Wireless Password: 9166703926

IS YUCCA MOUNTAIN THE NUCLEAR WASTE SOLUTION?

Marta Adams

Chief Deputy Attorney General

Nevada Attorney General’s Office

madams@ag.nv.us

www.state.nv.us/nucwaste

WHY ARE GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES IMPORTANT?

“Having the capacity to outlast human civilization as we know it and the potential to devastate public health and the environment, nuclear waste has vexed scientists, Congress, and regulatory agencies for the last half-century. After rejecting disposal options ranging from burying nuclear waste in polar ice caps to rocketing it to the sun, the scientific consensus has settled on deep geologic burial as the safest way to isolate this toxic material in perpetuity.”

Nuclear Energy Institute v EPA (DC Cir. 2004) at 1257.

How much high-level nuclear waste is there?

The NWPA set cap of 70,000 metric tons

consisting of 63,000 metric tons of high-level commercial waste and 7,000 metric tons of high-level defense waste and spent nuclear fuel.

The 70,000 metric ton amount was reached in spring, 2010.

In other words: More than 70,000 metric tons of spent

nuclear fuel are stacked up at 122 temporary sites in 39 states.

104 commercial nuclear reactors produce about 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel each year. If all existing reactors were to be relicensed for 60 years, they would produce about 130,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel over that time.

Any new nuclear reactors would require additional long-term storage.

1982 NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT

Established a Comparative Process for finding the BEST SITE

The Act required GEOLOGIC ISOLATION at a location which will remain stable and undisturbed for

millions of years.

Gave particular rights to any Host State or Indian Tribe

Provided for the NUCLEAR WASTE FUND

THE REPOSITORY WAS TO BE BUILT BY 1998

IN 1986

The Federal Government pledged to take responsibility by 1998 for commercial high-level nuclear waste at power plants.

The Federal Government narrowed potential sites to Nevada, Texas and Washington.

In 1987, Congress abandoned the Site Selection Process

THE “SCREW NEVADA” BILL

Yucca Mountain was chosen as the ONLY site to be characterized to house the country’s

70,000 metric tons of HLNW and SNF accumulating at commercial nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons testing facilities scattered around the nation.

MILESTONES

1989: Government abandoned 1998 deadline

1994: Utilities sued DOE for violating 1998 date

1997: Workers completed 5 mile exploratory tunnel

2001: Geological isolation abandoned; DOE proposed to rely on containers and engineered barriers

MORE MILESTONES 2002: After $7 Billion, Sec. Abraham

recommended the site; Pres. Bush approved it and sent to Congress

2002: Nevada vetoed Bush’s approval 2002: Congress overrode NV’s veto 2004: Nevada invalidated EPA Rule (NEI v.

EPA) 2008: DOE filed a License Application with

NRC 2009: NRC admitted over 299 Contentions

Nuclear Waste & Spent Nuclear Fuel Must Be Stored on-site for 5-6 Years

A pre-earthquake view of fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

Dry Cask Storage

YUCCA MOUNTAIN WILL NOT WORK

Rapid water movement Active earthquake zone Relatively young volcanic activity Evidence of ground stretching – magma

nearer the surface Corrosive subsurface environment Distant from most of the waste

Past Volcanic Activity

BUT YUCCA MOUNTAIN HAS BEEN STUDIED FOR OVER 25 YEARS??

IN ADDITION TO EARTHQUAKES, VOLCANOES,

INFILTRATING, CORROSIVE GROUNDWATER, Yucca

Mountain is so porous that the mountain itself contributes nothing to waste isolation

DOE relied on engineering fixes: CONTAINERS THAT LAST 1 MILLION YEARS and THOUSANDS OF TITANIUM DRIP SHIELDS

YUCCA MOUNTAIN is, in DOE’s Words, “UNWORKABLE”

After spending approximately $15 Billion, this $90 Billion project is:

UNSAFE

DOES NOT SOLVE THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM

WOULD REQUIRE A 40 YEAR SHIPPING CAMPAIGN TO MOVE THE EXISTING INVENTORY TO NEVADA.

MEANWHILE, ANOTHER MOUNTAIN’S WORTH OF WASTE WILL BE PILING UP

In 2009, DOE moved to withdraw its license application pending before the NRC

The Obama Administration halted the project because it is unworkable.

A Blue Ribbon Commission was created to study the issue. The BRC determined that a “consent-based” site should be pursued.

The Blue Ribbon Commission

was charged with recommending safe, long-term options for storage, processing, and disposal of civilian spent nuclear fuel from power plants and defense-related high-level radioactive waste. The focus was on finding an alternative to Yucca Mountain.

http://nuclear.gov/BRC/brchome.html

Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013—(based on BRC recommendations) S. 1240

Bi-partisan legislation requires “consent-based” approach

The NWAA creates an independent Nuclear Waste Administration to manage nuclear waste, construct an interim storage facility(s) and site a permanent waste repository through a consent-based process funded through the Nuclear Waste Fund.

NRC Licensing Proceedings

May 20, 2011- a panel of three administrative law judges suspended the NRC’s Yucca Mountain licensing proceedings.

November 29, 2011- a unanimous NRC agreed with suspension based on insufficiency of funds. 

Since then,Congress has refused to fund either DOE or NRC.

DOE moved to withdraw its License Application pending before the NRC

Aiken County, Washington, South Carolina, Nye County, NV, et al. v. NRC (DC Circuit)

IN FACT, South Carolina, Aiken County, SC, Washington, Nye County, NV and the Prairie Island Tribe of MN have lined up to fight the government's proposed shelving of the Yucca Mountain project.

We continue to wait for the DC Circuit to issue its decision. . .

Without Congressional funding, NRC cannot complete its licensing proceeding.

Regardless of the outcome of the Aiken case, NRC’s remaining $10 million dollars is insufficient to adjudicate the licensability of Yucca Mountain.

Wireless Password: 9166703926