Experts Call for Local and Regional Control of Sites for Radioactive Waste

The withdrawal of Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a potential nuclear waste repository¹ has reopened the debate over how and where to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. In an article in the July 10 issue of Science, University of Michigan² geologist Rodney Ewing and Princeton University³ nuclear physicist Frank von Hippel argue that, although federal agencies should set standards and issue licenses for the approval of nuclear facilities, local communities and states should have the final approval on the siting of these facilities. The authors propose the development of multiple sites that would service the regions where nuclear reactors are located.

“The main goal…, should be to provide the United States with multiple alternatives and substantial public involvement in an open siting and design process that requires acceptance by host communities and states,”the authors write.

Ewing and von Hippel also analyze the reasons why Yucca Mountain, selected by Congress⁴ in 1987 as the only site to be investigated for long-term nuclear waste disposal, finally was shelved⁵ after more than three decades of often controversial debate. The reasons include the site’s geological problems, management problems, important changes in the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard, unreliable funding and the failure to involve local communities in the decision-making process.

Going forward, efforts should be directed at locating storage facilities in the nation’s northeastern, southeastern, midwestern and western regions, and states within a given region should be responsible for developing solutions that suit their particular circumstances. Transportation of nuclear waste over long distances, which was a concern with the Yucca Mountain site, would be less of a problem because temporary storage or geological disposal sites could be located closer to reactors.

“This regional approach would be similar to the current approach in Europe, where spent nuclear fuel⁶ and high-level nuclear waste⁷ from about 150 reactors and reprocessing plants is to be moved to a number of geological repositories in a variety of rock types⁸,”said Rodney Ewing, who has written extensively about the impact of nuclear waste management on the environment and who has analyzed safety assessment criteria for the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

词汇:

radioactive adj.放射性的   

geologist n.地质学家

shelve v.搁置      

reactor n.反应堆，反应器

repository n.储藏地，储藏室   

geological adj. 地质的

controversial adj. 有争议的     

注释:    

1. The withdrawal of Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a potential nuclear waste repository: Nevada’s Yucca Mountain:美国境内的内华达州尤卡山。 nuclear waste repository:核废物处理库。美国能源部部长朱棣文 2009年 3月 5日表示，拟在内华达州尤卡山建设的核废物昀终处理库将不再是美国储存高放废物的一个选项。

2. University of Michigan:美国密歇根大学，建于 1817年。

3. Princeton University:美国普林斯顿大学，建于 1746年。

4. Congress:美国国会，美国昀高立法机关，由参议院 (Senate)和众议院(House of Representatives)组成。

5.…was shelved: ……被束之高阁。 6. spent nuclear fuel:也叫做 used nuclear fuel，一般译为“乏核燃料”。

7. high-level nuclear waste:高（强度）放（射性）核废物。

8. geological repositories in a variety of rock types:各种不同岩层中的地质处置库。 geological repositories指的是地表以下 300~1500米的稳定的地质体中建造的用于昀终处置高放废物和乏核燃料的工程设施。处置库是一个多重屏障系统，工程屏障由废物体、废物罐、外包装和缓冲回填材料组成，而天然屏障则是能有效阻滞放射性核素迁移的地质体，包括花岗岩、粘土岩、凝灰岩和岩盐等。许多专家认为地质处置是安全的，技术上是可行的，对环境是无害的。

What is NOT true about the 1987 decision by Congress concerning siting of nuclear waste disposal?

A:Yucca Mountain was selected as the only site for a nuclear waste repository. B:The selection of Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste disposal caused much controversy. C:The decision by Congress was put aside due to a number of problems. D:

The decision by Congress was accepted by local communities.

（）is the environmental process to collect, sort, transport and bury or incinerate waste goods.

A:environmental logistics B:waste material logistics C:returned logistics D:recycle

Wherever people have been, they have left waste behind, which can cause all sorts of problems. Waste often stinks, attracts vermin and creates eyesores. More seriously, it can release harmful chemicals into the soil and water when dumped, or into the air when burned. And then there are some really nasty forms of industrial waste, such as spent nuclear fuel, for which no universally accepted disposal methods’ have thus far been developed.
Yet many also see waste as an opportunity. Getting rid of it all has become a huge global business. Rich countries spend some $120 billion a year disposing of their municipal waste alone and another $150 billion on industrial waste. The amount of waste that countries produce tends to grow in tandem with their economies, and especially with the rate of urbanization. So waste firms see a rich future in places such as China, India and Brazil, which at present spend only about $5 billion a year collecting and treating their municipal waste.
Waste also presents an opportunity in a grander sense: as a potential resource. Much of it is already burned to generate energy. Clever new technologies to turn it into fertiliser or chemicals or fuel are being developed all the time. Visionaries see a world without waste, with rubbish being routinely recycled.
Until last summer such views were spreading quickly. But since then plummeting prices for virgin paper, plastic and fuels, and hence also for the waste that substitutes for them, have put an end to such visions. Many of the recycling firms that had argued rubbish was on the way out now say that unless they are given financial help, they themselves will disappear.
Subsidies are a bad idea. Governments have a role to play in the business of waste management, but it is a regulatory and supervisory one. They should oblige people who create waste to clean up after themselves and ideally ensure that the price of any product reflects the cost of disposing of it safely. That would help to signal which items are hardest to get rid of, giving consumers an incentive to buy goods that create less waste in the first place.
That may sound simple enough, but governments seldom get the rules right. In poorer countries they often have no rules at all, or if they have them they fail to enforce them. In rich countries they are often inconsistent: too strict about some sorts of waste and worryingly lax about others. They are also prone to imposing arbitrary targets and taxes. California, for example, wants to recycle all its trash not because it necessarily makes environmental or economic sense but because the goal of “zero waste” sounds politically attractive.
What’s the main idea of the first paragraph

A:Waste is everywhere. B:Waste is very harmful. C:Waste should be treated universally. D:Waste can be an opportunity.

Wherever people have been, they have left waste behind, which can cause all sorts of problems. Waste often stinks, attracts vermin and creates eyesores. More seriously, it can release harmful chemicals into the soil and water when dumped, or into the air when burned. And then there are some really nasty forms of industrial waste, such as spent nuclear fuel, for which no universally accepted disposal methods’ have thus far been developed.
Yet many also see waste as an opportunity. Getting rid of it all has become a huge global business. Rich countries spend some $120 billion a year disposing of their municipal waste alone and another $150 billion on industrial waste. The amount of waste that countries produce tends to grow in tandem with their economies, and especially with the rate of urbanization. So waste firms see a rich future in places such as China, India and Brazil, which at present spend only about $5 billion a year collecting and treating their municipal waste.
Waste also presents an opportunity in a grander sense: as a potential resource. Much of it is already burned to generate energy. Clever new technologies to turn it into fertiliser or chemicals or fuel are being developed all the time. Visionaries see a world without waste, with rubbish being routinely recycled.
Until last summer such views were spreading quickly. But since then plummeting prices for virgin paper, plastic and fuels, and hence also for the waste that substitutes for them, have put an end to such visions. Many of the recycling firms that had argued rubbish was on the way out now say that unless they are given financial help, they themselves will disappear.
Subsidies are a bad idea. Governments have a role to play in the business of waste management, but it is a regulatory and supervisory one. They should oblige people who create waste to clean up after themselves and ideally ensure that the price of any product reflects the cost of disposing of it safely. That would help to signal which items are hardest to get rid of, giving consumers an incentive to buy goods that create less waste in the first place.
That may sound simple enough, but governments seldom get the rules right. In poorer countries they often have no rules at all, or if they have them they fail to enforce them. In rich countries they are often inconsistent: too strict about some sorts of waste and worryingly lax about others. They are also prone to imposing arbitrary targets and taxes. California, for example, wants to recycle all its trash not because it necessarily makes environmental or economic sense but because the goal of “zero waste” sounds politically attractive.

A:Waste is everywhere. B:Waste is very harmful. C:Waste should be treated universally. D:Waste can be an opportunity.

Wherever people have been, they have left waste behind, which can cause all sorts of problems. Waste often stinks, attracts vermin and creates eyesores. More seriously, it can release harmful chemicals into the soil and water when dumped, or into the air when burned. And then there are some really nasty forms of industrial waste, such as spent nuclear fuel, for which no universally accepted disposal methods have thus far been developed.
Yet many also see waste as an opportunity. Getting rid of it all has become a huge global business. Rich countries spend some $120 billion a year disposing of their municipal waste alone and another $150 billion on industrial waste. The amount of waste that countries produce tends to grow in tandem with their economies, and especially with the rate of urbanization. So waste firms see a rich future in places such as China, India and Brazil, which at present spend only about $ 5 billion a year collecting and treating their municipal waste.
Waste also presents an opportunity in a grander sense: as a potential resource. Much of it is already burned to generate energy. Clever new technologies to turn it into fertiliser or chemicals or fuel are being developed all the time. Visionaries see a world without waste, with rubbish being routinely recycled.
Until last summer such views were spreading quickly. But since then plummeting prices for virgin paper, plastic and fuels, and hence also for the waste that substitutes for them, have put an end to such visions. Many of the recycling firms that had argued rubbish was on the way out now say that unless they are given financial help, they themselves will disappear.
Subsidies are a bad idea. Governments have a role to play in the business of waste management, but it is a regulatory and supervisory one. They should oblige people who create waste to clean up after themselves and ideally ensure that the price of any product reflects the cost of disposing of it safely. That would help to signal which items are hardest to get rid of, giving consumers an incentive to buy goods that create less waste in the first place.
That may sound simple enough, but governments seldom get the roles right. In poorer countries they often have no rules at all, or if they have them they fail to enforce them. In rich countries they are often inconsistent: too strict about some sorts of waste and worryingly lax about others. They are also prone to imposing arbitrary targets and taxes. California, for example, wants to recycle all its trash not because it necessarily makes environmental or economic sense but because the goal of "zero waste" sounds politically attractive.

A:Waste is everywhere B:Waste is very harmful C:Waste should be treated universally D:Waste can be an opportunity

Wherever people have been, they have left waste behind, which can cause all sorts of problems. Waste often stinks, attracts vermin and creates eyesores. More seriously, it can release harmful chemicals into the soil and water when dumped, or into the air when burned. And then there are some really nasty forms of industrial waste, such as spent nuclear fuel, for which no universally accepted disposal methods’ have thus far been developed.
Yet many also see waste as an opportunity. Getting rid of it all has become a huge global business. Rich countries spend some $120 billion a year disposing of their municipal waste alone and another $150 billion on industrial waste. The amount of waste that countries produce tends to grow in tandem with their economies, and especially with the rate of urbanization. So waste firms see a rich future in places such as China, India and Brazil, which at present spend only about $5 billion a year collecting and treating their municipal waste.
Waste also presents an opportunity in a grander sense: as a potential resource. Much of it is already burned to generate energy. Clever new technologies to turn it into fertiliser or chemicals or fuel are being developed all the time. Visionaries see a world without waste, with rubbish being routinely recycled.
Until last summer such views were spreading quickly. But since then plummeting prices for virgin paper, plastic and fuels, and hence also for the waste that substitutes for them, have put an end to such visions. Many of the recycling firms that had argued rubbish was on the way out now say that unless they are given financial help, they themselves will disappear.
Subsidies are a bad idea. Governments have a role to play in the business of waste management, but it is a regulatory and supervisory one. They should oblige people who create waste to clean up after themselves and ideally ensure that the price of any product reflects the cost of disposing of it safely. That would help to signal which items are hardest to get rid of, giving consumers an incentive to buy goods that create less waste in the first place.
That may sound simple enough, but governments seldom get the rules right. In poorer countries they often have no rules at all, or if they have them they fail to enforce them. In rich countries they are often inconsistent: too strict about some sorts of waste and worryingly lax about others. They are also prone to imposing arbitrary targets and taxes. California, for example, wants to recycle all its trash not because it necessarily makes environmental or economic sense but because the goal of “zero waste” sounds politically attractive.

A:Waste is everywhere B:Waste is very harmful C:Waste should be treated universally D:Waste can be an opportunity