POWER May 2010 - 34

Nuclear Power
but simply serve as a temporary, multi-decade
storage facility; then shipments would be consolidated
in dedicated trains and trucks taking
waste to the repository. Three sites had been
identified in Tennessee, with the preferred site
being Oak Ridge, which was originally identified
for the postponed Clinch River breeder
reactor in 1983 when funding was terminated.
The State of Tennessee was against designating
Tennessee alone as a contender and sued.
The proposal was held up and ultimately went
to the Supreme Court. The DOE won the case
and submitted its proposal to Congress.
Nevertheless, in order to prevent the MRS
from becoming a de facto repository-similar
to the RSSF and AFR facility-the DOE recommended
certain conditions linking MRS
development to repository development. The
license for the MRS would contain conditions
allowing construction and operation of
the MRS only when repository construction
and operation was proceeding and would
limit the total capacity of the MRS to 15,000
metric tons of waste.
The NWPAA had also established the Office
of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator to negotiate
agreements with states or Indian tribes
willing to host a repository or an MRS. Such
an agreement could contain different conditions
than those imposed on a DOE-sited facility.
However, the office was not reauthorized
by Congress and was eliminated in 1995.
The Yucca Mountain Saga
Between 1987 and 2001, the DOE would
spend another $3.8 billion on scientific and
technical studies of Yucca Mountain. For instance,
in 1997, a 5-mile tunnel through Yucca
Mountain was completed to function as an
Exploratory Study Facility. In 1998, a second
2-mile cross drift tunnel would facilitate additional
experiments in the potential repository
host rock. These tunnels, and the numerous
niches and alcoves, created the world's largest
underground laboratory (Figures 3 and 4).
From the surface, more than 180 boreholes
were drilled deep into the geology and
its surrounding features. Independent scientists
working for Nye County, Nevada, drilled
additional exploratory holes and collaborated
with DOE scientists on their findings. These
efforts were further supplemented by numerous
laboratory experiments and excavation of
similar geologic features both nearby and at
sites around the world. The results ultimately
provided an understanding of the Yucca
Mountain geology and its ability to safely
contain radioactive wastes.
In 2001, the DOE issued reports containing
thousands of pages of information, summarizing
the extensive site characterization
effort. Over the next year, the department
would hold more than 65 public hearings,
34
sending 6,000 letters to individuals, corporations,
and groups, eventually responding to
more than 17,000 comments. In 2002, President
George W. Bush approved the secretary
of energy's recommendation of Yucca Mountain
as the site for a nuclear fuel repository.
In April 2002, Governor Kenny Guinn (R)
of the State of Nevada, as provided for by the
NWPA, vetoed this decision. In the NWPA's
unprecedented procedure for ensuring that any
site decision received thorough and fair consideration,
the governor's veto could only be
overridden by a majority vote in both houses of
Congress. For three months, Yucca Mountain
was debated in Congress, in committee hearings,
and on the floor of the House and Senate.
Eventually, Congress would vote to override
the objection by approving the Yucca Mountain
site 306-117. Later, the Senate would approve
the Yucca Mountain site by voice vote
following a procedural " motion to proceed "
vote, 60-39. This approval, known as the Yucca
Mountain Development Act (YMDA), was
signed into law by the president on July 23,
2002, allowing the DOE to prepare and submit
a license application to the NRC.
By the time the YMDA was enacted, the
DOE had spent $7.1 billion on the evaluation
of multiple sites, detailed study of Yucca
Mountain, the preparation and defense of
the site recommendation, and related waste
acceptance and transportation planning activities.
It would spend another $1.5 billion
preparing the Yucca Mountain license application,
including transportation and waste acceptance
plans. After years of delay, the DOE
submitted the 8,600-page license application
to the NRC in June 2008 (Figure 5).
After a preliminary 90-day screening period,
the NRC determined that the application
contained sufficient information to formally
docket the application and move on to the
next stage of technical and scientific review.
Approximately 40 NRC staff members and
consultants reviewed the license application
prior to the docketing decision. The license
application was not reviewed for merit during
this screening period, but rather to determine
whether it was complete enough for the NRC
to proceed.
According to federal legislation, the NRC
must complete the Yucca Mountain license
application review within four years. However,
there is no penalty if the NRC fails to
finish the review within the required time
period. According to the DOE, the earliest
the repository could start accepting waste,
given a smooth licensing process and consistent
funding, was 2020. The total system
life-cycle cost that includes the cost to research,
construct, and operate Yucca Mountain
for 150 years, from the beginning of
the program in 1983 through closure and
www.powermag.com
3. Holes in the mountain. View of
the South Portal of the Exploratory Studies
Facility showing the 25-foot-diameter tunnel
boring machine. Source: DOE/OCRWM
4. Boring holes. Tunnel boring machine
cutter head at the South Portal in April 1997.
Source: DOE/OCRWM
5. The Yucca Mountain license application.
Source: DOE/OCRWM
decommissioning in 2133, was estimated to
exceed $96 billion.
The Only Option Remaining:
On-Site Storage
Today, the only available solution for utilities
is to store SNF on-site in water pools or in
long-term above-ground storage casks. The
volume of the water pools within each reactor
limits the number of fuel assemblies it can
hold at one time. Conceptually, the number
of dry casks that can be used to store SNF is
unlimited.
POWER | May 2010
http://www.powermag.com
POWER May 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER May 2010
