RUNNING HEADER: OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE

Options for Nuclear Waste

Jeffrey Amos
Empire State College

OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE

2
Introduction

Nuclear energy is a huge part of Americas current and future energy production. In
2007, 76 nuclear energy facilities operated within America (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007).
This energy comes without the cost and environmental dangers associated with fossil fuels or
other carbon based energy sources. One of the major concerns of nuclear energy production,
however, is disposal of the radioactive waste products. Since 1978, the Department of Energy
has agreed with the scientific consensus that underground storage is the most sensible option and
evaluated 9 separate sites for this purpose, eventually settling on Yucca Mountain in Nevada as
the best candidate, and declared it the sole site to be researched in 1987 (Rechard, Liu, Tsand, &
Finsterle, 2014; U.S. Department of Energy, 2007). After continuing research into environmental
and population effects, it was recommended to the President in 2002 that the site be put into use
as the sole repository for all nuclear waste in America, to which the President and Congress
agreed. Through 2010 the Department of Energy sought authorization and funding to construct
the site, but President Obama has made it clear through a defunding of the project that it is de
facto rejected and will not be continued (Rechard et al., 2014).
Scientific consensus thanks to literally decades of research resoundingly showed that the
Yucca Mountain facility is a good choice for storing nuclear waste. Popular consensus, however,
frequently holds more sway over political actions than science. Most concerns brought up had to
do with the uncertainty that a permanent storage facility ensure over the long term storage of
10,000 to 100,000 years (Schrader-Frechette, 1995). Concerns of this nature from the public
swayed political action to cease activity on the project, even though law had been passed by
congress demanding the construction of such a facility (Environmental News Service Staff,
2009). These differences between scientific consensus and popular opinion doomed the Yucca

OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE

Mountain project, and continue to burden progress on other important issues at the forefront of
research.
Research in Support of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository
The first stages of research into the feasibility of the Yucca Mountain repository was the
intense modeling of the stratigraphic characteristics of the area (Rechard et al. 2014). Through
drilling bore holes, taking core samples and tracking water flow through the region. This
mapping, combined with thermal mapping, created an extensive image of water movement under
the surface of the mountain. Water, it was determined, would be the main concern for leaks and
movement of waste materials out of the mountain. The map created showed that the mountain
had primarily vertical water movement through fractures in the stratigraphic layers at a rate of
about 3% of total rainfall, which annually amounted to 200-300mm of rain (Rechard et al. 2014).
Below the proposed storage level, the vertical movement continued down to a horizontal water
plain that dumped into a closed basin, a type of underground water table that does not connect
with outside water sources (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007). It is impossible in this space to
go into the full details of research, some using techniques and advances made specifically for this
project, that showed the movement of water and other likely geological changes in the site.
Extensive modeling was used, laboratory experiments were performed recreating the geological
features, and calculations looking forward 10,000 years were made (Rechard et al. 2014).
This research showed that the site was suitable, and as mentioned, the site was
recommended to the President and Congress for immediate construction. The design of the
facility used the natural water movements of the area to channel water around storage sites to
naturally continue on its path without obstruction or major diversion (Rechard et al. 2014). The
facilities were designed based on research into the thermal changes likely to take place within the

OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE

facilities such that the heat from the waste would actually continually support this water
channeling. Even under a worst case scenario where water did enter the storage facilities, the
small amount of water and slow movement into a self-contained underground water basin meant
that environmental exposure would take thousands of years, at which time the waste would no
longer be dangerous (Rechard et al. 2014). The local geological features prevented climate
change from having an impact on the site, nearby mountains acting to block out rain for the next
thousands of years. Based on isolation and depth of construction, population exposure was likely
to be limited to 0.94millirems/year of radiation, well below the EPA limits and the typical 350
millirems/year Americans are exposed to naturally (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007).
Opposition
The largest problem with the site comes from its location, not in a geologic sense, but in a
political sense. Nevadans have consistently opposed their state being used as the ultimate
repository for nuclear waste in America in numbers as high as 75% or higher (Brumfield, 2013).
This opposition lead politicians and media to seek out reasons to not use the site, in many cases
perpetuating misconceptions and false facts (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2011). Popular
circulating arguments include geological instability, volcanic possibilities, lowering of standards
to allow the site to meet requirements, and that shipping of the waste is dangerous (Nuclear
Energy Institute, 2011). Ideas like these quickly stir up popular fears concerning nuclear energy,
but are not based on any facts or research.
The strong opposition out of Nevada and elsewhere was heavily compounded by the
forceful nature of the federal governments approach (Schrader-Frechette, 1995). Nevada had
little say in the matter beyond their representatives in congress. Evidence leaked showing that
nuclear companies were pooling money to run advertisement campaigns within Nevada to

OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE

convince the people of the safety of the project, but this only lead to distrust of a complex
formed by industry, scientists, and government (Schrader-Frechette, 1995). People also
expressed large concern over the uncertainty associated with experiments and calculations made
throughout the process, an inevitable consequence of all scientific research, but none-the-less
interpreted poorly by the public.
After President Obama declared that the Yucca project had been essentially abandoned,
he tasked the Department of Energy with creating a new commission to look for new ways to
store nuclear waste over the long term (Brumfield, 2013). This commission found that the
scientific consensus remained consistent with underground storage as being the best option, but
added a new recommendation that a site be selected where local populace be consulted and give
approval beforehand. Trillions of dollars were spent researching the Yucca Mountain site, and
the project still failed due to the treatment of and ignoring of the local populace (Rechard et al.,
2014). No amount of facts or studies concerning safety could sway the populace because they
were left out of the process for decades.
Education and Scientific Research
Yucca Mountain was clearly an incredibly expensive mistake. Nuclear waste remains at
power plants around the country without a permanent storage solution. Despite the huge amount
of effort and money spent on advancing scientific understanding of the site and of nuclear
storage in general, public opinion remained the final barrier to its use. Americans generally
show very poor acceptance of new scientific research. Recently, journalists have even obviously
faked scientific sounding research that could easily be shown false about eating chocolate to lose
weight, simply to show how widely the research would be spread as truth (Bohannon, 2015). A
significant number of the NYSED physical science/chemistry standards approach this problem,

OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE

including S1.2, S1.3, S2.2, and Standard 2 Key Idea 2. These standards state that students
should be able to perform research using common sources in order to support facts and theories.
In addition, Standards 4.4e and f both concern educating students concerning nuclear energys
pros and cons, and the reality of the risks.
In order to avoid wasting decades and trillions of dollars in the future, its critical that
people be able to discern fact from fiction, and that they be not only able but willing to learn
more about topics of modern research. Science classrooms need to continue to focus on giving
students the basic tools needed to understand the world around them, but the students also need
to be able to understand the language used by scientists so that they can reach proper conclusions
about matters of public interest. The Department of Energy commission has recommended that
we find a new site for permanent nuclear waste storage where the populace agrees, but that wont
happen unless the people themselves are capable of properly researching the topic and ridding
themselves of common fears and misconceptions.

OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE

7
References

Bohannon, J. (2015). I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's
How. IO9. Retrieved from: http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolatehelps-weight-1707251800
Brumfiel, G. (2013) Americas Nuclear Dumpsters. Slate Magazine. Retrieved from:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/nuclear_waste
_storage_why_did_yucca_mountain_fail_and_what_next.html
Environmental News Service Staff. (2009). FY2010 Energy Budget Shuts Yucca Mountain
Nuclear Dump. Political Affairs Magazine, May 9, 2009. Retrieved from:
http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-admin-to-shut-yucca-mountain.html
Nuclear Energy Institute. (2011) Yucca Mountain Myths and Facts Opponents Distort or Ignore
Research. Retrieved from: http://www.nei.org/Master-DocumentFolder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Yucca-Mountain-Myths-and-Facts-OpponentsDistort-o
Rechard, R. P., Liu, H., Tsang, Y. W., & Finsterle, S. (2014). Site characterization of the Yucca
Mountain disposal system for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
Reliability Engineering And System Safety, 122(Special Issue: Performance Assessment
for the Proposed High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada),
32-52. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.020
Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1995). Environmental Risk And The Iron Triangle: The Case Of Yucca
Mountain. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(4), 753-777.

OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE

U.S. Department of Energy. (2007). Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive
Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. (DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D)