Sun editorial:

Why the push on Yucca?

NRC chairman says waste isn’t the most serious safety risk at nuclear power plants

Thursday, July 23, 2009 | 2:07 a.m.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., this week introduced an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill that would make Yucca Mountain home to the military’s high-level nuclear waste.

Graham’s amendment is the latest desperate attempt by Republicans and nuclear power supporters to revive efforts to open a nuclear waste dump 90 miles from Las Vegas. More than two decades in the making, the plans for Yucca Mountain have been reeling in the past few years.

The courts have criticized the plans. The Energy Department has failed to show scientifically that Yucca Mountain — a volcanic ridge — is a safe and suitable site to store 77,000 tons of deadly radioactive waste. And President Barack Obama has joined with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Nevada’s congressional delegation in fighting the plan.

Still, Yucca Mountain proponents are mounting a campaign for the dump. They are trying to convince people that it is safe to haul deadly waste across the country — on highways, through cities and past schools — and dump it underground in an area prone to earthquakes.

The nuclear industry currently stores its waste at reactor sites in either indoor cooling pools or in thick steel-and-concrete casks. However, the industry wants the waste taken off site and says it is too risky to keep it where it is.

Greg Jaczko, the new chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a former Reid aide, disagrees. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Jaczko said that when considering “risks at any nuclear plant, spent fuel isn’t the most significant risk that we have.”

He said an NRC study found that safety risks posed by nuclear reactors, although extremely low, are a million times greater than the risk of storing nuclear waste at reactor sites.

If Graham and other Yucca Mountain proponents would take a few minutes to consider the facts, they would see that it is far safer and cheaper to store the spent nuclear waste on site.

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

By boco

7/23/09 at 6:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

What is the rush? Well, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act said the government (DOE) must begin waste acceptance for disposal in a repository (which the Sun refers to as a "dump,") by January 1998. Further, DOE signed contracts promising commercial reactor owners that such disposal would begin then. DOE did not and got sued for breach of contracts. DOE now estimates the liability for that failure to be at least $12.3 billion. Taxpayers, including Nevadans, will foot the bill for that.
I doubt if "the industry" said that spent fuel is "too risky" to leave it where it is. What industry and technical experts more likely have said is that the waste cannot stay at reactor storage sites indefinitely. At the risk of being repititious, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act says so, too. If you don't like it, change the law.
By former_yucca_insider

7/23/09 at 7:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

If you call being 12 years late for something mandated by law a "rush," I'd hate to see you in "no hurry."
By Future

7/23/09 at 11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Greg Jaczko, the new chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a former Reid aide, disagrees.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Jaczko said that when considering "risks at any nuclear plant, spent fuel isn't the most significant risk that we have."

Reid guy is saying you can storage nuclear waste safely at 1005 reactors Okay

So why not store it in single an even safer place?

What Reid's inside guy Greg Jaczko said was storing waste is millions of time safer then running a nuclear reactor - which is "extremely low"

So storing nuclear waste is millions of times safer than "extremely low" risk reactors.

Where is the problem?

Because Too Big To Fail Senator Harry Reid'm and Weep needs an issue to win on in 2010 and the LV Sun wants to help Reid.

Just so we are clear the NWPA calls for the defense waste to go to Yucca.
By Pete

7/23/09 at 11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

@Future...

"Senator Harry Reid'm and Weep" -- good one!

@Sun Editorial writer...

"The Energy Department has failed to show scientifically that Yucca Mountain is a safe and suitable site..."

Is that so? And where exactly can I find this vital piece of incriminating evidence for this claim?

BTW, isn't this for the NRC (and not the Las Vegas Sun) to decide?
By mrb

7/23/09 at 7:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

I find it absolutely amazing that the head of the NRC means nothing to Harry Reid. One would think that the head of the NRC should be a distinguished, highly experienced nuclear engineer that understands the safety issues associated with nuclear power, in addition to simply understanding what it takes to build and start up a nuclear facility. One would think that this position would be held by an engineer who has worked his/her way up through the system and is fully capable of understanding all of the issues associated with nuclear power. Alas, King Harry doesn't really care - he simply wanted his anti-Yucca stooge in this position so he had a ready ally to kill the project so he would look "good" to the Nevada electorate who don't understand that the dangers associated with Yucca are absolutely, mind-bogglingly miniscule. Like about a million times less probable than getting wacked in a car accident the minute you step out your door in Summerlin every morning.

So, guess what, Harry gets his way and an amature nuclear academic, Jaczko, gets appointed in some behind-the-scenes deal making. This is truly amazing - that one individual, a lawyer no less with zero technical knowledge - has the power to appoint an unqualified individual to head a commission whose primary aim is the safety of US citizens. Is it any wonder why so many of us are so jaded about politics, politicians and lawyers? I'm glad I don't live next to a nuclear power plant................

Let's all thank King Harry in the next election.
By davelv

7/23/09 at 8:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mr. Jaczko is the first NRC chairman who has kicked out and replaced the previous chairman mid-term. Prior to Obama, all Presidents had left the NRC as a non-politicized organization based on science and engineering. And the Sun wonders why he finds no need for Yucca Mountain???!!!

America should question anything Obama does as it all has a Illinois payback scent attached to it.
By mred

7/23/09 at 8:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Graham should store the waste in his closet back in Grahm Crackerville, he has a big closet.
By GM

7/27/09 at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Let's bring these one-sided comments back to the current reality. The nuke dump originally proposed for Yucca Mountain (chosen primarily for political reasons at a time when Nevada had little clout in Congress) is now on its last legs. And for good reason.

Key players on all sides of the argument agree the stuff is safe where it is for another century or so - at least. And if the world's best scientific minds eventually agree it's best to eventually bury it somewhere, why not pick a willing and scientifically superior site somewhere closer to where most nuclear waste is generated, reducing transportation costs and dangers?