nuclear waste disposal at yucca mountain nevada

Nuclear WasteDisposal

atYucca Mountain

Nevada

Sam AtkinsonENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY of NORTH TEXAS

Department of Energy’s proposal to:• construct• operate• monitor• close

A geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for thedisposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-levelradioactive waste currently in storage at 72commercial and 5 DOE sites.

National Academy of Science

Nuclear wastes have accumulated for more than50 years at 72 commercial nuclear power plantsand 5 U.S. Department of Energy sites in 35 states.

Approximately 20% of U.S. electricity is supplied by nuclear power plants, and we have made one or more nuclear weapons.

63,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) spentnuclear fuel and 7,000 MTHM of high-level radioactive waste.

105,000 MTHM by 2046.

77 sites in35 states

Sequence of past and possible future decisions.

NEPA, 1969 Environmental Impact Statement required for MASAQHE.

NWPA, 1982 - U.S. Government responsible fornuclear waste disposal.

NWPA, 1987 - Yucca Mountain only

Yucca Mountain project

OverviewOverview

Tunnel boring machine.

Nuclear waste packaging.

Emplacement at repository.

Site schematic.

Waste emplacement drifts

Waste emplacement.

High thermal load scenario 85 MTHM per acre

Intermediate thermal load scenario 60 MTHM per acre

Low thermal load scenario 25 MTHM per acre

Future actions.

Interstate highway system

Legal-weight tractor trailer truck.

Railroad system

Large rail cask on railcar.

Heavy-haul truck.

Potential Nevadahighway routes

Potential Nevadarail routes

PotentialNevadaheavy haultruck routes

No Action Alternative

Yucca Mountain site

decommissioning

Continued storage at

existing sites

Scenario 1long term

institutional control

Scenario 2long term

no institutional control

Reactors

Independentspent fuelstorageinstallation

CalvertCliffsNuclearReactor

Spent nuclear fuel storage facility.

High-level radioactive waste storage facility.

AffectedEnvironment

Regional Landuse

Wind Rose

60 meters above ground10 meters above ground

PhysiographicSubdivisions

General BedrockGeology

Simplified geologic cross-section.

Surface watersystems.

Gro

un

d w

ate

r sy

stem

s

Saturated groundwater flow system.

Ash Meadows

Impacts examined:Landuse and ownership, air quality, geology, hydrology,biological resources and soils, cultural resources, socioeconomics, occupational and public health and safety, accidents, noise, aesthetics, utilities-energy-materials, waste management, environmental justice, sabotage, transportation, cumulative effects.

Proposed Action, No-Action Alternatives

short term (100 years), long term (100 - 10,000 yrs)

A rem (Roentgen Equivalent in Man) is the amount of ionizing radiation required to produce the same biological effect in a person as 1 roentgen of high-penetration X-rays.

William Conrad Roentgen 1845-1923

In the U.S., average background radiation fromenvironmental sources is approximately 300 millirem per year plus an additional 60 millirem per year from artificial sources.

Type of x-rayEffective Dose

(millirem)

BackgroundEquivalentRadiation

Time

Dental, intra-oral 6 1 week

Chest x-ray 8 10 days

Thoracic spine 150 6 months

Lumbar spine 300 1 year

Upper GI series 450 1.5 years

Lower GI series 600 2 years

Acute Exposure:

Minor changes in blood characteristics occur at absorbed doses of 25,000 to 50,000 millirem.

Anorexia, nausea and vomiting begin following absorption of 50,000 to 100,000 millirem.

Severe symptoms or death occur after absorbing doses higher than 200,000 to 300,000 millirem.

Chronic exposure:

Expressed as “latent fatal cancers” (LCF).

For general public: 1 person-rem is expected to yield 0.0005 excess LCFs over a 70 year lifespan.

If 2,000 people are exposed to 1,000 millirem, we would expect 1 extra fatal cancer over 70 years. (2000 people x 1 rem x 0.0005 LCF/person rem)

For radiation workers: 1 person-rem will yield an estimated 0.0004 excess LCFs.

Chronic exposure calculations do not include other health effects such as nonfatal cancers and genetic effects.

Including these effects would increase the number of people affected by 1.5 to 5 times, compared to LCF alone (International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1991)

EPA standard for Yucca Mountain (excluding background)

15 millirem/year for MEI from all pathways 4 millirem/year in ground water at 11 miles

Radiological health impacts to workers for all phases.

Does not include non-fatal cancers, which could be 1.5 to 5 times higher.

Peak radionuclide contamination of ground water ispredicted to occur at or near 10,000 years.

Population within80 kilometers(50 miles).

28,000 total pop.

Radiological impacts to the public until closure.

Does not include non-fatal cancers, which could be 1.5 to 5 times higher.

Radiological impacts to MEIfor 10,000 years after closure.

Does not include non-fatal cancers, which could be 1.5 to 5 times higher.

Radiological impacts to MEIfor 1,000,000 years after closure.

Radiological impacts from No-Action Scenario 1.

LCF throughout U.S. from the No-Action Scenario 2.

Estimated consequences of an aircraft crashon a degraded spent nuclear fuel concrete

storage module.

Costs: $51 to $57 billion for first 100 years.• $0.5 billion/year thereafter for scenario 1• no costs after 100 years for scenario 2

Costs of the Yucca Mountain project

$5.6 billion so far.

$28.8 billion total.

Costs of the Yucca Mountain project.

Cumulative effects - no clear overall project.

Cultural resources: region of influence

No-Action alternatives are unrealistic.

Long term monitoring and mitigation plan.

Technical issues in modeling the future.

Climate change and infiltration rates.

Final design (and materials) is still uncertain.

Environmental justice issues.

Accident/sabotage analyses.

Problems with EIS:

Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)

31.8 oC

EIS:

1.5 oC increase, much uncertainty

28 oC

33 oC

TraditionalNative Americanboundariesand locationsof tribes.

Corbin Harney, Spiritual Leader of the Western Shoshone Nation"It's in our backyard...its in our front yard. This nuclear contamination is shortening all life. Were going tohave to unite as a people and say no more! We, the people, are going to have to put our thoughts together tosave our planet here. We only have One Water...One Air...One Mother Earth."

Treaty of Ruby Valley, 1863Indian Reorganization of 1934Indian Claims Commission Act of 19461979 - $26 million transferred to Shoshone2003 – principle and interest: $142 million

Secretary of Energy releases FEIS and recommended Yucca Mountain to the President. 14 February 2002

Secretary of Energy notified the Governor andlegislature of the State of Nevada that a recommendationwas going to be made to the President to approveYucca Mountain.

President determined that Yucca Mountain was qualified for application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,and made that recommendation to Congress. 15 February 2002

Governor of Nevada, Kenny Guinn, objected and submitted “notice of disapproval” to Congress. 25 February 2002

Site would be automatically disapproved, unless during the first 90 days of continuous session of Congress,a joint resolution of repository siting is approved andthe President signs it into law. 60 to 39 approved. 9 July 2002

Nevada is suing EPA over its radiation protection standards issued for Yucca Mountain as well as violations of several pieces of legislation (e.g. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and its public health requirements).

Nevada, Clark County and Las Vegas are suing NRC for ruling that the Yucca Mountain plan is adequate.

Nevada is suing DOE for the criteria and methods used to select Yucca Mountain.

Nevada is suing Spencer Abraham and George W. Bush for violating NEPA and NWPA and overruling Nevada’s sovereign authority.

All four suits have been combined, and initial hearing in DC Circuit Court held on 14 January 2004.