LESSONS FROM THE PROPOSED RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE AT YUCCA

MOUNTAIN, NEVADA
Omar M. Al-Qudah1, Irasema Coronado1, 2, John Walton1, 3, and Ed Hamlyn4
1

University of Texas at El Paso, 500 W. University Ave., El Paso, TX, 79968 USA,
Environmental Science and Engineering Program, Political Science Department2, 3Civil Engineering Department,
4
Center for Environmental Resources Management
omal@miners.utep.edu; icoronado@utep.edu; walton@utep.edu; edhamlyn@utep.edu

ABSTRACT: The sequence of policy decisions that has surrounded the public debate over the
management of the nations accumulating stockpiles of radioactive waste has not left any alternative
strategy, other than geologic burial at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to deal with the problem. Policymakers
and nuclear power plant owners virtually aborted all other options and any new ideas before they were
born, and then they downplayed the scientific issues and made no effort to consider alternatives other than
the Yucca Mountain site, so that ultimately the only sound that was heard was the political sound. The
scientific issues regarding the suitability of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository continue to be
relatively insignificant insofar as political decision-making is concerned. Why was Yucca Mountain
initially selected for a High Level Radioactive waste (HLW) repository, and what is the future of the
project? Moreover, what has been the role of engineers and scientists in this debate? What degree of
influence should the opinions of scientific experts have? More specifically, what lessons can be gained
from Yucca Mountain story? This paper explores these questions and tries to find answers through an
overview of the site suitability analysis and a qualitative review of the legislative steps that were taken
from the enactment of the Nuclear Energy Policy Act (NWPA) to the authorization of operation license.
INTRODUCTION
The worlds largest producer of radioactive waste is the U.S, which generates approximately
thirty percent of worldwide nuclear of power [373 F.3d 1251 (D, C. Cir. 2004)]. More than twenty
percent of the demand of electricity in U.S. is met by nuclear power facilities (Murray 2003). Collectively
the nations defense industries and civilians reactors produced approximately 73,000 tonnes of HLW and
SNF such as uranium and plutonium over the period from the 1945 until 2008 (Greenpeace 2010). Of this
total, 54,000 tonnes is civilian SNF, 2,500 tonnes is defense activity Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF), and
12,505 tonnes is defense HLW (Stewart 2008). To put this in perspective if we were to take all the
nuclear waste produced to date in the United States and stack it side-by-side, end-to-end, it would cover
an area about the size of a football field to a depth of about ten feet (Ricco 2004). By the year 2048, the
U.S. will have produced 120,000 tonnes of nuclear waste (Stewart 2008). The accumulation of HLW and
SNF threatens the nuclear power industry in U.S. and could cause some nuclear power plants to close, and
this means losing a major source of energy in the states. Therefore, it is necessary to find a secure and
efficient solution to dispose of this waste (U.S.DOE/YMP-0621, 2008).
Legislation to manage and control the nuclear waste production and disposal in the U.S. was
absent for more than 30-years until 1982 when Congress enacted the NWPA and subsequently amended it
in 1987 with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments (NWPAA). Congress issued NWPA and
NWPAA in order to put an end to nuclear waste dilemma, but, at the same time, Congress started a new
quandary, which has persisted for more than twenty years, regarding how to apply the vision of these acts
by creating the first and only site in the world for HLW and SNF (Whitten 2009). After many years of
scientific studies, planning, political wrangling, and litigation, with many billions of dollars spent, the
government is abandoning the only site fully considered for use as a repository for HLW and SNF
without having identified another solution (Whitten 2009).
This article examines the weaknesses and strengths in the political science theory to advance our
understanding of that theory through presents the HLW and SNF dilemma using the Yucca Mountain

AAS-ICEST 2010, Houston, Texas, USA, July 12-16, 2010

388

project story as a study case, and qualitatively evaluate the past and current situation based on literature
that has been written on this topic.
METHODOLOGY
The following criteria are employed in order to prepare for the long-term management of nuclear
waste, as well as to learn from our mistakes:
Radioactive Waste Classification. Both HLW and SNF are derivatives from fuel processing generators
that use nuclear energy to produce electricity, for military purposes, and, to a lesser extent, for healthcare
applications and research purposes. HLW consists of plutonium and uranium derived from military
reprocessing; and other radioactive nuclear weapons materials (Botkin and Keller 2003). It is extremely
toxic, and a sense of urgency surrounds its disposal as the total volume of spent fuel is continuing to
accumulate (Brady 1990). Currently in the U.S., thousands of tonnes of HLW are being stored at more
than a hundred sites in thirty one states (U.S.NRC 2009a, b, and c). Seventy-two of the sites are adjacent
to commercial nuclear reactors (Botkin and Keller 2003). Whereas, SNF is the solid consumed fuel that
has lost its efficiency in generating the required heat to generate the electricity, because the nuclear
reactor operations have eliminated its efficiency when irradiated in a nuclear power plant to the point
where it is no longer valuable in sustaining a nuclear reaction (Stewart 2009). SNF continues to have
dangerous characteristics for more than 250,000 years (Biello 2009) such as its thermal properties,
radioactivity, and toxicity, and it requires remote handling and shielding (U.S.DOE/YMP-0621, 2008).
Radioactive Waste Hazards. Radioactivity of nuclear waste may persist for hundreds of thousands of
years and this is the main problem of these types of waste because they are harmful to human health and
other forms of life in addition to the environment (Brady 1990). At very high levels, exposure to radiation
can cause sudden death; at lower doses, radiation can still have overwhelming health effects, including
increased cancer risks and serious birth defects such as mental retardation, eye malformations, burns,
vomiting, hemorrhage, blood changes, hair loss, increased susceptibility to infection, and small brain or
head size [373 F.3d 1251 (D, C. Cir. 2004)]. However, proponents of nuclear energy point to the growing
problem of atmospheric pollution and the greenhouse effect that accompanies the burning of fossil fuels
such as coal and oil (Nye County-BCC, 2006).
Radioactive Waste Storage Methods. To date, there is no actual solution for the storing of the
radioactive waste for as long as it is hazardous (U.S.DOE/YMP-0621, 2008). Radioactive decay is the
only known way that can convert the radioactive waste to safe materials (U.S.NRC 2009a, b, and c). In
the U.S., SNF is currently being deposited underneath huge cooled water pools and dry repository tanks
of steel at nuclear power reactor (U.S.NRC 2009a, b, and c). Also, some of it is deposited in certain
locations at Hanford, Washington; West Valley, New York; Idaho Falls and at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho; Savannah River, South Carolina; and Morris, Illinois
(U.S.NRC 2009a, b, and c). The capacity of SNF deposit units is becoming a major problem at
commercial nuclear power locations as most of these are at full capacity and must be expanded to hold
continually produced nuclear waste (Tomain 2004). Approximately, 20 tonnes of SNF are produced from
nuclear power plants annually per 1000 megawatt of electricity (McFarlane 2008).
U.S. Radioactive Waste Regulations. In 1982, Congress enacted the NWPA, and the President signed it
into law in January 1983 (U.S.DOE/YMP-0621, 2008). The U.S.s radioactive waste management policy,
as articulated by the NWPA, decided to establish a permanent geologic disposal site for HLW and
directed from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to study potentially suitable sites for a geological
repository. Currently, the law limits the capacity of the repository to about 70,000 tonnes of HLW and
SNF (Nye County 2009). However, the current existing amount of HLW and SNF exceeds this quantity
(Stewart 2009). The NWPA further assigned the costs of nuclear waste disposal to the owners and
producers of these kinds of waste (Tomain 2004). In 1983 the U.S. DOE considered nine sites in six states

AAS-ICEST 2010, Houston, Texas, USA, July 12-16, 2010

389

for preliminary studies in order to locate the best site for the proposed repository. After that, in 1985 the
DOE reported the results of its initial study. According to DOE reports, the U.S. President designated
three site locations for further intensive scientific studies called site characterization. The three sites
selected were Deaf Smith County, Texas; Yucca Mountain, Nevada; and Hanford, Washington (Nye
County 2009). In 1987, Congress amended the NWPA to designate only Yucca Mountain for further
studies and Congress ordered DOE to start studying the suitability of Yucca Mountain for this mission,
and directed The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to create the required regulations for
the repository assembly, functioning, and closing (U.S.DOE/YMP-0621, 2008). Because of that, in 1987
the DOE determined an opening date of the site in 2003, a date that was not met. In 1989 the DOE
announced a new date to open the site in 2010 (Tomain 2009).
Yucca Mountain was recommended to President Bush as a suitable site for HLW and SNF
repository by the Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on February 14, 2002, and his recommendation was
said to have been based on the sound science of Yucca Mountains performance analysis that done by
DOE. The following day, President Bush approved Yucca Mountain project and recommended it to
Congress (AGI 2002). In February 2009, President Obama closed the door on Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste repository plan after two decades of studying and scheduling at a cost of at least $9 billion
(U.S.DOE/YMP-0621, 2008). For the Fiscal Year 2010, the President reduced all work on the design,
construction and transportation infrastructure for the repository. The Presidents budget virtually killed
the Yucca Mountain project (Rogers 2009). On March 3, 2010, the DOE filed a motion with the NRC to
withdraw the license application for a HLW repository at Yucca Mountain (U.S. NRC 2009a). The
Presidents fiscal year 2011 budget request eliminates funding for the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management OCRWM (U.S. NRC 2009a). The Office of Nuclear Energy will assume the
function previously performed by OCRWM.
According to the NWPA, if the Yucca Mountain site was not approved as the suitable site to
dispose the nations nuclear waste, the DOE should report the Congress with its recommendations and
suggestions for the suitable alternative, to deal with the SNF and HLW, in a way that ensure the safe
permanent disposal of this type of waste under a new legislative authority (U.S.DOE/EIS-0250, 2008).
During this time, DOE, commercial utilities, and the generator sites should continue managing SNF and
HLW in a way that protected the safety of public health and the environment. On the other hand, the
future route that Congress, the nuclear power generators, and DOE could follow is uncertain, and a
number of options might be pursued (U.S.DOE/EIS-0250, 2008).
High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Selection Criteria. According to the DOE qualifications, the
nuclear waste permanent repository site must be examined under certain criteria before get the final
approval. Criteria include: location, economics, and safety (Bloom 1997). The safety criterion includes all
the nuclear waste and site properties in addition to the transportation methods that could affect on the
public and environment safety (Nye County-BCC, 2006). The public safety around the repository site and
along the transportation path is the main concern in the repository site criteria (Nye County-BCC, 2006).
There is a huge concern about the long-term safety of the repository (Nye County-BCC, 2006). Many
scientists in Los Alamos National Laboratories disapproved this plan regarding to its safety criterion
(Taubes1995). The site location criterion includes all the natural characteristics of the site and the
engineered barriers. The location of the HLW and SNF repository site must be carefully chosen. The
location must be far away from large cities, communities, and water sources, including both surface and
groundwater. In addition, the repository should be located in semiarid to arid region with a dry climate to
minimize any opportunity of water to penetrate to the waste packages and corrode the waste containers
because such water penetration will reduce the containers resistance period the thereby decrease the
repository life span (Bloom 1997).
Yucca Mountain Site Selection Criteria. Yucca Mountain is located on federal land north of the
Amargosa Desert in central southern Nevada, approximately 160 kilometers northwest of Las Vegas, in

AAS-ICEST 2010, Houston, Texas, USA, July 12-16, 2010

390

the Basin and Range province of the western United States, within a zone between the Mojave Desert and
the southern boundary of the Great Basin Desert. The nuclear waste repository was to have been located
within the thick unsaturated zone, about 750 meters below the surface, in a region 250 meters above the
water table (Woolhiser et al., 2000 and 2006). The U.S. DOE based its choice for Yucca Mountain on the
sites natural characteristics which include the Nevadas semiarid to arid climate, is the sites relatively
stable geology, the very deep water table in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, the limited groundwater flow
through the unsaturated zone and saturated zone, and the extremely low infiltration rate. Moreover, there
is very little life in Yucca Mountain or its vicinity and it is part of the closed Nevada Testing Site, the
nations former nuclear bomb testing range (Sandia National Laboratories 2008). However, the efficiency
of Yucca Mountain repository is affected by some of the natural system properties like site geology,
climate, and site hydrogeology. The characteristics of the Yucca Mountain geology and hydrogeology
that affect the performance of the repository include groundwater flow through the unsaturated zone and
saturated zone, radionuclide transport, and disruptive events caused by igneous and seismic activity
(Sandia National Laboratories 2008).
Yucca Mountain Project Estimated Cost. Economics is another important concern in the repository
selection process. The total cost of the Yucca Mountain project is estimated by U.S. DOE by about $42.8
billion to $57.3 billion (in 2001 dollars) , including the transportation of SNF and HLW to the repository,
(U.S.DOE/EIS-0250, 2008). Approximately seventy percent of the repository-related costs would be paid
from the Nuclear Waste Fund (fees collected by nuclear utilities from ratepayers) (U.S.DOE/EIS-0250,
2008), and the taxpayer revenues would cover about thirty percent (primarily to pay for the disposal of
DOEs SNF and HLW).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
After the nation reached this current level of technology, the DOE, acknowledges that it is very
impossible to design and create a geologic repository that would offer a logical prospect that there would
never be any release of radioactive SNF and HLW, because nobody can give a grantee for what will
happen thousands of years into the future. Also, the NRC recognizes that it is very impossible to have an
absolute proof that this planed repository will incubate all these amount of radioactive waste over this
long period of time without any risk of releasing this waste to the environment. Moreover, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acknowledged that the appropriate test of compliance is the
reasonable expectation, which is also a very hard goal to reach. The DOE has created Yucca Mountain
total system performance assessment based on a combination of natural analogs and mathematical
modeling as shown in the Sandia National Laboratories analysis (Sandia National Laboratories 2008).
The DOEs performance assessment has been faced spatial and temporal variability and inherent
uncertainties in biologic, engineered, and geologic components of the disposal system. The areas that
show the caveats and limitations in the Yucca Mountain project are summarized as follow:
Yucca Mountain Water Contamination. Based on the Viability Assessment report issued by DOE,
water penetrates very rapidly through the rocks of Yucca Mountain, suggesting that if the waste packages
start corroding, radioactive waste may be transported by groundwater and contaminate water elsewhere in
the region. In 1995, Yucca Mountain could not achieve the DOEs 1984 geologic repository criteria,
when some water penetrated into the mountain increasing the water content in the mountain by more than
10%; in addition, this water was moving much faster than expected. This phenomenon demonstrated that
this mountain is not solid, and it is has many fissures. This new data turned the program on its head
(Sandia National Laboratories 2008). DOE reacted to this finding by ignoring (actually dropping) the
1984 criteria, and instead placed its confidence on corrosion-resistant containers. our strategy is to
keep the waste as dry as possible for as long as possible, DOE said. DOE designed a special type of
shield around the waste containers called titanium Drip shields to protect against penetrating water
(Sandia National Laboratories 2008). Thus, the disposal criteria changed from the use of natural geologic

AAS-ICEST 2010, Houston, Texas, USA, July 12-16, 2010

391

barriers to the use of engineered barriers. By this change, the meaning of the natural geologic barriers was
gone, and the characteristics of the site became less important.
Yucca Mountain Climate Change. The most important criterion that DOE adopted to select Yucca
Mountain depended on the existence of an arid climate in a dry location, because the main carrier for the
nuclear waste radionuclides is water. The climate in the Nevada desert was wet about10, 000 years ago,
and in the future climate change could make it wetter again (Sandia National Laboratories 2008), and this
will create a change in the amount of water delivered to Yucca Mountain. Therefore, if the climate
changes, no one can predict how wet it could get at Yucca Mountain site during the next 10,000 years.
The water infiltration flux at the Yucca Mountain surface and through the repository scope is a critical
issue and has been difficult to estimate (Sandia National Laboratories 2008). The Yucca Mountain total
system performance assessment requires an understanding of the parameters that affect groundwater flow
and migration unsaturated zone and saturated zone.
Yucca Mountain Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity. Despite that the overall tectonic setting of the
Great Basin physiographic province, including Yucca Mountain, that have been modified by volcanic
activity during the past 15 million years, the potential public health and safety impacts that could take
place from natural events such as volcanic activity and earthquakes are a major concern. Over the longterm life of the Yucca Mountain repository, volcanism event with eruptions and magma flow would be
highly unexpected, whereas seismic activity with the consequent ground motion would be more likely to
occur. Leakage of the SNF and HLW to the surrounding environment presents potential impacts that
could result from a seismic event.
Yucca Mountains Waste Transportation. The transportation of the waste to Yucca Mountain has a lot
of uncertainties. The rail transportation or regular transportation (by truck) is the main way to transport
the nuclear waste to the disposal site (U.S.DOE/EIS-0369). Potential accidents during transportation may
lead to contamination of neighborhoods, homes, major business areas, and agricultural areas
(U.S.DOE/EIS-0369). Dangerous gases and chemicals may be transported to the air and water and this
has the potential of causing health effects for the people (U.S.DOE/EIS-0369). The director of the DOEs
office of National Transportation, Gary Lanthrum, said the Energy Department has safety moved about
3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel a combined 1.7 million miles since the 1960s, without any injury
because of release of radio-activity. Also he added it will take 10,500 truck trips or 3,000 trainloads to
get the nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. (U.S.DOE/EIS-0369).
Yucca Mountains Air Pollution: Scientific studies were being able to conclude that as the waste
decomposes segments of rock in Yucca Mountain will allow radioactive gas to escape to the environment.
Carbon-14 is the primary gas that would be released and it is expected that global impact will result in
25,000 additional cancer cases over time (Ricco 2004).
Yucca Mountain and Terrorism: Terrorism might be a problem and a main concern with the disposal
site and the waste transportation, particularly after September the 11th. That is why transportation data is
protected and kept secret. The nuclear power owners and the governmental facilities that store SNF at
their reactors sites are driven by their concerns regarding the safety of their storage facilities from terrorist
attacks and by the broader policy decisions regarding the future of nuclear energy. This sense of
necessity to reach a positive judgment ignored the public concerns in addition to the scientific
uncertainties about the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain.
Yucca Mountain and the Worker Health: The federal Clean Air Act authorized the State of Nevada to
examine tailing mounds as a potential hazard for the air quality. The State took action after some of
Yucca Mountain workers blamed lung problems because of toxic dust inhaled during tunneling the States
action came. The DOE explained that by the statement workers might have been exposed to fibrous

AAS-ICEST 2010, Houston, Texas, USA, July 12-16, 2010

392

silica dust. Inhalation of silica dust may cause silicosis and fatal lung disease. Approximately, more than
1200 of Yucca Mountain workers have been exposed to potentially dangerous amounts of silica dust
while working at the site, and three of them have been diagnosed, and one has died from the disease
(Ricco 2004).
Yucca Mountain and Social Justice: the spiritual and the religious beliefs of the Western Shoshone and
Pauite tribes are connected with the Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain and its vicinity is the place where
the Shoshone people have traditionally gathered and continue to gather. The Western Shoshone nation
became the most bombed nation on earth after the U.S. government opened the Nevada Test Site in their
territory and used it to detonate more than 1,200 atomic bombs, subjecting the tribal people to high rates
of cancer and illness. This nation suffers from this historic injustice without any government medical aid,
rectification, and health assessment (Ricco 2004). Yucca Mountain and its vicinity have been used by
Native American tribes for many years, as DOE recognized in its EIS, and the land contains plants,
animals, and cultural and spiritual resources considered important to that tribe. Establishing a repository
in this area would represent an intrusion into what Native Americans consider an important spiritual and
cultural area.
CONCLUSIONS
The United States of America is the only nation worldwide that has applied the idea of disposal of
nuclear waste in a geologic repository. The safety of such a repository requires more than just its safe
construction; it requires intense studies by scientists and engineers, and a believable bridge between
scientists and policy-makers regarding the risks and uncertainties. The available information about the
effectiveness of the Yucca Mountain natural geological setting and the engineered barriers has proved
insufficient to assure the safety of the repository. It seems that the regulations that were created by DOE
were built on the expected characteristics of Yucca Mountain, instead of the risk factors. Since Congress
selected just Yucca Mountain as a suitable site for the nuclear waste disposal, and eliminated any other
option from consideration, DOE simply changed its repository regulations when the studies discovered
that Yucca did not meet the DOE regulation standards.
Almost from its inception, the Yucca Mountain project broke the harmonious relationship
between science and policy, as the NWPA eliminated any site other than Yucca Mountain for
development as a repository. The conflicts over this project, which continued over two decades, should
not be forgotten until the main lesson is extracted. Twenty years of studies and litigation left the U.S.
back to where it began: without a solution to the problem of managing radioactive wastes. If this
experience is not to be repeated, more than just a fresh start is needed; a more rational approach to this
important policy question is vital.
Although, the Obama Administration has made clear that Yucca Mountain is not an option for the
nuclear waste, no other option has been identified, and the nuclear power owners are still lacking a means
of dealing with this type of waste. Meanwhile, nuclear waste is still accumulating and new nuclear
reactors are waiting to be authorized for power generation. The problem still exists, and DOE must find a
suitable alternative to deal with the SNF and HLW in a way that ensures the safe permanent disposal of
this type of waste, yet it currently lacks legislative authority to pursue other options.
Yucca Mountain might be the best choice to dispose the radioactive waste, but nobody can make
such judgment unless the site is assessed compared to other choices. Until such time as other options are
investigated, the Yucca Mountain option will likely continue to be rejected due to lingering concerns
regarding public health and safety because, after all, no site can unequivocally be said to be a safe and
secure site for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. As the physicist Niels Bohr reputedly said,
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. Other solutions may be out there, and new
radioactive waste management technologies may be arise, but radioactive waste management decisions
should be driven by science, not short-term political concerns. Finally, like any other environmental
problem, the risks associated with nuclear waste can be reduced, but never completely avoided.

AAS-ICEST 2010, Houston, Texas, USA, July 12-16, 2010

393

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the University of Texas at El Paso.
REFERENCES
American Geological Institute (AGI), Government Affairs Program. 2002. High-Level Nuclear Waste
Legislation Update (10-22-02). Internet: http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/yucca.html.
Accessed 23 November 2009.
Biello, David. 2009. Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy
Source? Scientific America, internet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclearwaste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source. Accessed 1 May, 2010.
Bloom, Roger. 1997. A Proposal to Research the Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel at Yucca
Mountain. Internet: http://www.writing.eng.vt.edu/workbooks/proposal.samples.html. Accessed
23 November.
Brady, James E. 1990. General Chemistry: Principles & Structure. 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Botkin, Daniel B., Edward A. Keller. 2003. Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet. 4th ed. John
Wiley & Sons.
Greenpeace International Organization. 2010. End the nuclear age. Internet:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear. Accessed May 7, 2010.
McFarlane, Harold. 2008. Resurgence of Nuclear Energy in the U.S. and what it could mean for spent
fuel management. Nevada Local Section of ANS, Las Vegas, 4 October 2008.
Murray, Raymond L. 2003. Understanding Radioactive Waste. 5th ed. Columbus: Battelle Press.
Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 373 F.3d 1251 (D, C. Cir. 2004).
Nye County. 2009. Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office (NWRPO). Internet:
http://www.nyecounty.com/. Accessed November 23, 2009.
Nye County-Board of County Commissioners (BCC). 2006. Community Protection Plan for Site County
Residents, Community, and Future as the Federal Government Transfers the Nations Highly
Radioactive Waste to Yucca Mountain.
Ricco, Anthony. 2004. Yucca Mountain: High-Level Nuclear Waste Site. Urbs/Geog 515: Race, Poverty,
And the Environment. Raquel Pinderhughes Urban & Environmental Studies Programs, SFSU.
Rogers, Keith. 2009. Reid declares Yucca Victory: Senator Says Licensing Funds Erased. Las Vegas
Reviewed Journal. Internet: http://www.lvrj.com/news/52169187.html, accessed November 23,
2009.
Sandia National Laboratories. 2008. Total System Performance Assessment. DOC. 20080312.0001/
MDL-WIS-PA-000005 REV00.
Stewart, Richard B. 2009. U.S. Nuclear Waste Law and Policy: Fixing a Bankrupt System. N.Y.U.
Environmental Law Journal 17: 783-825.
Taubes, G. 1995. Blowup at Yucca Mountain. Science 268:1836-1839.
Tomain, Joseph P. 2004. Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982). Internet:http://www. encyclopedia.com,
accessed November 23, 2009.
U.S.EPA. 2009. Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain,
Nevada (40 CFR Part 197), Final Rule. Internet:
Http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/2008factorsheet.html. Accessed 23 November.

AAS-ICEST 2010, Houston, Texas, USA, July 12-16, 2010

394

U.S. NRC. 2009a. DOEs License Application for a High-Level Waste Geologic Repository at
Yucca Mountain. Internet: http://www.lsnnet.gov/. Accessed May 7, 2010.
U.S. NRC. 2009b. Fact Sheet on Licensing Yucca Mountain. Internet: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-yucca-license-review.html. Accessed 23 November.
U.S.NRC. 2009c. Radioactive Waste Production, Classification, Description, Storage, and Disposal.
Internet: http://www.nrc.gov/waste.html. Accessed 23 November.
U.S. DOE/EIS-0250. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye
County, Nevada.
U.S.DOE/EIS-0369. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the
Construction and Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.
U.S.DOE/YMP-0621. 2008. The National Repository at Yucca Mountain: Solving a National Problem
Now.
Whitten, Daniel. 2009. Obama Rejects Nuclear Waste Site After 20-Year Fight. Internet news:
http://www.Bloomberg. Com, accessed November 23, 2009
Woolhiser, D. A., Fedors, R. W., Smith, R. E., and Stothoff, S. A. 2006. Estimating Infiltration in the
Upper Split Wash Watershed, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
11:123.
Woolhiser, D. A., Stothoff, S. A., and Wittmeyer, G. W. 2000. Channel infiltration in Solitario Canyon,
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 5 240-249.

AAS-ICEST 2010, Houston, Texas, USA, July 12-16, 2010

395