Yucca Mountain Repository Proposal

Timeline Legislation

1978 DOE begins studying Yucca Mountain to determine if it is suitable for a permanent repository for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste.

1982 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act instructs the DOE to carry out further studies of locations for a geologic repository.

1987 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments direct DOE to continue studying only Yucca Mountain as a potential disposal site.

1992 The Energy Policy Act directs EPA to develop standards for a high level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, based on scientific findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences.

1995 The National Academy of Sciences releases “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” which contains the recommendations on which EPA based their standards.

2001 EPA issues a set of standards, designed to protect human health and the environment from risks of radioactive material if it is disposed at Yucca Mountain.

2002 US Senate casts final legislative vote approving the final development of the repository at Yucca Mountain. Two weeks later, President Bush signs House Joint Resolution 87, designating the Yucca Mountain Site for development of a high-level nuclear waste repository.

2004 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules that the timeframe of EPA’s Yucca Mountain standards is inconsistent with technical advice from the National Academy of Sciences.

2005 EPA releases proposed changes to Yucca Mountain standards that extend protection to 1 million years.

2006 After reviewing and considering public comments, EPA issues the Final Yucca Mountain standards.

Institutional Coordination

Before the construction of the repository can begin environmental and health safety standards must be satisfied

6 different agencies are involved in development process

EPA

NRC

NAS

DOT

Congress

DOE

Yucca Mountain Repository

Agency Coordination

The EPA uses NAS recommendations to create standards of environmental and health safety

The NRC uses the EPA standards to ensure the secure use and management of radioactive materials

The DOE holds the most responsibility of any federal agency in development and management of the repository

The DOT promotes rail safety in the transportation of nuclear wastes to the site

Nuclear Sites and Transportation

http://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/photo-gallery/20070918-037.jpg

$ Economic Impacts $

Customers who use nuclear power pay for the disposal of the spent fuel.

The Federal Government collects a fee of one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from utilities and gives this money to the Nuclear Waste Fund.

The opening of the site would create jobs and boost the local communities economy.

The top five contributors to the Nuclear Waste Fund are:

1.) Illinois: $1.6 billion2.) Pennsylvania: $1.4 billion3.) South Carolina: $1.1 billion4.) California: $748 million5.) North Carolina: $746 million

Why does the State of Nevada hate Yucca Mountain?

1987 amendment to the NWPA – bypassed established process for site characterization of 3 different sites, put all energy into Yucca Mt. This came to be known as the “Screw Nevada Bill”.

Since then Nevada has taken a stand against any constructive interaction with state agencies regarding Yucca.

Nevada Congressman Harry Reid has used his power as senate majority leader in 110th congress to reduce Yucca Mt funding by 20%. He has been quoted as saying, “Yucca Mountain is dead. It’ll never happen.”

State Position Con’t

The state of Nevada formed the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects in 1985 with the job of carrying out the state’s oversight responsibilities outlined in the 1982 NWPA.

Science and EngineeringTransportationSocioeconomicsPolicy and Regulations

State Position Con’t

NANP Con’t

Monitors all DOE activities regarding Yucca Coordinates involvement of affected local

governments in planning for impacts due to repository

Provide information to governor and legislature Identify health safety and environmental

issues of concern to the state and developing response plans to them.

Identify all legal issues arising out of the proposed repository project, developing strategies to deal with them.

Whose Science?

The state of Nevada disagrees with federal science regarding the safety of storage at the site and the safety of transportation.

The Site Itself

Groundwater – Primary Issue Rainwater will penetrate the rock over time Rainwater will corrode metal canisters Permeating water will dissolve soluble radio

nucleotides, and draw them down to the water table This will create health hazards in the foreseeable

future. Seismic Activity

Yucca Mt has 33 known faults in the surrounding area 600 seismic events near site in past 20 years 5.6 on Richter scale as recent as 1992

Transportation

State believes that proposed rail and highway routes are unsafe and/or poor policy decision

Caliente Rail Route Yucca would require its own independent rail system to bring waste

directly to facility Costs estimated to be 1 billion dollars. Cuts through Tribal holy land (ShoeShone and Pauite) Air force concerned that Caliente Route would interfere with training

missions at Nellis Air Force Base. DOE estimates that 106 million people would be located along rail

transportation routes for nuclear waste Highways

DOE estimates that 123 million people would be located along highway routes for nuclear waste

DOE’s EIS estimates that out of every 108,000 shipments, we can expect about 50 – 300 “accidents”.

Terrorism?

Shelley Berkley, House of RepresentativesAssessment and Protection Act (HR2926)

Stated that DHS, DOD, DOE, DOT, FEMA, and all other relevant state agencies must conduct terrorism assessment threats on all parts of Yucca Mountain project and operations before Yucca Mt license application to NRC can proceed.

Ended up failing, but is a fair indicator of Nevada’s attempts to stall the project.

Local – Nye County

Nye County Nevada Board of Commissioners

-Wishes to see a more active role of Nevada and Nye County in the Yucca Mountain Project.

- Fears that Nevada’s Zero Compliance stance will end up denying concerns or desires of state from being incorporated into design and implementation process.

- States that without active involvement, the DOE will move forward with its priorities and schedules with little regard to those of the Nevada citizen

- Nevada needs to get involved to negotiate for concerns and benefits of citizens

Benefits of Cooperation and Constructive Engagement

Nevada will have a closer hand in safety oversight, furthering its ability to protect its citizens safety and interests. Gain some influence on NRC’s “stop work” authority in case

of quality assurance issues. Some of the monitoring process could be done by residents

within the state, namely college students. This would greatly help increase public trust and confidence.

State could establish independent monitoring agency (funded by mandate from federal budget) to conduct baseline environmental and health surveys and conduct continuous follow up surveys to ensure safety.

Benefits Con’t Involvement of Local Colleges and Universities Increased usage of land for local and state purposes Government Contracts go to Nevada Private Firms

Cask Construction/Maintenance Railroad/Highway construction and improvements Privatization and operation of repository Provide a federal income tax credit for Nevada Citizens (much like how

Alaska citizens get checks from oil drilling companies

Increased funding for state agencies from federal budgets Overall there is great potential economic gain to be had if Nevada

negotiates the rights to operation of the facility and related governance tasks in return for more constructive interaction.

Dismissing Fears

Transportation When homeland security experts were asked about

materials that bore concern when transported, nuclear waste wasn’t even in the top 10

Nuclear waste is shipped as small pellets that are further canned and shielded in robust containers designed to withstand severe accidents.

For 50 years, real nuclear bombs – not nuclear material shipped in rods stored in ceramic pellets – have been shipped by air, rail, and highway to the local nuclear test site.

Dismissing Fears Con’t

GroundwaterEven if water penetrated, which most

scientists discount, radiation exposure would be 1% of natural background.

TerrorismWhats the alternative? On site storage at

the multitudes of Nuclear Reactors poses a terrorist threat as well.

Resolutions of Nye County Board of Commissioners

1) Nye County intends to be constructively engaged with federal government regarding design, licensing and implementation. In return it expects constructive feedback from federal authorities .

2) Nye County will use its own Community Protection Plan for engagement with DOE on safety and health concerns

3) The vision of Nye County is that if implemented, the Yucca Mountain Repository should be more than just a storage facility, but a center for a community of synergistic scientific, engineering, educational, and entrepreneurial activities for management and possible reuse of the nations radioactive wastes.

Case Study:Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Lacey Township, New Jersey

http://www.oystercreeklr.com/aboutus.html

Overview of the OC

Oldest nuclear power plant in operation in the US (1969)

Operating license renewed until 2029Serves 600,000 people5.1 million megawatt hours in 2007Stores 39 years worth of spent fuel on

site in dry cask storage

Fuel Lifespan

Lifespan of fuel in the reactor is around 6 years

www.eia.doe.gov/.../states/fuelpool.jpg http://www.etrr2-aea.org.eg/

Spent fuel is sent to an on-site spent fuel storage pool until it is cool enough for dry storage

Dry Cask Storage

http://www.oystercreeklr.com/drycaskstorage.html

•Rugged Stainless Steel Container

•Stored in a concrete bunker with walls 2-3ft. Thick

•Stored on site and must remain under 24hr. guard even after the facility has stopped operating

Question:

How will the storage facility in Nevada affect a power plant over 1,000 miles away in New Jersey

Answer

Unless use of the Yucca Mountain is mandated, OC will continue on site fuel storage

Transportation is more costly than on site storage

If Yucca Mountain is used, it will eliminate the need for dry cask storage

An on site spent fuel storage pool will still be necessary

Conclusion - Policy Prescription

Continue/facilitate development of Yucca Mountain RepositoryEconomic benefits Insurance of safety from oversight of many

different agenciesPreferred form of storage of nuclear wastes

Need for incorporation of State and Industry concerns in policy/regulation