Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:12:28.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Yucca Mountain Standard: Proposals for Leniency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

T. H. Pigford
T. H. Pigford*
Affiliation:
Nuclear Engineering Department, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 94720
Get access

Abstract

The proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste needs an official standard to protect the public from release of radioactivity. Standards proposed by the U.S. Congress, the nuclear industry (NEI), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the TYMS Committee of the National Research Council (NRC) are reviewed. Each of these proposals would introduce a degree of leniency not heretofore experienced in radiation protection. No adequate scientific justification is presented. Some scientifically invalid proposals are said to be justified on the grounds of policy. Most leading industrial nations are designing geologic repositories to meet the traditional criteria for safety and for protecting public health, including quantitative calculations of doses for the periods when significant doses can occur, rather than stopping calculations at 10,000 years as many in the U.S. would have us do. There is no evidence that they are seriously seeking more lenient standards for public health protection. The U.S. has the resources and skills to protect future people from our waste with the same care that we now protect the public from radiation. We should assert our will to do so. The Yucca Mountain project will be seriously damaged if it is directed to depart from the traditional conservative criteria for determining safety and protection of public health, criteria that are adopted in other countries working on geologic disposal.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 412: Symposium V – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XIX , 1995 , 905
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. U.S. Congress, “Energy Policy Act of 1992(P.L. 102-486) Section 801.Google Scholar
2. Fri, R. W., et al., “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1995).Google Scholar
3. Andrews, R. W., Dale, T. F., and McNeish, J. A., “Total System Performance Assessment – An Evaluation of the Potential Yucca Mountain Repository,”, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, INTERA, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, 1994.Google Scholar
4. Wilson, M. L., et al., “Total System Performance Assessment for Yucca Mountain,” Sandia Laboratories, SAND93-2675, 1994.Google Scholar
5. Wilems, R. E., Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, 1993.Google Scholar
6. Electric Power Research Institute, “A Proposed Public Health and Safety Standard for Yucca Mountain,” EPRI TR-104012, April 1994.Google Scholar
7. Pigford, T. H., “Personal Supplementary Statement,” Appendix E in “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1995).Google Scholar
8. Nuclear Energy Institute, “NEI Comments on Behalf of the Nuclear Industry on Selected Findingsand Recommendations of the NAS Report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards” October 1995.Google Scholar
9. U.S. Department of Energy, “Department of Energy Comments and Recommendations on the National Academy of Sciences Report ‘Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards’”, November 1995.Google Scholar
10. Upton, F., et al., “A Bill to Amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,” U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 1020, February 23, 1995.Google Scholar
11. Johnston, B., “A Bill to Amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and for Other Purposes,” U.S. Senate, S. 167, January 5, 1995.Google Scholar
12. Pigford, T.V. and Choi, J., “Effect of Fuel Cycle Alternatives on Nuclear Waste Management,” Proc. Symposium on Waste Management, ERDA CONF-761020 (October, 1976).Google Scholar
13. Hebel, L. C., et al.,“Report to the American Physical Society by the Study Group on Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Waste Management,” Rev. Mod. Phys, 50, No.1, Part KK, (Jan., 1978).Google Scholar
14. Wick, O. J. and Cloninger, M. O., “Comparison of Potential Radiological Consequences From a Spent-Fuel Repository and Natural Uranium Deposits,” Report PNL-3540, September 1980.Google Scholar
15. Duguid, J. P., et al., “Calculations Supporting Evaluation of Potential Environmental Standards for Yucca Mountain,” INTERA Report WBS:1.2.5.5, April 1994.Google Scholar
16. Choi, J. and Pigford, T. H., “Water Dilution Volumes for High-Level Wastes,” Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc. 39, (1981).Google Scholar
17. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), “Radiation Protection Principles for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste,” Report ICRP-46, (Annals of the ICRP, 1985).Google Scholar
18. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), “Principles of Monitoring for the Radiation Protection of the Population,” Report ICRP-43, (Annals of the ICRP, 1985).Google Scholar
19. Barraclough, I. M., Mobbs, S. F., and Cooper, J. R., “Radiological Protection Objectives for the Land-Based Disposal of Solid Radioactive Wastes,” Documents of the National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB), 3, No. 3, (1992).Google Scholar
20. Pigford, T. H., “Invalidity of the Probabilistic Exposure Scenario Proposed by the National Research Council's TYMS Committee,” Report UCB-NE-9523, November 1995.Google Scholar
21. Mossman, K. L., Goldman, M., Masse, F., Mills, W. A., Schiager, K. J., “Health Physics Society Position Statement: Risk Assessment,” Health Physics Society Newsletter, (August 1995).Google Scholar
22. Fri, R. W., “Using Science Soundly: The Yucca Mountain Standard,” Resources, No. 120 (Resources for the Future, 1995).Google Scholar
23. McCartin, T. R., Codell, R., Neel, R., Ford, W., Wescott, R., Bradbury, J., Sagar, B., Walton, J., “Models for Source Term, Flow, Transport and Dose Assessment in NRC's Iterative Performance Assessment, Phase 2,” Proc. International Conference on High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, NV, 1994.Google Scholar
24. Neel, R. B., “Dose Assessment Module”, in NRC Iterative Performance Assessment Phase 2: Development of Capabilities for Review of A Performance Assessment for a High-Level WasteRepository,” Wescott, R. G., Lee, M. P., McCartin, T. J., Eisenberg, N. A., and Baca, R. B., eds., U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1464, 1995.Google Scholar