Building a world of
resilient communities.



Blowing the whistle on Yucca Mountain

Why I quit the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.

Don't ask questions when you don't know the answers: That's the rule of thumb for trial lawyers who don't want courtroom surprises.

The Bush administration has a different rule of thumb when it comes to the science of storing nuclear waste: Ask as few questions as possible and ignore answers you don't like.

Until last January, I served as a member of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, exploring the safety of a proposed national, high-level, nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Congress created the non-partisan 11-member board to provide technical advice about Yucca Mountain to the secretary of Energy. Its members -- all scientists and engineers with expertise relevant to Yucca Mountain -- were appointed by the president from a list submitted by the National Academy of Science.

The board concluded that the present design for Yucca Mountain is deficient, and unless it is changed, the nation's high-level waste repository is likely to leak. Our conclusion has been ignored.

For the Bush administration, the development of Yucca Mountain for nuclear storage was a foregone conclusion. The Department of Energy is spending over a half-billion dollars on Yucca this year, almost all of it for getting a license application in to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of 2004. The administration wants to begin construction as soon as possible and is committed to burying waste by 2010.

The big reason for the rush is that the nuclear industry is desperate for the government to take nuclear waste off its hands. The industry sees the waste problem as standing in the way of relicensing old reactors and building new ones. It's pushing the Bush administration hard, and the administration seems all too anxious to respond. The result is a clear case of the tail wagging the dog. Protecting the public should come first.

Unfortunately, designing the Yucca Mountain repository turned out to be far more complex than had been anticipated. There's been one surprise after another. Yucca Mountain was selected as the site because it is located in the desert, and it was thought the arid climate would keep the waste dry. It turns out the mountain is wet. It was thought that the water wouldn't move the waste underground very quickly. Wrong again. Water moves through the mountain so fast that in order to meet the regulatory requirements for isolation from the biosphere, the Department of Energy had to add better-engineered waste containment canisters to the design.

It now turns out that those canisters are likely to corrode. Every member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board I served on reached that conclusion, and it was the essence of our report delivered to the Congress and the secretary of Energy last November. The report was ignored.

In its haste to meet deadlines, the Bush administration has a pattern of putting politics ahead of science. History reveals plenty of examples of how that approach can lead to disaster. The Challenger space shuttle was lost because its O-rings froze. NASA engineers knew of the problem, but management wanted to keep the launch deadline. Last year, a presidential commission concluded that the shuttle Columbia was lost for similar reasons: Management put deadlines over safety.

I hope my resignation from a review board shouting in the darkness will bring attention to what's going on at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Here's my advice: Slow down. The nuclear waste is going to have to sit for thousands of years. We might as well take the time to make sure we bury it safely.

I also think President Bush should instruct the Department of Energy to build up science programs instead of shutting them down. If the science shows that the project can be accomplished, then by all means apply for a permit. It is true that the science might once again bring up new problems. There's no way to know in advance -- that's the nature of science.

But for now, there's no technical reason to rush. The urgency is entirely political. A sound repository is probably achievable, if time is taken to get the science and engineering right. Meanwhile, nuclear waste can be safely stored for many decades on site in dry casks, giving us time to find a reliable, long-term solution.

Rushing ahead with a flawed design is a mistake. Unfortunately, it's a mistake the Department of Energy is rushing to make.

Paul P. Craig is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News ( He is professor of engineering emeritus at the University of California at Davis and was a member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review from 1996 until January 2004.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

Sign up for regular Resilience bulletins direct to your email.

Take action!  

Start your own projects. See our RESOURCES page.
Make connections via our GROUPS page.
Help build resilience. DONATE NOW.


This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial. Complete Guidelines.

Richard Heinberg on Our Renewable Future

Richard Heinberg discusses our renewable future and how to get there.

Peak Oil Review - Mar 2

A weekly roundup of peak oil news, including: -Oil and the global economy …

Oil Prices Don’t Change Because of Rig Count

Oil prices don’t change based on weekly rig count reports. Yet every …

Energy policy - Mar 1

Syriza: another energy is possible / Renewable energy grab in the Sahara? / …

The Great Game in the Holy Land

Guess what? Almost all the current wars, uprisings, and other conflicts in …

North Dakota Considers Weakening Standards on Radioactive Drilling Waste as Oil Prices Collapse

As the collapse of oil prices threatens North Dakota's shale drilling rush, …

Peak Oil Notes - Feb 26

A mid-week update. Oil prices fell on Monday and Tuesday this week on …