Why is yucca mountain suitable for nuclear waste

It presents a happy picture Wow, now we know what to do! Look up the history of project failures, going back about four decades or so e. The article should have included something about the long history of failures, especially those related to vitrification. Bart Ziegler May 19, AM. Excellent comment. Tom March 30, PM. This industry has never known what to do with the waste.

They are idiots for ever making any of it. Nature out of place. Don't blame the industry. The federal government promised to figure out the waste disposal issue. These researchers complain about kicking the waste "problem" down the road.

The truth is that their own remarks, and articles like this, make it more likely that it will continue to be kicked down the road. The nuclear waste "problem" is purely political. It has been technically solved for a long time.

The fact is that any risks long-term as well as shorter term associated with nuclear waste are tiny compared to those associated with other industries' and energy sources' pollution and waste streams.

Even with all the supposedly significant issues these researches go on about, the long-term risks of other waste streams are orders of magnitude larger. It is the only industry that is containing all its wastes and is ensuring that they remain contained for as long as they remain hazardous. NRC has concluded that Yucca Mountain would meet that impeccable, unprecedented requirement that no other waste streams come close to meeting.

Other industries just release their wastes and toxins directly into the air, simply heap them into piles like coal ash or carelessly shallow-bury them. Depleting earth's reserves of valuable hydrocarbons, destabilizing the planet's climate, and lacing soil and water all over the world with toxins like mercury and arsenic; now THAT's a gift to future generations! If one is concerned about overall public health and safety, as well as the climate, the way to help is not to nitpick about tiny nuclear-power-related risks or try to make tiny nuclear-related risks even smaller.

Even solar and wind power pose larger risks than the ones these researchers seem to be so concerned about. The only real issue nuclear power has is cost, and almost all research efforts should be directed at bringing nuclear power costs down. THAT is how you reduce public health risks. Dennis Huber March 31, PM. It is really straightforward to resolve the spent fuel issue. Reprocess the spent fuel into four product streams - transuranics that go to a burner or breeder reactor, fission products that are further separated into short lived less than 33 years that can be vitrified and stored for years or so at Yucca Mountain, and the seven bad actor fission products with long half lives that need to be sent to the burner reactor.

The fourth stream - the rest of the "waste" - is Uranium dioxide, and the deficit mass from the fission products and transuranics can be filled with weapons grade U or Pu from US or former Soviet Union weapons such that the resulting average enrichment is sufficient to use the entire lot to power another nuclear reactor without having to mine additional uranium for an extended time. We should eliminate our wasteful once-through practice and deal with the problem we have created, not pass it onto the next generation.

Certainly I have simplified this: there are small issues with this approach few technical, mostly regulatory , but it is much better than the alternative - which is continue to do nothing.

Noel Wauchope March 30, PM. Look, this is a really informative and interesting article. Steven Curtis March 30, PM. Great article, however, recycling should be explored more in-depth. Purniah is right about recycling commercial used nuclear fuel, however, taking out medical radioisotopes must be done quickly for them to be useful. No process plans to do so yet, but it would be great if it could happen. Nevertheless, getting the remaining power from material currently considered waste should not be ignored.

Shane Broussard March 31, AM. We should be recycling the fuel as much as possible. Continuing to study the problems and doing nothing is what has been done for decades.

There is no way to guarantee any storage solution for millenia. Get off the pot and put this stuff in Yucca mountain. Or why not just drop these storage containers into the ocean above the Mariana' Trench? Cowan March 31, AM. The Vermont Yankee casks in the page-top photo could I suppose be considered a one-deep pile. Years ago, both gas and uranium prices were much higher, and government's loss was accordingly greater. Otherwise said, it's down fold. Dallas March 31, PM.

Or we could consume all that waste in a next gen reactor and provide years of safe, carbon free electricity and process heat. Jacob D. Paz March 31, PM. Both the scientific community and the state of the Nevada have challenged the proposed high nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada based on scientific and legal grounds.

There is uncertainty as to whether the engineering barrier system will be corroded. There are two major corrosion concerns: electrochemical corrosion and microbial induced corrosion. All the corrosion studies at Yucca Mountain were conducted in laboratories due to the chemical and geological complexity of YMP, which raises serious questions.

In order to evaluate properly how the repository will comply with regulatory requirements, the DOE should have conducted long-term studies in real-world conditions prior to the approval of YMP. In addition, the DOE did not incorporate into their computer model deliquescence corrosion. Why were no studies of the coefficient of distribution of radionuclides and heavy metals submitted. Imfene Endala April 1, PM.

The salt is waterproof and plastic. So the containers will eventually be completely encapsulated and water ingress will not be a worry. Spent fuel in Finland will be entombed in a hardrock mine. In France they want to bury it in clay. Water doesn't move in clay. While these materials will be radioactive for a very long time, within a years they will have decayed to a level where they are not all that dangerous any more.

Of course they will still be toxic, but Lead, Arsenic, Copper and Mercury and even some man made materials will also be toxic forever. We dig up metal tools and ornaments that are lots older than a years so I can not see any reason why we can not make containers that will outlast this period. This problem was solved in the late 50's. I saw the research. Bury in a salt dome, of which the U. It is entombed and gone forever. All other "solutions" are just jobs programs. Their ideological rigidity is based on the notion that wind and solar alone can solve climate change.

Alas, they cannot. Read more commentary:. You can't save the climate by going vegan. Corporate polluters must be held accountable. Donald Trump is a big booster of fossil fuels, so why are their stocks slipping? NEMA: Future shines bright for the light bulb revolution. The second is a bipartisan group of Nevada politicians.

The retirement of Democratic Sen. And who is liable Transportation Liabilities Who is liable in case of an accident? How could the transportation of nuclear waste affect property values? Would communities know when to expect shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste? What alternative technologies might eliminate the need for a repository? What are other countries doing about their nuclear waste?

Long-Term Intuitional Controls What happens after the repository closes? Print The FAQ's. Current Status of the Yucca Mountain Project Press Update — Here's the most recent comprehensive press news about the status of Yucca Mountain Background: As of the status of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain remains uncertain. As way of background, in Yucca Mountain was officially designated as the site to store the nation's spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Bush, who approved it. Prior to , and as required under the NWPA, the Department of Energy had selected ten locations in six states for consideration as potential repository sites. After detailed studies of these sites, President Ronald Reagan approved three sites for detailed site characterization.

The Act did provide that if Yucca Mountain was found unsuitable, "site characterization studies" would be stopped. The amended law was subsequently labeled the "Screw Nevada Bill. Department of Energy DOE are primarily responsible for the regulation and disposal of the nation's spent nuclear fuel.

NRC regulates the construction and operation of commercial nuclear power plants and spent fuel repositories e. The NRC also regulates the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. By law, the DOE must also apply to the NRC for a license to build the repository and the license must be granted before any construction begins.

The 8,page license application was submitted by the Bush administration's Energy Department and was accepted for consideration and license review by NRC. This action left the United States without any long term storage site for the disposal of civilian spent reactor fuel and defense generated High Level Waste.

Given funding limitations and other constraints, the DOE and the NRC subsequently and separately suspended their efforts to license the repository at Yucca Mountain; this action lead to law suits filed by several parties aimed at forcing the NRC to resume the licensing proceeding. The court subsequently upheld the desires of the petitioners granting the writ of mandamus and on November 18, , the NRC ordered the licensing proceeding restarted and directed its staff to complete work on the Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report SER.

While the NRC staff has concluded that DOE's license applications is "acceptable" it is recommending the NRC deny construction of the repository because DOE doesn't own or have jurisdiction over the land or water where the repository would be built. Recently a supplement to DOE's environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain was completed which documented that DOE doesn't hold the necessary water rights to support the project.

The land encompassing the repository site is also under the control of several different federal agencies, including DOE, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense; and an act of Congress is needed to transfer the lands in question to DOE. Regarding water rights, DOE would need to obtain those rights from the state of Nevada. Nevada has refused to appropriate the water and litigation challenging that refusal is stayed. In any event, the NRC has not made a final decision on the repository license application, but the agency could easily vote on DOE'S application to build the repository once environmental reviews are complete, land and water issues are resolved, and after a series of lengthy and complex hearings on challenges from third parties are entertained.

It's worth noting, however, to date the U. On The Ground Accomplishments: Today the Yucca Mountain site has been abandoned and nothing exists but a boarded up exploratory tunnel; there are no waste disposal tunnels, receiving and handling facilities, and the waste containers and transportation casks have yet to be developed. Today, the only thing that actually exists at Yucca Mountain is single 5 mile exploratory tunnel. Spent Nuclear Fuel: Spent nuclear fuel is used fuel that comes mostly from commercial nuclear power plants, as well as from government and university nuclear research reactors and reactors on nuclear submarines and ships.

Nuclear reactors use solid, ceramic pellets containing uranium for fuel. The pellets are sealed in strong metal tubes, which are bundled together to form a nuclear fuel assembly.

Depending on the type of reactor, the fuel assemblies can be as long as 16 feet and weigh up to 1, pounds. After three or four years in a reactor, the fuel is no longer efficient as an energy source and the assembly is removed. After removal, the spent nuclear fuel assembly is highly radioactive and thermally hot, and therefore requires shielding and remote handling.

High-Level Waste: High-level radioactive waste primarily results from defense nuclear activities. When spent nuclear fuel is processed to extract plutonium for nuclear weapons development, liquid high-level radioactive waste is a byproduct.

The liquid waste is subsequently solidified. The Department of Energy DOE says all high-level radioactive waste destined for the Yucca Mountain repository would be in a solid, stable form before being transported, and cannot burn, explode, or leak.

As deipicted below, the national inventory of commercial spent nuclear fuel amounts to nearly 70, metric tons, which is stored at 75 sites in 33 states. These sites are located in a mixture of urban, suburban, and rural environments. MTHM is the original amount of uranium that went into the fuel before it was irradiated in the reactor. Commercial is essentially all spent fuel assemblies. Defense waste is about 2, MTHM that was irradiated in a reactor, but had not been reprocessed when reprocessing was halted.

The remainder is liquid waste that has been or will be solidified and incorporated into a solid waste form, mostly glass. Most defense waste has had the short-lived strontium and cesium removed and stored, so it is mostly long lived.

Commercial spent fuel contains the highly radioactive fission products strontium and cesium along with the long-lived radionuclides, which make it so strongly radioactive when it comes out of the reactor.

Strontium and cesium have half-lives of about 30 years, compared to e. A metric tonne is about 1. A large, commercial pressurized water reactor fuel assembly contains about one half a MTHM in about individual fuel rods. After years of study, the U.

Other options, such as shooting the waste out into space, are far too risky. Some countries in Europe and Asia reprocess their nuclear waste. Reprocessing both reduces the volume of spent fuel and provides uranium and plutonium that can be used to produce more energy. However, the U. Moreover, liquid high-level radioactive waste is a by-product of reprocessing, and it must be vitrified, or combined with sand and other materials to form a stable glass.

The resulting 'glass' presents the same problem as spent fuel: how can we dispose of it? In theory, geologic disposal offers a multiple-barrier solution. Spent fuel and high-level waste would be placed in specially-engineered casks, and then interred deep below the earth's surface in a repository built in a geologically-suitable formation. High—level waste will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years but there is no way to guarantee that human-engineered waste packages can effectively contain the waste for that long.

Geologic disposal provides a second, natural barrier: rocks that would contain waste after containers fail. Additionally, by locating the repository deep in the earth, spent fuel and high-level waste would be less vulnerable to sabotage and accidents. These risks are both unnecessary and are qualitatively more serious than storage of spent fuel at reactor sites, which have, after all, been licensed for operation of reactors that generally carry far greater safety risks than spent fuel storage.

Some of the financial and legal arguments of the utilities do have merit. The DOE did sign contracts with them to begin taking charge of the waste in , although it was done as part of deadlines in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that were set without reference to environmental protection or sound nuclear waste management. Moreover, the problem of spent fuel management after a reactor is shut down is a serious one. These issues can be addressed within the framework of on-site storage.

The federal government should pay for additional on-site storage necessitated by delays in the repository program but only for wastes covered by existing license periods for presently operating reactors. The funds should come from the Nuclear Waste Fund and not from general taxpayer revenues.

Spent fuel from existing nuclear power plants beyond their presently licensed lifetimes or from new nuclear power plants should be excluded by law from federal assumption of waste management liabilities. Future nuclear power plant owners and licensees should bear the full liability for the waste they produce. There are no ideal options for managing highly radioactive waste.

Technologies that result in or could easily be modified to result in the separation of weapons usable materials, such as reprocessing and accelerator transmutation of waste, should be rejected. Transmutation creates intolerable proliferation risks and leaves behind significant amounts of long-lived wastes which would still require long-term management. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would reverse a quarter century of bipartisan non-proliferation policy over five administrations.

Even if the intent of these technologies is to manage nuclear wastes, their development involves proliferation risks that are too great.

In the short term, irradiated reactor fuel should be stored as safely as possible on site or as close to the point of generation as possible for an interim period several decades that would be long enough to allow a long-term management plan to be implemented. This would reduce the risk of large-scale catastrophe in case of a terrorist attack.

The federal government should use monies from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for additional on-site storage necessitated by delays in the repository program.