Yucca Mountain, according to the state’s official position, is a terrible place to store the nation’s high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel for various reasons: … More than 70,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel are stored across the country in 77 reactor sites.
How is nuclear waste transported to Yucca Mountain?
Trucks and trains would begin bringing waste from throughout the country to the Yucca Mountain facility if it were to open. In regions where rail lines, bypasses, or overpasses are required, the government would purchase the land, or if landowners refused, the land would be condemned and purchased using the government’s eminent domain authority.
Property owners and residents may be affected by a variety of situations. Emergency response, health and safety concerns, and quality of life issues could all have an impact on communities near a rail or highway route. Property values along shipping routes may plummet.
It’s unknown how a nuclear waste repository would effect property values across Nevada. The economy has an impact on real estate values, and state leaders are afraid that a nuclear waste repository would degrade Nevada’s reputation as a tourist destination, cutting tourism revenue.
Despite the DOE’s choice of the Caliente rail track, it is still unknown how homeowners would be impacted and whether they will be compensated. Construction and operation of a rail line in southern Nevada could have significant consequences on water resources, grazing, and mining, according to Eureka County, Nevada’s Caliente Rail Line Scoping Comments from 2004. Furthermore, socioeconomic effects may have a negative impact on businesses, property values, tourism, and recreation. At the same time, the initiative has the potential to offer some economic benefits to the area. To that aim, the County urged DOE to enable shared use of the train line to benefit mining and agriculture companies.
What are the cons of Yucca Mountain?
Yucca Mountain generates a lot of debate let’s face it, if it didn’t, a four-part blog series wouldn’t be necessary. Part of the dispute stems from concerns about the impact of spent fuel disposal on the environment and the health of people living and working in the vicinity as well as along traffic routes. So, to wrap up this series, I’d like to take a look at some of these worries to see which ones are valid and which are exaggerated. A website created by the State of Nevada in 1998 is a good place to find a lot of these concerns.
This is correct, but it has no bearing on the matter of Yucca Mountain’s safe disposal because no one will ever come into contact with the spent fuel. As I explained in my last piece, the spent fuel will be stored in heavy-duty casks that are meant to reduce radiation to less than 10 mR/hr at a distance of 2 meters from the cask. The fact that the fuel is highly radioactive doesn’t matter as long as it stays inside the casks no one can be hurt by radiation to which they are not exposed. In terms of the wasted fuel still inside the casks, keep in mind that the casks are tough; they’re built to withstand strikes from rapid locomotives, and they won’t even be exposed to that risk after they’re buried. Finally, while the fuel remains radioactive for millennia, the radiation levels decline rapidly over time; after a few decades (much shorter than the design lifetime for the waste site or the casks), radiation dose rates are a fraction of what they were.
True, but not to the extent that it appears. Yes, plutonium is present in spent fuel because it is formed when uranium-238 atoms capture neutrons during nuclear fission. Yes, plutonium is a highly poisonous heavy metal. However, plutonium is far from the most deadly element known to man; a toxicologist with whom I used to work could identify a dozen compounds that are far more dangerous (including shellfish toxins and fungal toxins). In fact, plutonium was given to humans to help researchers figure out how it behaves and moves within the body, and those who received it lived to tell the tale (and yes, many of these tests would be considered unethical today, and they have sparked a lot of debate but that doesn’t change the fact that those who were tested were unharmed).
Consider what must happen in order for the plutonium in the fuel to reach a person who could be injured by it. To reach the spent fuel containers, groundwater would have to seep down hundreds of feet of rock. Then it would have to corrode the metal and soak through the concrete layers to get through the casks. It would have to dissolve the fuel ingredients, including the highly intractable plutonium, once within the barrels, and then escape. Finally, it would have to transport the dissolved plutonium several hundred feet through further rock to the water table, where it would have to be transported however many miles to the nearest human with a well drilled into the aquifer. Possible? Yes. Is it plausible, especially in millennia-scale time? Not at all.
Casks can fail due to geologic phenomena such as earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, hastening the release of radiation into the environment.
Let’s start with the easy one. Volcanic eruptions have occurred in the American Southwest during the last several thousand years, and Yucca Mountain is formed of volcanic rocks. So it’s reasonable to expect more of these eruptions in the next few tens of thousands of years. However, there are two types of eruptions: those that produce lava and those that do not. The American Southwest has a history of ashfalls rather than lava eruptions; a lava eruption would just serve to encase the used fuel even deeper, while the ash is too chilly to melt the spent fuel casks. The casks are more likely to be damaged if they are submerged in lava, although the lava itself is unlikely to spread as far as the Las Vegas suburbs. To expose people to high amounts of radiation, the lava would have to submerge the casks long enough to melt them, then continue to flow, carrying the fission products with it and continue far enough to expose people. Lava flows have covered hundreds of miles in the past, but not in millions of years. While it’s possible that volcanic eruptions could leak radioactivity into the environment, the debris or lava is more likely to bury the waste even deeper than it is to discharge it into the environment.
Earthquakes are a little more problematic; there are concerns that an earthquake will open up new fractures, speeding up the flow of water from the surface to the casks and from the casks to the water table. Another risk is that an earthquake could burst the casks, allowing radiation to escape. Both of these scenarios are feasible; we know that earthquakes may fracture rock and affect groundwater flows, and Yucca Mountain is no exception. We know they can fracture rock, therefore we’re confident they can also fracture old fuel casks. As a result, it’s reasonable to believe that an earthquake could discharge radionuclides from spent fuel casks. But we must also consider the possibility that an earthquake will develop a fissure in the precise rock the exact portion of the rock in which the casks are housed. It’s conceivable, but the chances are stacked against you.
Plutonium might seep from the canisters and build up to a critical mass in the environment, causing an explosion.
This is a personal favorite of mine. Not only must we get the plutonium out of the casks (water leaking into the waste repository, penetrating into the casks, dissolving plutonium, contaminating the environment), but we must also get enough plutonium out of solution in the same place and under the same conditions to form a critical mass. It’s also vital to remember that a critical mass isn’t something that will explode; rather, it’s something that will maintain a fission chain reaction in the correct conditions. It’s difficult enough to get plutonium into the environment as it is, and it’s unlikely to happen. The risk of plutonium precipitating out of solution in a critical mass is increased. And putting something together that could go off is nearly impossible.
Putting all of the spent fuel which contains plutonium in one location attracts terrorists and poses a proliferation danger.
Placing all of the spent fuel in one spot undoubtedly increases the amount of plutonium in that one site. On the other hand, we must consider whether having only one place at risk is preferable to the 50+ that exist presently. We can make a good case that guarding and making impenetrable a single place is easier than trying to defend every reactor facility in the country.
In terms of non-proliferation, anyone trying to build a nuclear weapon would have to first get to the spent fuel casks, then either steal some very large and heavy casks or open them up at the waste site and remove the fuel both actions that would be hampered by high radiation levels in the coming decades. Did I mention that the wasted gasoline has to be moved off-site and out of the country? The alleged terrorists (or infiltrators from a potential nuclear power) would then have to remove the fuel, break it up, dissolve it in acid, and chemically treat it to extract the plutonium. The main truth is that neither a terrorist group nor most countries have the resources to pull this off. So…possible? Maybe, in the sense that winning the lotto with a single ticket is a possibility. No, it’s not plausible. This is another another one that fails to materialize.
I could go on and on about why spent nuclear fuel should not be disposed of at Yucca Mountain; there have been several reasons made in support of this position. Some of these arguments, such as the one about plutonium leaking out, building a critical mass, and blowing boom, are either intentionally disingenuous or worst-case wishful thinking; they will very likely not occur in the real world. Others are feasible, such as the potential of an earthquake rupturing the used fuel casks, but the odds are stacked against them. But here’s the bottom line: we’ll be able to come up with a long list of arguments for and against dumping spent nuclear material almost anyplace. We must say one of three things at some point:
- We’re content with the current scenario and will continue to do so indefinitely.
- We’re either going to take it and dispose of the waste in a location where our best science tells us it will be safe under any reasonable set of circumstances, or we’re going to suck it up and dispose of the waste in a location where our best science tells us it will be safe under any reasonable set of circumstances.
- We’re going to abandon nuclear power in favor of finding another way to meet 20% of our electrical needs.
The bottom line is that nuclear energy benefits the entire country – again, nuclear energy accounts for 20% of our electricity generation. There are plenty of areas where the waste from these reactors can be stored safely without endangering the environment or people. We may never find a single location that we can certify as “best,” and the nit-pickers among us will always be able to find arguments no matter how irrational, spurious, or ill-informed that appear to mitigate against any given site. However, the nation will eventually need to identify a location that, while not perfect, is good enough to suit our needs because it meets all realistic trash disposal standards in the actual world.
Whether the country continues to use nuclear energy or not, we will need to find a place to store the spent reactor fuel that has amassed and is now being kept across the country at some point. It makes sense for this region to be dry and sparsely populated, close to major transportation routes, and geologically and hydrogeologically ideal for isolating the hazardous waste while it is still harmful. These places do exist, and one of them is Yucca Mountain. The technical issues of long-term radioactive waste disposal, I believe, are modest the natural nuclear reactor at Oklo has demonstrated that even damp and broken rock can keep radioactive waste for millennia it is the political issues that have proven insurmountable thus far. But don’t be fooled: the ostensibly scientific arguments to Yucca Mountain are only pretexts for the underlying political objections. Our trash disposal solution is being held up by politics rather than science or engineering. And, until these political issues are resolved, we will continue to store our waste in a variety of susceptible sites across the United States.
The article Yucca Mountain: Questions and Concerns first appeared on ScienceWonk, FAS’s blog for expert and thought leaders.
Why was Yucca Mountain Cancelled?
The DOE, on the other hand, shut down the Yucca Mountain project in 2010, citing no technical or safety concerns. Yucca Mountain had already cost $12 billion, and 65,000 metric tons of spent fuel were in temporary storage in 39 states at the time.
What is the Yucca Mountain controversy?
The state’s concerns about Yucca Mountain stem from how it was selected in the first place. The country’s nuclear weapons program had left tons of radioactive waste, and spent fuel from nuclear power reactors was piling up when Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The statute required the Energy Department to investigate many locations across the country, but legislators refused to fund the costly and time-consuming technical assessments of all viable sites. As a result, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was revised in 1987 to designate Yucca Mountain as the sole permanent storage location.
What makes Nevada so special? Texas, Washington, and Nevada were the three finalists. The speaker of the House at the time represented Texas, while the majority leader represented Washington. The Screw Nevada Bill was the name given to the amendment. “Clearly, the mistake we did in 1987 was forcing it down Nevadans’ throats,” a government official told Nature later.
Nevadans are likewise concerned about their safety. In 2014, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal body in charge of approving nuclear waste storage sites, released a long-awaited report declaring Yucca Mountain safe. However, detractors fear that groundwater in Yucca Mountain may corrode the nuclear waste canisters, resulting in a radioactive spill.
A 10,000-year storage facility will undoubtedly be difficult to plan; if completed, it will have to last longer than any other piece of infrastructure in history. However, after Reid became Senate majority leader and Obama gained president, both of whom are opposed to the project, efforts stalled. Despite Reid’s boasting, they never had enough votes to destroy it completely since Yucca Mountain was inscribed into law. As a result, they came to a halt.
Is it safe to live near Yucca Mountain?
Proponents argue that Yucca Mountain is safe since the TSPA computed dose does not exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation limit for discharges from the repository.
What are the advantages of Yucca Mountain?
Yucca Mountain has a role in this. Many people have pointed out its shortcomings, but considering the billions of dollars spent on the investigation, vulnerabilities were bound to be discovered. There hasn’t been a single one that hasn’t been a show-stopper.
However, the amount of water available is a fraction of what is available in most of the United States. There are earthquake-producing faults in the area, but the chances of these earthquakes compromising the facility’s security are slim. Volcanoes have erupted throughout geologic history, although none are currently active.
Some have suggested that moving the waste to Yucca Mountain will result in a “mobile Chernobyl.” This is a fabrication. The spent fuel rods, unlike liquid and gaseous dangerous chemicals that are frequently transported in railroad tank cars through our country’s towns and cities, are metallic solids that will be transported in crash-hardened railroad wagons.
Beyond the shortcomings, there are undeniable benefits. Yucca Mountain is 90 miles from the nearest major city. It is close to the current high-security Nevada Test Site and can be secured against terrorists. The mountain is steady, so we’ll be able to keep an eye on it and, if required, rescue it.
Yucca Mountain is, in fact, a compromise between some who urge for a centralized surface storage facility and others who favor irreversible geologic disposal at considerable depth. This is a one-of-a-kind plant, and there will very certainly be issues that only become apparent decades after it has been operational. The Yucca Mountain site’s design provides for continual monitoring and maintenance; if we store waste there, we must be cautious of both.
Many have urged that we should not use Yucca Mountain and instead wait for a technical solution that ensures the safe storage of waste indefinitely. This is wishful thinking at its finest. For the past 50 years, we’ve been seeking for a magic pill to fix the waste problem. There have been none thus far.
This country has arrived at Yucca Mountain after decades of research and politics. Science and engineering have given us some reassurance about the site’s safety. Additional research and time, on the other hand, will not ensure a solution. Yucca Mountain is an acceptable solution in an imperfect world.
Where is most nuclear waste stored?
The federal government has resorted to pay utility firms to keep its hazardous nuclear waste because it does not have a permanent repository. Nuclear waste is currently kept in dry casks at current and former nuclear power station sites across the country. The system has worked thus far, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the industry’s top regulator, stated in 2014 that current storage technology will be sufficient for 100 years.
“It’s important to remember that just because NRC projected the storage systems will be replaced in 100 years doesn’t mean they will,” McCullum added. If a utility applies to the NRC for a license that lasts longer than 100 years, the NRC will have to redo its analysis. “We have till 2086 to sort it out, thankfully. I sincerely hope that by then, disposal will be ready.”
The government had paid $9 billion to utility providers for interim storage charges as of Sept. 30, and the Department of Energy’s Agency Finance Report forecasts that it will cost another $30.9 billion until a permanent waste disposal option in the United States is finalized.
On Nov. 30, the US Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy issued a formal “request for information” for a temporary but consolidated nuclear waste storage facility in the US.
Unlike a permanent storage facility, which requires drilling deep into the ground, a temporary storage facility would simply hold all of the dry casks in one location rather than dispersing them around the country. Local nuclear reactors have been totally dismantled in certain situations, although the waste remains on site. Consolidating it would at the very least save money.
The slow rate of progress on a permanent storage solution, according to McCullum of the NEI, is not an issue. “You’re creating something that will be safeguarded for millions of years. It’s fine if we have to figure it out for decades “he stated
Meanwhile, increased worry about climate change has given fresh life to modern nuclear reactors, which promise to be safer and more efficient than traditional designs. As a result, there is a renewed interest in solving the waste problem.
“These things take a long time in comparison to what we’re used to in our instant gratification environment. But, in general, I’m upbeat “Rob Howard, Integrated Waste Management’s national technical director stationed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, agrees. He worked on the technical side of Yucca Mountain for two decades, which had been the most frequently advertised potential permanent disposal location.
Furthermore, according to Nesbit, some of the strong animosity toward nuclear power is evaporating.
“That visceral fear of all things nuclear is something that predominantly comes from people who grew up during the Cold War era and the 1970s, when the anti-nuclear movement was really feeling its oats,” Nesbit said. Younger individuals are “far more open to fresh and inventive ideas,” according to the study.
Why is Yucca Mountain important?
The Yucca Mountain Repository is a planned Department of Energy (DOE) location for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the United States. The EPA has established environmental requirements to protect human health and the environment from radioactive material in the repository; the Yucca Mountain repository must meet these standards in order to be permitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Yucca Mountain is a volcanic ridge in Nye County, Nevada, about 90 miles southwest of Tonopah, the county seat, and 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The climate is desert-like in this location. Yucca Mountain is made up of layers of volcanic ash from eruptions that occurred over 10 million years ago. Over time, the ash from those volcanic eruptions changed into a type of igneous rock known as “tuff,” which has different properties depending on the setting in which it was created. The migration of the tuff layers produced the crest of Yucca Mountain due to regional geologic factors. Carbonate rock lies beneath the tuff, produced from deposits deposited at the bottom of ancient oceans that once existed in the area.
Is Yucca Mountain being used 2021?
WASHINGTON, D.C. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto was informed on Wednesday by Energy Secretary nominee Jennifer Granholm that the Biden administration has no plans to begin the licensing process for a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
“During a hearing on her nomination, Granholm told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, “The administration opposes the use of Yucca Mountain to store nuclear waste.”
Granholm, a former Michigan governor, gave the Nevada senators assurances on the removal of weapons-grade plutonium housed in the state, as well as Yucca Mountain and the three-decade deadlock over nuclear waste storage from power plants and Navy vessels, when questioned by Cortez Masto.
“Following the hearing, Cortez Masto, D-Nev., told the Review-Journal, “This administration, like Nevada, is dedicated to moving forward on finding a solution that does not entail Yucca Mountain.”
Granholm’s guarantees, as well as her pledge to identify a location where states, local governments, and tribal leaders agree to accept a nuclear waste repository, delighted Cortez Masto. Most Nevada leaders, with a few exceptions, oppose depositing garbage at Yucca Mountain.
Biden opposed the use of Yucca Mountain during the 2020 campaign, as did former President Donald Trump, whose administration failed for three years in a row to reopen the application process to permit the repository 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
When Biden was vice president, the Obama administration halted the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage project.
Granholm also assured Cortez Masto during questioning that she would follow through on a negotiated arrangement to begin removing weapons-grade plutonium housed in Nevada.
In 2018, the Energy Department surreptitiously moved one-half metric ton of weapons-grade plutonium from the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to the Nevada National Security Site north of Las Vegas.
The cargo sparked a two-year legal battle between Nevada and the Department of Energy.
Cortez Masto worked out a deal with then-Secretary of State Rick Perry to start removing plutonium from Nevada in 2021. By 2026, the plutonium should be totally eliminated. Granholm stated that she would follow through on the negotiated arrangement.
How much waste can Yucca Mountain hold?
Yucca Mountain is a proposed spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) repository that might be used to dispose of both types of radioactive waste. If built, a tunnel complex would be built around 1000 feet below the summit of Yucca Mountain and roughly 1000 feet above the aquifer beneath the repository. The primary concept of geologic disposal is to store radioactive materials in neatly packaged tubes deep down. The Yucca Mountain facility would achieve this by isolating the waste from the surrounding environment using a combination of natural and artificial barriers.
Unless a second repository opens during its operating lifetime, it is statutorily limited to storing 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.