text:
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Yucca Mountain
The proposed design[1]
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as designated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1987, is to be a deep geological repository storage facility within Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in the United States. The site is 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 project was approved in 2002 by the 107th United States Congress, but federal funding for the site ended in 2011 under the Obama Administration via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, passed on April 14, 2011.[2] The project has encountered many difficulties and was highly contested by the non-local public, the Western Shoshone peoples, and many politicians.[3] The project also faces strong state and regional opposition.[4] The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons.[5]
This leaves American utilities and the United States government, which currently disposes of its transuranic waste 2,150 feet (660 m) below the surface at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico,[6] without any designated long-term storage site for the high-level radioactive waste stored on site at various nuclear facilities around the country.
Under President Barack Obama the Department of Energy (DOE) was reviewing options other than Yucca Mountain for a high-level waste repository. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, established by the Secretary of Energy, released its final report in January 2012. It detailed an urgent need to find a site suitable for constructing a consolidated, geological repository, stating that any future facility should be developed by a new independent organization with direct access to the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is not subject to political and financial control as the Cabinet-level Department of Energy is.[7]
Under President Donald Trump, the DOE has ceased deep borehole[8] and other non-Yucca Mountain waste disposition research activities. For FY18, DOE had requested $120 million and the NRC $30 million[9] from Congress to continue licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain Repository. For FY19, DOE has again requested $120 million but the NRC has increased their request to $47.7 million.[10] Congress has decided to provide no funding for the remainder of FY18.[11]
In the meantime, most nuclear power plants in the United States have resorted to the indefinite on-site dry cask storage of waste in steel and concrete casks.[12]
Contents
[hide]
1 Introduction
2 The facility
3 Opposition
4 Radiation standards
4.1 Original standard
4.2 Inconsistent standards
4.3 EPA's rule
5 Geology
5.1 Earthquakes
6 Transportation of waste
6.1 Nevada routes
6.2 Impacts
7 Cultural impact
8 Delays since 2009
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
Introduction[edit]
Spent nuclear fuel is the radioactive by-product of electricity generation at commercial nuclear power plants, and high-level radioactive waste is the by-product from reprocessing spent fuel to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.[13] In 1982, the United States Congress established a national policy to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. This policy is a federal law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,[14] which made the DOE responsible for finding a site, building, and operating an underground disposal facility called a geologic repository. The recommendation to use a geologic repository dates back to 1957 when the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the best means of protecting the environment and public health and safety would be to dispose of the waste in rock deep underground.[15][page needed]
The DOE began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation's first long-term geologic repository for over 70,000 metric tons (69,000 long tons; 77,000 short tons) (150 million pounds)[16] of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste as of 2015[when?] stored at 121 sites around the nation. An estimated 10,000 metric tons (9,800 long tons; 11,000 short tons) of the waste would be from America's military nuclear programs.[17] On December 19, 1984, the DOE selected ten locations in six states for consideration as potential repository sites, based on data collected for nearly ten years. The ten sites were studied and results of these preliminary studies were reported in 1985. Based on these reports, President Ronald Reagan approved three sites for intensive scientific study called site characterization. The three sites were Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain, which is located adjacent to the former nuclear test site. The Act provided that if during site characterization the Yucca Mountain location was found unsuitable, studies would be stopped immediately. This option expired when the site was actually recommended by the President. On July 23, 2002, President George W. Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87,[18] (Pub.L. 107–200) allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store the country's nuclear waste. The DOE 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.
On July 18, 2006 the DOE proposed March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste based on full funding. On September 8, 2006 Ward (Edward) Sproat, a nuclear industry executive formerly of PECO energy in Pennsylvania, was nominated by President Bush to lead the Yucca Mountain Project. Following the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections, Democratic Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a longtime opponent of the repository, became the Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. Reid has said that he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted as having said: "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen."[19]
In the 2008 Omnibus Spending Bill, the Yucca Mountain Project's budget was reduced to $390 million. The project was able to reallocate resources and delay transportation expenditures to complete the License Application for submission on June 3, 2008. During his 2008 presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised to abandon the Yucca Mountain project.[20] As a result, Senator Reid moved the Nevada primary to help President Obama's campaign.[citation needed] After his election, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told President Obama he did not have the ability to do so.[21] 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.[22]
In November 2013, in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute, the US court of appeals ruled that nuclear utilities may stop paying into the nuclear waste recovery fund until either the DOE follows the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which designates Yucca Mountain as the repository, or Congress changes the law.[23] The fee ended May 16, 2014.
Lacking an operating repository, the federal government initially paid utility companies 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.[24] [needs update] For the ten years after 2015 it is estimated to cost taxpayers $24 billion in payments from the Judgment Fund.[25] The Judgment Fund is not subject to budget rules and allows Congress to ignore the nuclear waste issue since payments therefrom do not have any impact on yearly spending for other programs.
The facility[edit]
A tour group entering the North Portal of Yucca Mountain
The purpose of the Yucca Mountain project is to comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and develop a national site for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste storage. The management and operating contractor as of April 1, 2009 for the project is USA Repository Services (USA-RS), a wholly owned subsidiary of URS Corporation (now part of AECOM) with supporting principal subcontractors Shaw Corporation (now part of McDermott International Inc.) and Areva Federal Services LLC (now Orano federal services business).[26] After the layoff of 800 employees on March 31, 2009, about 100 employees remained on the project until all technical staff were laid off by the end of FY 2010[27] due to zero funding in the 2011 budget for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.[28] Sandia National Laboratories had the responsibility for post closure analysis and ensuring compliance with the NWPA. The main tunnel of the Exploratory Studies Facility is U-shaped, 5 mi (8.0 km) long and 25 ft (7.6 m) wide. There are also several cathedral-like alcoves that branch from the main tunnel. It is in these alcoves that most of the scientific experiments were conducted. The emplacement drifts (smaller diameter tunnels branching off the main tunnel) where waste would have been stored were not constructed since they required a construction authorization by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[29] The repository has a statutory limit of 77,000 metric tons (85,000 short tons).[30] To store this amount of waste would have required 40 miles (64 km) of tunnels.[1] 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,[31] assuming that the spent fuel rods are not reprocessed. Currently, the US has no civil reprocessing plant.
This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (February 2017)
The tunnel boring machine on display at the exit of the tunnel
By 2008, Yucca Mountain was one of the most studied pieces of geology in the world;[32] between geologic studies and materials science[33] the United States had invested US$9 billion on the project.[34] This site studied by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (NBMG) differs substantially from other potential repositories due to the finding of natural analogues of nuclear material that are currently being studied.[35] The DOE estimates that it has over 100 million U.S. gallons of highly radioactive waste and 2,500 metric tons (2,800 short tons) of spent fuel from the production of nuclear weapons and from research activities in temporary storage.[36] The cost of the facility is being paid for by a combination of a tax on each kilowatt hour of nuclear power and by the taxpayers for disposal of weapons and naval nuclear waste. Based on the 2001 cost estimate, approximately 73 percent is funded from consumers of nuclear-powered electricity and 27 percent by the taxpayers.[37] The Total System Life Cycle Cost presented to Congress on July 15, 2008 by Director Sproat was $90 billion. This cost, could not be compared to previous estimates since it included a repository capacity about twice as large as previously estimated over a much longer period of time (100 years vs 30 years). Additionally, the cost of the project continued to escalate because of insufficient funding to most efficiently move forward and complete the project. By 2007, the DOE announced it was seeking to double the size of the Yucca Mountain repository to a capacity of 135,000 metric tons (149,000 short tons), or 300 million pounds.[38]
The tunnel boring machine (TBM) that excavated the main tunnel cost $13 million and was 400 ft (120 m) in length when in operation. It now sits at its exit point at the South Portal (south entrance) of the facility. The short side tunnel alcoves were excavated using explosives.[39]
Opposition[edit]
Map showing the location of Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada, to the west of the Nevada Test Site
The DOE was scheduled to begin accepting spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain repository by January 31, 1998. As of 2010[update], years after this deadline, the future status of the repository at Yucca Mountain was still unknown due to on-going litigation, and opposition by Senator Harry Reid.[40]
Because of construction delays, a number of nuclear power plants in the United States have resorted to dry cask storage of waste on-site indefinitely in steel and concrete casks.[12]
The project is widely opposed in Nevada and is a hotly debated national topic. 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[41] Many Nevadans' opposition stemmed from the so-called "Screw Nevada Bill," the 1987 legislation halting study of Hanford and Texas as potential sites for the waste before conclusions could be made.[41] The local county in which the proposed facility is located, Nye County, supports the development of the repository as do six adjoining counties.[42]
One point of concern has been the standard of radiation emission from 10,000 years to 1,000,000 years into the future. On August 9, 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency proposed a limit of 350 millirem per year for that period.[43] In October 2007, the DOE issued a draft of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in which it shows that for the first 10,000 years mean public dose would be 0.24 mrem/year and that thereafter to 1,000,000 years the median public dose would be 0.98 mrem/year, both of which are substantially below the proposed EPA limit. For comparison, a hip x-ray results in a dose around 83 mrem and a CT head or chest scan results in around 1,110 mrem.[44] Annually, in the United States, an individual's doses from background radiation is about 350 mrem, although some places get more than twice that.[45][46][47]
On February 12, 2002, U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham made the decision that this site was suitable to be the nation's nuclear repository.[48] The governor of Nevada had 90 days to object and did so. However, the United States Congress overrode the objection. If the governor's objection had stood the project would have been abandoned and a new site chosen. In August 2004, the repository became an election issue, when Senator John Kerry (D) said that he would abandon the plans if elected.
In March 2005, the Energy and Interior departments revealed that several U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists had exchanged e-mails discussing possible falsification of quality assurance documents on water infiltration research.[49][not in citation given] On February 17, 2006, the DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) released a report confirming the technical soundness of infiltration modeling work performed by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) employees.[49] In March 2006, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff issued a 25-page white paper "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet." The conclusions were:[49]
Extensive studies consistently show Yucca Mountain to be a sound site for nuclear waste disposal
The cost of not moving forward is extremely high
Nuclear waste disposal capability is an environmental imperative
Nuclear waste disposal capability supports national security
Demand for new nuclear plants also demands disposal capability
On January 18, 2006, DOE OCRWM announced that it would designate Sandia National Laboratories as its lead laboratory to integrate repository science work for the Yucca Mountain Project. "We believe that establishing Sandia as our lead laboratory is an important step in our new path forward. The independent, expert review that the scientists at Sandia will perform will help ensure that the technical and scientific basis for the Yucca Mountain repository is without question," OCRWM’s Acting Director Paul Golan said. "Sandia has unique experience in managing scientific investigations in support of a federally licensed geologic disposal facility, having served in that role as the scientific advisor to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico."[50] Sandia began acting as the lead laboratory on October 1, 2006.
Because of questions raised by the State of Nevada[51] and Congressional members about the quality of the science behind Yucca Mountain, the DOE announced on March 31, 2006 the selection of Oak Ridge Associated Universities/Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (a not-for-profit consortium that includes 96 doctoral degree-granting institutions and 11 associate member universities) to provide expert reviews of scientific and technical work on the Yucca Mountain Project.[52] DOE stated that the Yucca Mountain Project "will be based on sound science. By bringing in Oak Ridge for review of technical work, DOE will seek to present a high level of expertise and credibility as they move the project forward... This award gives DOE access to academic and research institutions to help DOE meet their mission and legal obligation to license, construct, and open Yucca Mountain as the nation’s repository for spent nuclear fuel."[53]
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.[54] 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".[54]
On March 5, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu reiterated in a Senate hearing that the Yucca Mountain site was no longer considered an option for storing reactor waste.[55]
On March 3, 2010, the DOE filed a motion with the NRC to withdraw its license application,[56] however multiple lawsuits to stop this action have been filed by states, counties, and individuals across the country as being unauthorized by the NWPA.[57][58]
The costly nuclear accident in 2014 at New Mexico's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in which a nuclear waste container exploded, has caused doubt that it could serve as an alternative for Yucca.[59][60]
Radiation standards[edit]
A tunnel inside the Exploratory Studies Facility.
Original standard[edit]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established its Yucca Mountain standards in June 2001.[61] The storage standard set a dose limit of 15 millirem per year for the public outside the Yucca Mountain site. The disposal standards consisted of three components: an individual dose standard, a standard evaluating the impacts of human intrusion into the repository, and a groundwater protection standard. The individual-protection and human intrusion standards set a limit of 15 millirem per year to a reasonably maximally exposed individual, who would be among the most highly exposed members of the public. The groundwater protection standard is consistent with EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act standards, which the Agency applies in many situations as a pollution prevention measure. The disposal standards were to apply for a period of 10,000 years after the facility is closed. Dose assessments were to continue beyond 10,000 years and be placed in DOE's Environmental Impact Statement, but were not subject to a compliance standard. The 10,000 year period for compliance assessment is consistent with EPA's generally applicable standards developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It also reflects international guidance regarding the level of confidence that can be placed in numerical projections over very long periods of time.[62]
Inconsistent standards[edit]
Shortly after the EPA first established these standards in 2001, the nuclear industry, several environmental and public interest groups, and the State of Nevada challenged the standards in court. In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found in favor of the Agency on all counts except one: the 10,000 year regulatory time frame. The court ruled that EPA’s 10,000-year compliance period for isolation of radioactive waste was not consistent with National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations and was too short.[63][64] The NAS report had recommended standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one million years.[65] By limiting the compliance time to 10,000 years, EPA did not respect a statutory requirement that it develop standards consistent with NAS recommendations.[66]
EPA's rule[edit]
EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule in 2009. The new rule limits radiation doses from Yucca Mountain for up to 1,000,000 years after it closes. Within that regulatory time frame, the EPA has two dose standards that would apply based on the number of years from the time the facility is closed.
For the first 10,000 years, the EPA would retain the 2001 final rule’s dose limit of 15 millirem per year. This is protection at the level of the most stringent radiation regulations in the U.S. today. From 10,000 to one million years, EPA established a dose limit of 100 millirem per year. EPA's rule requires the Department of Energy to show that Yucca Mountain can safely contain wastes, considering the effects of earthquakes, volcanic activity, climate change, and container corrosion, over one million years. The current analysis indicates that the repository will cause less than 1 mrem/year public dose through 1,000,000 years.[67]
Geology[edit]
Main article: Yucca Mountain
Looking west atop Yucca Mountain
The formation that makes up Yucca Mountain was created by several large eruptions from a caldera volcano and is composed of alternating layers of ignimbrite (welded tuff), non-welded tuff, and semi-welded tuff. The tuff surround the burial sites is expected to protect human health as it provides a natural barrier to the radiation.[68] It lies along the transition between the Mojave and the Great Basin Deserts.[69]
The volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through fractures.[70] While the fractures are usually confined to individual layers of tuff, the faults extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 600 to 1,500 ft (180 to 460 m) below the surface.[71] Future water transport from the surface to waste containers is likely to be dominated by fractures. There is evidence that surface water has been transported down through the 700 ft (210 m) of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in less than 50 years.[72][73]
Some site opponents assert that, after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers, these cracks may provide a route for movement of radioactive waste that dissolves in the water flowing downward from the desert surface.[74] Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility.
The area around Yucca Mountain received much more rain in the geologic past and the water table was consequently much higher than it is today, though well below the level of the repository.
Earthquakes[edit]
Nevada ranks fourth in the nation for current seismic activity.[75] Earthquake databases (the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network) provide current and historical earthquake information. Analysis of the available data in 1996 indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile (80 km) radius of Yucca Mountain.[75]
DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. Rises in the water table caused by seismic activity would be, at most, a few tens of meters and would not reach the repository. The fractured and faulted volcanic tuff that Yucca Mountain comprises reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years. The engineered barrier system components will reportedly provide substantial protection of the waste from seepage water, even under severe seismic loading.[76]
In September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility, hundreds of feet east of where it was originally thought to be located, beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels. The discovery required several structures to be moved several hundred feet further to the east, and drew criticism from Robert R. Loux, then head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, who argues that Yucca administrators should have known about the fault line's location years prior, and called the movement of the structures “just-in-time engineering.”[77][78] In June 2008, a major nuclear equipment supplier, Holtec International, criticized the Department of Energy's safety plan for handling containers of radioactive waste before they are buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump. The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts".[79]
Transportation of waste[edit]
The nuclear waste was planned to be shipped to the site by rail and/or truck in robust containers known as spent nuclear fuel shipping casks, approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While the routes in Nevada would have been public, in the other states the planned routes, dates and times of transport would have been secret for security reasons. State and tribal representatives would have been notified before shipments of spent nuclear fuel entered their jurisdictions.[80]
Nevada routes[edit]
Proposed Transportation Route of spent nuclear fuel through Nevada
Within Nevada, the planned primary mode of transportation was via rail through the Caliente Corridor. This corridor starts in Caliente, Nevada, traveling along the northern and western borders of the Nevada Test Site for approximately 200 miles (320 km). At this point, it turns south.[81]
Other options that were being considered included a rail route along the Mina corridor. This rail route would have originated at the Fort Churchill Siding rail line, near Wabuska. The proposed corridor would have proceeded southeast through Hawthorne, Blair Junction, Lida Junction and Oasis Valley. At Oasis Valley, the rail line would have turned north-northeast towards Yucca Mountain. Use of this rail corridor by the Department of Energy would have required permission from the Walker River Paiute Tribe in order to cross their land. As the first 54 miles (87 km) of the proposed corridor was owned by the Department of Defense, additional permission from the DoD would have to have been granted.[82]
Impacts[edit]
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. This safety record is comparable to the worldwide experience where more than 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel have been transported since 1970 – an amount approximately equal to the total amount of spent nuclear fuel that would have been shipped to Yucca Mountain.[80] However, cities were still concerned about the transport of radioactive waste on highways and railroads that may have passed through heavily populated areas. Dr. Robert Halstead, who was a transportation adviser to the state of Nevada since 1988, stated regarding transportation of the high level waste, "They would heavily affect cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, in the Chicago metropolitan area, in Omaha." "Coming out of the south, the heaviest impacts would be in Atlanta, in Nashville, St. Louis, Kansas City, moving across through Salt Lake City, through downtown Las Vegas, up to Yucca Mountain. And the same cities would be affected by rail shipments as well." 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."[83]
Cultural impact[edit]
Archaeological surveys have found evidence that Native Americans used the immediate vicinity of Yucca Mountain on a temporary or seasonal basis.[84] Some Native Americans disagree with the conclusions of archaeological investigators that their ancestors were highly mobile groups of hunter-gatherers who occupied the Yucca Mountain area before Euroamericans began using the area for prospecting, surveying, and ranching. They believe that these conclusions overlook traditional accounts of farming that occurred before European contact.[85]
Yucca Mountain and surrounding lands were central in the lives of the Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone peoples, who shared them for religious ceremonies, resource uses, and social events.[86][87]
Delays since 2009[edit]
Starting in 2009, the Obama administration attempted to close the Yucca Mountain repository, despite current US law that designates Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. The administration agency, DOE, began implementation of the President's plan in May 2009. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also went along with the administration's closure plan. Various state and Congressional entities attempted to challenge the administration's closure plans, by statute and in court. Most recently, in August 2013, a US Court of Appeals decision told the NRC and the Obama administration that they must either "approve or reject the Energy Department's application for [the] never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain." They cannot simply make plans for its closure in violation of US law.[88]
In May 2009, then United States Secretary of Energy Steven Chu stated:
"Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue. We're looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste. These are fast-neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn down the long-lived actinides. ...
"Some of the waste is already vitrified. There is, in my mind, no economical reason why you would ever think of pulling it back into a potential fuel cycle. So one could well imagine—again, it depends on what the blue-ribbon panel says—one could well imagine that for a certain classification for a certain type of waste, you don't want to have access to it anymore, so that means you could use different sites than Yucca Mountain, such as salt domes. Once you put it in there, the salt oozes around it. These are geologically stable for a 50 to 100 million year time scale. The trouble with those type of places for repositories is you don't have access to it anymore. But say for certain types of waste you don't want to have access to it anymore—that's good. It's a very natural containment. ...whereas there would be other waste where you say it has some inherent value, let's keep it around for a hundred years, two hundred years, because there's a high likelihood we'll come back to it and want to recover that.
"So the real thing is, let's get some really wise heads together and figure out how you want to deal with the interim and long-term storage. Yucca was supposed to be everything to everybody, and I think, knowing what we know today, there's going to have to be several regional areas."[89]
In 2008, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works found that failure to perform to contractual requirements could cost taxpayers up to $11 billion by 2020.[90] In 2013 this estimate of taxpayer liability was raised to $21 billion.[91] In July 2009, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 30 on amendments to HHR3183 (Roll call vote 591, via Clerk.House.gov) to not defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the FY2010 budget.[40][92] In 2013, the House of Representatives voted twice during the 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations debate by over 80% majority to reject elimination of Yucca Mountain as the nation's only nuclear waste solution.[93]
On April 13, 2010, the state of Washington filed suit to prevent the closing of Yucca Mountain, since this would slow efforts to clean up Hanford Nuclear Reservation.[94] South Carolina, Aiken County (the location of Savannah River site) and others joined Washington.[95] The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the suit in July 2011, saying the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had not ruled on the withdrawal of the license application.[96] Washington and South Carolina filed another lawsuit on July 29.[97]
With $32 billion received from power companies to fund the project, and $12 billion spent to study and build it, the federal government had $27 billion left, including interest. In March 2012, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a bill requiring three-fourths of that money to be given back to customers, and the remainder to the companies for storage improvements.[98]
In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to either "approve or reject the Energy Department's application for [the] never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain."[88] The court opinion said that the NRC was "simply flouting the law" in its previous action to allow the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site since a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository remains in effect. The court opinion stated that "The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections."[88] In response, NRC issued the final volumes of the Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report (SER), this presented the NRC staff’s statement that the site would meet all applicable standards. At the same time, the staff also stated that NRC should not authorize actual construction of the repository until the requirements for land and water rights were met and a supplement to DOE’s environmental impact statement (EIS) was finished.[99] On March 3, 2015, NRC ordered the staff to complete the supplemental EIS and make the Yucca Mountain licensing document database publicly available, using all the remaining previously appropriated licensing funds.[100]
In March, 2015 the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2015 (S854) was introduced in the U.S. Senate. Its was intended to establish a fully independent Nuclear Waste Administration (NWA) which would develop nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities. Construction of such facilities would require the consent of the state, local,and tribal governments which may be affected. The NWA would be required to complete a mission plan to open a pilot storage facility by 2021 for nuclear waste from non-operating reactors and other "emergency" deliveries (called “priority waste”). The goal would be to have a storage facility for waste from operating reactors or other “non-priority waste” available by 2025, and an actual permanent repository by the end of 2048. The current disposal limit of 70,000 metric tons for the nation’s initial permanent repository would be repealed. Any nuclear waste fees collected after S854 was enacted would be held in a newly established Working Capital Fund. The Nuclear Waste Administration would be allowed to draw from that fund any amounts needed to carry out S.854, unless limited by annual appropriations or authorizations.[101]
The Nuclear Waste Fund had $42.4 billion at the end of FY15 and $46.0 billion at the end of FY16, projecting as of the midpoint of FY18 a balance of probably over $52 billion.[102]
See also[edit]
Anti-nuclear movement in the United States
Bullfrog County, Nevada
Gudmundur S. (Bo) Bodvarsson
High-level radioactive waste management
Hui-Hai Liu
Journey to the Safest Place on Earth
List of nuclear waste treatment technologies
Morris Operation
Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository, Finland, the world's first repository
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Yucca Mountain Johnny
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b "Nuclear waste repository safe for future generations". 1663 LANL Sci/Tech Maganize. December 2008. Retrieved September 19, 2010.
Jump up ^ https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ10/PLAW-112publ10.pdf
Jump up ^ http://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/mar/16/nye-county-sandoval-clash-over-future-yucca/
Jump up ^ https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/yucca-mountain-opposition-to-be-focus-at-las-vegas-conference/
Jump up ^ "GAO: Death of Yucca Mountain Caused by Political Maneuvering". New York Times. May 9, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 30, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-16.
Jump up ^ Lee H. Hamilton, Brent Scowcroft (January 2012). "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Final Report" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-10-25.
Jump up ^ http://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/dept-of-energy-stops-work-on-deep-borehole-field-test-program
Jump up ^ https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nuclear-agency-seeks-30m-for-yucca-mountain-licensing-review/
Jump up ^ https://www.exchangemonitor.com/190982-2/
Jump up ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/congress-poised-to-skip-funding-yucca-nuke-dump-again-this-year
^ Jump up to: a b "NRC: Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations". U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. October 15, 2009. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-13.
Jump up ^ "What are spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste?". Office of Civilian Radioactive (OCRWM), U.S. Department of Energy. July 2007. Archived from the original on June 14, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-26.
Jump up ^ "Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended". Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), U.S. Department of Energy. March 2004. Archived from the original on May 14, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ Culler, Floyd L. 1957. Status report on the disposal of radioactive wastes. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Jump up ^ "Faff and Fallout." The Economist 1 Aug 2015: 23. Print.
Jump up ^ Michael J. Kolar (August 15, 2001). "Midweek Perspectives: Waste that won't go away". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Jump up ^ "President Signs Yucca Mountain Bill". Office of the Press Secretary, White House. July 23, 2002. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ Lando, Ben (December 4, 2006). "Analysis: Reid's Yucca and nuke waste plan". United Press International. Archived from the original on May 8, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "US election: Questioning the candidates". Nature. September 24, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
Jump up ^ Ostendorff, Jon (July 9, 2010). "Shuler: Nuclear waste is not headed to Asheville area". Asheville Citizen-Times. Retrieved 2010-07-09. [dead link]
Jump up ^ "Bill to liquidate the Nuclear Waste Fund". World Nuclear News. April 27, 2009. Retrieved 2010-06-09.
Jump up ^ "Court orders halt to nuclear waste fees". World Nuclear News. November 20, 2013. Retrieved 2013-11-20.
Jump up ^ "Delay on Yucca Mountain Waste Site Could Cost Taxpayers Billions". Associated Press. July 12, 2004. Archived from the original on October 18, 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-department-of-energy-became-a-major-taxpayer-liability.html
Jump up ^ https://www.energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-awards-contract-usa-repository-services-management-and-operating
Jump up ^ {http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/08/24/2/}
Jump up ^ {http://www.energy.gov/environment/ocrwm.htm}[permanent dead link]
Jump up ^ 10 CFR 63.
Jump up ^ Erin Neff (April 16, 2006). "Erin Neff: The arbitrary science of Yucca Mountain". Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Jump up ^ Peterson, Per F. (Fall 2003). "Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository?". United States National Academy of Engineering. Archived from the original on March 21, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "References cited by U.S. Department of Energy for Yucca Mountain License Application". United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012-03-29. Retrieved 2014-03-07.
Jump up ^ McCright, R. Daniel (1997-04-01). "Engineered Materials Characterization Report for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project: Volume 3 Revision 1" (PDF). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Retrieved 2014-03-07.
Jump up ^ "Who pays for Yucca Mountain?". Yucca Mountain Repository, U.S. Dept. of Energy. Archived from the original on August 22, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ Castor, Stephen. "Volcanic Rock Hosted Deposits in Northern Nevada". citeseerx.ist.psu.edu. University of Nevada Reno. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
Jump up ^ "Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule, and Cost Uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project" (PDF). United States General Accounting Office. December 2001. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program" (PDF). OCRWM, DoE. May 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-05-29. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ Tetreault, Steve (October 5, 2007). "Agency studies nearly doubling nuclear waste capacity". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ Benjamin Grove (March 6, 2006). "Getting to the bottom of Yucca Mountain". Las Vegas Sun.
^ Jump up to: a b "FY2010 Energy Budget Shuts Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump". Environment News Service. May 8, 2009. Retrieved June 9, 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b "Congressional Record – House, March 8, 2007, page H2332". United States Congress. Retrieved 2008-10-26.
Jump up ^ Steve Tetreault (9 March 2012). "Nye officials give consent to burying nuke waste". Las Vegas Review Journal. Stephens Media LLC. Retrieved 22 December 2014.
Jump up ^ "Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Rule on Repository for High-Level Radioactive Waste Would Seriously Undermine Public Health". Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). August 9, 2005. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 5, 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-05.
Jump up ^ http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat10.html
Jump up ^ "Draft Supplemental Yucca Mountain Repository EIS". U.S. DOE. January 2008. Archived from the original (links to PDFs) on January 5, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ http://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/Subject/Environmental/radiationbackground.pdf
Jump up ^ "Statutory Materials Supporting the Recommendation". Yucca Mountain Repository, U.S. DOE. Archived from the original on January 26, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
^ Jump up to: a b c "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet" (PDF). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. March 2006. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "OCRWM Selects Sandia as Lead Laboratory". U.S. DoE. January 18, 2006. Archived from the original on July 15, 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "What's Wrong With Putting Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain?" (PDF). The Agency for Nuclear Projects, State of Nevada. 2003. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "DOE Awards $3 Million Contract to Oak Ridge Associated Universities for Expert Review of Yucca Mountain Work". U.S. DoE. March 31, 2006. Archived from the original on July 15, 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "DOE Awards $3 Million Contract to Oak Ridge Associated Universities for Expert Review of Yucca Mountain Work". United States Department of Energy. March 31, 2006. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-14.
^ Jump up to: a b Rodney C. Ewing and Frank N. von Hippel. Nuclear Waste Management in the United States – Starting Over, Science, Vol. 325, July 10, 2009, p. 152.
Jump up ^ Hebert, H. Josef. 2009. “Nuclear waste won't be going to Nevada's Yucca Mountain, Obama official says Archived March 24, 2011, at the Wayback Machine..” Chicago Tribune. March 6, 2009, 4. Accessed 3-6-09.
Jump up ^ Tetreault, Steve (March 3, 2010). "DOE asks to halt Yucca Mountain". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved June 9, 2010.
Jump up ^ Cary, Annette (November 7, 2011). "Washington Files New Yucca Lawsuit". Tri-City Herald. Retrieved September 3, 2011.
Jump up ^ In re: Aiken County, S.C., No. n/a (D.D.C. filed 7/29/11) Archived March 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Jeff Tollefson (4 March 2014). "US seeks waste-research revival: Radioactive leak brings nuclear repositories into the spotlight" Nature website Retrieved January 26, 2017
Jump up ^ Vartabedian, Ralph. (August 22, 2016). "Nuclear accident in New Mexico ranks among the costliest in U.S. history" Los Angeles Times. LA Times website Retrieved January 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ "EPA's Proposed Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency. October 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 25, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ Wehrum, William (March 1, 2006). "Full Committee Oversight Hearing on the Status of the Yucca Mountain Project". U.S. Senate committee on Environmental and Public Works. Retrieved 2010-07-14.
Jump up ^ Vandenbosch, Robert, and Susanne E. Vandenbosch. 2007. Nuclear waste stalemate. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 111, 190–191
Jump up ^ Nuclear Energy Institute v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004). UScourts.gov
Jump up ^ U.S. National Research Council, Committee on Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jump up ^ Vandenbosch, Robert, and Susanne E. Vandenbosch. 2007. Nuclear waste stalemate. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 111.
Jump up ^ Ialenti, Vincent. 2014. Adjudicating Deep Time: Revisiting the United States’ High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Project at Yucca Mountain. Science & Technology Studies 27(2). Available: http://www.sciencetechnologystudies.org/system/files/v27i2Ialenti.pdf
Jump up ^ "Yucca Mountain". The Environmental Literacy Council. April 8, 2008. Retrieved 2010-06-09. Scientists believe that tuff has special chemical, physical, and thermal characteristics that make it extremely suitable for burying radioactive waste. As long as the waste stays solid and remains deep underground, it should not pose a threat to the environment or to human health as the layers of tuff shield the radiation.
Jump up ^ Ground water at Yucca Mountain: how high can it rise?. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 1992. p. 191. ISBN 0-309-07669-2.
Jump up ^ U.S. Department of Energy. 2002. Yucca Mountain science and engineering report, revision 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 15, 2009. Retrieved 2011-03-24.
Jump up ^ "Earthquake could cause flooding of Yucca Mountain repository". Cyberwest Magazine. September 2, 1997. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
Jump up ^ Vandenbosch, Robert, and Susanne E. Vandenbosch. 2007. Nuclear waste stalemate. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 12, 106–07.
Jump up ^ Norris, A.E., H.W. Bentley, S. Cheng, P.W. Kubik, P. Sharma, and H.E. Gove. 1990. “36Cl studies of water movements deep within unsaturated tuffs,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B 52 (December 2,): 455–460.
Jump up ^ "Summary of Yucca Mountain Oversight and Impact Assessment Findings". State of Nevada. 1997. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
^ Jump up to: a b "Top Earthquake States". Earthquake Hazards Program. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 2010-03-27.
Jump up ^ "Technical Basis Document No. 14: Low Probability Seismic Events". Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. U.S. Department of Energy. June 2004. Archived from the original on January 26, 2008. Retrieved 2010-03-27.
Jump up ^ "Yucca Mt. adjusts to fault line". Los Angeles Times. September 25, 2007. Retrieved 2010-03-27.
Jump up ^ Attewill, Fred (September 25, 2007). "US nuclear dump plan in danger after seismic shock". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-03-27.
Jump up ^ Vartabedian, Ralph (June 6, 2008). "Yucca Mountain safety plan is 'doomed,' nuclear company says". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2010-03-27.
^ Jump up to: a b "Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste to Yucca Mountain: Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). OCRWM, DOE. January 2006. pp. 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 25, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "Environmental Impact Statement for the Alignment of a Rail Line in the Caliente Corridor". OCRWM, DoE. Archived from the original on February 16, 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ MinaFeasabilityStudyRev01_26OCT06_alt1.pdf
Jump up ^ "Yucca Mountain: Transporting Nuclear Waste May Put Millions At Risk". CBS News. July 25, 2004. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ Stoffle, Richard W.; Halmo, David B.; Olmsted, John E.; Evans, Michael J. (February 1990). Native American cultural resource studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Institute for Social Research. p. 29. ISBN 978-0879443283.
Jump up ^ "Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain". Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. DoE. February 2002. Archived from the original on January 26, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
Jump up ^ "Environmental Justice Case Study: The Yucca Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository and the Western Shoshone". Retrieved 2010-07-08.
Jump up ^ Catherine S. Fowler; Maribeth Hamby; Elmer Rusco; Mary Rusco (October 1991). "Native Americans and Yucca Mountain" (PDF). Cultural Resource Consultants, Ltd. Retrieved 2010-07-08.
^ Jump up to: a b c Daly, Matthew (2013-08-13). "Home> Politics Appeals Court: Obama Violating Law on Nuke Site". ABC News. Retrieved 2013-08-14.
Jump up ^ The secretary of energy talks with Technology Review about the future of nuclear power post Yucca Mountain
Jump up ^ James M. Hylko and Dr. Robert Peltier, PE (May 1, 2010). "The U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Policy: Road to Nowhere". Power.
Jump up ^ http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/07/30/563278/10042550/en/Fertel-Tells-Congress-to-Act-Now-on-Used-Nuclear-Fuel-Legislation.html
Jump up ^ "H.R.3183 – Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010". Archived from the original on July 24, 2009. Retrieved 2010-06-09.
Jump up ^ http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/yucca-mountain/house-tosses-aside-another-bid-close-out-yucca-mountain
Jump up ^ Shannon Dininny (April 14, 2010). "Washington sues to keep Yucca alive". The Spokesman-Review. Associated Press. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
Jump up ^ "Appeals court rejects Yucca Mountain lawsuit". World Nuclear News. April 7, 2011. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
Jump up ^ Chad Mills (July 2, 2011). "Aiken County still optimistic after Yucca Mountain lawsuit dismissed in federal court". Tri-City Herald. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
Jump up ^ "Washington state, S.C. file suit on Yucca plans". Augusta Chronicle. Associated Press. July 30, 2011. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
Jump up ^ James Rosen (March 13, 2012). "Graham wants Yucca fees repaid in rebates to electricity customers in S.C." The Sun News. Archived from the original on March 19, 2012. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
Jump up ^ NRC, “NRC Publishes Final Two Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation,” news release 15-005, January 29, 2015, http://www.yuccamountain.org/docs/nrc_press_release-0115-2015.pdf This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Jump up ^ NRC, “NRC Staff to Prepare Supplement to Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement,” news release 15-016, March 12, 2015, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1612/ML16127A067.pdf This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Jump up ^ Congressional Research Service (December 23, 2015). "Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-30. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Jump up ^ https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/OAI-FS-17-04.pdf
Further reading[edit]
Ialenti, Vincent (2014). "Adjudicating Deep Time: Revisiting The United States' High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Project At Yucca Mountain". Science & Technology Studies. 27 (2).
Macfarlane, Allison M.; Ewing, Rodney C., eds. (2006). Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262633321. Set of articles by technical experts on numerous scientific and technical issues that are unresolved; presents arguments that Yucca Mountain has not been and may never be shown to be an appropriate repository for high-level radioactive waste. Does not pass judgment on suitability of the site.
D'Agata, John (2011). About a Mountain. W. W. Norton. ISBN 9780393339017. Focuses on the mountain as well as the city of Las Vegas.
Review: Bock, Charles (February 26, 2010). "American Wasteland". The New York Times.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Yucca Mountain.
Annotated bibliography for the Yucca Mountain repository from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
Complete archive of Yucca Mountain news coverage from the Las Vegas Review-Journal
Environmental Protection Agency – Yucca Mountain (documents)
Examination of the Licensing Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository: Hearing before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, October 31, 2007
Google Maps Google Maps satellite image
Nuclear Files.org – Yucca Mountain (documents)
"Nuclear Waste" – Sierra Club fact sheet in opposition to Yucca Mountain project
Real time earthquake map for the vicinity of Yucca Mountain-- Southern Nevada and California (U.S. Geological Survey)
Russia plans to take world's spent nuclear fuel
State of Nevada Nuclear Projects Position and activities of the Agency, with links to Federal, State, local government, and private organization websites providing a balanced picture of the controversy and facts surrounding the project.
The Monumental Task of Warning Future Generations (Yucca Mountain warning signs) (archive link)
"Time to Think the Unthinkable", Testimony before EPA by David Comarow, Esq.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress – 2nd Session July 9, 2002 cloture vote on S.J. Res. 34
Yucca Mountain Project (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, United States Department of Energy) (archive link)
Yucca Mountain Could Face Greater Volcanic Threat (State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor)
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
More on the Yucca Mountain Repository
Final Report to the Secretary of Energy by the Blue Ribbon Commission
"Sebastian Musch: The Atomic Priesthood and Nuclear Waste Management – Religion, Sci-fi Literature and the End of our Civilization
Coordinates: 36°51′10″N 116°25′36″W / 36.85278°N 116.42667°W / 36.85278; -116.42667
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository&oldid=841804412"
Categories:
Environment of Nevada
History of Nevada
History of Nye County, Nevada
Nuclear history of the United States
Radioactive waste repositories
Subterranea of the United States
United States Department of Energy facilities
Hidden categories:
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from September 2010
Articles with dead external links from January 2018
Articles with permanently dead external links
Webarchive template wayback links
Use mdy dates from May 2012
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from December 2014
All articles with vague or ambiguous time
Vague or ambiguous time from December 2014
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from December 2014
Wikipedia articles in need of updating from May 2016
All Wikipedia articles in need of updating
Wikipedia articles in need of updating from February 2017
Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2010
All articles containing potentially dated statements
All articles with failed verification
Articles with failed verification from August 2017
Coordinates on Wikidata
Good articles
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
日本語
Русский
Edit links
This page was last edited on 18 May 2018, at 05:07.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: This is a good article. Follow the link for more information.

attrs: href title

attrs: class id

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href class

attrs: class style

values: thumbcaption clear:left

value: sup

values:
/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste
mw-redirect
High-level radioactive waste

values:
/wiki/Obama_Administration
mw-redirect
Obama Administration

values:
/wiki/President_Barack_Obama
mw-redirect
President Barack Obama

values: Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future

values:
/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Fund
mw-redirect
Nuclear Waste Fund

values:
/wiki/President_Donald_Trump
mw-redirect
President Donald Trump

values: United States National Academy of Sciences

values: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (December 2014)

values: The time period mentioned near this tag is ambiguous. (December 2014)

values: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

values:
nofollow
external text
http://legislink.org/us/pl-107-200

values:
/wiki/Senate_Majority_Leader
mw-redirect
Senate Majority Leader

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (December 2014)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/US_court_of_appeals
mw-redirect
US court of appeals

values: The date of the event predicted near this tag has passed. (May 2016)

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Update

values: plainlinks noexcerpt noprint asof-tag update

values: United States Environmental Protection Agency

values:
/wiki/U.S._Presidential_election,_2004
mw-redirect
U.S. Presidential election, 2004

values: United States Department of the Interior

values: The material near this tag failed verification of its source citation(s). (August 2017)

values: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

values:
/wiki/Environmental_Impact_Statement
mw-redirect
Environmental Impact Statement

values:
/wiki/Court_of_Appeals
mw-redirect
Court of Appeals

values:
/wiki/Volcanic_activity
mw-redirect
Volcanic activity

values:
/wiki/Seismic_performance
mw-redirect
Seismic performance

values:
/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel_shipping_cask
mw-redirect
Spent nuclear fuel shipping cask

values:
/wiki/Obama_administration
mw-redirect
Obama administration

values:
/wiki/Hanford_Nuclear_Reservation
mw-redirect
Hanford Nuclear Reservation

values: Anti-nuclear movement in the United States

values: List of nuclear waste treatment technologies

values: United States National Academy of Engineering

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02191.pdf

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.lvrj.com/news/10257277.html

values:
nofollow
external text
http://energy.gov/news/3005.htm

values:
nofollow
external text
http://energy.gov/news/3418.htm

values:
/wiki/Earthquake_Hazards_Program
mw-redirect
Earthquake Hazards Program

values:
/wiki/U.S._Geological_Survey
mw-redirect
U.S. Geological Survey

values: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

values:
/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Energy
mw-redirect
U.S. Department of Energy

values:
/wiki/Technology_Review
mw-redirect
Technology Review

values:
/wiki/World_Nuclear_News
mw-redirect
World Nuclear News

values:
/wiki/Augusta_Chronicle
mw-redirect
Augusta Chronicle

values:
nofollow
external text
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42853.pdf

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
/wiki/W._W._Norton
mw-redirect
W. W. Norton

values:
nofollow
external text
https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo39665

values:
nofollow
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
external text

values: Maps, aerial photos, and other data for this location

values: Category:Nuclear history of the United States

values: Category:Subterranea of the United States

values: Category:United States Department of Energy facilities

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from September 2010

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from January 2018

values: Category:Articles with permanently dead external links

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from December 2014

values: Category:All articles with vague or ambiguous time

values: Category:Vague or ambiguous time from December 2014

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2014

values: Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating from May 2016

values: Category:All Wikipedia articles in need of updating

values: Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating from February 2017

values: Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2010

values: Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements

values: Category:All articles with failed verification

values: Category:Articles with failed verification from August 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: ユッカマウンテン放射性廃棄物処分場 – Japanese

values: Юкка-Маунтин – Russian

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository rootpage-Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository skin-vector action-view


text:
Benjamin Graham formula
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Benjamin Graham formula is a formula proposed by investor and professor of Columbia University, Benjamin Graham, often referred to as the "father of value investing"[1]. Published in his book, The Intelligent Investor, Graham devised the formula for lay investors to help them model growth formulas in vogue at the time of the formula's publication.[2]
Contents
1 Formula calculation
1.1 Revised formula
2 Application
3 References
Formula calculation[edit]
In Graham's words: "Our study of the various methods has led us to suggest a foreshortened and quite simple formula for the evaluation of growth stocks, which is intended to produce figures fairly close to those resulting from the more refined mathematical calculations."[2]
The formula as described by Graham originally in the 1962 edition of Security Analysis, and then again in the 1973 edition of The Intelligent Investor, is as follows[2]:
V ∗ = E P S × ( 8.5 + 2 g ) {\displaystyle V^{*}=EPS\times (8.5+2g)}
V = the value expected from the growth formulas over the next 7 to 10 years
EPS = trailing twelve months earnings per share
8.5 = P/E base for a no-growth company
g = reasonably expected 7 to 10 year growth rate
Revised formula[edit]
Graham later revised his formula based on the belief that the greatest contributing factor to stock values (and prices) over the past decade had been interest rates. In 1974, he restated it as follows[3]:
The Graham formula proposes to calculate a company’s intrinsic value V* as:
V ∗ = E P S × ( 8.5 + 2 g ) × 4.4 Y {\displaystyle V^{*}={\cfrac {EPS\times (8.5+2g)\times 4.4}{Y}}}
V= the value expected from the growth formulas over the next 7 to 10 years
EPS= the company’s last 12-month earnings per share
8.5= P/E base for a no-growth company
g= reasonably expected 7 to 10 year growth rate
4.4= the average yield of AAA corporate bonds in 1962 (Graham did not specify the duration of the bonds, though it has been asserted that he used 20 year AAA bonds as his benchmark for this variable[4])
Y= the current yield on AAA corporate bonds.
Application[edit]
In The Intelligent Investor, Graham was careful to include a footnote that this formula was not being recommended for use by investors — rather, it was to model the expected results of other growth formulas popular at the time.[2]
However, a misconception arose that he was using this formula in his daily work due to a later reprinted edition's decision to move footnotes to the back of the book, where fewer readers searched for them.[5] Readers who continued on in the chapter would have found Graham stating "Warning: This material is supplied for illustrative purposes only, and because of the inescapable necessity of security analysis to project the future growth rate for most companies studied. Let the reader not be mislead into thinking that such projections have any high degree of reliability, or, conversely, that future prices can be counted on to behave accordingly as the prophecies are realized, surpassed, or disappointed." The movement of the footnote in the reprint has led to an assortment of advisers and investors recommending this formula (or revised versions of it) to the public at large — a practice that continues to this day.[2][6][7] Benjamin Clark, the founder of the blog and investment service ModernGraham, acknowledges the footnote and argues that "I consider the footnote to be more of a reminder from Graham that the calculation of an intrinsic value is not an exact science and cannot be done with 100% certainty."[8] Mr. Clark further explains that the formula "is to be used for estimating intrinsic value within a margin of safety which will accommodate the possibility of error in calculation." [9]
Graham also cautioned that his calculations were not perfect, even in the time period for which it was published, noting in the 1973 of The Intelligent Investor: "We should have added caution somewhat as follows: The valuations of expected high-growth stocks are necessarily on the low side, if we were to assume these growth rates will actually be realized." He continued on to point out that if a stock were to be assumed to grow forever, its value would be infinite.[2]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Dave, John (2014). Benjamin Graham: The Father of Value Investing. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform). ISBN 1500653748.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Graham, Benjamin (2006). The Intelligent Investor: Revised Edition. First Collins Business Essentials. pp. 295, 297, 585. ISBN 0-06-055566-1.
Jump up ^ Benjamin Graham, "The Decade 1965-1974: Its significance for Financial Analysts," The Renaissance of Value
Jump up ^ "Benjamin Graham's Valuation Formula for Growth Stocks".
Jump up ^ "Understanding The Benjamin Graham Formula Correctly | Serenity Stocks". www.serenitystocks.com. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
Jump up ^ JOSHUA KENNON (15 July 2011). "Benjamin Graham Intrinsic Value Formula". JOSHUA KENNON blog. Kennon & Green Press, LLC. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Jump up ^ "How to Value a Stock with the Benjamin Graham Formula". The Value Investing Blog of Old School Value. 2017-01-30. Retrieved 2017-07-20.
Jump up ^ 9, September; 2015 (2015-09-09). "How to Tell the Difference Between the Graham Formula and the Graham Number". ModernGraham. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
Jump up ^ 9, September; 2015 (2015-09-09). "How to Tell the Difference Between the Graham Formula and the Graham Number". ModernGraham. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Graham_formula&oldid=846025458"
Categories:
Valuation (finance)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
עברית
Edit links
This page was last edited on 15 June 2018, at 19:49 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: b

value: i

value: p

value: input

attrs: type role id class style

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

value: label

attrs: class for

values: toctogglelabel toctogglecheckbox

value: span

attrs: class dir

values: toctitle ltr

values: vertical-align: -0.838ex; width:23.83ex; height:2.843ex;

values: vertical-align: -3.005ex; width:30.479ex; height:7.176ex;

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values:
/wiki/Benjamin_Graham_formula
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: המודל של בנג'מין גראהם – Hebrew

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Benjamin_Graham_formula rootpage-Benjamin_Graham_formula skin-vector action-view