The Story of Yucca Mountain and the Controversy of Nuclear Waste Management
A common factor among all industries producing electricity is the byproduct of waste; with whatever fuel that is utilized, the produced waste from electrical generation needs to be managed with proper measures in order to protect both humans and the environment from hazardous health risks. This article will be focused on nuclear waste management specifically within the sphere of the United States in current events as well as the fate of the future. Backtracking to waste management, nuclear or radioactive waste involves a process of isolating and diluting the concentration of the spent byproduct so that it can be reabsorbed into the biosphere without harming any living organisms[1]. For this to take place successfully, the radioactive waste must be contained underground, or in some type of thick container (concrete typically) because it takes tens of thousands of years for the spent nuclear waste to decay[2]. For example, the byproduct of the spent fuel rods is commonly Plutonium-239, which has a half-life of 24,000 years. Thus, it is vital to allocate a safe and ideally underground containment area for waste decaying during this long period of time[3]. Unlike other forms of electrical generation utilizing thermal energy, nuclear energy has its waste regulated; because of this, none of the waste is permitted to cause pollution in the environment[4]. Additionally, the amount of spent nuclear waste that is yielded by nuclear power is not significant in relation to alternative methods of thermal energy production such as coal, natural gas, petroleum or waste incineration[5]. This is not to claim that there is no regulation of the air and water pollutants within the U.S., however, more can be done to mitigate environmental degradation regarding nuclear waste management since the method can greatly decrease pollution if further implemented and expanded. Before expanding further in the method of nuclear energy, it is vital to make sure there is a viable location for the radioactive waste.
The issue and controversy at hand concerning nuclear waste management is what people must execute with the surplus of spent nuclear fuel rods and other forms of radioactive waste that are currently residing in concrete containment vessels on local nuclear sites. There is currently around 80,000 metric tons of nuclear waste kept above ground within these concrete vessels residing on local sites spanning over 30 different states in the U.S.[6] Currently, the United States does not have a long-term storage area designated for nuclear waste; this factor elicits the history of Yucca Mountain, which is crux of the controversy.
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was first designated as a nuclear waste storage unit for spent nuclear fuel and additional high-level radioactive materials in 1987[7]. The site is located on federal land in Nye County Nevada which is approximately 80 miles from Las Vegas. The project was approved in 2002 by Congress and ended in 2011 under the Obama administration. Since 1978, The U.S. Department of Energy has been studying this mountain region to verify whether the geological conditions would be suitable for nuclear waste decay. It turns out that the site was optimal for nuclear waste storage. Yet, there remains a crucial issue; the site would either need to be expanded or an additional adjacent reserve would need to be supplemented because the carrying capacity of the storage unit would have already reached its limit in 2006[8]. In 2006, the U.S. had approximately 62,000 metric tons of nuclear waste which would have completely filled up the mountain reserve to its carrying capacity[9]. Yet, this would still eliminate about 75% of the nuclear waste that is on local plants near cities and societies currently. Thus, the space is not the greatest issue in this controversy since Yucca Mountain resides geographically within the desert of Nevada and generally, deserts happen to offer a plentitude of spatial capacity for horizontal and vertical expansion in the possible future of the site.
The real issue of the controversy stems from the social aspects of multiple conflicting parties. The parties in this scenario are simply the Federal Government (as well as the Yucca Mountain Project Organization that the government is funding) and the citizens of Nevada who are being voiced by the Nevadan senators as well as the Western Shoshone Native Americans. Before delving further, it is critical to note that the land in which Yucca Mountain resides on is federally owned by the government. The Federal Government funded nearly 15 billion dollars in research to acquire a permanent storage site for high-level radioactive waste within the U.S.; out of those 15 billion, 9 billion was spent specifically on Yucca Mountain where hundreds of men and women researched as well as some of the world’s best scientists[10]. The scientists concluded that the site was optimal and one of the best choices for storing nuclear waste since nuclear sites around the United States were reaching their carrying capacity concerning spent waste.
Nuclear Waste Storage Considerations and Benefits
Backtracking to the introduction on nuclear energy, spent nuclear waste is stored in containers known as casks which are typically made of concrete. These casks are temporary storage containers that are literally just sitting on nuclear sites around the United States; the Federal Government and scientists working for the Yucca Mountain Project believe that it is vital for this temporary storage to become long-term regarding Yucca Mountain so that there are far lower probabilities of nuclear disasters affecting the health and safety of humans and animals. Another key facet of why scientists and the Yucca Mountain Project aim for a long-term storage for nuclear waste is the potential electricity that can be generated[11]. Countries such as France, who are very advanced in their nuclear energy management, find use for spent nuclear fuel rods. People do not realize that these spent rods are still very active regarding thermal energy production and can be converted into electricity. With the implementation of Yucca Mountain, scientists estimate trillions of dollars in electricity that could possibly be produced by the nearly 80,000 metric tons of radioactive waste. This is also possible because many nuclear sites utilize a mixture of spent and regular fuel rods in nuclear reactors; thus, this illustrates the fact that they can still be utilized, stored underground, or converted into electricity.
A final point as to why Yucca Mountain is pushing forward the interests and values of the scientists in the organization is the concept of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is a sociological term, yet, also a term utilized in physics regarding physical objects rather than human population. Carrying capacity is the number of living organisms that a region can support without undergoing environmental degradation. An alternative definition which is also of relevance for nuclear waste storage, is the maximum quantity of a substance or object that can be stored or held by a container[12]. This alternative definition is the vital point for why the U.S. needs a long-term storage unit. This is because there is a finite amount of space within local nuclear sites within the United States and their carrying capacities for spent nuclear fuel will eventually be reached as soon as 2035, when there is estimated to be over 100,000 metric tons of waste[13]. Nevertheless, there is another side to the story supporting the rationale for people opposed towards the Yucca Mountain Project.
Yucca Mountain Project Oppositions
The flip side of the coin is the party against the utility of the Yucca Mountain Project. This party can be categorized into the citizens of Nevada, the Native American tribes such as the Western Shoshone, and lastly, the Nevadan Senators who all share the same goal. The citizens of Nevada voice the opinion that Nevada is their home and should not be the nuclear dumping ground of the United States. In an article by USA Today written by Michael Collins on June 3, 2018, the federal government’s dormant plan was being revitalized by the Trump Administration, yet, two of Nevada’s senators were already trying to halt the momentum claiming that “Nevada does not want to turn into a nuclear waste dump”[14]. Obviously, this was a political advantage for senators of Nevada to adopt since it is a similar view of the people yearning to be a nuclear waste-free zone. However, the Federal government and American Utilities are in desperate need to find a place for storage other than the WIP in New Mexico. In the meantime, most plants have resorted to the indefinite on-site dry cask storage of waste in steel and concrete casks. Thus, the claims and interests of the senators are focused on maintaining political strength with the people of Nevada and the Nevadan’s themselves, yearn for safety from the hazards of nuclear radioactive waste[15].
The Native Americans have claims, values, and interests focused around the safety of their land reservation. The tribes are specifically known as the Western Shoshone and Timbisha Shoshone whom are claiming that the project of Yucca Mountain is caused by “environmental racism”[16]. Before delving further, it is critical to define the sociological significance of “environmental racism” or “environmental injustice”. The Western Shoshone and Timbisha Shoshone Native Americans introduce the concept and issue of “environmental injustice” or “racism” in the context of nuclear waste dumping in their native homeland[17]. A Western Shoshone member stated the DOE was environmentally racist to systematically dismantle the nature, lifestyle, and culture of the Shoshone people in relation to their land[18]. “Environmental injustice” is the unfair treatment and lack of involvement of all people spanning race, ethnicity, nationality and socio-economic status regarding the development, establishment, and reinforcement of environmental laws and policies[19]. This often goes hand in hand with environmental racism and inequality due to the disproportionate distribution of resources even as simple as clean air and water to citizens of the United States’ demographic. Consequentially, the Native Americans feel victimized to this sociological concept and fear the potential impurities of radioactive waste that could seep into their sacred groundwater[20]. It is important to note that the Native Americans value their land in their religious practice; thus, potential contamination of their water poses both health risks and hazards to their religious, spiritual, and cultural practices with nature. A Western Shoshone stated, “The environmental racism lies in the very notion that it would be okay to put any radioactive material there at all[21].” Thus, it is not about the sheer amount of radioactivity that could permeate into the groundwater but rather this ethical misconception that fosters environmental racism.
Revisiting the claims and interests of the Senators voicing the opinions of the citizens of Nevada, there are several reasons why there is opposition to Yucca Mountain. These reasons include geology and location, limited space, transportation, and national security. Regarding geology and location, there are still numerous issues that are unsolved regarding the aptness of the Yucca Mountain site; this includes issues within hydrology and the fact that the mountain is seismically active with possible volcanic activity. For the problem of limited space, it was mentioned that Yucca Mountain is only big enough to store all the United States’ nuclear waste. Regarding transportation, the public would be at risk since more than 100 million people live near some of the proposed vehicle transport routes spanning 44 states[22].
Final Thoughts
Since the claims of both parties have been delineated and presented, it is important to keep in mind which scenario benefits the greater good. Therefore, the side of the Federal Government and their funded scientists in the Yucca Mountain organization would be for the greater good since the project is intended to protect 44 states containing nuclear fuel. Not only would this protect on-site cask build up towards carrying capacity, but potentially trillions of dollars could be created in electricity as well as many new jobs in maintaining, transporting, and converting the spent nuclear fuel[23]. The controversy basically becomes a matter of ethics since it involves either making Native Americans mobilize to another location — which mirrors their historical treatment — or preventing accidents across 44 states on local nuclear power plant sites. The controversy also becomes a matter of trust and education regarding the scientists and researchers to inform citizens that Yucca Mountain is currently the most viable option of long-term nuclear waste management in the current day. While it is understandable that any citizens in the United States would not want to be in the location of a nuclear waste dumping ground, there would eventually need to be an area designated for nuclear waste disposal and for the safety of humans as well as animals. Therefore, the Yucca Mountain Project should be revitalized due to the extensive scientific research proving that it is optimal for storage, and because it is an ethically sound action for the potential prevention of surplus waste build up spanning 44 states of the U.S.
References
Bullard, Robert D. “The Threat of Environmental Racism.” Natural Resources & Environment 7, no. 3 (1993): 23–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40923229.
“Congress Works to Revive Long-Delayed Plan to Store Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain.” n.d. USA TODAY. Accessed March 19, 2019. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucca-mountain-congress-works-revive-dormant-nuclear-waste-dump/664153002/.
“Corrections and Clarifications: Can Nuclear Waste Keep Yucca Mountain Dry- and Safe?” 1996. Science 271 (5245): 17–17.
“Environmental Racism Behind Plan to Store Nuke Waste Under Yucca Mountain:Tribes.” n.d. IndianCountryToday.Com. Accessed March 19, 2019. https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/environmental-racism-behind-plan-to-store-nuke-waste-under-yucca-mountain-tribes-pxuylYOklUODdk9MYKFJVQ/.
“Examining the Potential of National Nuclear Waste Repository Site.” n.d. Bechtel Corporate. Accessed March 19, 2019. https://www.bechtel.com/projects/yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-repository/.
LaTourrette, Tom, Thomas Light, Debra Knopman, and James T. Bartis. 2010. “Technical Approaches to Spent–Nuclear Fuel Management.” In Managing Spent Nuclear Fuel, 9–34. Strategy Alternatives and Policy Implications. RAND Corporation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg970rc.10.
Lemons, John, and Charles Malone. 1991. “High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal and Long-Term Ecological Studies at Yucca Mountain.” BioScience 41 (10): 713–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311766.
“Storage and ‘Disposal’ of Nuclear Waste.” n.d. Accessed March 19, 2019. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/madres1/.
“The Fight Against Yucca Mountain.” n.d. Accessed March 19, 2019. http://ag.nv.gov/Hot_Topics/Issue/Yucca/.
“Yucca Mountain Site.” n.d. Accessed March 19, 2019. http://www.yuccamountainproject.org/yucca-mountain-site.html.
Footnotes
[1] “Storage and ‘Disposal’ of Nuclear Waste” n.d.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] LaTourrette et al. 2010
[6] “Storage and ‘Disposal’ of Nuclear Waste” n.d.
[7] (“Yucca Mountain Site” n.d.)
[8] “Storage and ‘Disposal’ of Nuclear Waste” n.d.
[9] “Storage and ‘Disposal’ of Nuclear Waste” n.d.
[10] “Yucca Mountain Site” n.d.
[11] Lemons and Malone 1991
[12] LaTourrette et al. 2010
[13] “Corrections and Clarifications: Can Nuclear Waste Keep Yucca Mountain Dry- and Safe?” 1996
[14] “Congress Works to Revive Long-Delayed Plan to Store Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain” n.d.
[15] Ibid.
[16] “Environmental Racism Behind Plan to Store Nuke Waste Under Yucca Mountain: Tribes” n.d.
[17] Bullard 1993
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] “Environmental Racism Behind Plan to Store Nuke Waste Under Yucca Mountain: Tribes” n.d.
[22] “The Fight Against Yucca Mountain” n.d.
[23] “Congress Works to Revive Long-Delayed Plan to Store Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain” n.d.
Image:
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. (2019, December 2). Retrieved from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository.
