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 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.

3. Before the construction of the repository can begin environmental and health safety standards must be satisfied 6 different agencies are involved in development process Institutional Coordination NAS EPA Congress NRC DOE Yucca Mountain Repository DOT

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

7. 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 $ Economic Impacts $

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 Con’t • 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.”

10. 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 Engineering • Transportation • Socioeconomics • Policy and Regulations

11. 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.

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 • DOE’s 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 Nevada’s 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 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

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 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Dismissing Fears Con’t • 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 • Nye County intends to be constructively engaged with federal government regarding design, licensing and implementation. In return it expects constructive feedback from federal authorities . • Nye County will use its own Community Protection Plan for engagement with DOE on safety and health concerns • 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 Study:Oyster 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 Lifespan of fuel in the reactor is around 6 years http://www.etrr2-aea.org.eg/ www.eia.doe.gov/.../states/fuelpool.jpg 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