Nevada lauds article on Yucca science

Erin Neff

Friday, April 26, 2002 | 10:59 a.m.

State leaders found surprising allies in their fight against Yucca Mountain in two pro-nuclear scientists who wrote in an article published today that the decision to put the dump in Nevada is being pushed by policy concerns, not science.

The scientific basis for Yucca is "only a marginal consideration," the scientists, who have both studied the site for several years, wrote in Science magazine.

Allison Macfarlane, who directs the Yucca Mountain Project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Rodney Ewing, a geologist at the University of Michigan, wrote that a Yucca nuclear waste repository may be feasible after further study, but they said to make a decision "without first addressing the outstanding scientific issues will only continue to marginalize the role of science and detract from the credibility of the (Energy Department) effort."

They say the Energy Department's plan is "based on an unsound engineering strategy and poor use of present understanding of the properties of spent nuclear fuel."

Nevada politicians cheered the article as another weapon in the state's lobbying efforts. The article backs up their claims that the proposed repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas hasn't been fully studied and found to be scientifically feasible.

That's an argument the Energy Department has disputed, claiming that 20 years of study and more than $2 billion have proven its case that it is safe to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in Nevada.

The effect that the article will have on the debate remains uncertain. The state suffered a major blow Thursday with a House committee's passage, 41-6, of Yucca legislation.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., lauded the article as "another arrow in Nevada's quiver."

"This is the kind of material, from independent voices, independent sources, that gives us an opportunity to go to people and ask for their support," he said.

The scientists, who say they are generally pro-nuclear, wrote that pressure from the nuclear industry has made politics the driving force of what should be a scientific decision.

"It would be nice for this to work properly and for science to play the main role," Macfarlane told the Sun. "They really don't have enough data."

Ewing led the assessment of Yucca's viability five years ago, a process he said raised critical concerns about the methodology and "gaps in the science."

In the years since, Ewing said he hasn't seen much progress.

"I am very disappointed that we arrive at this point," Ewing told the Sun. "There are no alternatives, and this is before the highest decision-makers in the country -- the Congress -- and there is spin on both sides of the issue."

Gov. Kenny Guinn said he first heard Macfarlane's concerns when she followed him on a CNBC program during his trip to Washington to veto President Bush's decision.

"She was representing the other side and she started talking about the science and she turned out to be on our side," Guinn said.

Guinn said the article confirms Nevada's argument that the science is questionable.

But Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis dismissed both the article and its authors.

"I don't think that they've ever worked on Yucca Mountain," Davis said. "We are confident in our 24 years of scientific studies by Ph.D.s."

Both Macfarlane and Ewing have doctorate degrees.

Davis said that if Macfarlane and Ewing are confident in their scientific ideas, they should forward them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for consideration. Otherwise, he said, they are simply advocating delay and if Congress puts the issue aside, NRC scientists won't get to consider the idea.

"The NRC's going to have the final say on the licensing and approval of Yucca Mountain," Davis said. "We are confident that Yucca Mountain will meet the requirements and be licensed."

Ewing and Macfarlane said they are editing scientists' articles on a variety of issues about Yucca Mountain for a book. Both said they decided to write article because the current congressional debate appears to be based solely on nuclear policy and politics.

Ewing, a member of the American Nuclear Society -- a group that supports a Yucca repository -- said the Energy Department's reports are "highly nuanced" and difficult for policymakers or the public to understand.

The full House is expected to consider Yucca legislation next week, with the Senate expected to act sometime in the coming two months.