Monday, July 3, 2006 | 7:31 a.m.
A new book by three dozen scientists from across the country is questioning the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a dump site for the nation's high-level radioactive waste.
Yucca Mountain's complex geology - including what one scientist called an active volcano - makes the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas a poor choice to dump at least 77,000 tons of radioactive waste, according to the book, "Uncertainty Underground."
Allison Macfarlane, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology research associate, and Rodney Ewing, a University of Michigan professor, co-edited the anthology of 23 papers looking at the mountain's geology. The book was published by MIT Press.
Yucca geology and chemistry have been central issues as the federal Energy Department seeks to win approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the dump.
As the debate continues, research produced by federal agencies on the site has been questioned. Independent scientists have said the mountain is more vulnerable to water flow and other issues than once thought. And as the technical issues have piled up, the dump's opening date has receded: It was supposed to open in 1998. A year ago, Yucca's opening date was 2012. In recent discussions with Congress, the Energy Department put the date at 2018.
Critics say it should never open. Macfarlane said that while the country needs a permanent repository for nuclear waste, it shouldn't be Yucca Mountain. Congress selected the mountain in 1987, but the science does not support the decision, she said.
"There are issues that remain unresolved, and it's a geologically complex site," she said.
Macfarlane noted that a federal court has ordered the government to set a radiation standard to protect the environment and people for 1 million years.
"If we decided we were going to worry about nuclear waste for 1,000 years, then Yucca Mountain would be fine," she said. "But 10,000 or 1 million years, then there are significant issues. It's a tectonically active site - earthquakes and volcanoes. There's a volcano at the southern tip of Yucca Mountain, and it's 80,000 years old. Eighty thousand years is a really short time, geologically. It's considered still an active area."
Macfarlane said the dry desert environment is also a problem, providing an "oxidizing environment" that would corrode the metal casks holding the nuclear waste: "It's dry. Although it's touted as a plus, it's actually a problem It makes finding canister material more difficult."
She emphasized that those conclusions are her own, not necessarily of the scientists across the country who contributed to the book.
Macfarlane, who provided similar comments earlier this year to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said one thing is clear from the research: Yucca Mountain "is a really complicated place I think the solution for high-level radioactive waste is a geologic repository, but I'm not sure we've selected the right location. There's plenty of better options out there."
She declined to identify other sites better suited for the dump.
Not everyone agrees with Macfarlane's assessment. Glenn Biasi, a UNR associate professor, has studied the seismic and volcanic conditions at Yucca Mountain. Those conditions are the "subject of continuing study, certainly, but the things I know about wouldn't cause me to be concerned about the site."
Biasi said the volcanic activity that created Yucca Mountain over millions of years, and that reappeared within the last 100,000 years, is a result of underground water interacting with and helping to melt rock and bring it to the surface. That water is now largely expelled from deep under Yucca, making a future eruption less likely, he said.
Allen Benson, a spokesman for the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain Project, said the site is suitable: "We have spent over 20 years and a considerable amount of money evaluating the scientific suitability of Yucca Mountain."
The Energy Department recommended the site to President Bush in 2002, and the president forwarded that recommendation to Congress, which further sanctioned the site. The Energy Department is now preparing the license application of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Benson said.
"We will have to demonstrate that Yucca Mountain can safely protect the community and the environment," he said.
Benson said his agency does not intend to review the book and its findings. "The scientific community in general will review it," he said.
Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, the state agency fighting Yucca Mountain, said the book adds to a scientific picture of Yucca Mountain that makes the dump increasingly unlikely.
"Most independent scientists believe the issues at Yucca Mountain are too complex to be resolved," he said. "We would agree with those conclusions."
archive
