News Coverage
Storing nuclear waste
We must find safe, permanent solution, but it's not Yucca
Published November 17, 2004
Yucca Mountain is not the silver-bullet answer to our nation's nuclear waste dilemma (Nov. 7, "Store nuclear waste in Nevada"). In fact, it is riddled with problems.
First, Yucca Mountain sits atop a groundwater aquifer in an earthquake zone. Radioactive particles from atomic bomb tests conducted near Yucca have found their way through the rock to repository depth after only 50 years, not the thousands of years predicted. This suggests that the site leaks more than first thought.
Second, Yucca will not consolidate all of our nation's nuclear waste into one location. As long as we continue producing waste, we will always have dangerous quantities of it stored around the country. An average nuclear plant creates between 20 and 30 tons of high-level waste per year, and that waste must cool on site for at least five years before being moved anywhere.
Third, by the time Yucca could open in 2010, we already will have produced nearly the equivalent of its 77,000-ton capacity, which would put us right back to where we started: wondering what to do with lethal waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years.
All five of South Carolina's nuclear plants have been relicensed, which translates into 20 more years of waste. According to the Environmental Working Group, South Carolina will lead the country in the amount of nuclear waste still stored onsite after Yucca fills up -- 2,495 tons, which is nearly as much as the approximately 2,800 tons there now.
We owe it to future generations to find a safe, permanent solution, but Yucca is not the one.