Yucca Mountain's future examined

Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2008

In the wake of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) submittal in June 2008 of an 8,600-page application for the licensing of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee held a July 15 hearing to assess the program's future. In 2002, Congress designated the Yucca Mountain site in south-central Nevada as the permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, but the program has been fraught with bureaucratic delays, increasing costs, and considerable opposition from Congress and citizens alike.

The witnesses at the hearing, however, were optimistic about the program's future. Edward Sproat, director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, estimated that after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission formally licenses the facility, construction could begin in 2013 and open as early as 2020. However, Sproat said, these predictions are contingent on funding being made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which contains $21 billion from industry fees on nuclear power. DOE cannot access these funds without congressional approval, even though the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that they be used for construction of a geologic repository.

Witnesses commended DOE's progress in completing the license application, but they also identified operational and technical obstacles that could further delay the project. For example, B. John Garrick, chairman of U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, noted design issues with canisters being developed to transport and store the waste. Currently, he said, the technology for these canisters does not exist, nor does adequate technology for drip shields, which would be necessary to protect the canisters once inside the repository.

Safety concerns were raised by Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), whose district includes the Yucca Mountain site. Berkley, acting as a witness, said that Nevada residents have long opposed the program because of unresolved safety issues, including lack of radiation standards for the region, the site's geologic instability, waste transportation risks, and inadequate storage technologies. She also criticized the program's $90-billion lifecycle cost, saying that onsite waste storage would be a cheaper and safer alternative.

Berkley's concerns were echoed by Democrats on fhe subcommittee, including Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who proposed the Interim Storage Bill (H.R. 4062) as an alternative plan. The bill would mandate federal responsibility for onsite waste storage rather than the current practice in which owners of nuclear plants are responsible for storing their own waste onsite.

Subcommittee members also debated the Yucca project in the context of the energy crisis and the role of nuclear power. Rep John Shadegg (R-AZ), frustrated with the project's delays and the 2020 opening timeframe, said that nuclear energy would be essential for meeting the U.S. energy needs and called for the project to proceed as quickly as possible, whatever the cost. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) spoke of a U.S. "nuclear renaissance" and argued that expanding Yucca's legal storage capacity could be the final piece of the nuclear energy puzzle. Matheson challenged these views, saying that although nuclear power could be an energy solution, its future does not depend solely on the Nevada repository. He pointed out mat DOE has yet to evaluate fhe cost effectiveness of an onsite waste storage approach.