Nuclear Waste Disposal At Yucca Mountain: Right Or Wrong? Essay

Nuclear Waste Disposal At Yucca Mountain: Right or Wrong?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As the United States' nuclear waste buildup becomes larger, the need for a permanent storage facility becomes more urgent. One proposed site is in the Yucca Mountains of Nevada. This makes many Nevadans uneasy, as visions of three-legged babies and phosphorescent people come to mind. This is an unfounded worry, as many reasons prove. In fact, the Yucca Mountains provide an ideal site for a permanent underground nuclear waste facility in the U.S.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  While the Yucca Mountains are the best site we have found as of yet, this procedure will cost a huge amount of taxpayer dollars. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the total cost of its high-level waste management program at $25-35 billion. Completing the scientific investigation and licensing of the Yucca Mountain site is expected to cost $6-7 billion alone. At the end of 1993, total nuclear waste fund expenditures through the end of the year were nearly 3.7 billion. Very little of this money comes from individual investors. If a retrievable facility (one where the casks of spent fuel can be retrieved later) is built, this will be a good deal more. Other disposal types, such as sub- seabed and space disposal may prove to be cheaper at a later time.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This is a cause for concern, but there are a greater amount of reasons to further and eventually finish the Yucca Mountain Project. One is the desert climate naturally occurring in the western United States. The weather is dry and warm and their are very few natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Also, this part of the nation has a lower water table than the rest of the country. This reduces the risk of water contamination in case of a breach.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This is only one safety cushion that the proposed site provides. There are several more. All of these factors add up to a relatively stable environment. But will it be stable enough? If a permanent site is constructed, it will have to remain stable for 10,000 years. This is a very long time, considering the United States has only existed for a little over 200. During this period, if a breach occurs, the western United States' water supply could become contaminated, and cost the federal government even more to clean. The question is whether or not t... ...orage structure. Also, fractures in the salt are self-sealing, which will stop radiation for simply floating up to the surface through pores, cracks, or faults in the rock. This type of host rock (the rock that surrounds the site) will give the site both a man-made and natural protection. But perhaps the most beneficial protection is the remoteness of the location of the site. Located in Nevada, which has a very low population density (only 0-2 people per square mile*) the risk of humans accidentally tampering with the repository is very low. Also to be noted is that there will be no construction or utility digging. Nevadans will see to it that the site stays untouched.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  All points taken, the Yucca Mountains are currently the best spot to store the country's ever growing buildup of nuclear waste. Due to it's remote location, secure land formations, and low water table, this area provides an ideal and secure spot for the huge amount of potentially harmful material. The U.S. is in dire need of a permanent nuclear waste disposal site, and this is the best option right now. The usual dawdle of the federal government will only act against us in this matter.