Robert Vandenbosch is an emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Washington.

More Photos (1):

Production and Manufacturing
Pioneer Landscaping
Crushing Crew Trades/Construction
Pioneer Landscaping
Yard Person/Loader Operator Trades/Construction
Paragon Electric
Electricians General
Prestige maintenance USA
Custodian Trades/Construction
Wentz and Patrick Construction
Carpenters & Helpers Health Care
FRONT OFFICE Trades/Construction
Lectra-Serv, Inc
Electricians & Helpers

Opinion by Robert and Susanne E. Vandenbosch

The high cost of fossil fuels and their contribution to global warming has led to renewed interest in nuclear power. In the United States a desire for energy independence is contributing to governmental incentives for new nuclear plants. One aspect of nuclear power that remains unresolved is the disposal of the highly radioactive waste contained in spent reactor fuel.

Arizona has a particular interest in the problem of nuclear waste. The state has three reactors at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station and all of the highly radioactive spent fuel still resides there in a temporary storage site.

The nuclear waste problem must be addressed before nuclear power can and should achieve widespread public acceptance. The more than 100 operating reactors in the United States produce approximately 2,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel every year.

There are two principal strategies for handling spent fuel from nuclear reactors. One is underground geological disposal of the intact fuel rods without further processing. The other approach involves chemical reprocessing to isolate the unburned uranium and the plutonium from the spent fuel. A reprocessing approach to the handling of spent fuel is not, however, a waste-disposal strategy. The fission products and the transuranic elements still must be disposed of.

In the United States, the waste-disposal strategy that has been pursued is permanent geological disposal of spent fuel without reprocessing. Legislation passed in 1982 laid out a plan for identifying a geological site. By 1987, the site-identification process had not been resolved and Congress acted unilaterally to select Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the only site to be further studied for the first waste repository.

In the years since 1987, both technical and political issues have slowed development of the repository. On the political side, Nevada has aggressively resisted its selection. On the technical side, water intrusion and earthquake and volcanism issues have arisen.

Nevertheless the Department of Energy in 2002 recommended that the Yucca Mountain site was suitable for a repository and President Bush accepted this recommendation. An objection by Nevada was overridden by Congress.

So what should be done about the nuclear-waste problem?

It is clear that a permanent geological repository is required for much of our existing nuclear waste, independent of any reprocessing development. The responsibility for disposal of this waste should not be deferred to later generations.

Sufficient funds should be made available for the Department of Energy to conclude its technical evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site and to prepare a license application. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should then make the final judgment as to whether the proposed repository adequately protects the public.

In parallel, the Department of Energy should reopen a search for the most geologically suitable sites. This process is necessary both as a backup in case Yucca Mountain is found to be unacceptable and as preparation for a second repository that will be needed within a few decades even if a Yucca Mountain repository is built.