Squeezing water from a rock is child's play compared to getting Department of Energy officials to answer questions about Yucca Mountain. I know. I tried. The General Accounting Office, also known as the Lone Federal Agency That Stands Between Us and a Radiated Future—because it says the DOE must answer 293 technical questions before Yucca is suitable for licensing—recently criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for failing to identify and prevent corrosion at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Oak Harbor, Ohio. Apparently, Davis-Besse had a pineapple-sized hole in some material meant to contain harmful substances. Had the backup cooling systems failed, the report noted, much of Oak Harbor might be glowing. So I decided to ask a local DOE flack, via e-mail, about possible similarities to Yucca:
To: Allen Benson
From: Damon Hodge
I know the situations at Davis-Besse and Yucca Mountain are different, but the thread that binds them is the debate over the how safely nuclear waste can stored. Presumably all the necessary protections were taken to ensure safety at Davis-Besse, as it's hoped would also occur if Yucca Mountain is licensed, but still there were problems. Regulators missed the corrosion. Who's to say a similar incident couldn't happen at Yucca? And this isn't the first time the GAO's been critical of handling of nuclear waste. Your reaction to the story? Does it have any impact on the proposed dump site at Yucca? If licensed, how can regulators ensure resident safety? Thanks for your time and consideration.
To: Damon Hodge
From: Allen Benson
There is no relationship between a nuclear power plant and the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. In the underground facility, there will be no reactors or cooling systems using running water. The whole concept of Yucca Mountain is one of defense in depth: All solid materials in specially designed containers in an engineered underground facility specifically designed to protect public health and safety.
To: Allen Benson
From: Damon Hodge
I understand the differences in the types of facilities, and please forgive my naivete and lack of scientific knowledge but, again, I'm interested in the "corrosion" aspect. Presumably, the protective barrier used at Davis-Besse met whatever state or federal guidelines it had to, that things like this weren't supposed to happen and that, like the safeguards put in place at the proposed dump at Yucca Mountain, it was "specifically designed to protect public health and safety." The Davis-Besse protective barrier almost failed in the last area. I understand that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain is just that, a repository, and not a producer of nuclear waste, but to me the issues seems to revolve around containment. Doesn't this bring up an issue about the safe storage of deadly nuclear waste?
To: Allen Benson
From: Damon Hodge
Did you get my last message? This is Damon Hodge from Las Vegas Weekly.
If so, can you respond? I'd like to know if I could run our dialogue as a story. Also, affix your contact information. Thanks.
To: Damon Hodge
From: Allen Benson
My statement is correct. I'm the communications manager for the U.S. Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project.
To: Allen Benson
From: Damon Hodge
Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering if you could respond to my last e-mail and if I could run our dialogue for publication.
To: Damon Hodge
From: Allen Benson
You may run my comment.