Background
For the better part of the past two decades, the Department of Energy
(DOE) has been studying Nevada’s Yucca Mountain to determine if the site
would be suitable as a high-level nuclear waste repository. The investigation
was initially mandated by passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)
in 1982, which directed DOE to identify a deep geologic formation suitable
for the permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste produced by both industry and government. Then in 1987, Congress
amended the act identifying Yucca Mountain as the sole site for continued
study. The study site adjacent to the Nevada Test Site is located approximately
100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Although the repository was originally
scheduled to open by 1998, technical and political delays have advanced
that date to 2010. In April of 1997, DOE completed a three-year effort
carving a five-mile tunnel through the mountain to house an Exploratory
Studies Facility to gather data concerning the suitability of the site.
Also in 1997, frustrated by the numerous delays, Congress directed DOE
to prepare a viability assessment identifying the progress of research
at Yucca Mountain.
DOE's Assessment
After physical on-site testing and analysis of several models, DOE
issued its report entitled “Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca
Mountain,” in December 1998. The report indicated nuclear waste would be
transported to the site by specially licensed trucks and trains, starting
in 2010. The waste would be placed in containers designed for long-term
storage, sealed, and placed in the repository 200 meters below the ground
surface and 100 meters above the groundwater table. After 100 years, during
which time the waste would be monitored, the facility would be permanently
closed and sealed. While it was anticipated that the storage containers
would eventually disintegrate, the surrounding volcanic tuff was considered
to be a suitable natural barrier against waste migration. The report also
stated there would be no radiation emanating from the site to endanger
local residents for 10,000 years.
Interim Facility
Although the siting of an interim facility at Yucca Mountain was prohibited
in 1987 as a concession for identifying Yucca Mountain as the designated
nuclear waste site, a number of states have been anxious to remove high-level
wastes from DOE sites and commercial reactors within their borders. Proposals
to site interim facilities in Washington and South Carolina have raised
vigorous objections by those state’s delegations. Therefore, Congress proposed
legislation to establish a surface facility adjacent to Yucca Mountain
for interim storage. Although such legislation has failed to obtain the
necessary support to override an anticipated presidential veto in past
congresses, proponents nevertheless have pushed for the passage of Senate
bill 1287 in the current session. The bill, entitled the “Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 2000,” was originally written to require DOE to
move spent fuel currently residing at 81 individual reactor sites to a
temporary centralized storage facility at Yucca Mountain. In a compromise
with the Clinton administration, however, the bill was modified to simply
allow the spent fuel to be delivered to the Yucca Mountain site as early
as 2007, which would be several years ahead of the permanent repository
completion date.
The Debate
While there seems to be agreement that a safe repository for nuclear
waste is essential, determining the ideal site or series of sites has been
problematic. The issues on both sides of the controversy were voiced during
the several hours of debate on May 2 with Nevada’s senators leading the
opposition. Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV) claimed the bill’s environmental
standards were insufficient and termed the legislation “mobile Chernobyl,”
referring to transportation of the waste to Nevada. That theme was echoed
by legislators representing states along proposed transportation corridors
through which the waste must pass on its route to the proposed repository.
Others suggested that long-term storage in concrete casks at nuclear power
plants is a much safer alternative. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), who
chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and was lead sponsor
of S. 1287, pointed out that such a solution would keep the waste at 81
sites in 40 states instead of in a remote site in the Nevada desert.
The legislation passed in the Senate by a 64-34 vote and was approved in the House 253-167. The Senate vote fell three votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a threatened presidential veto. The House vote also fell short. As expected, President Clinton vetoed the legislation on April 25th stating, among other reasons, that the bill would limit the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing radiation standards to protect human health and the environment. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (Republican-MS) scheduled a vote in early May in an attempt to override the veto, bit that vote again failed to achieve the needed supermajority by three votes. Although proponents of the bill believe action on the bill is still possible during this session of Congress, no action is expected until after the November election. It is worth noting that both presidential candidates have opposed the movement of high-level nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain site until it is deemed scientifically safe to do so.
Although it appears that Congress continues to move closer to a legislative solution for nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, any decision must still overcome political, regulatory, transportation, and possible judicial obstacles. Unless a new technology emerges that has the capacity to serve the nation’s ever growing energy needs combined with the ultimate depletion of fossil fuels, the demand for nuclear energy can only increase as will the accompanying problem of nuclear waste disposal.
The Government Affairs column is a bimonthly feature written by John Dragonetti, CPG-02779, who is Senior Advisor to the American Geological Institute’s Government Affairs Program.
This article is reprinted with permission from The Professional Geologist, published by the American Institute of Professional Geologists. AGI gratefully acknowledges that permission.
Please send any comments or requests for information to the AGI Government Affairs Program.
Contributed by John Dragonetti, AGI Government Affairs.
Posted January 10, 2000
| Information Services | | Geoscience Education | | Public Policy | | Environmental Geoscience | | Publications | | Workforce | | AGI Events | ||
|
© 2013. All rights reserved. | ||||||||
