Panel discounts ground water problem at Yucca Mountain

Monday, July 27, 1998 | 9:04 a.m.

A report by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board criticized the findings of Jerry Szymanski for "the pervasive presence of unsubstantiated interpretations."

The scientists reviewed 11 reports submitted by Szymanski in January 1997. Several of the reports were written by Yuri Dublyanksy, a geochemist for the Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Material provided by the Nevada Attorney General's Office also was reviewed.

In a response released Friday, the board said its review found no evidence of ongoing, intermittent ground water activity at Yucca Mountain or that large earthquake-induced changes in the mountain's water table are likely.

It recommended that state and federal scientists work together to resolve the ground water issue, but added that while additional research may be useful, it should be given a lower priority than other issues regarding the Department of Energy's plan to build a nuclear waste repository at the site.

Szymanski called the board's conclusions "nonsense."

"I think it shows how far this nation has gone down the road to (building a nuclear waste repository at) Yucca Mountain, and they feel there is no way out," he said.

The DOE hopes to store highly radioactive spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors by 2010 at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The technical review board oversees DOE studies of the mountain.

Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa questioned the board's objectivity even though four independent scientists served as consultants.

"Obviously, we're disappointed," she said. "We were hoping the board would be independent enough to do an independent review.

"We intend to stay the course because we're strongly convinced there are serious problems related to this site."

The panel's findings mark the second time Szymanski's theory has been discounted by other scientists.

In 1992, a 17-member panel of the National Academy of Sciences unanimously concluded there was no evidence to suggest water has risen within Yucca Mountain.

Rising ground water could disqualify Yucca Mountain as a repository site because the water could corrode waste containers and carry off their radioactive contaminants into the environment.

The technical review board said while Dublyanksy's research appeared to confirm Szymanski's theory, the new reports do not significantly alter the previous conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences panel.

"Although the data generally appear to be of good quality, often there is poor or insufficient documentation of important details," the report said.

The board's consultants cited the "apparent selective use of information," and said "important dissenting information is not mentioned or discussed."

Szymanski defended the accuracy of his work.

"There is no scientific doubt regarding the validity of our findings or the validity of my suspicions when I was with DOE," he said.

Szymanski resigned from the DOE's Yucca Mountain Project in 1992 following a dispute over the project's scientific integrity.

He now works as a consultant to the state attorney general's office, which hopes to collect scientific evidence for legal battles against the Energy Department.