Skip to main content

On Yucca Mountain, Senator Boxer and The Colorado River

Here's a quote from Senator Barbara Boxer about the Yucca Mountain Project that just didn't sound right when I read it. It ran in a story on the Yucca Mountain Project that appeared in the McClatchy Newspapers this morning:
Among Boxer's biggest concerns about Yucca Mountain is that it'’s not as impervious to water as initially thought. Sophisticated testing has shown that water percolates through its caverns and heads toward the Colorado River.

"“Sixteen million Californians drink from that river," Boxer said.
I sent a note to Rod McCollum, one of our NEI staff experts on Yucca Mountain, asking him for some clarification. Here's what he wrote back to me:
With all due respect to the Senator, that statement is incorrect.

The groundwater beneath Yucca Mountain is in an enclosed basin and does not communicate with any rivers or other major sources of drinking water. That was one of the main reasons for selecting the site in the first place. While Death Valley is the ultimate endpoint for flow beneath Yucca, it is important to note that very little if any radiation will actually make it all the way to Death Valley -- and if it does, it will take thousands of years for it to happen.

The EPA standard requires water only 12 miles down gradient from Yucca to be safe to drink with no treatment. It is another 50 miles to Death Valley. The geology along the route further removes radionuclides and the flow is joined by waters that never pass beneath Yucca. This dilutes the radioactive concentration to levels so low they would be very difficult to detect --– even after the many thousands of years it would take to travel that far.

To repeat: Yucca Mountain is absolutely not a threat to the Colorado River. None of the groundwater flowing beneath Yucca Mountain ever reaches the Colorado River watershed.
Thanks to Rod for his quick response. As always, the best background information available on the Yucca Mountain Project is NEI's Yucca Mountain Source Book.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Yucca Mountain, Used Nuclear Fuel, , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Well, did someone communicate this to the Senator so that she will be more informed and stop spreading false information?
jas said…
Perhaps the Senator is confusing her nuke sites...that's the same riff she used about Ward Valley, CA a decade ago. That WV was also in a closed basin was a fact largely ignored by the Senator
Anonymous said…
Some clarifications are in order:

1.Yucca is less than 25 miles from the Death Valley National Park boundary.

2. Dillution of radionuclides in groundwater does not prevent harm to people and the environment.

2.It is unknown at this time how quickly radionuclides will travel, or even if Death Valley is the terminus of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer, which underlies the repository. NEI's statements that it will take thousands of years are unverifiable and suspect. What does NEI base these statements on? I know of no reliable study which comes to these conclusions.

3.EPA's standard is measured 18 miles away in Lathrop Wells, NV.(not 12 miles away). Anyone who thinks this standard is safe for people and the environment, I invite you to buy property in Lathrop Wells, NV and see how safe the EPA standard is.

4. Can any statements or claims by NEI on Yucca really have credibility based on its rapid pro-Yucca position?
Whitehall said…
Having known Senator Boxer since her first elected position as county supervisor, I can say that she has never let facts stand in the way of making an anti-nuclear pronouncement.

Why would she start now?

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…