DOE report calls for more nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain

Videos

Safely Building a Railroad to Yucca Mountain

see larger video

sourced by Marisa Olivia

• 

  Created by Marisa Olivia | add comment

• 

  Created by Marisa Olivia | add comment

Photos

Yucca Mountain-Photo-01

see larger image

uploaded by Marisa Olivia

• 

  uploaded by Marisa Olivia | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Marisa Olivia | add comment

• 

  uploaded by James Gordon | add comment

• 

  uploaded by inyucho | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Arenamontanus | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Gfranks2008 | add comment

• 

  uploaded by gmontagf451 | add comment

• 

  uploaded by rabow | add comment

Amid continuing controversy, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a report recommending increased capacity at the proposed Yucca Mountain Respository in Nevada.

The site was first studied in 1978 and confirmed as a possibility with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.  The Act called on the DOE to locate a sufficient storage site for the tens of thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste already being held in several locations around the country. 

A 1987 amendment required the DOE to focus studies exclusively on Yucca Mountain.  The area had already been used as a nuclear test site, and the waste would be located about 350m below the earth's surface.

To date, there are more than 120 nuclear waste storage facilities in over 39 states.  The DOE has pointed out that these facilities were meant to be temporary, and that they are not built to store waste indefinitely. 

Yucca Mountain was slated to open in 1998, but a storm of conflict between the DOE, Congress, the State of Nevada, environmental groups, and local citizens has delayed approval for construction.  The original plan called for a maximum storage capacity of 70,000 metric tons heavy metal (MTHW), providing space for both spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW).

The DOE report considers three possible alternatives:

1. Removal of the stuatory limit of 70,000 MTHW
2. Beginning of a process of site evaluation for a second repository
3. Deferral of the decision

The department discounted the last two options, saying that the proposal of a second repository would create legislative uncertainty.  It claimed that deferral was unrealistic, as:

A 2001 report by the United States General Accounting Office has already called into question the DOE's efficiency in this project.  The department owes anywhere between $2 billion and $50 billion in damages to the nuclear industry as a result of the delay in providing adequate facilities.  The project thus far has cost over $9 billion.

The new report calls for a 4,200 acre layout for the facility, more than three times the initial plan of 1,250 acres.  According to the report, waste is increasing at a rate of 2,000 MTHM per year. In fact, at this time there is more than 58,000 MTHM of commercial SNF in storage, and approximately 12,800 MTHM of SNF and HLW in storage at government sites - so the limit has already been met and exceeded.

The Lawrence Berkeley laboratory, home to new DOE Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, is already responsible for site characterization studies.

The license application for contruction of the Yucca Mountain facility has a four-year approval timeline.  According to the American Institute of Physics, the earliest possible year of completion would be 2020. 

First presented in December 2008, consideration of this report will now be ceded to the Obama administration. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In related issues, some have called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a DOE program including 19 countries, which aims to trade nuclear knowledge and facilities, a government attempt to bypass the Yucca Mountain controversy.  See this Union of Concerned Scientists report.  The US already has plans to accept back its waste from US-owned facilities operating in Australia.