yucca mountain repository paper

8/2/2019 Yucca Mountain Repository Paper

1/9

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, High Level Waste Repository Research PaperBrian Pfenning u0604562

As the world embraced the end of World War II, it saw its first nuclear reactions in the

form of the atomic bomb. The amount of energy produced in this first nuclear reaction far

exceeded the energy produced by conventional bombs. This energy was first harnessed in a

power plant in 1951[15], and scientists began to refine the process in an attempt to find an

alternate energy source to replace the fossil fueled power plant. They began to develop the

nuclear power plant.

The nuclear reactor was designed to initiate and sustain a nuclear chain reaction. The

heat that resulted from this reaction was used to drive steam turbines that produced usable

mechanical energy. The by-product of this process was nuclear waste in the form of spent fuel

rods containing Plutonium-239, Technetium-99, and Iodine-129. These all have long half-lives

and are deadly to living organisms. A typical reactor core will generate twenty to thirty tons of

high-level nuclear waste annually [5]. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste,

except for allowing it to naturally decay over hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear power

industry needed an ideal location to allow this process to occur safely.

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to start exploring solutions to the

nuclear waste problem. It dictated that the Department of Energy would be responsible for

finding a suitable location for a geological repository[8]

. The Yucca Mountain repository project

was presented as a place to dispose of this waste deep underground.

Under President Reagan, the Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain [15].

It was believed to be an ideal site because of the depth of its aquifer at around one thousand feet.

This allowed for the nuclear waste to be disposed of deep within Yucca Mountain with a low risk

of contaminating the watershed. Teams of geologists began to thoroughly study the mountain.

By 2006, the Senate committee on Environment and Public Works issued a statement that


2/9


concluded, Extensive studies consistently show Yucca Mountain to be a sound site for nuclear

waste disposal.[17] As the study continued, more data showed that Yucca Mountain might not

be the perfect fit for a geological repository. Local seismic activity combined with public and

political opposition led to the abandonment of the project.

One of the major concerns in the Yucca Mountain repository project developed from the

scientific analysis of likely disruptive events that would occur after the closure of the Yucca

Mountain site. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards required that the dosage of

radiation to the public must remain under fifteen millirems per year for a period of one million

years

3

. This period was extended from ten thousand years to one million in 2009

[15]

. When this

amendment extended the duration of the assessment, events such as volcanism and seismic

occurrences, which happen infrequently over the course of ten thousand years but much more

frequently over the span of one million, became much more important. The seismic and volcanic

stability of the Yucca Mountain region could not be scientifically proven.

The first type of event that could affect the annual radiation dosage to the public is

volcanism. Scientists from the Lose Alamos National Laboratory located at least twelve volcano

sites within twenty kilometers of Yucca Mountain, six of which are believed to have erupted in

the last million years[1]

. This volcanic activity was attributed to the plate movement along the

Bow Ridge fault line, a fault line that was found in 2007 to intersect with the initial planned

repository site. Excavations along the Bow Ridge fault line revealed a number of faulting events

within the last million years, with each event having an average total offset of 0.5-1.22 meters

[12]. This movement in the plates lying on the fault line could activate igneous dikes, sending

magma to the surface. These dikes are steep chutes that magma travels along from the Earths

core to the crust. The path of these dikes, while definitively vertical, can, at times, be forced


3/9


horizontal as they are impacted by seismic events along the fault line. The existing dikes could

shift, so their paths are unpredictable. There exists the possibility that one of these dikes could

shift so that its flow of magma intersects the tunnels of the Yucca Mountain repository.

According to the Department of Energys Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Evaluation, the

likelihood of igneous dike intrusion into the facility was one in almost eight thousand over the

first ten thousand years[16]

. This number was statistically alarming, relating that at least once in

the initial ten thousand years after closure that volcanic activity will interfere with the nuclear

storage waste tunnels. Expanding this statistic over the next one million years, the facility would

likely be affected by volcanic activity multiple times. The facilitys storage containers would

need to be rated for the temperatures of magma, which can range from six hundred to twelve

hundred degrees Celsius [7]. The capitol lobbyist group, Public Citizen, wrote an article

discussing the inherent risks of a permanent nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. In the

article, Public Citizen reported that the Yucca Mountain facility was designed to operate in the

temperature range of one hundred to two hundred degrees Celsius [14]. The temperature of

magma far exceeds this operating range. The chemical composition and high temperatures of

magma would increase the rate of corrosion of the steel storage casks, which would require more

frequent inspections from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), who strictly regulate the

maintenance of these storage casks. The Yucca Mountain repository was designed to have a

system of underground tunnels where nuclear waste was to be stored in steel casks. This method

of nuclear waste storage was referred to as dry-cask storage by the NRC4. The design,

manufacturing, and maintenance of these casks were intensely regulated by the NRC.

The dry-cask design has been evaluated against many risks, such as structural, thermal,

shielding, radiation dosages, and nuclear criticality. These risks were thoroughly analyzed so


4/9


that the safety standards regarding the nuclear radiation exposure to the public, as set by the

EPA, were met. The most serious concern for these casks and their design was their expected

lifetime and maintenance plan. According to the NRC regulation regarding dry-cask

manufacturing and maintenance, NUREG-1536, the licensing period for an individual cask is

twenty years. At the end of this licensing period, the cask needs to be inspected or

decommissioned[11]

. The NRC has commented that it believed the lifetime of these steel casks

is approximately one hundred years, meaning each cask, on average, will be re-licensed five

times over its lifespan. Corrosion from the heat caused by volcanic activity would diminish this

lifespan. This introduces another issue that would arise in the post-closure era of the Yucca

Mountain repository sitethe need for a dry-cask storage design that would last longer than one

hundred years.

Once the steel casks begin to corrode, the likelihood of them leaking excess radiation

increases. The rates of radiation exposure to the public will begin to vary unpredictably,

depending on the levels of corrosion of each individual cask. It seems that plans regarding

nuclear waste disposal are short-term focused, with the time period that the methods, such as

dry-cask storage, consider are much shorter than the length of time that the nuclear waste would

pose a threat to the environment.

The selection of Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear waste disposal repository was

not well received by all. In addition to suffering from geological and scientific setbacks, the

plans for Yucca Mountain also suffered from the backlash caused by its cultural impact on

Nevadans.

The site itself is mostly uninhabited, with the closest town of Amargosa Valley, with a

population of one thousand people, lying fifteen miles south of Yucca Mountain. The mountain


5/9


is a part of what used to be the Nevada Test Site, the nations nuclear weapons testing area.

Prior to weapons testing after World War II, the area was occupied by Nevadans and much

further back, by Native Americans. This history caused the selection of this site to have a

cultural impact on Nevada.

The cultural impact of placing the repository on Yucca Mountain stemmed from its

designation as a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste. Archaeological finds in the area

showed that nomadic Native American tribes had temporarily inhabited the area. When the site

was suggested, the tribes wanted to preserve both their history and their ancestors burial

grounds

[2]

. A culture that fosters tradition and spirituality is a central aspect of Native American

life. These Nevadan tribes joined the major metropolitan areas in being opposed to the selection

of the Yucca Mountain site.

City councils of large tourist destinations in Nevada, such as Reno and Las Vegas,

opposed the site selection for the repository. The economies of these cities rely on a steady

stream of tourists. They worried that the added fears of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would

drive tourists away and damage their economies [6]. Other Nevadans shared in the opposition,

citing fears associated with the transportation of the nuclear waste across their states. The

general feeling of Nevadans was that it was unfair for their state to store nuclear waste since they

did not have any nuclear power plants. While a minority in Nevada supported the Yucca

Mountain site, citing additional jobs and revenue that the site would bring to their region, the

dominant message that Nevadans were sending through their political representatives was one of

opposition. This sentiment was shared by President Obama.

President Obama promised to abandon the Yucca Mountain project on his campaign

trail13. After he was elected, the NRC stepped in to remind him that the Nuclear Waste Policy


6/9


Act of 1982 prohibited him from doing so[9]

. In response, President Obama eliminated funding

for the Yucca Mountain project from the 2011 federal budget, effectively eliminating the project.

The Department of Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, stated, Yucca Mountain is off the

tablelets get some wise heads together and figure out how you want to deal with interim and

long-term storage. Yucca was supposed to be everything to everybody, and I think, knowing

what we know today, theres going to have to be several regional areas.[10]

Another major

concern was the transportation of the nuclear waste through urban areas.

The nuclear waste itself is highly radioactive and dangerous on its own; however, the

government has a process that it uses for shipping the waste. First, the spent fuel rods are left

underwater for a minimum of five years, so they can cool off[11]

. Then the rods are packed

inside concrete and steel casks. These casks would be transported along waterways, highways,

and railroads throughout the United States. A total of approximately seventy thousand tons of

nuclear waste would need to be shipped to the Yucca Mountain site if it were constructed[15]

.

The number of separate shipments it would take to consolidate all this waste increases the

probability of an accident occurring during transport.

While the NRC very closely monitors the structural integrity of these transportation

casks, accidents caused by the driver or the weather conditions could result in either a cask

breaking open, or a cask turning into a destructive projectile were it launched off the back of a

flatbed in an accident. Outside of Nevada, these shipments would remain secret and random to

avoid a possible terrorist threat, but the routes taken within Nevada would be public knowledge

[15]. While the probability of an accident is low, as the government points out in its experience

with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the potential for disaster scared populations

living along the shipping routes [15].


7/9


While the Yucca Mountain project has been abandoned, scientists still agree that a long-

term storage facility for nuclear waste is necessary. It is rare to find a site with the unique

watershed that Yucca Mountain has, but the fault lines that run through the mountain side make

Yucca an unstable solution over the next million years and the government is unwilling to put

future inhabitants of the surrounding area in a dangerous environment.


8/9


Works Cited

1. "Civilian Nuclear Programs." Civilian Nuclear Programs, Yucca Mountain: LANL. Web..

2. "Environmental Justice Case Study: The Yucca Mountain High-Level Nuclear WasteRepository and the Western Shoshone." University of Michigan. Web.

.

3. "EPAs Proposed Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards forYucca Mountain"(PDF).United States Environmental Protection Agency. October 2005.

4. Knoblauch, Jessica A. "What Is Dry Cask Nuclear Storage?"Mother Nature Network.July 2009. Web. .

5. Lai, Leslie, and Kristen Morrison. "Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet." Waging Peace. Web..

6. Laughlin, Robert B. "The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository."Department ofPhysics, Stanford University. Web.

.

7. Nelson, Stephen A. "Volcanoes, Magma, and Volcanic Eruptions." Tulane University. 16Sept. 2011. .

8. "Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended". Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement (OCRWM), U.S. Department of Energy. March 2004.

9. Ostendorff, Jon (2010-07-09)."Shuler: Nuclear waste is not headed to Ashevillearea".Asheville Citizen-Times.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080625143023/http:/www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdfhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080625143023/http:/www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdfhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080625143023/http:/www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdfhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080625143023/http:/www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdfhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080625143023/http:/www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agencyhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080514020437/http:/www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/nwpa/css/nwpa.htmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080514020437/http:/www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/nwpa/css/nwpa.htmhttp://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100709/NEWS/307090036/Shuler-Nuclear-waste-is-not-headed-to-WNChttp://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100709/NEWS/307090036/Shuler-Nuclear-waste-is-not-headed-to-WNChttp://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100709/NEWS/307090036/Shuler-Nuclear-waste-is-not-headed-to-WNChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asheville_Citizen-Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asheville_Citizen-Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asheville_Citizen-Timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asheville_Citizen-Timeshttp://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100709/NEWS/307090036/Shuler-Nuclear-waste-is-not-headed-to-WNChttp://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100709/NEWS/307090036/Shuler-Nuclear-waste-is-not-headed-to-WNChttp://web.archive.org/web/20080514020437/http:/www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/nwpa/css/nwpa.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agencyhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080625143023/http:/www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdfhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080625143023/http:/www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdf


9/9


10."Q & A: Steven Chu - Technology Review." Technology Review: The Authority on theFuture of Technology. Web.

.

11."Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems (NUREG-1536, Initial Report)."Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Web. .

12.Stuckless, John S., and Robert A. Levich. The Geology and Climatology of YuccaMountain and Vicinity, Southern Nevada and California. Boulder, CO: Geological

Society of America, 2007. 88-89. Print.

13.Witze, Alexandra. "US Election: Questioning the Candidates."Nature.com. NaturePublishing Group, 24 Sept. 2008. Web.

.

14."Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Waste." Public Citizen. Jan. 2005. Web..

15."Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Apr.2011. Web. .

16."Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Evaluation." Web Harvest. Web..

17.Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet"(PDF).U.S. SenateCommittee on Environment and Public Works. March 2006.
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdfhttp://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Workshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Workshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Workshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Workshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Workshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Workshttp://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf

yucca mountain repository paper

Documents