Tag: Yucca Mountain

  • EPA Revised Standards Are Inadequate for Protecting Public Health

    Established in 1982, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan, education and advocacy organization that initiates and supports efforts to eliminate nuclear threats to humanity. With headquarters in California, the Foundation has a membership of thousands individuals across the United States, including in Nevada.

    On behalf of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and our members, I am here today to express our deep concern over the Environmental Protection Agency’s revised radiation protection standard for the Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste dump in Nevada. We believe this revised radiation protection standard will fall far short of protecting public health and that it even disregards the agency’s own previous recommendations. If approved, this standard will ignore the scientific consensus on the health impact of radiation, as well as the many unresolved problems surrounding radioactive waste. It will set a terrible precedent; lowering the bar for radiation protection across the country.

    The Yucca Mountain project is a distinct danger to defenseless citizens – not just to this generation, but to thousands of generations to come who will be affected by this decision. In July 2004, a DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision found EPA’s previous standard – a 15 millirem per year radiation exposure limit for 10,000 years – to be illegal. According to the ruling, the standard EPA sets for Yucca Mountain must be consistent with a National Academy of Science (NAS) study on the subject, which recommended that the standard extend through the time of highest risk to the public, known as the “peak dose.” The Department of Energy estimates peak dose at several hundred thousand years.

    The EPA’s recently revised standard, however, fails to comply with the court ruling and the intent of the NAS recommendations. Instead of extending the 15 millirem per year limit through the time of peak risk, the EPA has proposed a two part standard – 15 millirem per year for 10,000 years, and then a 350 millirem per year standard thereafter (up to a million years).

    Such a standard is not scientifically justified, and would perhaps be the least protective radiation standard in the world. No other US or international radiation protection standard permits a dose of 350 millirems per year to individuals. In fact, EPA’s proposed standard is not even consistent with the agency’s own previous recommendations.

    Yucca Mountain is located on Native American land, belonging to the Western Shoshone by the treaty of Ruby Valley. The Western Shoshone National Council has declared this land a nuclear free zone and demanded an end to nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear wastes on their land. We support the claims of the Western Shoshone to the sovereignty of their land, which they hold as sacred, and we believe that the revised radiation standard is a form of environmental racism that will disproportionately harm the lands and health of the Western Shoshone people.

    We are also concerned that Yucca Mountain sits above the only source of drinking water for the residents of Amargosa Valley. The aquifer below Yucca Mountain provides water to Nevada’s largest dairy farm, which supplies milk to some 30 million people on the west coast. Another casualty of EPA’s proposed rule is the Safe Drinking Water Act standard limiting radiation in drinking water to 4 millirem per year, which EPA would only enforce for the first10,000 years, but would then replace with the 350 millirem year all pathway exposure limit. Water is a precious resource, which will require more, not less, protection as time goes on. Yucca’s radioactive wastes will leak into the underlying drinking water aquifer, which will become the primary pathway for harmful doses to people downstream. The Safe Drinking Water Act standard should be applied to protect Yucca’s aquifer and the people downstream for as long as the high-level radioactive wastes remain hazardous, hundreds of thousands of years into the future.

    Yucca Mountain is also directly above an active magma pocket and is the third most seismically active area in the United States. In the past 25 years alone, over 600 earthquakes of 2.5 or greater on the Richter Scale have struck within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain. In 1992, a 5.6 quake cracked walls, shattered windows, and caused some one million dollars in damage to the Department of Energy (DoE) field office studying the site. On July 14, 2002, an earthquake registered a magnitude of 4.4 on the Richter Scale. It defies reason to expect that radioactive wastes will sit for tens of thousands of years undisturbed by unpredictable nature, or by human or technological errors in the design of the containment structure itself.

    The problem of what to do with high-level radioactive wastes warrants additional consideration and resources, including investigation of alternatives to Yucca Mountain. Instead of setting a new and very dangerous precedent for the storage of radioactive waste throughout the country in order to simply satisfy political pressures to license Yucca Mountain, the Environmental Protection Agency should fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment. We ask you to withdraw this standard immediately, and propose a standard that is truly protective of public health and the environment for this generation and generations to come.

  • Radioactive Reservation: The Uphill Battle to Keep Nuclear Waste Off Native American Land

    Nuclear waste is not just an issue for those who live near a nuclear reactor or waste site. It is an issue that in time – due to deadly, toxic waste that will remain harmful for thousands of years – will have adverse affects on the entire world. However, the reality within the United States is that one group has been disproportionately affected by waste policies since the inception of the US nuclear program – the Native American population. In the quest to dispose of nuclear waste, the government and private companies have disregarded and broken treaties, blurred the definition of Native American sovereignty, and directly engaged in a form of economic racism akin to bribery.

    Many people consider treaties between Native American tribes and the United States government to be a topic reserved for history books, yet few realize how hard many Native American tribes are still battling over treaty rights being denied to them. The nuclear waste storage issue has become the most recent excuse for the government to breach treaties made with Native American tribes and perhaps the most well known example is the proposed waste storage site at Yucca Mountain. The planned nuclear waste dump site lies on sacred land to which the Shoshone people have rights based on the Treaty of Ruby Valley. The Western Shoshone Tribe has sued the government, but with little success in halting the plans for the permanent storage of 77,000 metric tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The government has attempted to offer the Shoshone monetary compensation for the use of their land as a radioactive dump. However, the Shoshone people have refused the bribe and they continue to reiterate that they would rather have their land nuclear free than money in their pockets and their land desecrated beyond repair.

    The issue of nuclear waste has played a key role in obscuring the definition of Native American sovereignty. Although sovereignty is a simple concept, contradictory government policies have skewed its definition and made it a sticky subject for even the politically astute to comprehend. By turning their nose up at treaties and claiming Native American land as their property for nuclear testing and radioactive waste dumping, the government has blown gaping holes into Native American sovereignty rights. Sadly, the government’s view on sovereignty is that “.an Indian Tribe is sovereign to the extent that the Untied States permits it to be sovereign.” (United States v. Blackfeet Tribe, 1973). No Native American nation can be a truly autonomous entity if the United States government can choose when they wish to give them sovereignty.

    In the late 1980s, the United States government seemed to make a complete 180 degree turn when it began to support the idea of Native American sovereignty, but the goal was still the same: to place nuclear waste storage sites on Native American lands. The Department of Energy appealed to native tribes to host temporary nuclear storage sites on their land, mostly based on the fact that restrictions placed on such sites are not as strict on reservations because of their sovereign status. In the words of the Grace Thorpe, an activist against the dumping of nuclear waste on native reservations and a member of the Sac and Fox tribe, “The real irony is that after years of trying to destroy it, the United States is promoting Indian national sovereignty — just so they can dump their waste on Native land.”

    The broken treaties and the confusion injected into the issue of Native American sovereignty are disturbing to be sure. However, the most disturbing aspect of United States nuclear waste policy is the blatant economic racism this policy exhibits. As a whole, Native Americans are the most poverty stricken ethnic group in the United States. On average, 23 percent of Native American families live in poverty, which is almost double that of the national poverty rate of families at 12 percent. Nuclear utility companies and the United States government take advantage of the overwhelming level of poverty on native reservations by offering them millions of dollars to host nuclear waste storage sites.

    No matter how pretty a picture the government paints about their “benevolent” efforts to improve the economic development of the reservations, this policy is virtually a bribe to try to coerce Native tribes into taking nuclear waste out of the hands of the government. An example of this occurred in 1989; Waste Tech Incorporated approached a small Navajo community with an offer to provide 175 jobs, a hospital, and a minimum of $100,000. In exchange, the community would allow Waste Tech to put a toxic waste incinerator and a dump to bury the dangerous toxic ash on their land. At the time, the tribe had a 72 percent unemployment rate. The tribe was targeted by this company because of their poor economic condition. The government itself has almost exactly copied this tactic and solicited Native American tribes with a reservation to host a waste site.

    Yucca Mountain is just one more example to add to the list of the United States government’s existing nuclear waste policies that are transparently racist, violate long-standing Native American treaty rights and disregard Native American sovereignty or use it for their own ends. Millions of dollars are being spent to bribe a minority portion of the population to take stewardship of the majority’s nuclear waste. Is this the best method the United States government can devise to deal with the issue of nuclear waste? Or is it just the simplest option available to the government with the least public visibility? With the billions of dollars spent each year on nuclear weapons and power plants, wouldn’t a more feasible option be to, first and foremost, stop producing new nuclear waste and redirect some of this money to solving the ever growing problem of nuclear waste? Since its formation, the United States government has subjugated and subdued Native Americans, and it is time to reverse this trend, beginning with the government’s policies on nuclear waste.

    Bayley Lopez is a Lena Chang Intern at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and currently a sophomore at Stanford University. This Article expresses her point of view as a person of Native American descent; it does not express the opinion of all native Peoples.

  • What Does the US Department of Energy Have In Store For the Yucca Mountain National Nuclear Waste Repository?

    2002: The Department of Energy continues work on unresolved scientific issues as it prepares an application for a construction permit that will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

    2003: The Department of Energy completes a detailed transportation plan, working with 45 states on routing and security, and with the NRC on waste canister designs and safeguards.

    2003: Courts expected to rule on the first of five lawsuits already filed by the state of Nevada challenging the Yucca Mountain project.

    2004: The Department of Energy plans to apply for a construction permit. The NRC licensing process is expected to take three to four years.

    2007: Construction of the Yucca Mountain National Nuclear Waste Repository expected to begin.

    2010-2034: 3,200 tons of highly radioactive waste per year will be shipped by rail, truck and barge to the Yucca Mountain site. The site’s initial capacity is 77,000 tons of waste. However, with congressional approval the site could be expanded to hold up to 120,000 tons, to be filled by 2048.

    2035 and beyond: The Yucca Mountain site is expected to remain open for 100 to 300 years, after which it would be shut in.

    source: US Department of Energy

     

  • Yucca Mountain: A Salient Solution?

    In the push to open a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the nuclear power industry claims that it is better to consolidate the nation’s waste at one site, rather than leave it at nuclear reactors across the country. Yucca Mountain is initially planned to hold 77,000 metric tons of nuclear waste, with possible expansion in the future. Although there is intense earthquake and volcanic activity at the site, risks of transporting the highly radioactive wastes cross-country, as well as the proposed dump’s rising costs, the decision to locate the national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain is based on providing welfare to the nuclear lobby and the utilities that operate nuclear power plants.

    The Yucca Mountain proposal entails transporting highly radioactive waste from temporary storage sites in 45 states by train, truck and barge routes that come within miles of some 50,000,000 people. If you would like to see how close the proposed shipments come to your own residence, visithttp://www.mapscience.org. In the past 25 years alone, over 600 earthquakes of 2.5 or greater on the Richter Scale have struck within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain. In 1992, a 5.6 quake cracked walls, shattered windows, and caused some one million dollars in damage to the Department of Energy (DoE) field office studying the site. A 1999 quake derailed a train on a railway that could be used to haul nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. The most recent earthquake registered a magnitude of 4.4 on June 14th, 2002.

    Even if Yucca Mountain opens, high-level nuclear waste will remain at every operating reactor site (unless the industry plans to permanently close its reactors-an unlikely scenario), including in California. According to the Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement, there currently are 2,040 metric tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste in California. Following a 38-year waste shipment program, which would include anywhere from 13,690 shipments (if primarily by rail) to 14,479 shipments (if primarily by road) in California, we still would have 1,681 metric tons of this waste within our borders! This is because Yucca Mountain is limited, by law, in how much waste can be placed there.

    Clearly, Yucca Mountain would not solve the nation’s radioactive waste problem, it would just spread it across our highways and railways. The Senate, which is expected to vote on this issue in the next week, should reject the earthquake-prone Yucca project and begin working on a real solution to nuclear waste. The best alternative to Yucca Mountain is to stop making nuclear waste and to convert existing waste into dry cask storage to be maintained in the interim at reactor sites. While nuclear waste already exists, creating more nuclear waste without having a safe or scientifically credible means of disposal is simply irresponsible.

    What can you do?

    Write a letter or call your Senator and urge them to oppose the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The vote is expected to take place on 9 July, so your urgent action is needed now!

    To find your Senator, call the congressional switchboard or visit the following websites to locate contact information. You can also find local district contract information in the government pages of your phone book.

    Congressional Switchboard is 202-225-3121

    Senators:
    http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

    Resources

    How close are YOU to proposed Yucca high level nuke waste transportation routes & the closest nuke reactor? Find out at http://www.mapscience.org

    Nuclear Information and Resource Service http://www.nirs.org

    Public Citizen http://www.publiccitizen.org/atomicroad

     

  • Bush Administration Stops One Dirty Bomber, But Targets US Cities With Largest Dirty Bomb Program in History

    While Attorney General Ashcroft announced the capture of an alleged al Qaeda operative intending to make a radioactive “dirty bomb,” the Bush Administration has given the rubber stamp for thousands of potential dirty bombs to move across the United States to a leaky dump at Yucca Mountain. A national nuclear dump in Nevada, located far from the sites of waste generation would result in millions of shipping miles of high-level nuclear waste – the most concentrated nuclear material on the planet. The routes (barge, rail and truck) would be general commerce routes that link trade centers. Major US cities in 43 states are in the cross hairs for Yucca shipments, which in the current era, could well become dirty bombs if exploded in transit.

    The radioactivity in these containers-primarily from commercial nuclear power–dwarfs the amount of persistent radioactivity released by nuclear weapons. Indeed, each truck cask contains the radiological equivalent of 40 times the persistent radioactivity released by the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. A rail shipment contains as much as 240 times more than released at Hiroshima. While shipping containers are touted as robust, the US Department of Energy’s own tests have shown that rocket launchers that are for retail sale in many countries around the world are capable of penetrating a shipping cask, releasing deadly amounts of radioactivity.

    “The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste shipments would travel through thousands of communities and each and every one of them will be a rolling risk of terror. Here in DC the rail route travels through tunnels nearly under the US Capitol. How can the US Senate stand by and allow this program to go forward?” asked Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “My home in Asheville, NC is at the cross roads of three major nuclear waste routes so we call it the ‘Atomic Crossroads’ — but so is Albuquerque, Atlanta, Indianapolis, St Louis, Chicago, Lansing and hundreds of other US cities.”

    The US Senate will make the crucial decision about Yucca, likely in the next few weeks. The State of Nevada has vetoed President Bush’s approval of this flawed scheme. Congress has the opportunity to uphold or override Nevada’s veto. The US House has sided with Bush. “The senators in states with nuclear reactors should be clear that they are not getting rid of all the nuclear waste, Yucca just makes room for new waste to be made, and converts their cities and states to potential terrorist target ranges,” said Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist at NIRS.

    Up to 100,000 shipments over 30 years are projected depending on how much is moved by truck, barge or rail. “Providing security over a 30 year period for tens of thousands of moving targets is not realistic” Kamps continued. “These shipments will be no secret; the containers are so large that it would be practically like trying to hit a barn if a terrorist decided to shoot at one! Putting dirty bombs on the rivers, roads and rails through our cities will NOT increase our security; Yucca Mountain is the exact wrong plan.”

    Senate action on Yucca Mountain is expected in the coming weeks.
    -NIRS-

  • How do you design a “Keep Out!” sign to last 10,000 years?

    This article was first published at Salon.com

    Imagine you’re part of an archaeological expedition 6,000 years from today, stomping around the desert in an area known long ago as Yucca Mountain, Nev. You are looking for the remnants of a once flourishing civilization, a nation state that apparently called itself the USA back in 2002. You’re 10 days into your quest, not finding much of anything, when one of your team runs up, all sweaty-faced and panting, insisting that you come see what he’s discovered.

    You follow your flushed, jabbering colleague around a rocky outcropping, and there, vividly etched on a granite monolith, is a towering reproduction of Macauley Culkin in “Home Alone,” hands to face, mouth agape; or maybe it’s one of Francis Bacon’s shrieking pope paintings or Edvard Munch’s “The Scream.”

    You don’t recognize any of these startling cultural icons from the distant past; you don’t know who made them, or what they symbolize. Hell, you don’t even know that they’re cultural icons, but the whole scene briefly scares the bejesus out of you. Then, like Howard Carter stumbling on the tomb of Tutankhamen, you experience a serious rush of exhilaration, aggravated by a serious case of the heebie-jeebies, as you realize that you’ve just chanced on a history-making breakthrough, a discovery of earthshaking significance.

    So, which do you do? 1) Immediately pack up the entire expedition and evacuate the area never to return? 2) Waste no time in commencing a major archaeological dig and cementing your place in history?

    Amazingly enough, the folks over at the U.S. Department of Energy are banking on curious humans (or whomever) from future millennia to go for Door No. 1.

    As it becomes increasingly likely that, despite Nevada’s protests, President Bush will get his wish for Yucca Mountain to become the nation’s central nuclear waste repository (the House has approved it by a 3-1 margin; the Senate may vote on it as early as next week), the doings of the DOE, which will be charged with building the facility, warrant greater attention.

    For the last two decades, it has been the daunting, if not nutty, business of the department to study and design warning monuments for radioactive waste sites, such as Yucca Mountain or the already functioning Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M. When I heard about this eerie undertaking, I called the DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management’s Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) to see what I could learn about the harebrained — I mean, farsighted — scheme.

    The YMP has a toll-free line staffed by real people, specifically established to field questions from yo-yos like you and me. When I called, a very nice, patient, soft-spoken woman named Jenny McNeil picked up the phone.

    “You know,” McNeil told me, “there has been a lot of research, since the ’80s, in an effort to come up with plans for monuments that would transcend specific cultures and languages.”

    Ms. McNeil was a kind soul, and her voice had a definite calming effect, but she wasn’t a fount of information, so I called Sandia National Laboratories where, in 1991, the monument plan was first described in a study produced by the lab for the DOE. I talked to an official there (who asked not to be quoted by name). “Is this something that’s actually going to happen,” I asked him, “or is it a dead subject?”

    “Oh, no, no, no,” the Sandia official told me. “It definitely will happen.”

    The monuments are intended to last for thousands of years — the waste may stay toxic for as long as 100,000 years. If everything goes as the DOE hopes, an archaeological expedition tens of centuries hence will take one look at these structures and hightail it in the other direction — just like we do now whenever we come across mysterious ancient monuments covered with strange inscriptions and odd images.

    What are they thinking?

    And they are big thinkers over at the DOE. They’re not talking about slapping up a few signs with a red circle and diagonal line over a mushroom cloud or a glowing mutant, or even something slightly more ambitious like that unnerving black obelisk in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” No, what the DOE has in mind is more on the order of Stonehenge, but with a better class of stone — granite — and magnets.

    Magnets? Of course. You need magnets to “give the structure a distinctive magnetic signature.” (I knew that.) But also because they nicely complement the “metal trihedrals” (three-sided pyramids) that will provide that all important “radar-reflective signature.” Very Captain Kirk, and more and more fascinating as you get further into its psychotic science fiction novel aspects.

    Anyway, according to a report in the May/June issue of Archaeology magazine, in a reverse archaeology exercise, the DOE brought together “engineers, archaeologists, anthropologists, and linguists to design effective warning structures capable of lasting 10,000 years … Using archeological sites as ‘historical analogues.’” A summary analysis of the DOE report on the Environmental Protection Agency Web site explains that “The conceptual design for the PIC (‘Passive Institutional Controls’) markers” includes a berm surrounding the area, 48 granite monoliths, “thousands of small buried markers, randomly spaced and distributed,” an information center located aboveground, and “two buried storage rooms.”

    You’ll note there’s no provision for a gift shop or children’s play area, but I suspect those design oversights can be easily corrected at the same time they put in the handicapped ramps.

    So, you might ask, “What’s this thing going to run us?” Calm down, taxpayers, it’ll be a pittance. The materials will be cheap, says the EPA, pointing out that “materials of high economic value are less desirable because they may encourage removal and/or destruction of markers.” Good point — that’s where the Egyptians slipped up. No gold facings for us.

    Figure the whole job’s going to cost a mere $150 to $200 million. Chickenfeed for those of us who don’t fancy our future relatives looking like phosphorescent iguanas.

    To get a closer view of one of these proposed hot zone follies, come, let’s take a walk through, and for god’s sake, don’t touch anything.

    According to the EPA document, the “inner core” of the 33-foot-tall berm “will consist of salt.” OK, sure. Salt. Most people turn and run at the sight of salt. This berm surrounding the “repository footprint” (I love wonk-speak) is the first line of defense. The thought, I guess, is that if our year 8002 archaeologists first begin to dig into the berm, they’ll strike the mound of salt. “Salt!” someone will bellow. “Let’s get the hell out of here!” And the expedition leader will try to control the ensuing frenzy. “Better clear out,” he’ll say. “I don’t like the looks of this. Fill the shakers then let’s beat it!”

    But if curiousity gets the better of our explorers, and they just walk right over the berm and head for the monuments, they’ll first come across 16 structures that will “consist of two granite monoliths joined by a [5 foot] long tendon, with a buried truncated base, [22 feet] high, including the tendon, and a [25 foot] high right prism that will be [4 feet] square. The upper stone will weigh approximately [40 tons], and the base stone will weigh approximately [65 tons].” And that’s just the first bunch.

    Farther in, at the “perimeter of the controlled area,” are 32 more granite monoliths. Altogether, these 48 100-ton puppies alone will cost about $30 million according to the EPA estimate. But given how government contracts go, we can safely triple that and still be under the actual cost. Shipping extra. Seems like a lot until you consider that the price includes engraving.

    No, there’ll be no monograms, no floral patterns, but each monument will be inscribed with “messages in seven languages: the six official United Nations languages (English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Arabic) and Navajo.” Navajo? Great. The Hopis are going to be so pissed. With all due respect to the Navajo, a fine people we’ve done everything in our power to drive into extinction (there are about 250,000 now living in the U.S.), please raise your hand if you think our relatives 6,000 years down the pike are likely to be reading Navajo. Heck, why not Sanskrit or Eskimo?

    And what are these inscriptions going to say? Will they be your basic banal warnings, the type of thing we paid so much attention to as kids, or maybe something more effective, like the first chapter of “The Bridges of Madison County”?

    The DOE plans to separate the messages “into different levels of complexity,” assuming, I suppose, that even 6,000 or 8,000 years from now there will be slow readers who don’t much cotton to subtlety. Always thinking ahead, the DOE plans to road-test the inscriptions to check “the comprehensibility of messages among a cultural cross section of the U.S. population.” Sounds reasonable, but let’s take it a step further. When a Lakota Sioux gentleman doesn’t comprehend a “No Trespassing” sign written in Navajo or Arabic, what’s our next move?

    Images, of course! One surface of the polished, four-sided monuments will feature “diagrams.” That’s fine. Pictures are good, and a welcome respite from all the reading, but at the risk of second-guessing the experts, may I suggest a simpler, more surefire alternate plan? A 15-foot-tall reproduction of Lucien Freud’s ghastly-but-true portrait of Queen Elizabeth, or perhaps a collection of stills from “Glitter” starring Mariah Carey, or anything from the brushes of Thomas Kinkade Painter of Light, accompanied by 500 words from Lynn Cheney’s novel, “The Body Politic,” translated into Urdu.

    Trust me, there is no conceivable circumstance, now or at any time in the future, under which a sentient being confronted with such a display would not be deeply alarmed and motivated to gallop in the opposite direction. Just a suggestion, free of charge.

    Now we get to the good part: the buried storage rooms and information center. To cook up these, the DOE once again turned to the ancients for inspiration. They considered Newgrange, a passage grave in Ireland thought to be more than 5,000 years old; the Great Pyramids at Giza, Egypt, 4,500 years old; rock art done by Australian Aborigines 25,000 to 35,000 years ago; and the Acropolis in Greece, which has been standing for 2,400 years.

    Not to bring up an unpleasant subject or be tiresomely pedantic, but given that the stuff we intend to plant at Yucca Mountain may remain seriously nasty for, like, 100,000 years, how does the longevity of any of the above apply to this project? Well, remember that the EPA only requires that the warning monuments last 10,000 years. After that anyone who wants to go nosing around the boondocks is on their own.

    Where were we? Oh yes, the buried rooms and info center, cozy granite spaces with no restroom facilities and no seating. The roofless information center will have its walls inscribed with details about “the disposal system and the dangers of the radioactive and toxic waste buried therein.” There is no provision for videos, pets are allowed — granite’s very forgiving when it comes to messes. The center will sit up high to facilitate good drainage — always a plus for rooms without roofs where incontinent pugs may forget themselves.

    The two buried storage rooms are another matter. If you liked those old movies about the building of the pyramids as much as I did — humongous blocks sliding hither and thither, hysterical slaves getting sealed into secret chambers — you’re going to love these. The rooms will be constructed of huge granite slabs “joined by fitting the pieces into slots … to eliminate the need for mortar, grouts, or metal fasteners.” This is a good call. The three-year-old grout on my tub is already doing disgusting things, and don’t get me started on zippers.

    My favorite part is the entrance to these rooms. It will be a plugged hole, two feet in diameter. Once our archaeologists of the future pull the plug and wriggle into the room, they’ll find “tables, figures, diagrams and maps” engraved on the walls. However, if we look at the current, up-swinging weight statistics for U.S. adults and children and figure that the trend will continue over the next several thousand years, we must assume that we’ll then be looking at a population that resembles overinflated pregnant manatees, and their likelihood of getting through a 2-foot aperture is slim to none. Of course, they did manage to get Winnie the Pooh out of that hole. Maybe we could inscribe that chapter next to the plug.

    Then, buried all around the site, will be the “thousands” of small inscribed warning markers, made of “granite, clay and aluminum oxide.” The DOE experts based this idea on the Code of Hammurabi, an inscribed stone slab found in Iraq (don’t tell Dubya it was found in Saddam’s country or we’ll have a replay of the pretzel horror) and Mesopotamian clay tablets. I figure our markers will feature Jewel’s poetry on one side and select excerpts from Nancy Reagan’s “My Turn” on the other.

    That’s about it. Your tax dollars at work.

    Now, I’m not a scientist, so maybe this whole project makes a lot of sense to someone. A scientist, for example. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to be a wet blanket or soft on terrorism. Building these monument thingies sounds like a patriotic hoot. I think they’ll look very cool and be inexpensive to maintain.

    I guess we just have to accept that, as with so much our government does, the whole plan’s a little kooky, but in a sweet way. Apparently none of the experts who were consulted suggested that putting up our own Stonehenge might accomplish the same thing that the original Stonehenge (or Newgrange, or the Pyramids) has — endless poking about, drilling and excavating by experts, nonexperts, tourists (and their pets) and freelance goofballs.

    In fact, I’m guessing that Yucca Mountain or the Carlsbad site might be selected, a few thousand years down the road, as a perfect spot for some futuristic version of our own Harmonic Convergence celebrations of a few years back. In which case, we might want to tack on a few million for stadium seating and some bathrooms.
    *Douglas Cruickshank is a senior writer for Salon. For more articles by Cruickshank, visit his archive.

  • 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.

  • The Folly of Yucca Mountain

    Have we lost our senses? The Bush administration is trying to steamroll establishment of Yucca Mountain as the country’s nuclear waste dump, while planning to build more “mini-nukes” and threatening to use our nuclear weapons against a handful of nations and in situations where they were previously off-limits. In this case, not only is Bush threatening to destroy life in the countries named in the Nuclear Posture Review, but he’s willing to sacrifice his own nation in order to kept the nuclear industry afloat.

    Yucca Mountain was not chosen to be the nation’s nuclear repository based on “sound science” as those in the Bush administration would have us believe, but it had been singled out almost 20 years ago based on political vulnerability – the small congressional delegation of Nevada is no match for the nuclear industry lobby and their friends in Congress. The state of Nevada does not even have a nuclear reactor, so why should it be the dump for the rest of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel? In fact, sound science shows us that Yucca Mountain is the one place studied so thoroughly that the Department of Energy (DOE) knows that it will leak. The Nuclear Waste technical Review Board described the DOE’s science at the site as “moderate to weak,” and the General Accounting Office (the independent investigative arm of Congress) found that 293 scientific issues still need to be resolved before the site should even be considered as a waste dump.

    Yucca Mountain is very seismically active, with over 600 earthquakes occurring in the last 25 years, including one that did over a million dollars’ worth of damage to the DOE’s own testing facilities. An even more interesting geological feature of the site is that a line of lava cones extends westward from Yucca Mountain, the youngest of which lies closest to the mountain, suggesting a magma pocket underneath. Global positioning satellites which track the movement of the earth’s crust note that the crust at Yucca is expanding and moving steadily westward. The earliest analyses of the site show that water flows very quickly through the mountain. Recent analysis of abundant crystals in the mountain found they were formed by hot water welling up into the mountain from below. This presents the possibility of a catastrophic explosion caused by steam, chemical interaction or a chain reaction, much like what would happen in a core meltdown of a nuclear reactor.

    Then there are the problems of transportation. The waste must be stored in dry casks and then placed on trains, trucks, and barges to begin their slow, dangerous journey from the nation’s 103 nuclear reactors to Yucca Mountain, at least 6 shipments a day for 30 years or more. The planned routes pass within miles of over 50,000,000 people, passing through large cities such as Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., and countless smaller cities including Santa Barbara. The potential for a catastrophic accident is enormous, as these slow-moving shipments are basically sitting ducks for any would-be terrorist, not to mention the risk involving road accidents. However, the nuclear industry needs it that way, because as soon as the spent fuel moves off the reactor site, all responsibility shifts to the taxpayer, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the industry’s liability in case of an accident even when it occurs on reactor property.

    The shocking proposal to establish Yucca Mountain has been vetoed by Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn, throwing the ball back to Congress to override the veto and create the nation’s first nuclear repository. A bill has already been introduced to establish the repository, and will be voted on within 90 days. These next few months are crucial, so please write a letter to your senators and representative and urge them to vote against this extremely dangerous plan.
    Senator Barbara Boxer
    112 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510-0505
    Tel.: (202) 224-3553
    Fax: (415) 956-6701
    Environment and Public Works

    Senator Dianne Feinstein
    331 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510-0504
    Tel.: (202) 224-3841
    Fax: (202) 228-3954
    Energy and Natural Resources Committee

    Representative Lois Capps
    1118 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515-0522
    Tel.: (202) 225-3601
    Fax: (202) 225-5632
    Energy and Commerce Committee

    If your representative is not listed here, please visit www.congress.org for contact info.

    This article was written with the help of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, http://www.nirs.org

  • 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/

  • Spencer Abraham, Poster Boy for Yucca Mountain

    Spencer Abraham, Poster Boy for Yucca Mountain

    In a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post (March 26, 2002), Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham argues for moving radioactive wastes from throughout the country to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, something the people of Nevada are fighting tooth and nail. So confident is the Energy Secretary that he promises: “Someone living 11 miles away from the site 10,000 years from now would be less exposed to radiation than he would be on a normal plane flight from Las Vegas to New York.” Of course, neither Secretary Abraham nor any of proponents of this storage site will be around 10,000 years from now to see if their prediction is correct. They just ask for our trust on behalf of the next 400 generations of humans on this planet.

    Secretary Abraham also appeals to our sense of patriotism when he argues that the “project is critical for national security.” Why? Because we’re going to have to get rid of the spent fuel from nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines if we’re going to keep using them. And that’s not all. Burying the wastes in Nevada is also critical to our “energy security” because nuclear power “emits no airborne pollution or greenhouse gasses and now gives us one of the cheapest forms of power generation we have.” First of all, hasn’t this administration been telling us that greenhouse gasses are not something to be worried about and we should just forget the Kyoto Accords that the rest of the world supports? Second, this cheap form of power is actually highly subsidized by the taxpayers in the form of the research and development, liability limits set by Congress, and perpetual taxpayer care of the wastes.

    Mr. Abraham leaves out of his discussion the 50 million Americans who will be subject to the effects of nuclear accidents when these large amounts of nuclear wastes start hitting our highways and railways. One study predicted that property damage alone could be over $9 billion per square mile when radiation is released after a truck or train accident carrying these high-level nuclear wastes. A far better solution to the nuclear waste problem is to convert it into dry cask storage and keep it on site at nuclear power plants until a solution can be found that won’t place large numbers of Americans at risk of exposure to high-level nuclear wastes.

    Mr. Abraham says the science is sound, but this includes reports of seismic activities in the region. There are also more than 250 scientific studies that remain to be completed. The critics of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository do not oppose single site storage as Abraham suggests. Rather, they oppose a premature and irreversible decision that will affect future generations for thousands of years.

    Secretary Abraham was right about one thing. Nuclear wastes are a problem that won’t just go away and “it’s our responsibility to solve it.” We might have thought more about that responsibility before we began our mad effort to build nuclear bombs and power plants. Now, we had better think about future generations before we follow the advice of Mr. Abraham and commit ourselves to a “solution” that may be not only wrong but irreversible.

    If nuclear waste storage is as safe as Mr. Abraham believes it is, it is strange that no one, including him, has suggested burying it under the Congress, the White House, or the Energy Department.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.