050310  ヤッカマウンテン計画に黄色信号、報告書のデータ捏造疑惑で
 
米国ネヴァダ州のヤッカマウンテンに建設予定の核廃棄物処分場について、安全評価報告書の記述に不正があったという疑惑が生じ、そのため処分場の操業が遅れる惧れが出てきた模様です。放射性廃棄物が漏れた場合に地下水を汚染する可能性等を評価したコンピュータ計算結果に捏造(改竄)があったというもので、このデータ捏造(改竄)が容易に是正される程度の些細なものか、それとも計画全体の安全性に関わる深刻なものなのかは現時点では明らかではないようです。エネルギー省が明らかにしたところによれば、米国地質調査局(USGS)の1従業員が、地下水の浸透性やサイト周辺の気象等に関するデータを偽造したという趣旨の複数のEメールを、1998年から2000年の間に送信したとのことですが、偽造の程度や範囲、他にも共犯者がいるかどうか等ははっきりせず、もし重大なものであれば、使用済み燃料はさらに数年間か数十年間原子炉サイト内で貯蔵されなければならないか、あるいは別の一時的貯蔵施設に運び込まれなければならない、最悪の場合はユッカマウンテン以外に処分場を見つけなければならなくなるだろうとのこと。いずれにせよ、すでに地元の反対や訴訟で難航してきた同計画に新たなマイナス材料が加わった模様です。以下、New York Timesの社説で。
--KK
 
-----------------------------------------
 
EDITORIAL

False Data for Yucca Mountain?

Published: March 19, 2005

Those who believe, as we do, that the best way to get rid of nuclear waste is to bury it deep underground have got to be discouraged by the latest revelation rocking the effort to create a burial site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Two federal agencies are investigating whether a government scientist falsified documents for a license to build the depository. It is unclear whether the falsification involves trivial issues that can easily be rectified or strikes a deeper blow at the validity of data designed to prove the site would be safe. Any falsification would throw yet another cloud over a project that has been repeatedly staggered by technical problems, political opposition and adverse court decisions.

The Energy Department said that an employee of the United States Geological Survey sent multiple e-mail messages from May 1998 to March 2000 indicating that he fabricated some records relating to water infiltration and climate at Yucca. The least damaging possibility is that he was annoyed because, long after he had completed a hydrology study, he was asked to supply the dates on which certain work was performed for quality assurance documents. Unable to reconstruct the dates, he made them up. Other e-mail messages suggest that false claims were made about the calibration of instruments.

The more troubling possibility is that the fabrications run deeper, raising questions about the models or underlying studies, or that they involve more scientists.

If the falsification turns out to be a relatively minor issue, the Energy Department needs to press ahead vigorously to submit a licensing application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that we can know, once and for all, whether the Yucca site will be suitable. But if, alas, the falsification turns out to be deep and fundamental, the administration and Congress will need to give serious thought to two backup alternatives - leaving spent fuel at the reactor sites where it is accumulating for many more years or decades, or moving it to a temporary storage facility above ground. Neither would be a permanent solution for disposing of nuclear waste, so the quest for a burial site at Yucca or elsewhere would have to continue.