Talk:Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository

Notes from Yucca
Here's what I wrote down:


 * 90% of the waste is from the civilian nuclear power prgramme, with some military waste (some of it dating from the Manhattan project). All the waste is from the US (i.e. none from foreign countries).
 * A large part of the military low level waste is stored at the WIPP. <1/11: This is incorrect.  Over 40% of the waste packages at Yucca Mountain are from military waste disposal from the Hanford site, Savannah River Site and nuclear navy cores.  >


 * Unlike most other nuclear countries, the US does not reprocess spent fuel elements - so what will be stored at Yucca is unaltered fuel elements (they come in square arrays of fuel rods mounted in a frame). This means the effective volume of the waste is much higher than other countries' depositories, as other contries separate the high level waste (the fuel material itself) from the medium level containers.  Also the volume is higher because other counties, such as the UK and France, reenrich the fuel.  Other than this, some of the oldest waste is in vitrified form (apparently all the manhattan project stuff is).
 * Yes, and if the U.S. continues with the once-through fuel cycle, Yucca Mountain will fill up within twenty years of opening. <1/11:  This also is incorrect.  During reprocessing even more volumetric waste is created than if just left in spent fuel assemblies.  Also, at the end of the fuel cycle all of the uranium will require disposal since it is contaminated with fission isotopes.  Reprocessing does not reduce volume, but increases it by several orders of magnitude.>


 * The reason the US doesn't reprocess fuel is that it was trying to set a good example for other countries followng the passage of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Although the NPT doesn't ban reprocessing, the US hoped to discourage other countries (like Japan) which had civlilian nuclear capacity from reprocessing, which would mean they'd end up with a plutonium stockpile that would be a tempting subject of subsequent weaponisation.  <1/11: Everyone knows that Japan has enough plutonium for tens if not hundreds of nuclear weapons.> Apparently other countries, however, didn't really take the hint :)
 * They realize that the value of reprocessing the fuel vastly outweighs proliferation fears. After 9/11 however, I doubt the U.S. will move their feet on this.


 * Access to the Yucca site is restricted (there is a tour, but one must book ahead), so Bechtel SAIC runs visitor centres in Las Vegas, Beatty, and Pahrump. <1/11: The site is shut down.>


 * On the USGS geodetic map, Yucca Mountain appears to be a small mountain range, but the whole thing is called Yucca Mountain. The land on the mountain is controlled by the airforce (the Nellis Air Force Range, I think this is the northern end), the department of energy (the National Test Site, most of the rest) and a small amount by the Bureau of Land Management (a little corner in the south). <1/11:  The repository is totally on BLM land.  Access is through the NTS.>


 * As of 2005 only the 5m diameter horseshoe shaped main tunnel has been built, no surface installation yet, no galleries, and naturally no nuclear waste.  The project is stalled awaiting congress to release the funds to complete it and get it going.  This money will not come from the US taxpayer - apparently nuclear generating companies have been paying a levy since they began, and these levies are kept in a trustfund intended to pay for their long-term disposal.  Congress is the gatekeeper to these funds. <1/11: Actually about 25% of the money is from taxpayers to dispose of defense nuclear wastes.>
 * Also, the licensing process with the NRC is still ongoing. Damn red tape. <1/11: Obama stopped all licensing activities in October 2010.>


 * Yucca mountain isn't necessarily intended to be a truly terminal storage facility. The current plan is to keep stuff there (perhaps for 300 years) and then reprocess it.  The hope clearly is that reprocessing technologies will have improved (ideally in much less than 300 years) so that the waste can be safely destroyed or dispersed entirely at that time.  The current design proposal has the facility keep waste for up to 1000 years.  It would be stored in galleries off the main tunnel, still in monitorable, movable, managable vessels (i.e. they're not just chucking it all in a hole and forgetting about it).  Some members of congress believe, however, that with the best will in the world eventually the government will stop monitoring the site, and essentially leave it to fend for itself.  These members want the design changed so that the facility will contain the waste for 10,000 years (rather than 1000).
 * With timelines like that we might have the technology to store wastes on the moon. Wouldn't that be a relief for residents of Pahrump!


 * The designers haven't settled exactly how densely the waste will be stored. This directly effects the operating temperature of the facility.  (I didn't write down how hot they said it would be, but it was something like 60 celcius).  One of Bechtel/SAIC's challenges in proving the facility is safe is to determine the long-term effects this heat will have on the surrounding rock - they're worried that it might be transformed into some less favourable type (messing up their estimates for its ability to contain leaks).

The lady at the Beatty facility promised to mail me a big stack of stuff that I'd picked out from their documentation library, but it's been a couple of months and still no show (although she said it would be international surface mail, so all is not lost). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I should note (if it's not obvious) that this means the waste is still encapsulated inside hermetically sealed stainless-steel fuel rods, not sitting around in ominous barrels of glowing Simpsonsesque goo. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Great notes. I just did a twenty page research paper on the transportation of wastes to Yucca Mountain so I'm eager to apply my newly formed knowledge and start FA work on this article. Dun dun dun... &mdash; oo64eva (Alex) (U @ 08:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

New EPA Standard
I removed This is less restrictive than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit.. I believe that the EPA is charged with congress to propose a standard and that the NRC is charged with determining if the standard will be met based on the DOE's application. The standard for nuclear power plants is not relevant here. pstudier 02:48, 2005 August 10 (UTC)