Look Only at the Movement

Following nuclear waste shipments down the freeway.

Tommy Cash, driver of a TRUPACT shipment, at a rest stop on Interstate 25, Colorado.
Tommy Cash, driver of a TRUPACT shipment, at a rest stop on Interstate 25, Colorado.

Under the cloak of an intellectual aim, the materials have been completely murdered and can no longer speak to us. If one leaves the material as it is, presenting it just as material, then it starts to tell us something and speaks with a mighty voice.
— Jiro Yoshihara, “Gutai Manifesto,” 1956

What you do not see is the material itself: the vast quantities of spent nuclear fuel, uranium mine tailings, radioactive medical waste, and contaminated soil, debris, clothing, tools and equipment transported routinely along American streets, highways and railroads. As it crosses jurisdictional lines, this material bends political, economic and environmental realities around itself. It reshapes geologies and reconfigures landscapes now and into deep futures. And it does so almost entirely without notice. For 12 days last fall, we traveled routes taken by transuranic waste headed for burial at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, New Mexico, to see what it would take for two humans to acknowledge, and briefly move with, this most abject material.

Seventy years into the Atomic Age, designers, engineers, governments and the public have not been able to adequately imagine or build infrastructures for the long-term containment of materials that are too dynamic to be named, or understood, merely as “waste.” The United States is currently processing, shuffling and storing nuclear byproducts at some 20,000 sites throughout the country. About 70,000 metric tons of spent reactor fuel are held at power production sites in 33 states, an amount that increases annually by 2,000 metric tons. Another 13,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste is left over from weapons production and other military activities. You could say that high-level waste is “sheltering in place,” waiting for the first infrastructure — perhaps a deep geological repository like the cancelled Yucca Mountain project — capable of containing it for the span of time mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency: one million years. No such storage options are expected to be available for at least the next century.

Less potent than high-level nuclear waste, but with a long half-life, transuranic waste is considered dangerous for 24,000 years. Since the 1940s, the U.S. has accumulated one million cubic meters of transuranic waste, mostly materials contaminated during weapons production. After being retrieved from legacy pits, trenches or temporary storage, and then processed, these wastes are queued up for shipment to WIPP, where they will be buried in a 250-million-year-old salt dome. This deep geological repository is expected to reach capacity around 2030.

View Slideshow

The nation’s four main routes for transporting transuranic waste — from sites as far apart as Washington, New York, California and South Carolina — converge on Highway 285 in southern New Mexico. We began our field research in Utah, visiting infrastructures and engineered landscapes that facilitate the movements of nuclear waste along interstate highways, including production sites as well as low-level waste storage facilities, uranium tailing piles, and earth and riprap mounds for shallow burial of contaminated tools and objects. We met humans who regularly move with nuclear materials, and interviewed a truck driver, a shipment tracker at the TRANSCOM office, and citizen monitors at the Rocky Flats Site near Denver. We encountered four waste shipment trucks and shared the road with them for short stretches. All told, we shot 20 hours of video on a car-mounted, wide-angle HD video camera, as well as 800 photographs and four rolls of Super 8 film.

The resulting exhibition, Look Only at the Movement, includes a three-hour, two-channel video, as well as photographs, graphic design, map, and written audience responses. Looking only at the movement of nuclear waste, we have tried to avoid the polarized discourses that often “cloak” nuclear materials, hoping to encourage new angles of civic exchange. We invite audiences to engage with contemporary material realities that are simultaneously of us, and far beyond us.

smudge-movement-map-zoom
Map and site key, Look Only at the Movement, 2013.

Editors' Note

For related work on Places, see Infrastuctural Tourism, by Shannon Mattern, which discusses the project Repository: A Typological Guide to America’s Ephemeral Nuclear Infrastructures, also by Jamie Kruse and Elizabeth Ellsworth (smudge studio).

Look Only at the Movement premiered October 3, 2013, at the Sheila C. Johnson Design Center, Parsons the New School for Design, in New York City. In 2014–15, the exhibition will travel to the Santa Fe Institute of Art (Santa Fe, New Mexico), Center for Land Use Interpretation (Wendover, Utah), Rocky Flats Cold War Museum (Arvada, Colorado), and Center for Art + Environment, Nevada Museum of Art (Reno, Nevada).

Field research for Repository and Look Only at the Movement was funded by the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts.

Cite
Jamie Kruse & Elizabeth Ellsworth, “Look Only at the Movement,” Places Journal, September 2013. Accessed 24 May 2015. <>

Comments are closed. If you would like to share your thoughts about this article, or anything else on Places Journal, visit our Facebook page or send us a message on Twitter.

Past Discussions View
  • 10.21.2013 at 13:41

    I find this an intriguing but somewhat frustrating piece. Certainly nuclear waste is an important and often neglected issue, but paying attention only to its materiality kind of misses the point. It is the invisible radiation that makes nuclear waste not only deadly but ontologically terrifying. Kind of like the picture at the truck stop where the barrel-shaped nuclear waste containers are obscured by a tree, one wonders why the authors are deliberately avoiding looking at their subject. Perhaps, as they say, in order to avoid the "polarized" discourse, but here they do not even present the issues under debate: whether this material should ever have been created, who bears the responsibility for those past decisions, who shoulders the risks the material poses today, and how answers to those questions influence choices over what to do with it in the future.

    As president of ADPSR (Architects / Designers / Planners for Social Responsibility), I too have inherited a connection to the issue -- ADPSR was founded in opposition to nuclear weapons. The risks of nuclear waste are part of the same Cold War nightmare as nuclear winter. On this side of the "polarized" debate the position dating back to the 1980s was to stop making more nuclear waste and find appropriate and renewable sources of energy. With current evidence bearing out our position -- nuclear plants unbuildable without massive subsidies, two plants closed this past year for safety concerns, wind now the cheapest new energy source to install, solar prices falling even faster -- a clear-eyed look at the nuclear waste legacy is a good idea. While the snapshots of places around the physical locations of waste handling convey some charge, I'd propose that the changing political and economic landscapes that drive this system can not simply be ignored.