By Ken Silverstein Director, Energy Industry Analysis

The Department of Energy is racing to answer a series of technical questions aimed at satisfying the concerns of nuclear regulators with regard to Yucca Mountain, the proposed site to bury 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. The department, which plans on submitting a license application by year's end to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, must resolve a total of 293 scientific questions.

The Energy Department says it can fulfill the request but that does not mean that the regulatory authorities will review the answers in a timely fashion. That could delay the potential opening of Yucca Mountain beyond 2010, when the current administration would like to see it begin operations. So far, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has said that 90 of the questions have been completed in a satisfactory manner.

Several nuclear experts said that the 2010 deadline is unfeasible, given that the NRC must adequately review each answer to ensure that the site would be safe and that the transportation methods to get the nuclear waste there would be foolproof. Meanwhile, Nevada officials have tried to stop the project at every turn, using the courts, legislation and federal funding mechanisms as vehicles. Congress, which approved the national repository in 2002, has set aside just $580 million this year to ensure the development of Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

“No matter what, the 2010 date is unreasonable and the actual date is farther out in the future,” says Eileen Supko, a consultant with Energy Resources International that advises utilities on how to manage their nuclear fuel, in testimony before a federal court. Lawyers for the Energy Department countered that Supko is not a project manager and has no expertise in helping businesses or government meet timelines or budgets.

Experts say that nuclear waste could be stored safely at Yucca Mountain, noting that the climate is arid and what little rainfall does hit the area is washed into a distant valley. Others, however, say that the site is potentially fatal and point to possible seismic activity that could permit radioactive materials to escape. The friction has caused the site's opening to be delayed from 1998 to at least 2010.

The Yucca Mountain site did get a nod from the General Accounting Office with regards to possible terrorist activity. The likelihood of any such attack having success as the spent fuel is transported is “very low” and “extremely unlikely” because the material is hard to disperse and is stored in protective containers, the GAO says. Meanwhile, the Energy Department cites “sound science” and “compelling national interests” as reasons to go forth, noting that more than 20 years and $4 billion have been spent studying the idea.

“I have considered whether sound science supports the determination that the Yucca Mountain site is scientifically and technically suitable for the development of a repository,” wrote Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a letter to President Bush. “I am convinced that it does.”

Unanswered Questions

Currently, 103 nuclear reactors exist and generate 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. Those generators store 50,000 tons of waste at 72 commercial and military sites in 33 states. The Energy Department says that it will take 24 years to get the Yucca site stockpiled—a step that the administration says is essential so that current repositories do not become permanent facilities.

The fight over Yucca Mountain is another avenue for critics to express their concern over nuclear safety. No new nuclear power projects have started construction in the United States since 1979, when Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania suffered a partial meltdown of the reactor's core. Since that time, the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine has made the mission of restoring confidence in nuclear power even more challenging. Meanwhile, FirstEnergy Corp.'s Davis-Besse plant in Ohio halted operations two years ago because leaking boric acid had eaten through the six-inch lid that seals off the reactor vessel. That plant is set to come back on line in the near future.

Now, administration officials must resolve the unanswered questions as they relate to Yucca Mountain. In testimony before Congress last week, an Energy Department official said that it would be another six weeks before his unit made public just how the spent nuclear fuel would travel to the proposed site. Gary Lanthrum, director of the department's Office of National Transportation, says that trains, trucks or a combination of the two would be used.

“Once we make a decision about mode, then we'll start talking about where routes will go,” says Lanthrum. The plan, he adds, will “merit public confidence.” He notes that since the 1960s, the department has moved more than 3,000 shipments of spent fuel about 1.7 million miles with no injuries or any release of radioactivity.

Opponents of storing spent fuel at Yucca Mountain are suing on a number of different fronts to prevent the site from being used. They argue that it is unsafe and that regulatory changes by the NRC and Energy Department that have streamlined the permitting process are working to sidestep due process. Those efforts are being made in tandem with members of Nevada's congressional delegation who are united in their resistance to the project. They say that the Yucca Mountain is not a “done deal.”

Potential Risks

Not only has the Energy Department not adequately answered scientific questions but it has also not resolved the transportation issues, opponents say. Critics say that it might take 108,000 truck shipments or 3,000 train trips to deliver the waste to Yucca Mountain by 2038—trips that are rife with risks that include terrorism. They also call attention to a U.S. Geological Survey that says there are 33 known earthquake faults and a number of potential volcanic sites, all within the area where the project would be built.

“The science is very clear,” says Paul Craig, a scientist who resigned from a federal panel of experts on Yucca Mountain. “If we get high-temperature liquids, the metal would corrode and that would eventually lead to leakage of nuclear waste. And that is very, very bad news for the Department of Energy because they are committed to that design.” Craig, who delivered his comments in a public speech in February, says that the Energy Department must postpone its 2010 timeframe so that it can adopt a safe design. “I would never say that Yucca Mountain won't work,” he says. “What I would say is the design they have won't work.”

It's apparent that the NRC won't allow the Yucca Mountain project to be railroaded. And, it's even more obvious that congressional opponents will use every legislative tool they have to derail development of the site. The issue, meanwhile, is part of a much broader debate over just how the country ought to diversify its energy portfolio. In the final analysis, policymakers must determine whether nuclear energy will be a vital part of the mix. Proponents of the Yucca Mountain site, furthermore, must then prove that a permanent storage facility is superior to the current method of storing nuclear waste as well as show that their concept is infallible.

©2004, UtiliPoint International, Inc. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, redisseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of UtiliPoint International, Inc.