Talk:Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository/Archive 1

What about Yucha Mountain?
Seriously, if we make a page for every alternate spelling of every article, the servers might explode! 8*) heh, jk. Just thought it was kinda amusing. R Lee E 08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah... I was wondering what the RC patrollers were thinking. I'm preparing this article for FA work. Bush's call for new nuclear plants make this a very timely article and I figure it deserves its spot as an FA. I want it to be very accessible. &mdash; oo64eva (Alex) (U @ 08:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Update to reflect current information.
I updated the page to reflect the current status of the project. I thought it was important in the introduction to note that the President signed the congressional resolution for the project to move forward. Also in controversy, I added the recent issue of the USGS e-mails. Rogerhenning 19:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)rogerhenning [rogerhenning@earthlink.net] 03-06-2006

Added link to March 2006 Senate Environment and Public Works White Paper
I added a link in the "Controversy" section to the March 2006 U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works white paper on "Yucca Mountain" The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet". Rogerhenning 17:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Added considerable new information
I added sections on Radiation standards, and added specific descriptions to Stability adding Earthquakes and Volcanism to the existing section that only had Geology. I also added a number of external links to articles by DOE and the State of Nevada. I also created links to ORISE and ORAU because they have been contracted to review the quality of the science. Everyone interested needs to look them over, clean up the english, and add additional clarifing information if I have been unbalanced. [User:Rogerhenning 05:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

opening date
has leaked information that will be announced on Wednesday, July 19. Simesa 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"a realistic opening date is now September 2025" Not so realistic, as this means 17 years during which further delaying tactics will certainly be deployed. "Earliest feasible opening date" is more like it. The reference provided says 2021 (page 26, not page 3 as the reference states), not 2025, and ackmowledges that it may never open. Bustter (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From the pdf reffed in footnote 1:

Table 4: Best-Achievable Repository Construction Schedule Source: (LVRJ 2006b; DOE 2006f) Bustter (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Start Nevada Rail Construction 5 October 2009
 * Construction Authorization from NRC 30 September 2011
 * "Receive and Possess" License Application
 * Submittal to NRC 29 March 2013
 * Rail Access In-Service 30 June 2014
 * Construction Complete for Initial Operations 30 March 2016
 * Start up and Pre-Op Testing Complete 31 December 2016
 * Begin Receipt (Best-Achievable Schedule) 31 March 2017
 * Begin Receipt (More Likely Schedule) September 2020

Transportation of Waste
Other than the short portion of the article on the impacts of transportation, there is currently no mention in the article to the transportation of the waste. There is a wealth of information available from the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) concerning both the method of and the route for transport. If there's no objection, I'll add a section to the article in the next couple of days concerning this. Goldry bluzco (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article
I plan on bringing Yucca Mountain up to featured article shape in the very near future. Anyone interested in helping should let me know on my talk page. I look forward to working with you all. &mdash; oo64eva (AJ) (U @ 09:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * In Feburary I visited the Yucca Mountain info facility in Beatty, Nevada, and I have some notes I took there. I'll see if I can hammer them into some kind of shape. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 09:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * For feature status, some updating is needed:


 * "Project director Ward Sproat urged senators to pass a bill to clear away problems that could delay DOE's latest repository deadline of 2017.


 * "The probability of making that schedule without the legislation is zero," Sproat said.


 * http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Aug-04-Fri-2006/news/8883100.html


 * Opponents to the project are pointing out that the $57.6 billion cost basis was predicated on a 2010 opening. There have been no revised cost analyses for the 2017 target date.


 * http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-20-Thu-2006/news/8596105.html


 * WASHINGTON -- While the Walker River Paiutes will allow the Energy Department to study shipping nuclear waste through their reservation, tribal leaders said Friday they will not sign off on the route unless they are convinced it is safe.


 * http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-03-Sat-2006/news/7760370.html


 * And a qualified party should read and evaluate "Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste," a recent publication by Allison M. Macfarlane, a Research Associate at MIT's Program in Science, Technology, and Society, and Prof. Rodney C. Ewing of the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Michigan


 * The above list is not inclusive, please see the link that I added this date.

Bustter 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Nevada Resident)


 * I just took a quick look at the RJ articles above. If the Walker River Paiute Tribe does not sign off on the Mina route, the Caliente corridor is still open.  I would not be overly concerned with the price tag.  The money that is being spent on Yucca Mountain could only be spent on Yucca or a similar repository, as per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.  This money comes from a surcharge of 0.1 cents/kW-hr added to the bills of anyone using nuclear power.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book that you linked to at the moment, so I can't review that currently.  Goldry bluzco (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On the articles listed above, I also as a Nevada resident understand that the Las Vegas SUN and the RJ are extremely biased and little they publish has much truth and is about as far from fair and balanced as Senator Reid and Congresswoman Berkeley! That aside, I agree that those articles should be cited so that both sides are represented. Intelligent people have no problem seeing the lies. Better unbiased articles can be found in other major newspapers such as the Washington DC and New York papers. Los Angeles is also extremely left winged and seldom can tear themselves away from propaganda. The book by Allison M. Macfarlane should be added since it is strongly opposed to Yucca Mountain and represents the extreme left anti-nuclear opinion. They have both been on the payroll for the State of Nevada so I don't expect anything that can be verified or is fair and balanced, but it is certainly worthy of being added to this entry to represent the far left extreme. User: Rogerhenning 21:06 August, 16, 2006

Your implication that those who are left of you politically are invariably of less noble motive than yourself and others like you pinpoints one of the main obstacles to getting this piece to NPOV. The last paper I cited above was peer-reviewed; is that not sufficient guard against "liberal" skew?Bustter (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FA? No Way! needs NPOV
This could never be a feature article, as it entirely concerns The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository, which does not currently exist, and may never exist. Yucca Mountain, as a Wikipedia entry, should concern itself solely with the mountain ridge that is the proposed site of the repository, which does in fact exist, but has no Wikipedia entry, nor even a disambiguation page. To pretend that Yucca Mountain has no existence or importance apart from the repository scheme is non-NPOV. The article itself notes that these lands are regarded as sacred by some Native Americans. For Wikipedia to ascribe no importance to Yucca Mountain other than in terms of this dangerous scheme clearly makes the wiki a tool of the proponents of the scheme. 20:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (Nevada resident)


 * Would the NPOV concern be alleviated with the renaming of the current Yucca Mountain article to something along the lines of Yucca Mountain Repository or Yucca Mountain Project, and creating a disambiguation page for Yucca Mountain? Goldry bluzco (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Such steps, while they may not resolve all NPOV issues, would bring NPOV into the realm of possibility. In the current situation, wherein "Yucca Mountain" is identified solely with the repository plan, the article is not something I would endeavor to "improve," given that it is false at its base.Bustter (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could add information about the mountain itself, which would make it into a standalone article, then the sections about the repository could be split off more easily. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How strange ...
... this talk page doesn't contain one ounce of flamewar o.O Pretty surprising, I had the impression it was a pretty controversial and divisive topic. Good job! :) Flammifer 07:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) <1/11:  It doesn't contain flame wars because the monitors delete any truth that is pro Yucca Mountain and makes Obama look bad.  It makes the whole of Wikipedia look like nothing but a Berkley, CA liberal left propaganda brown suit rewrite of history.>

I believe it's a matter of Wiki demographics. If the numbers of Nevada residents were equal to the number of tech-heads involved with Wiki, you'd see more fireworks. The anti-Yucca sentiment is not well-represented here, imo, but I'll be happy to be as nice as I can be about it. Bustter 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect if someone tried to balance out the article a little (I don't think its especially bad but its not 100% NPOV) that things might heat up a little. Dalf | Talk 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do wikip editors not disapprove of the Yucca project? Sample selection bias.  You pointed out the reason when you said "if people in Yucca edited this article...".  Yes, I'm sure the NIMBYs and stupid people would object merely because they hear the word "nuclear".  That's why, when I worked at GE, we had to change the name of our technology form "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" to "Magnetic Resonance Imaging".   It's also why the BEST solution is politically untenable: dump spheres of glassified waste embedded in concrete into the 8-mile deep trench off japan, where it will be sucked down into the middle of the earth (which is already radioactive).


 * The reason you don't see much talk of the "dangers to the planet" is because most people who believe that are stupid, and stupid people don't edit wikipedia. Sample seclection bias, you see?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoFaye (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously removed passages on irradiation
Arzel removed the following passages as unsourced and dubious.
 * In addition over their useful service lives large quantities of ordinary industrial equipments and materials such as: hand gloves, hand tools, liquid pumps, motors, piping sections, containers, even mops for floor cleaning, come into contact with radioactive substances in the nuclear materials production, processing and energy industries.


 * These normally non-radioactive materials and equipments over time become heavily irradiated and highly radioactive themselves due to their long exposure to low or high levels of nuclear radiation. These items are subject to radioactive decay particle bombardment because they, in their normal functions, are in close proximity to the radioactive materials.  Or they may be used to temporarily store, clean up, or transport radioactive materials during the materials process or energy production processes.


 * In all cases these materials and equipments become too irradiated (and thereby themselves radiating) for normal industrial disposal, dismantlement or recycling. If these otherwise normal equipments and materials were disposed of  as their non-nuclear radiation exposed industrial counterparts were (say liquid industrial pumps for example), there would quickly develop sources of non-nuclear industry borne radiologic hazards throughout industrial civilization.  Low to moderate levels of ionizing radiation would begin to appear in recycled metals, plastics, tools and equipments, all over the industrial economy, posing a general health hazard to human and animal populations.  Since these materials and equipments cannot ever be released back into the normally recycling industrial economy, some process and means needed to be found to isolate these irradiated materials and equipments, to isolate them from civilization, for what is effectively forever.

I have have restored them for now, and will try to improve later, but for what it's worth, they appear to be a reasonably accurate description of the origins of Low Level Waste, and indeed the mops are mentioned here. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The obvious question would be why does it need to be included in the article when there was already a link to the low level article? Brothejr (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the section and it reads way too much like WP:OR. The statements may or may not be true, but there needs to a hellva lot of references to back it up otherwise it comes across as Original Research.  Brothejr (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there isn't a link to the LLW article, though there may need to be (depending on what the repository is planned to hold). Secondly, there is nothing in the passages which looks dubious or like OR to me. It's all fairly standard nuclear stuff, just entirely unsourced. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For one thing, Yucca mountain is not planned (from what I know) low level radiation disposal (which is what thhis is talking about) so I don't see the relevance. Additionally, from the NRC Low-level waste is typically stored on-site by licensees, either until it has decayed away and can be disposed of as ordinary trash, or until amounts are large enough for shipment to a low-level waste disposal site in containers approved by the Department of Transportation., thus a large section is simply not true.  Arzel (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above argument, I removed the paragraphs about low-level nuclear waste as part of a larger cleanup effort. The Yucca Mountain Repository is not, and never has been, intended to be filled with low-level waste. Please don't put them back in this article unless you can draw a clear connection to the Yucca Mountain Repository. Oanjao (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening comment
I tagged the whole article for clean-up. As I read it I really started to feel that the article didn't comply to NPOV writing standard. After reviewing the discussion and seeing some other basic objections and the lack of any serious recent discussion I decided the best thing to do for now was to tag for clean-up. As noted below, this article should be labeled for the proposed nuclear waste facility and a separate article for the geological site should be used. Ericnoel (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yucca Mountain is going to go online in 2008. Dogg
 * That's totally absurd, and your "ref" tag is empty.Bustter (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to include some of the controversy over possible worker safety issues at Yucca Mountain, specifically screening for Silicosis. - http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-5/p30.html

IST301 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)IST301

Two things: I'll do both of these in a few days if nobody objects. --Fastfission 00:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There is a larger, better (in my opinion) picture of the Yucca Mountain ridge at Image:Yucca Mountain 2.jpg. Maybe we should use that one instead.
 * Image:Yucca Mountain.jpg is being used as a picture gallery. I find this a little silly, unnecessary, and not standard. Maybe a new page should be created, such as Yucca Mountain/Images?

I engaged in a general cleanup effort today. There's more to be done, but at least it's a start. I ended up deleting a lot of text that was duplicated between sections. The article is shorter, but I tried to keep all the information. I added a few new "fact" tags, but in general, this article needs a lot more references. I don't know what to do about the Controversy section. The controversy of this project can't really be confined to a single section, since every aspect of it seems to be controversial. I also made some severe edits to the "Cultural impact" section because so much information was duplicated within the section. I think I kept all the important bits. Oanjao (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Protest song
James Raymond (musician), musician and composer, as well as son of David Crosby, wrote the song "Don't dig here" about Yucca Mountain. It can be found on the Cosby & Nash double album.

(I lack Wikipedia editing skills to put this into the article with any resemblance of quality) 194.33.17.10 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor article
As it stands today, this is a terrible article. That it got rated B is amazing. There's nothing substantial about how the site was chosen, the DECADES of efforts to make it work and of criticisms. There's nothing about how and why Obama decided not to use it (i.e., a political payback to Senator Reid for scheduling the 2008 Nevada Democratic primary in January to help Obama get elected, in other words illegal payola). I'd rate it a C- ... on a sunny day. Twang (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dearest Twang (discordant note): How about you make some constructive edits instead of just tearing down the work other people are doing trying to make this article better? There is active work taking place on it, and your criticism certainly doesn't encourage those efforts. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mervyn: I'm glad we agree that the article needs improvement. I hope my ideas about scope are helpful in efforts to improve it. As for joining those efforts, I already have plenty of projects of my own, but thanks for the invitation. Maybe when it's more complete. You'll note that my comments about the article and its rating did not include any unnecessary ad hominems. My comments were meant to express my reaction to the scope of the article - no express or implied criticism of efforts to improve it were intended. I know it's a big, complex topic: thanks for tackling it and best wishes. Twang (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Images are already available
There are a great number of hi-res images already available on the DOE site, but they may be hard to find. Should we include a special link so researchers and newswriters have direct access to high quality images? The link is: http://ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/newsroom/photos/index.shtml User:rogerhenning 19:30, 25 May 2006 (PDT)


 * Updated link to images: http://ocrwm.doe.gov/Image_Gallery/index.shtml --Georgeryp (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Public opposition
There was significant public and political opposition to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository project in Nevada. An attempt was made to push ahead with the project and override this opposition. But for large projects which would take decades to complete, there is every chance that sustained local opposition will prevail, and this happened with the Yucca Mountain project. Successful nuclear waste storage siting efforts in Scandinavia have involved local communities in the decision-making process and given them a veto at each stage, but this did not happen with Yucca Mountain. Local communities at potential storage and repository sites "should have early and continued involvement in the process, including funding that would allow them to retain technical experts".

This might be suitable for inclusion in this article. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Embarassed to say I must have been half asleep when I popped this into the wrong article, so will remedy the situation and add it into this article now. Johnfos (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Article from Fox News
This site: [Fox News] has an articel about this subject.Agre22 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Mistake
Obama administration decided to reduce the budget in the 2010 Federal Budget. As far as I know 2009 Budget was proposed and voted by President Bush. But Maybe I am mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.12.17 (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas? --Falcorian (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Can someone look into and add Obama Adm cancelling Yucca storage? www.topix.com/us/doe/2010/02/nuclear-waste-storage-in-limbo-as-obama-axes-yucca-mountain-funds Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference #45
"MinaFeasabilityStudyRev01_26OCT06_alt1.pdf" needs formatting. Airplaneman  ✈  Review? 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural impact" section
This section keeps quoting "Native Americans" as though they were a monolithic bloc of people that all think and act the exact same way. It reads like a bad anthropological study from a century ago. That section needs some serious rewriting - not to mention some citations. Funnyhat (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i agree. i tried to fix the offensive generalizations about what native americans believe. 129.170.124.168 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good fix. Nicely done. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * why is this section even on this page? doesn't it belong on the article on yucca Mountain (the mountain) not the repository? to say "cultural impact" implies that having a repository there affects (impacts) a culture - presumably native American - in some way. All the text in this section seems to be a historical account of native Americans. Not related to the article in any reasonable way and should be removed (preferably moved to the article "Yucca Mountain") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.142.251 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to delete last sentence in first paragraph
Hey, I'm new so I'm not sure if I'm going about this correctly. But that aside, upon reading the article, I felt the last sentence in the first paragraph wasn't neutral or relevant information, and was misquoted from the source. The sentence, as follows: "In the meantime, failure to perform to contractual requirements will cost taxpayers $11 billion by 2020." is not relevant to the synopsis paragraph and has no additional useful information about the actual depository. Also, the qoute from the source is: "The key unanswered question: Is the federal government responsible to reimburse ratepayers for the cancellation of Yucca Mountain? The U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works weighed in on this issue in 2008 and prepared an estimate of the potentially huge long-term liabilities. The committee estimated additional liabilities of $7 billion by 2017 and $11 billion by 2020 should Yucca Mountain be cancelled." As you can see, the sentence from the Wiki page doesn't fairly explain how it could cost taxpayers (eg. through various lawsuits and breeches of contract). It's simplicity makes it seem as though the sentence is making the (should-be neutral) information on the Yucca waste plant a political issue. I would vote to remove the sentence completely, or move it to section 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.62.239 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved to cancellation section, and reworded to make it a bit more neutral. -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

For opposition section
New article out of Pahrump. Not sure if they pass RS though and it's the only one I found. Here is what I was going to add:

The federal government had attempted to reduce opposition by offering Nevada compensation for Yucca Mountain, including the Superconducting Super Collider, a high speed train connecting Los Vegas and Los Angeles, and a nuclear medicine and energy research center for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The Ref


 * Pahrump, Nevada appears to be a very small town. Not sure if this news website is a reliable source. The government offers listed here sound like biased speculation rather than established fact. This material is probably not usable. David Spector (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Possible falsification"?
The following phrase is unclear to me:
 * that several U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists had exchanged e-mails discussing possible falsification of quality assurance documents on water infiltration research

What exactly did they discuss? Did they plan to falsify documents or did they suspect others to have falsified documents? In the latter case, were those others inside or outside of USGS? In either case, what was the aim of the falsification: to make look Yucca Mountain more secure or less secure as a storage facility? AxelBoldt (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase is also unclear to me. It sounds important, but without clarification it is next to useless. David Spector (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fraud
The monitors of this topic are frauds and antinuclear truth activists. Who is monitoring the monitors? Any truthful edits with references are deleted. Why should I believe anything in Wikipedia?????


 * Wikipedia is an open, public project. This is what prevents fraud. It is constantly monitored by hundreds of editors, ordinary folk like you or me. We editors are not professionals, and we have neither specialized training nor authority. We only do our best to create and improve articles, searching for references in the press, on the Web, and from other sources. If truthful, documented, referenced statements are ever deleted, anyone is free to bring that to the attention of any editor or of the groups of editors who jointly administer Wikipedia. Improper deletion, like improper addition, is immediately dealt with. "Improper" here means violating the Wikipedia policies, which have evolved to be an effective way to ensure that Wikipedia remains successful. Your emotionalism is understandable where controversy exists, but your blame of Wikipedia itself is misplaced. Note: please sign your entries with four tildes, to include your name and the date. This helps everyone better understand what is going on. David Spector (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

op ed
"This leaves United States civilians without any long term storage site for high level radioactive waste"

Why mention this without mentioning why it was considered and protesting. Seems like a lopsided statement. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.177.52 (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your objection. The statement would appear to be true. Please clarify and explain how you would like the statement changed. David Spector (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Rumors
Rumors go around that the facility is still in full operation. I'm not going to find anything about it, and I'm sure as not going to drive there and take photos. I keep hearing people around Vegas, Pahrump talk about it. Until then, if anybody wants to add this info to the article, it needs to be removed as inaccurate. 70.180.188.238 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean. Rumors cannot be added to WP. Major statements of fact must be backed up by reliable secondary sources, such as news stories by major newspapers. David Spector (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

April 2013 Edit by Meatheadmath..
You are actually incorrect. One Senator, Senator Reid as Senate Majority Leader, can indeed with the help of a sympathetic President ensure that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and Yucca Mountain are not funded. He has absolute power to bring bills to the floor - or not to. Further, by the power of his office he can threaten any other Senator who votes for Yucca Mountain by changing their appointments to committees and/or eliminating funding for their states. Further, Obama has committed impeachable offenses re Yucca Mountain by not ensuring that laws are faithfully followed as noted in the Constitution. Obama's actions on the NWPA will serve as a pathway for future presidents to ignore laws simply by defunding their enforcement. The edit should be undone.50.46.34.85 (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Davel

Spam Header Needs to be Removed
The spam header on yop of the page needs to be removed through an exception. Following the link shows a PDF of the court case in question in the article making the link not spam but rather a valuable supporting source. 2601:7:80:317:E82D:DB7E:C950:C9B4 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is suspect
"The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was to be a deep geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other high level radioactive waste, until the project was canceled in 2009. It was to be located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, about 80 mi (130 km) northwest of the Las Vegas Valley. The proposed repository was within Yucca Mountain, a ridge line in the south-central part of Nevada near its border with California."

the term "federal land" should be changed to "publicly owned land".

"Although the location has been highly contested by both environmentalists and non-local residents in Las Vegas, which is over 100 miles (160 km) away, it was approved in 2002 by the United States Congress." should be: "In the face of opposition by local residents of Las Vegas (102 miles from the proposed site) as well non-local US residents the 2002 Congress approved the project.

"However, under the Obama Administration[2] funding for development of Yucca Mountain waste site was terminated effective with the 2011 federal budget passed by Congress on April 14, 2011. " should read: "President Obama's Administration cut funding for development of Yucca Mountain waste site from the 2011 budget, under a Congressional threat to default on the National debt, and then Congress approved these cuts on April 14, 2011"

"The US GAO stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons."

"This leaves United States civilians without any long term storage site for high level radioactive waste, currently stored on-site at various nuclear facilities around the country, although the United States government can dispose of its waste at WIPP, in rooms 2,150 feet (660 m) underground.[3] "

should read: Congresses approval of the smaller US budget, as well as Nevada's Governor opposition to the project, and broad local and national support for stopping the project, has brought to light, once again, that the Nuclear Industry continues to produce highly radioactive nuclear waste and has no safe, practical or predictable or practical plan to store or dispose of properly, this highly toxic highly radioactive waste product. -according to the EPA, scientists and activists. American citizens are exposed to this danger every day. Currently there is no Nuclear industry effort to solicit a waste storage site at free Market Prices, nor does the Industry acknowledge the massive cost overruns predicted for Yucca Mountain, and the instantly needed second facility.. Only by requesting that nuclear waste disposal issue be an American citizen problem will the current nuclear energy pricing structure remain outside of Free Market economic forces and retain its highly subsidized status. At present, no total cost estimates have been made to store all of the highly radioactive waste currently needing storage, nor the highly radioactive waste being produced, for the 10,000 year interval required by the public's Environmental Protection Agency. At present rates of contribution by the Nuclear industry, this would mean the growing amount of nuclear waste would receive a total of $100,000 per year to cover costs of security, purchase of lands, encasement, burial, monitoring and protecting those.

Replace all occurrences of "high-level radioactive waste", with "highly radioactive waste". high-level has no meaning. High-level could mean its highly good radiation. disabiguate please.

"directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain, which is already located within a former nuclear test site." remove 'already'. its not 'all-ready'

"This option expired when the site was actually recommended by the President. " remove 'actually' - whinny. replace with formally or a more accurate term.

"The Department of Energy was to begin accepting spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain Repository by January 31, 1998 but did not do so because of a series of delays due to legal challenges, concerns over how to transport nuclear waste to the facility, and political pressures resulting in underfunding of the construction."

should read: .... "and pressure from the Governor of Nevada, activists, environmentalists, scientists, Congress and watchdog organizations.."

"Democratic Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a long time opponent of the repository, became the Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. "

should read: Senator Harry Reid was suspected of doing something in Congress because he weilded some power and said stuff not nice to the project" or removed entirely.

"In the 2008 Omnibus Spending Bill, the Yucca Mountain Project's budget was reduced to $390 million. Despite this cut in funding, the project was able to reallocate resources and delay transportation expenditures to complete the License Application for submission on June 3, 2008. Lacking an operating repository, however, the federal government owes to the utilities somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998.[10]"

should read: ..."Yucca Mountain Project's budget was funded to $390 million dollars" "As a result of the savings, tax breaks for billionaires was maintained." "Some unknown party was able to reallocate resources (probably the author of this article) and cover up transporation expenses to complete the Licsense Application for submission June 3, 2008." "Lacking an operational repository, the public, due to George Bush's commitment to turning public lands over to the Nuclear industry, is estimated to owe the nuclear industry, some number, I dunno, 300-500 million a year .." Frankly this entire section reads like grade school propaganda to me.

The Congress approved the "Screw Nevada" bill back in 1987, then on July 9th, 2002 despite strong objections from Nevada officials, gambling industry leaders and environmentalists, the Senate voted 60 to 39 to affirm President Bush's finding that the $58 billion project is "scientifically sound and suitable" and would enhance protection against terrorist attacks by consolidating the radioactive waste underground. So far, there hasn't been a reconsiliation of the difference of the 2002 estimate of $58 billion to build the project, today's estimates, against the 'payments made by the nuclear utility industry - said to be 30 billion dollars'.

"The July 9th, 2002 vote ended an intense lobbying effort by the nuclear energy industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent about $72 million since 1994 lobbying for the project. Senate supporters said the vote will help ensure the future of the U.S. nuclear power industry by keeping it from "choking on its own waste," as Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) put it." - according to the Washington Post.

"The Senate gave President Bush the green light on Tuesday to proceed with the Yucca site, where the administration wants to entomb 77,000 tons of highly radioactive materials, most of it building up at power plants in 31 states" - WP

"During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to abandon the Yucca Mountain project.[11] After his election, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Obama he did not have the ability to do so.[12] On April 23, 2009, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and eight other senators introduced legislation to provide "rebates" from a $30 billion federally managed fund into which nuclear power plants had been paying, so as to refund all collected funds if the project was in fact cancelled by Congress.[13]"

Should read: "authority" not "ability" if in fact, there's a legal question, else remove that portion of the statement.

"Sandia National Laboratories had the scientific responsibility for post closure analysis and ensuring compliance with the NWPA for one million years." - should read: The claim that any thing or any entity can have responsibility for anything for 1 million years is patently absurd, even tho that''s how long it will be, before nuclear waste is safe.

"The Nuclear Waste Policy Act further limits the capacity of the repository to 63,000 metric tons (62,000 long tons; 69,000 short tons) of initial heavy metal in commercial spent fuel. The 104 U.S. commercial reactors currently operating will produce this quantity of spent fuel by 2014,[18]"

Should read: even if Yucca mountain or a similar facility were built, at the current rate of highly radioactive waste production, the Nuclear Utilities are looking at finding a place to store their new waste through new regulatory demands and new public land hand-outs. The original 2002 budget estimate for Yucca Mountain will likely double to complete just that facility - about $116 billion, then a new more expensive storage facility will be needed, likely doubling in cost again to a quarter trillion dollars, simple to build. Operational costs for 1 million years needed to assure safe storage have yet to be estimated or charged to the Nuclear Energy Utilities. At present there is no way to make-harmless nuclear waste. Bill Gates and others reported on YouTube that within the world's population's next generation life time, the next generation will be able to find ways to turn highly radioactive materials into not-so radioactive materials.

Who is Director Sproat? "The latest Total System Life Cycle Cost presented to Congress on July 15, 2008 by Director Sproat is $90 billion." needs a reference.

"Additionally, the cost of the project continues to escalate due to the lack of sufficient funding to most efficiently move forward and complete the project." - who says so?

"To keep these plants operating, it may be necessary to construct a temporary facility at the Yucca Mountain site or somewhere else in the West if opening of the underground storage continues to be delayed." - who says so? This should read: If the American public decides that nuclear electricity is wise, they will need to bear the 10s of billions of dollars to build temporary storage, along with the risks of transporting 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste materials across the country.

"A two-thirds majority of Nevadans feel it is unfair for their state to have to store nuclear waste when there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada" should read: two-thirds majority of Nevada's residents voted against the Yucca Mountain facility" - cite date. As written is depicts 'feelings and fairness, which the author can't know. Also, the author implies the down vote was because Nevada 'lacked' nuclear power plants. ???? "when (because) there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada"

"One point of concern has been the standard of radiation emission from 10,000 years to 1,000,000 years into the future." should read: "An ongoing concern"

Note "millirem" is no longer used. should use current units of measure and define them.

"In 1998, more than 200 public interest organizations petitioned the DOE to “immediately disqualify the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site and declare it unsuitable for further consideration as a high-level nuclear waste repository” due to the finding of chlorine-36 at elevated levels deep within the mountain. The finding indicated that water flows through Yucca Mountain quickly, contrary to the prediction of the government’s water infiltration models of the site.

" should be added.

Congress Gives Yucca Mountain Final Okay: - Overriding Nevada's veto by a vote of 60-39, the U.S. Senate cleared the way for final licensing and construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility, located some 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 07/10/02

"The House of Representatives approved the action on May 8, 2002 by a vote of 306-117.

With construction costs estimated as high as $96 billion, the Yucca Mountain repository is projected by the Department of Energy to hold an estimated 77,000 tons of radioactive material from over 131 nuclear power plants, military reactors and weapons facilities located in 39 states." - published in 2002

"Demand for new nuclear plants also demands disposal capability" should be deleted, or rephrased "Since Fukushima the global demand for nuclear power plants has gone to zero net, as German and others shutter their plants."

"Since the early 1960s, the U.S. has safely conducted more than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel without any harmful release of radioactive material" should read: "... without any reported releases of radioactive material, or deaths or illness as a result of the transport"

"However, cities are still concerned about the transport of radioactive waste on highways and railroads that may pass through heavily populated areas." should delete "However" and "still"

" Spencer Abraham (DOE) on the other hand has stated, "I think there’s a general understanding that we move hazardous materials in this country, an understanding that the federal government knows how to do it safely" Should add: "The nuclear industry depends on the federal government to bear the costs to transport, and insure the safety of the public, when moving privately owned highly radioactive waste"

This article is a real mess. The timeline of regulatory activity, Congressional Actions and Bush's actions are missing nearly entirely. The presumption that President Obama's administration drove the budget in 2010/2011 is nutty. Congress defaulted to demonstrate what they wanted, and how far they'd go to get it.

Balance the articles timeline, statements about political choice, people's choice and activists.

This needs a complete re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.32.170.188 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with the neutrality of the article as currently written. Your version, however, would be a train wreck of epic proportions in regards to both grammatical coherence and adherence to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy or "community activism". And, for what it is worth, "high-level waste" is not a nebulous and undefined term; it has a distinct definition and furthermore, it is linked to the article on the term, should further clarification be required.  Horologium  (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree: I just read this article and it reads like a political manifesto. It should be re-written by a non-biased party and more weight should be placed on the many years of work that has occurred at Yucca than on the very brief period where the author finds he can conveniently blame everything on a person he clearly wishes wasn't in the White House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.157.82 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed in second paragraph
"This leaves United States civilians without any long term storage site for high level radioactive waste, currently stored on-site at various nuclear facilities around the country, although the United States government can dispose of its waste at WIPP, in rooms 2,150 feet (660 m) underground."

^ This sentence raises questions that should be explained. What is the difference between high level radioactive civilian waste and high level radioactive government waste? Why would high level radioactive waste be in the hands of civilians to begin with? These may be obvious to those who are really adament about the topic, but to a layperson reading this article it becomes confusing. UselessToRemain (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is very misleading. WIPP does not handle spent fuel or other direct byproducts of the fission process. It only handles trans-uranic (TRU) waste, that is, atomic numbers over 92. It's largely contaminated tools, rags, protective suits etc. The sentence implies that they're storing spent fuel there. 2602:306:CD59:CEB0:E43A:E093:7EC4:224C (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930145651/http://www.wipp.energy.gov/fctshts/Why_WIPP.pdf to http://www.wipp.energy.gov/fctshts/Why_WIPP.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://energy.gov/news/archives/3418.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Facility Section
This section includes irrelevant information on the contractors of the project and later layoff due to lack of funding. I would recommend including this information under the "delays since 2009" section. The link for it, citation 19, is broken as well. Following up on its claims that 800 employees were laid off, I couldn't find a source to verify this. As far as 2009 layoffs I found that only 500 were lain off Does anyone have a source to confirm this? --Hcauffman (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

So read the article that you have a link to. It says current employee count is 900. What was left due to reduced funding was 100 people. Thus 800 laid off. Originally USA RS thought they would have funding for 600 or more people which is to what the headline refers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.211.130 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527192312/http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/locations.html to http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/locations.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321033140/http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5S3Q6M?OpenDocument to http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5S3Q6M?OpenDocument
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305204743/http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/white_paper_dose.aspx to http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/white_paper_dose.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316212021/http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0261000/261393/Petition.pdf to http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0261000/261393/Petition.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515005004/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/ser_b/index.htm to http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/ser_b/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724070455/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3183/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3183/show
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319163712/http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/03/13/2714903/graham-wants-yucca-fees-repaid.html to http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/03/13/2714903/graham-wants-yucca-fees-repaid.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308152317/http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/yucca_factsheet.asp to http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/yucca_factsheet.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018041026/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/12/165520.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/12/165520.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.energy.gov/environment/ocrwm.htm%7D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527154700/http://energy.gov/news/archives/3418.htm to http://energy.gov/news/archives/3418.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324074934/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-nuke-yucca_frimar06,0,2557502.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-nuke-yucca_frimar06,0,2557502.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yucca Mountain - Nuclear Waste Repository.jpg

Opening section - make more concise?
The opening section of this article seems to be to be very long and detailed, with information that might be better included later in the article. I would propose trimming it significantly and moving some of the information to its respective sections. However, this seems like a major change for me to undertake on my own as a fairly new and inexperienced editor. I would appreciate knowing if others notice the same thing, and would agree that this is a good way to proceed. Thanks! --Unaccompanied Bach (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that the first three paragraphs are good as they are; but the second three all appear to be updates as new presidential administrations came in. You could maybe summarize and concatenate the 4th, 5th & 6th; the one about the Biden administration is rather concise already, but could be stuck on the end, resulting in 4 paragraphs total. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hcauffman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)