Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: radioactive waste

  • Can We Live With the Bomb?

    This article was originally published on the History News Network.

    For some time now, it has been clear that nuclear weapons threaten the existence not only of humanity, but of all life on Earth.

    Thus, Barack Obama’s pledge to work for a nuclear weapons-free world—made during his 2008 presidential campaign and subsequently in public statements—has resonated nicely with supporters of nuclear disarmament and with the general public.

    But recent developments have called that commitment into question.  The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review does not indicate any dramatic departures in the use of nuclear weapons, while its nuclear weapons budget request for the next fiscal year represents a 14 percent increase over this year’s counterpart.  The most alarming sign that the administration might be preparing for a nuclear weapons-filled future is its proposal to spend $180 billion over the next ten years to upgrade the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex.

    From the standpoint of nuclear critics, the best interpretation of such measures—and one that might be accurate—is that they are designed to win support among hawkish Republican senators for the New START Treaty, which will reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.  After all, the political argument goes, if Obama is to secure the sixty-seven Senate votes necessary to ratify the treaty, he needs to pick up some Republican support.  Of course, these pro-nuclear measures might reflect a quite different scenario, one in which Obama is abandoning yet another political promise.

    In this context, we might ask:  would abandoning the promise of nuclear abolition be a bad idea?

    There are at least five good reasons why it would be:

    1. 1. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, they will be used in war.  Nations (and before them, competing territories) have engaged in war for thousands of years, and for these wars they have been tempted to draw upon the most powerful weapons in their arsenals.  Today, such weapons are nuclear weapons—some 23,000 of them.  Although supporters of these weapons maintain that they deter nuclear war, there is no reason to assume that nuclear deterrence works, or at least works in all cases.  This is indicated by the U.S. government’s pursuit of national missile defense and its attempts to head off other nations (e.g. Iran) from developing nuclear weapons.
    2. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is inevitable that additional nations will develop them.  When some nations maintain large, devastating nuclear arsenals, it is naïve to expect other nations to tamely sit back and accept their non-nuclear status.  Over the decades, this situation of military inequality has spurred on nuclear proliferation and, unless nuclear nations divest themselves of their nuclear weapons, it will continue to do so.
    3. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is likely that they will be used by terrorists.  Terrorists do not have the production facilities for building or testing nuclear weapons, but they have the possibility of obtaining them, though theft or bribery, from national arsenals.  While nuclear weapons exist in national arsenals, obtaining and using them against civilian populations will provide a constant temptation to terrorists.
    4. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is likely that they will be exploded accidentally.  Numerous nuclear accidents—from nuclear weapons dropped to mistaken nuclear war alerts—have already occurred, although so far without detonation.  In an age of BP oil explosions and other technological disasters, there are limits to how long we can press our luck with nuclear weapons technology.
    5. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, they—and the uranium mining, warhead production, and testing they necessitate—will continue to pollute the earth with radioactive waste for thousands of years.  Nuclear waste disposal is already a very significant problem in the United States, and, not surprisingly, no state has yet volunteered to serve as the permanent dumping ground for it.

    In short, while nuclear weapons exist, we are living on the brink of an unprecedented catastrophe.

    Thus, if we are wise, we should draw back from the brink and address the problem posed by nuclear weapons.  If the U.S. government and others are serious about building a nuclear weapons-free world, they should begin negotiations on a nuclear abolition treaty.  And, if they are not serious about nuclear abolition, the public should raise enough of a ruckus so that they have no alternative to becoming serious.

    If we can’t live with the Bomb, we should begin planning to get rid it.

  • Yucca Mountain nuclear storage is bad for Nevada and the nation

    Originally Published by St. Paul Pioneer Press

    Shipping radioactive waste across 43 states to Yucca Mountain is not just bad for Nevada; it’s bad for America. The Yucca Mountain site, located just outside of Las Vegas, is a flawed solution to America’s nuclear waste problem. It is flawed because it won’t get nuclear waste out of America’s back yards, but will increase the risks of radiation exposure to millions of Americans. It ignores new technologies that store waste to be treated without the risk transporting to a single site. And the administration has failed to incorporate the dramatic change in the world since the decision was made to store high-level waste in a single site.

    Three key things have changed since the government began planning to ship nuclear waste to Nevada. First, Las Vegas, the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country, is today much closer to the Yucca Mountain site than it was 20 years ago. Second, technology to store and secure nuclear waste has improved significantly — which means we don’t have to face the serious risks of moving and protecting 77,000 tons of radioactive waste in 53,000 truck shipments or 10,000 rail shipments through 734 counties housing half of America’s population. Third, since Sept. 11 we face a new reality of terror, and we cannot afford to create tens of thousands of new targets for terrorists.

    Instead of reconsidering the original decision, the government is pressing ahead like an aircraft carrier that cannot change its course. After their own scientists determined that Yucca Mountain is geologically unfit, the government insisted on using man-made “engineering” solutions to isolate this high-level nuclear waste. Instead of using similar engineering solutions to contain waste where it already is without creating new problems by transporting it on our roads, railways and waterways, the government presses ahead with an outdated 20-year-old plan.

    Most striking is the Department of Energy’s decision not to publicize a viable, less risky, alternative developed by a subsidiary of the nation’s largest nuclear utility company, Exelon Corp. In an agreement signed nearly two years ago, DOE agreed to take title to the spent fuel waste and own and operate a dry storage facility on-site. It appears this safer and cheaper alternative to Yucca Mountain is now being ignored.

    Transporting nuclear waste across our country is an undertaking that every American concerned about our nation’s security should take very seriously. Sharing our highways with tens of thousands of radioactive shipments is a disaster waiting to happen. An accident involving a truck with radioactive waste is a statistical certainty. Just as certain is the increased exposure to terrorism.

    DOE and outside experts both agree accidents will happen; though no one can predict their likely impact. More troubling is the potential for radiation exposure. The government-approved casks, which have never undergone rigorous full-scale testing, leak radiation and could become portable X-ray machines that cannot be turned off. This concern is not trivial either from a health or a liability standpoint.

    Most serious of all is that these shipments will become irresistible targets for terrorists. After Sept. 11 and the increasing incidents of suicide bombings, our elected leaders should not approve this plan unless they can guarantee the safety of these shipments. They cannot simply trust the DOE or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who are still analyzing risks based on terrorist incidents from the 1970s and 1980s. Without proper security measures, these shipments could easily be used as a “dirty bomb.” It is imperative that an up-to-date plan is in place to prevent them from becoming low-grade nuclear weapons and that the cost of this plan be measured against the potential benefits of a single site.

    The American people and their representatives in Congress must keep this in mind: There is no pressing reason to move ahead with the Yucca Mountain site without completing a comprehensive evaluation. Even the administration agrees that the current storage system can safely remain for many years. Congress must now decide. Will it opt for the administration’s unsound policy that jeopardizes our health and safety or will it choose to act responsibly? At a time when we need to be doing everything in our power to secure our nation’s safety, a policy that puts us on the road to another national tragedy is a step in the wrong direction.
    *Kerrey, a former U.S. senator from Nebraska, is president of New School University in New York.

    Distributed by Knight Ridder News Service.

  • What’s Wrong with Yucca Mountain?

    1. It is on Western Shoshone treaty land, and the US cannot show title.
    The Treaty of Ruby Valley, ratified by Congress in 1863, is the supreme law of the land. The US has never shown legal title to this land, even when requested by federal and international courts.

    2. The Repository would contaminate groundwater.
    Yucca Mountain scientists will readily tell you that the question is not if the repository will release its contents, but when. Groundwater moves rapidly down through the site. Tracers from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests have been found at the underground level at which waste would be placed. This means that precipitation on the surface can reach the waste in less than 50 years, then carry the radioactive material using the groundwater in as little as possibly a few hundred years.

    3. The Repository would endanger millions of people nearby.
    Downstream from the site, groundwater is used for drinking, irrigation, and the largest dairy in the Nevada, supplying thousands of children with milk. Seventeen miles away, California hosts 1.4 million tourists a year going to Death Valley. Seven tributaries flow down Yucca Mountain to the underground Amargosa River, said by some to be the longest and biggest in the world. The Amargosa empties into Death Valley, after flowing right through a number of towns. Flash floods are frequent, and can close roads for days.

    4. Transportation would endanger millions of people across the country.
    Nuclear waste is safer sitting still than going 60-90 MPH. Distinctive casks are an obvious and vulnerable target. No study has been done on specific risks of transporting the waste to Yucca Mountain over a 30 year period, through 43 states, more than 100 cities with population over 100,000 and within one?half mile of over 50 million people.

    5. It is not geologic disposal, and violates the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that geology be the primary barrier to radioactive contamination. This is not possible at Yucca Mountain, so the DOE’s design depends on an engineered barrier, of unproven durability. The State of Nevada has filed suit against DOE claiming this is a violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requirement for geologic isolation.

    6. Insufficient data exists to evaluate waste containers.
    The Department of Energy is proposing to place the waste in “corrosion resistant” metal containers, which it claims will contain the wastes for more than 10,000 years, the duration of the regulatory period set by the EPA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The wastes remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. The claim of corrosion resistance is based on about 2 years of lab experiments under conditions less severe than would be expected in the repository, and then these corrosion results have been extrapolated for the thousands of years of containment necessary.

    7. Yucca Mountain is an active earthquake zone, with 33 faults on site.
    Yucca Mountain is the third most seismically active area in the continental US (after Alaska and coastal California). In the past 20 years, there have been over 600 earthquakes within 50 miles, with the largest, in 1992, causing $1.4 million in damage to DOE’s Yucca Mountain field office.

    8. DOE’s rush to please the nuclear industry is premature and illegal.
    The Yucca Mountain studies and site recommendation have been called inadequate and/or incomplete by the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Broad and several international peer review panels. The DOE still has at least 293 studies of site and design factors that it has agreed to complete before it submits a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that site characterization be complete at the time of a site recommendation (Feb. 14th, 2002) and that the license application must be submitted within 90 days of site designation. However, the DOE’s Yucca Mountain Management and Operating contractor has estimated that it will take 4 years to complete these studies.

    For more information, e-mail: heal@h-o-m-e.org or visit: http://www.h-o-m-e.org/