• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Yucca Mountain papers may have been false

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
WASHINGTON - Government employees may have falsified documents related to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada, the Energy Department said Wednesday. The disclosure could jeopardize the project's ability to get a federal permit to operate the dump.

During preparation for a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the department said it found a number of e-mails from 1998 through 2000 in which an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey "indicated that he had fabricated documentation of his work."

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the department is investigating what kind of information was falsified and whether it would affect the scientific underpinnings of the project.

"If in the course of that review any work is found to be deficient, it will be replaced or supplemented with analysis and documents that meet appropriate quality assurance standards," said Bodman. He said he was "greatly disturbed" by the development.

The department said the questionable data involved computer modeling for water infiltration and climate at the Yucca site, which is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

At a House hearing Wednesday, the official who recently took over the Yucca program in the Energy Department indicated that the revelations could further delay the project.

"I assure you we will not proceed until we have rectified these problems," Theodore Garrish told Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls the dollars for Yucca Mountain.

Garrish was not asked to elaborate. After the hearing, he declined to answer reporters' questions.

Hobson said the problem did not appear too serious and that he did not think it would throw Yucca Mountain off track.

"As I understand it this is not a major impediment and can be corrected very easily," Hobson told reporters. "Some people just don't want to do their job right, so they'll slip it through rather than doing their job. We don't have any evidence that somebody directed anybody to do this."

Chip Groat, director of the Geological Survey, said the e-mails "have raised serious questions about the review process of scientific studies done six years ago."

The disclosure follows other setbacks for the proposed waste dump. The department has delayed filing its license application to nuclear regulators and now acknowledges that the planned completion of the facility by 2010 no longer is possible. Garrish told the committee Tuesday that he couldn't provide a new completion date.

Congress last year refused to provide all the money sought by the Bush administration for the project. A federal appeals court rejected the radiation protection standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency; the agency is developing new standards.

Last month, the official in charge of the Yucca project resigned, citing personal reasons.

The discovery of the e-mails "really casts the project in a real bad light. In lieu of the other problems, it might be the one that pushes it over the edge to cancellation," said Bob Loux, Nevada state Nuclear Projects director and Gov. Kenny Guinn's chief anti-Yucca administrator.

Loux said potential water transport - the issue that some of the questionable work apparently involved - is critical for the proposed waste repository.

Water is "the key mechanism at Yucca Mountain both in terms of infiltrating into the site and in terms of letting radioactivity release into the biosphere," Loux said.

Word that documents may have been falsified "certainly calls into question DOE's ability to submit any kind of a license application in the near term," Loux said.

In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the development "proves once again that DOE must cheat and lie in order to make Yucca Mountain look safe."

Bodman said the questionable documents were part of the papers required by the NRC to verify the accuracy of earlier work in the project.

"The fact remains that this country needs a permanent geological nuclear waste repository, and the administration will continue to aggressively pursue that goal," Bodman said. He said that "all related decisions have been, and will continue to be, based on sound science."
I wonder who this person was and what type of corporate links he had. Messing with potential contamination of drinking water is pretty damn serious.

One thing to note, though, re:Yucca Mountain:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2000/sep/29/510841396.html


;)
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,745
46,518
136
Am I missing someting with your link?

Bush said he opposed an "interim storage site" on the old test range not the permanent geologic storage site that Yucca Mtn. is to be.

The fact is that the US requires a permanent site and soon. We've got nuclear waste sitting in parking lots at dozens of plant across the nation. It needs to be centralized so it all can be properly monitored and secured.

I think many of those who oppose the project just don't want it built near them and are grasping at any hope to shut it down.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The project will not solve the problem as designed.

The plants are generating more waste than the depository can handle.

The government has continually tried to force the issue without looking at any safety numbers and/or alternatives.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,745
46,518
136
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The project will not solve the problem as designed.

The plants are generating more waste than the depository can handle.

The government has continually tried to force the issue without looking at any safety numbers and/or alternatives.

I know that all the space at the existing site is already spoken for (if it ever operates). I had guessed that they would eventually undertake an expansion program to accommodate the increasing amount of waste

What other viable alternatives have been proposed?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The project will not solve the problem as designed.

The plants are generating more waste than the depository can handle.

The government has continually tried to force the issue without looking at any safety numbers and/or alternatives.

I know that all the space at the existing site is already spoken for (if it ever operates). I had guessed that they would eventually undertake an expansion program to accommodate the increasing amount of waste

What other viable alternatives have been proposed?

There was never an attempt to look at alternatives.

It was decided way back when, to bury the waste on government land that had previously been radiated.

It became a choice of NM/Utah or NV.

NV lost because most of the land is govenment owned and the population was not projected to expand in that area.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,745
46,518
136
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The project will not solve the problem as designed.

The plants are generating more waste than the depository can handle.

The government has continually tried to force the issue without looking at any safety numbers and/or alternatives.

I know that all the space at the existing site is already spoken for (if it ever operates). I had guessed that they would eventually undertake an expansion program to accommodate the increasing amount of waste

What other viable alternatives have been proposed?

There was never an attempt to look at alternatives.

It was decided way back when, to bury the waste on government land that had previously been radiated.

It became a choice of NM/Utah or NV.

NV lost because most of the land is govenment owned and the population was not projected to expand in that area.

I don't think they would ever get approval to build it on non-government owned land.

The basic solution is still the same (for now anyways): Toss it in a hole in the ground.
The only question seems to be where the hole should be located. I can't readily think of many better places than in the desert, under a mountain, located on an old nuclear testing ground.








 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: K1052
I don't think they would ever get approval to build it on non-government owned land.

The basic solution is still the same (for now anyways): Toss it in a hole in the ground.
The only question seems to be where the hole should be located. I can't readily think of many better places than in the desert, under a mountain, located on an old nuclear testing ground.
I would think it would depend on who owned the land and where it was located. If I had thousands of acres of desert property I might be tempted for a fee. ;)
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,745
46,518
136
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: K1052
I don't think they would ever get approval to build it on non-government owned land.

The basic solution is still the same (for now anyways): Toss it in a hole in the ground.
The only question seems to be where the hole should be located. I can't readily think of many better places than in the desert, under a mountain, located on an old nuclear testing ground.
I would think it would depend on who owned the land and where it was located. If I had thousands of acres of desert property I might be tempted for a fee. ;)

IIRC, some Native Ameicans tribes are looking to do this very thing.

I can't say I'm thrilled with that idea.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: K1052
I don't think they would ever get approval to build it on non-government owned land.

The basic solution is still the same (for now anyways): Toss it in a hole in the ground.
The only question seems to be where the hole should be located. I can't readily think of many better places than in the desert, under a mountain, located on an old nuclear testing ground.
I would think it would depend on who owned the land and where it was located. If I had thousands of acres of desert property I might be tempted for a fee. ;)
IIRC, some Native Ameicans tribes are looking to do this very thing.

I can't say I'm thrilled with that idea.
Me either. But, imo, nuclear energy is where we should be looking as a truly viable alternative to fossil fuels. Just what should be done with the nuclear waste, though? Dig a hole into the earth's mantle and dump it there? Build a massive garbage can, fill it up with waste and launch it into space toward the sun?

There must be some place where waste could be stored.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,745
46,518
136
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: K1052
I don't think they would ever get approval to build it on non-government owned land.

The basic solution is still the same (for now anyways): Toss it in a hole in the ground.
The only question seems to be where the hole should be located. I can't readily think of many better places than in the desert, under a mountain, located on an old nuclear testing ground.
I would think it would depend on who owned the land and where it was located. If I had thousands of acres of desert property I might be tempted for a fee. ;)
IIRC, some Native Ameicans tribes are looking to do this very thing.

I can't say I'm thrilled with that idea.
Me either. But, imo, nuclear energy is where we should be looking as a truly viable alternative to fossil fuels. Just what should be done with the nuclear waste, though? Dig a hole into the earth's mantle and dump it there? Build a massive garbage can, fill it up with waste and launch it into space toward the sun?

There must be some place where waste could be stored.

I agree with you that fission power is the real future of energy for a while, until commercial fusion becomes a reality.

First off, the US needs to lift the ban on reprocessing. That would greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored and provide more fuel for reactors.

I do think putting it in a deep hole is really the only choice right now. It should be kept accessible though if we should discover some better way to dispose of the waste in the future.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: conjur
Me either. But, imo, nuclear energy is where we should be looking as a truly viable alternative to fossil fuels. Just what should be done with the nuclear waste, though? Dig a hole into the earth's mantle and dump it there? Build a massive garbage can, fill it up with waste and launch it into space toward the sun?

There must be some place where waste could be stored.
I agree with you that fission power is the real future of energy for a while, until commercial fusion becomes a reality.

First off, the US needs to lift the ban on reprocessing. That would greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored and provide more fuel for reactors.

I do think putting it in a deep hole is really the only choice right now. It should be kept accessible though if we should discover some better way to dispose of the waste in the future.
Yeah. I guess we can setup some orange recycling bins outside each plant. ;)
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Develop the technology to send it to the big reactor in the sky.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,745
46,518
136
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Develop the technology to send it to the big reactor in the sky.

The environuts didn't want us to launch a little Plutonium that was in Cassini's RTGs.
I can imagine how they would flip out at this proposal, no matter how safe the process was made.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Develop the technology to send it to the big reactor in the sky.
The environuts didn't want us to launch a little Plutonium that was in Cassini's RTGs.
I can imagine how they would flip out at this proposal, no matter how safe the process was made.
Not to mention the cost. Yikes that would be $$$.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Nuclear waste is not the huge problem it is being made to be.

The first part of the solution is recycling the waste. The second is to safely store the remainder waste till it becomes much cooler waste. Radation levels drop to 1/10 of the original levels in just a few decades.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Develop the technology to send it to the big reactor in the sky.
The environuts didn't want us to launch a little Plutonium that was in Cassini's RTGs.
I can imagine how they would flip out at this proposal, no matter how safe the process was made.
Not to mention the cost. Yikes that would be $$$.

Currently the cost would be out of this world (pun intended).

However, if we can develop technology (like a rail gun or space elevator) that would make it cost effective to accelerate the waste out of the earth's gravitational field and propel it toward the sun, then a different story exists.

It is a matter of putting the funding toward development of new technology and expanding on the present day drawing board ideas.


 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Currently the cost would be out of this world (pun intended).

However, if we can develop technology (like a rail gun or space elevator) that would make it cost effective to accelerate the waste out of the earth's gravitational field and propel it toward the sun, then a different story exists.

It is a matter of putting the funding toward development of new technology and expanding on the present day drawing board ideas.
But who's going to fund it? I can't imagine any politician, at least at this point in time, willing to go along with funding something like that (at least for the purpose of trashing nuclear waste.) The security concerns would be huge and it would probably be seen as a boondoggle by most Americans. Personally, I'd rather see money spent on even other viable alternatives (hydrogen, ethanol, etc.)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Currently the cost would be out of this world (pun intended).

However, if we can develop technology (like a rail gun or space elevator) that would make it cost effective to accelerate the waste out of the earth's gravitational field and propel it toward the sun, then a different story exists.

It is a matter of putting the funding toward development of new technology and expanding on the present day drawing board ideas.
But who's going to fund it? I can't imagine any politician, at least at this point in time, willing to go along with funding something like that (at least for the purpose of trashing nuclear waste.) The security concerns would be huge and it would probably be seen as a boondoggle by most Americans. Personally, I'd rather see money spent on even other viable alternatives (hydrogen, ethanol, etc.)

Storing the waste is not a problem, it only takes a few decades to significanly cool. Remember the hotter the waste is, the faster it decays.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,745
46,518
136
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Currently the cost would be out of this world (pun intended).

However, if we can develop technology (like a rail gun or space elevator) that would make it cost effective to accelerate the waste out of the earth's gravitational field and propel it toward the sun, then a different story exists.

It is a matter of putting the funding toward development of new technology and expanding on the present day drawing board ideas.
But who's going to fund it? I can't imagine any politician, at least at this point in time, willing to go along with funding something like that (at least for the purpose of trashing nuclear waste.) The security concerns would be huge and it would probably be seen as a boondoggle by most Americans. Personally, I'd rather see money spent on even other viable alternatives (hydrogen, ethanol, etc.)

Both of those perspective technologies would have significant military and commercial applications beyond waste disposal.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Currently the cost would be out of this world (pun intended).

However, if we can develop technology (like a rail gun or space elevator) that would make it cost effective to accelerate the waste out of the earth's gravitational field and propel it toward the sun, then a different story exists.

It is a matter of putting the funding toward development of new technology and expanding on the present day drawing board ideas.
But who's going to fund it? I can't imagine any politician, at least at this point in time, willing to go along with funding something like that (at least for the purpose of trashing nuclear waste.) The security concerns would be huge and it would probably be seen as a boondoggle by most Americans. Personally, I'd rather see money spent on even other viable alternatives (hydrogen, ethanol, etc.)
Both of those perspective technologies would have significant military and commercial applications beyond waste disposal.
True.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Develop the technology to send it to the big reactor in the sky.

The environuts didn't want us to launch a little Plutonium that was in Cassini's RTGs.
I can imagine how they would flip out at this proposal, no matter how safe the process was made.

Just don't tell anyone. ;)
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Currently the cost would be out of this world (pun intended).

However, if we can develop technology (like a rail gun or space elevator) that would make it cost effective to accelerate the waste out of the earth's gravitational field and propel it toward the sun, then a different story exists.

It is a matter of putting the funding toward development of new technology and expanding on the present day drawing board ideas.
But who's going to fund it? I can't imagine any politician, at least at this point in time, willing to go along with funding something like that (at least for the purpose of trashing nuclear waste.) The security concerns would be huge and it would probably be seen as a boondoggle by most Americans. Personally, I'd rather see money spent on even other viable alternatives (hydrogen, ethanol, etc.)

Storing the waste is not a problem, it only takes a few decades to significanly cool. Remember the hotter the waste is, the faster it decays.


It needs to be transported and stored safely and for a long enough period of time.

People complain about leaving grandchildren with economic debt.

Now you are going to leave the world with a nuclear debt for a couple of thousands of years (unless a method is developed to render it safe).