|
Robert Loux
Nevada Nuclear Waste Office
Robert Loux is Director of the State of Nevada's Nuclear Waste
Project Office. In that position he has become a point man in
expressing Nevada's concerns with study of Yucca Mountain as a
permanent storage site for all of the nation's high level nuclear
waste. Located approximately 100 miles north of Las Vegas, Yucca
Mountain has been studied for more than ten years to determine
its suitability as a permanent, deep underground storage facility.
[Note: At the time of this interview, the Department of Energy
scientists studying Yucca Mountain had not formally certified
the location as a scientifically sound permanent storage location.
However, media reports were indicating that such a decision had
been made by DOE, just not announced to the public. The decision
was finally announced in May, 2001. The DOE study team formally
announced Yucca Mountain's suitability to serve as a permanent
storage location.]
Ken Verdoia: Fundamentally, Nevada has said the Yucca
Mountain controversy involves fundamental issues of a state's
right to determine it's economic and environment future. Help
me understand that. What does that really mean?
Robert Loux: Well, I think that Nevadans and Nevada leaders
view nuclear waste disposal as a threat to some our primary industries,
i.e., tourism, gaming, conventions, that sort of thing. Lots of
data suggests that people would be less likely to visit a place
if it had a nuclear waste repository. So what we believe is that
we ought to be able to determine ourselves, as a state, what our
economic future ought to be and not have sort of threats from
the outside that in fact are imposed on us against our will. It's
not that Nevada has not asked for this facility. It believes its
done its share in the nuclear arena, having a nuclear test site
as well as a low level facility, disposal facility for 35 years.
So we believe we've done our share in the nuclear arena and we
want to be available to be able to pursue the economic interest
that drive our economy without having this threat from the outside.
Verdoia: This process is offered to us by the Department
of Energy, in their words, a scientifically sound, unbiased, honest
approach to truly studying the characteristics of a site to ensure
that this in fact the best site. Yet you seem to convey to me
a completely different reading of what the Department of Energy
is doing.
Loux: Well I think two points are necessary. One is, I
don't think it's and I don't think we believe that you can have
an objective study going on when you have nothing to compare it
to. In other words, there's not another site being studied. Originally
in the original act, of course, it called for three sites to be
fully studied and the best one goes forward. When you only have
one site and no other options available to you, Congress has cut
off funding for any alternative research virtually no other sites
under consideration, it's very difficult to see how a federal
agency can be objective about what they are looking at given the
enormous political pressure that's going on in Washington with
the nuclear industry and Congress to get this thing on line, fast.
The second thing, is that the DOE has been engaged in what we
call advocacy science. Stake out a position in advance. This is
the premise, this is the nuclear waste site, and go about collecting
data and information that essentially proves that point and either
ignoring or not researching other areas that would seem to detract
from that objective. And that's what the DOE has done at Yucca
Mountain.
Verdoia: The Department of Energy did not say this for
record, but off the record clearly conveyed to us a belief they've
got science on their side and all the opponents have on their
side is fear-mongering. How do you respond to that?
Loux: Well first of all, I would welcome any opportunity
to debate the Department of Energy officials on the scientific
merits of the site. We've maintained since the beginning, when
they began looking at the site originally in the early 80s, that
it was in a young geologically active area that has 33 or 34 earthquake
faults on the mountain itself. There are four or five young volcanos
within seven miles of the site. It appears to us that there's
hydro-thermal waters have periodically invaded the site over time
and drained back down. It's a very complex geologic and hydrologic
system that we don't believe the DOE is ever going to understand
well enough to predict any sort of performance, with any degree
of confidence that anyone would be comfortable with.
Moreover, more recently, the DOE and their performance assessment
has revealed that 95 percent, or over 95 percent of the overall performance
of the Yucca Mountain system is attributable to the metal container
around the waste. That they can get no more than 5 percent of the overall
protection, isolation qualities from the actual physical characteristics
of the site. Which is opposite of what the whole program, the
National Academy of Sciences recommendation about geologic repositories
is all about. It has to be the natural system, the geology that
provides the bulk of the isolation for the site of the waste from
the biosphere.
Then you add engineering measures to compliment that, to add
redundancy to it. The DOE has discovered the site of Yucca Mountain
is so poor that in fact they have to use the engineered barrier
as the primary barrier of the metal container around the waste
and the actual, then the site and the natural characteristics
become a very secondary concern. We believe that proves our point
that it's a poor site. That it cannot in and of itself, isolate
waste. That a extraordinary, special metal container around the
waste is required in order to even come close to meeting proposed
regulations.
Verdoia: What do the rank and file Nevadans feel about
the development of Yucca Mountain as a primary, permanent high
level radioactive waste storage site?
Loux: Well, it's no surprise that Nevadans have endeared
themselves to the "Screw Nevada Bill" as a term for
the bill that Congress passed to have Yucca Mountain be the only
site to be investigated as a repository. It's a term commonly
used in Nevada to describe the Congressional action. Most Nevadans
believe that this is imposed from the outside against their will.
They believe they've done their share in the nuclear arena having
hosted the test site and low level waste disposal site for 35
years. It's really time for someone else to come to the plate.
They believe this is sort of a bale out for the commercial nuclear
power industry. If it was a national defense issue it might be
a little bit different.
Nevadans were proud to support weapons testing as a means of
keeping the Soviets in check during the Cold War, but they view
this a complete bale out for the economic interests of the nuclear
utilities. And therefore they don't support it and they don't
trust the DOE. They don't have any trust and confidence in the
federal agencies, either the Department of Energy, who's investigating
this site, or even more they don't trust the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ultimately would have to license a site. We don't
trust either one of them to be a fair or unbiased.
Next
|
