Danger Underground:

Nuclear Waste Disposal in Yucca Mountain

Amanda Lind

Biology Senior Seminar

Dr. Stan Grove

November 19, 2002

Outline: Danger Underground

Thesis

Waste from nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are a serious environmental problem that will be present for generations to come. It should be society's responsibility to come up with more efficient sources of energy, despite the costs, to prevent the production of more hazardous waste in the future.

I. Introduction

II. Finding a Waste Disposal Site

III. Yucca Mountain Repository Site

IV. Research and Potential Hazards

V. Warning Future Generations

VI. Approval Process

VII. Objections to Yucca Mountain Site

VIII. Support for Yucca Mountain Site

IX. Conclusion

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed plans to deposit 70,000 tons of highly radioactive waste underground Yucca Mountain in Nevada. While many environmental questions and concerns have been raised about the safety of the waste disposal plan for the next 10,000 years, there appears to be no alternative. Waste from nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are a serious environmental problem that will be present for generations to come. It should be society's responsibility to come up with more efficient sources of energy, despite the costs, to prevent the production of more hazardous waste in the future.

The "nuclear age" produced 52,000 tons of spent fuel from commercial, military, and research reactors, along with 91 million gallons of radioactive waste from plutonium processing (Long 12). More than 90% of the waste that needs to be stored is from commercial nuclear power plants, and 10% is from defense programs (Environmental Protection Agency/ Yucca Mtn. Standards). The waste from defense programs primarily accumulated during the arms race of the Cold War. Waste produced from commercial nuclear power plants is currently stored in 131 separate facilities in 43 different states, most of which are east of the Mississippi (Wheelwright 2002).

Several government departments are responsible for taking care of all this waste. The Department of Energy (DOE) runs the nuclear facilities and supervises cleanup performed by commercial contractors. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting health and environmental waste standards for the long-term storage of waste produced by these facilities. The Department of Transportation supervises most shipments of nuclear materials, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sets the standards for those shipments and licenses all commercial reactors (Long, 9).

Finding a Waste Disposal Site

The government started researching disposal sites for nuclear waste in the early 1970s. Experts around the world agreed that the safest place to store nuclear materials is deep underground, so most site proposals were located deep below mountain ranges (Yucca Mountain Project website). The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed in 1987, which eliminated all prospective sites but one: Yucca Mountain in Nevada (Ewing and Macfarlane 2002). More than 4 billion dollars has been spent on researching this site in the last twenty years.

Yucca Mountain is a long flat ridge of volcanic ash that reaches 5,000 feet high. The site is attractive for several reasons. First of all, Nevada receives an average rainfall of only seven inches, which is important because corrosion due to water is a major concern with nuclear waste storage. Also, Yucca Mountain is located within Nye County, an area with only a few hundred residents. Lastly, the Nellis Air Force Base is located nearby, providing a certain amount of protection, which helps to address many fears raised by the threat of terrorist attacks and a generally unstable world situation (Environmental Protection Agency/ Yucca Mtn. Standards).

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the EPA to develop standards specifically for the Yucca Mt. Site. Those standards are "designed to protect the public and environment from exposure to radioactive wastes" and address air, groundwater, and soil exposure (Environmental Protection Agency/ Yucca Mtn. Standards). The standards limit an individual's radiation exposure to no greater than 15 millirem per year; which is about the same amount of radiation an individual would receive from three chest x-rays. Before the Yucca Mt. Repository can accept waste, the DOE must demonstrate to the NRC that it can meet the standards under normal conditions and "human intrusion" for the next 10,000 years (EPA website). Critics of the EPA designated time frame say that 10,000 years was a random choice and that radioactivity will still be present and dangerous after that time. According to the DOE, radiation will be at its peak after 400,000 years (Long, 33).

Yucca Mountain Repository Site

Radioactive waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground Yucca Mountain, along 50 miles of tunnel. Actual containers for waste have not yet been built, but will most likely be developed (by researchers) from the Ni-Cr-Mo alloy C-22, which is an alloy for which there are only limited data (Ewing and Macfarlane, 2002). The plan is for wastes to be transported by trucks or rail cars through 43 states continuously for more than 30 years until it is filled to capactiy. The site will then be monitored for 300 years, after which time the mountain will be sealed (Environmental Protection Agency/ Yucca Mtn. Standards).

To figure out how a waste repository would work, government researchers built a computer model called the Yucca Mountain Total System Performance Assessment and began pumping data obtained from the mountain into it (Wheelwright 2002). Much of the research money spent on the Yucca Mountain project was used to obtain data required for the model's tests. Researchers are attempting to predict everything that could happen to the region in the next 10,000 years and run it through the model to determine if the site will meet the standards set by the EPA. According to researchers, the "irony is that the more that has been learned about the actual mountain, the harder it has been to create the virtual mountain" (Wheelwright 2002). Researchers must rely on current understanding of natural processes that operate on geologic time scales in order to predict the future behavior of a nuclear waste repository (Ewing and Macfarlane 2002).

Research and Potential Hazards

Since water infiltration is one of the primary concerns of nuclear waste storage, researchers have done extensive studies on the composition of the tuff which comprises Yucca Mountain. Water contact with the waste containers could cause corrosion, which would eventually cause the radioactive elements to mix with the water and leak out. In time this contaminated water could descend all the way to the aquifer zone, 1,000 feet below the repository (Wheelwright 2002). There are six different geologic strata in Yucca Mountain, each strata conducting water at a different rate. Therefore all six have been studied intensely for percolation rates - more data to be added to the simulated mountain model (Wheelwright 2002). The dryness of the area and the fact that most rainfall is quickly evaporated from the surface of the mountain, does not change the fact that with time (and researchers have to take 10,000 years into consideration) water could seep down to the repository. Designers will also be creating titanium drip shields to further protect the nickel alloy containers from water (Long 13).

"The relationship between the heat of the waste and the water in the rock is critical. The heat will boil any approaching water, forcing it away from the waste packages, which is a good thing. But when the heat eventually slackens, the same water might condense and flow back, and the rock might fragment and fall on the canisters, which is a bad thing." (Wheelwright 2002).

Another potential hazard of the Yucca Mountain site proposal lies in the 33 known earthquake fault lines in and around the site, as well as a volcano sitting only 10 miles away (nvantinuclear website). Patrick Rowe, the senior scientist researching the Yucca Mountain Project, is confident in the repositor's ability to withstand severe earthquakes, and says there is only a one in 70 million chance (per year) that a volcano will erupt in the area (EPA website). According to Science magazine, however, there is continuing controversy over the frequency and impact of volcanic activity to the site. Rowe is also confidant about the durability of the site in the face of potential nuclear weapons threats, saying, "you could hit the surface of the mountain with a nuclear weapon and still not deter the repositor's ability to contain waste," (Ewing and Macfarlane, 2002).

Warning Future Generations

An interesting problem that arises when considering the long-term reality of nuclear waste storage is the issue of warning the generations to come in the next 10,000 years that there is radioactive material stored underneath Yucca Mountain. In an attempt to brainstorm a solution to the "warning" problem, a contest was held in 2002 called "Universal Warning Sign: Yucca Mountain" (Auer 2002). Applicants came up with innovative, though not always practical, methods of conveying the message of danger within the mountain. Martin Pasqualetti, a geology professor, pessimistically said, "No warning can guarantee deterrence for 10,000 years," (Auer, 2002).

DOE spokesman Joe Davis plans to take into consideration the steps that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, N.M., took in deterring future generations. WIPP solution was to surround the site with a 33 feet high, 100 feet wide berm of rock, soil, and salt. Inside the berm (which will be built after the site closes in 2035) will be 16 granite monuments and many buried markers. Some of these will contain warning messages in different languages, others will have images of horror or changing star positions to illustrate when the waste was buried. Some people argue that it is human nature to tamper with the things that are most warned against: the only major un-looted Egyptian tomb was King Tut's, which was unmarked (Auer 2002).

Approval Process

The process for getting the potential waste depository site approved is lengthy. The Department of Energy first recommended the Yucca Mountain Site to the President. In February of 2002 President Bush formally concluded that Yucca Mountain is "suitable" for a repository and recommended the site to Congress for approval. Despite Nevada's notice of disapproval stating its many objections to the site which it submitted in April 2002, Congress voted to approve Yucca Mountain as the nation's central nuclear waste repository in July. The Department of Energy will now submit a construction license to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has up to 4 years to decide on the license application. With NRC approval, the DOE can begin construction of the repository and apply for a license to receive waste (Ewing and Macfarlane 2002). All sources say that the earliest Yucca Mountain may start to receive nuclear waste is in 2010.

Objections to Yucca Mountain Site

Many of the objections to the Yucca Mountain site have already been stated above, including the unpredictable volcanic activity, nearby fault lines, and water contamination. The reason contamination is such a key issue is because the storage site is located 1,000 ft. above an aquifer that supplies drinking water and irrigation for the Yucca Mountain community. Because of the fear surrounding nuclear waste disposal, the repository has the potential to be very bad for the local economy, including the casinos in Las Vegas, a mere 90 miles away. Many are saying that Nevada was picked for the repository simply because it is an easy political target; the state has only 4 electoral votes (Why Not Yucca Mountain?). Some are calling the repository a form of "environmental racism;" accusing the government of subjecting minorities, those with less power, to more health and environmental hazards than others (Sacred Land Film Project).

According to some sources, Yucca Mountain is located within the Western Shoshone Nation, who have had legal treaty rights to the land since 1863 and never deeded it to the U.S. government (Sacred Land Film Project). The EPA and other government websites make no mention of this, saying simply that the land is "federally owned" (Environmental Protection Agency/ Yucca Mtn. Standards). The government has a long history of brushing off the interests of Native American groups, and it is possible that Yucca Mountain is not within government-owned land.

Another major concern, briefly mentioned above, is that of transportation. Radioactive materials will be put into transportation containers and padded by "dumbbell-like" cushions of balsa wood and other materials for protection. The containers will then be moved by rail and truck across the country for disposal (Long 12). While the waste is stored in the form of dry pellets and cannot "spill," there is the potential danger of this cargo becoming moving targets for terrorist attack.

While government researchers working on the Yucca Mountain project are optimistic about their findings, others are skeptical. In September of 2001 the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste of the NRC concluded that the total system performance assessment in support of the site "relies on modeling assumptions that mask a realistic assessment of risks," and that "computations and analyses are assumptions based, not evidence-supported" (Ewing and Macfarlane 2002). Science magazine also noted that the current disposal strategy relies on an "optimistic assessment of the long-term durability of metallic waste packages" (Ewing and Macfarlane 2002). Above all, opponents worry that scientists cannot possibly predict what will happen in the next millennia.

Support for Yucca Mountain Site

Those in support of moving ahead with construction of the Yucca Mountain repository point out that waste cannot stay where it is much longer. Since the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Act eliminated alternative sites, plans to construct the repository should proceed. The National Review points out that if the site is rejected, "there won't be another hamper for our radioactivity available for decades," (Goldberg 2002). Advocates of nuclear energy want to get waste disposed of as soon as possible so that newer, more efficient plants can be built. Ironically, opponents of nuclear power use this as an argument as well, arguing that the government will only build more nuclear plants, which will in turn create more waste to dispose of.

Supporters of Yucca Mountain repository construction dismiss the fears raised by opponents. Patrick Rowe remains confident that the repository will withstand potential earthquakes and volcanoes. He also stresses that the sudden intrusion scenarios put into the computer model of Yucca Mountain will become less worrisome as time passes and the waste steadily loses radioactivity (Wheelwright, 2002).

In response to fears of water contamination, some claim that contamination is a non-issue. Water would have to travel 1,000 feet down and somehow bypass a titanium drip-shield and corrode the waste containers. Even if the water did become contaminated, the aquifer beneath Yucca Mountain is a "hydrologic basin" and doesn't go anywhere. It would be a simple matter of evacuating the few hundred Nye County residents who would be exposed to the radiation (Goldberg 2002). National Review also claims that there have been over 3,000 nuclear-waste transports since 1964 without a radioactive release, so transportation of spent nuclear fuel to Nevada should not be a concern (Goldberg 2002).

Conclusion

While scientists, politicians, environmentalists, conservatives and liberals alike all agree that nuclear waste needs to be stored safely in the near future, they donât all agree on where, how, or the degree of danger involved in transportation and storage of radioactive materials. Nuclear energy itself is a very controversial issue that provokes fear in the general public. The government has a history of secrecy surrounding nuclear power, as well as not being accountable for health risks that it forces on communities living by power plants. Despite this dishonest history, nuclear energy producers claim that nuclear energy is an efficient, clean, and safe energy source. The Nuclear Energy Institute claims that,

"nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment ö including air, land, water, and wildlife ö of any energy source, because it does not emit harmful gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources," (nei website).

It is true that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases, and so can be considered relatively clean for the time being. However, the amount of radioactive waste that these plants have produced in half a century is astronomical and far from safe or clean, not to mention the enormous bill that the public has had to pay for nuclear power. In addition to the construction costs of power plants and production of nuclear energy, energy consumers are paying for the clean-up of hazardous waste produced by nuclear energy. The projected bill for transporting and storing waste, added to the costs of treating contaminated soil and groundwater at nuclear power plants, will come to around 400 billion dollars over the next 75 years (Long 9).

The nuclear weapons race and our dependence on nuclear energy in the past have led to a build up of radioactive waste that needs to be disposed of. Although such dangerous waste should not simply be buried and left for future generations to deal with, it appears that there are no other alternatives to the repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. We can only hope that the construction at Yucca Mountain will withstand the pressures of time and geologic forces that may endanger the generations to come.

References

Auer, Catherine. "Just a Matter of Time." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 58 (Sept./Oct.

2002): 6-7.

Ewing, Rodney C. and Allison Macfarlane. "Policy Forum: Nuclear Waste, Yucca

Mountain." Science 296 (26 Apr 2002): 659-660.

Goldberg, Jonah. "Dead and Buried." National Review 54 (Aug. 2002): 36.

Long, Michael E. "Half Life." National Geographic 202 (July 2002): 8-33.

Nuclear Energy Institute. 2002. Referenced on 11 Nov. 2002. www.nei.org/

Pethokoukis, James M. "A Curse to the Last 10,000 Years." U.S. News and World Report

133 (Aug. 2002): 51.

Sacred Land Film Project. 2002. Referenced on 7 October 2002.

www.sacredland.org/yucca_mountain.html

The Yucca Mountain Project. 2002. Referenced on 7 October 2002. www.ymp.gov/

U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2002.

Referenced on 11 Nov. 2002. www.eren.doe.gov/RE/solar.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Yucca Mtn. Standards. 2002. Referenced on 7

October 2002. www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/about.htm

Watson, Roland. "Nevada Outraged by Eternal Dump for Nuclear Waste." The Times 24

Sept. 2002 Newspaper Source. Palni Site Search. Goshen College Good Library. 7 Oct. 2002.

Wheelright, Jeff. "Once There Was A Mountain in the Desert of Nevada." Discover 23

(Sept. 2002): 66-76. Academic Search Elite. Palni Site Search. Goshen College Good Library. 3 Nov.2002.

Why Not Yucca Mountain? 2002. Referenced on 7 October 2002.

www.nvantinuclear.org/