Yucca Mountain and transportation of Nuclear Waste

This discussion is from the Hanford email list.

Paige Knight, Dec. 23, 2004:
Lynn & Rob, some of the problems that have plagued the work on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository are first, the fact that water has been detected to penetrate the site which was not "supposed" to happen. Many scientists over the years have quit because of the faulty science upon which the project has been predicated. Information on this can be obtained at www.ieer.org. They have explored the issues for a decade or two.

Another problem is of course the gargantuan cost overruns -- nothing new to the nuclear industry. Between the scientific problems and the costs and the politics (forcing deadly wastes on a state, most of which are coming from the nuclear power plants back east -- and some scientific thought that the very best geological formations for embedding nuclear waste are in the Northeastern states), this project has dragged on for nearly four decades, thus far to no avail.

I agree wholeheartedly with Lynn and many people who live near nuclear power plants and nuclear defense facilities that are contaminated, that the first step is to get all waste into non-mobile, that is, stable containment and keep it safe -- SAFE -- at each site, until the right and most protective solutions are found and implemented. Moving deadly waste around until then is unconscionable and a tremendous waste of billions of dollars. It will take billions to get the wastes into stable forms and containers in the first place. First things first.

Rob Davis, Dec. 23, 2004:
Lynn, Transportation issues are difficult to quantify because so much depends on the route as well as getting everyone to buy into the assumptions. You are right "We have no experience to go on," especially for the terrorist blowing up a nuclear waste transport cask. However, we have been shipping nuclear materials all over the world for many years. The consequences of the dirty bombs are less damage and cleanup and more in the public panic that is even less predictable. The easy target is the most likely to be hit, and we do not have armed transport around the nuclear waste leaving OHSU or Reed College.

Yucca Mountain, or geologic disposal is a law. Basic logic is to find or pick one of several possible geologic formations, stable for many millions of years, far longer than the decay life of nearly all isotopes, and isolate the waste by burying it under 1000 feet of rock. The geologic repository is to remain "open" for a period of 50 years, all the time taking data and other information that provides for a period of retrievability. If mistakes were made the waste can be moved. More than 50 years to fill the repository. Then as each of the tunnel branches reaches the closure date it is backfilled. Eventually the entire repository is sealed and marked. This option has the support of nearly everyone.

Storing the waste in an underground vault in the middle of Hanford is not consistent with the law, it is not geologic disposal, it is storage. The key word is disposal. We stood up the world and said that ocean dumping was not acceptable, reprocessing was not acceptable, polar ice cap dumping was not acceptable and the only thing that would be acceptable is deep geologic disposal with a period or buffer to retrieve if necessary.

"I've heard that if all the civilian waste goes to Yucca Mountain there won't be any room for military wastes. To have room for the military wastes...." The size of the repository is a political football. The volume density of the commercial waste has not been fixed and there is a huge volume that can be reduced by repacking and chopping. The site was undersized intentionally for several reasons, some were advocated by DOE, nuclear energy producers, environmentalists and others. But, the waste volume can be reduced and the repository size can be increased, build a second facility (there are three or four other good geologic formations in the United States) or limit Yucca to specific waste forms or other solution. The size of the facility is not a big issue because so much can be done. It would not be wise to make these decisions now because the requirements have not been set.

The political question of whether Yucca Mountain will ever open is real, but all I can say is that congress has followed the law. It is Federal not States that define nuclear policy. That is why Oregon could not shut down Trojan. It was a sweetheart deal between the Gov. and the utility execs that shut down Trojan. The state offered more money to shut it down than Westinghouse did to keep it running.

Lynn Porter, Dec. 22, 2004:
Rob, Thanks for your response. I would also like to hear opinions on this from others.

I wonder if it is possible to quantify transportation risks? What I picture is some terrorist blowing up a nuclear waste transport cask, turning it into a dirty bomb. How do you put a number on that possibility? We have no experience to go on.

And then what are we comparing it to if the waste doesn't go to Yucca Mountain? What is the risk to the environment of glass logs containing tank waste stored in an underground vault in the middle of Hanford?

Also, I've heard that if all the civilian waste goes to Yucca Mountain there won't be any room for military wastes. To have room for the military wastes, someone told me a while back, they would have to dig another tunnel the size of the one they now have.

There is also the political question of whether Yucca Mountain will ever open. I don't know. Arizona still hates it.

Rob Davis, Dec. 22, 2004:
Lynn, Your question assumes that there is greater risk with the transportation than with the geologic disposal at Yucca Mt.

It is my understanding that transportation risks will never reach the level that is greater than the geologic disposal option. I know it depends on the assumptions made but the numbers have never indicated technical and risk problems with waste shipments.

Unless there is a technical problem with Yucca I am not aware of, the geologic formation will be stable on the geologic time scale for protection of the long lived isotopes. The process to select the Yucca site started in the 1970's.

Lynn Porter, Dec. 21, 2004:
Considering the transportation risks, it seems safest to leave nuclear waste where it is, as long as it is put into a form that will not dissipate into the environment. What do you think?

Tri-City Herald -- Opinion
December 15th, 2004

Keeping wastes here at 'heart' of initiative

Monday's Seattle Times included some revealing comments from Gerald Pollet, executive director of Heart of America Northwest, sponsors of Initiative 297.

"I believe if Yucca Mountain is not safe, it shouldn't be open," Pollet told The Times. It's hard to argue against safety, but Pollet went on to say, "Glassified, high-level waste should stay at Hanford. That's the safest thing."

Funny, we can't remember any election ads for the anti-nuclear waste initiative mentioning its potential to strand high-level nuclear wastes at Hanford, let alone any rhetoric endorsing the idea.

Certainly, when Pollet described I-297 as a way to stop the feds from turning Hanford into a nuclear waste dump, he left out the part about keeping its most dangerous wastes here.

Critics of I-297 warned that by encouraging every state to fend for itself, the measure threatened plans to ship Hanford's most dangerous waste to Nevada for burial beneath Yucca Mountain.

The Herald lent its editorial voice to the small chorus, suggesting that if Heart of America had its way, Hanford wastes would have nowhere to go and no way to get there.

But we thought that was just an unintended consequence of a badly written initiative. Pardon our naiveté.