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.
What is the purpose of Yucca Mountain?
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.
What is the current status of the Yucca Mountain project?
On-the-Ground Achievements: The Yucca Mountain site is now abandoned, with only a boarded-up exploratory tunnel remaining; there are no waste disposal tunnels, receiving and handling facilities, or waste containers and transportation casks yet to be built.
Why was the Yucca Mountain project discontinued?
The DOE, on the other hand, shut down the Yucca Mountain project in 2010, citing no technical or safety concerns. Decades of scientific research, on the other hand, had consistently found that the planned repository could safely protect future generations.
Is there any nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?
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.
Where does US nuclear waste go?
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.
What is the controversy about Yucca Mountain?
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 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 Safe Is Yucca Mountain?
According to a new analysis, the current suggested site, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is safe to use. The United States now has around 65,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, which is predicted to increase by 2055.
The Land and Its People
Yucca Mountain, which is part of the Western Shoshone Nation, has long been a source of great spiritual energy for the Shoshone and Paiute peoples. Snake Mountain is a site with rock rings that carry prayers to the Great Spirit and messages back to the people to the Western Shoshone. Snake Mountain would one day be awakened and burst open, pouring poison, according to the late Shoshone spiritual leader Corbin Harney. This prophesy could foreshadow a tragedy caused by volcanic activity and nuclear waste leaking. The mountain has the graves of Shoshone ancestors, and the water in the vicinity is sacred to many desert peoples.
The 60 million acres of Western Shoshone land in Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and California, including Yucca Mountain, were never deeded to the United States. The Shoshone signed the Ruby Valley Treaty with the government in 1863, recognizing most of the region now used by the US military for nuclear weapons testing and the proposed waste storage site as Shoshone land. However, the United States now owns 80 to 90% of it, leaving the Shoshone with little control over what occurs on their ancestral lands. Legislators are still trying to persuade the Shoshone to accept cash compensation for this property, which many see as a method to end aboriginal title and prevent future land claims, paving the way for more nuclear weapons testing, waste storage, and resource extraction.
Yucca Mountain has been the only site examined for 77,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste since 1987, when government scientists began studying it as a possible repository for nuclear waste in the late 1970s. While the Yucca Mountain Project is being contested, the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be buried has already exceeded the repository’s capacity. Meanwhile, radioactive waste is stored in steel-lined pools or casks at power reactors across the country, which produce 2,000 tons of high-level waste each year. For 10,000 years, the waste is fatal, and for 250,000 years, it is harmful.
There has been constant squabbling over legislation authorizing site approval and waste transport to Yucca Mountain for years, with congressional votes being razor-thin. The trash dump was formally recommended for building by the George W. Bush administration in 2002. Nevada’s governor vetoed Bush’s recommendation, as allowed by federal law dictating the location of America’s nuclear waste storage, but Congress overruled him. On July 23, 2002, President Bush signed legislation designating Yucca Mountain as the nation’s principal depository for nuclear waste. The state of Nevada’s Republican governor and attorney general then filed a lawsuit against Bush and the federal government to stop the project. During the Bush administration, the project’s progress was stalled by intense resistance from lawmakers and residents, as well as accumulating scientific research regarding environmental dangers.
Current Threat and Preservation Efforts
The Yucca Mountain Project proposes encasing highly radioactive nuclear waste in steel containers and burying it deep underground. Because the canisters will only survive 1,000 years at most, the mountain’s dryness will be required to prevent leakage and migration – a premise that many environmentalists and scientists believe is wrong and dangerous. Radioactive particles will be carried into the water table by surface water seeping into the mountain, rendering it poisonous. Currently, this water table provides water to local communities and farming regions that provide food for the entire country.
Internal department e-mails refer to the manipulation of data on how swiftly water flows through Yucca Mountain, according to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in 2005. This disclosure prompted a government probe, and congressional outrage prompted the Department of Energy to restructure the project and lay off 500 workers. The Yucca location would have been disqualified years ago if the exact nature of the subsurface water flow had been understood, according to Robert Hager, an attorney for the Western Shoshone.
Because there are multiple local fault lines and a volcano nearby, earthquakes are more likely to fracture the repository and spill significantly more water into the garbage. There are also serious worries about the safety of transporting radioactive waste across vast distances through numerous states in the United States, especially in light of recent terrorist threats. The proposal became increasingly implausible throughout the Bush years, as environmental concerns developed and citizens from other states became more skeptical.
In his 2010 budget request, President Barack Obama stated that the federal government would begin examining other options, and the Energy Department told Congress in February 2010 that it planned to divert $115 million from the Yucca Mountain program budget to attempts to shut down the project. The government then filed a move with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 3 to withdraw the Yucca Mountain project’s licensing application. The motion was filed “with prejudice,” which means that the site could never be used again.
Later that month, a bipartisan coalition of House Democrats and Republicans from nuclear waste-storage districts in Washington, South Carolina, and Michigan presented a resolution to prevent the administration from terminating the program. Members of a House energy subcommittee also criticized the Energy Department’s decision, arguing it violated congressional directives in the 2010 budget’s energy expenditure bill. “We do have the power within the law to conduct the reprogramming activities we have planned,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu wrote in a letter. “Make no mistake, the department will be closing down the Yucca Mountain project this year,” DOE press secretary Stephanie Mueller said.
In January 2010, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced the formation of a “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future” to make suggestions for establishing a safe, long-term solution to the problem of what to do with the waste that would have gone to Yucca Mountain. The commission will conduct a complete assessment of policies for managing the nuclear fuel cycle’s back end, as well as provide guidance on issues such as storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and military used nuclear fuel and waste. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft are co-chairing the 15-member committee, which is expected to issue an interim report in 18 months and a full report in two years.
Beyond the Yucca Mountain Project’s safety and environmental issues, the Shoshone should be able to control what happens there due to treaty rights and their historical and spiritual ties to the area. Native Americans have already been denied access to their rock prayer rings due to government activity that has disrupted burial sites. The Yucca Mountain debate is rarely recognised as being about native sovereignty and the need to care for the land in a spiritually responsible and environmentally good manner. Even if the repository at Yucca Mountain is defeated, the homelands of the Shoshone and other indigenous peoples are constantly being considered for the storage of hazardous radioactive waste.
One example is a proposed “temporary” nuclear waste dump on Goshute-Shoshone property near the Nevada border in Skull Valley, Utah. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Private Fuel Storage permission to build the plant in February 2006, but the Department of the Interior denied the company’s lease later that year due to an incomplete Environmental Impact Statement. PFS and the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute tribal government, which supports the project, have filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Department of the Interior.
While Nevada’s congressional delegation appears to have protected their state from the Yucca Mountain Project’s environmental disaster, they collaborated with the Bush administration to enact a forced payment to the Western Shoshone in order to legitimize US government control over land rich in gold and geothermal energy. The $145 million settlement of the Western Shoshone Distribution Bill on July 7, 2004, was welcomed by some in the Shoshone community who believed they should accept the money because they had no hope of regaining the land, but was opposed by many others who believed the price of their ancestral lands was too high. The gold mining corporations Newmont and Cortez Gold will be able to continue and extend their activities in Shoshone territory as a result of this legislation. (See our Mount Tenabo report.)
The Western Shoshone must be recognized as the rightful landowners and involved in any negotiations concerning prospective mining and nuclear waste storage. Rather than forcing the Shoshone to accept a financial settlement, the government should consult and negotiate in good faith with them about their treaty rights to ancestral lands, providing them the choice to reclaim portion of the land.
What You Can Do
Continue to tell your lawmakers in Congress that you reject nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain and that you support the Obama administration’s attempts to shut down the program and identify other waste disposal options.
The Western Shoshone Defense Project, which defends Western Shoshone land rights, the Shundahai Network, a grassroots coalition of nuclear disarmament activists and Western Shoshone, and Trespassing, a documentary film about fights against nuclear waste on indigenous land in Nevada and California, are all good places to start learning more about Yucca Mountain, the Western Shoshone, and nuclear waste on indigenous land.
Sources
Dipka Bhambhani, Bhambhani, Bhambhani, Bhambhani “In its budget, the Department of Energy wants to ‘terminate’ the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.” May 11, 2009, 3. Inside Energy with Federal Lands.
Keay Davidson, Keay Davidson, Keay Davidson, Keay “Deadly nuclear rods are stacking up throughout the state; a Nevada burial site project is in jeopardy.” The Chronicle of San Francisco published an article on the 24th of July, 2006.
DOE is the United States Department of Energy. The Yucca Mountain Project is managed by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Suzanne Struglinski, Fattah, and Geoffrey Struglinski “Pressure was employed to stop the nuclear discharge, according to the lawsuit.” The Deseret Morning News published an article on July 19, 2007.
Brian Hansen is a writer. “With Yucca Mountain decommissioned, the Bingaman bill seeks a new nuclear waste option.” May 11, 2009, 6. Inside Energy with Federal Lands.
Lisa Mascaro, Lisa Mascaro, Lisa Mascaro, Lisa Mascaro “The President’s course raises the question: Is it dead?” Despite his assurances, the licensing process continues.” The Las Vegas Sun published an article on the 24th of May, 2009.
Department of Energy of the United States of America. “Secretary Chu Forms Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future,” according to the press release. The 29th of January, 2010 was the date of a press release.
“Future Dim for Nuclear Waste Repository,” by Matthew L. Wald. The New York Times published an article on March 6th, 2009.