season helped extract campaign promises from Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to stop Yucca Mountain, added: "President Obama recognizes that the proposed dump threatens the health and safety of Nevadans and millions of Americans. His commitment to stop this terrible project could not be clearer."

    Less clear is what will happen next with the nation's growing stockpile of nuclear waste.

    "That's a great question," said Geoffrey H. Fettus, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    The budget provides no answers as to what the administration proposes to do with the approximately 57,700 tons of nuclear waste at more than 100 temporary sites around the country, or with the approximately 2,000 tons generated each year by nuclear power plants. The Yucca site was designed specifically to handle spent fuel rods from the nation's 103 nuclear generators.

    "The new administration is starting the process of finding a new strategy for nuclear waste," Mueller said.

    Keeping the waste at temporary sites is an option in the short term, but experts in the field say it will not serve as a long-term answer for the problem of radioactive waste, which will need to be kept safely stored for at least 1,000 years.

    Others have advocated reprocessing much of the spent fuel, as is being done in France, but this too is fraught with problems, according to some experts.

    Ultimately, Fettus said, the government will have to find a new site or sites for permanent storage of nuclear waste.

    The Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear industry, favors the creation of a "blue-ribbon commission to assess where we go," spokesman Steve Kerkeres said.

    The Bush administration last year submitted a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and hoped to have the repository operating by 2020. The Obama administration is not withdrawing the application because of concerns about lawsuits but, nonetheless, insists the Yucca Mountain project will not go forward.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



...and yet how many times

...and yet how many times over the recent years have we heard of nuclear power as a participant in the answer to global warming? Present day nuclear power is just passing off our greed to future generations to deal with, in case the taxes they will be burdened with won't be enough. It cannot be the answer to carbon dioxide emissions.


We have to put it somewhere.

We have to put it somewhere. Temporary storage is fine as long as we keep war, revolution, plague and famine at bay; otherwise it could pose a threat. We could make Mexico bury it for us, or Haiti. We could "bury" it at sea and irradiate a bunch of creatures out there; this won't bother us much, at least in the short run. We could launch it into the Sun and hope all the rockets we use make it out of the Earth's atmosphere. Or, heck, we could just live with it for the next 25,000 years or so. Maybe Science will find a new use for it by then. Go Nuclear!


Another Blue ribbon

Another Blue ribbon commission to produce a ton of paperwork and spend a lot of money to add the the tons of reports and studies is no solution. We could shut down every nuclear power plant today and we would still need long term storage. The two major problems standing in the way of a solution are the gross scientific ignorance of the population and the NIMBY syndrome. Granted Nevadans have legitimate concerns, however the years of studies and research have show that Yucca Mt is a safe place to store waste. We can't get through the near term energy problems without nuclear in the mix. Maybe Curt would like a nice coal fired powerplant spewing carbon dioxide and mercury into the air he breathes, I just hope he does not get buried under the coal ash.


Wow, and no mention that

Wow, and no mention that this is a victory for Indian Country because it is a desecration of holy lands. But given the supremacist history of our country, that tends to be the last consideration, if it's a consideration at all.


Unfortunately the safety of

Unfortunately the safety of Yucca Mountain was called into question, the scientific "assumptions" used to assess it as a viable solution had some weaknesses... if I remember correctly it had to do with the water table and porosity of the rock. As I understand it, what is now considered the safest solution is reprocessing into solid waste and storage at the plant site itself until some truly safe long-term solution can come along. The other big issue was the transportation of the wastes across large swaths of the country and the potential for accidents (or attacks). No one that is truly aware of the side effects of coal would support it as a solution either, least of all those where I live, where there are no fish left in most bodies of water and those that have survived are too contaminated with mercury to be safely eaten. Another problem with nuclear is the massive amount of investment and energy that goes into a plant that can last only about 30 years and which will generate more nuclear waste that we can't get rid of. The point is that trading one method that will destroy future generations for another that will destroy future generations and be massively expensive to boot may not be the wisest course of action, especially now when other solutions are available. For the amount it costs to build one nuclear plant we could build a very large wind farm and/or other more benign generation facilities. Rather than jumping from the frying pan into the fire, perhaps we should take a moment to look for a better place to jump.