Richard James
PHIL343
Prof Lawson
Paper 3
1183 Words
Not Anyone’s Backyard? Somebody’s Backyard.
We are presented this week with the notion of “not in anyone’s backyard” in relation to the placing of prisons and other ecologically harmful industrial facilities, but I argue this can be shortsighted and dangerous when it’s applied to long-term nuclear waste storage. As mentioned in Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Craig Gilmore’s piece, “The Other California”, where they cite Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, as an example of how “governments and corporations dump toxic projects on the most vulnerable and least visible parts of the country” (Gilmore and Gilmore, 5), the citing of nuclear waste is presented to us without any scientific explanations to the complexities of not having long term nuclear waste storage, or the hazards to vulnerable communities by maintaining the status quo. It is mentioned as just another example of exploiting vulnerable communities, without truly weighing the pros and cons of inaction, on a much larger scale. The Yucca Mountain project elicited a flood of community activism in opposition to its placing, similar to MELA and their opposition to the placement of a prison in East Los Angeles in the 1980’s, and was successful in preventing it being put in production. This paper will present the precedent for nuclear waste storage, the hazards of not employing long term nuclear waste storage, the safety record of nuclear waste transportation and the grim reality of why “not in anyone’s backyard” supports the status quo, and can lead to significantly more hazards nationwide and potentially greater long term suffering, versus “somebody’s backyard”.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), of 1982, directs the EPA to develop standards for protection of the general environment from offsite releases of radioactive material in repositories (epa.gov). In 1987, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, directing the DOE to characterize only Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository. The rationale for choosing Yucca Mountain was due to it being “secured 1000 feet under the surface, in a closed hydrologic basin, surrounded by federal land, protected by natural geologic barriers, protected by robust engineered barriers and a flexible design” (yuccamountain.org). While other sites were considered in Texas and Washington, Yucca Mountain possessed the most necessary requirements. However, it was argued politics played a role in the decision when the NWPA amendments were passed, citing Nevada as the “smallest and politically weakest state of the three” (yuccamountain.org), much to the chagrin of local Nevadans, who express dismay their state doesn’t contribute to the accumulation of nuclear waste. The article goes on to mention there are also concerns about “Yucca Mountain’s geologic characteristics, in particular are Yucca’s location in an active seismic region, numerous earthquake faults within 33 miles of the site, the presence of pathways that could move groundwater to the aquifer beneath and evidence of hydrothermal activity within the proposed repository block” (yuccamountain.org). These concerns, combined with protests by the Western Shoshone and Yomba Shoshone (nevadacurrent.com), along with challenges at the state and local levels, all demand there’s insufficient scientific data supporting Yucca Mountain being a safe long term storage location, and all played a role in ensuring the Yucca Mountain site remains non-operational. Essentially, the DOE needs a license from the NRC to construct and operate the repository. Under the NWPA Section 114(b), the DOE’s application for a license was due years ago, but the DOE, being challenged at the state and local levels, “doesn’t yet have sufficient scientific data to complete it” (yuccamountain.org). Despite the NWPA amendment’s assertion Yucca Mountain be the only repository, no alternative exists and it remains closed.
Today, there are over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste, scattered across dozens and dozens of sites in the US, slated for long term disposal (gao.gov). This number, due to weapons manufacture and nuclear power facilities, grows by about 2000 metric tons per year, accumulating where it’s generated (cen.acs.org). While there appears to be promising improvements in storage technology, such as vitrification, improvements in the cylinders and concrete casks, these improvements are doing very little to stabilize the tanks which have already outlived their design lives, and presents significant catastrophic ecological risk due to their proximity to oceans, rivers, aquifers, population centers and other ecological systems. Corrosion experts are doing their part to safeguard people and the environment from the danger of storing waste at all these locations, but it’s still there. “It’s a difficult problem, but we need to deal with it now,” says Gerald S. Frankel, materials scientist from Ohio State University, “Putting it off any longer isn’t good for anyone.” (cen.acs.gov).
The transportation of nuclear waste has been one of the major concerns posited by the Shoshone Nation and the surrounding communities near Yucca Mountain, as the proposed DOE shipments would traverse 836 counties, and past 190 US cities, putting significant numbers of people and habitats at risk. However, the US has a good safety record for nuclear material transportation. Since 1965, more than 10,000 spent fuel assemblies, in more than 2700 shipments, over more than 1.6 million miles, with only a few accidents, none of these shipments have resulted in the breach of a cask or the release of radioactive chemicals (yuccamountain.org). The DOE estimates that approximately 3000 tons of spent nuclear fuel would be shipped to Yucca Mountain annually for 24 years and, even with extremely high standards for the storage devices and a proven track record for transporting waste, advocacy groups believe these shipments could be predictable targets for terrorists. The counter argument to this is the fact that the current short term storage solutions are already vulnerable to terrorist attacks (cfr.org), along with vulnerabilities to flooding, degradation and seepage, which already have a high probability of causing environmental harm to significantly more communities and ecosystems (cen.acs.gov). It becomes abundantly clear maintaining the status quo puts more people and ecosystems at risk, versus transporting and consolidating the waste at a specific location.
In conclusion, the “not in anyone’s backyard” argument doesn’t apply to the long term storage of nuclear waste in the US because it’s already in “somebody’s backyard”. Using the project at Yucca Mountain as an example of how the government dumps toxic projects on the most vulnerable people in the country is short sighted and shows ignorance to the entirety of the situation. The waste is already in people’s backyard and the current short term storage methodologies are a ticking time bomb for significant disaster if we maintain the status quo, and continue to use short term storage for longer terms. We’re already at risk of terrorist attacks, environmental disasters, and container degradation, all causing spillage and seepage and significant harm to ecosystems. To avoid the worst effects of the status quo, immediate action must be taken to transport the material and store it in superior conditions, such as those suggested at Yucca Mountain. Correcting the current system of inaction involves consolidating all of the dozens and dozens of “backyards”, accepting the risks to transportation, and storing the substances in a single “backyard”, thereby minimizing the harm potential we currently face with the present state of affairs.
Works Cited
Gilmore, Ruthie, and Gilmore, Craig. “The Other California.” Globalize Liberation: How to
Uproot the System and Build a Better World, edited by David Solnit, City Lights Books,
2004.
“Summary of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act | US EPA.” US EPA, 12 June 2024, www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-nuclear-waste-policy-act.
Eureka County, Nevada -- Yucca Mountain.org, Frequently Asked Questions, FAQ’s. www.yuccamountain.org/faq.htm#why_yucca.
Solis, Jeniffer. “Western Shoshone Step up Resistance to Yucca Project • Nevada Current.” Nevada Current, 17 May 2019, nevadacurrent.com/2019/05/14/western-shoshone-step-up-resistance-to-yucca-project.
“Nuclear Waste Disposal.” U.S. GAO, 15 Feb. 2017, www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal#:~:text=Spent%20nuclear%20fuel.,for%20commercial%20spent%20nuclear%20fuel.
CFR.org Editors. “Targets for Terrorism: Nuclear Facilities.” Council on Foreign Relations, 1 Jan. 2006, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/targets-terrorism-nuclear-facilities#:~:text=Attackers%20could%20also%20use%20conventional,spent%20fuel%E2%80%9D)%20is%20kept.