Environmental Risk and the Iron Triangle

Environmental Risk and the Iron Triangle

Human activities should be safe and sustainable to ensure that institutional operating practices and physical development can meet the needs and safety of future generations without compromising their ability to meet their needs and healthy life. The permanent geological disposal of rad-waste is questionable on ethical, political, and epistemological grounds. While scientists, consultants, and government contractors can opt to put up a dumping site, they cannot guarantee the health safety of the locals with numerous uncertainties lingering on the dumping of nuclear materials. The study talks about the “iron triangle” where distinct stakeholders are promoting both the creation and sitting of the globe’s first permanent geological repository for spent fuel and nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Although public policymakers and scientists have all agreed that permanent geological disposal is the best method for dealing with radioactive wastes that can be a threat to human safety and health. With the health and safety impacts of radioactive wastes, scientists have in the past recommended that there should be permanent isolation of radioactive wastes. Nonetheless, since Yucca Mountain, Nevada was identified to be the first site for dumping, there is little understanding regarding the question of how far the “iron triangle”, composed of government, contractors, and industries, control the repository siting.

There is an underlying assumption that disposal is the only permanent geological repository that can address essential ethical obligations for future generations. However, government agencies and scientists do not understand that permanent disposal of radioactive wastes have long term effect on the environment, as well as the health of human beings where the materials are disposed of. People opposed to permanent geological disposal claim that it is problematic to assure the isolation of the disposed wastes underground. While a nuclear disposing site can be identified and rendered ideal place for nuclear disposal, there are no particular guidelines that stipulate how the process of disposal should be carried. For that reason, the wastes can get contaminated with water, which will thereafter affect the health of human beings and other creatures and the environment in general. In the case of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the “iron triangle” can disagree on the mode of assessment and data that can be used to study the site.

Despite Yucca Mountain, Nevada being identified as the first permanent geological disposal of nuclear wastes, assessors of the project cannot guarantee the safety of the site. Risks associated with the disposal of nuclear wastes to the identified site have not been evaluated and estimated to quantify the impact that the waste disposal will have on people. Most risk assessors of the site believe that the site and data are essential and adequate in ensuring the safety of the environment and the health of the people living around the site. Nonetheless, the judgement is however controversial due to inadequate theory, site heterogeneity, and incomplete data that threaten accurate regarding the site.  Since potential catastrophic threat to safety and health are considered, there should be a high probability that Yucca Mountain, Nevada will comply with the set regulations. The quality of the environment around the site and the globe in general at this time and in the future should be protected. For that reason, estimates of radioactive waste release and disposal during both normal daily operations or worst-case accident scenarios offer confidence that the environment should be protected against the potential risk of radioactive waste products. Studies regarding Yucca Mountain, Nevada have put forward questionable admissions about the uncertainties of basic geological and hydrological state of the site. Besides, there are also no mechanical model that can define non-uniform corrosion that can be used to assess the performance of waste canisters. There are no particular techniques that can be used to remove uncertainties of the project due to the projected impact that disposal of nuclear waste materials can have on the environment and the health of the people.

Since hydrological data for Yucca Mountain state that the site is unsaturated zone, there are uncertainties regarding groundwater velocity that can be more than 100 per cent below or above the mean value. Assessors of the site claim that percolation change of a factor of about 10 is enough to initiate a fracture flow because the groundwater flow time tends to be sensitive to fracture flow with heat from the deposited waste being able to cause a fracture. With the admission made by the investigative assessors of the site, it is hard to trust what the “iron triangle” claim about the fracture flow that the groundwater will not be affected by the waste. Before wastes of such calibre can be deposited to an identified place, distinct stakeholders starting with the government, scientists, and industries should undertake a feasibility study that will analyze the negative effects of an activity. In this case, since Yucca Mountain has been identified as the first site for depositing nuclear wastes, numerous uncertainties have not been analyzed, which can affect aquatic life, as well as human health. Distinct agencies that have been tasked with the role of studying the site should, therefore, inform the world of the true effect that radioactive waste deposits will have on the health of aquatic life and human life. The US Department of Energy is not telling the truth regarding the sustainability of the site with negative effects impacting generations for about 50 years. Inaccurate data prevent scientists from making accurate judgment regarding the effect that radioactive wastes can have when they are deposited to Yucca Mountain. Besides, there are no laws that document waste deposit compliance, consequences for repository failure can be catastrophic. Taken that DOE, contractor representatives, and the nuclear industry all support siting of Yucca Mountain, the “iron triangle” suggests that the stakeholders have inadequate account regarding scientific concerns that radioactive waste deposit will have on the environment and life of creatures.

With uncertainty over the effects of radioactive waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, stakeholders involved in making the decision should delay making the site a first permanent rad-waste facility until knowledge regarding the long term repository behaviour is attained. Uncertainty regarding the sustainability of the site lays on the inability of scientists and government agencies to study the area and identify how radioactive deposits can affect the life of aquatic creatures, as well as the environment in general and human health. However, when catastrophic decisions are made now with many consultations, future generations will be the one to suffer for current actions. For that reason, it is greater to choose against making the site a first permanent radioactive facility to avoid the impact that the nuclear wastes will have on future generations. Conclusion about the qualifying condition of the site cannot be made based on the available data due to inadequate information about climatic changes. The uncertainty surrounding the climatic effect of the facility makes it necessary for the site to be disqualified.

Most countries are not moving quickly to have a permanent repository than the U.S. Researchers state that they are proceeding slowly because of the scientific uncertainty that surrounds high-level radioactive disposal. Of all the countries, the American program regarding nuclear waste disposal is unique and it is rigid to schedule, as well as on its insistence on describing the advance technical needs of every multi-barrier system. Therefore, since the program does not state future uncertainties of the waste disposal in the site, it is essential to delay its implementation until appropriate assurances and information about the long term effects can be obtained. Countries that have high volumes of radioactive wastes have been forced to postpone the establishment of a repository facility due to uncertainty that surrounds the waste disposal. It is therefore essential for both scientists to study proposed sites before their implementation.

Permanent geological disposal of rad-wastes is questionable on ethical, political, and epistemological grounds. When it comes to ethical grounds, distinct stakeholders involved in the implementation of a permanent disposal facility should behave in a morally conservative way to minimize type II errors that can arise due to uncertainty of the project. On the other hand, based on political grounds, since most countries are postponing decisions regarding the establishment of a permanent disposal facility for nuclear wastes, it is essential for America and other States that are in the process of establishing the facility to study the effect that the repository will have on the environment and the health of humans. Finally, based on the epistemological grounds, stakeholders should analyze the tremendous uncertainties that are associated with permanent disposal, which can hurt the environment for more than 10,000 years, thereby requiring safety precaution to be undertaken to quantify the uncertainty that should be expected. The question regarding nuclear waste disposal is troubling since it is challenging to justify how constructing a permanent rad-waste repository today can have a negative effect in the future.