Yucca Mountain: The Right Decision

National Center for Policy Analysis ^ | June 2002 | Marsh and Stanford

[aconservaguy]

# 415

June 2002

Yucca Mountain: The Right Decision

by Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford

Opening the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is right for Nevada. It's right for anyone who pays for electricity. It's right for public safety. It's right for energy security. And it's right for national security.

Why is it needed? Because reactor sites are running out of room to store their used fuel, and building more facilities would waste ratepayers' money. Also, we should start moving the radioactivity below ground, where it can do no harm.

Risk from transportation? Forget it. There have already been over 3,000 shipments of spent fuel with no release of radioactivity in the few traffic accidents that have occurred. The casks are virtually indestructible. One was deliberately hit by an anti-tank weapon, and the potential hazard turned out to be very small because few particles of damaged fuel came back out through the hole.

A terrorist who assaulted one of those casks would be wasting his talents - he could do far more damage by attacking a gasoline tanker.

Then there is the concern about leakage from the repository thousands of years hence. That comes from requiring that buried material be isolated for more than ten thousand years. The worry is misplaced, for two reasons.

First, anything that did leak into the water table would be lost in the natural background radiation by the time (centuries from now) that it reached the surface. There are already far more plutonium and fission products under the ground at the Nevada test site - with no special containment, and posing no threat to people - than could ever be expected to leak through the confinement barriers at Yucca Mountain, even in ten thousand years.

Second, the ten thousand year criterion is irrelevant. The needed isolation time can be dramatically reduced by abandoning our wasteful "once-through" policy (we pass the fuel once through a reactor and then throw it out, with 95 percent of its energy still there). That fuel is a valuable resource as feed stock for advanced fast reactors.

When suitably reprocessed fuel is used in fast reactors, essentially all of the long-lived radioactive isotopes are consumed, leaving only the real waste - the fission products - whose radioactivity would fall below any level of concern in just a few hundred years.

Fast reactors have other advantages. For one thing, there is a pyrometallurgical process that recycles their fuel without ever producing separated plutonium that could be used for bombs - unlike the Purex process now used in other countries, which does turn out chemically pure plutonium.

Also, the "pyroprocessing" product is far more proliferation-resistant than today's unreprocessed used fuel.

The time has come to reopen the issues of reprocessing and to move to the inherently safe fast reactor. With reprocessing facilities and fast reactors near the repository, Nevada would greatly benefit in the short term from the economic activity associated with opening the repository, and in the long term from the sale of electricity to other states.

Realistically then, Yucca Mountain should merely be an interim storage facility. There is no need for spent fuel to stay there forever. But even if it does, it poses no realistic risk to present or future generations.

# # #

Gerald E. Marsh is a physicist who served with the U.S. START delegation and was a consultant to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations on strategic nuclear policy and technology for many years. He is on the advisory board of The National Center for Public Policy Research.

George S. Stanford is a nuclear reactor physicist, now retired from Argonne National Laboratory after a career of experimental work pertaining to power-reactor safety.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"The time has come to reopen the issues of reprocessing and to move to the inherently safe fast reactor."

Amen.

Imagine the following scenario: Crashes of the De Havilland Comet--the world's first jetliner--drive spiraling environmental and governmental concerns which effectively prevent industry innovations from reaching the market. Despite the known flaws in the De Havilland airframe design, the aircraft industry is paralyzed, and political considerations make it impossible for new designs to be introduced. Vastly superior and more modern designs are shelved, and airline passengers are forced to ride in planes which grow ever more dangerous with every flight; meanwhile airlines are faced with exponentiating costs for preventative maintenance to keep the De Havillands from falling out of the air.

That's exactly the situation with the nuclear power industry in the U.S.

[backhoe]

Amen, Right- here's some of what others have done for years:

US Nuclear Power Debate
... The Bush administration also wants to explore new technology to recycle nuclear
fuel, increasing its efficiency and possibly reducing its danger. ...

Other info:

Numatec - the Tri-Cities' 'French connection'
... Numatec other parent is Cogema, the owner and operator of facilities used to produce
and recycle nuclear fuel, including many designed and built by SGN. ...

Nuclear Electricity
... gas equivalent). • Uranium offers a long-term source of energy. Unlike
fossil fuels, we can recycle nuclear fuel. We can recover ...

[MMA Alumni] Helping out MMA Nuclear Employed Alumni
... Many MMA Grads are employed in the Nuclear Power industry, ever since President Carter
killed the national plans to recycle nuclear fuel as was always intended ...

[PDF] U. S. Nuclear Waste Policy: Reaching Critical Mass
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... An Aside: Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Overseas In addition to the United States,
only two other countries don't recycle nuclear fuel as a matter of national ...

Salon.com Technology | Nukes now!
... Other countries, such as Japan and France -- which gets about 80 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power -- recycle nuclear fuel, but President Ford ...

[Scully]

Excellent article, instead of the knee-jerk hysteria that often accompanies discussions about nuclear waste repositories. Thanks for posting another viewpoint!

[PatrickHenry]

There could be a thousand articles like this, and then one whacko scare-job, and the media will report on the scare-job.

[longshadow]

More people have died in this country due to Teddy Kennedy's driving than have died from commercial nuclear reactors or their waste products.

I therefore propose in the interests of safety that Teddy Kennedy and all his cars be buried under Yucca Mountain. It's the responsible thing to do.