Yucca Mountain Repository Proposal

1
Yucca Mountain Repository Proposal
2
Timeline Legislation

• 1978? DOE begins studying Yucca Mountain to
  determine if it is suitable for a permanent
  repository for the nations 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
  EPAs 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.

3
Institutional Coordination
NAS
EPA

• Before the construction of the repository can
  begin environmental and health safety standards
  must be satisfied
• 6 different agencies are involved in development
  process

Congress
NRC
DOE
DOT
Yucca Mountain Repository
4
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

5
Nuclear Sites and Transportation
6
http//www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/photo-gall
ery/20070918-037.jpg
7
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 billion
• 2.) Pennsylvania 1.4 billion
• 3.) South Carolina 1.1 billion
• 4.) California 748 million
• 5.) North Carolina 746 million

8
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.

9
State Position Cont

• 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. Itll
  never happen.

10
State Position Cont

• The state of Nevada formed the Nevada Agency for
  Nuclear Projects in 1985 with the job of carrying
  out the states oversight responsibilities
  outlined in the 1982 NWPA.
• Science and Engineering
• Transportation
• Socioeconomics
• Policy and Regulations

11
NANP Cont

• 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.

12
Whose Science?

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

13
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

14
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
• DOEs EIS estimates that out of every 108,000
  shipments, we can expect about 50 300
  accidents.

15
Terrorism?

• Shelley Berkley, House of Representatives
• Assessment 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
  Nevadas attempts to stall the project.

16
Local Nye County
17
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 Nevadas 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

18
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 NRCs 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.

19
Benefits Cont

• 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.

20
Dismissing Fears

• Transportation
• When homeland security experts were asked about
  materials that bore concern when transported,
  nuclear waste wasnt 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.

21
Dismissing Fears Cont

• Groundwater
• Even if water penetrated, which most scientists
  discount, radiation exposure would be 1 of
  natural background.
• Terrorism
• Whats the alternative? On site storage at the
  multitudes of Nuclear Reactors poses a terrorist
  threat as well.

22
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.

23
Case StudyOyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station
http//www.oystercreeklr.com/aboutus.html
Lacey Township, New Jersey
24
Overview of the OC

• Oldest nuclear power plant in operation in the US
  (1969)
• Operating license renewed until 2029
• Serves 600,000 people
• 5.1 million megawatt hours in 2007
• Stores 39 years worth of spent fuel on site in
  dry cask storage

25
Fuel Lifespan
http//www.etrr2-aea.org.eg/
www.eia.doe.gov/.../states/fuelpool.jpg

• Lifespan of fuel in the reactor is around 6 years

Spent fuel is sent to an on-site spent fuel
storage pool until it is cool enough for dry
storage
26
Dry Cask Storage

• 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

http//www.oystercreeklr.com/drycaskstorage.html
27
Question

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

28
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

29
Conclusion - Policy Prescription

• Continue/facilitate development of Yucca Mountain
  Repository
• Economic benefits
• Insurance of safety from oversight of many
  different agencies
• Preferred form of storage of nuclear wastes
• Need for incorporation of State and Industry
  concerns in policy/regulation