Yucca Mountain, located near Las Vegas, Nevada, is currently the only proposed place to permanently store high-level radioactive wastes, which are primarily generated from nuclear power plants. All of these wastes must currently be stored on site in either containment pools or above ground dry storage, and space in these on site storage locations is quickly running out. [1] The issue of the storage of dangerous nuclear waste is not merely limited to the scientific complexities of finding a suitable location and transportation method, but also involves many moral, political, and economic concerns. The Yucca Mountain site seems to meet, at least during preliminary examination, the scientific criteria for a good dump location, but there is much trepidation about the proposal from local residents and state officials. Opponents say that the Yucca Mountain site is the only option that has ever been considered, and that the extensive examination of the site is merely pretense to give the impression that the government is taking into account other options to reassure the local residents. Despite this, Yucca Mountain appears to be the best location for the storage of the Nation�s nuclear waste.

Many opponents of the Yucca Mountain site suggest that the site is not physically suitable for the storage of high level nuclear waste for the minimum of 10,000 years, or in some cases 25,000 years. While the site has been extremely stable, both seismically and volcanically, for thousands of years, opponents say that the little activity that has occurred has created fissures in the rock, resulting in "�The mountain [is leaking] like a sieve.�" [2] �These claims, however colorful, appear to be more rhetoric than fact. Even if the water, which moves �at the pace of the ages� [3] through the mountain, did penetrate the chamber it would �confront the sturdiest of tanks holding waste already transformed into solids of glass or ceramic.� [4] Opponents then counter with the very valid point that the safety of this project shouldn�t rely on man made technology lasting upwards of 10,000, citing that �nothing man-made has been tested beyond a fraction of that� [5] time span. These materials, such as a titanium curtain that would enshroud the whole chamber, have been carefully researched and tested in countless computer models. While this doesn�t guarantee their success, it is probably an acceptable risk considering these are simply backing up the protection of thousands of feet of fairly solid rock. The site has been certified a viable solution by many scientists, but only to a fairly low degree of certainty, primarily because the state of Nevada refuses to let them do any more research on the area. The reason for the ban is most likely the fear it will be certified with more certainty, and by removing their ability to do so they preserve their argument that Yucca is not an appropriate site. Clearly, politics plays a large role in the controversy.

There is a lot of politics involved in the decisions surrounding the Yucca Mountain waste site, as well as moving nuclear waste to begin with. Opponents say that the primary reason the waste is being moved to begin with is because �politicians from areas with large supplies of nuclear waste may hope to further their careers by shipping off their waste to a faraway place,� [6] and add that �other countries with similar nuclear waste storage problems are not in as much of a hurry to find a permanent solution as the United States.� [7] They also voice concern that Yucca Mountain may have been chosen as the best candidate not because of its high viability, but because Nevada �lacked much clout to fight back� since it is a �sparsely populated state.� [8] Proponents note that this argument works both ways, however, pointing out that �opposition to Yucca Mountain is mandatory for political success in Nevada.� [9] The motivations of the representatives in Nevada, who are a large driving force in the resistance of the project, clearly have as much to gain politically, if not more so, than politicians in states trying to get rid of nuclear waste. Considering few people know that most, if not all, of the waste produced by nuclear plants in the United States is stored on site at the plant suggests that the political drive to rid the states of that waste is minimal. Opponents call attention to the fact that it�s not just Nevada that will be put in danger of nuclear contamination in the even of an accident if Yucca is developed.

Opponents explain that it will take �one shipment every hour and 45 minutes for almost 30 years� [10] to fill Yucca with the thousands of tons of waste from around the country, and the danger associated with the transportation of that waste across thousands of miles is high, not to mention the economic impact on both Nevada and all the states the waste will travel through. Opponents also point out the fact that current standards for containers to transport these materials do not take into consideration various factors like the increased size of the containers that would be used in a transportation operation of this size, or something more radical like a terrorist attack. [11] In addition, according to the opponents, the land value of property both along the routes of transportation and in the area surround Yucca (including Las Vegas) would depreciate as much as 3.5%, even without any accident occurring. [12] In this case, there are really no good rebuttals from the proponents of Yucca, as they mostly insist that the transportation would be made as safe as possible, which does not address the depreciation of property or the poor EPA standards. The transportation arguments are, however, not unique to Yucca. These would be problems no matter where the waste is to be shipped, and therefore should be addressed before any site is developed.

�While the motivations behind many of the decisions surrounding Yucca Mountain are a composition of economic, scientific, and political factors, the scientific aspects of the Yucca choice remain firm. Even though it is arguable that the current storage method is adequate for some amount of time, it does not refute the fact that the United States needs a place to put the waste created from the generation of 1/5^th of the electricity production in the country. To ensure that the transportation specifications and protocols are worked out properly, the government should postpone the transfer of waste to Yucca. The testing of the Yucca site, however, should continue as planned. If this testing shows that Yucca is a good choice, in particular that the geological conditions are suitable, development of the site should begin. In the mean time, the EPA and DOE should solidify stringent regulations for the transportation of this waste to minimize the potential impact on the people and property en route. The government currently transports nuclear waste from naval vessels to small waste facilities, as well as waste from older to newer power plants, and if planned carefully, they can extend and adapt these practices to large scale waste transfers.

UPDATE: Yucca Mountain has been approved by Congress for storage of the nation's nuclear waste. While I doubt they approved it for the right reasons, it's still a good decision.