Skip to main content

Once More at Yucca Mountain

nytlogo379x64 We’ve ramped down discussing Yucca Mountain – it gets to seem whiny after awhile – but that doesn’t mean the discussion is over. The New York Times demonstrates the mountain’s continued relevance in an editorial today that only begins by excoriating the administration for letting politics trump science:

It is no secret that the president and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who hails from Nevada, want to close down the Yucca Mountain project, which excites intense opposition in the state. The administration has proposed a budget for fiscal year 2010 that would eliminate all money for further development of the site, and Mr. Reid has pronounced the project dead.

But eliminating or scaling back the licensing process, now in progress, is where the Times really has an issue:

These ramp-downs are occurring at the worst time. The regulatory commission is just beginning its licensing process, which is scheduled to take three to four years, and its relevant boards have ruled that at least eight intervenors can raise some 300 issues for technical challenges, an unusually high number. The cutbacks increase the odds that the agency will stumble in trying to justify a license — or that the hearings and evaluations won’t be completed within statutory deadlines.

Meanwhile, the administration, Congressional leaders and the nuclear industry are calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study alternative ways to dispose of nuclear waste. Surely it would be useful for any such panel to know whether the Yucca Mountain project was sound or flawed.

Yes, surely it would be useful.

Before approving this truncated budget, Congress needs to ensure that it contains enough money to sustain a genuine licensing effort. We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes. But after the government has labored for more than two decades and spent almost $10 billion to get the site ready for licensing hearings, it would be foolish not to complete the process with a good-faith evaluation. Are Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid afraid of what the science might tell them?

We can jump to an answer with a very strong likelihood of being right. Let’s see if the heft of the Times moves the needle on this topic in a sensible direction.

Comments

Spent fuel should not be treated as waste, but as a resource.

Simply throwing away spent fuel at Yucca sends out the wrong message,IMO.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclear-energy.html
Gwyneth Cravens said…
Bravo, NY Times!

There have been around 55 internal and external peer reviews and analyses of the science at Yucca Mountain. NAS weighed in too. It will be interesting to see whether Obama's blue ribbon panel can find any realistic, science-based objections to the repository.

Even if we can recycle spent nuclear fuel there are other types of nuclear waste that need to be sequestered. There are vitrified residues from storage tanks associated with bomb production, for example.

There is no reason why Yucca Mountain could not also serve as an interim storage and reprocessing site.
Rod Adams said…
The NRC has plenty of more important work to do. Getting bogged down in a licensing action with active intervenor groups for a project with little hope of going forward would be a waste of time - an irreplaceable commodity.

I would expect that a business oriented publication like NEI Nuclear Notes would recognize that a fundamental rule of business decision making is that "sunk costs" do not matter in determining the best path forward. You have to be willing to walk away from large investments if they form the basis for a path that is less viable than one that has not cost much money in the past.
Joffan said…
The obvious next step for Yucca Mountain is the shelf, or perhaps the slowest pace consistent with retention of expertise. Since DoE is the applicant, I really see no reason that any core expertise on this site need be lost.

Once the review panel or panels report, either the licensing pace will pick up again or the Yucca project can be archived and stopped, and the new option(s) pursued instead.
States still have a problem with storing radioactive material from the medical industry.

That's why I argue that Federal Nuplexes used to store and secure nuclear material located in every state that produces spent nuclear material from commercial nuclear reactors and from medical facilities would be a good idea. Central Nuplexes should be designed to store and secure all types of spent nuclear material

My rule is simple. Radioactive material created within a state should be stored at a central facility or facilities within that state.
Gwyneth Cravens said…
Actually there is no reason why all SNF could not be put in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The original plan was to put commercial SNF and other high-level waste in the salt-bed and all the appropriate tests were done before bureacracy and politics intervened.

Radwaste Solutions has an issue out today celebrating the 10-year anniversary of the US's first successful deep geologic nuclear waste repository--a place that most people have never heard of.

The politicians in the SE corner of NM, and the voters, would like to make their area the site not only of an enrichment plant but also of an interim SNF facility and a recycling plant. Since the NV Gaming Commission does not run NM that might happen, if the the state is given enough money.
Rod Adams said…
Gwyneth - Using WIPP is a solution I can support. A straight economic agreement with NM should be a relatively low cost option for those components of used nuclear fuel that cannot be recycled.

I expect, however, that the portion of used nuclear fuel that has no future uses will be much smaller than is currently considered to be the case. We should look at this material through the lens of people who have always worked to "use everything but the moo" and see value where others see waste.

For Marcel - your proposal is in direct violation of the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. There is no reason at all to treat state borders as boundaries for trade of either nuclear materials or the service of storing used nuclear materials or radioactive waste. We are all one United States of America.

In many cases, the volumes of waste are so small that setting up an individual facility and providing the required oversight would be outrageously expensive and would discourage very effective medical treatments. History shows that we only need a couple of functioning facilities for the entire country.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…