Nuclear Waste: We Have Enough
Eastern Washington knows better than to trust politicians who come bearing radioactive gifts. As principal dumping ground for wastes from the nation’s nuclear weapons program, this region has suffered more than its share of the environmental and human poisonings that come with nuclear industry jobs. Even now, radioactive waste simmers in Hanford’s leaky underground tanks, while technicians with a mediocre safety record strive to prevent the stuff from exploding.
Should Eastern Washington now accept radioactive waste from the civilian nuclear power industry as well?
No. But U.S. Sen. Frank Murkowski thinks so. The Alaska Republican proposes two “interim” storage facilities for spent commercial reactor fuel. One at Savannah River, S.C. The other, at Hanford. Both already are home to horrid messes from the nuclear weapons industry. Neither is geologically suitable for permanent underground storage of spent reactor fuel, which will remain lethal for 10,000 years.
More than a decade ago, the federal government belatedly set out to find a safe disposal site for commercial reactor wastes. Politics interfered. Though 80 percent of the waste was created in the eastern and central United States, those who benefited from the power shunned responsibility for its byproduct. Permanent underground disposal in northeastern granite formations was blocked by powerful eastern politicians, in spite of the fact Europeans consider granite the safest disposal medium. That left sites in the West. Some, in Hanford and Texas, were inappropriate due to unstable rock and a potential for groundwater contamination.
Nevada was left holding the bag. Taking advantage of its weak congressional delegation and its dry, relatively stable geology, Congress in 1987 made Yucca Mountain the sole candidate for a permanent, underground nuclear dump.
Since then, Nevadans have fought a delaying action. The waste remains at the 109 reactors that produced it, corroding in overcrowded pools of water. Engineers want it hauled to central sites for dry, interim storage in concrete casks. Years ago, eastern pols blocked a proposal to establish an interim facility in Tennessee.
The pattern of delay means any interim storage locations could be used far longer than expected.
It could reduce the risk and cost of transportation to locate an interim facility in the East where most of the waste is. It would be unjust and imprudent to haul any of this lethal material to Eastern Washington, then back to Yucca Mountain. We’ve taken too many radioactive poisons already. A western site for interim disposal should be in Nevada, adjoining the permanent resting place.
, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board